chief credit rating agent john olert. later, our guesses robin wright of the u.s. institute of peace. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: good morning, a live view of the white house this morning as the story moves from the government shutdown to the implementation of the affordable care act. "the washington post," reporting that the president will be addressing the problems with the health care website. a discussion will come tomorrow at a white house event. on capitol hill expect another hearing this fall looking at the hall and -- looking at the law and its rollout. this morning, sunday, october 20th, we want you to join in on the discussion that began last

week with the esquire polled began with what they called the new american center. the study indicates that there is a middle ground among the electorate. in order to facilitate the conversation we will be dividing the lines regionally. where would you put yourself in your political ideology? where would you do find it? for those of you in the eastern 212 --tral time zones, 585 -- 3880. two 02tain and pacific, -- 585 -- 3881. send us a tweet, http://twitter.com/cspanwj, or an e-mail, journal@c-span.org. any e-mail this morning, the theington post and this -- headline this morning from "the "jpmorgan post,"

chase has reached a tentative agreement with the justice department to pay a record $13 billion." morning,t story this there is a similar headline on the front of "the washington times here go something they talked about online, where would you place your own political ideology echo here is the breakdown. those that describe themselves as bleeding hearts, 10%, the

gospel left, 11%, the minivan , the mba middle, 13%, the pickup populists, 12%, the righteous right, 10%, talk radio heads, also at 10%. joining us on the phone is the deputy political editor at nbc news. thank you for being with us. caller: thank you for having me. host: what was the genesis of this poll? were you surprised by any of the numbers? caller: 40%, left, 40% on the right, 20% in the middle that you could win, that is the general logic. while that may hold true when you look at red and blue, there is a lot of common ground in the middle. i think that how this started is the obama campaign really who these identify

groups were during the campaign and started to target a lot of them. as you will see, even though there are these groups on the left and the right, the middle groups, the president's campaign won all four of those groups and tied with one of them. politically, i think when you look at this and why it matters, you can target your messaging to these groups and try to figure out how to get them on board. the president's campaign was really able to do that and i think that is something that the republicans should pay close attention to. when we look at these labels, how did you come up with them? caller: they were looking at a way that would make some sense to people. minivan moderates, two thirds of women, sort of that suburban

white woman, that target group you have heard so much about. it is a pretty big gap. , all four of these groups are groups that are pretty socially liberal but conservative on things like the environment, capital punishment, and diversity. when you look at the mba middle, moreover businessman, wall street type who might be socially liberal but more fiscally conservative on some of these issues of diversity. you are calling this the new american center, but there was another finding in the poll i want to get to, how people view their own personal finances and it seems the vast majority

say they are staying where they are. only 14% say they are getting ahead. -- 27% slipping behind. nine percent falling backward. there are always a myriad of issues that people are going to vote on and the economy is always front and center and whether or not you think the country is headed in the right .irection those will always be things that move you to the polls. it still shows that the american center is not doing that well and that they are concerned about the direction of the country thathe their children will inherit, even though they still think america is the greatest country on earth, which is an important distinction that people look for. host: i want to ask you about this side-by-side survey, because if you look at

republicans, self-described 28%, 20%for democrats, but only identify themselves as liberal, 25% conservative, 55% moderate. people may put themselves into the category of where they voted because they think that a lot of what politics does is build alliances , but when you break down what thene actually believe, there becomes some gray area, not just who they would vote spectrumwhat they're of beliefs are. i think that that is instructive to understand when we are anding to our neighbors whether or not politicians can win these groups over when you try to evaluate. there was more nuance there. based on this survey, our

people optimistic or pessimistic about this country? a very this is pessimistic group of people who do not see things headed in the right direction and they are very to turn about what they see coming for their kids. it is an important thing, looking forward. [indiscernible] how did this come about with nbc news and "esquire magazine"? we wanted to look into whether there was such a hard left or a hard right and we had been hearing about this from the obama campaign and the group that did the president's campaign about how you guys are looking at this all wrong and there is more to it than meets , more than the folks that conducted the romney campaign also got on board with.

we wound up with some pretty interesting results. host: the deputy political editor for nbc news, domenico monta narrow, joining us on the phone. thank you so much for being with us. caller: no problem, thanks. host: we want to hear from you, it our phone lines are open, you can join us on facebook or twitter. bob is on the phone from the center of the country, missouri. caller: by the way, it is [indiscernible] missouri for those who want to get it correct. i would say i am definitely in the middle and very resentful of the media that for the sake of ratings tries to pull it in all different directions. i do not like to say that you can not be socially conservative, having grown up as in st. louis,c yet politically liberal. i know the story of a priest who was in new york city who was very progressive politically,

but of course he was very conservative socially. i do not get this mixing of the two and being labeled a certain thing just because you were a certain way politically and you have to scream at people to say that i am conservative socially. host: i want to go to the breakdown as to how they identified these groups. in this category, where would you place your self. middle,i guess mba having a college education in that area. i certainly feel educated enough to learn things and be willing to learn new things. again, i feel that the media tom

a it is terrible to say, but i have found myself saying, for example, like on msnbc, he was determined to predict that there would be a shutdown and we would have a default and that was his whole shtick the whole week and then when it did not happen, it was like what are you going to say now? he did not even say a word. bob, thank you for the call. this -- centrist is just another word for open be squished who does not know what he believes." janice, how would you define your own ideology echo -- ideology echo -- ideology? honest, i wanted to speak with you weeks ago and they hung up on me. host: frustrated about what, janice? caller: we wanted to talk about

immigration, it was broken, and as you can tell i haven't accent i am not a white citizen and i am extremely upset about a lot of things. i do not know if my call will make a difference. immigration is not broken, it is only broken when you bring 20 million or 30 million people here illegally. when my plane landed in new york immigration agents got off the plane and gave me the green card. it is only broken by democrats. thisrats are a virus in country. i am from the soviet union, they destroy every man and every country, they destroy human beings. it is only in the mind of democrats that immigration is broken. host: ok, thank you very much. caller: and then another thing -- host: another point? caller

caller: everyone comes on your station to talk about the budget, i beg you to bring a renowned economist and on budget collapse only. democrats did not deal with the budget for four years. host: thank you very much for the call. this is from fred on the twitter page that -- the question we are asking how you woulds define your own political ideology. we are asking the question in part because of a new survey being conducted by nbc news. this poll from the romney and joiningmpaign, nic is us from clarksville, tennessee. good morning to you. i guess i am the talk

radio had category, not positive, but i consider myself a constitutional conservative. you see, i know that this country suffers from to diseases and either one can kill. clinical correctness and economic coke addiction. i hold the republican party -- i used to be a democrat, then i've began republican, and i left both. the democratic republic -- the democratic party is the party of slime and the republican party is the party of stupid and contrary to what the mainstream mendacious media is saying, we are organized and getting more organized every day and we are going to remove a lot of these people, especially in the primaries, like lamarr alexander, he needs to pack his ags because he is nothing but patsy for harry reid.

that is why they constantly demonize the tea party because we espouse the truth and the concept of the founding fathers. thank you for the call. the house returning this week, the senate is back next monday, and this is from doyle mcmanus -- host: the washington bureau chief for "the l.a. times" writes -- "it is time to start planning for the next crisis. that is the problem the crisis -- that congress set up in the stopgap deal. after all the sound and. the parties agreed only to agree spending at the current level through january 15, raising the debt ceiling until the seventh.

the shutdown could again happen next year, although we did hear from mitch mcconnell saying that that is not the case and we will be talking more about that later in the program. sheila is joining us. how would you place your own political ideology, sheila? caller: good morning, how are you? host: fine, thank you. look, i am a progressive conservative, if that happens. i think a lot of things could be done the could save money. adult dental care back into our health care. doctors treat heart attacks, , and it costsc. our insurance companies thousands of dollars, when the

.roblem comes down to the teeth i hadn't hear infection and the doctor tried treating it and it would not clear up. pulled and it cleared right up. it turns out the infection in my gums caused the year infection. we give thousands of dollars to our insurance companies to treat symptoms of things like oral hygiene. bill, one of our regular tweeters, has this comment. host: let's go back to this nbc poll on gun

control. how many owned the gun? 62% said the -- said no, 32% said yes, 45% said that back -- said the background checks are not a violation of second amendment rights, but 14% said that the second amendment is absolute and all americans should be able to buy any gun that they want, four percent saying all guns are dangerous and should be banned. this from our latest poll on where you would place your political ideology. nancy is on the phone from new jersey. good morning. i want to know how many people are pulled with this question that would represent all of america. i think that the categories are actually little bit insulting and i want to know how many people were polled. host: the survey was conducted

from the fifth to the 13th, 2000 surveyed. caller: ok, thank you. host: thank you. margaret, good morning. good morning to you. can you hear me echo -- can you hear me echo -- can you hear me? we can hear you, go ahead. caller: i look for myself as an independent progressive, but because i live in texas i only ive two choices and because believe that voting is not a privilege, it is a i have to vote, so naturally i vote as a democrat, i could not vote as a republican. the person who would be close to what i believe in congress is bernie sanders. [indiscernible] you for the call.

one of these questions, agree or disagree, "we need the government to maintain programs like food stamps, health care, medicaid for people falling to the crack. neutral,reed, 20% are 54% agree. consider raising the federal minimum wage"? supported the idea, 23% somewhat supported it, 12% somewhat opposed, eight percent strongly opposed. kathleen, massachusetts, good morning. caller: first time caller. i am a bleeding heart liberal. host: what does that mean? caller: i have a sister and husband to our tea party members and i have a good friend who i would call a compassionate conservative that is a neighbor of mitt romney's.

so, people can be from the same family but have very different views of what is morally ok and what is not. very briefly, i have attended a -- blackack -- more affairs with multimillionaires liberal,lled -- mostly that is usually who i associate and how i identify myself. i know that my sister and her husband think of me as a communist. it feels absurd. i just think that when you go to these functions and you are ,round people like the romney's you really are in a bubble. andalizing with them socializing with wealthy liberals, i am much more

comfortable with the wealthy liberals. they want some sense of fairness. because it is good for everyone. if we have a top-tier without a middle to tell the wealthy that not haveisten, we do consumers. we do not have a middle class to buy the things that the wealthy are trying to sell. you for the call, for massachusetts. monti has this point -- former first lady, former secretary of state, first lady hillary clinton campaigning yesterday. she made her first campaign appearance in nearly five years on saturday to support her old friend, terry mcauliffe, running for the governor of virginia. for the majority of the attendees inside the state

theater, it was all about clinton. she made out a case for terri mccullough strongly, rejecting the scorched-earth politics that have defined washington over the past few months." meanwhile, politics is the subject of "the virginia times dispatch." first lady."t chronicle,"he texas "a look at ted cruz, 70% in the latest statewide poll say that they have a favorable view of their senator, meanwhile in texas, 76% of the survey found that texas republicans disapproved of the presidents performance. roger is joining us next from columbia, kentucky. would youon is, where

place your own political ideology act of good morning, roger. -- ideology? good morning, roger. i appreciate the government. we need it and everything, but i think we are basically run by money. by these elite families. bankers, insurance companies. all of that good stuff. thank you for the call. carl? i am a constitutional conservative, but i do try to listen to both sides. the other day i was watching the lady senator from california, barbara boxer, and listening to her speech on the floor of the senate. a metaphor came to mind that i

think ben franklin once said that it is better to keep your mouth shut and be perceived an idiot than to open your mouth and leave no doubt. so, that is where i stand. thank you. mike is joining us from new philadelphia, ohio. survey byvided this regions. mike, go ahead, where would you place yourself? kind of confused, really. this country seems to think that the government is a spectator sport. in a good year 55% of those eligible to vote turnout unless it looks like rain. 435 house seats, only 40 are actually in play, the rest are gerrymandered, whatever party

has it could run a dead person and win. we just shut down the government for 16 days over the debt and in thisrdable care act courageous settlement that they --e up with where senator several female senators are feeling proud. they are talking about a profile in courage movement and how patriotic they are and all they did was just move it down the january and february. finally, it require both tombers to name conferees committees to settle the budget, which both chambers for the first time in four years actually past five months ago and when it was all said and done they had $1.1 billion in that i haveo a bill not even seen anyone get upset about. thank you for the call. from our twitter page --

host: several hundred of you have already weighed in on our facebook page. you can join in that share withn, let me you some of the thoughts from those who posted their comments, like michael, who described himself as a constitutionalist.

