ges on this. a lot of controversy on that. i think you will see more division on the left than we have seen before. we have seen a lot of the tea party versus republican establishment. we are now seeing this elizabeth warren wing of the party going up against a treasury nominee. al franken came up against the treasury nominee. that is why everyone is reading and parsing every word that elizabeth warren says. at the same time, you have to look at hillary clinton's panel numbers. but we are still a long way out. host: we have 15 minutes left with bob cusack. what is on the table in the coming months for the upcoming

congress. we will go tumor real -- to mur iel. caller: happy new year to you both. i just want to say this. i think the president, president obama, i will use his title president, he will be in command in spite of the majorities of the republicans, ok? because i think the republicans are on the same train to nowhere. if they bring up the repeal of the health care law and also if they don't deal with

immigration. when we talk about immigration we should think about people because it involves millions of latinos, asians, from everywhere in the world. it is as though the republicans are saying we don't have to deal with that at the moment in the same manner that they are saying, we are going to repeal the health care act. if you have ever been sick, if you have ever had a chronic illness, cancer diabetes something that the doctors cannot and do not know about you need health care. i think this country needs to look to people like angela merkel in germany, who provides a decent minimum wage for the

employees and also health care for everyone in the country. host: you talked a little bit about the politics and policy of the affordable care act. can we go to immigration? guest: republicans have to be a lot more active on what they are going to do than what they were in the 2014 cycle. republicans knew that the president was unpopular in 2014. they could basically run against him. now it is different. they have been promising a republican obamacare replacement bill for years. doing of the republican that is

anti-immigrant is not going to play out in 2016 if they're going to win. rick perry was more of the immigration reform side of it and his record was attacked. romney did not have a strategy in the general election on immigration and was hounded by the hispanic vote in 2012. the republican leaders know that. it will be interesting to see whether the republicans want to do comprehensive immigration reform or not. they will have to come up with solutions. i think they will take bits and pieces of what is popular in the

president will be forced to say i want the whole thing, not just pieces of it and he will either veto it or sign it. host: jeb bush is exploring a presidential bid. mike huckabee is exploring one as well. guest: i certainly think it could be a problem for republican leaders on capitol hill. whether you are running on the left or the right, if you see a deal in congress -- that is basically going to be a deal in the middle. it could be an uneasy alliance. you can say that jeb bush is one of the front runners, but there is no clear favorite and he is bring attacked by the tea party already.

he knows he is in for a tough ride. can he survive it? host: let's go to mcminnville, tennessee. dolores is waiting. caller: good morning. i wanted to say that there is not going to be any change at all with the republicans now. they call obama king, but they act like kings themselves. the republicans are oppressing the poor. i'm 72 years old. i retired for a little while at 62. i went back to work because i cannot live on $13,000 per year. now that i have been working, it has taken me five-year years to make it up to eight dollars per hour because our employers give us and $.11 per hour raise every year. i work part of my job.

-- hard at my job. now that i am making $18,000 per year, i manage. they need to raise the minimum wage so that people can live decently. we have a republican governor, a republican congressman. they don't do anything to help by raising the minimum wage in our state. they don't care about us. all of these people are making big money and living like kings and they don't live in our shoes and know how hard we work to make a living. groceries are going up. i'm so grateful gas has gone down. every time i go to the grocery store, i go, oh my god, how are people supposed to live?

host: potential movement on the issues of wages and the minimum wage. guest: income inequality is something you hear a lot from the left. bernie sanders has called that the issue of our lifetime. it is going to be interesting to see if this white house continues to push for a minimum wage. with the republicans controlling both chambers, there is little chance for the minimum wage to go up unless it was part of a fiscal compromise. elizabeth warren is saying, we'd to expand social security benefits.

host: let's head down to texas. caller: good morning. i've been listening to my fellow americans and it seems like you have two democrat lines. it is a great morning to know that you are responsible for about every single evil in the world if you are a republican. i called because of not here to complain about obama. i'm here to complain about the republican leadership. speaker boehner. that man has had ample opportunity.

four years in leadership to oppose the president and he has been a failure. the same can be said for mcconnell. ted cruz and marco rubio and you have been talking about presidential ambitions. ted cruz and marco rubio do not have a record in the senate. host: we were talking about changing leadership for house republicans. who would you back? ted yoho and louie gohmert have put their names forward as possible replacements for speaker boehner. would you support either one? caller: i'm glad you asked. i do support mr. gomer -- gohmer t.

i'm in a rezoning exile in the state of texas, chasing the oil boom, which i think has been busted. i have been following louie gohmert for the past couple of years, listening to him speak. quite frankly, i have been listening to him and his ideas are more in accord with mine. that is my mind on it. i don't know the other two gentlemen that you spoke of, but i am about fed up with these folks in d.c. when you elect a democrat, you know what you are going to get. higher prices, you are going to get screwed. when you get the same from people of your own party, that is unacceptable, in my opinion. guest: a lot of the

dissatisfaction with washington -- and that includes republican and democratic leaders and the president -- that is something that republicans have to be concerned about. they have to appease their base. they have to be concerned about sean hannity, fox news host who has called for john boehner's ouster. whether it is on talk shows or conservative shows, there is a dissatisfaction. republicans have to strike deals and get stuff done with the president and sometimes challenge him. part of that is going to be what they do with obamacare. they are going to have a vote on obama care repeal, but do they use a budget maneuver called reconciliation where they would only need a majority of votes to pass and obamacare repeal vote? that would get vetoed.

it would make it to obama's desk and that would be the first time it has got there. host: scott is calling in on the independent line. caller: how are you doing? host: good. go ahead. caller: is not the affordable care act a republican idea? you basically can go on c-span or listen to newt gingrich from 1992 through 1995 and all he talks about his individuals -- is individuals taking the responsibility of buying health care. this is a republican idea. i have no idea why we're talking

about democrats wanting the affordable care act. they want single care health care. this is a republican idea. host: certainly an argument we have heard before. guest: and republicans did embrace it back then, the individual mandate. now, the obamacare politics has changed a lot and republicans -- remember, the individual mandate has been delayed until this year , as well as the employer mandate. those are things that the administration is going to bleed implementing. republicans are targeting both of those. i would look for first the individual mandate. republicans will look to torpedo that. that has not proven to be popular. the reason why the individual mandate is in their is because you want to get healthy people into the pool. that is the impetus for the individual mandate and that is

why it is put in the republic -- affordable care act. host: mary from woodland hills, california. caller: you have to have auto insurance. it is not too much of a stretch for people to carry health insurance. the similarities between obamacare and romney care. i believe romney care -- is he getting federal subsidies in massachusetts for romney care? that's it. guest: i am not sure. i'm not sure if massachusetts is among the state. -- states getting subsidies. romney care versus obamacare was a huge problem for romney. the base felt like he was not conservative enough. host: how do you usually spend

your opening day of a new congress? guest: we will talk to our reporters and come up with ideas of what to look for for the next day and what to work for today. i think it is exciting because there is always the promise of a lot of activity senators are sworn in. it is like the opening day of a baseba >> on the next "journal," we don't to capital reporters about the talk to reporters about the opening of congress. you also talked about -- you will also talk about senators. was your facebook comments and.

