over the last couple of years, we have seen that people have been very focused on the presidential election, but republicans up leaders on education reform, senator landrieu had a workforce on education -- you had republican leaders, lamar alexander. there are areas on renewable energy where republicans in the past have supported the policies of the president. there has been a punishment to buy partisanship over last few years. is that punishment lifted? to republicans worry about facing a tea party apartment?

-- opponent? i think that they may recognize that there is none of -- not a lot of point of coming to washington and being a republican. >> the romney proposal on the individual development accounts got a lot of praise. are there areas where you could see the two parties working together? >> surem, on job training but it is not just spend more money like the jobs bill the president obama wanted which was $8 billion when he was already spending $23 billion on a program that was scattered throughout the government. there needs to be necessary reform to improve job training so that people who are unemployed can get irrelevant

training and when they graduate, they can get real jobs. i actually agree -- i think divided government is an excellent opportunity to tackle the really important issues in our country. the largest issues we have are the spending. we will lose our rating once again as a nation because of our irresponsible deficit spending. if the two parties can get together because government is divided and tackle the whole issue about entitlements spending, we would be contributing a great deal to our country. >> the president expressed openness to reductions in spending with talks with john boehner but not structural changes, not ending the federal entitlement to medicare or medicaid as the ryan budget

would do as a block grant. where do think that goes after the election? >> i think the president crossed a rubicon thereby putting medicare and medicaid on the table, hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts in medicare not to mention the $700 billion that romney tried to put back in. that was ironic. so security, no, that has not been on the table. i think he has already done so and i suspect he will continue. >> i will go to the audience in a minute. the medicare $700 billion is one of the only times i have been washington were politics transferred resources down the generational latter. the baby boom is 80% white and

moved the money into a young population. in many ways, it is striking that came under such explicit attack for a kind of rebalancing that i think you are getting at as well. the amount we're spending on these entitlements primarily for the airily and what it means for our ability to invest in younger families. >> that is an interesting way to look at the $716 billion, as a breed distributional transfer from a guaranteed health care to the elderly to coverage for the younger people who don't have the income they need. >> that was part of the attack. >> that was the attack. >> the money was going to be saved -- >> it was cuts to fund obama

care. that is exactly what it was for. >> the effect of that is your moving resources from seniors toward working age, uninsured people and you are booking resources down the generational letter at a time when the government spent $7 per capita on seniors. you almost never do that in public policy. >> one of the reasons why it happened is that some of those resources went back into seniors. >> rebalancing? >> i think the president's policies were attacked on the

point of redistribution. whether romney made those attacks so he could get support for some parts of his coalition, i cannot speak to. i think the president's coalition made it up. >> i think the president offset those attacks. many seniors voted for robb may even though they thought the ryan plan would drive them away. he won enormous margins. democrats want to prevent cuts for programs and in the process short changed the same per. >> the issues on health care and

tax reductions and health care and medicare, etc, the issue is beneficiaries. the president was specific about beneficiaries. >> is there a generational -- there's an older population that is still 80% white and a younger population that is very diverse, what do you think about the dead issue? how is the generational lens apply to the fiscal consolidation text some people said it lowers the bird and others say that paul ryan is saying we will leave medicare the way it is but one younger people get there, it will be different theme that question is more interesting. >> i'm not sure it is sustainable >> it is more

sustainable today than it was. >> there is certainly far more interest today in the broader question of the debt burden. does a question that all economists are worried about, debt to gdp ratio, in terms of a backer question. but then in the generational context as well. people are more interested in the devils of than they were for five years ago. >> it is not just generational because young people voted for the president overwhelmingly. >> clearly, the interest in young people not being left with this dead end on the other hand, you will have to bear the burden of all the consolidation -- none of these changes in the ryan version nothing happens for 10 years and we put more money back again.

by the time you get there, it will be a different program. how does that work? >> there is a time value of money. if you start a program with a far enough horizon with younger people, there is time to make up the difference. that was the purpose of having that the delineation. i don't think there is a penalty. with government there's an opportunity to take on this part issue on both sides will be blamed for taking unpopular positions. back in 1986, we saw this and divided government is a great opportunity to tackle these issues. >> we will take some questions from out here. i cannot really see but we will take some questions from the audience.