caller: host:, good morning. -- dick, good morning. caller: when the political party says that this is the way it goes, they do not think for themselves, and if someone runs a scam story, it is kind of out for me on fracking, but whatever the scam story is, that is the way they go. the problem is, if the terrorists were marbles and we

put them all in a bag with all the presidents and shook them up and threw them out, they would all be black. these lobbyist control our government. if we got rid of them and there was no government, they would be gone. thanks for the call. we are asking the question of where you would place your own political ideology. we would have five to 10 minutes more phone calls. from illinois, brian is on the phone, good morning. caller: i would consider nationalism, caring about your fellow americans about profit, say. the government has been bought by wall street and big money controls everything. we are at a point now where the country is unraveling because the people with the money do not care about average people. they want to make as much money as possible and if that means

moving the plant to bangladesh and throwing americans out of work to bring products back without a terrace and make a killing, that is what they will do, and that is was happening right now. average people are getting because people like bill clinton decided that was the way to go. thank you for the call. dean makes this point -- chris van hollen, democrat from maryland, among the issues still facing congress, immigration and the farm bill are some of the areas we talked about on our "newspaper -- newsmakers," program. [video clip] >> republicans themselves will have to decide how they want to conduct business going forward. one way to show how they want to

act is to take up the bill.ation reform clearly overwhelming majorities in this country support it. majority supports the farm bill. that would be a way to show that they really want to govern from the center for all americans and not the cal telling to the tea party faction. congressman chris van hollen was our guest on "newsmakers, you can hear it here on c-span television and on c-span radio. john is joining us from saratoga springs, new york. on the question of where you would place your own political ideology, how did you find it, john? i would classify myself more as a libertarian. i do not really believe in either artie. the two guys from illinois made a great point. hear the media and think

they are hearing the bible. the latest fox poll or msnbc poll and call it the truth, but as a libertarian i have to think for myself and do not believe in many of the laws that we passed. there are too many laws. this thing where we are spying on americans, both parties agree we have to get spied on. i will quote ben franklin, someone else did. the founding fathers were levered -- libertarians. ben franklin said that those who gain give up liberty to safety deserve neither. the title of the book, "broken safety," coming up in about 10 minutes. health care will be front and center tomorrow as the president will acknowledge some

of the problems with the rollout of healthcare.gov. "obamacare problems in spotlight after the shutdown ends. the problems are about to get a as they contentious give the white house unintended political cover over the last few weeks, overshadowing the thely flawed rollout of insurance marketplace. the shutdown is now in the rearview mirror and healthcare.gov for access to the obamacare exchanges, still serious problems. republicans eager to distance themselves in an effort to chris -- cripple the plan. now we will begin a series of hearings with the house ways and means committee." the house energy and commerce committee will be the first out of the gate. details are available online,

thehill.com. harold is joining us from westwood, new jersey. caller: good morning. my ideology is very simple, go back to the constitution. thatounding fathers said we need life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. what the democrats have done with fannie mae, said freddie and all of the other things is destroyed our founding fathers vision of what the government should be. they took van hollen and pat murray, these are bomb throwers. if they put in bomb throwers, how would they expect to get an agreement when what they do not want to do is help the country at all. the other thing, obviously, is truth. the media simply will not report the truth about obama care.

fast and. us, benghazi and everything else . the other basic thing, obviously, is money. -- his life. abortion is destroying our country. thank you fort: the call. another great tweet -- host: one other note about health care, from the associated , "officials say that 476,000 applications were filed with the insurance exchanges, but the question remains not many have filed at how many have registered and signed up for health care insurance. the point is that it is unclear whether to keep track of the 7 million objectives in place, that is how many people need to sign up according to the congressional budget office. the president's advisers saying the president has been

frustrated by the slowed rollout . during one of his meetings last week he told advisers that they had to own up to the fact that there were no excuses for not having health insurance marketplace ready to operate as thomas -- as promised. -- promised." david, franklin park, good morning to you. basic thing, obviously, is what we have to have is the truth. --we do not have the truth hello? hello? host: you with us yucca -- you with us? social security, medicare, so that these rogue rams can continue. the truth is we treat kittens and puppies better than babies in this country. how could it possibly be that we penned -- painfully end of the lives of our citizens, of the

persons who are in this country and who will contribute mightily if only we would let them live. claudine is joining us caller: next from portage, indiana. caller:good morning, thank you -- portage, indiana. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have a lot of points on both sides. the one thing to remember is that politicians are going to say what they need to say, whether they believe it or not. i was basically raise a republican and i felt that way until -- i voted for nixon, voted for ford, and then my party turned into this immaculate conception party. women getting pregnant on their own walking down the street. is biggest thing that i fear that we need protection from religion so that everybody's view can count, not just those

who have some religious thing that they wanted to control. thank you for taking my call. a follow-up on an earlier tweet, questioning why we have labels. this is from one of our viewers -- well, k street is an area in washington known for its lobbyist and this morning in the front page of "the new york thes," the subject of story, sequestration, "ready for a new fight on u.s. spending."

this morning is the front page of "the new york times." patty, good morning. good morning. host: how are you, today? www.c-span.org -- caller: great, how are you yeah cap --? host: fine. i am a fiscally conservative democrat. that basically says it all. host: thank you, patty. let's go back to the poll and how they describe those in the survey from 2004 over people who were questioned, bleeding hear s

part of the new american center, it is also available online. joseph, from winter haven, florida, where would you place yourself yucca -- where would you place yourself? pretty much independent. i think that both parties are owned by the banks. if you really want change you want someone not nominated from either party. you are going to get into the federal reserve wanting to keep up a democrat or republican candidate. next fromr is southwest harbor, maine. good morning. hello? peter, go ahead. caller: yes. i am a conservative. the main thing that bothers me

about the democrats is that i am and i had toson watch all these hearings they had. every single one of the scandals that has been brought up, the do everything to make a joke of them, but they do not ask questions. they really do not want to find out. i confirmed with a congressman who asked this woman who was being questioned irs thing, i -- guess. no, yes, her name was ingram. thesked her if she had read

salem witch trial. and then he asked her if she had danced with which is. they really do not want to find out what is going on. we have had four americans killed in benghazi and no one wants to find out. holder is still doing whatever he wants. about investigating the journalists on fox news. it is a joke. they do not even want to tell the truth. host: peter, going to stop you there, just a couple of minutes left. weekly,"lee -- cq "flight of the cardinals," the cover story. one of the reasons legislating is more difficult. from our twitter page, we have

this from one of the viewers -- steve, alexandria, virginia, good morning. good morning, folks. i never thought we would get to the point where all of the museums and the library of congress and the access to the , with thatorial horrible thermometer, restricted in that sense. everyone got so much enjoyment just by walking up to the lincoln memorial and reading about it. for it to get to the point where , itr the health care debate is like voting. everyone should vote.

one of the first big health-care lawsuits was against hca in 2000 , it was the largest in history. and then you have your choice, it is like putting up at turn signal, left or right. almost to the point of "night at the opera," it even refers to the sanity clause in the marx brothers. being in your right mind when you make a decision. so, you have that one senator with his pretty ridiculous stance. stopping you there

because we are really short on time, but thank you for your thoughts. one more from mary -- the issues of abortion and legalize marijuana to gun rights and where the country is going, you can check out this latest survey from nbc news and esquire, it is titled "the new american center." coming up in a few minutes we take a look at a new e-book with .ichael kranish and matt viser later, what about credit ratings? one of the ratings agencies that threatened to downgrade the u.s. bethe recent crisis will joining us from new york. senator ted cruz among those on -- sunday morning or grams sunday morning programs, nancy callow is following up on those.

nancy, good morning. >> yes, today the topics include the effects of the government shutdown, budget negotiations ahead, and the implementation of the affordable care act. you can hear rebroadcast of the programs beginning at noon today . guests today on "meet the press ," including jack lew, tom , and theobert shiller israeli prime minister, benjamin .etanyahu at 1 p.m. it is "this week," with nancy pelosi, ted cruz, and jeb bush. at 2 p.m., "fox news sunday," with dick durbin and the vice chair of the republican conference, roy blunt. cnn's "state of the union," following at 3 p.m., where they

sit down for an exclusive interview with john mccain. at 4 p.m. it is "face the nation," where bob schieffer welcomes mitch mcconnell, mark graham.and lindsey the talk shows are brought to you as a public service by the networks and by c-span. again, rebroadcast begin at noon eastern with meet the press, "this week, fox news sunday, state of the union, and at 4:00 eastern, "face the nation." on c-n listen to them all span radio, 90.1 fm in the washington dc area, nationwide on satellite radio and now on channel 120. you can download our free app for your smart phone or listen online, www.c-span.org.

clock stopsr-old ticking. time stands still. an easy met -- easy metaphor for the government shutdown. few steps away a from the chamber capital. this is the oldest clock in the capital, commissioned for the ,.s. senate in the year 1815 ordered from a philadelphia clockmaker named thomas. of the manyne reasons the c-span video archives are so amazing. >> the archive is amazing. you can view them any time, here is how. go to www.c-span.org and go to the video library. to watch the newest video, click on the most recent tab, click on what you want to watch and press play. you can also search the library for a key topic or keyword, you can find a person, type in their

name, search, and go to people. nuclear also share what you're watching and make a clip. use the set handle button tool, add the title description, click on share, and send it i e-mail, twitter, or google plus. searchable, free, created by the cable tv industry and funded by your local satellite provider or cable provider. >> "washington journal" continues. our sunday roundtable with two veterans of "the boston globe." ,ichael kranish, matt viser thank you for being with us. we should point out that a baseball game got higher played in your book this morning in "the boston globe," that this is what the front page looks like, "improbable dream soaring into the world series."

