ur strong leadership in the world now and commits to our strong leadership in the future. i am very pleased with the leadership of our president internationally, and if he does not travel with secretary of state hillary clinton, as i have if i did not want to undermine the seriousness i would say that she is a rock star, and has the respect of all with whom she meets. i don't think there is a place she has not travel, and i would dare say the same for vice- president biden. i would like to add one other dimension to this. number one, we have to keep strong, and even though there are proposed cuts, there is no question to those of us who have looked at the defense budget my colleagues on the senate side would say, and i am not going to

go back to the $600 toilet seat it is too serious an issue, that there are places that can be cut carefully, with discretion and maintain our strength. certainly with regard to the foreign-aid budget, we are providing very careful oversight because we know how important it is to spend our dollars wisely. i would like to mention another area which i think is absolutely essential when you talk about american power in the world. senator chambliss talked about the economy. what we do with our infrastructure, what we do with our educational system, how we train our people for the future. we import many students from all over the world to our university system and we are very proud of that. but i do think that we have to

do a lot more within our elementary and high school systems to maintain our power and our status in the world. i was saying to our distinguished moderator, some of you may know scarsdale new york. we are doing singapore math in scarsdale, new york. we had a discussion before this panel began about education in singapore. i would like to just say that i have a great deal of confidence that american power, american respect in the world will be maintained, and i would like to sum up, not with just our military because i do believe that our military will maintain the ageedge and be a leader in our world, but we have to continue to invest in our diplomacy and foreign-aid programs as well. i am very proud of the work that we do lifting of people

throughout the world when it comes to diseases to the global fund to other programs that fund tuberculosis, malaria etc.. i am very proud of the work that we do in our villages and everywhere throughout the world. again, to help alleviate poverty, and our foreign aid budget and our diplomacy budget, along with our military budget must continue to reflect the tremendous needs internationally, because that is the responsibility of a world power, not just to be strong militarily but to make sure that we are capable of facing the many challenges to help people fulfill their dreams, help people reach for the stars. that is the image of the united states of america that i want to continue to project.

>> thank you, and thank you for the plug for singapore's textbooks. center corker. >> a century is a long time, and you were talking about relative american power. the priest on the front row might say that comparisons are odious. we have a term in our country that describes american exceptionalism, and i believe that america will demonstrate continued exceptionalism in the world over this next century absolutely. your comment regarding the third item, that is where we are politically. no doubt it is affecting us in the short term. as a country we are faced with the same challenges that so many western democracies are facing right now. we have had politicians on both sides of the aisle for decades that have made commitments to citizens that cannot be honored. they are difficult decisions

that we know reforms have to be made. europe is facing at. our country right now is somewhat paralyzed over those issues because of the partisanship that you talked about a minute ago which both sides very much are at fault. it is my belief, and i know you read publications from the outside and you read about the negative things. i see a centrist group forming in both the house and the senate could deal with these issues that we have in our country the tax reform elements that have to take place the entitlement reform elements that have to take place the long-term deficit issues that have to take place. before we will be able to be the country that we all want to be around the world, those will have to be dealt with. a lot of nativist feelings are coming out.

people want us to sort of step back from the involvement that we have in the world because of the issues that we have at home. i think the most important thing in the short term for us is to get our balance sheet in order. i think we will get our balance sheet in order over the next two-three years. i wish we could get it together this year. i don't think that is going to happen, for a lot of reasons but i believe that regardless of who is elected president we will deal with those things over the next two or three years. on the military side, i do not think there is any question that the united states of america will project itself around the world, but there has to be rebalancing that does take place. you look at where we are with nato right now, and so many of the countries there are honoring their commitments but nato was built on the fact that each country was going to commit a certain portion of their gross domestic product to nato.

in many ways, our country has become a provider of protection and many countries have been the consumers of protective services. so that has to rebalance but i believe this will be a century where america demonstrate the exceptionalism. there is no doubt there will be economies that just to the demographics -- they will be different relative to ours. countries with a billion people that are growing rapidly that is going to change. we will be an economic powerhouse and lead on democracy efforts. we believe in being a force for good in this world, and the quicker we can deal with our balance sheet issues, the more energetic in the near future that will be. >> first, let me thank you for having me on the panel. you have three of the most effective and most

internationalist legislators in our country. they have done great things on foreign assistance and a whole range of intelligence and defense issues. this really is a very good group to talk to that. and the just say a few things. when president obama came into office he set out as his top priority to restore america's reputation and strengthen its influence around the world. that had many parts to it. one was to strengthen the alliances. i think we can say that our alliances in europe and asia have never been stronger. i point to korea, japan australia, where we are seeing real strength in those alliances. it was critical importance to get the great power relationships right. if you don't have russia and china in a good place in your relationship, it is very hard to get anything done. that is what a engagement with china was about and what allowed us to work collectively through the un security council on

issues like iran and north korea and building:-- build a coalition globally to address those issues. third, there was a desire to do strategic rebalancing bid for obvious reasons there has been a great focus on iraq and afghanistan previously, and there was the desire to reach engage with asia, which we see as the fastest-growing region for economic potential and a region that is incredibly important to us strategically. fourth we set out to reform elements of the international architecture of precisely because having rules based system that reflects our values as well as our interest is our most effective way to exert influence over the long run. things like the creation of the g-20 as the premier for for international economic cooperation, or the president's engagement with the east asian summit. just two examples of how we try to build a partnership. examples of how we have built

rules based architecture to reflect the new realities of the global system, and finally, none of this could be done without solving our economic problems at home. it had to be dealt with proactively and forthrightly in the midst of the crisis in 2009, through difficult political steps like park and recapitalizing the banks things that were not popular politically, but to commit to rebalancing our fiscal situation over the medium term. nedney conclude with that because what is remarkable about what you've heard is how much convergence there is between republicans and democrats both on the nature of american power and importance of project the going forward and dealing with problems like the balance sheet like senator gore referred to. we may have differences on the right -- like senator corker referred to.

i share his optimism that we will get there. >> we have about 10 minutes in the panel discussion before we come to you on the floor. so for everyone has been very good and restrained. maybe i will make the discussion and more difficult by posing a very difficult question. looking at american power in the 21st century let's fast-forward 10 years from now. in the year 2032, the world bank announces that the country with the largest gdp is now china. in the same year, china announces it is about to send a man or woman to the moon, so it has the most dynamic space exploration in the world. it is seen by the rest of the world to be the no. 1 power and the united states is perceived to be the no. 2 power. how ready is the american

population for such a kind of perception shift, if it happens? >> i don't think it would happen but if it happens -- >> my goodness, that is a hypothetical. there is no question but what china is progressing and as their economy grows and ours goes through this slow process it makes it easier for them to gain on us. the facts are that even china is seeing a slowdown of their growth economically right now. i think a couple of things have got to happen. i say this in my stomach speech, and i have been all over the country talking about with respect to the budget and our deficit and debt that we have got a window of opportunity in

the united states to fix our fiscal house. it is going to happen. our fiscal house is going to get fixed. we either take the initiative to do it on our own terms for those individuals or countries that buy our bonds, and right now the chinese are the largest foreign purchaser of u.s. bonds they will dictate what we are going to do to fix it. now is the opportunity for us to do that, but if we don't, that is an area that very well could play out. i think america is not prepared to be in second place, and americans are not prepared to be in second place. so i think you are going to see stronger economy developed over the next couple of years. i share the optimism of bob and mark, and we are going to get there. we may have differences of opinion on what policies we

ought to enact to get there but we are going to get there. that is what politics is all about, what elections are all about. irrespective of who is the next president in the white house the current one or another one there is going to be a rallying around the effort to get our fiscal house in order and not allow that scenario to happen. >> i agree with my colleague enthusiastically that we will get there. i think we may have differences as to approaches. i do believe that we have to deal with our long-term debt and our current deficit but i also would agree with economists like dr. alan blinder that at a time when the economy is weak, we have to first invest here in our infrastructure put people to work, and have a long-term plan to deal with the debt and

the deficit. we have to put people to work but i think it is essential to put people to work. one of the challenges is, and in talking to my chinese friends they will admit that we have the creativity we produce americans with extraordinary creativity. you can look at apple google, etc. and they are extremely good at taking that creativity and do a super job of manufacturing, and taking the business from us. the president addressed some of these issues in his state of the union, and i know it is going to be a continuing debate but i am very proud of our creativity among our students and workers.

the question is, how do you create the jobs at home? i would agree with my colleague that the debt, the deficit are serious issues, and we have to plan to deal with it with a seriousness of purpose, but right now, i am very concerned about jobs, investment in education, make sure we are training our workers for the jobs of the future, and i will put my faith in the creativity of the american people and look forward to positive dealing with the debt, but right now, invest in our people. >> so you see america remaining number one then? >> without a doubt. >> and american value not that

we want people throughout the world to do well and to live with a high standard of living. if you look at a country like china, with the number of people it has, i think every american would want people in china not to live in poverty but to have better lives. history has shown countries that are not able to generate that for the people who live there in up having social unrest and sometimes turn their attention to create out were problems to consolidate people's thinking with then. i think americans would want, as they think it through for people in china to do well. if you look at the demographics the size of their economy is going to be very large. i think all of us can do the math. we all look at the growth rates

and i will stop there because i am not going to bite at whatever you are trying to get me to bite at but i will agree that the american people absolutely would not be prepared psychologically for an event were the world began to believe that it was not the greatest power on earth. and should an economy in that being bigger than the american economy, i sense is that may be the focus then would be on the type of innovation and creativity -- if you look at a goldman sachs type operation versus some sluggish other kind of large bank, you might look at america in a different way, but i don't want to look at it that way today. i will not say that is the way it is going to be but i will

tell you that the american psychology certainly is not prepared to deal with that. >> academics are allowed to think the unthinkable. >> i am afraid i am and violent agreement with my colleague here in a number of respects. i certainly agree with what senator corker said, which is that we welcome the rise of a prosperous, stable china where hundreds of millions of additional people are lifted out of poverty. at the same time, the question is what kind of china will we face and will it be a china that plays by and abides by the international rules and norms that have governed with the international system for the last 60 years and have allowed

for countries like china to grow and prosper? or it -- or do they follow their own set of rules that puts at risk the prosperity of other peoples and other countries? i will not rise to the debate -- i am convinced we will be number one as entrepreneurialism and education and our ability to be creative and come up with new ideas and lead the global economy and all those factors it is very important that we help encourage the international community that as china grows and becomes a bigger player in the international system, that they abide by international rules and norms as well. >> i think we that a very good discussion, and now the floor is open. but questions have three elements. the name of the questioner, a very short presentation, and it should end with a question mark.

>> you say you are prepared -- we are not prepared for the first phase. [laughter] >> maybe the per-capita gdp is low. [unintelligible] with the u.s. policing, may be our problem [unintelligible] but we are contributing to the global governance.

at the expense ends of your policing efforts. >> how many questions are there roughly? great, go ahead. your microphone is not working. >> there is one area in which america is first and likely to remain sioux, and -- likely to remain so, and that is per- capita health care. a health bill turned into a political donnybrook. it started out as a collaboration between the congress and the president. what are we going to do about american health care? >> i will take a shot at it

first. there is no question but what the rising cost of health care in the united states is a major contributor to our current economic situation. there is also no question about the fact that we have frankly done nothing over the last several years to try to curtail that rising cost, and it is a cost within the private sector as well as in the public sector that is rising every day, and it is costs that we have to get our arms around. that being said, it is very difficult from a policy-making standpoint to enact measures to reform medicare. we have outside groups who as soon as we use that to -- use that term, they go ballistic and say we are going to cut medicare. we cannot cut medicare. we owe it to people in the united states to have that the audibled program but if we don't make the right kind of

changes in this very valuable system then the system is going broke and will not be there. it is programs like that that have to be addressed. the other side of that is that americans have gotten very spoiled because even though our health care costs are significantly higher percentage wise than other industrialized countries, would submit that the quality of health care that americans get is unsurpassed in any other country in the world. there are some in some areas that may be equal but overall americans get very good quality health care. a lot of them do not have to pay for it. that is probably going to have to change. there are individuals who received, whether medicare or other health care benefits that are high income earners that may

have to start putting a little more skin and the game. there are a number of ideas like this that are floating around in congress right now but there is a general agreement among republicans and democrats that we have to make sure we protect this program for the long term and that is a very difficult thing to do, but it has got to be done. i will leave obamacare to bob and the rest of the folks here. >> i think we have lots of questions. >> i will give a very short answer. with respect to the center, it took awhile to pass the health care bill. a health-care bill that 8 million federal employees have and all members of congress have and the pejorative calling it obamacare i think is really unfortunate. most of us would not say it is perfect, but most of us would say let's amend this, let's make

some changes in the health care bill but it has taken a long time for the house and senate to pass any thing that approach is universal care. so i personally would be happy to work with my good friend senator chambliss in all the issues he was talking about. but let's not try to repeal a bill that took so many years that is the kind of plan that 8 million have right now. >> i will just make some quick points. number one obviously we don't know what is going to happen because we have a supreme court ruling that will occur this summer. presidential race will have an effect on all this. what we have done in america is

focus on access, which is very, very important. we have not focused on the quality side of it, and that takes long, tough work. you need someone at cms for 20 years to see through the kind of changes that need to take place. one of the big frailties is, this was a bill that 535 congress people created. what a disaster. there is no way that you can create something that does not have three or four focus points, and that is what this bill became. my sense is that this bill will definitely ball, there is no question. there is not a thinking person in washington that believes as constructed it will continue. a big part of it will be determined at this summer, but we as a country have placed our sole focus on access and not on the tough work that is necessary to focus on the quality the

gentleman just mentioned. >> i am trying to shift back to american power in the 21st century. >> that get to questions, if you don't mind. >> i would like to take on this point about american exceptionalism. it is not the case that as a rhetorical device, american exceptionalism is extremely counterproductive because it is not supported by the facts. america is not at the top when it comes to broadband, health care maternal health, you name it. does it not also really undermine the date and experimentation that we need by suggesting that the only get answers come from within the borders of the united states? i find that is shutting off the american mind and therefore i feel that it is cutting off

opportunities to improve our political debate. >> the gentleman over there in front. >> we have a hard time it foreseeing technology and it is important for the relationship of the world geopolitically. my question is, how to use the internet changing where we are in 100 years and it will that not have a huge effect on this equation? >> i am really upbeat about the u.s. political process since both bush and obama and both parties -- both have done a pretty good job and i appreciate the fact that you have not lacked programs that help poor people including the international programs. the four of you have all played

important roles in the government in the last couple of years. the brinksmanship last year really did a lot of damage. i am interested in your comments senator corker, about a growing centrist coalition. i am interested in where you see that happening. >> i am from turkey. you all seem to have a consensus on the fact that american military power should remain the world's strongest military. i am wondering what is the criteria that american government should use to use that military power anywhere around the world? >> can we start off with senator corker the specific question about the brinksmanship.

