host: that is our show for today. we remind you that the house budget committee is going on, looking at changes for sequestration. will be happening later this afternoon. thank you for joining us today. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] tomorrow. >> united nations secretary general is here in washington for discussions for the u.s. role in conflict situations. we will have that live at 11:00

eastern here on c-span. congress is back at 2:00 eastern this afternoon after a week- long break. they have a number of suspension bills on the agenda. also, a measure clearing the way for development of the washington, d.c. waterfront. the senate will consider a bill keeping student loan rates from doubling in july. also, a couple of judicial nominations. you can see the house here on c- span. as you heard, the house budget committee will meet to go through a plan to replace automatic spending cuts with alternative reductions proposed by various committees. c-span3. live coverage of the markup sessions at 2:00 eastern. [applause] >> tsksee this week the state

opening of parliament. and recently, the official opening was usually held at the end of the year, but changes have now moved it to the spring. wednesday, queen elizabeth will formally outlined a government priority for the upcoming year. live coverage starts at 8:00 eastern on c-span to. >> the discussion of the 2012 elections and issues impacting the campaign, including the gender gap and the influence of money. joe klein and syndicated columnist richard reeves. lesley stall moderates the event. it is hosted by the new york historical society. s>> good evening, everyone.

and welcome to the new york historical society. i am thrilled to welcome you to our spectacular robert h. smith auditorium. if you have not already have the chance to visit our new installation throughout are renovated space, i hope you will return during the regular museum hours. i would just like to ask, how many people here are members? so instead of asking you to become a member, i would ask you to think about giving the gift of membership to someone very special. i know when i give the gift of membership, people love it, and they are very happy. we also have the children museum that is a great gift. think about that.

if you are interested tonight, stop by and talk to a staff member. it is great to have so many members here. we really love it. politics program is and power, elections 2012. this is part of the bernard and irene f. schwartz distinguished speaker series, which is the heart of the public program. as always, i would like to thank mr. and mr. schwartz for their support, which has enabled us to invite some of the prominent authors and historians to this society. i know mr. schwartz is here. let's hang them. thank you so much. they are the most wonderful sponsors. the program will last an hour and will include question and

answer session, and towards the end of the program, leslie will invite audience members to go to standing microphones in each file where we will have them set up, and we ask you to do this so the speakers on stage and everyone in the audience can hear you. also, programs are recorded in posted online, and we want the listeners all over the world to hear you. on to introducing our wonderful speakers tonight. and leslie stahl has been a correspondent since march 1991. prior to joining 60 minutes, she was cbs news white house correspondent during the carter/reagan/george h. bush presidencies and served as moderator on "face the nation ." is a collection of emmy awards,

including a lifetime achievement emmy given in september 2003 and rode her experiences covering washington and a book reporting live. her latest gig is as one of the hosts of "wow" radio on sirius. also joining tonight's program is joe klein who writes -- writes the weekly political column for "time" magazine. he is a former washington correspondent for the new yorker, political reporter for "new york magazine." it's a two-time winner for best near your column, and author of several books, including "very colors" and "tics lopolitics

lost." he is an author and syndicated columnist. he is the former chief political correspondent of the new"york times." york he has also made six television films. he is one that -- won the george foster peabody award. he is currently working on a book about the internment of japanese and japanese-americans by the united states government during world war iii. i. we are also pleased to welcome back beverly gauge from yale

university where she teaches american political history. she is author of exploded"all street and currently working on "g- man." she has written for numerous journals and magazines, including "the wall street journal" and "new york times." welcome, beverly. before we begin, i ask that you turn off your cellphone come in the electronic devices. cocotte retrieve -- photography is not permitted. please join me in welcoming our guests. [applause]

>> thank you. don't you just love the new york historical society? can you believe we have a panel tonight? i am going to guess that everybody here, and we are filled to the very top appear, you are all political junkies, right? my husband always says the only time anyone ever really knows what they're talking about is when they talk shop talk. tonight we will have the most exclusive shoptalk there is, because we have the most brilliant political thinkers and writers we could gather on this stage anytime, anywhere. can we start with the issue of any quality, class warfare, and the buffet role? [laughter] >i always hear the candidates to bring up an equality issue never

get any mileage out of it. we are so-called aspirational country. i am always baffled by it. i do not understand why it does not get traction. can you discuss the issue of if you think president obama will get anywhere with it? >> let me just say what a relief it is to be here after six months of the road with the republican candidates. and [laughter] [applause] on the other hand, you guys look like a real tea party audience. in the quality is not a big seller in american politics. if you look at the polling data, people are more interested in providing opportunity for people who have not had them then providing money and redistributing wealth in america. however, let me just say that the political spectrum during the last 30 years has tilted so

far to the right, that at this point we have gone beyond questions of redistribution and inequality to issues of simple justice where the wealthiest americans are contributing less and less to the society, and the very idea of progressivity, which came with the income tax in 1913 is in peril. i think there is some mileage for the president here, as long as he emphasizes things in addition to the redistribution of wealth, like the redistribution of opportunity. >> talk about this issue historically. has it ever work? are there times when in the quality is so out of whack that actually has worked as an issue? >> i have been teaching a course

at yale,, but in 1900-1945, and a time when class in the quality have become an issue, they tend to look at 1930's. many of my students have been shocked to look back the progress of area, the first 20 years and look at the kinds of radical challenges and the language this moment the income tax actually came into being as being the moment where that is more in conversation with a source of things we're seeing today. look at the election of 1912, and most of the major candidates, one of those that had a big famous election where you have four candidates. so we have woodrow wilson, which he is the one that one. and [laughter]

theodore roosevelt had already been president and running as the aggressive old news challenger to william howard taft. then you have eugene death. the only election in american history were a socialist has played a really significant role. what is interesting about that election is with the exception of taft, all of the candidates are running with class language and having real mobilization around the issue. the 1930's and of being somewhat different. we all think of franklin roosevelt running around class language in 1932, but especially in 1936. the issue is not as much in the quality, because some of the people are poor that you have this mass experience. i think the interesting parallel because the political language, and also to my great dismay we are actually back in terms of

physical inequality where we were at the beginning of the 20th century. >> at the constitutional convention or the writing of the declaration of independence, john adams got an argument with john dickinson of pennsylvania, and he said, will you never understand that people would rather have the chance of getting rich than face the reality of being for? -- of being poor? >> it is so counter intuitive. i covered of election to just tax the top 1 percent in the state of washington. both bill gates and his father were supporting this initiative to put a surtax on multimillionaire's. it did not pass. i was astonished. >> the thing that is happening