we will talk about your book out this morning, and it you say " what is behind the gridlock with reference to behind the last two weeks"? when the system seems to be perpetually in crisis even the short-term host: michael kranish? guest: that is right. we have a city where we only just briefly gotten over the last crisis, but as everyone knows it will happen again. even if they do not default in a few months, the underlying issues and framework on which the city is based, a lot of people are concerned that the system is broken. this is based on a series of stories this year from "the tell aglobe," we try to series of stories in a compelling and readable way to

give you a sense of what is behind the broken nature of the city. not just the day today, but the deeper stories that tell us what the deeper problems are and what we might do to fix them. -- how?w yucca guest: guest: that is the big question. we are at historical levels of partisanship in congress. things are not working the way that they probably should in a better atmosphere. next step is where we are turning next in terms of where we -- what we can be done differently. host: to get things done we learned that you have to have personality. in the book, "broken city," you write "speaker boehner has turned out and declined invitations to all six state dinners --

this is a story that matt wrote, let him talk about it a little bit. it is amazing, their relationship or lack thereof at this point. president obama has met alone with mitch mcconnell twice and it took them two years for him to meet one-on-one with john boehner. i think that there is a lack of cooperation and a lack of personal relationships that do affect the legislation that gets done and the conflicts that we have seen, just this past time with the debt ceiling crisis. should point out that there were a series of contributors to this, but the president has taken more trips to self korea then to south carolina, "having visited the citizens of denmark twice, gone

to kentucky wants your co-is that important? guest: we wrote and obama inehner this story to give you this balance, really trying to show that the problem goes all around for why things have this underlying broken nature. people probably remember that obama in 2004 at the democratic convention in boston said that there was one america and he has not really been able to fulfill that as far as bringing the country together. that story, talking about his inability to do that. we are clearly more divided today than he hoped we would be when he took office. host: what was your one take away from "broken city"? that things are worse than we thought in a new creative ways.

that things got really bad. things are worse than we thought heading into this. from johne is a quote boehner who said that we got rolled by the tea party and the seat -- circumstances that led to the shutdown. were the republicans rolled? --guest: the republican party really is in the midst of a civil war, some would say. john mccain said that they are trying to define themselves. there is the isolationist wing, the tea party, the more traditional members. the party is trying to figure it is, that ist something the republican party themselves having trying to deal with. they have this report about resetting and redefining themselves. the speakers comments this past week, as it appeared on the radio show from bill cunningham

about what happened and where they are going next. [video clip] , howhn boehner, thank you are you? how are you doing good? >> we have been locked in a fight over here, trying to bring government down to size and do our best to stop obamacare. we fought the good fight and we did not win. >> did you win-win they came together to do this deal? is this a step on the ladder? so, we will see. every time i have gotten into a discussion with the president, , talkingpresident about title changes and making these programs sustainable, it was all "we cannot do that unless you raise taxes." if they hold onto that position, we will not come to that position. ,ost: michael kranish

based on the comments from john boehner, what is the likelihood of returning to this? guest: very likely in the sense that they are trying to come up with a grand bargain and they have not succeeded after trying many times before. how they will get to this new agreement is hard to see. were were some taxes that raised, not as much as the democrats wanted. it is going to be quite a battle coming on and it is hard to see how in a few weeks they will simply come to an agreement. maybe they will come up with something. this is a quote from mitch mcconnell, interviewed by a number of organizations, "one of isfavorite kentucky sayings that there is no education in the second kick of a mule. the first is when we shut it down in the 1990s, the second was in the last 16 days.

.here is no second education i think we have now fully withinted our new members what a losing strategy that is. i thinkthat is --guest: that is the hope of many in the leadership. the challenge certainly in the house and in the senate is that that will be the big text next and there are no signs of the tea party letting up either on health care or sticking to their guns on these issues. host: there had been stories that speaker boehner might be challenged within his own caucus and those stories dissipated. guest: a lot of republicans that we talked to in the tea party, they do not really blame john boehner, they realize what an extraordinarily difficult position he is in.

it really is a tough position. came to congress, he was a rebel himself. it is a very tough position that he finds himself in, constantly trying to bring the party together. he has not been successful in trying to get this agreement last week with democratic votes, not something he wanted to do. book, outnew e- today, "broken city." with us today, michael kranish and matt viser, two of the many contributors to this "boston globe" e-book. and thenet comments get your calls and e-mails. [video clip] people'sw the american

frustration with what goes on in been higher. never that is not a surprise. the american people are completely fed up with washington. at the moment when our economic recovery demands more jobs, more , we have got yet another self-inflicted crisis that set our economy back. what?. there is no economic rationale for all of this. host: that was the president on friday speaking to his staff in the state dining room. what was the shutdown all about, matt? guest: it was a battle with republicans over health care that they fought. a battle that some of the republican leaders did not want to fight.

i think it it began over health care, eventually. they realized obama would not yield on that. they try to find a way -- and ty try to find a way out. host: we have been talking about this new poll from nbc news, and there has been a lot of talk about whether we could have a third-party challenge. this is a tweet -- the tea party should run their own ticket. only fair to the gop. how likely is that? partyr it is a tea independent campaign or somebody else? guest: if you are in the tea party, you are probably a little frustrated. some peoplely are who are talking about do we need a already movement, do we need to collect money, do we need to have a national organization. big enterprise. the tea party is that its grassroots, sort of at odds having a big party and a lot of money to be raised.

right now, there is a subset of the republican party of which they are partly at war. it is an awkward situation and they only have so much leverage. third parties have not been very successful in this country on a national basis. we have seen this time and time again. back in 1992, ross perot ran as a third-party candidate and may well have chart -- may well have caused george h w bush not to win reelection. there is a history we are all aware of. host: jake, good morning to you. democrats line. caller: i just want to say that the republican shutdown, they don't know what leadership is. people stood up, babies not getting food, milk, etc. outpresident took his pen and wrote a $450 million check to the bird. and harry reid -- they need to stand together like [makes nois e] -- host: ok, and that is coming

from a democrat. let's go to john from panama city, florida. independent line. caller: yes, west palm beach. host: go ahead, john. caller: i would like to say that we are a partisan nation. what people seem to forget is president obama got 60 million s -- it is a 13-12 ratio. million, goes into 135 127. that is a real tight split their. what nobody ever talks about is 90 million people who were eligible never voted in this last election. i would like to know who they are. the biggest problem i see here is leadership. i mean, we have always had divided government. ronald reagan was a leader. and he brought us together.

we had a democratic house of representatives. he was able to get through by compromise. in not see any leadership present obama, unfortunately. outrageous things in the last shutdown. whenever had open air monuments before. i to sit we are a partisan nation and we get the government that we deserve. host: ok, john, thank you for the call. guest: we did have a number of government shutdowns when tip o'neill with the speaker and ronald reagan was in the white house. guest: people have worked together. we have had great divisions in the history of this country. the first time we've had such a vast divide. in the citypened over the years as we have seen cases where a person mentioned, ronald reagan did work with tip

o'neill, but it was not always easy. there were a lot of fight that went on. with george h w bush, at the time that he was president, there were a lot of people saying the government is so decided -- so divided, yet he , came upth democrats with things like the clean air bill and also did the budget deal. the budget deal ended up making the taxes pledge, which was the sort of precursor to the tea party movement. there were people in the public authority who were very upset with bush breaking that taxes pledge. that was an example of when there really was bipartisanship which was celebrated but then a third-party candidate, ross perot, and it led to this breakup that we are still seeing the fallout of today. republicans are still trying to figure out what their party wants to be. host: let me talk by two other leading figures. a democrat, tom foley, who passed away this past friday.

the book, you sit down with bob dole, the former republican leader. , but thend of politics ideology was different, wasn't it? guest: the story on bob dole, i covered him, the ms. senate majority leader, so forth, he was releasing today, even now, as an extraordinary bipartisan figure. i talked to him in february about his disabilities treaty. he had in 1990 worked on this famous americans with disabilities act, which was a very bipartisan these of legislation. itay we know it because requires all the curb cuts. all the many things you see if you are in a wheelchair you benefit from the legislation. it was overwhelmingly bipartisan. they wanted to have a treaty based on this piece of legislation that would tell other countries here is how to do it and it would not cost the u.s. taxpayers anything according to be sponsors of it. in the end, bob dole and a famous clip that c-span aired, was rolled onto the senate floor

. urging his other colleagues to vote for this legislation. in the end, it was defeated -- host: by republicans. guest: by republicans. this was a story of betrayal because there was a current senator, jerry moran, who said he was going to stand up for people with disabilities. in the end, he voted against the treaty. there is a story, now an evil book, i talked to him about why he changed his mind. that is a story much lesser known than the fiscal cliff am a the sequester, the debt ceiling, but it is sort of the same players, the same thing. there is a tea party element in a minute that no, this is bad, here is the reason why. the way it played out with much less fanfare is similar to the way we solve things play out later. there are a lot of different in this is that bob dole was very upset about this. republican party should put up a sign saying "closed for repairs."

he later said something similar. he was obviously thinking about. he was very upset that this legislation that was based on his landmark bill would not be passed for what he thought was really inappropriate reasons. he said one of the things he is quoted as saying is "i thought when i came i was supposed to do it, that if you are a four and i am a two, we should find a way to get to three." is a good perspective to hear today, but that it was a voice worth hearing again. host: again, all available online at the "boston globe" website. the title of the book is "broken city." as longet from jim -- as there are two sides to an issue instead of 3, 8 or party can never coalesce. -- a third party can never coalesce. caller: the title of "broken city" i suggest being renamed a properly as

"broke city" because the difference between the democrat position, which is an easy position to stand -- oral money -- and the republicans' position, which is more difficult to try to control, somewhat the standing of borrowing money, i think is where the conversation should eventually go. it is fun to talk about the ,epublicans having difficulties fighting over the position of the tea party, which is basically well known to try to control an out-of-control government, it is like a family where you have got the heavy spending part of the family, and then you have got the earning part of the family trying to control the heavy spending part, and there is disagreement. host: thank you for the call. would like to take that? guest: there is no question there is a divided republican party right now.

that in many ways made this past episode so interesting. it was hard for obama to negotiate with anybody until the republican sort of figured out their position, and more specifically the house republicans. for so long, the house republicans were trying to figure out where they were and what their strategy was going to be. i think in many ways that story is still developing before we necessarily get to be partisan divide between democrats and republicans. this is sort of civil war, some are calling a, any remote look and party. -- calling it, in the republican party. , you michael kranish talked about tom foley, who passed with this rice -- this past friday. he spoke at an event in 2003 by the challenges he faced as the speaker the house and what he saw in 2003. [video clip] particularly, i think an opportunity to speak a little bit with speaker hastert today at lunch, we both sort of recognize that one of the problems of the speakership is

to deal with very strong, powerful voices within one's own party. i came to the speakership of the house as a former committee chairman, but not the most senior of them. john dingell and others had been powerful and wonderfully effective legislators and committee chairman. they held a specific knowledge and experience in their fields. not only with the committee --irman but with sub given subcommittee chairman that have proliferated to radically over the years. -- weim in the house of had something like 160 democrats in the committees. and there is a problem sometimes of managing strong, effective, and powerful personalities. that is one of the jobs that i

did not really anticipate when i became speaker. how much is kind of parsing out jurisdictional disputes, trying to mediate between conflicts of approach to various committee assignments. of kitchenort work in terms of the day-to-day work of the speaker. host: the former speaker of the health, tom foley, who passed away this past friday at the age of 84. his comments in 2003. by the way, you can watch that on our video website at www.c- span.org. michael kranish. becamei remember when he speaker and i was there. i think the first day of his speakership he had about three dozen reporters into his office joking about how to contain the democratic party. he was of course the speaker and he had 250 odd democrats to contend with. at that point, i do not want to say the democratic party was a void itself, but there were a lot of diverse groups. his concern was how do i keep them all together.