>> first of all the simpson- bowles commission provided a beginning framework for a lot of very good discussions of around the issue of tax reform. i think we will see in our country, regardless of the rhetoric that is occurring right now, i think you are going to see a flattening, and elimination of what a lot of people would call loopholes. we call them tax expenditures. a lowering of marginal rates but an increase in the amount of revenue that is generated. there's a tremendous amount building a round that. i believe there are 60 or 70 votes in the senate for that type of thing. on the medicare peace, i am seeing proposals now were we are

saying let's leave fee-for- service in place for people who worry about things like premium support, but let's have an alternative track that put a line on medicare advantage. i see some breakthroughs taking place. on the big picture, if i did not believe this, i would not run again for the united states senate. i believe over the next two or three years, you will see real tax reform that generates economic growth. you will see in time to perform that saves these programs, which i think is something you care deeply about. the average american family today pays over their lifetime into medicare $119,000, and every american family and they begin receiving medicare takes out $357,000. that formula is not sustainable. we have to figure out a different way of making it work, especially for people without means. i think we are very very close.

regardless of who is president you are going to see major tax reform, major entitlement reform and long-term deficit reduction. >> can you respond to the question of american exceptionalism? >> i think i fundamentally disagree with the premise of the question. i don't think american exceptionalism means we have all the answers, we are always right, there is no debate, and we do not respect the views of others. i think one of the parts of american exceptionalism is how critical it we are and how open we are to debate about whether we are heading in the right direction, and whether our values are lined up with our interests or not. we went through difficult times earlier this decade where a lot of american people did not like what we are doing in iraq and the position of the u.s. in

world affairs. i am struck that whether it is the g8 or the g-20 or and travels around asia or engagement in africa or the middle east, people want us there, and they want our engagement. they value our values, and that is what american exceptionalism is. to go back to the moderators oping. -- opening point, we are seeingn largely as benign, as keepers of the system, and taking abuse of building a stronger, more fair and just international system. not every country does that in the world, and the u.s. does. that has helped as well in terms of providing influence in the long run. >> i want to be very brief. i agree with so much of what michael said.

i think it is got want to thank you, and i am proud that the u.s. government does support these organizations -- i want to thank you. this is a critical part of our outreach to the world, to help lift people up. i did want to respond to the atlantic council, because many of us appreciate you and others who are always there to give us advice and support when we have to make difficult decisions. correspond to the gentleman from turkey, one of the things i am most proud of in this administration is the leadership of president obama and the secretary and the vice president's and operating not solely as a unilateral country. we should be strong, i am proud that we are strong, but reaching out to the un, building

coalitions and addressing the many challenges, i would hope as i look forward, in a peaceful way. i just wanted to make the point that although we have set america must be a power the power, i would hope we can use that power to move the community in peaceful ways to achieve bolts through consensus. -- to achieve goals through consensus. >> it is important that as the leader of the free world we are able to respond militarily when we are called on. it is not just the leader of the free world from a military standpoint. if there is an international crisis whether a health care crisis, where the cdc is at the forefront, whether a natural disaster where our national

guard might be called and sent to some other country or whether it is the economic crisis we are going through now, or a military conflict or military issue the united states is always the first country that is looked to. the reason is because we always respond. we have to be in a position to respond from a military standpoint. the one thing we know about military conflicts is that very smart american military personnel have projected over the years where the next conflict will be and who our next adversary is going to be. and we have been wrong 100% of the time. so what we have to do, and why it is important that we remain a powerful military is that we know we are going to be called on to respond somewhere but who

would have imagined 10 years ago that we would be firing 50 pound missiles as part of a military conflict and we could do it in such a precise way as we are doing today? who could imagine that we would be in afghanistan. most americans had not even heard of afghanistan 15 or 20 years ago. so it is important that we remain diverse and powerful militarily but bob corker made an important point. we have a lot of friends or around the world whether members of nato or otherwise who have provided military assistance in both iraq and afghanistan. i think we are going to see more and more of that in the future, because we cannot afford to expand u.s. taxpayer money being

a policeman of the world. it has to be in concert with other countries, and i think that is good. i think that even though we provide the right kind of leadership and technology the right kind of weapons systems and manpower, it will always in that future be in concert with other nations. turkey has been a great ally, by the way. >> we can take two or three questions before the final round. no more questions? i don't believe it. over here. i have to think of some difficult questions. >> i am from denmark. for 10 years, the countries of the world, at least 153 of them,

have been negotiating the build around. looking at the 21st century from an american point of view, what will be the u.s. trade policy going forward? >> i am from georgia. my question is, the perception when we are speaking about u.s. involvement in europe, the perception is that -- center corker mentioned a little bit of the satisfaction on how some of the nato allies contribute to security. can you comment more on how the u.s. sees this trans-atlantic partnership with europe? >> any more questions? if not, i will add a third question. i am sure you all heard of the

book that speaks about the post american world emerging. what is your reaction to the thesis that we may be entering a post american world, when we talk about the future of american power? who would like to start first? >> i will do trade policy. unless anybody else would like to. [laughter] >> just tell us when you will be completed, that all. >> you are absolutely right, there have been teen years of negotiations in doha, and they have not reached a successful conclusion. the world has finally changed over a decade, and the china india, brazil emerging economies that existed in 2001 are quite different today. it is no longer appropriate, and

it goes to the point of china living up to international norms, it is no longer appropriate for us to provide unfettered access to our market without other economies opening their markets as well. we are still committed to seeing what parts of the agenda we can try and get done in various ways. at the same time, we have completed the three fta's and withheld bipartisan support in congress have those ratified and will be implemented. the goal is to set a new high standard for international trade agreements first among the countries that started the negotiation, but eventually other countries as well who are committed to those international rules and norms. we are hopeful that those standards will eventually make their way into the multilateral

trading system as well. we are in deep dialogue with the european union. we have announced a panel to look at a range of ways of expanding trade. we are in that process of analysis now and we are focused in geneva on seeing what can be done multilaterally and also pull laterally. >> i have been very much involved in doha. there are three segments the manufacturing sector, the services sector and the agricultural sector. the perception was there that ad was the one holding us up, but at the end of the day, it was the services sector that caused the last negotiations to fall apart. i am sure that those negotiations under ambassador

ron kirk, who is a terrific guy and very positively trade oriented are going to resume. we will have a farm bill this year. we have talked with fendi ag community that is compliant, that answers the questions that were presented at the doha round. hopefully we'll have within the next couple of years and end it do to theha round that will be concluded positively. >> i think i was the first elected official in the country that was in george's office after russia had a skirmished recently. my comments are about the fact that the relationship has to be more robust than it is.

there is no question with the pressures that many of the european countries have had fiscally and maybe for other reasons, nato has become something different than originally envisioned. my point is that that rebalancing, and i think senator chambliss alluded to that, too has got to change for there to really be a robust relationship. it has been a little bit -- not every country but generally speaking, and has been one-sided oriented towards the united states of america. i thought the way the president handled libya -- first of all, i never got libya was in our national interest. i may get some ire from the people in the room. i did not see that as being in our national interest, but if we were going to be there i thought the way it was handled by the administration was far better than us taking the lead.

>> i would be delighted to respond to that. i wish all the countries of the world strength economic progress progress in democracy progress in human rights, giving each of their people the opportunity to live a good, complete life, and i have not read the book, i apologize but i would hope they can join us in being part of the international community working through difficulties at the un, and i am not ready to say no, they cannot reach the level that that we have achieved. i wish all well and hope we can work together. >> do you want to add something? >> i would simply say, i think

we are in an american century. i think we will be in an american century. it requires us to exercise our influence more intelligently and creatively. we need to be able to show leadership in dealing with those issues as well as traditional issues of american foreign policy. i have no doubt that we have good days ahead of us. >> we have had an interesting hour. before this final discussion begins i am amazed by the agreement that america will always be number one. it is amazing that we have achieved a lot of agreement here.

all we have to do is transfer that spirit back to washington d.c. once that is done the world will be a better place. thank you very much. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] ? ninth, burnishers world economic forum in doppler switzerland a discussion. the chief operating officer of facebook. >> as amended more powerful and successful he is better liked. as a woman gets. from early child. -- through adolescence or marriage, uighur board men every

step of the way for being leaders, for being assertive and we teach women as young as four, the communal. until we change that at a personal level, we cannot change this. we really have to go out there and say there is an ambition gap. we want our girls to be as ambitious as our boys, and our boys to contribute in the home. >> watched the entire discussion tomorrow night at 8 eastern. we'll have more from the world economic forum this week. thursday the head of the world bank and international monetary fund talk about the economic outlook for this year. on friday, a discussion on the economic future of africa. lest this ceo's of several major corporations talk about their roles in the global recovery. back in a few moments discussion of politics, activism, and the occupied

protests. presidential candidate rick santorum campaigns in phoenix. then an american enterprise institute discussion about the 2012 campaign and the gop presidential candidate. later, a look at the political unrest and violence in syria. >> several light begins to tell you about tomorrow morning. the woodrow wilson international center hosts a discussion on u.s. foreign policy. that in that 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span2. president obama will be at the ground-breaking ceremony for the national museum of american -- african-american history. the mitt romney campaign ben chandler arizona, that state's primary along with michigan is next week. we will be alive tomorrow morning at 10:30 with the

discussion of cybersecurity legislation. palest include michael chertoff and former director of national intelligence, mike mcconnell. >> i head up the local content vehicle. we have three of them. the purpose of the vehicle is to collect programming from outside washington d.c.. we staff the 20's with one person with a small video camera and a laptop editor so they can record and edit things from the road. why we want to do this is to get outside of washington d.c. and collect programming for all of our network. we are doing a cities to were. -- the city's tortur. we will do programming at bookstores catching up with

authors. community relations events are important to us because we work with our cable partners in the to the cities. all this not only goes on the air, but its archive on our website, the c-span video library, and we are doing extensive social media. you will see us on facebook. you will see us on foursquare and twitter as well. a chance to get out our message not only on air but also on line and for social media as well. that is why it is imported to get outside of washington d.c., get into places that we don't normally go. >> watch your local content vehicles next stop in shreveport, louisiana, the first weekend in march. the san francisco 99% coalition

recently hosted a group of activists to discuss politics, activism, and the occupy movement. this is two hours. >> mike check in. i want to welcome you to the first you never saw -- >> i want to welcome you to the first unitarian universalist church of san francisco. we have been here for 162 years causing all sorts of problems. it is appropriate we are meeting in this location as the spirits of the 1960's is coming alive

again and our coalition, in the occupy movement, and the voices for equality that are now gaining mainstream attention for the first time in a long time. the voices for equality that are now gaining mainstream attention for the first time in a long time. it is written in the scriptures that a time will come when young people will have visions and when all people will dream dreams. that time has come. we have faced unprecedented challenges as a global counity. we see violence and runs rampant and is no longer a sustainable or ethical way to relate to each other in the global community. we see our precious mother earth is threatened. the ecological sysms that our

brothers and sisters in the animal and plant kingdoms are threatened. we see women all over the world are being denied their rights. we see the gaps between the rich and the corps have only expanded. we are beginning to have a new dream for the world. -- we see the gaps between the rich and the poor have only expanded. for far too long we operated in our own spheres of influence working on individual issues. we have gotten smarter. we know that there can be economic -- there cannot be economic justice without racial stice. we know there cannot be justice for them without justice for women. we are beginning to see we have to take a multipronged approach. this movement is broader than

any single issue. it is a about a new vision for the world, a new vision for the nation, and a new vision for ourselves and how we relate to each other and how we relate to our communities in which we exist. we need to be focused on this mission that we have. it is a very high calling. there are forces out there who wanted nothing but to maintain the status quo to keep the establishment's in power and to dilute or derail the message of hope, justice, equality, love, and compassion that the movement is all about. i want to thank all of you for being here for the work you are doing and for being a part of this. may blessings of the spirit to be with you and be with this movement. thank you. [applause]

and i have the second great pleasure of welcoming up to the our second speaker. he is known in this community as being a leader in our universal movement. a part of the coalition and our mistress of ceremonies th evening, stephanie duncan. >> thank you. a big thanks to the first unitarian universalist society. their hospitality makes it possible for the san francisco 99% coalition to meet and work together each week. bear with me for a moment. i do not want anybody to leave here without knowing a little bit more about us, your hosts. ours is a relatively short history. onctober 6 of 2011, many anti

justice groups across the country joined forces to protest the continued occupation of afghanistan. the groups that collaborated to mount the bay area represented a broad range of issues, peace and justice, single payer health care labor, veterans for peace, women's rights, independent political parties and anti-war mobilizing. a brand new group was also present, occupy san francisco. one of thousands that have sprung up across the country following the emergence of the occupy wall street and new york city. we decided to work together, developing a collaborative partnership between all of the diverse efforts. thus the coalition was born. despite the mainstream media

negative portrayal of the occupy movement., the san francisco 99% coalition since the discuion to the probls that really counts. those with such a devastating effect on the lives of millions of americans today. unemployment, and equality, environmental damage, the erosion of civil liberties the health-care crisis, you get the idea. it is a long the list. we need to hear every monday to discuss topics and actions proposed by our committees. one is organizing a response to the recently passed national defense authorization act. we are learning how it will affect normal citizens abilities to defend their rights under the constitution. we plan to hold workshops on foreclosures, the student debt crisis and strategies to strengthen our coalition. i invite you to join the newly

ornized effort to promote democracy and equality for everyone. if you want to provide us with information to keep in touch with the coalition, fill that out and feel free to give it to any volunteer tonight. they have the 99% bonds on. -- buttons on. there are two voice to can voice questions for the panelists tonight. if you want to write down your thoughtful carefully articulated question of those and pass tm to the outer isles. he have a volunteer in each of the outer aisles that will pick up your cards. raise them up in the air. they will pass them on to the moderator. before we close tonight, we want to be able to take a few questions from the floor. our mc will let you know what it

is time to do that. as we exit tonight, be aware that the host is posting a shelter at the end of the hallway. we thank you for a sitting quietly. do take a moment toouble check that your ce phones are turned off or silenced. now, i would like to introduce our next speaker. he is a longtime activist. please join me in welcoming david fullman. [applause] >> when i say san francisco, you say occupied. san francisco. >> occupy. >>housing >>occupy.