is that over time people have come to see the bigs, the government come up big labor as equally impressive. so there is a fair amount of sentiment out there about feeding the beast of what ever sort. so when people pay their taxes they think they are giving money to poor people, rather than giving money to themselves, which is what they're doing with old age entitlements. >> here is another issue i am confused about. i keep hearing we are a centrist country come in candidates have to pay it back to the center, because that is where we all are. yet you have a republican party that is in no way in the center in terms of other issues. they are clearly out of the mainstream on rolling back 70

years of legislation. >> there are running against the 1960's. >> they are running against the progressive era. >> when you read magazines like "national review" they are reeling about woodrow wilson. >> what did he do? >> [inaudible] >> the idea is he was the birth of progressivism. it is true. i wrote a piece of you years beck wasre glenn tha completely obsessed with woodrow wilson. >> william graham sumner was for many years meritorious.

he was a writer in the late 19th century who wrote an active defense of any quality as a great thing. the poor are where they ought to be and the spokesperson of social darwinism. >> i am not even talking about in the quality. privatizing social security, abolishing the fed. we are a centrist country. how come when all of these issues come up, it is always 50/50 in the polls? it is. >> it is 60/40. >> when you look at democrats/republican is 50/50. every poll is down the middle, whenever the issue is. it is. why do we keep saying we are a centrist country in the candidates have to put it to the middle? >> i think we are a

schizophrenic country. when you look at horse races and personal identification, they would say in terms of -- they are more self-described conservatives and liberals in our country. a great many of those people who were screaming about socialism want to see medicare stay as it is by 8020, by 7030. by a.d. 20 they want to see social security stay where it is. by 1910 they want to see politicians stabilize. i go out to the country and talk to actual civilians on road trips, and they are all astonished at the power we and the media have given the two- party folks. they say -- >> they win elections. >> we know who they are. they show up at the city council

and complain. >> are running congress. >> that is in part because if you give people a choice between nothing and more government, they will choose nothing. past two ook at the elections. by a.d.-20 percent of americans said they were satisfied with the health care they were receiving. -- by 80%-20% american said they were satisfied with the health care they were receiving. so what does barack obama do? he is clobbered for this by the republicans. they have a tramp the 2010 election. what do they do? they come in and try to destroy medicare, which is approved by 80 percent of the country.

where is this coming from? from the democratic base, it needs to close the and democrats in the house. boehner's john paint republicans in the house. >> and from us. i am going to make a point that makes sense. you had said they are running against the 1960's. when you said that, and we got diverted -- i am thinking of them bringing up contraception. >> rick santorum talking about woodstock. they lost again. they think the country went to hell. there should be a column called sex in the 1960's. that is what they talk about. real people talk about it, but

politicians, particularly in states that they believe have a lot of catholics -- catholic voting is not that different, but they think they can -- >> that you? [laughter] >> they still talk about those years. >> can it work? >> i think they're committing suicide. > you look at mitt romney's campaign, and he came out of the box really strong. he was talking about his greatest strength, and the obama's greatest weakness, which was the economy and the notion of managing government. democrats always forget about the m part of omd.

in edging the government they have and making sure they get rid of useless regulations. -- managing the government they have mitt romney had a very convincing campaign, but the first time i have seen it in 10 that presidential campaigns. so embarrassing. mitt romney's speech got worse as he went along come because he was lured away from his strength talking about things like immigration and contraception. the first time contraception came in in a debate, mitt romney said nobody cares about this. yet, rick santorum brings that up, and so mitt romney gets into the thick of it saying rick santorum voted for planned parenthood, one of the few reasons are rational human being would have for liking rick santorum. >> if you listen to what we have

had to say so far, you think obama will walk away with this thing. let's talk -- >> we left out the fact that republicans changed the rules and citizens united came along, which gave us a new political system. it is ripping apart the republican party, and the reason we talk about republicans, they have been running for six months, and democrats have not take a beverly. citizens united. -- >> beverly. >> we are waiting to see what will happen, but there are structural changes that have been ochre rink. not just in citizens united, but are around money and politics and how congress operates and how the parties are structured. really in many ways these are not the driving force of the

election, but as playing a lot of the things we have seen -- explained a lot of the things we have seen over the past four years about what obama can do and not able to do, and why the discussions seem so geared towards particular portions of destruction is some. to the degree of the tea party is trying to get something out of the substantive, it is in that sense of real disconnect. >> when i hear citizens united, i think koop brothers. i do. i think the power of a very small number of people -- i think this is what you are suggesting. >> that was part of the rulings that made the republican candidates they in so long.

in the old days if they did not do well, they did not get money and were gone. >> case in point, newt gingrich. sheldon adelson, the loss biggest casino magnate and single issue patron. he was vehemently for pro- settlements, anti-iran, and shepherd $10 million to keep newt gingrich during the first four-five months of the year. the moment that became apparent was the mom i stopped listening to newt gingrich and admired his creativity in coming up with ideas from time to time. he is very creative about ideas and a complete jerk when it comes to politics. when you have a single payer system like that' -- [laughter]

the problem is if we hold their feet to the fighter cover which we should do more of, they lose credibility. >> i just want to say that history professors across america are very glad that newt gingrich is no longer in the race. [laughter] >> he did not even get tenure at the college. georgia state. >> can we stay on the subjects of the very wealthy being able to put so much money now into the campaign directed toward candidates, have their own advertisements on the air, being able to be so vicious with distorted negative advertisements, and how this is tilting the campaign in a direction in a way that we have not seen before.