the republicans have that party today because there are about 200 democrats and they are in the minority. it is not have the same problem that tom foley had to face and of course the democratic party had great problems there and fully of course was defeated in his own reelection so he cannot become a speaker as a result. a precursor some of the recent the loss, some of the reasons republicans had gained the majority of those seats when he was a speaker. host: this is from one of our viewers -- i think gridlock is wonderful. it is when they start doing things that i freak out. [laughter] that is thenk feeling of a lot of people, particularly the tea party. kansas, and time in felt that sentiment a lot from people. they were appreciative of what tim cook is doing, and he is a caucus or the"no" caucus, as some have

called it. and i want to vote for more spending. they want the representatives to come and throw sand in the wheels of government. and that is what they are doing. wet is creating the gridlock are seeing. there is a sentiment that we want that, we want people to come here and stop everything that is going on. michaeltt viser, kranish, both with the "boston globe." bob is joining us from south carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. i am a true democrat in south carolina. i think you have a public and calling it on our line -- i think you have republicans calling in on our line. i am 86 years old, and i have never heard such lying as have gone on on this affordable care act, starting with the outrageous death panels, and the constant phrases, the complete government takeover of health care, which is totally false. there are still 1300 plus

private health insurance companies, and i think one problem with the aca is that call the exchanges, something they are talking with an obama insurance company, where they are talking with private health insurance companies. i think the demand shows the need for such care. we personally would have liked medicare for all, and we have been on medicare for over 20 years, and we are firmly convinced that the two major accomplishments in this country were both done by democratic presidents. fdr with social security, and of course lbj with medicare. i think obama will live in history as the third major accomplishments. but it would be pleasant if republicans would stick to fax while instead

of the constant lying. and of course the chief liar now is ted cruz, who surprisingly was brought up in a country that provided free health care, and he never mentioned what he will do for the 27% of texans who have no health insurance. so i think this whole thing is going to turn in another year or two, people will realize what an incredible benefit it is because both social security and medicare have kept millions of us in our generation from poverty and vagrancy. host: -- and bankruptcy. host: bob, thank you for the call. guest: we do not know if this will turn out great or terrible. the healthcare.gov site has not been good. the president has been talking about that this week in his concerns about that. the republicans have been having a series of hearings to look into it and bring a lot of pressure on this. so for obama, he has got to hope , that theturns around

rollup gets smoother and that people are able to enroll, and goes into effect and works well. this is his legacy. right now it looks like it will be his major legacy, for good or for bad. we do not know how it will turn up your the president hopes 10 years from now some caller calls in and said that what this person says is correct that this has helped many people. we just don't know. it will be a big issue again in the next coming up term and the next presidential election. host: this is from george wilson, syndicated columnist, this morning inside the "washington post," he said the problem is not too much politics, he said that his two little politics --

guest: it is interesting. one of the parts and or book was about the farm bill -- in our book was about the farm bill. it is typically a vehicle for politics. some of it is big spending politics, some of it is spending on farm subsidies and bringing democrats along through the food stamp program, which is also part of the farm bill. this has for decades been an easy process in the past. this year it was not passed, it failed in the house. i think part of that is the lack of dealmaking. part of that is no earmarks anymore in congress, and part of that i think is obama's own posture for dealmaking and toward some of the relationships like we talked about earlier. obama has been gulping 150 times, and four times has he been including -- has been

golfing 150 times, and four times has he been including others. guest: the lack of appropriations in earmarks, as you know michael kranish, used to be the real makers. guest: people said we used to have earmarks to trade votes for, that was the way business was done for so long. obviously to arty folks are to do business that way. others would say this is good, this is what i am here for. members of congress are trying to figure out now what we do, how do we get what we want. you can argue whether was good or bad, but it has hermetically --nge the way things are it has dramatically change the way things are done. host: a tweet -- bill clinton

overreach in his first two years and lost the house. he compromised and the economy grew. obama and reid let the economy suffer instead. guest: there is always the stuff back and forth and when obama was president, he was able to get health care past but with no republican votes. that has angered a lot of republicans. it has made it very difficult for him to get a lot of other initiatives accomplished. we are still seeing follow for that. he did get the bill that he wanted, but whether the price that you paid is too big, that is what we are seeing right now as to his inability to work with republicans on a lot of issues. host: al is joining us from minnesota, independent line, good morning. caller: good morning. host: please go ahead. caller: and my on? ahead.ou sure are, go caller: i have food for thought. and i canars old, 25, 30 years ago on a bipartisan basis, some

republican senators and democratic senators coming together, talking about a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget. you cannot spend money you don't have. if you had done that 25, 30 years ago, we would not be having these problems now. thendly, the other thing is war, for example, the two gulf wars, i've heard on c-span economic ph.d.'s stating that the money that was spent in those gulf wars would give every citizen in the u.s. free health death, andirth to free education with four years of college with a payback of a couple of years. what is your food for thought on that? host: thank you for the call. guest: certainly the wars are a big reason why our economy is whye it is that, or it is our debt and deficit is where it

is that. i think that is what the test over these next few months, whether they can be any type of long-term changes in the , anytion of our spending changes in entitlements and things that have been on the table in the past and whether those are going to be part of there isssion, whether any hope for anything different this time. we have had debt reduction commission, we have had a supercommittee, although things have failed. we have had obama and boehner trying to cut a deal on the grand bargain. that has not worked so far. that is why these next two months are important in terms of the direction that we're going to head. host: michael kranish, to point, we are asking our viewers how they were to find a political ideology. this from cap -- rapidly becoming apathetic about politics. i am disillusioned. i mention that because chapter 13, you write about the partisan media and take aim at msnbc and fox and rush limbaugh and laura

ingram and ed schultz. explain. guest: well, this story in the series is what is the role of partisan media. if you look in to c-span, call after call would show that. if you write about why things would work, you have to look at the question about that's what is the role of rush limbaugh? i'm not talking about the news shows, they all have very shows that are non-artisan and shows that are openly partisan. obviously rush limbaugh and others are openly partisan. this story looks at what the role of that is. one of the things i found interesting is that if you go back to 1980, there were about 52 million people watching the evening network news broadcast the call -- rockettes, the commercial news. today that is about 21 million or so, and the cable news network still begin to make up for that. said you lostar about 25 million viewers of the news, even as the country's andlation has increased,

those lost and to be moderate and a lot of those people do not -- may not be voting. what also is the effect of having a loss of summary people who may be moderate, who might change the nature of things that are not as engaged for whatever thatn, it looks at all of and the role of both partisan media and the growth of other the alex and also how the white house -- other media outlets and how the white house deals with it. those days are over. ronald reagan enjoyed that, but obama cannot. he has to chop up the people he is trying to reach in small segments, as the republicans. so at this very chopped up media role, there is a very different way politicians try to reach people, and it may be one of the reasons that we do have is broken nation because the cultural blue, as one person says in the story, is no longer there in the way it used to. which is good in the sense that there are -- there is a lot more

iteration. everybody wants more information. certainly as a journalist, i want that, and c-span provides a rigorous service. the flipside is that there are so many different stories told perhaps about the same facts. that is what we try to get a in that piece. host: one white people can listen to this program is xm channel 120, c-span heard nationwide. the e-book is titled "broken city," a completion of essays from "boston globe." reclamation the head, by the way, eli renter and time is white -- eli renter and thomas white -- washington is broken, but america is still a top is on the phone, scarborough, maine.

caller: i see a fundamental person between let's look at what unions do with companies when a contract is coming to an end, what if the union just told sonot come to an agreement its members, you know what, we we're just going to keep the contract rolling year after year, and look at what is happening -- are people calling the union terrorists because they have shut down public presentation in san francisco ? host: ok, thank you for the call. guest: there is a consequence and not coming to an agreement and we are seeing that through the budget in that they keep passing continuing resolutions where they keep continuing to fund government at current levels. without having that discussion among different committees, among different committee weirman about what things should spend and what things we should not spend money on, and i think that in a way has broken

the system by which congress has long operated under. wereof regular order committees get together, they discuss things, they decide what to appropriate, what not to appropriate, and just having that process forces the ranking member of the committee and the chairman of a committee to get together, to know each other, to work together and go through subcommittee hearings and the nitty-gritty business of congress that yields an annual budget that we have not had for many years. in that sense, that is also contributing a little bit to the brokenness. host: two points above the president -- this is from reasons that the president does not invite congress to golf with him. he has no people or governing skills. this from ron -- why does the president always feel like he needs to lecture us? if you really want someone to work with you, stop blaming them. who would like to take that point? guest: i think that he does

certainly have personal skills. there is no doubt about it. you do not get elected president the way he has two times by the margins the unelected by without personal skills. i think that translated throughout the country. he turned virginia and north carolina in 2008 and kept virginia in 2012. so i think there are some skills of the president has, certainly. i think it gets harder when he is dealing, negotiating, and i think it is true that he has an insular nature about him in the way that he vacations, the way that he governs, the way that his staff is -- sort of all close, tight knit group, but i do not think we should discount the fact that he has won two elections.

book "the lesson president obama seem to learn from his first term is that there is little hope of negotiating major legislation with republicans are generally despised both his politics and his approach. the u.s. will continue to be made up of red states and blue states, not purple." guest: this is where we are at. clearly mitch mcconnell wanted to make sure that obama had won terms your dad did not happen, obviously. no one is apprised that the parties are at odds with each other. what is different from some years ago is that you used to have a leader of one party and a leader of the other in congress they would stake out positions that were very far apart, but those were negotiating positions. in the end, bob dole said you are a four, i am a two, let's find a way to three, that is different. abody wants to try to find way to go to the three point. if obama was here, he would say they will not negotiate, and

republicans with a decent about him, but we solve saw this crisis really which was created by the tea party in which they try to define obamacare. you had john boehner saying earlier this year obamacare is the law of the land. you had a disconnect about the republicans party, and the party itself is not decided what position it event, which makes it even more difficult for the president to get things done. so trying to be fair to all sides here, but there clearly is something going on in the republican party that they are try to figure out. host: judy, redding, california, democrat line. good morning. caller: good morning. very interesting. i think president obama is quite the leader. what he did in the first 18 legislation,ssing he had friends and allies in and ihe house and senate, think it is such a contentious

, rebellious that they arety destroying our country, they are destroying our government. i believe it is the republicans who are causing the trouble. host: judy, to ever the call. contentious. guest: the caller brings up is 18-month period where obama was elected, and that was a crucial period, where there are things that the white house bush and 60 pushed and succeeded with. winning on dodd frank and health care, those are important legislative and publishes for the president, but he sort of pay the price i think politically by giving rise to the tea party movement,

certainly through health care. i think that is why the implementation of the president's health-care law is so important for his legacy is because it is sort of his chief legislative accomplishment. it was a crucial decision to move forward on that. it made things a lot more partisan. it sort of rallied up the rulebook look at. notice the implication of that law that will go to define him and his legacy. host: first from the "washington post," there is a piece, former chair and senior aide to the president bush, to save the gop, look to the states. one of the state the republicans are looking at is new jersey. we carry chris christie's debate here live on c-span. [video clip]