>> i say education, you say occupy. a little chance to do a shout out o putting people into the local hockey piscine. -- our local occupy scene. they could have bailed out homeowners instead. money would still be going to the banks, but they -- we would not be kicked out our homes. since that time in san francisco,e have 12,410 families who have either lost or are in the process of losing their homes. in california, it is 2 billion people. it -- 2 million people. it costs more for the evictions. are we going to stand for that?

a lot of you who are part of occupied have stood with community groups. there are three people who did not lose their homes and are still in than the last few months. give yourselves a hand. [applause] you probably know the san francisco police raided our camps over and over again. the final time was in mid december. what is that? our occupation. whose occupation? >> our occupation. the crux the federal reserve gave more money. since then people have organized occupations inspired by theriginal occupation on

our campuses and in vernal hill. three quick invitations. one is the family that lives in vernal hill. they are about to be kicked out of their house. are we going to let that stand? we are asking you to come a week from saturday, 9:00 a.m. are going to go to the ceo of wells fargo who is responsible for evicting him. that is the first thing. the second thing is, they are preparing to get our education system this spring and give out pink slips. students and educators are going to take over the capital on e fifth. first, we are going to take over the state building at 3:00. at 4:00 we will have a rally at

civil -- civic center plaza. organizer on neighborhoods and plug in to occupy san fraisco. there is some more information on line. i will pass out fliers. please pass them along. thank you. [applause] >> now, time for me to introduce the moderator. a journalist and radio host on kawlw. in addition to hosting your call, rose aguilar provides a weekly commentary for "uprising" and writes about issues. her recently published book "red highways" covers a six months a

road trip to intervw a americans about issues and voting tendencies. please welcome rose aguilar. [applause] hist>> thank you so much for coming tonight. my radio show airs daily from 10:00 until 11:00. it is rebroadcast at 11:00 p.m. over the past few months we have done a number of occupied shows talking about strategies, weaknesses. we recently did a show about the militarization of police forces across the country. this is one of the most underreported stories in the past couple of years. this started under the reagan administration and continued under the clinton administration when he passed a bill that allowed the military to pass on weapons to the police

departments across the country. 1 million americans since 1994 have been passed on to police forces to be used on citizens. next week we are doing a show about how the u.s. conference of bishops got so powerful and why these men are dominating the conversation about birth control. what are we debating birth control in the year 2012? we are also discussing the lack of regulation on imported food. we are doing a show on occupied the prisons. are buzzing in a number of people to san quentin. you can find out -- they are busing in a number of people to san quentin. we know what we need to do. we know the solutions. there is no political will. what i hope to accomplish tonight is to get pasthe call your congressperson. that is not allowed in tonight's

discussion. want to bring in something new and exciting. i find a lot of these talks tend to sound similar. that is a complaint i have -- people have when i leave these talks. that is what is so exciting about occupy. the answer that comes out is it always goes back to money and politics. we are going to spend a significant amount of time talking about that. speaking of money and politics, president obama will be in san francisco tomorrow night. his first stop will be at a small private fund-raiser at a home. tickets are going for the low price of $38,500 a pop. do i have a higher bid? if you cannot afford to $38,000 you can attend a reception with soundgarden's chris cornell.

those tickets are only $100. we have had opened speakers talking about money and politics. this election is expected to cost between $6,000,000,000.- 1589936500 dollars. in the meantime, we have 70 men sleeping in this church. i went and did an interview. they have been doing this for four years. 70 men come every night. last night they had to turn a people away. the man who runs it says the big difference is that he is meeting a lot of yng men who have never been homeless before. they have never had to sleep in a shelter. they have lost their jobs. this is where they are. 43% of americans are liquid assets poor. they lack the money to live for three months of their main source of income was lost. more than 46 million americans are living on food stamps -- the highes number in history. more than 70 million women lived

in poverty in 2010. 7.5 million women live less -- live on less than $6,000 a year. women tend to get lost in the discussion about the economy. you hardly hear about this number. people are going to pay $38,000 to have dinner with the president tomorrow night. the question is, whashould we do about this? where does this leave us? thoccupied movement has raised so much class consciousness. one is the last time you heard the word deficit in the media? we are going to be tackling these questions tonight. get your questions ready. i would love to hear your opinion about what you think is the most effective strategy. that is the main question we are asking. i would like to introduce the panel. rocky anderson is the former

mayor of salt lake city. [applause] margaret flowers is from the d physicians for a national health care program. she is also an organizer with occupied d.c. tom gallagher is a former massachusetts state rip. -- representative. dave welsh is a member of the labor council an founding member of the u.s. labor against the war.

[applause] so we are going to start with opening remarks. we will get on to our discussion and the q&a. >> thank you very much. i appreciate the invitation. is great to be here in your fare city today. i want to emphasize -- i know we want to talk about where we go from here. it is so absolutely crucial -- i think especially for young people to realize this is not normal. this is not just the way things go in this country. this is an absolute aberration. it is getting worse. we are watching our nation in so many different ways being completely transformed. it is all of us who are getting shafted. the future is getting shafted.

is going to be because we are not exercising the in every possible way the vigilance, the activism taking the kinds of committed actions that have always brought about progressive change in this country. so it is up to us. somebody speak this country. in our nation, that is the only way that iever happens. we did not see slavery abolished in this country without a grass roots antislavery movement. we did not see women get the

vote in this country without the woman's suffrage movement. it was a long the sustained tenaciouefforts. we would not have been- we had not seen the civil rights movement if we left it up to our elected officials. martin luther king, jr. when in to see president johnson after the civil-rights act was passed. he said, now it is time for a voting rights act. he said this country is not ready for it. it will take years. martin luther king, jr. went back to selma and hit the streets. within one year the leslation was passed. the people did it. we can do it as well. keep in mind -- i do not know how much time i have. keep in mind, this is the new gilded age. it has not been like this since the 1920's in this country.

the top 1% hold 40% of the wealth in this country. that can be changed. it has to be changed. it was changed before after the first gilded age. it took tenacious action. it took people recognizing the economic and social justice -- social injustice and a lot of people demanding change. a lot of it was about good, sensible tax policy. 22% of children in this country are living in poverty while 1% holds 40% of the wealth. we have 2.3 million people in our prisons and jails, by far the worst incarceration rate in the world, and 60% of them are black or latino when they're really only comprise about 30% of our population in this country.

tax cuts for the wealthy. they are the e equivalent of a $3 million raise for the richest 160,000 people in this country. when people are losing their homes. when students who took out loans to get tuition are unable to pay them. then the government and up having to back them up while the students or former students still have the debt hanging over their heads. capital gains at 15%, people who make their money passively sitting back making investments while working people are struggling like they are in this country? capital gains at 15%? it is absolutely regressive. we need to demand that everybody be taxed at those highest incremental rates at the same rate however they make their money. my time is almost run. we could go through all of these

things. we know these massive changes including the ratcheting up of a imperial presidency like this country has never seen. it is going to keep happening. that is unless we all stick together organize, take tenacious sustained action and let them know that we are not going to give up until we see the change in our nation. [applause] >> good evening. it is a pleasure to be here. i am one of the initial organizers of the occupation of washington, d.c. we started organizing back in 2011. the occupied movement has been a tremendous force. we saw it as an initial tactic to bring visibility to the great wealth inequality of the nation. the level of inequality that we

have -- if you look at other nations that would be in violent revolution by now. this was not sometng talked about. when we were organizing that occupation in freedom plaza, we hoped it would be the beginning of an independent and non- violent broadbased movement in this nation to channel that justifiable anger to its possible and constructive change to the country. the occupation movement brought people out into the open and into public to both reclaim the comments which is something we really need to be talking more about. also, to bring visibility and to discuss the issues and realized that we should not be blaming ourselves. if you do not have healtcare because he did not work hard enough. you do not have an education because you were not born into the right family. is a system that is designed to oppress people. we came out into public and said it was wrong. that we have a job to do. not that energy has been

released, how do we funnel that into positive and constction rigid constructive change? we have to start discussing the real issues affecting our communities. we have to find sutions to come together and find solutions for those. we need to start meeting our human needs now. we cannot look to leaders to solve our problems for us. we do not have time to elect the right person. i would love to see rocky be president, but i a basher that will happen. we need to empower ourselves and create change ourselves. we can do that. we have seen that the occupied movement -- both the strengths of the occupied movement are also their weakness. i hope we have more discussion of that tonight. it is amazing that people who have felt voiceless before have found a voice. it is amazing that we started to create a more horizontal

structure and a corporatist -- participatory way and acting. we need to start looking at really being leaders. these are things we need to discuss. this is really going to be a long-term effort. we can trace this war on the people really back to the paul memo back in 1971 where lewis powell layout plans. they were very frightened in 1971. it was the height of the civil rights movement. they saw it as an assault on free enterprise. they created a plan to corporatize education, the media, to take control of the court to, to create think tanks like theato institute. we need to have a similar long- term plan. we need to see this is the beginning of a long-term movement. if there are solutions to every crisis that we face, those

solutions are being ignored in congress because they are not there to look at the evidence, to act on behalf of the public interest. they are there to reflect the interests of their corporate funders. we need to shift the power. we need to be strategic and our actions. we look at the nine pillars that hold the current power structure up. our job is to take the people and those pillars and to bring them into the movement. things like the police force. the military the civil service, the religious institutions, non-governmental organizations, the media business workers youth -- we need to draw them into our movement. we do that if we have the strategy and mine. we know we are bringing us to our movement, we can act with intention to do that. we also need to create an alternative system that is going to replace the system that we have right now.

creating a more participatory democracy. it will be imperative along side protesting and weakening the current structure we have. i look forward to the conversation tonight. thank you for coming out. pass and on. [applause] -- pass it on. >> thank you. i feel tonight i have been invited to do a political equivalent of telling you to take your medicine or something unpleasant. what i mean is, i am here to say that emotionally satisfying as it may be to say -- a plague on both your houses, to the extent we want to be involved in electoral politics -- i am not here to argue it is the be all of political activity. to the extent that matters to , we should not say that we

are going to walk away from the democratic party in favor of something else. i hope rocky anderson will not take this personally because i am sure i agree with them fundamentally a great deal more than i do with the man in the white house. there are three arguments i want to make in the course of the evening. number one, there are real differences between the two parties and that they do matter. no. two the political structure of this country necessitates that if we wish to be as effective as possible, strategically we need to engage with one of the parties. -- i told you the medicine might be a little better at first. the third is that this ought not to be interpreted as a pasve acceptance of what comes out of the white house, what comes out of the democratic national

committee. it should be an active rejection of that. right now we should have somebody running in the democratic primaries doing what ron paul's people are doing. it is not too early f us to think about 2016. for a vehicle for real change in the country's political structure. let me start back on the top. i want to be clear that i do not have any kind of warm and fuzzy view of the current administration. to start on the foreign policy and where i think there are crimes have been the worst, six countries have been bombed under the watch in this administration. iraq, of course, this administration did not start it, but we would still be there if the rockies did not tell us to leave. afghanistan i consider the most cynical act because i cannot believe that even they think we are doing anything but taking

this down the road. libya, this administration has shredded the war powers act. the other three, we do not acknowledge. we bombed pakistan, somalia. these are the legal actions. this is not a pretty picture. i did not come here to praise the administration. what do the leading republican candidates call this? appeasement. yes, it can get worse. we do not want to make it worse in the next election. secondly on the domestic front yes, the domestic rigid the economic advisers to this country of this administration and pioneer -- these are wall street people. these are 1% people. i do not think a person in this room seriously tnks the republicans would put in people who are anything but significantly worse. there are many other aspects of

the difference between two parties. getting pro-choice supreme court justices, getting people on the national labor relations board who will allow unions to organize, anybody involved in the labor movement knows the importance of the nlrb. while neither of the parties are anything close to what people in this room would like, it is not the same as saying, there is no difference. second, on the structure of the system and the way i see it necessitates our course of action. i have one minute so we will not get fully into this athis moment. were we in another country like germany, years ago we would have looked at the socialist party in germany perhaps and said it is inadequate on environmental issues. it is inadequate on issues of war and peace. we will start another party. in germany they started the

green party. what happens when you get 5% of the vote in germany if you are a new party? you can form a coalition government and bring your policies to government. the greens did that. i will cut this part of the discuss and short for the purposes of time. what happens wheyou are running for president in the united states and you get 5% of the vote as a third-party candidate? one of the risks is you bring in the republican party which makes matters even worse. that is why i will go on to make the argument as to whwe have to make our challenge inside the democratic party. thank you. [applause] >> sisters and brothers, it is good to be here with you all in a ple set -- in a place that welcomes the occupy wall street in san francisco. i have mostly been involved with

occupy oakland. i came to it with history as a labor organizer. i am going to focus on the relationship between occupy wall street and labor. i joined the camp a little late to rigid about 10 days after it began. i started camping out there. i was involved in the mass bust onin october. [inaudible] so, october 25 where the police came down very hard on the camp and they shot a projectile and the disabled a iraq war that.

-- war vet. there was such outrage that they gave us a little bit of space. the authorities in oakland wher a little bit on the defensive. in one week we were able to organize a port shutdown and a general strike. [cheers and applause] over 30,000 people poured into the port. i want to emphasize one thing. for all that occupy did it would have been possible without the solidarit of the rank and file. [applause] this is really -- this has

really been a partnership between militant rank-and-file workers and the occupy movement.. december 12 came around and we shut down the ports of seattle, portland longview, and oakland. we slow down some of the other ports. it was a tremendous thing. then came long view. they tried -- there was a big company at was one of the participants in the grain cartel that controls our nation's green -- our food supply. they have a brand new terminal in the longview where they are loading grain that comes from trains from the midwest.

they sai we are not going to hire people to work here -- even though they had been working there since 1934. the workers there were very militant. they blocked the trains. they dumped the grains. it was this action that inspired occupy movement. to do something. one of the reasons we did it was to support the workers in longview. they have a settlement now. a company backed down. they have a settlement, and they are working in the court. occupy movement. had a lot to do with it. this is a victory forccupy. make no mistake the solidarity and organization between the

occupy movement won this contract. ] union jobs would not be back if it were not for occupy. it is clear that the port shutdown on november 2 december 12 and the impending mobilizations what made them come to the table. i think this is a new development for the labor unique -- movement and for the whole working class. you haveo remember 89% of us are not in unions. when you see the occupied movement, you see a lot of young people, young people who are workers. and people students who are not part of the organized working force. they are part of the working class, but they are not organized into unions. this is a union between community and labor, the

unorganized and organized that will make a difference in building the kind of a movement that we will see real change in the united states. thank you. he had [applause] >> i am going to start incorporating -- we have a lot of questions. i was are incorporating them now. we will give you all to respond to thomas. -- we will get you to respond to tom. some people said, let's talk about strategy. whenever we have done our radio show, we have a lot of people calling in saying they have been invoed for the first time. i went down to occupy, i said has anyone been involved? five people got in line.

i recently went to uc-davis to interview the students who were pepper spray. we tended to move on and never looked back. i figured -- i wondered, how are they doing right now? how has this changed them. they have all become completely radicalized. i interviewed and 18-year-old shy person. he said six weeks into college and i was pepper spray. before this happened i thought the school and stay cared about me and i realize they do not. this was an 18-year-old kiri to have that realization is pretty intense. -- this was an 18-year-old. to have that realization is pretty intense. how do you build on that? >> you certainly do not do it by reaffirming the status quo. that is what we do when we vote for either the democratic or

republican candidates. these are both parties that have brought us to this point. they have colluded along the way. they have created a corrupt rverse system that works for e benefit of the wealthy. it is a true plutocracy. that is not an exaggeration. that is what we have in this country. we have a government for the wealthy, not one that acts in the public interest. it has happened with the collusion and cooperation of both the democratic and republican parties. it will continue if we do not let them know we are going to take it into a different direction. we are going to insist on not just changing around the players in this game, we are changing the game. we are going to change the rules. that is what we can do as an american people if we organize together and get behind a new party, noncandidates, people who

are going -- a new party new candidates, people who are going to announce to the world we are not putting up with this anymore. think about it. will you draw the line? will you draw the line at the violation of the war powers clause by this presiden these people said, he is the lesser of two peoples. he is so much better than the republicans. this is what we got we bought that hope and change promise. what about health care? he ended up caving at every possible turn. the health insurance companies stepped on down the street so happy straight to theank knowing that they have required everamerican to bu their perverse product. it is the only country in the industrialized world that depends on for-profit insurance

companies. that was brought to us by our democratic president and his democratic co-conspirators and the united states congress. [applause] will you draw the line at impunity for war criminals that he announced as soon as he became president saying, let's not bother with them. let's move forward. will you draw the line now when he is the person that asked in 2009 and now he has signed into law the power of the president of the unid states to point out to anyone of you, call you a belligerent, and have you essentially kidnapped incarcerated, no legal counsel no charges, no tal -- you could be incarcerated up to the rest of your life under this legislation. is the first time in e history of the country. this is the reason i am doing

this. i argue the same thing for two months, that we cannot do harm. we have to settle for the lesser of two evils. we cannot settle for the system. whether it is even -- either one of these evils, they represent the same thing. we will never see a change as long as we cave in to the fear of letting the worst of two evildefeat the luster off two evils. let's bring about change in this country once and for all. [applause] >> i think we are probably all aware that a longtime -- probably all of civilization tactic is to divide and conquer. we have a situation where we have two political parties that serve the 1%, but they divide us. they pretend like they are really different. they bring in fear. we can expect as we get closer

to november that the real fear is going to be turned on big time. if we do not vote for a democrat, we are going to get that awful republican. i think we are a little bit smarter than that now. we know that the both serve the 1%. we will not get changed by electing somebody right now. we are going to get changed by acting strategically. it is defending homes. it is protesting when people cannot get health care the same needs. it is also about creating alternative systems outside of our current corporate structure. the political system serves the economic system, this political system is serving our capitalist system. there are other alternatives. some they you may not be aware of but it is actually happening is that we are creating a democratize the economy in this country. the united nations declared 2012 the year of the cooperative.