>> it is part of a continuing trend. >> the last book i wrote was about how the need to get on the air on television created the need to raise money, created the whole industry of people who told you how to spend the money on television, although the consultants had been going on for a long time. it is citizens united, but if you look at that the democratic party position on wall street over the past 30 years, during which time the financial community has fundamentally distorted american capitalism away from making products and toward making deals, the democrats are complex it. people like bob rubin are not poor. the rest of the crew of democratic and as some bankers who put bill clinton -- helped to fund bill clinton and barack

obama. it is both sides. >> the point is, what about the rest of us? the court has made the decision -- >> it is not just the money, which is certainly alarming and undoes -- if you look back to 1896 and william mckinley is president, that is seen as the first moment of really big money in politics. then you have a century of tried to push back against the spirit of it is not just the money. it is also the lack of transparency. the fact that now people with very innocuous sounding names can funnel money and do not know where the money is going. we do not what sorts of courses are behind this. >> it is not for nothing that

the mckinley campaign was karl rove's favorite campaign in history. [laughter] >> do you all see we will enter an era in which we will begin to push back against this? >> i do. i think the system is breaking as we see it, because the republican party will not united on anything. there will be more and more pressure for a different kind of political system our political rules and regulations or contracts between the republican and democratic party to preserve each other, and when you get to the presidential level, it seems to be the pattern, the new guys always win, whether it is car roll rove or what not, because they're the only ones who read

the rules. they will go to the same campaign again and again. it was so clear. the republicans did not know did not know what the rules work. we elect a proportional representation. the have a long campaign. >> let's talk about some of the issues out there that will really, seriously, influence the way the election will go. the first one is the gender gap. how, when you hear there is a 20. and gap with women siding with obama over romney, you think to yourself, well, romney cannot win. is this a that decisive a number? can romney narrow the gap? >> he can air it some, but he

will not get a majority. >> i have been sliding poll numbers since we started talking. let me criticize myself. one of the things that we overdue in the press is to try to quantify presidential campaigns. they are essentially on quantifiable. issues like the gender gap can disappear in a heartbeat. in my experience, again, economists say -- not over big issue. if the gdp is below 3%, than the incumbent gets kicked out. i do not believe any of that. in my experience, presidential campaigns are about to, sometimes a three guys standing on a stage in october. the general public since it at that point. they're not like you guys.

they're not listening now. they even know who rick santorum used to be. [laughter] you get two candidates. the presidency is the most intimate office we have in this country. the president lives in your house. you see him for the next four years. and people make a gut-level decision about which person is more reassuring and more comfortable to be with. at that moment, at gender gap issues, all of these other issues -- health care, economy, they all move away. economy, too. >> if osama bin law and has been killed two weeks before the election -- osama bin laden has been killed two weeks before the election, he would have won two to one. those things now are more likely to come from abroad. romney has zero knowledge of

foreign policy. and the other guy has been the president. he has had no choice. >> there is one exception to that, by the way. i think. first of all, but one of the key insights i have had in to run the's character is his absolute unwillingness to tell the truth about obama's middle east policy. he continually says that barack obama wants to return to the 1967 borders and israel. full stop. the other part of the sentence is with mutually agreed upon land swaps, which is been the position of every american president since richard nixon. he will not say that. if he persists in line. i cannot think i'm the only journalist who has called him on this. lying.persist in applying

romney, who so far, has not shown the evidence of conflict -- of conscious or honor, decides to demagogue china. that is one area that people are concerned about and the present is not willing to demagogue. >> f romney gets traction on an issue, is it fair to say that obama was not strong enough to come back? why isn't he fighting back? why is that the public listening to him, obama? >> against ron paul? >> against romney. >> you can see that of merging. it seems like obama has been holding back and letting them fight amongst themselves. he is going to step up. this question of the events and events driving alexian's is really a stunning. it is stunning how much longer, how much more we talk about elections now.

it used to be, a 50 or 60 years ago, you nv of the war in july or august. -- you would have found out who they are in july or august. nots those stories that are news stories. the dog on the car, they change so quickly. >> my point is that is still the way most americans experience alexian's. >> right. what things are going to look like in october, of the answer is we will know in october. >> i want to challenge it joe for one second on the idea that it all comes down to the debates and people make their decision when it comes down to debates. what i'm struck by, and maybe it has always been true, that people in the country make up

their mind pretty early. they decide, that is my guy. everything the other guy says is stupid or wrong or is going to hurt of the country. everything my guy says is wonderful or right. this perpetuates by the echo chambers. the voter decides who they will listen to. this is polarization. they are making up their mind now, if they have not already. the number of undecided gets a smaller and smaller. >> in the old days, they did not make up their minds. this got paid. of the fact is that the country is not nearly as polarized as we portray it. it becomes very clear to me -- by the way. when i take these road trips, i will be announcing one on wednesday. i'm going to go to some battleground states. but the viewers and "time" readers make up the itinerary.

if you want to talk politics of me, let's do it. these are not focus groups. what i find is that the vast majority of them are somewhere in the middle. the vast majority of them are incredibly frustrated that politicians in washington cannot come to an agreement. cannot compromise. which is why there will be a backlash against those tea party politicians this year. one guy in arkansas, a furniture dealer, said to me, why don't you guys ever talk about the things that the two presidential candidates agree on? why you always talk about their disagreements? the guy has a point. >> what do they agree on? [laughter] >> the fact is that up until the point, maybe one month ago when mitt romney came up with his supply-side tax cut, they were

like this. barack obama and romney were like this on tax plans. and on economic plans. really, they were. >> but they are not now. >> they are not that far apart. >> why is there a gender gap? >> well, i was in paris. the students would always ask the same question first. that is, how can you tell the difference between a democrat and republicans? these people who go from communist to monarchists. i said, they smell different. republicans a smell better. however, you walk into a room, and you know who is who. our politics have gotten pretty

rotten. the rhetoric has been raised. we have had a lot to do with raising the rhetoric, too. the debates are important to us because we are looking for someone to make a mistake. >> the public is the exact opposite reason, by the way. >> here is something that has happened over the last couple of years that is frustrating to me. that is when you say, we the press. and then the press is a big salad bowl. who is in the press? rush limbaugh is in the press. fox is in the press. msnbc is in the press. all these people who are devoting themselves to little slices of the pie are in with the so-called mainstream media. we are all the same thing to the public. we're not the same thing. >> can i ran for a second against marketing? we have been marketing --