-- plus your facebook comments and tweets. >> the 114th congress comes him tomorrow at noon eastern and famers. you can see the swearing-in -- republicans control both chambers. you can see the swearing-in on c-span and c-span2. mitch mcconnell will become the new senate majority leader. last year, he delivered his state of the senate speech. here is a portion. if america is to face up to the challenges we face in the decades ahead she'll need the senate the the founders in their wisdom intended, not the hollow shell of the senate we have today. not the hollow shell of the senate we have today.

first, one of the traditional hallmarks of the senate is a vigorous committee process. it is also one of the main things we've lost. there was a time not that long ago when chairmen and ranking members had major influence and used their positions to develop national policy on everything from farm policy to nuclear arms arms. these men and women enriched the entire senate through their focus and their expertise. just as importantly they provided an important counterweight to the executive branch. they provided one more check on the white house. if a president thought something was a good idea, he'd better make sure he ran it by the committee chairman who'd been studying it for the past two decades. and if the chairman disagreed well then they'd have a serious debate and probably reach a

better produ and who has worked very hard to >> mitch mcconnell becomes the majority leader tomorrow. than a conversation on white house relations with congress. >> this week on "q&a, political reporters share stories about being on the campaign trail with mitch mcconnell as he first won a primary and undefeated alison lundergan grimes in the general

election -- then defeated alison lundergan grimes in the general election. >> friends, this experiment in big government has lasted long enough. [applause] it's time to go in a new direction. [applause] it's time to turn this country around! [applause] >> manu raju, when you interviewed mitch mcconnell in a state right after this election. what was his attitude? >> it was relief. you know this was what he considered the most complex race of his 30 year career. i mean he was attacked for -- right off the bat he had his first primary challenge he's ever faced in matt bevin.

he had a democrat had made him the top target in the country, and he knew that going in, and mcconnell is a guy who looks around corners. and he had planned for four years this, this campaign. this started in 2010 right after he saw what happened in the republican primary for rand paul, the kentucky republican senator. rand paul beat mcconnell's handpicked guy, trey grayson, in that primary, and at that point mcconnell realized, "i have to recalibrate everything i know about republican primary politics in my home state." and he started to make changes he hired key staff and he started to build this very sophisticated infrastructure knowing that this would be the most difficult race in his campaign. and what he said to me, he said "this is the most complex set of challenges i've ever had to deal with," and he won big in both the primary and the general election. >> john bresnahan, we're going to talk about mitch mcconnell for the hour and how he won this campaign and what's he like as a leader. but when you see him up close, what's he like up-close compared to what we see on a national basis? >> he is, well first of all he's a very, very smart man.

he's very intelligent. he really knows what he's talking about in terms of policy, politics. he is a very, exceptionally bright man. >> tactician. >> tactician, he's very sharp. i think that you can never get him to say anything he doesn't want to say. if you -- i don't care how many ways you ask him. manu and i will ask him 57 different ways on something, and if he doesn't want to say it he's not going to say it. he's funnier than people think. he's more personable and charming. he's never going to be, you know, warm and friendly. he's never going to be, you know, a -- >> back slapper. >> no, that's not his style. but he's direct, and he will tell you what he feels and what he thinks, but you know he's going to do it on his terms. it's about what he wants to say and how he wants to say it. and it's very important. he's a very, very precise man and that is a theme throughout his career. it's a theme of this race. this was a precision race that he ran the way he wanted to run.

>> you two guys wrote an article back in november right after the election, and one of the things you have in it is that he could have spent as much as $50 million? >> yes that's right, i mean he was preparing for that. and eventually by the end of it, with the outside groups, it probably exceeded that on the republican side itself. i mean, there was a republican outside group, kentuckians for strong leadership -- which is sort of a part of the american crossroads outfit, the large national super pac-which ended up just pummeling the airwaves with attack ads against alison grimes, the democrat, and matt bevin, the republican. and what that allowed mcconnell to do is to run a very, a series of very focused ads that highlighted the positive side of mitch mcconnell. i mean, remember, this is a guy who had a lousy approval rating back home -- low 40s, high 30s -- for much of the campaign, and realizes he needed to turn that around. so while he let these outside groups dump millions on the air and he of course attacked his opponents as well in the air.

but it allowed him to spend a lot of his ads on promoting the good parts of mitch mcconnell's career in their eyes, and that helped improve his image or at least stabilize his image. and he didn't even grow -- he actually -- alison grimes became less popular than him by the end of the campaign, which was really a stunning feat. a stunning turnaround. -- >> it was a stunning turnaround. the other thing about mcconnell is that, and manu has mentioned, they had a first draft of their campaign plan in 2010. now think about that. he, four years ago, he was thinking about how he was going to run this race. so they knew they were going to spend a lot of money on technology. they had watched the obama campaign in 2008 and 2012. they had watched harry reid's re-election in 2010. they knew that they needed to go from his 2008 race, where he beat democratic bruce lunsford by about six points -- he was a tough race. he was going to have the latest technology. manu and i had done an interview with him in 2013 and he said he was going to build the most thorough senate campaign ever.

he was going to build the best senate -- >> in american history. >> in american history. and he probably got, he probably got there. he built a very impressive campaign operation. they were, you know, cutting edge on data operation and data mining. on identifying the target groups they wanted to go after. they had the basic themes they wanted to play. they knew which voters they wanted to graft or which democrats, which republicans which independents. they had it broken down by geography and region and everything. so on -- this was, you know, we wrote in the story: this was a presidential-caliber level campaign running it for a senate race. >> here's an ad that was run by the mcconnell campaign against his primary opponent, tom bevin. before we run that, though, tom bevin was -- who was he? >> he was a business man; a global business man. he actually -- a very wealthy investor. also had a family bell manufacturing business in connecticut.

and bevin, you know, has never run for office before and was kind of feeling out exactly whether or not to run in this race. and the mcconnell people were looking for any possible names of primary opponents for months and months. they were going to tea party meetings. they were listening up for potential foes. they were befriending a lot of their potential foes, and they convinced some to get out of the race before they ran. then matt bevin's name started to come up, and they started to hear a bit -- "who is this guy? let's look into him, let's research him." so they did an extensive opposition research months before he got into the campaign, and months before he got into the campaign, he was already getting hit with negative press accounts about his business background. and even before he got into this campaign, they had already prepared an attack add which they actually showed to bevin's consultant, his top consultant and said, "look, if matt bevin gets in this race this will this is what we will we're going

to hit him on.” >> let's watch this ad -- one of the ads -- and come back to you. >> bevin's business was assessed at least eight liens for not paying taxes, and bevin's company was the number one tax delinquent. bevin's company failed to pay taxes, then got a taxpayer bailout. bailout bevin: not a kentucky conservative. >> they say bevin was dishonest about his resume, claiming he graduated from prestigious mit. not true again. bevin never attended mit, and mit has no record of bevin. bailout bevin: not a kentucky conservative. >> i am mitch mcconnell, and i approve this message. >> what's your take? >> classic mcconnell. >> it's hard, it's direct. it's, you know, you're going right after bevin's, you know, strengths. he, you know, he's claiming to be this conservative alternative to mcconnell, and you are raising doubts about his integrity, or mcconnell's raising doubts about his integrity and his record. another story we had actually done was that bevin initially