120 million people are already members of cooperative. where the employees have some investment into the company are morphing and becoming more democratized and businesses. this is good. we are seeing t the growth of local currencies, of tampa banks. -- time banks. more people are joining credit unions. these all put more of the economic control and benefits into the hands of the 99%. this is how we undermine the corporate power. there are other ways to do it. we need to start talking about building a sustainable food networks decentralizing our energy production and building a green economy. we do not need legislation to do this. we can come together in our communities and develop alternatives. it will meet our human needs and build a world we actually want to create. we need to see ts as a long-

term effort. our task is growth of the movement it is educati, it is building alternative institutions. the way i think about it is each of us has a finite number of resources. where are you going to put your resources? are you going to put it into trying to elect somebody into the current system that is broken? are you gog to put it into building something. down the road we may see electoral solutions, but we will not see them right now. a lot of people ve been asking how important it is to continue occupying spaces and getting out, or should we continue moving on in other ways? >> when we were playing -- when we were planning the occupation of the freedom plaza, it was recommended to us by the spanish protesters said the occupations be limited.

the resources to put into maintaining the public space take away from the next step which is doing our region to the communities and building and growing this movement. i think we need to see that as an initial tactic. it is time to move onto the next steps. we run into this in freedom plaza. there are people who have been pushed aside by this country for a long time. they have lost their homes lost their jobs, and they feel like they have been pushed inside where they are invisible. they want to be outside where they are invisible -- where they are visible. we want to make sure we are using our resources to build and not just maintain. [applause] >> rocky spoke a few moments ago about the need to change the system. obviously, i could not agree more in various ways.

there are many aspects of the system. the electoral system as it exists ought to be changed in many ways. people advocate fusion voting and a whole variety of electoral reforms, most of which would be wonderful. we cannot act as if they already exist. we have to figure out strategically what is the best way to operate within the system as it presents itself. if we simply take the point of view no, we will do it as we wish as it feels better, it will be a happy day to the 1%. you have heard my critique of the president. i think that should be clear. i cannot believe there is a single person in this room who does not think there is a difference between rick santorum and president obama -- that is significant. finally, i sometimes think we

are acting as if the year 2000 did not happen when ralph nader mounted a third-party challenge. i am not here again -- hear me out. i in don't know if you are believe me or rolf nader -- i hope neither. i am not up here to condemn ralph nader. i think most of the people who talk about the terrible things he did cannot carry his briefcase. hover, that election could hardly have come out worse. nothing was built. no, i am not blaming ralph nader, per se as a third-party candidate. nothing was builds had bush got elected. you might want to go out into the street and see how people interpret that. >> we do not have much time left

and this is not really helping anyone. >> can i give an example? i come from the post fice. i was a letter carrier with the postal service. he know, the postal service is facing very serious problems right now. the democrats and republicans are teaming up to destroy the postal service. they are saying they want to eliminate 200,000 jobs and close nearly 4000 post offices. they want to eliminate saturday delivery and eliminate door to door delivery. president obama two days ago reiterated for the second time that he wants to eliminate saturday delivery. what happened to our friend in the white house? what happened to labor's friends in the white house that he was to eliminate all of these jobs. we are in a situation where

there is terrible unemployment and they want to eliminate these regular good jobs that existed the postal service. they want to destroy the institution that h been around since before the constitution was signed. i would like to offer that as an example a bipartisan attack on the working class. [applause] >> we have a lot of comments from the audience the say we should not be party focused and focused on the issues. d.c. keystone as a success or do you think it would be political suide for the administration? who would like to take that? >> this president did solely what he did because of the political consequences.

he has shown zero leadership on climate change. over the long term this is the most crucial issue our planet is facing. our nation if it does not prove the international leadership will be the cause of the most catastrophic consequences of climate change for our children and later generations. we are essentially making war against later generations. president obama does not do these things because of anything but the political consequences. if you think he will come up one morning and id, you know, i think it would be in the public interest for me to veto the epa's efforts to reduce ozone emissions -- he did that for the same reason he has done with financial institutions, the same

reason we do not have real health care reform in this untry. he did it because of the corrupting influence of money. it drives him as much as anybody in washington, d.c. this is not just about president obama. it is about th people who are in power, all of them acting against everyone of our interests. against the interest of people and run the world and against the interest of our children in later generations. time that we shake ourselves that of our expectations that we can get excited around election time and go back to sleep. i agree with margaret, we need to keep this on a sustained basis day after day and do everything we can to put pressure on to make certain if it was happening in other countries, we need our own kind

of revolution and getting back to constitutional values of fairness and equity and equal justice. not the tiered system but equal stice for all in the united states. [applause] >> that question was to meet me posed as if it were an either/or. success or political reasons. both. the president does things for political reasons. if we got him to do it, it is a success. there is a sense that you are looking for somebody at the head of your party that you are going to agree with on everything. 100 years ago people in unions

or arguing we have to form separate unions. it has been obsolete for almost 100 years because people understood it that you use a vehicle for what it can deliver for you and your interest. you do not have to think the person at the top of it is somebody want to hang around with, agree with, you analyze strategically how you work. 100 years ago unions did away with the idea they would be more comfortable because they realize it was not the right thing. we have to subject our political activi to the same level of analysis. >> to think the pipeline is over that things are not going to change if president obama is elected and he has no reason to be accountable is foolish.

this is a delayed decision. i think that if we are going to be successful as a movement, we will have to remain independent of political parties. doctor martin luther king never endorsed a candidate. he did not want to be the master or servant of any party. he wanted to hold them accountable. that is what we have to do. we have to stay focused. down the line, if we are able to act strategically to weaken the corporate to stranglehold on our political process so that we shift power to the people, then we may be able to pursue legislative strategy is. but we do not have a lot of time. rocky alluded to ourlanetary crisis. that we are using our resources

at 140% capacity. it is not possible to sustain that. it is on us. we have to build these alternative systems right now that is where the occupy could be strong. if we come up with solutions we can use together with our collective strength and wisdom. [applause] >> i think what margaret says is very good but i do not think it goes far enough. what ever we can do in our communities is limited by the fact that power is controlled by the 1%. i think to get real change we have to do whatever we can do to provide for our needs through self-help and community solidarity.

that is very important. we have an autonomous things we can do. at the same time, we have to fight to overthrow of this system we are in. [applause] we have to build the organization. the organization necessary to replace the current system with a system that is based on a the needs of the people rather than the needs of the 1%. i just wanted to say one more thing, there is a friend of mine who has a small political group. there are organizing in three areas, they are building our caucus in one area, they're making contacts in another area. they are doing the kind of long- term organizing that is

necessary. it will be necessary in the future. however, one of the things occupy has shown is that sometimes it is necessary to go beyond the incremental increases of people's power -- excuse me. thank you. i thought he was trying to take it away from me. it gets very competitive up here. there is an element in what occupy has done. i do not want to exaggerate it. there is an element that is insurrectionaries. here is this tremendous crisis on the heads of our people. the people are suffering.

it requires something more than just a little patient, an incremental increase in our activity. thank you. >> i agree with that 100%. it has to be resisting the world and creating one we want to live in. they go hand-in-hand. we have about 40 minutes left. if you would like to ask a question, i have so many good ones. but if you also want to ask a question verbally, please start lining up. if you can make it brief. i just want to read -- i'm sorry? yeah i'll do that. i just want to read four questions. we heard about the sad state of affairs. we heard speeches and slogans.

we did not hear ideas and strategies. please talk about practical ideas and strategies. every movement is to resultf grass-roots pressure. why should doctors be focused on refraining the existing structure rather than organizing a movement? why are some strategies to prevent provocations even though the lice do it more attacks the 1% will not go down fighting. they will not go down without force. would you like to address those questions. ? >> with regard to the last two it should not ever go away. in terms of strategy, it is the most hopeful seenthing we have seen in years in this country.

when i was mayor of salt lake city i have a website that talks about a lot of these, of voterockorg. when i was mayor of salt lake city i was mayor for two terms. it is a good, progressive city. it is an island ia backward state. we had these huge denstrations against president bush every time he came to town, once a year. it sent a message. it setaid a lot that the rest state would do that. -- reddest state would do that. we did another march to the pentagon tens of thousands of

people. then everybody went home. we were not taking to the streets. president bush could go off on his mountain bike during those demonstrations and he never even noticed it. we need to keep it up and support law occupy movement. -- the occupy movement. it is the great this is probably the anti-war movement in the 1960's. i think to should never go away. at the same time, we need to recognize, we need to bring everybody along with us. bring along those who will support us. it really is about t 99%. nobody has an exclusive on this. the people who are their day in

and day out the freedom plaza i admire them so much. for each one of them, there are thousands that a agreed. we have to do everything we can to include and let people see that we can all be part of the same movement. it is not just an electoral strategy. i have to say, getting out there and taking a stand for those candidates who really will stand up, send a message who will fight against this perverse system we have, it is an important thing for us to do to show there is a real challenge to this two party duopoly. >> who is doing that? >> i am, four one.

that is why i am doing it. i think there are others as well who e standing up and saying we are going to change this. those changes are everything from getting that tax code reform, and getting rid of these obscene cut for the wealthy moving the fed over the treasury so that prite banks are not controlling everything. abolishing minimum mandatory sentencing that has brought us the greatest incarceration rate in the world. making certain that congress exercises the prerogative to make war. these are life-and-death issues we're facing. we need to insist upon resolutions. >> i think it is iortant to recognize that our awareness of

what is going on, to educate ourselves about the policies. we have party had changed on a national policy. during october and november, you are probably familiar with the super committee that was meeting around the deficit. they were threatening to cut our social services, things that have nothing to do with our current situation. it is because of the occupy movement and the actions that we did, one of the people actually went into the super committee hearing and went up and told the members of the super committee to their face that they were fraudulent and did not represent the 99%. it was action like this that made them realize that they try to cut our programs, the occupy

movement would have exploded. ere has been an effort to prevent evictions. president obama was doing everything he could to pressure the attorney generals to give them immunity from prosecution. that was the direction he was heading. because of occupy, although the provisions are sure -- short of what is needed, he did not give immunity to the banks. he is giving money to the state so they can sue the banks. thisas had an effect on policy. while we are strong, we are not strong enough to believe we will get policies that take us all of the way. that is why we have to educate ourselves about how movements affect change. and then create a strategy and act with that intention. i mentioned the nine pillars. we did things in washington,

d.c. to draw people to us. we nd our civil servants to spea out and expose corruption, the corporate pressure put on them to enact policies that are not in our best interest. we had whistleblower wednesdays. we blew whistles at lunchtime encourage them to come out and blow the whistle. i will not go on. there are concrete things we can do. >> we have 35 minutes. we have more than 10 people in line. i will treat this like my radio show. let's go through a few people. go ahead. >> i am of the western state coornator for t justice party of the united states. i wanted to let everyone know that --

my question is, what about the issue of election integrity? a lot of people say that votes can be flipped, machines can be hacked people are not being allowe to vote to should be, u cannot just walk up and register. you have to register in advance and show a driver's license. what about this issue of integrity? >> we got a few cards about this. all of a sudden, someone supposedly one in 2008 and no one talks about that. -- won in 2008 and no one talks about that. >> i am a civil rights co-chair united autoworkers. it was built by the labor movement in united states in san francisco, built by general

strikes as work unions across the country. in that regard, if you do -- how do see the electoral process and electoral office to be used as a possibility to be used to win hearts and minds and to respond -- expand occupy oakland and build support in the street and workplaces? >> my name is kay. i am a citizen of san francisco. i have been active since 1959 when night came up in city hall -- when i came up in city hall.

why you think been active in the streets, i also marched in a number of the occupy san francisco marches. i did not pitch my tent but i was active as they were doing these activities. i also do voter registration. i try to get people to vote. i also tried to do visibility for candidates tt i think have a closer, at least a reasonable democratic or progressive view. i do not know why you seem to think they have to be separated or you can only do one or the other. the big way i would like to talk to those who have been against political action, voting sorts of things, when have you talked about martin luther king

fighting for the voting rights act. people died fighting for voting rights. now you're telling people if you really want progress, don't vote. >> for anyone who thinks the democrat party is still the answer how was that hope /change thing going? i do not know how many time we hear barack obama continuing push's policies. obama is a republican. a lot of assert tired form the -- a lot of us are tired about the system. remember whenobama was joking

about torture? many do not. my question is, i have written an article on line called the activism entry point, the cancer and occupy debate. it is available online. my question is, what about this issue with regard to diversity of tactics in the movement? and you think the democrats will try to coopt the movement? >> dave, why don't you start. take that question. >> that is a thorny question joseph. i know that in oakland the january 28 march in which they tried to occupy the kaiser

center which had been date -- vacant for six years. there were several thousand people out there children, older people, disabled people, and in wheelchairs'- i beg your pardon? they did. they messed with it. that is what i am getting at. this was a peaceful demonstratio they were attacked by the police. i think the main point here is that then there was this tremendous response at the grand lake theater where nearly 1000 people crowded into the theater to denounce the police. it is not as if the movement has gone away. the movement has not gone away. it is still very strong. i think the media has tried to

besmirch the occupy movement on fairly. -- unfairly. i do not think occupy oakland is about to be coopted by anybody. [applause] >> how concerned are you about stolen elections and voting machines? why has that disappeared? >> we live in a mirage democracy. we have corporate candidates that are chosen for us. we do not have any choice right now. that is why rocky cannot win because to get on the ballot and to be able to get into the debates is a tough challenge. it takes a tremendous amount of resources. we do not have real elections. we need to face up to that.