>> we have been ranting. >> the central brazil of marketing is that the things that divide us are far more important than the things we have in common, because those of the things you sell. -- the central principle of marketing is that the things that divide us are far more important than the things we have in common, off because those are the things you sell. the fierce marketing for audiences on cable has led to an atmosphere. and now the internet has led to an atmosphere of a press intolerance. it is a meteorite that has taken place. the victims are the american public and those who really want to understand the issues. iot has takengh

place. >> i think that is right. we are now being pushed off by what we listen to to become more extreme. he keeps saying, this is where we started. half are we a country in the middle? or are we no longer a country where the majority of us are in the middle? >> there are structural things about the way the american election is run. on the one hand, the media, which tends to take these items,, particularly now that we have a political media that is explicitly politicize one way or the other. i would point of this is more of a return to what it was like 100 years ago where everyone had a party affiliation. you've you're reading a socialist newspaper or a democratic paper. this moment of object to the was a historical and nominee --

anomaly. it was a gentler country that point. i'm not sure about that, either. >> there were big issues. mccarthy and what not. now, joe said something about things happening so fast. how long this an issue, even an important one, last in this media environment? >> right. that is true. the media gives us one picture of politics. and then the way our voting system actually works does a different story, which is that the most important thing to understand to me about what elections play out in a particular way that they do and why they say the things they say, is because of the like pearl college. it does not matter if you mobilize and win by three votes.

you get the same number of electoral votes. he did not get the same kind of mobilization. we will start moving -- we're gonna talk about michigan, ohio, pennsylvania, and a florida. this is a not very smart way to set up your democracy. >> i have a proposal them. i would like to combine the states of north and south dakota, montana and wyoming, into a single state. it less than the population of brooklyn. [laughter] but it will only have two senators instead of eight. will make things a lot easier for us to actually pass legislation in this country. [laughter] [applause] >> absolutely. >> to give them to canada. [laughter]

>> north dakota is prosperous. we need their tax money. >> before i invite the audience to come up to the microphones that will be in the aisle, can we talk of the importance of likability, which is my issue. of always thinking that one the great influences in an election is what the public sees and feels in their guts. you talk about this being a factor. it is about likability. i am so interested right now with what the candidates, particularly obama, what they're doing to make you like them. they do these little television and i guess on the web now, too. these little visual been gets -- vignettes. and obama, i love this. he is playing out the dog issue.

he is talking about dogs. being seen with his dog. any guy is seen with a dog is likable instantly. clinton had his monica lewinsky issue. all of a son, clinton had a dog. where did that go? >> checkers. [laughter] >> and now this portuguese water dog has his own blog. so that you will all be remembered that romney's dog was stuck on the top of a car. [laughter] >> of this is confusing to me, because obama also admitted to eating dogs in indonesia. betty jo, was a deficit to a hockey mom and a pit bull? -- they had a joke, what is the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? the pit bull is a delicious. [laughter]

>> is a people's gut as important as the economy? do you all think that? >> barack obama would be even more likable than he inherently is. people do find him, aside from his job creating, their approval of him as a human being is very high. if you're doing better on the economy he would be even more likable. >> 1 obama was still at his candidacy -- when obama was still at his candidacy, his wife invited him. it is the first time or the black men were on a platform and the white man were -- the editor of the n.y. times said, what you think? he said, he is too nice to be president. we are finding out, and

republicans have not gotten yet, how tough he is. he may be nice. he is nice. [laughter] i shouldn't have said at the beginning. his personnel policies, it does not get better than that. [laughter] i lost myself. >> he is tougher than the public realizes. >> i mean, we are playing hardball all over the world. a lot of it is secret. >> certainly, we are withdrawn. >> the only time he has hesitated was syria because it was just too much to take on. >> it is not just that it is too

much to take on. in syria, you are running the risk of a regional war. you have the i iranians in their and the leadership -- you have the iranians in there and the leadership. you can get into trouble by supporting one side or the other. >> so it is smart. >> i think it matters of far more than the economy. the thing that is so interesting to me about this alleged oral cycle is that when we have had these really -- about this wectorqaal cycle is that when have had these really shift from

democrats to franklin roosevelt, then you have democratic dominance. and then you have this economic crisis of the 1970's. that produces this big ship. you have reagan coming in. this conservative moment that last for several decades. and a lot of people bought in 2008 that we were on the cusp of this new moment. it seems to me that the election will be both a referendum on whether or not we have had a fundamental shift about how people think about politics. but also, we will see if that pattern holds or not. it seems like he will probably remember those pictures of obama and fdr in 2008 after he won. if we hasn't happened or are actually experiencing it and we just cannot understand it. that will be the biggest

question of 2012. >> i like your daughter's employer, but i think they made several mistakes in this area. first of all, if you talk to people in the country and look at the statistics and ask people, what are you concerned about? they say, the economy. they do not care about deficits. obama got captured by a washington conversation about deficit reduction that is a long-term problem, but a short- term impediment to economic recovery. he lost sight of the public on that one. the other place i think he arguably lost sight on what our country's future should be is he turned away from paul volcker and all those other left-wing radicals who thought he should break up the big banks. do we continue to have this situation of moral hazard in

this country where there are six banks that control something like 70% of the assets and are too big to fail. as long as that happens, we are in peril. >> what an irony that he did not break up the banks and yet wall street has turned against him. they're putting all their money into romney. >> let me ask you one final question and then we will have people come up to the microphone. incumbency. how big of a factor has that been historically? how much of a leg up does is give obama? >> it matters. it really matters. that is the big question in terms of obama. the scary parallel for him is the jimmy carter parallel. will the end up being a jimmy carter who is understood and not able to rise to his moment?

fortunately, he is running against mitt romney and not ronald reagan. the incumbency is going to serve him. he is very well established. and to some degree, the conventional narrative is right. he was a great campaigner. he is binet so-so president -- presidentbe been a so-so in getting them to work in ways he wants them to work. the question of 2012 but comes, can you, once again, be a really good candidate, if you the party been a kind of so-so president who has disappointed a lot of your base and does it still work for you?

>> a tremendous in the vantage because people had seen the man do the job. assuming he has done a better than 50/50 job. it must be very hard to run without any kind of foreign policy record. all the stuff about, i am a businessman. >> last point. >> one example. while it is ridiculous to look at paul this early in the campaign, i would point out to you that in ohio, which is traditionally a conservative state, obama has been running consistently ahead of romney. there is a basic reason for that. the auto bailouts. chevrolet is running triple shifts building the chevy cruze

which gets 40 miles per gallon. honda is doing very well. the auto sports manufacturers throughout the state are doing extremely well. romney opposed the bailout. and he becomes a lot less likable when all he talks about is not giving bailouts and firing people. the president seems more likable when you have a job. >> i am with you on the likability, by the way. >> ok. if anybody has a question, please go out to the aisle. there is a microphone so everyone can hear the question. please, no speeches. just a quick question. >> one area that you hadn't talked about -- can you hear me? >> there you go. >> one area it you did not talk about is particularly with the states and the republican governors, they started to build

obstacles for the public to get access to the polls. do you think that will be a major factor in the election? >> it is a major factor. of 41 states -- 41 states are passing or in the process of passing new voter suppression rules. voting by mail, no. voting by the internet, no. all designed -- a thing in nyu law school specializes in voter suppression. they think 5 million people will not vote. who are those people? poor people. people who had trouble with the law. young people. >> they have to have government identification cards with them