>> could you, and your imagination, conceive of running for president and maintaining your position of the governor of new jersey? >> i cannot say because i have never run for president. whichr have these others, i think i've now covered all the ones who are like than you could possibly -- who are alive that you could possibly interview. the fact is i do not know the answer to that question, but here's what i do know. for the last four years, the people of new jersey have watched me do this job and they have watch me do it aggressively and forthrightly, and i believe they have watch me do it effectively. if i'm privileged enough for them to give me another four years, my promise to them as i will do the job in exactly the same way regardless of what ever else comes to the state. either in my personal life or in the lives of the people of the state. >> if you are privileged enough for them to give you the four

years, when you say the four years? >> i have no idea what the next four years are going to bring me. absolutely no idea. i do not think that the people in new jersey out there watching right now expect me to be able to predict what will happen over the next four years but i certainly could not predict -- i certainly could not have prevented what happened over the last four. guest: chris christie is a figure in the republican party that some looked to as a possible republican presidential candidate. he would not rule out that he would become governor again or run for president while he is governor. certainly it is in his mind. therapeuti -- there are plenty of people in the party who say he may have been a more formidible candidate then mitt romney. he is a strong northeastern element of the party that is not excessive a great degree anymore. whether the party wants to move in that direction or an entirely different, more southern or tea party direction, that would be

another fight that we see in the primaries. but you know what, that is what primaries are all about. and there should be that vigorous debate. maybe that is the point at which the party will figure which direction it wants to go. firstmatt viser, her campaign of five years, hillary clinton campaign yesterday for her friends, who according to iffe isl, terry mcaul ahead. guest: everything i hillary clinton does is interesting and under a microscope certainly. in terms of whether she is going to run for president, what she is trying to do, i i think in this case helping out one of her iffe, at aerry mcaul time when he is head of the polls, i think she can maybe go to claim a little, giving a little boost. i think two of joe biden. we have not heard or seen a lot of joe biden here. a lot of times he was the closer

for the white house on a lot of these deals appeared he was not as present during the latest round. everything hillary clinton and joe biden do is interesting to watch. host: what surprised you, michael kranish? guest: how deeply rooted this division is. even if they make a deal on legislation next, the divisions are so great, can the big things get done? if they can do some of the things like pat the budget, not but the debt -- that feeling, so forth, those roots are deep maybe there needs to be changes, and that is what we will look at in the next for the series, what is being done in the state that may look better or even in other countries. i think there are people who are thinking about that. are we to so broken that we need to look at the underlying structure? host: the lookout today -- the e-book out today at

bostonglobe.com, "broken city." two of the authors, matt viser gentleman, kranish, thank you both for being with us. c-span's local content vehicle back on the road, and today we feature yuri, pennsylvania. a view of the skyline in northwestern at the mania. -- in northwestern pennsylvania. e look at erie, pennsylvania. there is a collection room that contains a wooden pipe that was played 200 years ago at the battle of lake yuerie. here is a preview. fife.s is a it was played by cyrus tiffany

at the beginning of the battle of lake eirie. cyrus tiffany was an african- american sailor, a fifer on board the uss laurens. the fife was said to be played outside the tent of george washington when cyrus tiffany serve as a soldier during the revolutionary war. one of the more exciting things that was observed, and i will say it is not my observation, but another person's on staff here, if you take a look at the fife, you can see there is a discoloration and a stain right there. it indicates the direction in which the fife was held being played. the long and short of it is, we realized that this fife was used by somebody playing -- a left- handed person. span2'shis weekend on c-

book tv, it is 5:00 eastern time on c-span3. you can see the full completion a time on www.c-span.org /localcontent as we travel to erie, pennsylvania. joining us from new york is john olert. we want to take a look at what fitch was warning. he is the chief credit officer. for being thank you with us. your warnings came just as washington was trying to come to grips with the possibility of raising the debt limit or threatening not to do so. why the warning from fitch? well, there continue to be a lot of factors going on with the u.s. rating in particular. the warning at the time was highly reflective of the ongoing debate about the debt ceiling from literally hours away

the potential of a somewhat limited default. but the watch also speaks in more medium-term issues. we have had a negative outlook for nearly two years in the u.s. relative to what we see in companies -- particularly in countries in the eurozone. you have to come up with a good, credible medium-term plan today with these heightened levels of debt. we areccording to fitch, still a aaa rating. is it possible that we could go aa+?aa or a that --hat is a process that is a probability. there is only one direction from aaa, which would be down. which category that would be and where would fall will larger be up to the committee when they reconvene to discuss the rating again. walk ushn olert,

through the process. what factors you look at, how does that valuation go about? the factors are numerous. we think about ratings, it is qualitative and quantitative factors. for sovereign ratings, you regularly hear about that, which is one factor, but it is not the only factor. there are other factors as far as i was interest relative to that component, or where the country's particular revenue stream, much like you would see in a corporation relative to reg ulation. there are bigger picture topics. what is the macro environment? for the u.s., there is an interesting contrast relative to others. we have been very clear we think the u.s. economic engine is unique in a lot ways. quite strong. you see that and growth numbers relative particularly in the eu in a zone and developed -- the eurozone and developed

countries fear and we continue to factor into that rating over the medium to longer-term is have you tap into that effectively to deal with a budget that is not in balance. look at even the cbo's number longer-term, we get these flattening over the next three or four years, and in between health care in debt,ular and interest that continues to accumulate. some pretty material issues. host: why are credit ratings important? guest: that is a great question. it really depends on what audience you are speaking to. i think through the crisis and thereafter it has been very interesting. there has been a great focus on credit ratings, credit rating someies, and despite underperformance in certain sectors, there continue to be valuable to a lot of different audiences. i think that is reflective of

seforms in other sectors hav been quite good. theyare important because -- one, we have 1300 people around the world in 49 offices. that is a very big lab form to focus on issues. wealth that is more interconnected than ever. i give this a big piece of that information here and we do spend a lot of time sharing with others, it clearly influences our view on economies broadly but also particular companies and transactions. the reality is the world is a consultative place, so we really take this multidimensional question on a number of things and put into a very simple answer. it is not perfect here and we know it is not perfect. but i think people do recognize the time, effort that goes into them. they continue to be valuable. host: we are talking about credit ratings and the role they

play in the u.s. economy, and our guest is john olert from fitch. he is joining us from new york. there is also moody's and standard & poor's. how do you go about berating, and how do they differ from your to biggest competitors? guest: i think a lot of it depends on sectors. what do ratings do, how are they perform, are there areas where need to spend more time on, let someone,. -- less time on. if you look at the corporate financial universe, there is great similarity in rating income as opposed to structure finance, we see differences in rating opinions at a particular point in time. some of that has to do with the cycle and how kabul kitted those are in information and symmetry in that market relative to corporate, but when you look at

bank ratings, industrial ratings between public disclosure, market prices, and our own output, it is actually quite interesting that those things are quite similar where a big difference maybe a notch or two as opposed to structured finance. it could be double-digit different opinions in particular brings. host: if we look at these ratings, standard & poor's has the u.s. at a aa+, which is listed as excellent. ratings, --fitch moody's and fitch ratings, aaa, outstanding. this is a really important, fundamental piece of this discussion. a aaame the u.s. has rating particular sovereign is discussed, it creates a lot of attention. when you think about it, we are very careful to talk about the

ratings relative indicators and not necessarily as these precise mathematical outputs of default. if you look at the historical default tables, the difference between aaa and aa+ is very small. when you look at a aa+ rating, think of and away from sovereigns. it is a highly desirable rating and when the requisites great strength. to some degree, aaa in this context is more psychological view of what that means. we spent time last summer talking to a time -- a number of investors, a lot of which are on our advisory councils to get perspectives on -- i think there was a very long time in history where it was viewed that sovereigns absolutely had to be the top of the stack we look there plus ability, strength, they were unique in a lot of ways. i think as we have worked our way through this crisis,

sovereigns have faced material challenges, and you have seen greater focus on how banking systems have grown into some degree created additional risk for the sovereign that it has become a lot clearer that that is not necessarily have to be the top of the stack as far as the ordering of the credit ratings. so aa+ is a good rating. if you look at the likes of then, who has been down +,ale in our view, now is an a its ability to raise debt never diminished. internal versus external participants, investors feared i think it is quite clear that some of it is views. you just think about how big the u.s. treasury market is. it is just hard to find alternatives to where that would be. when s&p moves, august the, there's a lot of talk on what it did to pricing and what have you , but when demand outstrips supply, that affects pricing. there was a lot of -- there was

not a lot of places for that money to go. plus there are others who have usa at the top you're so they are not necessarily always going to be a direct 141. -- one for one. ,ost: our guest is john olert from fitch ratings. he earned a degree from harvard business school. he is a veteran of che securities from chase manhattan bank and is joining us from new york. gina story is from new jersey, our line for democrats. good morning. is joining us from new jersey. caller: i have looked at the deficit, and he gets it has been created by the loss of revenue from the tax cuts as well as the spending increases. but i only hear the discussion about the spending increases. how much does the fact that we are not dealing with the loss in revenue from the tax cuts impact

in your analysis of the credit of the u.s.? basically what we're saying is we have given up hundreds of billions of dollars a year in tax revenue but all we want to talk about is cutting expenses. guest: i do not think that has been part of our dialogue on the ratings at all, to tell you the truth. even if you look at the latest release on why we are where we are, it speaks to the benefit of the $600 billion in revenue that was raised. i think the u.s. is unique in a lot of ways. when you look at tax rates across the board, our sovereignty, which is actually that plays the u.s. rating, is london-based, we regularly have this debate because right there is the view that there is great capacity for further taxes and what have you. so that is part of the challenge in the conversation today. there is merit to both sides of that debate, and unfortunately

people in the middle of the precision do not seem to be hearing each other. so there could be more clever ways to get up both sides of the equation. it just does not seem to be happening. host: john olert, this is a tweet -- what does fitch think of the qe2 program and how it will impact the u.s. credit rating in the future? i would add to that, would it impact our credit rating? guest: central-bank activity broadly across the globe is a major focus for us. we would have said two years ago when we think about our key credit risks, you know, the central banks appropriately jumped in in a heavy way because the markets needed that support. , in you think about that our view, that is a form of life support. the biggest single question we continue to ask ourselves is -- what is the whale for developed markets?

to some degree you sit there and you look at the graphs of central-bank far relative to gdp . the machinist on, but it seems -- the machine is still on but it seems to be treated as white noise. every time there seems to be an indication that keeley will continue, that is a good thing. will continue, that is a good thing. is it really a good thing when the markets need this artificial support? alternately, there are multiple ways for this to be turnaround over time, and in some ways let it mature, but it is not -- and you go through history, central banks to be engaged in the way they are in unison this way is absolutely unique, and it creates material questions about how do we get functional on a traditional, more fundamental basis. host: if you have a poor credit

rating, it obviously could mean that you are not able to borrow money or borrow as much or would have to borrow it at a higher interest rate. that is a personal credit rating or business credit rating. but for the government, what does that mean yo? guest: it depends on people's view. again, alternatives are an important factor in all of that. if the u.s. today -- if there were another large, credible alternative market, you could easily envision that the u.s. could retain more if people continue to be concerned about the longer-term ability to rebuild its business strength. but there is not one. so that creates real challenges in how does that then ultimately create penalties and pricing when you are really the only game in town. i think the u.s. should be really focused on that. it is a huge advantage for us as a country. the sovereignty does some great work and it is really technical, but when you think about it, one

thing they focus on is the debt dynamic of growth relative to interest rates. because the u.s. funds or at such an advantageous level and growth needs to be good, you are talking about hundreds of billions of additional debt the u.s. can carry virtually for free because of their status. appreciate.rtant to to some degree, it seems underappreciated. host: can you point to countries that have poor credit ratings? guest: you don't have to go much further than what was happening to italy and spain as they were deteriorating. bank hadropean central not jumped in at a particular point in time, it is a crystal- clear example when you think about it on graphs or charts. if they do not get out of the 7% or 6% borrowing game, that would have been absolutely problematic for them.