there was a conference at went to. they had seven panels. they went over aspects of voting. everyone of them was broken. we have to create democracy with a small d. we have to get engaged at a local level. that is how we're going to build toward a system where we can have a true democracy. >> if i can comment, and e woman talking about the importance of voting. no one should ever stand before us and say that what they do, their former political activism, is the only thing to d you know that person is wrong whatever else they have said. we are here tonight because of the occupy movement.

what we have to do, among other things is make people in office answer to that. it is not an either/or. >> hi my name is david. i have some breaking news. this spring and summer i have worked with a nonprofit called a b or government. the idea is we can affect the system from the inside by running candidates who are not a part of the old system and who do not take corporate money to represent the public interest. it seemed like you would need some sort of a movement to convince people, to educate

people about the 1%. lo and behold, the occupy movement happen. we presented occupy governmen and it had unenthusiastically response. we have now -- now have 15 kansas -- candidates running. complete strangers to start the sending me money. -- started sending me money. i am running as a democrat. i want to be in dianne feinstein's face from now until november. i am not going to take any orders from the democratic party leaders who are against it justice. you can he both. everyone here should register as a justice party so we hav an

alternative. no democrat is going to oppose obama and pretend the democratic party has democracy inside it. we have to get an outside caidate. california we have an opportunity to change the democratic party from the inside. we can say, and dianne feinstein can be replaced. in fact, there is a replace congress mement we will be launching. i am here to recruit 55 californians. we are recruiting the best candidates we n to replace the corrupt ones. it is easier than you think. i have marty begun it. -- already begun it. i have dozens of supporters. you can also signed my fo and make sure i get on the ballot.

it takes two minutes. >> hello, my name is bill. i am the legal counsel for occupy sf. not a single penny collected by the unitarians or in a nonprofit corporation, by the labor council, or any organization has come to occupy sf. it h been coopted at all levels. we could not be transparent. we do not know where the money went. this is a problem. occupy sf with the people who had thrown -- fallen through the safety net. we were housing ourselves. we were using the first amendment to demonstrate. we were doing more than protesting we were constitionally protected people making our minds known and are well known. how do any of you suggest we

approach this call option -- co- option which is the 1% taking away from the 99%. >> i am a long-term activist. my question is for rocky. since independent campaigns can be used to educate for the future, do you see your campaign as an effort to organize a party nationally that would run candidates for local elections and work with labor and other constituencies to do alternatives? >> yes the long term sustainability of this party is at the core of what we are doing. it is also to bring about major change.

tom friedman just came out with a book. that used to be yes. the last chapter is all about how crucial it is that somebody does exactly what we are doing. if you can speak the truth to the american people and help get them organized, get behind ideas that will change things, you can have, as they say has much impact on the future of our tion as the person who is elected. we are seeking governing authority over the long haul. we are seeking to build a major political party that operates in a different way. we are also seeking to get out as much as we can to get people behind these ideas, help organize people, whether through

the electoral system, which i agree with the woman who spoke earlier. you do not do one or the other. you do it all. anybody who complains about the electoral system and how corrupt it is that is guaranteeing their vote is not going to camp. they are part of the problem. >> t more questions. then we will get responses. >> it seems that we are ignoring the reality here. that is that we are the 99%. there is a 1% who are controlling us. is that not the way we feel and that we need justice? we can no longer operate under 1% ctrolling s. it reminds me of india when the british were in control. how did the indians to do it? how did they get rid of the

british? they did it through condi -- ghandi. all of the people they had in common. they had to pay a tax on assault. instead of paying that tax they marched down to the scene and they collected salt and made their own salt. we are told to go out and organize, but around what? we need something to organize around. we need to fd that thing that the 99% signof us believe in. is there a march? no. boyct the one thing to prove our strength. we are the 99%.

>> hello, everybody. we are one world corp. for cooperation. this is beyond our borders. it is global. we have the power thanks to labor across the world. i think right here there is a lot of elders and all of these young people who have been representing us. they deserve a round of applause and more support. yeah. need to give them our homes our backyards habitat. arby's are in decline. we have the resources, most of us. if we have to shame the corporations into a saving the world, we will. if they want to continue to do criminal acts and put the truth

tellers in jail, we need to stand up for them and go to a bank where we can make donations to this effort. >> we have about 15 minutes. be brief. >> i am a co-founder of occupysf and i have a few things i want to talk about like office pursuing, and getting behind candidates. we can come up with all kinds of parties and we can decide to have collective funds going to help bolster the confidence to whoever we decide to send in. we can decide to occupy campaign trails. we can get behind the people running for office. make sure they stayed true to their word. not let them get distracted and continue to pursue it alongside them. let's remind them of what they

are representing. >> i am wondering why there is not enough diversity represented here. why is there mainly white people? why is there not a black person or an asian person on here? i do not want to bring out the race thing but it does matter. why aren't the only man allowed to sleep there? why does the unitarian church exclude women when you climb to be for diversity. you are not abo the discrimination. it is time that the unitarian church of lives up to the principle they accuse the 1% of possessing. >> my name is don. i do not think capitalism works. my question is, are your proposals designed to reform

capitalism, to make it work? or are you for a revolution where we do not allow 1% to exist on the planet? [applause] >> my name is ken walton. i read that the trend to reserves genered between9 trillion dollars in addition to thetarp funds -- the tarp funds. ron paul talked about this recently. i was wondering rocky i read on your website about this but i was wondering what you would do about this if elected president? i would also like to make note for anyone who supports obama google obama is worse than bush. hopefully you will wake up. he i allowing this to happen. the federal reserve, were you

going to do aut the trillions dollars that are gone? >> we got similar questions about capitalism and revolution. dave, do you want to address that? >> i think it has become obvious the people involved in occupy that capitalism is the root of our problems. [applause] why can't we -- you know, there was a statistic 30 million vacant homes, a 10 million homeless. i do not know if those are the correct figures. that is approximately the proportion. or 3 million, a 10 million whener it was. there is a surplus in this country.

there is a surplus of food, of everything. yet there are scott -- there is scarcity for the people on the bottom. that is not a system that is going to work. we have to change it fundamentally. in the depression, people were going hungry. later they were doing it to keep the price up for farmers, for the big farmers. this is not a rational system. we have to replace it. [applause] >> my passion in activism starts in the heart of my community and my community is the shelter, the street, rehab. my baby step is to get condom

dispensers on the side of garbage cans. that will keep hiv down. it will put protection in the hands of the people. queenie to cut out the middleman. i would like to give a pension plan for workers. this will decriminalized the operations of the tenderloin sex workers and keep the community safer, healthier and more wholesome. if they follow the social model that is where we need to start. we need to start in the heart of the people in the community. >> want to make sure we address some of these questions. the question out diversity, i asked that question and i was told that clarence thomas was invited d could not make it.

[laughter] about the shelter, i have no idea. i think the problem is there are more spaces for women in san francisco than there are four men. i think that is the reason why men are given the space here. i am not positive. we will have to find out. >> i am with the freedom socialist party. we are also running a candidate for president. i know, mr. anderson, we have the people freedom party and you're trying to get on the ballot. as you are aware our party and another socialist party was kicked off by the secretary of state for no reason. we are appealing it. can youddress the fact that you have to be a millionaire to run for office in this country and the fact that socialists are being discriminated against.

we cannot collect socialism but we need to advocate for it in a democratic system. if anyone wants to speak on the tactical strikes, i would be interested in what you have to say. >> i want to clarify that clarence thomas is has nothing to do with the supreme court skype. that is the guy we wanted to speak here. he is a black man from the south. he is a labor activist. i thought i would clarify that. can i say one more thing? we're talking about trying to get people behind an issue. recent the california public utilities commission allowed pg and e to install smart meters. if you do not want them, you have to pay $75 up front and $10 a month. that covers everybody in california and around the world

i mean the country. i think that is an issue we can t behind. they are very dangerous. there are intrusive. etc, etc. >> i want to make a suggestion for the first step in taking power back, to take your money and of all the commercial banks and move it into a credit unions and community banks and corporations did not get big on their own. they got big because we pay them. we gave them my taxes. we give them whatever money and that we needed to at the time. change your phone company put your money where your heart is. >> could i respond to that? the oakland education association, representing the teachers in oaknd, has a

campaign against the banks. they are saying, but the banks have taken all this money from us and they're closing the scho so our children cannot get an education. there have been demonstrations at banks saying make the banks pay for education. one of the things they're saying is, before there are any cuts in education, we should not be paying a penny of interest to the banks and to the bondholders, the people who buy these bonds. i think that is an important thing. we should say before any cuts to housing or student assistance, there should be a

refusal to pay any interest to these criminal banks. >> this is for margaret, one of the republican candidates voiced a wish to repeal the national health plan as one of the first moves. i am wondering what you would recommend for us to do to avoid that ever happening. a repeal of the national health plan, how can we avoid that? >> i do not think they're going to repeal it. this was a giveaway to the insurance companies. that is a campaign rhetoric. the fact is that it is not going to go far enough. we need to replace it with a single payer health plan. [applause]

>> wanted to ask what -- how you would define progressive. he claims he is a progressive. everybody seems to be progressive. what does that mean? how did rose aguilcky anderson yet to be mayor of salt lakeity -- debt to be mayor of salt lake city. >> i used to be accused of trying to turn salt lake city into san francisco. my response was, that would be pretty damn cool. >> this concerns obamacare. there are problems on obamacare.

i am sure margaret would agree with some of that. one of the problems with abortion, the catholic church, th problem with the mandate which he signed in december, hhs secretary, this goes further than abortion. it isbout religious freedom. its not about the catholic church only. anyway i know people -- we have some of the bk healthcare services and san francisco. >> we need another hour to tackle those questions but why don't we do -- there were some many. why don't you address what speaks to you and try to be brief. >> i will go ahead.

i want to address the woman who talked about the peace and freedom party and other minor parties. i do not like to talk about them as minor parties. i think they are so important to our system. the secretary of state has denied a number of candidates, including two at of the four who have sought to be on the primary ballot. without giving any reason. regardless of whether we support any particular party we should be demanding that there be commodations for these parties so that we have greater choices. it is almost impossible for a party to get on the ballot of several states including california. the hoops you have to go to are unbelievable. i think for greater democracy we ought to have one federal

standard that allows parties to get on the ballot, independent candidates to get on the ballot. and that the major candidates not just from the two parties the major candidates, those the american people want to hear from, ross perot ralph nader patrick buchanan, they be allowed on the stage during those debates, during the general election. it is not well known that the presidential debate commission was the creation of the republican and democratic parties. they have complete control over it. they will not allow other parties to be represented. we deserve better than that. >> i would like to address

correct misconceptions. i am not telling people not to vote. a record -- i do not recommend you vote for a corporate party. we want to show them they cannot take their base for granted. i am talking about resources. i worked in the single payer activism. i was a congressional fellow. there were a number of progressive candidates democrats that ran on single payer platforms. when they got into congress, would not mention the word. no matter how much we pushed, they caved in to the leadership. that is the system we have. leadership twists arms, withholds positions, whatever they have to do to get members to do what they want them to do. it is not about who we elect, it is about changing the stem. go ahead and vote but let's

build a movement first. how do we do that? democratizing the economy. there are a couple of resources for you. there is an excellent book called america beyond capitalism. it gives you a concrete steps of things we can do. have a web site called itsoureconomy.us. you can search any of the things, public banks, and it will bring up resources for how we can do this. we are organizing our next steps. there are flyers for now d.c., the occupation in d.c. this spring. we will have a social form to teach people the skills they need to go into their counities to organize and build altertive institutions. i hope we will see you there. as far as the -- one other point i wanted to make, the vermont workers. there were actors to get a

single pair. when there was a lot of focus on the national legislation they ignore that in vermont. they knew it would not be a solution. they built a grass-roots movement and elected a governor that supported a single payer and got one of the best health bills in the country. that is what you can do if you focus on building a movement. that is why we should be doing. [applause] >> someone mentioned about the hope and change things. i often thought people who were disappointed in obama were not paying attention. he has not been that much worse than he said there w. there were better candid it's available. the people did not take that option. ralph nader, i mention him earlier, i'm going to mention

him again. he advocated challenging obama. bernie sanders a advocated challenging obama. i can think of no two people who have careers built on noteing democrats. they advocated challenging obama in the primaries because they recognized he might be bad but their worst possible. it is out there. i have tried to make the argument that stands we make that are satisfying morally or fizzle -- philosophically might not be effective politically. i made the analogy to the labor movement. back when jimmy hoffa was the head of the teamsters, they did not, much worse than him. people did not say how can you be with that guy? people were in the movement because it was a vehicle to do something about their lives. they did not see there was

another option. there was not at that time. when jesse jackson ran in 1984 for the democratic nomination, everybody understood what that was about. he was going to try to take the fight to the convention. he was going to do something the most effective way he saw, not turn it over to the republicans but challenged the democratic party. unfortunately, in 2004, when dennis to senator gramm -- -- ran. we look to the other way. i was serious when i said we should think about 2016. i was not being rhetorical. thinking about what i would say it struck me we have to do something in advance to fight

for a candidate who might not win in the method that made sense and does not give us something worse. if i might brow the phrase for a moment, we might want to think about occupying the democratic party. , thank you. >> i think the occupy has been a tremendous event. its not the be all and all of the people's movement. we cannot tell what is going to happen what kind of movement is going to break out of nowhere. what kind of rebellion is going to take place in the united states.

this is like a tinderbox, the uned states. it is ready for an explosion. we cannot tell what is going to happen. we cnot predict exactly how to go but i think there is a lot of ways we can contribute to building power at the local level, building power at the national level. the occupy movements have been coordinated. when there was a struggle in washington there was an occupy saying let's go to where the company is headquartered. the st. louis brothers and sisters were ready to take action. that ship had come in. when we didhe port shutdown we had occupies doing solidarity

action. this is a new phenomenon. it is very hopeful. i think this movement is going to grow and grow and grow until it becomes a strong enough to challenge the capitalist state. [applause] >> we have about five minutes left. your final thoughts on the most effective thing that the audience can do to create change. what i've been hearing talking to people on the streets is that they are fighting hard to maintain the status quo and e status quo was so bad. i interviewed a teacher the other day who teaches people's history. it is now banned in tucson, arizona.