>> we had a chief justice of the united states who started in politics in arizona as a poll watcher. of course, they put uniforms on of these guys. or they were white men with ties. and you could literally see, some poor black guy coming and the seas will look like an fbi agent and walks away. adding the republicans feel they can play that big time. a 11% of people in the country do not have a government id. >> good question. >> i am curious to know what the impact of the vice president candidacy would be in this election, given the reflection of the last election that we had, at least for the republicans. >> i think that is a great question. historically, democrats tended

to go with a senior statesman as their vice presidents. lyndon johnson, etc. republicans intended to go with junior executive types. richard nixon was 41 when eisenhower named tim. dan quayle. sarah palin. [laughter] i think romney is a little trapped now. because of all the policies and the flip flopping, he does not want to seem too political and obvious. he does not want to do something too obvious like mamie hispanic like marco rubio. the best course from is to go back to where he began. do what clinton did which is double down on his strengths. double down on his message. in clinton's case, it was a new democratic party. in romney's case, it is, i am a manager. the obvious risk for him, which means he will not take it, is the senator from ohio who was

the director of omb during bush. he is a smart, serious, decent guy. he has an extensive organization in ohio. >> doesn't hurt him that he was the budget director in bush's time? >> off something will always heard a candidate. you have not had jesus run for public office. [laughter] >> ok. >> woodrow wilson said that the whole purpose of a democracy is that we take counsel with one another so as to depend not upon the judgment of any one man, but upon the common council of all. doesn't that say that you really cannot judge the process in a particular election until it is finished? until all the views are distilled and all of the voters go in the booth and a final decision is made?

in the last analysis, it is the total of what was heard -- >> throughout the whole time. >> throughout the whole. -- whole period. >> i agree. the need about 30 years before you could say anything that matters. >> and joe has to write a column next week. >> how are we going to get rid of minority rule? we talk about the president doing this and doing that. but 70% of the bills that have been put before the senate in the last two years have been supported by a minority of filibuster and nothing has been able to be done. how do we get rid of that type of a situation? >> that is my favorite question. >> the democrats will not do it

because they expect to be back in power. they want to have that same power. it would take breaking up the two party system as we know it. >> i am not sure about that. there are moments of congressional reform. the last one was in the 1970's where you went from a committee system dominated by old democrats. . those reforms have since come around and become corrupt and their own ways. it tends to be, for better or worse, that those kinds of reforms can take place. i do not know what level of crisis people would consider. i think the other thing that really matters in a big, party animosity sort of way is the fact that we have two

illogically defined parties now. for better or worse, into the democratic party. increasingly, parties >> we are live this morning for remarks from un general secretary ban ki-moon the secretary general is here in washington to accept the distinguished international leadership award from the latin council tonight and you can watch that ceremony live at c- span.org.

>> we are live at the center for strategic and international studies waiting for remarks from u.n. secretary general ban ki-moon to talk about the u.n. role in post-conflict situation and it should start any moment. congress is back today and they are in at 2:00 after their week- long break. the house has a couple of suspension bills on their agenda, seven including the capitol grounds to be used for upcoming events and also a measure clearing the way for development of the washington, dc water front. the senate is back after their weeklong break today coming in at 2:00 and they will address a bill keeping student loan rates from the doubling this july and a couple of judicial nominations. see this and let live on c-span 2 and the house of course here on cspan starting at 2:00 p.m. eastern. also, the house budget committee is meeting this afternoon to go

for a plan to replace automatic spending cuts with alternative reductions as proposed by various committees. cspan 3 will have live coverage of that markup session and that will get under way at 2:00 p.m. eastern as well. [applause] >> good morning, everyone. i have the privilege of walking in with secretary general ban and told him the last time we had so many cameras lined up like this, i think it was bill gates was here and that was before he gave his money away. [laughter] this just goes to show how important and influential and friendly beloved secretary general ban is. we are honored to have him here. the first speech he gave the

secretary general was here at csis and we are honored he came back here to give that an important address. i would like to turn to my boss, dr. bert kozinski who was a counselor at csis and might cost a mentor. [applause] dr. brzesinkski. >> ladies and gentlemen, it is a genuine honor for me as well as a source of great pleasure to be able to introduce to you a global statesman who personifies the hopes of humanity. he is, after all, the only public official that represents truly the whole world. it is a unique position and it really is food for thought that

it took so many centuries of conflict throughout the world before such a position to emerge and become institutionalized, personalized, and increasingly successful. that is, to some extent, an important measure of human progress. his life originated, commenced at roughly the midpoint of the 20th century, perhaps the worst century in human history. to be more precise, he was born in 1944. his subsequent life in correa and various international positions culminating with his appointment first as foreign minister of korea and his selection as general secretary of the un took place in a setting which was dominated in

the first phase, so to speak, but the dilemmas and necessity of economic recovery. korea suffered in the course of world war two and suffer even more in the course of the war that started in the late 1940's and continued into the mid part of the 1950's. economic recovery was the essential precondition for well- being and survival and that was part of his growing up. he also lived through a period of life which followed their after which involved the spread of democracy to many parts of the world as well as a self determination throughout the world. he, in fact, witness to the end of the imperial colonial era in human affairs. now we are living in an age and

in a century in which we are increasingly aware of the fact that the choice before us is increasingly vast with self- destructive global turmoil. perhaps not new world wars because of the destructiveness of weapons of mass destruction but nonetheless, global turmoil which runs the risk of poisoning the political atmosphere of mankind and, more important, preventing the kind of global cooperation which is now so necessary for dealing with the novel problems of the 21st century, problems which indeed address the fundamental question of human survival, human ability to operate on this earth in a cooperative and congenial fashion. this is what motivates these

days, the effort of the international institutions. his speech today will be dedicated to an increasingly important facet of that undertaking, namely, peace building. this is a new and important enterprise with which he is personally associated and to which he provides the inspiration and needed direction. following his remarks, you will be able and willing to answer questions you can post to him. please identify yourself, please do not make your question too long, but otherwise, the subject of the discussion is open and it is your choice. to mr. general secretary, is a pleasure for me to see you here and please, take the floor and we are eager to hear you. [applause] >> dr. brszinski and