getting back under 4% has been government. host: john olert, chief credit officer for fitch ratings. good morning, mike. caller: good morning. i am trying to do the math here. i am wondering if the credit rating is affected by adding $1 trillion to the debt, exchange for $1 trillion in entitlements. number one. number two, our credit ratings affected by 20 million illegals moving and corporations moving out? thank you. host: mike, to echo the call, illinois. -- thank you for the call. guest: i had trouble hearing that. could you summarize it? basically, we added another $1 trillion to the debt, we are approaching $70 trillion, but if there is a one for one, if there are more people paying

into the economy because of immigration reform and if there are changes to the entitlement program and if we add more revenue from taxes, and the deficit or the debt is dropped, does that change the equation? guest: it certainly could peer to what is interesting is despite the increases in debt, which everybody has been focused on, us included, the u.s. economy continues to provide a lot of tailwind that basically europe has not enjoyed. despite some of those increases relative economic growth has absolute that have actually improve the picture -- has actually improved the picture. i do not think we want to be in a position where the u.s. is operating on the premise of it is better to be lucky than good muchte not necessarily not progress on the monetary -- from the government to help grow things.

it continues to perform really well. --continue to think about it those real estate questions go with a lot of what we think about. economic engine that is not running on eight or seven cylinders, but relative to the rest of the world is still running well despite either governors or essentially poor fuel mix. but it is how you tap into it, right? when you sit here and listen to the debates and arguments and what have you, if the engine is running, you just need a good transmission. right now, the argument seems to be -- how do we go in reverse and forward at the same time? uavs had to figure out which way you want to be operating in. host: as a follow to the caller 's point, this is a tweet -- we need both cuts and the taxes but republicans want to cut in the wrong places. gary from florida,

independent line for john olert, joining us from new york from fitch ratings. good morning, gary. caller: good morning. they say the debt ceiling is suspended. does that mean there is no debt ceiling? does that mean they can spend have whatever they want? how high can they go? have a already exceeded the previous debt limit with their spending? it,an, if they suspended then there is not, right? guest: that would be our interpretation as well. i don't think there is momentum to greatly inflate that number, but you are right -- that is how we would have interpreted the legislation as well. next, plainview, new york, recalled to my. caller: -- republican line. caller: good morning. at one point does it limited ted debt,unlimi

expanding the debt, become a danger to our economy? or less.owing at 2% the real unemployment rate is not 7% because the ratio changes when people drop out of the workforce or perhaps it is what i have heard at estimates, 12% to 15%. given those figures, how can we afford unlimited debt? becoming a debtor nation that cannot pay back these debts, particularly when interest rates rise, how is that going to affect our country? also, could you explain what monetizing the debt means, and how that helps a government pay back its debts? thank you. host: a lot there. let's begin with monetizing the debt. so the monetizing the

kindis really how do you of make the liabilities more digestible without your traditional straight up payments. it could be through devaluation or high inflation rates. we have done work a while back where we were talking about the an outfitwe used economics firm. if you think about the inflation , if you are going to use that as your sole source, it was extremely high, which justin itself is unsustainable. so as a path, it is not to be a very credible one. monetization is just one part. ?hat else had he asked th

host: he was talking about the economy, and it brought to mind the piece from the "weekly standard," was basically summarize what the caller was saying. the economic outlook looks good politics aside. in this essay, he says america has known and survived 18 shutdown since 1976 and 10 battles over the debt ceiling since 2001. it has prospered despite white house orchestrated predictions of doom from business leaders fearful of contradicting the president's productions of international financial collapse. let's attempt to cool the assessment of the funnel strength and weaknesses of america's economy. he says politics aside, the economy is looking pretty good. so based on that, was it doom ratingsm with your warning this past week and the possibility of defaulting on the debt, despite what many say the economy is pretty solid? you indicated earlier the fundamentals are there. guest: i was separate that into

two things. when your hours away from technical defaults and people are walking away from the table, --hink it is hard to argue there was not a potential there -- hard to argue there was not the potential for some short- term disruption there. it is slowing. revisedections had been down. now we see that picking up in 2014 and 2015. when you look at some of the longer-term averages, it is slower. to where we started the ,onversation on aaa versus aa if it was in the aa category, it would still be a really strong rating. that would be reflective of some truly beneficial underpinnings in the economy itself. as a rating agency, we are

constantly focused on comparability. the u.s. rating and its relative strengths relative to some of the quality factors that we focus on, not the least of which are governance. if you sit there with one of the strongest ratings in the world yet you go up to the 11th hour, that is a governance issue. we understand why those tools are being used. we are kind of agnostic on the party friend. we recognize both sides have very credible arguments being made. but it seems we should be doing it in a different or better way so that we start having progress and not get the rest of the world somewhat concerned. that becomes a little inconsistent. charles, who from describes himself as a texas says, "about credit ratings, i feel it is wrong to include entitlement programs like social security and

medicare in the budget talks since these are primary safety net programs that millions of americans depend on, especially since so many of our jobs have been outsourced to foreign countries since the 1980's and we have been left with lower- paying service sector jobs and such to try and survive on for the last 30 odd years. where will it end? -- end?" and then, mimi on tax reform. john olert, i read both of these -- would this change in any way you're thinking about the u.s. economy, our ratings, and the -- your thinking about the u.s. economy, our ratings and the debt? guest: the entitlement one is

really interesting. we have some examples. andlook at europe demographic curves. you look at how those types of costs have created pressure relative to the revenue stream. when i think back to what was iing on with ford and gm, think it is a microcosm of social programs relative to where you are in the relative stream -- revenue stream. if your revenue stream is deteriorating and you have made these long, somewhat expensive commitments, there is a day of reckoning. we saw it in autos, which are now doing much better as they have kind of redesigned those programs. we just saw it in detroit, a city that was absolutely dependent on autos. they had a ton of long-term -- long-term commitments. they could not afford them.

people are revisiting and restructuring contracts. there is a net loser in there somewhere. to some degree, that maybe the consumer, which could then ofect many other segments the universe of ratings. host: democrats line, good morning. caller: good morning. i'm sure you track the treasury yield rates. did your organization notice that on the 15th, we had an annualized yield of 3.8% that went up to -- it is neither here nor there. that pointe stop at and we will follow up on your second point. john olert? host guest: guest: yes, we pay attention to

that. it is useful, but not a determinant of where we go in the ratings. host: and now the follow-up, go ahead. you met every 90 days and 40% of the board of directors wanted to bolt on their debt here they have a debt -- on theirtio debt. they have a debt to equity ratio of one. over 90 days, they argue default. how would you rate that company? guest: great question, great analogy, very different than dynamic.very different we do have those debates. we understand these distinctions. that corporate would be rated low. as it sounds like you might know. much like sovereigns or municipalities, they have proven

they have different levers to pull. you cannot underestimate what that should mean in the rating as well. it is an absolutely relevant question. it is a different dynamic. a credit rating for any country? what does it mean? view on theirur relative credit worthiness, which is really their ability to meet interest or principal payments on their obligations outstanding congratulate -- contractually, their debt obligations. host: and this tweet from one of our viewers, "we are going the way of greece. just kick the can down the road ." with regard to the fact that february 7 is the new deadline to raise the debt ceiling. guest: the kicking the can down the road part might at least but some consistency in it,

the u.s. economy and greece are just night and day. they are largely different dynamics at play. the economic engine and greece is much smaller, lacks the diverse city that the u.s. has -- the diversity that the u.s. has. isy -- with where the u.s. on its relative debt levels, we have commented on why we think it is unique and why it can carry more debt. we separate those two things out . those are two pretty different dynamics. if you were to downgrade the u.s. credit rating or reevaluate america's credit rating, when would that come next? guest: that would be up to the committee. we have, in previous releases, talked about wanting to review it before the end of the year.

with some of the regulation out of europe, there is a calendar we need to do it with, the end of the fourth quarter likely when we would review that. a lot of times, it depends on what progress we are seeing or hearing out of d.c., hearing how they plan to tackle things long- term. we can see over the next two or three years there could be marginal improvement, but there is also great visibility longer- term a monopoly stub which is from many of the government's organizations, the cbo included, which produces a lot of good workaround assumptions and where they think things are going and ultimately wear -- where we may end up. much fornks very adding your perspective to this conversation. guest: thanks for having us. host: you are watching c-span's

"washington journal." the house is back this week, the senate next week. still a lot of discussions about the government shutdown. coming up later, we will have a conversation with robin wright, a longtime journalist, to talk iran and renewed discussions with the iranian government. first, the aftereffects of the shutdown. nancy calo. all of the sunday shows can be heard on c-span radio in the afternoon hours. good morning. >> today on the sunday network talk shows, topics include, as you mentioned, the effects of , budgetrnment shutdown negotiations ahead, and the implementation of the affordable care act. you can hear rebroadcasts of all of the shows beginning at noon eastern with nbc's "meet the press." tests include treasury secretary

jack lew -- guests include treasury secretary jack lew, chuck schumer, and robert shiller. and "this week." texas republican senator ted cruz and former florida republican governor jeb bush. -- guestsunday include florida senator marco rubio, assistant majority leader leader in the senate, dick durbin, and the vice chair of the senate republican conference roy blunt -- conference, roy blunt. candy crowley sits down for an exclusive interview with arizona senator john mccain. "face the nation." mitch mcconnell. graham.ner, lindsey the sunday network tv talk shows are on c-span radio. they are brought to you as a public service by the networks and c-span. rebroadcasts of the show begin

at noon eastern with "meet the press." 1:00, abc's -- "facenally, 4:00 eastern, the nation" from cbs. listen to them all on c-span radio, xm satellite radio channel 120, download our free app for your smartphone, or listen online at c-span.org. >> over the years, when you look back at books that had an impact on the president, what did you find? >> that is one of my inspirations for writing this book. i was curious whether books have had an impact. there was a book called "the other america," a book about poverty, especially in west virginia.

kennedy is supposed to have read the book and it led to the war on poverty. he read a book review. it was one of the most famous "new yorker" articles ever, in part because of kennedy's reading of it. that prompted him to tell the chairman of the council of economic advisers to look into policies that could alleviate poverty. chemically -- kennedy tragically died in 1963. johnson heard about this and pursued it as president. >> 200 years of popular culture in the white house. tonight on c-span's "q&a." "washington based our journal post quote continues -- "washington journal" continues. host: welcome, robin wright. thanks for being with us. guest: always nice to be with you. host: another random

conversation taking place between the u.s. and iran next month. what is happening? uest: one of the president -- address international concerns about whether iran is using a peaceful nuclear energy rogram to develop a secret nuclear weapon capability. the first meeting in geneva between no world six -- between the world six major powers and the iranian foreign minister marked the first time we have seen any significant dialogue on this issue since the controversy began, arguably over a decade ago. and the election of a new team with a different set of interlocutors with a different attitude about dealing with the outside world and a different recognition of the problems you ran faces -- the problems i ran

faces -- the problems iran faces generated the first sign of hope that we may be able to come up with some kind of agreement. host: this is the first time since 1979-1980, the downfall of the americans held hostage in airan. iran needs western trade. guest: it does need to lift sanctions that the united states and europeans have imposed here there are some also united nations sanctions, but the american sanctions have been the most putative. they have also been the most imaginative. during the bush administration, the treasury department came up with a set of new banking provisions that were in many ways a response to 9/11.

they wanted to go after banks that were helping finance or launder money for terrorist groups. in the process -- and the process, they set in motion a new set of laws. it allowed the americans to go after a rainy and -- after iranians. you have to be able to track every transaction. banks were not able to do that. that meant that businesses in iran that wanted to buy raw materials for their industries could not get letters of credit in the international community, oil,iran, when it sold could not get some of the revenues back. there was a growing economic pressure. it also went through eight years of chronic economic mismanagement under former whoident ahmadinejad, gained fame as the most hard- line president iran has ever had