was -- he claimed he was against the wall street bailout, but as an investment banker he was actually for it. i mean, they had a book on bevin long before he got in this race. they knew exactly what they were going to use against him, and they did. and they even told him. they were like, "look, we're going to run these ads. this is what we've got," and he still got it. >> and i would add that on the bailout bevin add, what was remarkable about that was that that came out the day he announced he was going to run. i mean, mcconnell put out a six-figure campaign ad published a statewide ad going after bevin on the day he came -- he announced, i mean think about it: no one's even heard of matt bevin in kentucky. but mitch mcconnell took him seriously enough that he was ready to go after him on day one. he did not want to take any chances with his primary. >> how badly did he beat bevin? >> 60-36, i think it was the final one. >> yes it was 60. yes, he got 60% and in the -- for the mcconnell people, they

claimed that this was a good margin because bevin spent about $5 million on this campaign and he was also supported by outside groups like the senate conservatives fund, which was going after mcconnell. pretty much. >> anyways, in your article you say that mitch mcconnell spent $2 million of his own money. and my memory is -- and you said it in the article -- he came here as a intern in college and then worked for senator marlow cook for a couple of years, went back and did the same thing marlow cook did, ran for judge in the -- >> judge advocate. >> yes, in jefferson county. where does he get his money? >> he has made some money over the years, but also his wife has come from a wealthy family, so -- >> elaine chao. >> yes. in fact a significant inheritance a couple of years ago, so it's family money. on her side. her side, her father is a big shipping executive in china. so that is -- and a very wealthy man. so worth tens of millions of dollars. >> and that was the -- you know,

>> that was one of the attacks that grimes launched against mcconnell and it really got under his skin. he hated that attack. he thought it was so unfair, so much so that they did a focus group to push back on it. one of them was showing him shopping at kroger's, driving around in his mercury. to show that hey, i am just a regular guy. but he decided not to do this because the focus group couldn't believe it. nobody believed it. >> here is a mcconnell add and obama ad. let's talk about how he used the president. >> the president of the united states. >> don't tell me words don't matter. >> the president's job is to unite the country, to bridge differences, not aggravate them. to encourage success, not condemn it. the president seems to have forgotten that he was elected to lead all of america, at a moment

when the national debt makes us look more like a third world country. i think our highest elected official should be looking for solutions instead of scapegoats. now we are seeing the results. americans expect their president to forge ahead and take responsibility for the policies in place. that's fine. give it to me. ♪ >> john bresnahan, all kinds of little things popping out. >> i like that mohammed ali was in there. a littlte louisville, kentucky pride. mcconnell has a fascinating relationship with the president. he respect him, but he has told

him before, once in a private meeting, that obama lost 104 out of 120 counties in kentucky. sorry, 116 out of 120. he is not popular in kentucky. whoever he ran against, he was going to tie obama to it. he did a very good job of tying obama to alison grimes. toward the end she exacerbated all her comments on whether she voted for obama. she wouldn't say. but he did a very good job -- he made obama and obamacare, which has been a success in kentucky he made them key issues in the race. >> senator mcconnell is 72 and alison grimes was 35. without overstating it, mitch mcconnell is not a matinee idol.

she is a smart, attractive -- what does it say in the age of television that he not only be -- beat her but beat her badly? >> she was never able to define herself. people who are watching this race -- it was not exactly clear what she stood for, what she believed. she didn't come across as an authentic candidate. she was very cautious, very disciplined, and tried hard to distance herself from the president and make the race all about attacking mcconnell. everything was about mcconnell being in washington for too long, the guardian of gridlock all the things mcconnell didn't like about mcconnell -- she was going hard on that. but if you do that, you can probably get 40%-45% -- but how do you get that last 6% to push you over the top?

>> she was never able to say that i am not mitch mcconnell. there is a second half of the equation. you can run against somebody and mitt romney suffered the same problem with obama. i am not obama, but you have to answer the second part. voters are not stupid. they understand -- you are not mitch mcconnell -- who are you and what are you going to do? >> how long have you two been with politico? >> i joined in 2008. just over six years. >> i am an original. i think i am one of the original six left. i was hired december, 2006. i was there when political started in 2007. >> somebody far away from washington, d.c. can get

politico where? >> online. we have a newspaper that is circulated but mostly that is washington. >> we are owned by robert albritton, he was a tv executive. his father owned some tv companies and stations. they have sold that now, so he owns politico. we own "capital new york." we are opening politico europe. >> back to alison grimes. in your article that you wrote you talk about the family's relationship to the clintons. you talk about her father, who is political. who is she, by the way? do you know where she went to school? >> american university law school. her father was a longtime state

party chairman, a member of the state assembly from lexington. they have long-standing roots in kentucky democratic politics. that is how he got close to bill clinton. when he was governor in arkansas they came up with a friendship. when bill clinton ran for president, jerry was very helpful in those two campaigns for president, and he also ran hillary clinton's kentucky campaign. this is a long-standing relationship, and they lean on the clintons hard. they played a large, outside role in alison grimes's campaign. he was a tactician, he helped and a lot of the key decision-making. >> staffing. >> he was involved in almost every single decision. >> what about the backtalk on the difference -- she seems to be in touch with harry reid. happier to talk to him than to

the operatives, the political operatives here in town -- explain how that works. >> there were a lot of questions about whether -- who was going to be the opponent for mcconnell. they, themselves, did not have her initially on the upper tier. they respected her but she was not an issue. they had other opponents. when she was going to get in she was recruited heavily by reid, and other democrats. the executive director of the democratic campaign committee. they recruited her hard. >> jeffrey katzenberg. >> stop for a second -- jeffrey katzenberg's name has popped up all the time. he is not a political guy. >> he is a rich donor. >> he starts your fundraising -- >> she and her father met with

katzenberg. he works for dreamworks. he is the founder of that. a very wealthy movie mogul worth hundreds of millions of dollars. there was talk that katzenberg was going to release $20 million to counter any republicans. they met with katzenberg before she became a candidate. she wasn't a candidate and they had to have a discussion. katzenberg and the folks who wanted to shake mcconnell -- liberal democrats hate mitch mcconnell, no question, they were going to get him. they were going to put a lot of money into super pacs and they were going to dump it all on

mcconnell. >> grimes was very -- these outside groups would get her money. before she got in there was a very aggressive push by both her father -- to line up fundraisers and make sure the majority pack would not leave her hanging, they wanted to make that clear. it shows just how cautious of a candidate she was. super cautious on the campaign trail and before. she did not want to take the risk if there was a chance the democrats would abandon her. >> the day she was supposed to get in, she initially told reid she was not running. so they panic. they get her on the phone and she goes into a meeting with her supporters and comes back out and she is running. there was this disconnect -- she was a very well-respected

executive director. it is -- the republicans have their own version. the national republican senatorial committee. >> when we see the president allow for fundraisers, does he raise money -- >> he raises money for the house and senate democrats who have their own campaign committees. house republicans have their own, senate republicans. >> how much can they contribute to any campaign? >> there is only so much they can spend in a coordinated manner but they can spend on their own, an independent expenditure effort. they cannot coordinate. they can't say we are running this ad here, you run that at.