distinguished participants at ladies and gentlemen, it is a great honor for me to participate in this very important gathering with so many distinguished friends with whom i have been working very closely. thank you for your support and for this opportunity. dr. brzesinski, it is always happy for me to meet you and your zero is at the center of global affairs for some money decades. my sources of inspiration and honor to get all good advices and councils from you and to have been such a good strong partner and supporter of united nations and i really count on your continuing

support. i am also very glad to see dr. john hemley who has been a good friend and supporter of the united nations and i am very happy to see him in good health and i am looking forward to working very closely with csis. we have long been partners. we have shared information and ideas and people, too. ladies and gentlemen, we are here to talk about peace building. that topic could not be more timely or important. he's building and prevention figure prominently in the action agenda i have set out. as i began my second term as secretary-general of the united nations. the united nations is helping countries across conflict

transitions. we are there p at the areeriod following the end of hostilities, helping to build institutions and address the root causes of society's torn by war from sliding back into conflict. the main concept of peace building is that peacekeeping has the core responsibility of united nations in keeping peace and stability but when these countries are out of conflict, we should prevent these countries from sliding back. this has been a more important at this time. we have 16 united nations peacekeeping operations around the world keeping 120,000 soldiers. this is a huge operation for any country except the united

nations -- the united states. i am only the second commander in chief next to president obama. [laughter] we have won a 20,000 soldiers. only the united states has more soldiers than that abroad. we have fielded another 15 political missions, what is known as a special quality mission, some with the explicit these building mandates. our record of achievement in nurturing recovery from conflict is long. there have been setbacks, of course, but the bottom line is clear -- united nations is there when we are most needed and just as clearly, our engagement has helped many societies make a new

start. these building saves lives. it protect human rights and promotes the rule of law. it saves money with costs that are just a fraction of peacekeeping operations, military operations, and the economic damage caused by the countries. it is quite natural that this building is taken on a greater priority for the united nations. it is good to be here today to mark six years since the establishment of peace building commission, the peace building fund, and its office. these institutions were created to provide sustained political support to post-conflict countries and to provide fast

and it funding to peace building efforts. last year, the funds allocated $100 million for activities in 14 countries. our challenge is to sharpen the tools. that is what we are here to talk about today. ladies and gentlemen, let me begin our discussion by taking two from the headlines. 10 days ago, the former president of liberia charles taylor was convicted of crimes against humanity for his role in the conflict in syria are laws sierra leone. this is an advance in criminal- justice. this is the first conviction of a head of state for international crimes since the

nuremberg trials. i am certain as the age of accountability takes hold that it will not be the last. this also provides a window onto u.n. peace building. sierra leone, where the crimes for which charles taylor was convicted, posted one of our largest united nations peacekeeping operations, more than 17,000 personnel and soldiers. with this robust mandate, that cooperation helped stabilize the country. today, our peacekeepers are gone. in their place, we have a small political mission with about 100 people. when violence between political parties erupted in 2009, the

mission leadership on the ground and appease building commission in new york worked in tandem. to forge tandem. the peace building fund has supported steps to help young people and others participate in the country's political life. this recognized the ex placidity -- the necessity of peace building and help to prevent a renewed escalation of political violence. i visited sierra leone two years ago. and number of their amputees were most striking reminder of the war's brutality. that was one of my most moving and said visit to see some many young people whose arms or legs were amputated by just rebels.

they organized a soccer game around me and this of these people with crutches with one leg, one arm and they were fighting. it is troubling to play soccer game but to my mind, they were better than the regular soccer players. they were charging each other. i was so moved. they were trying to overcome this tragedy, their personal tragedy with the help of u.n. peace building activities. we just wanted to give them a sense of hope. they thought they could overcome even without their arms

or legs. in liberia, there has been a small mix of remarkable progress with continued fragility and similar interplay of peacekeeping and peace building. the country has restructured the army and police with the help of united nations mission in liberia, the u.n. peacekeeping operation. when the -- when i visited library and 2008, i saw the initial collaboration between the united nations and the economic commission of west african states, the ever been union, and others including the united states. the mission in liberia has been able to reduce the size of troops from 15,000 to less than 10,000 soldiers. some of the conditions that led

to 14 years of civil war still exists. the factions in society could be exploited again to more violence. that is one the reasons why the government of liberia has asked to be placed on the agenda of the east building commission. that country is one of the six countries on the peace building commission agenda. the peace building fund is helping to finance the construction of five regional justice hubs so that these vital institutions can serve all the country's people. the fund was instrumental in establishing the commission which is finding practical ways to solve landed disputes in major conflict. we hope these initiatives can

serve as a tangible symbol of our efforts toward the country's institutions, to restore the institutional state and a concrete expression of hope for the future. ladies and gentlemen, violent conflict has declined significantly in the past two decades. this is a remarkable story insufficiently told. yet 1.5 billion people still live in or conflicted countries. for them, the war does not feel safer. for them, insecurity, justice, equality defines their days. we seek ribbons and gangs and organized crime syndicates undermining the institutions of state. we seek violence by political

exclusion, conflict over natural resources, a lack of jobs, grievances of corruption, and human rights abuses. over the past 20 years, to many countries that we thought had put an end to violent conflict sought it erupted again because of mismanagement of the situations by the international community. their political institutions were not effective to resolve differences peacefully. there are high rates of relapse that international community's need to give fresh impetus for our work in post-complex settings through the new peace building set up in 2006. our goal is to focus not only

on-peace but absence of violence. also, on the foundations of long-term stability and positive piece. we aim to give confidence to the people and support over the long term especially when the media and others shift their attention to other crises. it has been the case that when the tv crews are there to cover the stories, international moved to another place and these places are the new focus. the experience has brought many lessons. there is no fixed sequencing between -- among peacekeeping and peace building. or preventive diplomacy. we need not wait for the end of

military or peacekeeping operations to get peace building under way. our peacekeeping missions are often important for peace builders. as result in sierra leone. we see that in liberia and hope to see that in south sudan where our peacekeeping mission probably has the most ambitious piece build a mandate ever adopted by the security council. second, peace building is a test for many actors, government, civil society, business, local communities, a long-term u.n. development presence all of a role to play. this is also reflected in the diverse membership of the peace building commission. our challenge is to align them