were there points in the clinton administration after 1996 where he was able to say to democratic constituencies who were resisting various kinds of reform in federal programs -- if it was up to me, i would not be doing the best but i have these crazy republicans on the hell and therefore -- could it be easier for president obama to sell democrats on changes in medicare, medicaid and reforming job-training programs if, in fact, he has the ability to say that the republicans made me do it? >> in 1997, there was a lot of savings in medicare to fund the budget deal. democrats have resisted that. he also got things like other

programs. it is not what you cannot find a compromise. it would have to be an honorable compromise. my view of this is i would find it a little depressing if our entire debate after the republicans lost seats in the house and they still have a majority and democrats expanded the majority in the senate which nobody expected -- if you had said one year ago that democrats would expand the majority in the senate, i think people would have literally said you are crazy and the president was reelected and basically swept the swing states. the country may be divided but there is a tilt. there is a progressive majority for governing. for the president to go to the fiscal clef with the same policies he had 1.5 years ago

with john boehner, i think that would be a disappointment to people who worked very hard to elect him. i think the president will hold on revenues because it is not only the right thing to do but it is also incredibly popular. i think more and more people come to him. >> if we say that the principle economic concerns of the public is the decline of economic security and the decline of economic mobility, and it is not clear how much leverage we have to change this, but you say one of the two or three things that public policy could do to increase the odds of more americans by sending up the economic ladder, what are the

two or three things you think washington should be looking at doing in the coming years? >> i think we have to preserve and keep opportunities and that means having a vibrant part free enterprise system that will promote opportunity. a to have the regulatory government and will hinder that. -- a too heavy regulatory government hand will hinder that. on welfare reform and nafta president clinton -- it is for the presidents of legacy that he rolls back taxes for the middle. he will disappoint his own base and the republicans will disappoint their base but it is his legacy. it is better for him and his

legacy to tack to the center. >> when we see the disparity in income showing up in data, we have to look closely at the education gap. whether that is a federal or state issue, one can debate that but i think there is a serious crisis in terms of education and out, and disparity of educational attainment which we see in the employment area. maybe i am biased but the other is the tax code. are we going to have a fight over the productivity of the tax code? will we have a fight over reforming the tax code on a rebel neutral basis? those are the key positions coming into this. one side says they want to make

a progressive and the other side says we want to change everything else about it. i think we will blend those two issues and have a code that is more efficient. i don't think it will make the economy grow 10% but maybe a little bit. >> i still think comprehend -- comprehensive immigration reform is important because it depresses wages when you have 11 million undocumented people. if he could move the people out of that status, that will have a positive benefit not just to those people but to the wages of others. i think educational equity is a critical issue. it is a significant challenge. in the short-term, medium-term, long term, there is much equity in education. it is not something the

political process love to discuss. it is a state issue but it is when we need to think more creatively about how to modify. >> it is nice to go last on this one because i can think. the first thing i would do is a really great, high quality, pre- k education for the kids in the bottom 1/3 of the income scale and this is supported by conservatives and liberals alike. it has been written how critically important that as. is. full employment -- in my lifetime, the only time i have seen the income distribution and the mobility issues to improve

this when the unemployment rate was 4% and below. i don't think left to its own devices even in a much better economy than the current one that disadvantaged groups of people would experience those kind of unemployment rates. a role for government in direct job creation to achieve full implement and we have infrastructure problems that we could marry the problem of infrastructure repairs in the public sector. >> this has been a great pair of panels. you have been a terrific and there was a lot of endurance in this audience. i turned to victoria to give us final comments. >> today on c-span, conservative activists react to the election

and then "washington journal." post-election analysis continues this morning as cq roll call hosts its post-election analysis. that is at 10:15 a.m. on c-span. on c-span 2, political analyst charlie cook will break down the presidential election results and the country's changing demographics. we will have live coverage beginning at 8:30 eastern. >> need some help over here. >> did he try to get up without anybody knowing?