>> let's look at this clip. [video clip] >> the first question to you is why are you reluctant to give an answer on whether or not you voted for president obama? >> there is no reluctantly. this is a matter of principle. our constitution grants the constitutional right for privacy at the ballot box. for a secret ballot. you have that right, i have that right, every kentuckian as that right. i am tasked with overseeing and making sure we are enforcing all of our election laws. i have worked very closely with members of our military to ensure the privacy at the ballot box. so those who lay their life on the line -- >> so your reluctance is a matter of principle? >> i am not going to compromise a constitutional right provided here in kentucky in order to show myself on one side.

i will protect that right for every kentuckian. >> who do you think advised her to do that? >> after the election, we were trying to figure that out. there were fingers pointed at who said what. everybody denied it was them. i assume she did discuss this with her pollster and father. it was a curious decision because, of course she voted for obama, she was a delegate for him. she was at the convention. she could have come up with a better answer. i interviewed her in january and asked her a similar question -- would you vote for barack obama again? she said to me at the time, you are factually mistaken and launched into some speech about something else. then i said, what do you mean? for months, she was not saying

who she voted for. at that critical juncture in october, she became part of a national punchline. >> the thing is i have had democrats on the hill say to me they were flabbergasted that she would say something like this, because of course she voted for obama. you are going to be hit with obama no matter if you are a democrat. she could have voted for mccain or romney -- >> she said she voted for hillary clinton. she supported bill clinton on the campaign trail. she doesn't want to talk about it but in another way she does -- it didn't make any sense. you could have come up with any answer better than that one.

>> it was a gift for mcconnell. i was surprised he didn't start laughing in the middle that debate. it was a gift. you are making yourself the issue. whether or not you have voted for obama. i have talked to some african-american workers who are flabbergasted -- why wouldn't you say you voted for obama? they were really upset with her. >> i voted for obama but, you know -- >> this is not the barack obama i voted for, she could have done a lot with it. >> mitch mcconnell had 70 different ads. >> it was amazing. he tried to be hyper local. a lot of these were targeted to individual media markets. eastern kentucky on the coal issue, western kentucky on rural

issues. helping workers involved with radiation -- this was a very highly sophisticated effort. one of the reasons he did this -- the era of your marks are gone. -- earmarks are gone. mitch mcconnell used to run on pork barrel projects. now those are gone. >> those are really gone? >> they are gone on capitol hill. >> you can't claim credit for his spending your marks. >> republicans banned it. >> mcconnell was smart enough to look down the road and see -- this is how you win election. he helped deliver kentucky. now it was harder for him. >> he did a news conference the day after the election and he was standing in the mcconnell

center. who paid for that? corporate donors -- >> there was some initial money but it was mainly in corporate donors. >> let's bring this back to what people see on our network. here is harry reid and mitch mcconnell. they are in a debate, a chat on the floor of the senate. i want you to tell me the difference. [video clip] >> republicans stall, delay, obstruct, and then we have a vote here. their only purpose for the delay is for delay purposes. they are obstructing this as they have obstructed everything the last five years. >> if the majority leader doesn't like the way it is

working i would recommend he change his behavior. we don't have a rules problem we had a behavior problem. we have had a couple of examples of trying to get back to normal where we brought up the bill that was open for amendments. amendments were processed. but it seems of late we are back into the old senate. all we are about is scoring partisan points and denying members the opportunity to offer amendments. >> i am a patient man. i try to be. my friend, to come here and have the audacity to talk about my breaking my word, the trouble with that statement as we have the whole senate to see what happened. >> i think i can safely say that most of the people don't get it. they watch this and i say, they are with each other every day. explain it.

>> there is a certain amount of theatrics that goes into being the majority and minority leaders. the role of thumb is the more combative the language, the closer they are to a deal. in this case, they are a lot alike. they are around the same age reid came from very humble origins, a very troubled background, very poor. mcconnell suffered from polio and overcame that. he was ill often. they worked their way up, they both were state officials first. they were both extraordinarily proud of their state. that is where they cut their teeth. they were both very good at

doing the dirty jobs in the senate in order to gain leadership. >> what we have seen in this past year is that their relationship has soured. reid made mcconnell a top target. they made in the number one race. they spent millions, and mcconnell knew all this, and that really hurt the relationship on the floor. from reid's perspective, he thinks mcconnell has really prevented him from doing anything on the senate floor. that was what that argument was. things got so bad they needed an intermediary to talk to one another. things were getting pretty tense during the election season. that is going to be a big question in the new congress. >> over the years, they have had a pretty decent relationship

with all the public dueling. privately, they could talk and work things out. >> reid tends to talk a lot about everything that is on his mind. mcconnell gives nothing away. >> correct me if i am wrong, but mitch mcconnell got 800,600 votes. that is a 16 point lead. if it's $50 million spent on this, that $60 a vote. >> another point you raise -- you need to go back to 2004. the republicans made a big effort.

the republican leader went to south dakota and campaigned -- which was a huge violation of an unwritten etiquette -- leaders did not campaign. they didn't have races and never campaigned, it was unprecedented that the republican leader went to a democratic city -- when reid ran in 2010, they made a big effort. mcconnell knew that he was going to be a top target because he was unpopular. there was still significant democratic support in kentucky. obama was a popular but there were democratic voters down there. he knew there would -- somebody

would attack him for being in the senate for this long. the public was clearly unhappy. he wasn't sure how it was going to play. he was prepared for anything that is mitch mcconnell. when reid ran they didn't leave any stone unturned. he looked to reid's campaign. >> which one is meaner? [laughter] >> they both can be kind of curt. >> why do each of their party members like them? >> they really respect them.

i don't know if they are loved by their caucuses but they are definitely respected. >> they will do the job. mcconnell had two terms as the campaign chairman. >> they take arrows for their caucus. >> they have done the dirty jobs. >> mcconnell did not take any money from them -- he asked them not to spend money on his race. that earned him credit from his caucus. reid -- he let them attack him. he said, if you want to attack me, fine. that kind of stuff really helps you.

>> let me show an ad from 1984. he had just won his sixth term. the famous bloodhounds. i want you guys to explain this. [video clip] >> my job was to find him and get him back to work. he was missing big house on social security, budgets agriculture, skipping votes and making an extra $50,000 giving speeches. i was close. the $2k speech in puerto rico. we can't find him. maybe we have to let them make speeches at switch to mitch. >> awesome. >> they had two versions of that ad.

to turn around that race, it looks like he was going to lose. he does those hard-hitting attacking ads. he also has those funny ads that are humorous but negative and those seem to work. when alison grimes went on the air with a shotgun and showed i am not barack obama -- what they decided to do is, that looks like barack obama when he shot his shotgun. they ran an ad the next day comparing obama to grimes and it was done in a humorous way. it was done by the same ad maker, larry mccarthy. >> here is a humorous ad from mitch mcconnell. >> a lot of people try to tell me -- how to do my ads. >> that sounds dangerous.

>> hey, mitch. how about a talking baby? >> that has been done before. that is not going to work. maybe it is enough to say mitch fights for kentucky. >> how big a sense of humor does he really have? >> he has a dry sense of humor. he is a funny guy. a very clever man. he is a fanatical sports fan. his dream job would be athletic director. he knew his stats. he has watched every game, he knows his football.