he cannot afford dictionaries for his classroom. they are bringing food to feed his students. what is most effective? if you could implement one policy change tomorrow, what would it be? rocky? >> 1 policy change. it would have to be getting jobs back in the country. there are far too few people without jobs. we have to give people a decent shot and a tax structure that works, that will build up the middle class like we did from the 1930's and 1940's all the way until things started going to hell with president reagan and the restructuring of our tax system to the benefit of the wealthy. we just need to put on pressure

and keep it up. don't get excited around election time. keep up the pressure in every possible way. that does not mean writing letters to congress to people who do not read them. it is getting in their face. how many people are going to be there when president obama shows up to the fund-raiser in san francisco? are people going to get out there and surround the building and let him know hownhappy w are with the corruption, with this perverse system where these people end up having their way with the government at our expense? i say show up in every way possible including in our electoral system. [applause] >> i do not think w are at a stage where we will see a change

until we build a movement to make it happen. i agree that if there was one thing, creating a green energy in the economy, rebuild our infrastructure create real jobs. instead of corporate welfare use our public dollars to invest in our own nation. if there are profits, let them go to theeople of the country not to be 1%. that is something we can do. we have to be aware that the conversation going on among the candidates is a false conversation limited by what their corporate funders allow them to say. the real conversation is happening in the community. come together and start having these discussions. figure out how you're going to provide health care for each other. order the needs in your community? how you create a cooperative

businesses to meet those needs? that is how we're going to change this country. >> i am not sure if it is one thing, but as a broad area, what i think the most important change could be is for us to and our ve foreign wars, close our foreign bases cut our military budget by 3/4 and use the money for the things we have discussed tonight. [applause] >> i second that. i would say we need a new wpa. a new federal jobs program. in the great depression, the wpa was created and it created government jobs that employed 8 million people. if you compared that to the number of people whore

unemployed today, it would be 30 million people. we should have a new wpa of jobs and employ everybody who wants a job and does not have one. the second thing we need to empty the prisons. this is outrageous. i do not know people have read this book, "the new jim-crow." she she describes the systematic imprisonment of african american and tino people. besides that, the use of the fbi and ice to create fascist-like conditions employing local police departments to do their dirty work. those things have to be changed.

those would be my three. empty the prisons. employ the people who are in them. do away with ice and the fbi. [applause] >> to add another book, "the operators." this young reporter was 29 when he wrote the article for rolling stone that brought down general stanley mcchrystal. the book is amazing. if you want to know why this country is in all these military adventures overseas, you have to read this book. it is about some much more than money. michael hastings is having a hard time getting media attention, because he writes about national w correspondents who are paid by liberal hawkish think tanks. it is a must-read a book. there is also a great website.

we did not spend much time talking about military spending. military industrial complex dot com -- unbelievable. we are talking about huneds of millions of dollars every day that even the alternative media hardly talks about. every day these contracts are given out. there is a list of these companies and what they do. that is another good resource. thank you so much, roger d. anderson margaret flowers, and the rest. thank you for coming. [applae] >> and thank you to rose, who was a fantastic moderator. this forum was recorded. please check on our web site next week. e mindful of the shelter at the end of the hall. please take your conversations directly outside. thank you for entertaining a

diversity of opinions tonight. we hope we see you again. have a safe night. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> you have your contact information on the website >> i will send it out to my list. these people who came here -- you have not posted it yet. >> she is your mom? you have a great mom. thank you. >> its a whole diversity of tactics. anyway, it is good to see you. >> you, too. thank you.

>> i do not know how many times i had to hold myself. it is amazing how it has gotten. i just sent her an e-mail last week telling her this is going to be a really good discussion. >> it is nice to see you. how are you?

speaking on why he believes rick santorum will end -- will win the next primary. >> the case for sandor rahm rests around etiology, demographics and demographics.

-- ideology and demographic. the republican party is not as conservative as the media would have you believe, but still, in most states, about 1/3 of the people who show up at republican primaries or call themselves coervatives are not of the tea party variety -- in republican primaries. yodo not see overwhelming majorities in favor of that. nevertheless, there is that base of people who are extremely conservative, extremely angry and what someone who will both give a principal challenge t president obama and a spirited one. they are firmly against romney. they are determined to pick someone who is not romney. that is one of the reasons you have seen so many lead changes. right now, rick santorum is the

newest anti-romney. that willrovide a base for him in michigan. even if he is not to win it will be substantial. given the breakdown of how michigan selects delegates by congressional district and the breakdown of michigan voters, even if romney were to win michigan santorum would get almost as ma delegates. he is likely to sweep the streets outside the detroit metro area. that would even him with from the in delegates even if from a were to prevail. second, demographics. michigan has a reputation of being a moderate and industrial state. that works in favor of romney in some respects, but could work in favor of santorum if his blue- collar strategy has traction. which is to say that rick santorum's appeal primarily right now is to a strongly conservative, particularly

religious conservatives. and they dominate outside the detroit metropolitan area. the western part of the state is dominated by the dutch reformed church which is highly evangelical, highly conservative on social issues. much of the rest of the state has strong evangelical presence, even if it is not the dutch reformed variety. he has this base that is not well known but is very present in michigan politics. you have santorum's argument that he can bring manufacturing back. most of the country has mov on from the 1950's in terms of its reliance on manufacturing but michigan has not. michigan remains a state where almost 13% of the workforce is in manufacturing. hundreds of thousands of people have lost manufacturing js in the last decade. manufacturing is real. memories of it being strong are

recent. michigan does not have party registration. if there is this appeal where the santorum campaign can attract blue-collar manufacturing-oriented democrats and independents, they will show up in michigan. if they do not show up in michigan, it is a good sign that despite campaign rhetoric it is not a successful electoral strategy. the third question is personality. unlike virtually everyone else who has challenged romney, santorum despite his lapses into moralism, isomebody who presents a sunnier personality that newt gingrich -- a more consistent personality than newt gingrich clearly intelligent unlike rick perry and not prone to bombast, as some of the other candidates. he may not beat romney. but the combination of his

personality, the republican party base into the toward romney and the demographics of michig make a strong case for why he has a good shot. >> that was actually less than five minutes. we're going to turn to michael barone. michigan is his home state. he was years ahead of mitt romney in school. >> that is right. mitt romney and i both grew up at the grassroots of american politics. initt romney's case, it was thfairways of a country club. his father worked his way up. but he was doing pretty well in the demographics when he was growing up. it is interesting that when you go back and look at the primary results that we have had, and also at the 2008 primary results, the one thing mitt romney always does best -- the

most affluent areas in republican primaries. the bloomfield hills have definitely turned out for him. it is when you get down to birmingham you have some problems. why is mitt romney going to win? i would say first -- my first reason would go to what henry calls personality. rick santorum has been making unforced errors, in my view. they make him look like a weak general election candidate even to, i think, many people who share his ews on issues. he accused last week barack obama of having a phony theology. that is not really an argument you want to get into. he has come out against pre little testing -- prenatal testing, an issue which has not been big on the stump. volunteered last october and continues to insist that contraception is immoral

putting him at odds with most married people in the country and he is opposed to having states set school curriculums. as i have followed, to some extent, rick santorum around the trail, he relishes these kind of confrontations. in new hampshire, he scheduled on a busy campaign day in college convention in concord that was not even new hampshire people where he debated for more than an hour the issue of same-sex marriage. against some clueless people in the college crowd. he gave what he thought or convincing arguments which actually are not tt convincing he lets peripheral issues takeover. i think that is going to be a problem for a lot of reblican primary voters, who are looking toward a general election, thinking about how they can win understanding that they and otr voters have mostly been concerned about economic issues

, about the vast expansion of the size and scope of government which they oppose. we get into arguments about contraception? i think that is a problem for rick santorum. second, i think romney will make some headway in michigan, because he is focusing more and will have more of an opportunity to focus on the economy and spending. when rick santorum was on "face the nation" this last weekend schaefer said at the end "sorry we did not have a chance to talk about the economic issues," at a time when economic issues arably heavily favor republican candidates. i think mitt romney will have a chance to do that. i think specifically one area that is deemed by many to be an area of liability for him in michigan -- his opposition to

the obama administration bailout of general motors and chrysler, or has he puts it, bailout of the united autoworkers. we have to remember the michigan republican electorate is, by and large, not a uaw electorate. it is an anti-uaw electorate. i think to a considerable extent it still is. romney has a serious criticism which he supplied consistently, to what the obama administration has donen illegally confiscating the property of bondholders of chrysler and general motors and giving it to his political patrons and paymasters, the united autoworkers. i think that also gives him a spring board to attack -- and i do not think he has done it so far really effectively but he has laid the groundwork -- to

make the principal case against crony capitalism, for that is what the gm/chrysler/uaw bailout was, to bring into play issues like the $500 billion to solyndra the california company that went bankrupt. the forthcoming failure of the skirt automobile -- fisker automobile. the party of the little people prepared a car that will cost $50,000, assembled in delaware, the vice president's home state. it looks like that country -- that company is going the way of solyndra. you are helping the little guy by assisting the capitalists who are assembling a $110 thousand car. -- and $110,000 car.

that is fruit for romney, if he takes the opportunity to take the case. he would focus on an area of vulnerability for the administration. finally, took a look at the 2008 republican primary vote in michigan. 42% of the total votes were cast in what we would now call metropolitan detroit. that is oakland wayne washington, and livingston counties. it used to be a three county area. it has morphed into five or more. the county that casts the most votes is oakland county. the county seat is pontiac. it is where mitt romney grew up, and where he and i went to high school. i have to say i have always had trouble taking him seriously as a candidate because i have a memory of him as a 14-ye-old boy. who was kind of a jerk, the way most 14-year-old boys are

myself included. [laughter] what is not consistent is i am always surprised when i see he was taller than i am. when i left primary school three years ahead of him, he was not taller than i was. oakland county was the number one vote-casting county in the republican prima. it cast 15% of the total. republican voters in metro detroit had to be -- tend to be relatively affluent, more on the upscale side. they may have an ethnic background but it is not significant. these are not the kind of people that rick santorum imagined when he conjures up the image of 1950's steelworkers going to their serbian orthodox or polish catholic church. in the shadow ofhe steel mills, along the clouds of coal dust in the air.

if you go out to a county which is considered to be blue-collar in many ways, it is pretty middle-class. walmart, less walmart, more costco. that is where the republican voters are. if you look at the 2008 election result romney beat mccain in those five counties by a 45% to while bringing the rest of the state. metro detroit is going to be a plus for mitt romney. it just to close with a prediction about what the media will cover which will be a non- story. the media always wants to cover michigan as the blue- collar states. it gave always been looking for

that alliance of blue-collar whites and black voters that they saw in the southern politics in the brilliant book where he hopes that will happen someay waiting in the south. in the 1988 primary they wrote that michigan was a blue-collar white plus a black thing because jesse jackson won. if you look at the data, he carried the to black majority in the congressional districts. he carried all of the district's but none of the metro detroit districts were blue-collar automobile workers. how did he carry out state districts? he had local organizers in michigan's who got buses from the

black churches. he was sending all the black of battle creek but people to the third congressional district where they dominated. it was a combination of black voters and a graduate school proletariat -- in the graduate school proletariat. i think the president will be looking for the blue-collar factory worker guy getting out the shift at 3:20 and going into a bar to cash in his pcheck. i do not think that will beat the typical voter. >> any rebuttal? >> romney needs to be able to appeal not just to people in bloomfield hills he does that well. it is the one constant. he need to appeal to the coso

voter. he seems to be able to appeal to that boater when he is not somebody else but not on his own. the question is whether the negatives that you brought up about bricks santorum will give them another opportunity to not be somebody else with those of middle-class voters. romney typically loses the demographic. if you loo at the exit polls so far, he does particularly well with someone who is 55, drives an american car post-graduate degree $100,000 or more. even in michigan, that is that the majority. he may get the middle income voters. the high percentage is undecided. they are up for grabs. >> i won't disagree too much of

what you say. we can go without the precincts. this is where people are going in the area you are talking about. to some extent this still has to play out. rick santorum has some unforced errors. maybe someone will convince an to talk about the economy and big government again rather than sharing with us his views on sexual behavior which most of us are not all that interested in hearing about. we will see h it plays out. >> thank you very much. now i'm going to turn to norm to talk about some possible split verdict. what is mitt romney wins michigan nearly and as well in arizona.

it appears to be tightening a little. we have heard a lot about unnamed senators and gop elders. ms. daniels fell to have to respond by sing he would not reconsider the decision not to be candidates. he thought the race could go on to tampa. if it is a week victory what do you see next? >> let's start the weakness of the field, the fact that all three of the candidates are worried about the top tier candidates are worried about their home states. for newt gingrich, ga. is a potential problem next week. newt has had serious issues with older voters. they are afraid that he will leave them for younger voters in another state.

romney has doubled down in michigan and keeps talking about the height of trees being just route and how this is his home state and out -- isust right and how realty is to be here. -- about how this is his home state and how thrilled he is to be here. where are the parks? is a part of michigan i have not seen. with santorum, as has happened to all these other candidates who have risen and found infatuation with groups of voters once you get serious cursing those problems emerge. -- scrutiny, those problems emerge. it poses difficultiesor anyone sweeping through including if romney escapes a terrible series embarrassment and ekes

out a victory. i should vote on santorum, one of the interesting factors here as he has somewhat more traction in someone who has risen and fallen he has endorsements from exactly two of his former colleagues in the house of representatives. of those currently in the senate, the number is around zero. he has a former colleague who is now back in state office in ohio switch from romney to santorum. unless you can start to build some support among those who served most closely with you and that was a problem for gingrich that is difficult. on the other side, he did get the endorsement of megadeath. what megadeath and pro-life do to get there is beyond me. i am waiting for spinal tap myse. i think the fundamental reality

is given the nature of the nominating process given the fact that while most states it is a winner take all or some variatio, if newt manages to eke out a narrow victory in georgia, and you have four candidates with ron paul staying in the race, it will make romney's task more difficult. while there is no establishment in republican party victim of the pieces in the same way i can imagine a group of people and that means karl rove and a few governors and congressional leers, trying to figure out way to make sure that nobody eats out a bare majority to take it to a convention. that is a long shot. given the monetary advantage

that romney and his super pak will continuto have, the ability to dominate the airwaves and other forms of communications the grass roots organization that he got on the ground across a range of state which will be an advantage as we move to super tueay where you have to communicate simultaneously in large number of states, romney remains somebody with an advantage here over the others. a convention that is open is not out of the question. as we have said, this is not going to be like what we saw to some degree of in earlier decades. i d not even a convention ago some multiple ballots. there were plenty of other conventions where senior figures were able to move the chess pieces on the delegate cou and

on the convention floor. you had a combination of delegate selection res structured to enable profit figures in the state to control those delegions and what was called the unit role. - rule. in state if the majority to a position, all of the delegates were bound to do so. you may remember when john connally was the governor of texas. he could control that. he could go into a smoke-filled room and have something to bargain with. that is not want to happen anymore. if you think about the kind of delegates that will be at republican convention, those who emerged to support ron paul or rick santorum, you are not going to have people who are going to easily be controlled by any figure in the republican party. what it conjures up is that seen in the fal episode of west

wing where in choosing a successor they're fictional precursor to barack obama who was not doing all that well but when dead to get his speech and captivated the convention and totally turn things around. they are speculating on which figures could get up and give a speech in suddenly catch fire on that commission floor. a few nam come to mind. they are not necessarily the ones that would be at the top of the wish list. >> do you agree this goes on until the end of may? >> i think it goes on at least through the middle of april. march does not look good for romney. even if he were to win michigan

comment that is primarily a southern schedule. there is no reason for anyone to drop out. if santorum doesn't start winning primaries i could see that by meay there would be an unstoppable romney. >> i am not sure juggernaut is the right term. i do consider the cross of gold scenario to be far-fetched. you look at the pimm pension, what you see -- when you that the dimensions, you see they are the one place where politicians from different states control blocks of delegates were thought to be able to control its parent.