>> where is sergeant robert yates today? >> we ended up following him after this plane ride. he ended up entering himself into an innovative program at walter reed where they ended up using acupuncture and meditation and other techniques to wean him of all the drugs he was on and for this program, he was able to walk out of walter reed on his own two feet. i commend the military for allowing us to tell the story,

both the good and bad, and for recognizing this problem. by recognizing there's a problem of over-medication and they're looking for other ideas have to fix it. that is the whole thesis of the film. the metaphor is that the status quo is not working and need to look for outside the box ideas. >> more on the fight to rescue america's health care, sunday night on "q &a." >> reaction to tuesday night's reflection results -- election results from conservatives. this is 40 minutes. >> afternoon and thank you for

coming. i am chairman of conservative hq.com. i will speak for a few minutes and introduce five nationally- recognized conservative leaders and we will each tour -- each talk for a little bit and we'll open it for q &a. the battle to take over the republican party begins today and the failed republican leadership should resign. out of last night's disaster comes good news -- conservatives are saying never again are we going to nominate eight big government establishment republican for president. what's more, we won't have to. conservatives now have a deep bench of new national leaders and potential presidential candidates. the election of conservatives to the senate and the election of conservative mike pence, the

election of other boat-rcjkers the house show that this will end the big government conservatives. the virginia attorney general and the 50 odd members of the house stood for conservative principles and voted against the debt ceiling bill. republicans never, ever win the presidency unless they nationalize the election around conservative principles and a conservative agenda. we don't always win nationalized elections but we never win unless a candidate presents two world views and from the fell to do that. in choosing to ignore the conservative agenda, he chose not to follow the path that led

to republicans winning the white house seven out of the last 11 elections. republican national chairman reince preibus, suntory committee chairman -- senate committee chairman and other republican leaders behind the epic election failure of 2012 should be replaced with leaders more in tune with the conservative base of the republican party. likewise, established republican consultants would never be hired to run or consult on a national campaign and again and no one would give a dime to their ineffective super packs. in the met run the loss was the death rattle of the established republican party. far from signaling a rejection of the tea party of grassroots conservatives, the disaster of

2012 signals the beginning of the battle to take over the republican party and the opportunity to establish the gop as the party of small government conservatism. we will now hear from brent bozell. >> thank you. good afternoon, i am also a co- founder and president of media research center but i will not comment on the press today other than to say, nothing personal but, in your profession was atrocious this year. to what degree did you have an impact? we don't know. we will find out what will happen as a result of that so we will have more to say later.

as the founder and chairman of "for america." virtually every poll showed obama winning or within striking distance of every battleground state. why were so many so wrong? perhaps because so many of us simply could not fathom that the united states was so -- would so willingly choose the path of destruction. one could argue that in 2008, america did not know she was buying. not so this year. the obama agenda was there for all america to see. surely, this time america would not buy into this but in of the bus did and we have to ask ourselves how this happened. some of us argued from the start that this would either be obama by a hair or romney in a landslide. and for good reason for it in politics, there are two irrefutable troops -- the fine or be defined.

he succeeds in projecting the negative perception of his opponent and a positive one for himself wins. given obama plaza atrocious record, the worst performance in modern history, and given he had nothing to offer for the next four years except for more of a cent, it should have been a cakewalk for mitt romney to defy him but he didn't. is a virtual sure to that when republicans it's in which themselves from this set -- from democrats, they win. when they run as democrat-led to the lives. democrats always run to the left end of the political spectrum for republican support hovers around 20%. republicans have always enjoyed the support of conservatives and that number is at least double the number of liberals. and, you support the conservative agenda, you win. obama did not support the conservative agenda and neither did mitt romney. at the end of the day,

conservatives were left in the cold. it should have been a landslide for romney had he embraced a truly conservative agenda romney is a moderate and his campaign embarked on a bizarre defense from the outset. republicans in congress performed even more dismally if that is possible. for the past four years, we conservatives have been telling the republicans in congress that -- they have been telling us that they would choose to fight when we take the senate in 2012. time and again, the conservatives warned of the senate leadership that when was if and it would never materialistze. we were ignored. we expressed to the house leadership that symbolic, meaningless votes are useless. only a forceful agenda to address the looming entitlement crisis that threatens to bankrupt us while ridding american of the unnecessary, the

immoral, and the inefficient would suffice. they should honor their solemn commitments. we suggested that they demand and embrace the return of constitutional government. we were told a response that when we take the senate all things would be done. then they fumigated the room and we left for the end result was predictable but when evaporated months ago when it became clear the senate gop would do nothing. they projected 6, 7, 8-seat pickup and that disappeared. they accomplish the impossible -- they lost two seats. not one democratic incumbent was defeated. it is time for conservative to say enough of this and withhold any further support financial or otherwise from the republican party unless and until the gop re-earns it.