>> and he takes it personally. got into a big fight with a democrat over conference realignment between their respective alma maters. they yelled at each other on the senate floor. football! oh yeah. >> why did you to come to washington? >> i moved down here in 1989. i was looking to change up from new york. >> what was the draw? the politics draw. >> it was by accident, to be perfectly honest. my first job was -- i ran copy i was a part-time copy clerk. i fell into politics by accident. >> you? >> family reasons. we relocated to the area. >> where did you guys go to

school? >> new york, state university. >> wisconsin madison. >> a producer of this program did an interview with mitch mcconnell couple years ago. it has never aired. we will have a couple excerpts here. it will be aired on our american history tv channel. but i wanted to to run it because he is not talking about the day-to-day politics -- he is talking about one of his idols. [video clip] >> henry clay was kentucky's most famous statesman. he ran for president three times, never made it. after which he declared he would rather be right than president. he didn't say that earlier in his life while he was still

trying to be president. many people felt clay was the great compromiser. he had been involved in a compromise in 1820 that involved an admission of new states and whether they would be slave or free, which kicked off a great debate here in congress over slavery. he somehow managed to reconcile the differences. 30 years later, toward the end of his life, it was the compromise of 1850 upon which i did my senior thesis in college. >> compromise. any difference in mitch mcconnell's ability to compromise versus harry reid? >> will he be a compromisor as the majority leader next year? >> that is the big question. i think he is in a very difficult spot. this is going to test his political skill. it is going to be 46 democrats. he needs a six democrats to pass any legislation. he has to balances competing interests, which is not just conservatives running for

president, but blue state republicans who are up for reelection. he will have to balance those interests, get democratic support, keep the conservative house at bay, and get the democratic president to sign something. we will have to see how much he digs in, or how much he tries to play in the middle. >> on the personal side, if you were a young person watching this and you see mitch mcconnell with the thesis in college about henry clay. then he came here as an intern. then he went to work for his senator. followed him, because he was a judge in jefferson county. he has been here for 30 years.

what does it say to people that want to get into politics? >> in the piece he talks a lot about clay. mcconnell understands his place in history. especially as a kentucky senator. he knows the history of the state as well as anyone. he will no county voting patterns going back decades. he can rattle it off. it is pretty amazing. he knows where he is. he knows he is the longest-serving senator in kentucky history. he is very much aware of that. >> a democrat is the governor of kentucky. >> he is very much aware of that. he is constantly thinking about his place in his state's politics. >> he may want a legacy item in

these two years. he can help enact big tax reforms. >> there is more from the interview. [video clip] >> it is important that there be a place in the legislative process where things are fought over, where things are rarely done on a purely partisan basis. it almost always takes some kind of bipartisan buy-in to do something in the senate. it is an institution that moves things to the political center. >> it is interesting. he came up as an appropriator. appropriators, they spread money around, but they would get big votes. you cannot but guys like ted stevens, famous chairmen. this is where he cut his teeth.

they made deals together. >> the difference between an appropriator -- >> and an authorizer. >> they have the earmark, they could spend back home. they could run on those pet projects. earmarks are going away, funding levels are decreasing. these guys have to cut money. you could ask any member, they would still be on the ways and means committee. >> let's go back to the campaign again. how did he raise his money?

who does it? >> he has a long time aide, but he travels all around the country. he goes to new york, spends a lot of time with wall street donors, washington donors. >> corporations. >> corporate pacs came out big folks who knew they could not cross the incoming majority leader. they would be placing a wrong that on a guy who would pay very close attention. >> we did a story about how mcconnell was always raising money. >> you say in this article that it was hard for his competitor tom bevin, to hire someone to raise money for him because people didn't want that on their resume. >> if you are a republican

consultant working for his primary oponent -- mitch mcconnell is not going to forget that. >> i asked him that directly. he said to me, well, i don't think you'd want that on your resume, do you? if you want to go broke for matt bevin -- >> any democratic or republican senator or house member -- >> here is an ad about a kidnapped child that was run in the campaign. let's run it and you explain how this happened. [video clip] >> you don't know how important a senator's experiences until your child's life is on the line. in 2011, after a dark period in my life, my marriage ended. my husband adopted my daughter and took her to mali.

a dangerous part of africa. i didn't know if she was alive or dead. i reached out to senator mcconnell and he took it up personally. i can't even talk about him without getting emotional. he cares, he cared about me and my children. he let it be known that this little kentucky and needed to come home. senator mcconnell worked with our state department and the government to hold him accountable. when we won our fight, he met us at the airport. with faith and hard work, we turned despair into joy. i never stopped fighting for my daughter and mitch never stopped fighting for us. >> we know the cynics watching this are saying -- this is so political. >> it is an extremely powerful ad. the story is true. they contacted his office, and what she said happened. her daughter had been kidnapped

by her estranged husband. she reached out to mcconnell's office and he worked on this issue. when he was running for reelection, he didn't have earmarks. remember, he doesn't have earmarks anymore. they are banned after 2010. so they spent a lot of time going through casework files of kentuckians they helped. they found her, they asked her if she would be part of the ad. >> on election night -- she was there. >> he gave a discerning campaign speech too. he said, i have been all over the state. he said, that rarely happens for a positive ad, people come up and ask about it. this one in particular struck a chord. it was important because of what

we talked about earlier. he was very unpopular back home. his approval ratings had not been great. how do you do that? how you promote things that make you look better? this was a very powerful episode about a woman who was an obama supporter who agreed -- she was a big surrogate. she cut several ads for him. on radio and tv, this helped stabilize his approval ratings. >> explain -- in your article, you talk about at the beginning of the campaign they had targeted 1.2 million people in the state they figured were going to vote, and they went door-to-door for 1.1 million of those. who went door-to-door? >> the kansas campaign and the kentucky republican party. they built a database of every registered voter in kentucky and assigned numerical values to all of them about whether or not they would support them.

they built a very, very sophisticated data modeling operation about voters they could get and couldn't get, they contacted voters they thought had a certain -- they thought they could appeal to. they contacted them directly. they had online ads, targeted to very specific groups. they had a very sophisticated -- identifying borders, contacting, phone calls, mail. using online, digital ads. targeted on specific issues. they were either anti-obama voters, or coal was a huge

issue. he used that very effectively against grimes. they tried to get support for cap and trade programs. the kentucky coal industry has been devastated over the last couple decades in terms of jobs. they tried to attach coal voters or anti-obama voters. >> they had data all over the place. when they came in, the senior adviser who led the campaign -- they saw data all over the place, and he was a centralizer. josh is 35 years old. he was a former communications person for mcconnell. he became chief of staff and senior adviser.

he led this campaign and he noticed there was data everywhere. decentralized that database and used it in a very targeted manner. what they studied was the obama campaign, which did it very, very sophisticated manner. they built a big ground operation, led at the time by jesse benton, a former rand paul campaign manager. there was a part of this big effort to find specific voters who may or may not vote for mitch mcconnell. >> 2010, there were 442 coal mines in the state. in 2009, 18,000 workers. you were in his room -- what did you see? >> he was watching "face the

nation" with a pile of newspapers on his foot rest with the fireplace going. his wife was walking around upstairs. a pretty modest townhome, a very liberal neighborhood, one of the most liberal in the state of kentucky. his living room had pictures of his ancestors, of his wife's family, and from his own family's ancestors. a pretty modest home. he was in a very casual mood green turtle neck, jeans, about to hit the campaign trail. >> did he know he was going to win? >> at that point it was pretty clear.