this is the time before the 1960's when men of business did business by writing letters to each other reading the correspondence dictating replies. they did not make long-distance telephone calls. they did not travel around the country by jet planes and meet at the admirals' club. the only place they could negotiate with the national convention. it has been replaced by a communications medium by such things as direct distance, long distance telephone calls. they came in aut 1955. the delegate count employed by the media organizations for the

first delegate count. they duplicate the communications role of the old convention. you'd have to get rid of long distance internet calls the internet. they're all these things that are taking place. you can imagine this. i think the communications and negotiations that once could only occur in the convention city would be occurring all round us as they have been for more than a year. >> menu you talk about whether there is a way forward for nude in georgia.

there is funding for gingrich already. they claimed that his contributions were no different from george soros. the d.c. going forward? >> i did not discount newt's. what happened to the candidates is that -- i use the analogy is be dating. you get someone across from the table and u are smitten and you find out they served time in prison or were liars or a multiple spouses. somebody pops up until they're beaten down again. for new to is beaten down by his own self-inflicted wounds but also by a massive campaign by romney to do so.

romney is doing the same thing now with santorum. it santorum falters it is a point when romney was unable to close the sale. they're seeking the n myth. i do not think it is out of the question. they have raised the stakes just as romney has sang i am from michigan. newt has said if any of us lose our home state and that included georgia for him, then i do not see how they can continue. the secret weapon may be herman cain who is campaigning vigorously for him. if that is not enough, i think it's sort of fade away. >> any thoughts about georgia or a high-ohio?

>> is to be difficult for knew it. there's a poll out this morning. -- for newt. there was a poll out this morning showing a 3% high. he is much less of a native georgian with home state ties than the other candidates. i do not see a path forward for the nomination. i think what he has described as a path forward to capturing the antimitt vote is not a majority. if it was a majority, we would not be seen the difficulties that we got right now. ohio is a little bit more favorable to santorum that

michigan geographically. it does not have the same reform that will give him western base. the manucturing areas are less likely to get involved. as long as its is within a couple points, i think it will be good for santorum. >> ohio is the super tuesday target for santorum. it is next door to his home state of pennsylvania there is . it is declining demographics.

losing population since the 1960's, this is not the growth area in america. metro pittsburghs the 1 million plus in the area that has more deaths than births every year. he is going after that declining demographic. where it is thisexists is the heartland. i think that will be there. none of these anti-romney candidates have been perfectly pitched to go after a regional or demographics a segment of the population. not as much as mike huckabee was in the 2000 a context. together with -- there is a

greater acquaintance of popular culture newt gingrich -- culture. newt gingrich's four georgiais from georgia because military step father was from georgia. he is not a jimmy carter with roots there they go back before the civil war. mitt romney left michigan and lived in massachusetts for many years. santorum of course has lived in northern virginia. it is a matter of some controversy. we did not have candidates with that regional heft. santorum is tryingo get it. it is not clear to me how

strongly he succeeds or whether that is a big factor in the republican party. it is more of portland predict it is more important in ohio. >>-- it is more important in ohio. >> rummy and santorum are spending more time in ohio. they suggest of their hedging their bets in a way that it santorum loses nearly, if he could win ohio, that could be a big story on super tuesday even if he does not do well. >> this is not pulling any the

other states. romney did well in tennessee. he finished third in a good 2008, building on the affluent areas around ash fell. -- sheasheville. the state's are the heartland of the anti-minute romney boat. if he lost nearly in the midwestern states, i think that would be a win for him. >> he is not get virginia since he is not on the ballot. santorum is not a perfect cultural match for that southern vote that mike huckabee really

was. it was this catholic that is really sectarian in his posions. the religious wars are over. they can pay for those differces. it strikes me that what we're looking at here intern's a santorum being ahead is something that is probably pretty thinly base rather than based on strong convictions or total revulsion against romney. >> is still as a path forward if he does very well. >> elise the past forward to staying in the race. if you were to win oklahoma and he were to win tennessee and do well and ohio, he might win a couple of the caucus states. he could come out with as many state victories.

>> idaho is 25%. there are some states lay in the game. we do not know when the texas primary will be. you have santorum just lumping romney. santorum is at least a viable candidates. in california, it you think on the surfa would be run the territory. -- would be romney territory. he can imagine santorum pulling off a significant share of delegates. if you look at michigan and ohio, and santorum survives in does a little bit better, that enormously complicates the path to winning a nomination. >> if santorum as well in the

south, there is nothing that the campaign calendar does not start to turn in his favor. people were talking in february. february books of good for romney. how's that going to turn out? he lost the three states that mattered. romney will not do well in the evangelical and southern states. he will have the organization to come through. it santorum rather than gingrich makes a sweep that would give him a lot of momentum into april. >> i agree with you with california. i do not think it is particularly gd for santorum. texas certainly is a field that is open to santorum.

>> i want to turn to your questions. there is a microphone. please, raise your hands. i want you to ask questions about money. this morning they said that romney race $6.5 million in january. how much ds money matter in this race? >> for romney, if it was not for his personal wealth, i think you'd be in very serious trouble. this has been an attempt to maxed out donors. there are limits to those that can only do it once. i suspect tt if he does not do well, at that the money will begin to dry out. he will have to turn to his own to supplement that.

he is out raced of others. he can tap into that again and again. did there are some limits. there are not a huge number. there are some limits. he cannot use it for grass-roots organization are building their campaign offices. it's very expensive. if romney were not an individual wealthy person, you could say that he would be operating on an edge right now. more than likely he will have to tap into it. it it is important to recognize that it does allow candidates to stay in the race long bear in to avoid being completely drowned out by what has been happening otherwise.

santorum has been kept alive by others. we have not talked about the congressional races at all deite these polls. there's a lot going on in the senate state. if you saw in the paper today how they have put a huge sum of money into american crossroads, which is the 5 01c4. we do not know the others. they're putting a lot of money. it is going into negative ads. we're going to see a big impact here for money.

>> your questions tax/ >> we have heard a lot of predictions that romney was likely to do a harsh attack. how is that developing at this time? to you think it is a wise choice of strategy? >> i think you have to at some level. you can watch and see as the scrutiny increases. some of that is raising some doubts. we are seeing it play out. a lot of this is there other kinds of activities that are not quite as visible. leaflets, robert shiller calls and other ways. it is not -- robocalls and other ways. although santorum is saying a

lot of this that would be the problems in the fall campaign, i do not think the problems with the voters are the ones he are aiming for. the fact that he supported these remarks, i do not think these will resonate with the voters. they are hearing the message they want to hear. that is one that just does not seem to fit as much. >> i tend togree with norm. i think the negative campaigning and psibilities are less than the war again some of the other candidates. it seems to me brick santorum is providing him a lot of ammunition. he is unable to resist the temptation to come with issues.

i disagree a little bit. they may draw the conclusion. i think they will figure out ways to make the argument here and a look at the exit polls they said they want the candidates who wins in november's. i think these primary voters do not see this as an ideological contest.

>> when we met a month ago it is all about romney versus gingrich. now it is all about romney versus santorum. i'm not criticizing your ability to predict the race. what does it tell you about the republican voters that this year is so hard to actually line out the script for the race? >> one thing is to be a logical difference between the candidates are not as wide. there are some differences on

issues. these are not, with the exception of newt gingrich, these are not people who have been major figures in public life over a long time or who have strong profiles that way. they inspire strong and lasting feelings. they do not have strong preferences among candidates. >> i do think it shows that a strong segment of the republican party does not want to nominate mitt romney. they will find someone to hang their hopes on. it also sws that mitt romney has not yet been able to present a compelling reason why he should be the person,

particularly with respecto why he should be the person to champion republican ideas and distinction to obama. republicans wanted to beat obama becae they do not like his ideas. romney has had three months to say the person you represent your values has not been able to do that. nothing has suggest that he has been able to do that. as long as that is the case, it remained volatile. >> no. not said anything about president obama. >> he has had three of the best months of his presidency. he is no longer alienating his

face. he is hitting his speed with talking about the sort of concern that middle americans are interesting in. he's running against three years of disconnected the voters. he is successfully controlling the agenda when it is in his interest to do so. he is saying the theme is the winning team for democratic coalitions. is doing pretty well. >> >> he is not have to face a challenger. there was an enormous amount of discontent. there is his continuation and many o the wars on terror, iraq

and afghanistan. they felt that he did not support a lot of the positions. avoiding that has been a huge plus for him. this has not been note is very much. having said that, we have not seen volatility like this. it is not unlike anything we have seen before. not to give us some humility and

caution about making any linear projections ahead. pour obama having three good months with an economy showing some signs of green shoots, in a world where his fate is beyond his own control i have said here before and i will repeat it if i m barack obama, i will not be sleep or the two words romney or santorum. i will lose sleep over the two words angela merkel. what happens in europe, and as i look at this new rescue package for greece was to demand even more austerity which will put them into a deep depression, which means a lot be able to come up with any ability to get out of it, it is the downward spil where you lot higher interest costs and less ability to pay for them that postpones the day ofeckoning. you can imagine a global economy taking a serious hit.

godden knows what happens with iran whether we gets the streets) it could turn around on a dime. the challenge speak candidates in raising the benefits. none of that may matter if we are in a depression or the people cannot get gas any price. >> i think they made some very good observations about the potential volatility. we've got situationsith iran, europe, a gas prices could go up at a high for this time of year. we saw political opinion change in 2008 with gas prices going to $4.

i sense in some of the mainstream media coverage a great sigh of relief that the economy grew at a 2.8% growth rate in the last quarter of the year. obama's job approval has gone up from 46% 249%. -- 46% to 49%. these are small changes but potentially decisive. i get a sigh of relief. people will love the economy. it is not the only one.

others point in a political direction. 2.8% growth sounds nice. one of the 1983 quarter's before ronald reagan was 7.8%. that is a whole lot different. correct the of time for one final question. right here in the center. >> i am from the australian financial review. it haseen discussed. it is this assumption that it will be tested in the election. but also be used separately.

>> i think the economy is improving. it is not improving rapidly. i think obama is finally hitting scenes that we to put together a coalition that is not just speak to the democratic party but speaks to the independencets as well. >> the labor party is taking lessons from the republican party at the moment. we always look at and incumbents raised as to whether it becomes a referendum on the performance in office or a choice. i see a lot of a parallel with 2004 were george w. bush had

serious problems with a sagging economy. it made it an unpalatable choice. i think whether it is a mitt romney are rick santorum are sarah palin and whoever it might a marriage that you will see a major effort to turn this into a choice. it'll be very tough. if you're mitt romney in new win a nomination, you will want to play on the antipathy that people feel toward obama. this could be a scorched campaign would to be great for national unity. >> i do not agree with anything they say. i find myself going along with that. let me say my footnote to that. president obama gave a gift to

his rich fund-raisers. he canceled the keystone pipeline. it was a policy that makes no rational sense. he once domestic energy supply. the candidate was not domestic but it is the next best thing. we have not been at war with them in quite a long time. we are not likely to be so in the future. this was they looked rich liberals. if the c $5 and gas, we may hear a lot about the he some pipeline. -- if you see $5 gas, we may hear a lot abouthe keystone pipeline. it was by me predicted by his supporters. i am not sure he needs to raise

more than me is raising in order to put on an effective campaign in finances local efforts. -- and finance those local efforts. he has been frank to it with the keystone pieplant with his decision on the reason health care mandate. i think there is the potential for some rough sledding there. >> thank you for coming. we will back on march 21. we hope he will join as them. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> c-span's road to the white house coverage continues next tuesday with primaries in arizona and michigan followed by the washington caucuses on march 3. march 6, super tuesday. you can go online and watch the latest political video of republican presidential candidates and president obama on the campaign trail. you can watch for videos of the candidates' views on major issues. all of that at c-span.org/ campaign2012. >> it is our cause to dispel -- hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will resolve itself into a world of

harmony if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the force of aggression and this is hogwash. [applause] >> as candidates campaign for president this year, we look back at 14 men who ran for the office and lost. go to our website to see video of the contenders who had a lasting impact on american politics. >> this is also the time to turn away from excessive preoccupation overseas to the rebuilding of our own nation. america must be restored to her proper role in the world, but we can do that only through the recovery of confidence in ourselves. >> c-span.org/thecontenders. >> in a few momes, a look at the political unrest and violence in syria. "washington journal" is live at

7:00 with segments on women's issues campaign spending and the most powerful people in washington. >> several live events to tell you about this morning. the woodrow wilson international center hosts a discussion on the middle east and u.s. foreign policy. that's on c-span 2 at 9:30 eastern. here on c-span, president obama will be among the speakers at the ground breaking ceremony for the smithsonian national museum of african-american history and culture. our campaign coverage continues with the mitt romney rally in chandler arizona. that state's pry summary next week. -- primary is next week.

now a discussion of the political unrest and violence in syria. a panel of scholars hosted by george washington university says the international community has no good options in syria but the government continues to suppress protesters and -- this is an hour and a half. >> my name is marc lynch. i'm the director of the institute. we're here to talk about the center of the policy community, the academic community and politics in the region for the last few months.