. you had those two factors intersecting. the iranians really needed to do business with the outside world. host: who is sharif? why is he important? guest: there are often, in these moments of change, a pivotal who facilitates the change because of some special knowledge, ability, whatever. he is clearly the man of the moment. i ran's new president, hassan newani -- iran's president, hassan rouhani, mandated the change. he had a television -- telephone conversation with president obama. host: there is no photo of the two talking to each other. guest: it was a photo by cell phone while president rouhani

was on his way from the united nations to the airport. the iranians had not wanted what they called the photo op of the two -- two presidents. host: how would that have played out in iran, a photo of the new iranian president and the u.s. president? guest: i think the iranians want to see if there is ground for agreement and one step at a time. something leap into -- a lot of people in the middle east feel that americans have these photo ops, whether it is on the peace process or other controversial issues, and whoever is president at the moment shakes hands with someone. it looks to the american people like the president of the moment achieved something great when nothing follows -- when, in fact, nothing follows. this is a very unusual man.

he did his undergraduate degree in california. he did his doctorate under the same professors at the university of denver, who taught condoleezza rice, the former secretary of state. he worked at the united nations mission in new york for several years. he went back and joined the foreign ministry and then came back as the un ambassador rice here he has spent much of his adult life in the united states. given that we have gone through 34 years of separation, this is a man with unusual capabilities in terms of understanding both cultures. he has been, behind the scenes, the key player in all the with the outside world, particularly the united years.over the last 30 he was a pivotal player in obtaining the release of the american and other foreign hostages in lebanon. he was a pivotal player in the end of the iran iraq war -- the

iran-iraq war. 2003. a pivotal player in he was the one who was the key in convincing tehran. he was pivotal when the united states had to help form a new -- inment and afghanistan afghanistan after 9/11 and the u.s. intervention. he was the one who met with u.s. envoys and personally convinced them to go along with the u.s. formulation of a new government, after which the deal would have fallen apart had he not played that role. his is someone who has street crowd when it comes to dealing with the outside world. -- this is someone who has when it comes to dealing with the outside world. host: our guest is robin wright.

you reported on extensively as a reporter and now in your research as a scholar at the wilson center, it is not necessarily president rouhani, it is the supreme leader. when you talk about the foreign minister, does he have the ear of the supreme leader and does that make a difference? guest: such a good question. -- heteresting thing is had the ear of the -- he has the ear of the supreme leader. friend. personal he was asked by this agreement or to go to the united nations .n 2002 but he also has very good ties in washington. when he left the united nations, he was allowed to come to washington, to go beyond the 25- mile limit that iranians and areomats in new york restricted to. he was allowed to come to the

hill and he had meetings with a number of both republicans and democrats who thought well of him, thought he was a pragmatist .r realist and not an ideologue he was clearly going to look out for his own nation, but he understood american concerns as well and was willing to at least engage in a dialogue. something like a dozen members of the hill quietly went out to see him last month when he was at the united nations for the opening of the general assembly. there are still those connections. he could play a pivotal role if we get to the point there is a deal. i can actually see the ability to come to terms, but that deal would have to be agreed to by congress. many of the sanctions are actually u.s. laws, and those would have to be repealed. a dealld actually see get someplace and congress has the of bed -- has the potential to block it. host: how do we trust the

iranian government? any deal would have to include extraordinary verification. this is where you go back to the u.s. experience with the soviet union. trust but verify, as ronald reagan said. i think that would apply even more severely with far greater restrictions on iran than even the syria -- even the soviet union. there are a lot of different elements in any type of deal, but verification and strict monitoring, intrusive surprise inspections and a number of things, would clearly have to be part of it. wright,r guest, robin who has a long record as a columnist and reporter. she has written for "the atlantic monthly." she is a graduate of the university of michigan. s the her books, "rock

kasbah -- hello. caller: thanks for your program. can you hear me? host: we sure can. go ahead. caller: why does the usa blame iran for the nuclear program? what bomb? . think it is fear we shouldn't have a double standard in the world. are partt time that we of the world. thank you. host: thank you. guest: interesting question. i did check from the accent that perhaps you are from the middle east. from the acts and that perhaps you are from the middle east.

the iranians have not complied with you and resolutions and u.n. standards. they are supposed to allow access to facilities and to scientists and they have not done that. as a result, there have been a series of sanctions imposed by the united nations and even more by the united states and the europeans and somewhat other industrialized nations. if iran answers those outstanding questions about its earlier program, indications there may have been some military research and development aspects to it, that would be one of the really big steps in the process of coming up with a deal. when you talk about a double standard, that always gets to otherestion of what powers in the middle east have nuclear weapons and have not declared them. of course, i think he is referring to israel, which has never confirmed that it has a weapons -- weapons program but is widely believed to have one. host: there is a piece this

outlook" section of "the washington post." he points out first of all that with the first round of nuclear talks we have been talking about with iran's new negotiating team, the debate has shifted from whether a deal is possible to which sort of deal is acceptable. can often seems a miasma of centrifuge towns and enrichment levels, there are two distinct paths to a nuclear deal with iran." isst: iran's economy suffering so bad that the value of its currency has plummeted by half over the past two years. oil oil experts -- exportits

exports have plummeted. there are concrete realities the government has to face. i was told when government -- president rouhani won that his often talked about it would need eight years to undo the damage done by president ahmadinejad when there were some foolhardy economic steps taken. ad then rouhani's team got look at the books and they said among themselves, it's going to take a lot more than eight years. host: what is former president ahmadinejad doing now? guest: last i heard, he was going to create a new university. the hardliners have not disappeared from iran. in the same way that the obama administration might face a challenge, i think the rouhani team has a limited amount of

time to pull off a deal, a year, a year and a half. in six months, i think we will be hearing more noise about him a well, where is the deal, -- ?bout, well, where is the deal prime minister netanyahu will put the military option more visibly on the table. i think there is a limited timeframe to do this. want moreou information, log onto wilsoncenter.org. our guest is robin wright. caller: good morning. i have followed your work. i admire all the work you have done over the years. what is really interesting in what you're seeing -- saying is there is a tone of optimism. we have a moderate face on what is happening. frankly, i'm a lot more pessimistic than you are here and we have to cut to the chase. the iranians have lied to us. they are definitely developing or have been developing weapons

grade fissile material. and just putting on a happy face here -- we could wind up the same way we wound up with north korea. we talk and talk and give them something. they turn around and keep doing what they are doing. what is to prevent them from just following that path again? you talk about the idea of huge, regimes, verification surprise inspections and so forth. there is no way they are going to agree to that. they will delay and delay and dissemble. that has been their characteristic throughout. what is to make it any different this time? host: and there is this related tweet. is it in iran's interest to develop nuclear weapons?" anst: if i were am -- iranian, i would certainly be

thinking, do i need a nuclear capability? abated -- invaded a country in the last 200 years, yet they had been repeatedly invaded and occupied by a host of different powers, including the russians. the british had troops there during world war ii. the cold war was actually an offshoot of tensions between the united states and the soviet union over soviet troops in iran . truman's famous ultimatum to stall -- to stall and to get out ultimatum tos stalin to get out was the impetus of the cold war. this will put them to the test. there will be deep skepticism in a lot of places. i'm not saying that a deal is around the corner, by no means.

i think this will be some of the toughest negotiations the united states has ever dealt with with any country. at the same time, i think there is a glimmer of hope that this is a possibility this time. a probability, i don't know. i certainly felt under president ahmadinejad there was no prospect of a deal. i don't think that regime had ,he self-confidence, the vision and, in some ways, the necessity to do that. and i think this group of people has that combination. can they get to a place where the world's major powers and iran agree? i don't know. but i do think that, in some ways i'm of the fact that the russians and the chinese have sided with the united states and europeans in pressuring iran is a hopeful sign. amongare deep splits those six major powers when it comes to other issues, most notably syria.

wright, who is joining us here in washington, d.c. , a, a guestia skype who is with "the new york times -- via skype, a guest who is with "the new york times." chant has often been "death to america." concerns byamerican the iranian government. yet you talk to the people on the streets of tehran and elsewhere. is it different from the government to what you are hearing from the people in that country? guest: i think naturally, over the past decade, iran has evolved into a far more normal country than it used to be. people have moved to cities. their ideals have shifted from political ideals to this -- satisfying the needs of their family.

people want to see their children go to university. people want to see their children have a nice, new car. they want to make trips abroad. there is a new look at radicalism. it is easy to say that radicalism is out of fashion among normal, ordinary iranian citizens. when they hear those chants of " or theo america? fiery speech of a cleric, they don't necessarily agree. host: what our strengths that the u.s. and iran bring to the table? strengths that the u.s. and iran bring to the table? there has been this unprecedented phone call between obama. and president

it is clear the air rainy and -- the iranians want a deal. their weak point is that they are unclear what they can give. mr. rouhani has to deal with hardliners back home who have basically -- their only idea of agreesl is that the u.s. to everything iran says. them tos very hard for make some sort of compromise abroad and at the same time satisfy these hard-line forces back home. even though they might not be as popular as they used to be at home, they are very entrenched. there is the judiciary, the revolutionary guard, the state media -- all these are under their control. they have a very important voice in this country. at the same time, when you look at the united states, they hold

a lot of the cards. the sanctions are working. this is something the iranians are increasingly admitting. it might be up to the obama administration what kind of pressure they want to exert on are tod how genuine they getting a deal. the fact of the matter is, when i look, i feel that americans definitely hold the better cards in this card game, depending on what the iranians really want. that is the other question. are they really interested in a deal? are they just trying to convince the world they have tried to make a deal? i don't know what they're really tensions are. host: tom erdbrink. i am going to turn to robin wright. ae described the minister as game changer based on his understanding and relationship

with american politicians. has he been a key factor in all of this? mr. zarif is definitely a captivating personality. englishs good -- gluing -- he speaks fluent english. his entrance into this debate has changed the entire equation. people are talking to each other. what i got from mrs. wright, listening before i entered your show, it is absolutely true that something else might evolve. in aarif is an individual system that does not revolve around individuals. it is not the case in iran's political system that one person can actually make a difference. everybody is confined by these ideological borders, if you will. the same problem.

yes, he can talk in english to the negotiators of the world powers to aid yes, he can explain iran's point of view, but he is not entitled to make a compromise that the rulers back home might not agree with. he is more of a better tool than he is really the person that can make the actual change, in my honest opinion. host: let me turn to robin wright of the wilson center. agree.i ultimately, it is a small team of players, including the , whome leader and others will make the final decision. one of the things that is so interesting about what has happened the last four or five months am a you have seen an increasing voice of the people. months,ast four or five you have seen an increasing voice of the people. rouhani won a large percent.

people turned out in large numbers for this election. many had considered boycotting. this is a sequential to the very disputed election in 2009. you saw millions turn out to challenge the results that put ahmadinejad back in for a second term. there is the sense for the first time that the people have a voice and that the regime is listening. it reflects something thomas said earlier. three decades later, you actually begin to see the emergence of the first post- revolution generation that is now of age. they are the majority. they are facing real challenges as a result of sanctions, the troubled economy. there are a large number of unemployed and underemployed. there is a long problem with drugs.