the story ran the day after he won. we had done all of our reporting, we spent months reporting on this story. >> the democratic senatorial campaign committee stopped advertising. they knew that the margin was getting big. >> if someone is listening to this and they want to study more -- can they go on the politico website and get the story? is it still there? >> you can google our names with mitch mcconnell and it will probably be the first thing to come. >> here's a statement by the president the day after the campaign was over. [video clip] >> today i had a chance to speak with john boehner and congratulated mitch mcconnell on

becoming the next and the -- senate majority leader. i told them both that i look forward to finishing up this congress's business and then work on america's business. i talked with mitch mcconnell about the prospect of working together. >> people watching this say, yeah, right. they already had meetings in the oval office -- explain to people what they can't understand. >> politicians always say after the election, we want to work with each other. the proof is in the pudding. we are not really seeing any effort to really change the discourse and suggest areas where they are beginning -- it will be interesting to see the white house on whether or not compromise on some of these key issues republicans will be demanding, whether they are willing to give up on higher tax revenues. it doesn't seem like that is

really going to happen. one area where they could get some stuff done is on international trade, as the president does support free trade agreements and the republican congress does, as well. beyond that we could see warfare. >> republicans run congress now. if they want to do a budget resolution, if they want to do obamacare repeal -- they could force a vote on it. they are going to have to pass spending bills, too. >> about the rules on the senate -- will mitch mcconnell go back to the old days? >> he said that he won't use the nuclear option to change the filibuster rules.

it is not clear whether or not there will be an increase of threshold to block presidential nominees. the threshold to overcome a filibuster decreases from 60 to 51 for presidential nominees. the question for mitch mcconnell is whether he increases that threshold back to back to 60 for presidential nominees. right now you can still filibuster. the question will be whether there will be pressure to allow the filibuster to be broken. >> what do you say to people who

ask you what is going on? >> both parties are guilty of the same thing. the tea party, the rise of the populist group in the democratic party. i don't know what is going to change. 2008 -- the recession had a much bigger impact than folks recognize. that is not business as usual. right now the fringes are where the energy is. it is going to continue. i am not sure what is going to change and i don't know when it is going to happen. >> these gentlemen wrote an article together on mitch mcconnell in politico. manu raju and john bresnahan

thank you for talking with us. ♪ >> for free transcripts or to give us your comments about this program, visit us at q&a.org. they are also available a c-span podcasts. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> this sunday on "q&a column will the groundbreaking 1915 film "the birth of a nation." the efforts by african-american civil rights activists to prevent the release. >> part two is really the heart

of the protest in the sense that this is where the blacks are appalled by the trail of free slaves. -- by the portrayal of free slaves. it is a scene in the south carolina legislature where their first aid primary order of business is to pass a bill allowing for interracial marriage. in griffinth's hands, they are only interested in pursuing white women. ♪

>> the controversial story behind "birth of a nation" on c-span's "q&a." >> the 114th congress gavels in this tuesday at noon eastern. watch live coverage, and track the gop led congress. have your say as advanced unfold on the c-span networks, c-span radio, and c-span.org. new congress, best access. .>> coming up, a preview of the new congress. former staff members talk about the relationship between white house and congress. then, former congressman dan goodman and robert bennett discuss the prospects for bipartisanship in the 114th

congress. >> the 114th congress gavels and tomorrow at noon eastern for members of the congressional black caucus will be ceremonially sworn in. we will hear from john boehner minority leader nancy pelosi it and g.k. butterfield. our coverage begins live at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 2. >> the 114th congress gavels and tuesday at noon eastern. next, a conversation on the relationship between white house and congress. we will hear from former white house officials. >> this would not happen without pat griffin. he has been with the center and university for 16 years. he has few -- the unique background as being an assistant

director or legislator and assistant to the president under clinton. he organized this and came up with the idea several months ago and i said yes. he has been the acting director and the assistant director for the center and that is part of his role but also has had experience on the hill. he was one of the only elected the only elected staff person and assistant to the leader and special policy adviser to tom daschle. private sector experience also. the point is, he knows the private sector, the white house, the hill and will lend his wisdom to this and leave the discussion of the panelists and

will introduce them at this point. >> thank you. it is an honor to be here as part of the senate for congressional studies in american university. i so appreciate the mission and the desire to implement in terms of reaching out to the washington community. also a particular honor to join the distinguished panel of friends and colleagues. the purpose is to discuss the strategic options available to the president and congressional leaders as they begin the 114th congress in the past two years of the obama administration. this is a relatively unique panel and that's among other things we have held the director for the president of the united

states. it is the nature of the job to share a common set of experiences, both in terms of what it requires working within the white house and also what it requires working with capitol hill. at the same time, there is many aspects of the jobs that are as unique as one can imagine due to the variety of circumstances associated with having different bosses facing different world realities and sometimes just the actual time you serve for the tenure of your boss. to some extent myself we served in the first two years of the president's tenure. chuck and dan worked in the past two years of the second term of their respective tenure. the energies of the newly elected resident is obviously distinctly different from the one in lame duck. however, the demands of the country and the world are often

blind to that reality requiring the president and congressional leaders to have a strategic plan for engagement and government nonetheless. the last the panelists to send the questions regarding the strategic advice they might offer to the president and congressional leaders and light of the current political realities in domestic and international policy concerns. some of us on the panel have also advise congressional leaders in addition to serve -- serving as directors in the white house. party notwithstanding, some house -- sometimes the advice you give is the function of the parties serve. let me introduce my colleagues. phil, second. these guys made me make you first. phil currently operating as a consultant on nonprofit world getting strategic advice and

helping to develop taxable action plans. none hand in d.c.. he served before serving director of legislative affairs a senior adviser to president obama and the first two years of his term working on any number of issues from fiscal crisis to health care, and those particular he wears that is a proud accomplishment. chief of staff to henry waxman committee staff director covering over 25 years in the house and as also, we share the opportunity to work as an adviser to senator daschle in mid-2000. my next collie got the second short straw. currently the president of the trade association known as airlines for america, the largest trade association of airlines, american airlines in the country. formally known as a ta. now under whole new vision and

direction under his leadership. he also has and the executive vice president for global affairs and citibank. serving as director of legislative affairs for george h.w. bush as well as george w. bush. the latter in the first two years of his tenure and also when he was laying down on the job. dan myers, the gentleman on the end currently the president of one of the most prominent successful lobbying firms in washington. a.m., head of legislative affairs has spent many years on capitol hill working in the senate for senator boschwitz and members of the congress and i had a chance to meet him mostly under the circumstances. his chief of staff is with and

speaker. chuck brain to my immediate left current president of capitol hill strategy worked for a number of members in the house. a long tenure on the ways and means committee, which by the good fortune of his chairman and reality was in the middle of a lot of issues on the front burner of congress. chuck was the director in the last two years of the clinton administration. you see what we have here is a panel of folks not only with a similar set of experiences but also different times and each administration and i think that is helpful in shaping the perspective of what does a strategic advised change in the past -- last two years of a lame-duck residency versus the first two years and what does

not change? the format for today is pretty simple. what i would like to do is ask each of our panelists one question to get started. maybe two. i would ask each of them to respond and turned to the group to ask any question they would like of any panelists. let me again. to the panel. there have been much speculation about what president and congressional leaders, republican and democrat strategy will be over the next two years. each institutional player is trying to figure out what strategy is in their own best interest. my experience is each of the entities is first and foremost about survival. as they figure out survival then comes the counterparts in their own party. how do they determine what that self interest is?