behind a coherent strategy. leadership is crucial. peace building has been associated with strong national leadership and tendering of social engagement. at times, limited local capacity is an obstacle. so is the tendency of some donors to support projects that might satisfy constituencies but that does not reflect local priorities. some countries earmark to support their own drastic interest which will not be helpful and local politics and local stability. when you support this piece building commission, you should

not have that kind of local interest. it is an entire domestic interest. we have seen some governments are reluctant to focus on the key piece building priorities of the people. myanmar, from which i just returned, is an example of transition. change has been backed up by concrete reforms. the community is now eager to invest as we are to ensure that the impact, if positive for the country's peace building efforts. even certain staples of post- conflict activity can go wrong. elections can be divisive sometimes. we have seen many such cases. elections should work as a

unifying point of nations that sometimes these elections have been used as a source of conflict. we have seen many cases in developing world. given the building of a school for a clinic can exacerbate tensions if communities are not properly engage. or localities are not included. it includes a this is essential. -- inclusiveness is essential. this must pay the -- go beyond traditional products to support peace building and state building such as justice, security, jobs, social services, and political processes. this is a key element in the so-

called [inaudible] the dutism is being promoted and several countries. we must also consider whether and how to incorporate such goals into the development agenda after 2015, the target date for shifting development goals. this is especially in the aftermath of the arab spring. it is clear that issues such as political participation, human rights, and security are integral and satisfying people's aspirations. tunisia was making rapid progress towards development goals, but was lagging on issues such as political voice.

it is crucial that sources can be provided quickly in response to the shrinking windows of opportunity. in burundi, a hold of rebel movement wanted to join the peacekeeping -- peace building process. these peace building fund provided emergency funding and the un development program and the missions had the disarmament of combatants. we have seen similar efforts with security reform in many other places. civilian capacities are crucially important. we are taking steps to be able to deploy the right exports at

the right place at the right time. the inclusion a yemen in the peace process is fundamental. organized sexual violence is technically wrong but 17 of 585 post-1980 peace accord nations, less than 6% of post-conflict spending is budgeted especially to empower women or promote gender equality. i am pressing to award than double in spending and assure them 40% of un-sponsored post- conflict temporary employment opportunities are made available to women. we are also working to increase the percentage of women in the

un police and are achieving good momentum in that effort. by 2014, we are trying to have more female police officers in our mission. ladies and gentlemen, the united nations is the only organization that can bring all the necessary elements of peace building to bear. political, security, human rights, a humanitarian, rule of law, and development. in our teams on the ground at our headquarters in new york, peace building has been a focus as never before. yet, clearly the needs are great and the demands on the un keep growing. too many people lived in fear and secrecy at this moment the work of peace is complex. this audience knows that as well

as any. these building is a work in progress. we are learning by doing. it is rarely linear and requires great flexibility and is tailored to any situation. the violence within us and within our society and among countries is not going to vanish anytime soon. we are confident to countering it at every turn with every tool. we are determined to do everything we can to see is the post-conflict moment and help society's be safer and more prosperous. ladies and gentlemen, i thank you very much for your attention and i am eager to hear your thoughts and comments to

make this peace building process more solid and robust. we can do this only with your support. the united nations and the secretary general, myself, are strongly committed to work toward protecting human rights but no country however powerful, one country may become however resourceful one country may be -- one may think of the united states, the most resourceful and the most powerful and most influential country but you cannot do it alone. all the member states of the united nations, all the stakeholders, government, business, philanthropy, villagers, media, and students, be's - i think we should all united in addressing the global challenges to make this world a better place and i thank you very much for your attention. [applause]

>> mr. secretary general, thank you so much for your very comprehensive and important analysis of what is needed to enhance global peace. before asking of those who wish to ask questions to identify themselves, let me just make two very brief points -- towards the end of your speech, you mentioned fundamental point number seven which pertained to the role of women. i want to note that we have here in our presence m,rs. moon, the wife of the secretary- general and she has been devoting her attention to various issues pertaining to

women and children and particularly, she has been campaigning against elimination of violence against women and also has been engaged in trying to prevent mother to child transmission of hiv aids. your family is involved in this process as well. secondly, i want to take note of the rather spectacular role that koreans played in world affairs these days. we not only have the top political post, global post and hands of a korean but a korean american is involved in the top economic financial post in the world. this tells you something about the scope of korean power these days. [laughter] i compliment you on it. let me start by recognizing people. let me just move to the side and i will recognize people while you respond. yes, sir? move around the room -- i will

move around the room. >> mr. secretary-general, you are doing a great job with the united nations. do you have a competition with nato? corruption is the major issue around the globe and corrupt politicians are taking national treasuries from the poor and needy people and trillions of dollars have no accountability including billions from india and a corrupt indian politicians. how can you stop this and be with the people? thank you. >> enhancing good governance is what the priorities of the united nations, rule all block. these are foundations -- rule

all law. - rule of law. >when the leaders are corrupt and there are corrupt practices in the region or country, these leaders lose their credibility and confidence and trust among people. that is what we have seen around the world in many countries. people are speaking out against corrupt leaders. we have to admit the reality that still there are many such corrupted practices being done. therefore, i have been very straightforward and very direct against those leaders who we believe there is serious governance issues. on many occasions, i have been saying that the international

community is ready to provide support to you. when the bottom of this glass is broken, what is the use to keep pouring in water. ? this is just a waste. we must fix the bottom of this and eliminate corruptive practices. then they will always come back to me with defiant voices. what about your brothers and all these families? i have been speaking very vocally and directly to those leaders. as a matter of policy of united nations, to help good governance, we will continue to fight corrupt practices. there are many such crimes but

these, again, require the support and cooperation not only within the government. we need the support from government, visionaries, and international support otherwise this cannot be eliminated. i will not talk about any specific individual cases of any country but i am telling you as a matter of principle. >> over here? >> you, as secretary general, how do you navigate through the conflicting interests in your agenda of the permanent members of the secretary council -- of

the security council to [laughter] ? >> we learned when we were students studying international politics that diplomacy is something like an art. you have to employ all sorts of your wisdom, your skills, there is no fixed rules in dealing web 193 member states. they are all sovereign states. there sovereign governments and sovereign presidents, and they have their national agenda. they have their national interest. how to reconcile all these different natural interests into one coherent or common purpose

requires a lot of skills and a lot of patience. ce. as i said during the last five years, i have been always trying to be a bridge-builder, harmonize her, that has been one of my priorities. one of my ways of doing business as the secretary general. you mentioned the prominent five members. they are all superpowers and have very strong political influence as well as what is important is that people power. you have to work very closely and understand what are their national interest but how these

national interests can be translated for the common good. common well-being, and common future. i have been for trying to persuade every member state, now biggest's, they are the and most strongest and powerful group. they are very strong interested group of united nations were much more liberal organizations. it requires your wisdom,. i have been trying to use my wisdom or sometimes asian values to try to understand more the concerns or interests of the other parties and putting the

interests of the common international community first. with the patience of the, you have to convince them and have a genuine dialogue. sometimes the dialogue can be taken in an open way or behind the scenes in a very private talks sitting together one on one. this is a recalltete a tete, this is french, one-on-one. this sometimes helps. all the leaders have their own political ego, their own prestige. challengede just individually, it may be difficult to persuade them.