they did not know the passions unleashed at the time of the revolution. they are part of this global generation that has a sense of what is happening in the rest of the world. they want to be part of it. they have access, plus or minus, to a lot of what is happening on the internet. many of them circumvent the restrictions in iran and do communicate with the outside world. satellite brings them movie and theater, soap operas. they are much more clued in about the ed side world -- about the outside world and those in the outside world are clued in about iranians. the regime knows that even though there are few of them that will make the ultimate decision, they are accountable to people. host: let me conclude with one last question -- russia's role in all of this. how is it viewed inside iran? ifst: that really differs you ask the people or the leaders. of course him in rainy and

iranian- of course, people have a lot of his store coupons with russia or the soviet union -- of his store historical -- of qualms with russia or the soviet union. people feel that russia plays tricks on them. if you look from the perspective is wrong -- the perspective of iran's political management, russia is a good partner in what axisews as a growing against the united states. they are trying to cling on to countries like russia and the united states. iranian leaders who have a tendency to kind of predict the future along their preferences -- they see the formation of a ofck of countries -- bloc countries that will stand up to the subcommittee of the united states. the support -- stand up to the

sovereignty of the united states. they are building a ron's only nuclear power plant -- building iran's only nuclear power plant. ,he political leaders of iran the russians are very good partner. they don't have a lot of partners to choose from. they definitely hope this partnership will develop and deepen. joiningomas erdbrink, us live from inside tehran. thanks very much for adding your perspective to this conversation. guest: thank you. host: we will continue with your calls. robin wright here in washington as we talk about negotiations with iran, what we can expect next. this program is carried live every sunday on the bbc parliament channel. go ahead. caller: hello.

how are you today? host: we are fine. good afternoon to you. caller: good afternoon. i am going to try and be very careful. some people do get a little bit upset when they bring these sorts of things up. i really think that -- i'm definitely sure we need to aop iran from ever developing nuclear weapon. we need to make sure they've got nothing else in the pipeline, including, god for bid, a biological weapon. -- god forbid, a biological weapon. i am wise, i am christian, i have no sort of winnings -- leanings in the islamist way. it is hypocritical that we keep going after countries like iran when we seem to be quite happy with having an unregulated nuclear state, or at least

potentially unregulated nuclear state, such as israel. in order to get a two state solution and create middle east peace overall, you need to give all parties and even hand -- treat all parties with an even hand. i'm not anti-semitic. i have jewish in my blood. but i am a realist and a man of science and reason. i think we need to deal with the israeli situation, definitely create a two state solution with regard to the jewish lobbies we have in various western countries, that push for a very pro-israeli as opposed to pro- palestinian perspective. -- create alear peace process of parity in the middle east. israel is one-- of the countries with nuclear capacities in the region. to that point? guest: edward is looking really

far down the road. the united states is taking it step by step. peace process,i which secretary of state kerry is trying to revive, so far with very limited success. he is putting a lot of energy and leverage behind it to try and see if something can happen. there is the separate process of trying to engage with iran and get a deal on the nuclear program. down the road, the -- i think everyone hopes that there is a nuclear-free world. president obama has talked about that. that is something that is not part of the current framework of discussions. there is no linkage between the two middle east hotspots at the moment. i think only if you began to get a peace process and a deal with can, then the world generally look at some of these

bigger questions. there is such fear that until you deal with the fear factor, it is really hard to build the kind of confidence that would enable leaders, with the backing of their people, to surrender their biggest form of defense. host: we welcome our listeners on c-span radio, heard nationwide on xm channel 120. let me add another country to the equation. iran'st expand on relationship with north korea? therein lies the truth." guest: that's a good question. i'm not in the intelligence community, so i don't know the scope of the cooperation. north korea has clearly been a close ally of iran and is believed to have facilitated some of its most controversial defense capabilities. know the extent of

it. i'm not sure that that really -- iran has so much of its own technology right now. it is building a lot of its own equipment, its own research and development. one of the great questions we have to deal with is does iran now have the knowledge -- even if it surrenders or agrees to terms of a deal, doesn't have the knowledge down the road -- does it have the knowledge down the road to resume where it was? does it need north korea or pakistan or other major players? did we make a mistake in 2003 or 2005 or in earlier attempts not to go along with a deal that would have limited iran when it did not have the knowledge it has now, when it had far fewer centrifuges, this device so essential to a nuclear

program? are we going to end up now with have haddeal we could back then when they had fewer capabilities? there is a lesson in that, that one has to be very thoughtful in creating circumstances that push diplomacy at the right moment and that doesn't end up costing us more down the road. sometimes it is a temptation to say, the deal is not good enough, we will wait till later, and you end up with sess in the -- less in the end. host: let's go to carol in naperville. caller: i was waiting patiently. i'm glad you gave the opportunity to ask a question. i, too, am concerned about the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the region. i understand the arab league has proposed a nuclear-free zone and that former heads of state, even in the united states, have come

forth with proposals for a forear disarmament, negotiations in reducing the proliferation of dangerous nuclear weapons in a volatile region. guest: well, the arab league obviously has an interest in creating a nuclear-free zone. the arabs have no nuclear weapons. both israel and iran either have believed to be working on one. the arab league has taken a very --ong position in darjeeling in urging a nuclear-free zone because it is in their interest as well. host: let's go to alex next from new york city. good morning. good morning. i would like to thank you for giving me this opportunity. [indiscernible]

it.e other countries have [indiscernible] it is the rainy and right -- the iranian right to have nuclear energy for their country. taking action, setting sanctions [indiscernible] this is something i want to share with you, and i want to have your comments. i have mentioned in two or three previous calls about it. i think the ask the usa has taken against iran [indiscernible] part,we missed the last it was because of what? caller: because of israel's pressure on obama's administration to put sanctions and pressure on iran. [indiscernible] i think israel is a threat to the middle east, not to iran.

will stop there because we could not hear very well. you might have been calling on a cell phone. i think we got the essence of it. guest: iran has a right to peaceful nuclear energy. it faces, just like saudi arabia, the prospect of him a within 25, 35 years -- prospect of, within 25, 35 years, not having to toil to export -- not export.uch oil to the united states approved 22 nuclear reactors for iran. it still only has one. --hink there has been across a recognition that iran has a right to peaceful nuclear energy. no one is disputing that. the question is should it have a

right to enrichment because that fuel can be used for other purposes, including military purposes. in terms of the motivation, the united states in its own right, because it has often been, whether it wants to or not, the policeman of the middle east, including during the iran-iraq war -- it ends up getting in that in disputes part of the world and does not want to see instability, does not want to see more conflict, and does not want to see iran developing nuclear weapons capability. president obama did hold a large meeting as -- of the world's major powers to talk about the issue of disarmament, nuclear disarmament. call in response to alex's from new york, this is from shannon, who says," israel is the safest country in the middle

east. the arabs who live within its borders are lucky. they could be in syria." it recounts what happened between president carter and the iranian government. we all know what happened in april of 1980 when the u.s. tried to use a military operation to free those american hostages. chapter is of this that, at every turn, the iranians pulled the rug out from the u.s. negotiators. of 33, 30hat history four years ago, are there lessons we can apply today -- of 33, 34 years ago, are there lessons we can apply today? guest: negotiations go through stages. in early stages, there were deep suspicions. cia and british intelligence engaged in the coup

against the first democrat reelected prime minister in iran because he was talking about -- primeatically-elected minister any iran because he was talking about nationalizing oil. the whole idea that this was a man who was taking power away from the monarchy and was democratically elected -- shah.which led to the shah fled to exile in rome. the cia and intelligence organize this coup and within six days bring the shah back from rome. every air rainy and -- every our runny and schoolchild -- every choolchild knows this story. do in 1979s had to what was undone by the americans

in 1953. that is history. it is well recorded. the cia has acknowledged it. three prominent americans have apologiszed for 1953. it is not disputed in any bipartisan way. the revolution was been hijacked by the clerics, taken over from a wide cross-section of political factions who were opposed to the shah and wanted dynastic 2500 years of rule. lessons in terms of how you deal with any country. you have to engage in confidence building. given the history of u.s. intervention -- the embassy was taken over after the united states admitted the shah -- invited the shah into the united states for medical treatment. there was a sense in iran at tha that the that point

united states was going to engage in another coup attempt. so, the american embassy was taken over, to the surprise, actually, of the supreme leader. that, too, is well recorded. i have interviewed the three masterminds who were part of this. they were stunned when the supreme leader came out and said, yes, this is a great thing to do. many of the kids had to drop out of college in order to take care of the hostages and to take control of the very large, many, many blocks large embassy compound in tehran. the revolution was beginning to run out of steam. this takeover of the u.s. embassy was a moment when the regime thought they could rally post-1953.st cause there is a long history of tension that have to do not just racking, buts backt

the history of american intervention in iran. both sides are deeply suspicious of each other. what theans believe americans want is not a nuclear deal but a regime change to get rid of the ayatollahs and the islamic republic. in many ways, whoever is in the white house has had to make the point we are not after regime change, we want a nuclear deal. they are prepared to understand these guys are going to be around for the foreseeable future or the united states is not going to be the one to change it. host: we have a few minutes left. doug from massachusetts. quick question? caller: any rapprochement between united states and iran is anathema to israel and -- phd in't need a geopolitics to understand the

dynamic. questions of the big is who are the countries or players who don't want a deal between iran and the united states. that thinkt ha -- think includes saudi arabia. other gulf monarchies are very nervous. there are sunni, shiite, sectarian, security issues. they have always felt like rivals. the gulf states are small if populous. congress is suspicious about whether you could ever deal with the united states. israel is not the only player out there. remember that each of these countries has diverse voices. israel is a democracy. it has people who are deeply suspicious of iran. there are those who know the alternative to some kind of diplomatic outcome is the potential for a military confrontation that would not be

-- might not be in israel's long-term interests either. butderstand your points, there are a lot of different factors playing into this with a lot of different opinions. host: the next round of negotiations? guest: november 7 and eighth in geneva. -- nobvember -- november 7 and 8 in geneva. host: is there a high level of trust? guest: no. i think there is a very low level of trust. part of it is building trust along the way that the other side is telling a truth and will actually follow through on what it promises -- telling the truth and will actually follow through on what it promises. host: thanks for being with us here on c-span. guest: thank you. host: we will continue to conversation at 7:00 a.m. eastern time. our monday roundtable with a democratic strategist and a

republican strategist. and the fight over the affordable care act, round two or three. will be joining us. she is a correspondent with kaiser health news. barrett, justice on fbient reporter, operations under sequestration cuts. that is tomorrow morning on "washington journal." also, this weekend on c-span2 and c-span3, looknig a -- lokoing -- looking at the life and history of erie, pennsylvania. we hope you have enjoyed her weekend -- you enjoy your weekend. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> coming up next, "newsmakers" with chris van hollen, one of t

meetingrees who will be to work on a federal budget proposal now that the shutdown has ended. discussion of the obama administration costs government with the press. then a look at the health-care law and implementation. >> congressman chris van hollen, a democrat in maryland and one of the conferees after an agreement to open up the government and raise the debt ceiling has been reached. you will sit down with your fellow colleagues to broker some sort of deal. andrew taylor with the associated press in a congressional bo porter with the newspapers. >> you are a member of the supercommittee which failed. there have been various grand

bargain talks that have failed. joe biden talks had failed. ,hat are the chances particularly now that republicans have given up chances ofat are the getting a bigger agreement to tackle our deficit? >> that is a very fair question. i was disappointed in the fact that the supercommittee did not achieve a positive result. round, theest democrats have been trying to get to the negotiating table since march. that is when the house passed the budget and the senate democrats. we were blocked by republicans in the house and senate. now we're finally going to the table. talks does not guarantee success. he mentioned examples where we were not able to get funding accomplished. if