obama has been provocative. does this suggest to years of confrontation? are republicans seriously thinking they need to demonstrate they can govern? does harry reid give a dam in the republicans work for this? >> i would ask not just what advice you might give on strategy thomas but taking it back one step. what does the president or the speaker or leader in the senate have to consider? what elements do they take into account? a very opaque process. we sometimes get additional up

to us and we will be confrontational. what were the considerations that preceded that? what are the risks of that team that u.s. advisers are talking to the president or the leader or speaker about in deciding this is the strategy we must pursue? >> i guess you pose the question, how -- this is good, because you pose the question how do you identify each of the players? i really think, and i am not referring to answer, i do not think any of them today can define their self interest for next year. what i mean, when they come back

in january they will look at it in a slightly different light than they do here in december. you cannot underestimate what next year will look like getting past this session and whatever fights occur over the final wrapup, it will look different in december. >> what will they be looking at that would suggest conditions will be different? >> they will be looking at the last two years of president obama's term. they will be looking at the next elections, which will be impending, and looking at and assessing all of their own self interest. in the -- individually. people will be posting questions about president obama's legacy.

having been there at the end of the clinton administration. what we were looking at and you remember this quite well, at this point it is we're being impeached by the house of representatives. to compare that to an executive action on immigration and saying the current opponents of what he has done on immigration to say this is our ability has been soiled to work together on anything, well, to find the president has worthy of being removed from office or crimes and misdemeanors, yet we found a way over the next two years and they found a way to work with

us. they will get over it. i think it is fair to say the president will leave for pressed on his legacy. what the white house will be focused on is trying to do the things they started out to accomplish. in other words, they will know they have got 700 days and then 699 and then 98 to do what they think is right to accomplish them anyway they can accomplish them. one is -- isn't working with congress? taking an executive action? moving that direction. >> in that regard the strategy will be driven by them and being effective and moving policy that

has been somewhat underlying important to the president. >> absolutely. things they can work with on the hill. there -- it is defined by who on the hill is willing and able to work with them. >> in terms of the elements that go into to find the strategy are reaching a conclusion, one would hope you would start with what you what to do and what you want to accomplish. you have to have that kind of vision and center and build out from there. then you have the elements that factor into that which is, can you get it done. what is your best way to get it done. looking at what the speaker in

mitch mcconnell want to do. not all of them are probably there in terms of trying to get things done. if you are the president, you have to look at the opposition in congress and your own party where there is plenty of opposition with some of the things he wants to do and also our personality asis there are concerns and lingering aftereffects of a couple of elections. i thought there was a confluence of interest here in terms of the president. i think he does not want to look ineffective in getting things done. the republicans have to get things done to show they can govern. what the election told you this time is the whole are fed up with the congress not getting anything done and the congress and the white house not ever working together. we are all older here. we have come from slightly

different times than some of the current people. there was a time when democrats and republicans came together. take the constitutional tension which is ever present regardless of party, and that is something you have to get over but requires a certain amount of outrage and knowing you cannot get everything you want and working what could be common goals and that takes a lot of conversation. you have to factor in all of the elements. then you have to make a decision i think, what you want to look like in the sense of even if it is hard, can you press the restart button? if i was giving revised -- advice to republicans it would be not ignore necessarily the elements of the party that like to bargain on the basis of getting what you want.

i was told that is the first thing you don't do in a negotiation. if i give you this, are you with me? that is pretty 101 and i think they have to start doing that. there is some notion on the republican side that some of the more older members have been chastened and ready to move forward. the past couple of days in a so much. we will see. if i were giving advice to the president it would be, press the restart button and takes more than a phone call to make friends with people. you have to start somewhere, started now. you might find there are people you can work with but it will take time and they have to get up close and personal to you to make the change with they are willing to make the leap and work on things and has to be trust and credibility there. i think it is awfully basic. this is all politics as a people

game. you have to understand what you want and what other people want and try to come to some understanding of what it takes to get them and where you can meet them so that both sides can be either mutually dissatisfied or mutually satisfied and then have something to look at to say we got this done. >> i want to reiterate a couple of things that chuck just said in a slightly different way. i break down your question of the first part into three categories. first is substance. what is your substantive goal? second, political self interest for your party. the third is political and self-interest very narrowed. there are people in the center right now on the republican side

that may be looking at their interest as the republican party broadly because they want to carve out space for themselves. in my time in government, i would always be willing to trade good substance -- when you work in the obama administration they always keep your mike off. that is a really good start. let me recap. the three categories i have is substantive importance political interest broadly for a party and political self interest for any political person in the process. there are a lot of individual people. in my time in government i would always be willing to trade good substance for bad politics.

an example is 1996 democrats were the minority. republicans running for house became concerned in the summer they would not have a lot of accomplishments to show for this going into reelection and all of a sudden a space opened up to get agreements on a couple of issues. the two issues i were working on was pesticides and safe drinking water. pesticides have been blocked for 18 years. going to the question about how you make the decisions ahead of time, all of a sudden you could build the space opened up that we might be able to get through to have a pesticides agreement even though it had been blocked for 15 years. the political circumstances had changed. within three weeks we not only reached an agreement and energy in the subcommittee and then

committee, what got the bill passed on the house floor a week later, the week after that, the senate passed it unanimously. the week after that we were in the white house where president clinton signing the bill. that was bad politics because we were giving the republicans an accomplishment. the same thing with safe drinking water. sometimes you want to make the trade. political interest is or is a was harder to evaluating from a party perspective. in washington, and this is a good example of this, can you -- you follow the so much closer. i have of -- the advantage of a split personality. i am spending most of my time in new mexico. i am amazed at the thing that dominates here do not get on the radar screen in new mexico.

people trying to evaluating the broad political interest of the party, it is easy to miss copulate. political self-interest is easy. anyone who wants to run for president in 2016 has to carve out space and identity and fill a vacuum we saw that last year i thought and two years ago when the republican leadership was trying to reach agreements and some of the senators like senator cruz did not see it as substantive interest versus political self interest to be there. that is playing out today in the house and tomorrow or the next few days in the senate on the on the misspending bill where everyone has to strike the calculation. it is more difficult than when i first came to congress. more difficult than when nick

was in either administration because of media. telecommunications has changed everything. it is much more difficult now and it was when i was in the white house in 2009 does everything is accelerated. i think twitter was still not much of a factor. when we did the pesticides law in 1996, it would be infinitely harder to do today because parts of it would become fodder for cable tv, talk radio, internet and complicates the entire process and that also affects the calculation. i think at the end of the day most people would rather be conciliatory and find common ground and reach an agreement despite everything you hear

about washington, but sometimes it is just not there to be able to do it. that is the bottom line. the space of the agreement. if it is not because of the eternal dynamics and the other party's caucus, you have the best confrontation policy. >> is it fair to say the operating premise is there our instincts on both sides to make stuff happen rather than not. an assessment of the conditions and circumstances that were permitted. >> generally, yes. there are exceptions to people who elevate the personal self-interest over everything else. if they are doing that, we need to realize that is what we are dealing with. sometimes people do not correctly identify self-interest. sometimes people just make that decisions. you have to evaluate the person you are dealing with to see if they will be able to correctly

see what the self-interest is. nick said something before that i think is right, a lot of blocking and tackling. the reason it is so hard is to do this part of the strategy right, you need to know your opponents' interests better than your opponent knows it and be able to figure out better than your opponent how to get your self interest in a way that does not harm your self interest. >> easiest thing in washington always is to get a bad deal. anyone can reach a deal. the hardest thing is to get everything important to you. and one that actually works. that is what is hard and that is why people get upset about gridlock. a lot of the factors do not exist. >> thank you.