the following commitments must be made -- a refusal to participate in and the lame duck session that further advances the leftist democratic drama agenda. at the earliest opportunity, a vote to fund obama care as well as every other government boondoggle must be committed to terminate from planned parenthood to pbs, a pledge not to raise any taxes on the rich or the middle-class or anyone else. aggressively support a cut, cap, and balance agenda to cap spending at 2008 levels and put the country on the fast track back to a balanced budget. aggressively support an agenda to undo the regulatory madness in washington. permanently banned earmarks, reform the tax code, returned the country to constitutional government, commit itself to a strong military, rejecting any

cuts from sequestration and embrace a strong and socially conservative agenda and all its forms. the gop has an excellent party platform. if you want our support, support your own platform first. thank you. >> jeff bell, representing american principles project. >> thank you, richard. i think it is important for conservatives to start by confronting the fact that the 2012 election was an historic victory for the american left. it was probably the greatest since 1936. unlike 1992, 1996, or 2008, the democratic national ticket did little if anything to obscure the nature and content of its agenda. it would be surprising if the obama administration did not

interpret its victory as a mandate to complete the european-izing of american government and it would not be surprising if it ministration pays little if any attention to the republican house using judges and regulators to impose its will on subjects ranging from same-sex marriage in all 50 states to green-curbing of fossil fuels. particularly galling for conservatives is the defeat of ever republican challenger for the u.s. senate coupled with the parent democratic victories in 25 of a possible 33 races. hang on to the house but a slightly reduced margin will be small consolation to those of us who vote for repeal of obama care and broad based tax and the title of reforms. republicans have now lost four out of the last six presidential elections and five of the past six in terms of the popular

vote. this followed three landslide victories in the era of ronald reagan that dominated the politics of the nation and the world from 1980-1988. this is not the time to recreate an integrated across the board conservative politics to counter the relentless and successful assault by a reinvigorated american left for it is hard to imagine what such a time would come. >> mordrey danenfelder. >> we had some bright spots last night with the election. we have the second professional life woman in the senate and a retaining of michelle bachmann who was heavily targeted by the left. and the return of steve king. those with 3 byte -- three

bright spots but overall it was disappointing. despite our growing power of women in almost every democrat -- demographic, the gap was not closed. election are an invitation to the republican party to return to fundamentals. what are the fundamentals of the winning republican strategy. what are the fundamentals of a winning republican strategy? there what ronald reagan called the three legs of the policy stool. social policy, economic policy, and foreign policy, embracing each one of those. what we had was one wobbly leg. with $1 billion provided on the republican side. from the top of the ticket and affecting every other senate race in the country because of that influence. when fully engaged, each of those policy areas are mandated and created and there is a residence on the ground -- grass-roots level brings public policy leaders into office so

those three areas can be implemented without fully engaging on aid to those areas and on social policy, we leave boats on the -- votes on the table every single time. we had a defect a truce on social issues on one side but the full embrace of the war on social issues on the other side. republicans had the truth, obama had launched a war over abortion. and on the life issue. and he got to define what that issue was and what is it? rape. abortion meant rape in the minds of many voters because the debate was not fully engaged. his weaknesses, his extreme positions on late term abortions, on sex selection abortion, not saving children born after a failed abortion,

none of these were exploited in any debate. even the lies he put forward went unaddressed. the allies at planned parenthood does mammograms. the lie that hospitals that have religious tenets will not be forced to fund abortion inducing drugs and sterilization. voters disagreed with those extreme positions of the president and the democratic party. moving forward, the republican party and its candidates must expose and exploit those vulnerability is or risk alienating the tremendous and growing pro-life base that year after year election after election has delivered a winning in red. the war and women, was that the effective? did it most women voters? when you look at the data you

have to say no. the gender gap that benefited obama decreased this election. after that launch of the war on women theme at the top of every single debate clearly did not stick. the women's vote was floyd. -- was very fluid. there were underestimated and in fact, completely underestimated. has the pro-life issue in any way been repudiated? absolutely not. i have been asked that question three times this morning. you cannot win a war which is not engaged. you cannot be repudiated, your issue cannot be repudiated if no one has ever heard it. that is what happened on the national will and some of the

votes were left on the table. we're going to look at how we candidates. there will not be in the field without our support -- and to exploit the other extremes. next time we will see a new set of debts. -- a new set of candidates if they follow the advice of the rest of the folks hereone other point. social issues, are they the big burden on republican backs? if you look at every state that had a statewide race that also have ballot initiatives, every single and every single state but one, the ballot initiatives ran better than the losing republican candidates. that is just data. thank you very much and i look forward to questions.