it requires all sorts of diplomatic skills. thank you. >> in case of the crisis in syria, it seems the role of united nations was limited particularly in the security council. one reason is the veto of russia and china which led to the killing of more civilians by the syrian regime. don't you think the necessity now of reforming that we have a mechanism in the security council? >> the current situation in syria has become the hottest spots, the hottest issue.

this is a concern of the international community. in that regard, i have been always approaching the unity among security council members. those who are bearing the primary responsibility for international peace and security. the security council members have spoken in unity twice by authorizing the deployment of u.n. supervision mission in syria. more than 9000 people have been killed during the last 14 months. this is totally unacceptable. the situation has reached to that. our priority is by deploying a supervision mission as soon as possible, the cessation of violence must stop by all

parties. it of the militant forces or the opposition forces. this should be stopped. then political dialogue must begin. in an inclusive way for a political resolution reflecting the genuine aspirations of these people. that is our priority. i have been speaking with the secretary general of the arab states. on almost a daily basis. i think we are very much united. we are trying to deploy the

supervision mission. as of today, we have about 60 monitoring members with about an equal number of civilian staff. this will be increased by more than 130 by this coming thursday this week. by the middle of this month, we will be able to deploy maybe 430 or more than that. our target is to deploy 300 men dated support initiatives as soon as possible. within this month. i hope with the deployment of the supervision mission, this will have a very important role in monitoring and supervising the cease-fire, the secession of violence, so that kofi and non

can help a political dialogue. at the same time, we are also trying to provide the humanitarian assistance. a list of 1 million people in syria have been [inaudible] tens of thousands of people have fled to neighboring countries like jordan, iraq, lebanon. we are trying to provide all humanitarian assistance to mobilize the united nations commissions and international organizations. the united nations agencies are now working very hard. we need the full solidarity among the people among the countries of the world to

resolve these situations. thank you. >> your excellency, i am one of the members of one of the largest arab communities in washington. as you said in a speech, who is important to have constituencies that are able to participate in the form giving new government. the united nations and its national community is pushing an artificial deadline august to create permanent government for somalia. you're special representative has made contactia with the corrupt leaders of somalia and they're working together and they are trying to be in charge of their

reelection. shouldn't the united nations be in charge of this process for forming a government instead of the cropp leaders who are there were all kinds of disgrace. >> i can understand what you're trying to ask. somalia has become one of many countries whose people are suffering and have been suffering two or three decades from police instability,

terrorism, economic difficulties, and under and even piracy. i am very concerned about the current situation in somalia. for the first time in 19 years as the secretary general of united nations, it was the first day of visiting and the entire two decades and i want you to have some solution of this issue. this country has been suffering from political instability which is very serious. they are typical of the countries that have always been fighting the rebels and they have not been able to eliminate the piracy sect.

there is a serious capacity issue. they simply do not have their own capacity. therefore, we are trying to address this issue in a comprehensive way. first, we have to provide the policy dead based ability. that is a what theyamisom, the african peacekeeping missions have increased. the number of these african peacekeeping missions with the support of the international community -- for the united nations, we have been considering the applying -- have considered applying this

peacekeeping mandate. they are in the middle of fighting so we will not be able to keep pace. we're helping this african peacekeeping mission whose mandate is enforcing peace in somalia. that is one encouraging aspect. there is the very important political dialogue going on. they have been making some good political negotiations whereby they have to have the constitution that i have been urging them to have their constitution and establish their new government and address

development issues. we're also trying to put forth -- developmental programs. the united nations has deployed our primary mission there, what is known as the political mission in somalia. we are trying to address these issues including the pirate issue. the challenges are so great that i cannot give you any firm more definitive answer that we have been able to address this issue completely. thank you. >> the last question, madam? >> i want to applaud your efforts on peace building. that is very important. my question is about refugees. i know the u.n. is doing a great

job about refugees but why does the un have two separate bodies that take care of refugees? there is the united nations refugee commission and there is onorwa. one body takes care of refugees and settles them and the other is a permanent institution that drains billions of dollars from the united nations. why not combine them? >> madame, it is not two separate organizations dealing with refugees. when it comes to refugees, the united nations high commissioner, that is an organization -- we have 34 million refugees around the

world. there are 100 billion people every day and the united states has to feed them breakfast, lunch, and dinner. 100 million people. that is a huge challenge. humanitarian agencies provide food and assistance daily. all these refugees, when they are categorized as international refugees, we're taking care of this. ungra as of the titular purpose to address -- has a particular purpose to address palestinian refugees. . the commissioner general is now

taking care of all this policy end refugee issues with a new mandate. this requires a lot of support from the international community. it is suffering a lack of funding. i visited gaza myself three times already and i have seen so many palestinian refugees a diabase be unra headquarters to mobilize international support for these refugees. all refugees can return to their perspective homes when we have a piece building process where we can issue peacekeeping

operations to make peace and stability and home towns and these people must be able to return to their homes. a partially because of this continuing crisis, people are just fleeing from their homes because they are endangered. human rights are being abused so we are taking maximum and up must care for all of this simply because of the lack of funding from international community. we're not providing enough and sufficient support to these people. again, i thank you very much. >> before i thank the secretary general, i have an important request to make of all of you. please remain seated until he

and his party have had the opportunity to leave the room otherwise, it will be very awkward to remain seated. i'm sure speak from all of you that we are grateful to you for your very important statement also for something else -- your very warm and engaging personality. thank you for being with us. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] "washington journal [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [no audio] [no audio]