>> thank you, pat. thank you for putting this together, particularly want to thank pat who is not only a friend in the invitation to come here but and i first met pat republicans had won the majority in 1994. he was assistant to the president of legislative affairs and that was the speaker's chief of staff and no one in the republican majority had ever been in the majority for 40 years. pat was a seasoned hand. we actually, despite the political differences and a very tumultuous first year government shutdown and things like that, we develop personal relationships with trust and were able to have serious conversations when things were seriously off the rails with respect to our respect of bosses

and parties. anyway, i appreciate it for the role he played then and now. my approach is framed in terms of 100 14th congress with the prospect for getting anything done and the respective strategies and what goes into developing the strategies to make that happen. getting a lot of conversation about -- critically from the president's point of view, i will start with the point you just made between past and fill that there is usually an interesting getting things done. i can tell you the president has an agenda he would love to get done in the next two years, so does john boehner in mitch mcconnell. the problem we had when we got elected in 1995, the group of

republicans had an idea what they wanted to get done and very willing to work with the president to get it done. as long as the president was willing to come into the box we defined. that is where the tension lies that we want to work together. cooperation from everybody. a lot of times that means we are willing to cooperate. we are willing to come into what i defined as the corners of the cooperation. that is where the challenge lies to some degree. for the leaders in congress what they have to to take into consideration is the fact that they get their job for the same reason that is a perfect analogy. the same reason someone get tired to coach football or baseball team. -- gets hired to coach a football or baseball team. the members are bringing in john boehner, nancy pelosi or mitch

mcconnell or harry reid to get them the best chance to succeed so that begs the question what do i mean by success? it will affect public policy. usually that get interpreted by who gets us into power? that is how you have the greatest impact because the majority of the house and senate and even more so the majority of the house-senate with president of your same party you can have the greatest impact on public holocene. defining that affects, for the leaders, one of the biggest components of developing strategy is what kind of consensus they can build within their own conference and has been obvious the past few years it is pretty challenging.

john boehner, to go back to a case study of a little over a year ago, adopted a strategy to shut down the government, not because he thought that was the right thing to do or would be very successful, he did that as a management basically to manage his caucus. he had a group of members that were relatively younger members who had never been through the experience before and were convinced they could when the showdown with the white house. if we confront the white house we can get them to capitulate and win. we went through the same thing in 1995. john boehner made the calculation he could fight internally but at some point this minority in his caucus was going to insist they have the opportunity to win the war. the analogy that got used back then is he had a group of

members who would be determined they would not get burned. he made the calculation i would rather have them touch the stove earlier rather than later. other october 2014 that in june with the election coming up. it was intentional on his part. a disaster politically. they got saved it to some degree because of the problems. the country moved on. if you talk to the leadership and most of the members who were advocating for and, they realized it was unsuccessful and politically they dodged a bullet because of the other issues that came about thereafter. the consensus and the ability for the leaders to lead and develop a consensus would take a strange twist. leaders come them to look up polling data and talking to

members and constituents and listening to people in the grocery store. i also strongly believe people are cynical and and always believe it's an absolutely want to do the right thing. the marriage of can we do the right thing you come can i bring people along you go if you do not have the ability they will probably elect someone else to lead. we can go into this deeper but i will just stop. >> let me ask if it is to difficult to find that it has been defined by the congressional leaders that confrontation will get me more of what i want in 2016 then cooperation. cooperation would be nice but confrontation seemed like senator mcconnell had a notion

of that six years ago and did not seem to harm the much. is that just being cynical or are people really struggling? >> nick mentioned it earlier, i think republicans feel a political imperative to try to govern and that would suggest cooperation. the best case study of that was one that phil mentioned in 1996. i was the speaker's chief. what happens is there had been the government shutdown. that was the end of 1995 and ended the first week of 1996. the republican numbers were awful. there was a very conscious decision that we need to get stuff done.

fortunately the president was running for reelection and felt a similar need so there was -- if you look at the time to train the end of april when the government got funded to the august recess, the farm bill kennedy kassebaum, clean drinking water telecommunications bill -- there must have been eight major pieces of legislation. there was a sense that both sides the clinton white house and republicans needed to get this done in congress. i think they have the same perspective the leadership does now. not quite as acute as it was in 1996. they proved they are willing to go the confrontation route. the country expects that.

that has become a political negative for them. they have to try to overcome that. which is why i kind of agree with chuck that i do not think the executive order is the showstopper they like to claim. part of that is managing their side whether internally or the outside groups. nobody is going to shut down the government over this thing. i think in the long run they will conclude the best strategy for dealing with immigration is this path. >> let me build on that. then we will turn it over to the audience. triangulation is a term that got a lot of attention during the clinton presidency. talking with leaders of the opposition party with or without democratic leaders on the hill. during that time of 1996 is what we are talking about where a lot of the triangulation you merged.

what advice would you give regarding triangulation as you approach or attempt to make legislative success? do you think it is wise for the president to triangulate with the congress of the risk of upsetting collings, particularly in the senate and working directly president leaders as president clinton did? under this scenario, hypothetical legislation could take only six vote -- 60 votes. alternatively, might you recommend macconnell working with reed to work directly with each other where you would wind up meeting 67 both -- votes to overcome a presidential veto yucca would you advise the president and congressional leaders to actively pursue a trained you wish and strategy, which having had to carry that to the hill was not easy.

your good friends did not like you for doing that. >> some. i think it is a difficult question to answer in the current context. there is some disaffection for the president within his own party already ended different time and the interests are different. whether the president can do that and meet the republicans to the point he would be getting something members of his own party is something i think only fair out over time or not and i do not see a particular issue where that might. i think it could on certain issues. other issues i am not so sure. that was triangulation as we all have come to know it. a little bit of the creature of what was going on at that particular time. i think that it is what do you want to get done and two is against hitting and done? -- getting it done?

i do not see president working against interest of his own party there. i think it is a tough one to get your arms around in the current context. >> this would divide the democratic caucus. >> i was going to answer it and presume to stay for the entire panel. it all depends. it depends on how important the issue is to you. who you're going to be against and when in the term is it? and trade is a good example. we are likely to see that relatively soon. trade is an issue that is exceedingly divisive in the democratic party.

almost to the point where it is not really divisive at all. it's almost to the point where it's not really divisive at all. almost the unanimous opinion against it. a minority position in the party in favor of trade positions, but the president may go ahead and push for fast-track authority. >> you will admit it is a departure. he and senator reid have been linked at the hip in terms of major issues. >> they have been, but the trade negotiations in the real world haven't gotten to the point where it's been necessary to come to congress for legislative action on trade agreements.