>> thank you. next is jenny beth martin, tea party patriots. for those who believe that america is founded is the greatest country in the history of the world, we wanted someone who would fight for us. we wanted a fighter like ronald reagan who boldly championed america opposing founding principles who inspired millions of independence and reagan democrats to join us and who fought his leftist opponents on the -- idea that america was a shining city upon a hill. what we got was a week moderate candidate handpicked by the beltway elite and country club establishment wing of the republican party. the presidential loss is unequivocally on them.

with a catastrophic loss, the tea party is the last best hope america has to restore her founding principles. while it may take longer to restore with president, back in office we're not going away. it took nearly 100 years to take america to the place where we are today. it will take more than 3 1/2 years to restore our constitution. we're going to keep fighting. we respect the constitution and we now that for america to succeed, we need to continue educating americans on our core principles. constitution. and why our solution is essential for america's greatness. when we fight for our principles, we win.

our work begins today. county by county, district by district, we will fight for freedom the way others in america have fought for freedom in the past. we turn our attention to local and state governments and congress to fight the battles that lie ahead including balancing the budget, repealing obamacare, cutting the debt, holding the line on the debt ceiling, some things are worked -- worth fighting for. fighting for. america is worth fighting for. we will continue to fight. >> thank you. grover norquist had a conflict at the last minute and will not able to join us.

next we will hear from the president of the park project. >> all river project --the project is a media project -- the paul revere project -- that works with 100 conservative organizations across the country to help us get a consistent message. what i want to tell the conservative movement is that like we have done before over the past 50 years, is to to principles. -- is stick to principles. the conservative principles are those that have been mentioned several times so far this afternoon. freedom of course and a free economy and strong national security, traditional values, the rule of law, and adherence to the constitution. those are the things that the conservative movement was built on starting in nearly 50's. it is the things that keep coming back and i should tell the conservative movement that elections come and go. there was loss for all sorts of reasons.

the election will be analyzed, it is being analyzed already. constantly as to why people voted the way they did and they're all sorts of reasons. it is the principles that conservatives believe in that will keep it going. the conservative movement is not going away. a couple of things need to be done is the conservative needs to and will adopt a unified plan of projects that need to be stuck to, it is called no excuses and it will be released within the next week. that will be things some of which branch mentioned in his statement. things like their tax increases, no earmarks, defunding obamacare, keeping the defense strong.

what the purpose of that is to hold the leadership's feet to the fire. there is little satisfaction with the republican leadership in the house and what no excuses will be designed to do is to give conservatives in the house a list of things which they can go to the leadership and say no more excuses, we will not hear anything that you have to say as they have done but get these things done. the other thing is the conservative movement needs to look ahead. we will look at this election and figure out why things happened the way they did but it is time to put mitt romney in the rearview mirror and proceed. there is a long bench on the republican side, many others of

the candidate. we need a clear view of where we're going. in 2014 there is as bright a view of the senate takeover by republicans as any time in the last 30 or 40 years. the number of republican scifres up for election as opposed to the democrats after two more years of a, -- obama, if republicans can take back the senate, they will make the last two years of the obama administration immeasurable time for the president. -- a very miserable time for the president. those are few of the things we look forward -- those are a few of the things. we look forward to taking your questions. and thank you for coming today. >> thank you.