it has really posed a devil of a problem as we watched a peaceful uprising turn into something brutal. we tried to figure out how to respond to the escalating blood bath. in order to try to discuss this from the inside from the syrian perspective, not from washington's perspective, i brought together and i'm delighted to be able to have brought together three of the leading scholars of syrian politics to give us some insight into the dynamics of syria's uprising, where it came from where it might be going and how the regime is responding. we will speak in the order that you see my colleagues and friends down the table. our first speaker, we have bassam haddad. he is the founding editor of the arab studies journal and

most recently, they see -- he is the co-founder of an online journal. he has written a number of editorials on syria. he recently published a particularly interesting essay called the idiot's guide to fighting dictatorship while imposing military intervention. sorry thambings long title. our next speaker is salwa ismail. she has written two of what i believe to be the very best books about political islam in egypt, particularly in cairo and she has also spent a great deal of time living and working in syria. she in fact was in syria from november 2010, until the end of may this year and had some

first hand experience with the evolution of the protest in damascus. she has a new article out called "syria's uprising" in the journal studies of nationalism and has i think quite a bit more coming out on syria in the months and years to come. finally, steven heydemann. he previously directed the center for democracy at georgetown university. he taught at columbia university and they see ow thorough to have book autho rinch antarism in syria." i think to this day is the single best short resource in understanding how arab regimes have responded to challenges which they faced from below. i've asked each of our speakers to speak for about 10 minutes

and then i will ask them questions from the podium and we'll have some dialogue back and forth for a while and then i may have a few remarks of my own to contribute. i usually do and then we'll open it up to questions from the audience but for now bassam, the floor is yours. could you come to the podium? it is easier for the microphone and camera. >> thank you all for coming. thanks, marc, for putting this together and inviting us to this discussion. i am hoping that the best part of the discussion will be actually the discussion afterwards, the q & a. it is perhaps absolutely impossible for me to say anything that i would like to say in 10 minutes because it is a very short time. so what i will be doing is

touching on the four things they prepared to discuss in almost bullet point form starting with the caveat that as we all know, uprisings are complex. however, this is particularly complex, especially because it plays a role in various historical struggles in the middle east and it is at the heart of a lot of these intersecting conflicts. this explains to a large extents the protracted nature of the uprising and the undesirable nature of nearly all tradeoffs that one can come up with today. so we are no longer looking at what is a better outcome or solution than the other. we are looking at what is less horrible and we are doing so. if we are not doing so, i think we will be in a fair amount of

disillusionment as to what is going on inside syria and around syria. i will pose four questions and try answer them, which is an impossible task and the questions are, what explains the uprising in terms of a structural effect? what is key in other words? what explains the resilience of the regime? why is there a stalemate and then where are we going? i will start by the structural effect or causes of the uprising. i will not talk about all the causes, of course. i will focus on one key structural element that is usually diluted by all of the politics and major stakes that most people have in this conflict. that is basically the question or the answer for me is the issue of what i call dual polarizeation. it is very much what i have

researched. we have in syria historically over the past 25 years at least, reform or change process led by the regime and its partners which is a select group of private sector moguls. we have two kind s of polarizeation in the syrian society. first, between the haves and the have nots. i cannot -- at this point but it is polarized society between rich and poor if you will that is unprecedented in syria's history after the 1950's and it also polarized society in regional terms where most of the investments took place in the city and the urban quarters especially the major metropolitan cities including damascus at the expense of the countryside.

this is a development that is post 1986. what we have in effect is two kinds of polarizeations that hit the countryside the hardest and the small cities the hardest in such a way that produced a situation that was literally becoming unbearable in the early 2,000's. after that, that you had a drought that was also extremely severe in syria in the countryside starting in 2003, moving for several years after that which caused at least the migration from the countryside to the cities of at least 1.2 million people over several years after 2003 and of course the numbers can be adjusted always according to new finds. most of these smaller cities and towns that absorbed or tried to absorb this migration had a lot of trouble doing so.

on the coast at some level. damascus was better equipped and has higher standards of living for families able to withstand this migration. they were able to hold up a little bit more. after that, the effects of the iraqi capital boosted damascus on real estate and other matters before it actually -- started to cause problems later on at the end of the decade. we have a situation where the countryside was ready to explode. it is no wonder why the uprising is strongest in the countryside, started in the countryside and is most intense for reasons that have to do with the level of discontent that was reached during that time, actually throughout the 2000s. now what i would like to move

to is from this basic understanding of what is key to understanding the uprising, i would like to move to the question of the resilience of the regime. let me just say first that there is -- this is by no means a complex -- sorry, a comprehensive account of the causes but without understanding this particular structural cause it is very difficult to understand what is transpiring and its base nature and so on. so what is causing the resilience of the regime? if you would like sort of a brief response beyond over and beyond a lot of the politics of the situation, we should look at the -- two levels. the regime of course, and society where from the opposition must come. the level of the regime, we have observed over and over that the syrian regime historically and today is far more organic and far more

cohesive and coherent than lot of the regimes in the region. it doesn't mean it is the most but it certainly has this trait where by it is very difficult to separate parts of the regime in syria as you would be able to this egypt. in egypt you have a modicum of autonomy for the economy and other part of the regime and of course this can be debated in terms of the extent to which the autonomy of the institutions of the regime in egypt exists. different parts of the regime when they were talking about bureaucracy, party, services and the top leadership. it is very difficult to try to distinguish between these institutions which makes it very difficult for a solution that is -- to egypt and tunisia. as a result of some internal

bargain usually pushed by the apparatuses, the army or -- in syria, this is literally impossible. at least it will not be effective because the regime is actually one and the same with the institution, with this institution, and it is very difficult to imagine the scenario where the army, certainly not the army but the security services or the republican guard or what have you will come and say to the head of state, as a result of what's happening to avoid -- and to preserve the regime the head of state must leave. this is just not possible in syria because of the organic nature of the rsm regime. tame, this issue of organic leadership or not -- sorry not organic leadership, organic regime structure makes it very difficult to come to compromise and create some gain between state and society. we have in syria to be very brief because i know my

colleague, we'll be discussing at some level, at the level of society, we have a -- syria is a country of various minorities and one larger majority. but if you do the math demographically, which i don't think is always the most productive thing but in response to the course that emphasizes sectarianism, if you do the math, you will find things a lot more balanced than you think. the conspire much more complex. even though state or the regime is -- in constitution, predominantly, it is not necessarily -- policies throughout. we don't have like to south african state where the white population rules. the majority via policy that only benefits the white minority to the exclusion of everyone. whether it is christian chan or

others, those who have developed an interest in the status quo or the regime. these are people that are very cognizant of the fact they might serve better in the regime. whether this perception true or false is another matter. after that sunni merchants and other social groups might have benefited from the regime. at the same time, the society in syria presents problems for collective action on parts of the opposition as we have seen in syria. the opposition for the most part has been able to sfocuss on the main issues whereas the opposition outside syria has actually been very divisive and is actually in my view going to

disintegrate even more with time. >> i'll give you another three minutes. >> thank you, marc. >> we have a very important structural cost for the stalemate which we observe in syria. the third question, what causes it and so on, is certainly structurally -- to this kind of opposition between coherence to have regime and the -- in society and thus problems of collective action but also we have a strategic set of variables that explain the stalemate in syria today. the regime on the one hand from the beginning of the opposition has not gained significant power.

actually has either -- where it is or has dwindled in power. for various reasons. first of all, the regime in many ways has been losing ground in terms of its control. sometimes because of strategic reasons the regime just pulls out of certain territories in order to maximize the effect in territories where it sees conflict rising. it needs to sup press the opposition. a lot of times the regime actually is constrained by the ablete ability to rely on the most loyal forces to deploy -- the opposition from the beginning. the higher up you go in the apparatuses in syria, the more the regime is likely to rely on its offices. the more you go in the 300,000 strong army, the less it is able to rely on its -- officers to shoot civilians.

the regime is losing ground in various ways territoryly but more importantly, if you look at the question of power and you break it down into two kinds, the physical material die mention and the not physical dimension. nonphysical one is undergoing problems. this is not something that we can completely assert. it is less important. the nonstructural or nonmaterial dimension of headquarter is the question of authority. the regime is no longer able to govern all of syria. even in territory where is it has not withdrawn from, it has lost the ability to govern. a lot of people are missing the point. once you are not able to govern, basically you must actually govern by force in ways that are even much more brutal than in the past 40

years where the teartorial regime basically considered authoritarian. you have under consideration today where the authority of the regime to actually make things happen, not just preventing you from doing things or shooting at you, but the ability to make things happen has been civil compromised and that is actually very much part of the -- by part of its weakness which is increasing by the week, no matter what people say about the regime. it is holding on. in terms of the power. it is certainly not gaining in power. one thing that allows it to gain in power is foreign intervention and threat. it is one of the keys here. opposition on the other hand is gaining in power in various ways. it is gaining in power in terms of people who are fighting. between coordination and people. actually this is a very tough

dynamic actually whereby for the regime in fact, it is actually in this place where it must respond. its response is producing for -- increasing the power of the opposition which is becoming more trained. whether or not our infiltrators -- and so on, i do agree this is taking place. i think it is extremely exaggerated by the critics. i think most of the opposition locally are fightinging a regime that has suppressed for more than four decades. finally and that is basically what is causing a kind of a stalemate and we'll talk about how this might be broken. finally my last point is where is the joup uprising going? i've said this many times before. that is we are now witnessing the transformation of the syrian revolution or uprising from a legitimate fight against

a dictatorship, against authoritarianism. we have a situation where this is not simply about syria anymore and this makes it very difficult for people who wish to fight the dictatorship that has existed for decades but also are not keen on bringing an alternative that will involve what can be called replacing local dictatorship in syria with a regional dictatorship run by saudi arabia and the united states which have always pushed for authoritarianism. recently, the last accomplishment of this problematic ack axis is to crush the on zphigs ba rain in the name of i don't know what. -- opposition in bahrain in the

same way i don't know what. thank you. [applause] >> ok. i'm pleased to be here. thank you very much marc, for inviting me. i wanted to perhaps pick up from where -- on some of the issues raised by bassam but i would probably be bringing up a slightly different narrative. i'm giving a presentation next month and i'm looking at boast cairo and damascus. i will just speak to the

damascus part. i'll let you know what i'm trying to do here. basically i want to deal with a number of questions that emerge in the geography of the -- the one set of arguments that have been put forward, one is sunni protests and how is address this to some extent. it will debt crisis, a peripheral uprising is taking place on the periphery. i think this is an argument put forward by bam -- bassam which i will differ. it seems to me there is much emphasis so much of the account presents this as the sunni rising. this is expected -- the sectarian conflict. i would disagree with that.

on the surface it appears -- if we look into other dynamics, for instance, if we focus on the urban setting, we see that it was by virtue of patterns of movement of population movement, a rural urban migration in cities like damascus, there is a question like why is damascus kauai yet? i would say it is not -- kauai yet. i would say it is not quiet at all. and the -- as well. we also find a great engagement with the uprising on part we can refer to as -- on the edge of the city, particularly the -- two of the corridors for

instance, in the north. these are on the northern gate of damascus. these are also been on the forefront of the uprising. if you google them or look at facebook, you'll see people in the hundreds of thousands going out every single day. today we still have -- students going out for demonstrations. they have evening demonstrations. these are largely peaceful. the army is now providing some protection in some of these areas. in the third area, just what is referred to as rural damascus, really on the edge of damascus. these are the -- of damascus. much of this has been urbanized

and we have seen great movement. damascus has 20% of its original inhabitants. we can differ on the numbers but 50% of places or 25% are -- and this has played an important variable. part of the explanation why we see movement in those places, people know each other. community networks. that has made it easier for them to mobilize. so here we are tweag actually talking about lower -- actually talking about lower middle classes as well as middle classes. their position is not against the regime. it is not for economic reasons that bassam talked about.

i picked two quarters in damascus. these are in -- 1986, for instance, i'll give you an example, 1986 -- these are two peripheral communities that -- have been brought in or set up, urban establishment that are predominantly -- and they came because they came with army divisions and settled there. they were settled there and particularly if we talk about -- on the land that belongs to people. so there has been conflict. however, of course when you're looking at it, of course you're saying all the -- but historical grudges relating to

-- so and this has to do with the regime. its functions on the basis, basically relies on the military. if the members of the military happen to be be allawi. not perhaps they have been favoring, there are perhaps other economic reasons, many in -- of the villages had to be abandoned. the only avenue of work for them was to join the army. no integration into the urban economy. i must say also, other rural migrants have not been integrated into the economy either. unlike many of the allawis who came to work in the state. the second generation doesn't have work. they get recruited to -- so

these are divisions in the urban sector but we really should look at them as socio-political and economic. there may be some references to -- but on the whole you know, if you talk to the population at large, you will find out that this is not a religious matter. this is a sews you political and economic matter. it is not part of my talk but i just want to say my own reading of the regime, it is functioning on the basis of violence. it did that for 40 years. it has done that against entire population. this has been reasons for oppression of protests but also reasons for uprisings.

the violence that we see today is a continuation of that. so -- what can we say about the other areas where we see mobilization? these are the areas in the rural land. as i said, many have moved there. we're talking here about workshop owners. self-employed in the workshops that have two to three people who are producing for the large merchant but the liberalizeation has hurt them and that has been a factor or variable for them. i think we can say that if we're talking in economic terms, continuing to at least stand on the sides but there has been an ongoing differentiation in merchant classes, middle ranks, lower ranks of the merchants

workshop producers these are all been excluded for a long time. we also are seeing the urban quarters have been margin alliesed and engaged in the economy, also in the regime. so -- i just want to conclude i think, because i don't want to go into a lot of details. arguments that this is a sunni uprising, i think need to -- to look at the forces engaged and what has mobilized them. was it a source of tension between them and allowi? they are on the whole not religious? we need to look at the regime

or you know, there isn't much difference between the regime and the state by virtue of the fact that the regime controls so much. there isn't really a separation or autonomy of any institution and it does that of course through the security services and to some extent the army as we are seeing today. what we need to look at are sociopolitical processes that have been at work for a long time for 40 years and that we are now seeing them as work in really we have populations, the minority some of this population are being used as buffers against the other parts of the population that are engaging in the protests. this also doesn't mean there are no allawis. many of the people engaged in

there many of them are allawis and many of them are jews and so on. they are fearful of what can happen. the regime has represented themselves as guardians against the minority. i'll end by mentioned that one of my contacts, who is organizing demonstrations and so on, in reference to his neighbor who was told at the beginning of -- i heard in april, they were told like you're going to lose your homes and your land because you're your neighbors are going to come and claim it back. what happened is many of the residents came thinking they were defending their homes against the extremist sunni

neighbors. they have funkalized -- functionalized to move people against each other. measure 86 has been established since the 1970's. they would end up by saying life is good, we thank president. at least the older residents. that is not just cliche. it is a sense of gratitude. there is a gift of violence. they were brought for coercion. they will continue to be used. some of the young people are drawn now to suppress

demonstrators. just to go back to the last point i'm making one of my interviewees said they are -- they live in misery like us. they defend the regime which they have nothing in common. they are more in common with us. thank you. [applause] >> thank you marc. my thanks also to marc and to paul and to g.w. for sponsoring this. if you were interested in having two of the really smartest and most insightful analyses to help understand the dynamics of the syrian uprising, you really just heard them today. and i'm going to move us in a

completely different direction. in the division of labor that we established for this panel i decided or it was mutually agreed that i would hold down what i would call the policy end of the spectrum for this discussion of the syrian uprising which is something of a departure for me. i decided that i would focus on u.s. policy responses to the syrian uprising, focusing on where we are now and where we might be headed. and i think as depressing as it might be at the starting point, that is the case that the only reasonable way to frame a discussion of u.s. policy in response to the syrian uprising is simply to acknowledge that the u.s. along with many of the other governments that support the process of political transition in syria, find themselves today in an exceptionally difficult