we are open for questions. >> this is one of the examples -- can you give examples of how mitt romney could have complained and the regret -- [inaudible] any not think there's question he took all the right stance. >> he to call the right positions and wrote them in his own hand. we were all happy to spread those commitments around. the problem wasit is one thing s

do not like the mandate. i agree. it was not a matter of the positions he took. it was his failure to elevate them when it seemed appropriate in terms of the natural flow of debates in campaigning. >> [inaudible] back in the reagan years, conservatives had a large share of the hispanic votea lot of hispanic families share the values that killed reelection. should they push an immigration

bill with some kind of amnesty provision [inaudible] >> i believe the republicans in congress should get involved in comprehensive immigration reform. not amnesty in the sense that all is forgiven and go directly to citizenship but doing something for the 11 million people who are here illegally, it is a threshold issue. if they think the republican party is now welcoming toward them, it is hard to get their attention on anything else. i would also argue that social issues, they are among the most pro-family, pro-work voting strength in the population and the failure to use those issues and try to win over hispanic motorhome was a major ally in --

hispanic voters was a major the republican effort in 2012. >> you answer it when you said hispanic family values. the answer is hispanic family values. i was -- we were all struck after the 2008 election when the republican leadership told us that there were two things that had to happen. there needed to be outreach to hispanics and blacks and republicans had to get away from the social issues. if you look at the only thing, it was the marriage amendment in california. if you look at why it won, it was a crossover of hispanics and black pastors and joined the republicans. rather than look at hispanics and blacks from the standpoint of what we white people want to look at, why not ask them what they're -- they're interested in?

wynola get their values and their cultural agenda and their priorities and address that? that is where there is great common ground and i do not understand why republicans seemingly are afraid of their own shadow and. when it comes to that. >> in the first national election, president obama embraced gay marriage. their rural several ballot initiatives that were successful and that regard. [inaudible] is this a losing issue going forward for conservatives? >> this is an issue that is free much under debate. -- very much under debate. you're right. yesterday that approved gay marriage. most of them by very narrow margins. there were far less margins in the state legislatures in some of those states.

would-be disaster is is if the -- what would be disastrous as it if the obama administration had used the judiciary to oppose a solution on all 50 states that involved making doma unconstitutional and cutting off a debate when the other side made gains there is a lot of victories in something that is so far unique to the northeast and the pacific coast as a popular base movement should then be imposed on the midwest, the south and every other part of the country, 30 -- 32 states voted to prohibit it. >> i take my hat off to the the principles. -- for soundly embracing their principles. became ready for flight and they did not back down one bit when i

came to their perspective. or abortion. -- where were the republicans? have republican showed up, maybe there would have been a difference. rex i want to say this, it is failed. that was a failure to put resources, focus, and energy into working on each constituency that could have voted down the bill. the pro-life democrats being a great example. about $1 million out of the $80 million that was spent had been focused on that, maybe it would

have voted differently and we would not be talking about obamacare today. >> i have two questions. the first is is there an acknowledgement that the demographics in this country, that is changing, there is a changing face of america, what do you do about that? what happens now that you have the fiscal cliff? you have this deadline, how does that change? does your approach change post- election now? >> there is definitely a demographic change. we all recognize that. there is a school of people that work in demographics who said that if romney had won this election it would be the last national election that a republican would win under the same rules and principles. if you look at the numbers and there was a zogby poll that came out this afternoon that shows where -- how those numbers have changed over the last two or four years and they are significant. republicans have to address that when -- one way or another.

i had dinner with arthur davis who outlined what he thought and his points were significant in terms of what blacks and hispanics believe or what the one. -- or what they want. if republicans don't listen to that,it will be of long time before the wind. -- before they win. >> regarding the fiscal cliff, and the economic issues. what we saw last night were that the voters voted for the status quo which is gridlock. they did not see a clear distinction between either of the party so they went with what they now and what they know is what we have seen in the last two years, is a standstill. they continue to evaluate which direction they want to go and that is what we will see in the next few weeks and in the next few years we will see what we have seen in the last two years.

>> anybody else? yes, in the back. >> the tea party is having [inaudible] again. it is the tea party dead or where is it going? >> three and a half years ago there were 22 of us. there was a poll three weeks ago, 40 million people would be voting based on the tea party principles and identify with us. from nothing four years ago to 34 months later, 22 people to 40 million people. it is not the death of the tea party. we're promoting our values of fiscal responsibility and limiting permit -- government and free markets against

campaigns that have been campaigning for the past six years. we're new, we're not going away, and we will continue to grow and get better. >> to put a finer point on that, i could not agree more. i feel that because of the tea party and the conservative movement working at the grass- roots level, all the way up to the republican presidential nominee in four years, within that time, the conservative movement tea party will take over the republican party within four years. there is one last question. if not, thank you for coming. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> we will analyze the 2012 vote on "washington journal." in half an hour a look at the next congress. more election