channel on the smart phone i highly recommend a download. host: thank you for your time. guest: thank you for having me. host: we take a look at the recent decision the supreme court made on redistrict team. david wasserman will be our guest and then we will be joined by richard norton smith to talk about president obama, the recent victories he has seen and leads to a larger discussion about his legacy that will take place at a: 30. and the former head of the national transportation safety board deborah horseman will join us and now the head of the national safety council. we will talk about the government and private sectors role in promoting safety. we will take a look at those issues as "washington journal" comes your way at 7:00 tomorrow. we will see you then. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the

national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> next, "newsmakers" with matt schlapp, chair of the american conservative union. then, the editor and rector discussed the future of the new york times. after that, i discussion on the latest tv technology and regulations. >> the c-span cities tour is partnering with our cable affiliates as we travel across the united states. join us and cox communications this week and as we learn about the history of literary life of omaha, nebraska where there was one of the first advocacy groups fighting for civil rights. >> omaha had a reputation as a city that when you came in when you were black, you needed to

keep your head down and be aware that you would not be served in restaurants, you would not be able to stay in hotels. wendywhen the de porres club -- they do not even use the word civil rights, the use the term social justice -- civil rights was so far removed from the greater community of omaha or the united states, they were operating in a vacuum. i like to say that they were operating without a net. there were not support groups or experiences of prior groups to challenge racial discrimination and segregation. >> we look at th union pacific and how the construction of the railroad helped the omaha economy. >> union pacific was founded in 1862 with the pacific railway act, signed into law by

president lincoln. it combines several companies to make union pacific. they were charged with creating the transcontinental railroad that would connect the east and west coast. central pacific started on the west coast and was moving east. they met up in omaha. that is what propels is even farther. we become that point of moving west, one of the gateways to the west. >> see all of our programs on omaha today. susan swain: our guest on "newsmakers" is matt schlapp. he is the chair of the american conservative union. c-span viewers will be mostly familiar with the organization from the annual cpac convention that we have been introducing for years. let me introduce our two reporters who will be questioning him. sean sullivan is at "the washington post." pete schroeder is at "the hill." sean, i think you are at first. sean sullivan: thank you, mr. chairman. matt schlapp: matt.

sean sullivan: if you like. i want to move to a candidate who is making a lot of news this week, donald trump. he said some pretty controversial things about mexican immigrants. he said they bring drugs, crime, and rapists. he has actuallly got himself in some problems with his business dealings because of it. do you agree or disagree with his comments? do you think they were harmful to the republican race and the republican field? matt schlapp: i think the comments are slightly different from what you just said. i heard him on the radio saying today that what he was talking about is illegal immigrants. that is an incredibly important distinction to draw. i think his tone and words were different than what i would choose. the fact is when you have a broken immigration system, it is hard to characterize the nature of the illegal immigrants that come into our country. that being said, i for one believe that immigration is a wonderful part of our history. it is a part of our history that i embrace. i think it is part of our economy that we have to get

right. right now it is broken. i think what president obama has done with these executive orders has actually made the system worse. and, we destroyed the ability to get some sort of bipartisan compromise on the steps we need to take by congress. i think it is easy for people to attack donald trump over what he said. i think they ought to listen to what he is saying. i actually know donald trump. he is not a racist. he is trying to characterize the fact that a broken immigration system can lead to a lot of problems like crime. the challenge i would give back to his critics is, do we actually know everything about this population that we think we know? this illegal population. we ought to know. i for one think we should embrace those folks who can make america stronger, better, and help grow our economy. that is the filter i would put it through. pete schroeder: i'm curious about your thoughts on trump as a candidate. we have gone through a couple cycles that he has made noise, but this time he is actually

part of the race. it is a very crowded field. is he a good voice to have in the gop debate at this point? matt schlapp: i think there is a click, a political click, in circles. some people are part of the click and some people outside. donald trump is outside the click. he is not the candidate that people who work on republican campaigns would favor. he resonates with a lot of americans. it is undeniable that what he is saying is working out there in the country. look, he has his own way, his own words. i don't agree with everything he is saying. like i said, the tone on questions of immigration -- we should be a lot more careful. it leads to people drawing false conclusions. susan brought up the american conservative union, the group that i chair. it is a union, not in the sense of a labor union, but a

political coalition. what the right has to do is string together everybody from the center all the way to the right part of politics, and bring them together. it would be a massive mistake for the republican party to start to kick people out and ostracize them. we will not win presidential elections that way. the left has taught us over and over. they have strident voices that care about single issues, and they string them together, including a lot of other mainstream americans, and they have been very successful at the presidential level. we should be able to do that. susan swain: how do you see this now 14 person field sorting itself out? matt schlapp: i think it is great for journalists. you must be enjoying this. every day someone says something that makes a great story. that being said, it is good for the party that i associate with, the republican party. i'm a conservative first, but i associate with the republican party. i think it is good for the party.

we need to have a big public conversation, including disagreements, on what we stand for. obama has loomed large over politics. what has happened in politics in our country is people have reacted against what president obama has put forward. it is a time for us to say what we stand for, without having everything start with, "i would fight obama on -- ." how about, "i would stand up for -- ." although i think obama will still loom very large over the next election, i think it is a referendum on a third obama presidency. we have to put out there what we think. i think debates, conversations a lot of interaction with the president, answering reporters' questions will help us get there. pete schroeder: in terms of transparency, jeb bush just released three decades worth of tax returns. should other candidates try to get that information out there? matt schlapp: we live in an era of transparency. i think getting out as much

information as you can is a very positive thing to do. jeb bush is an honorable man, he has nothing to hide. he should put it all out there as he has. carly fiorina has done something similar. you mentioned donald trump. he has also been much more -- people were surprised that he was so forthcoming with his finances too. he seems very readily willing to do something similar. i think, just in the age we are in, you need to have transparency. sean sullivan: it has been a couple of busy week for the supreme court. i wanted to get your thoughts on a couple of the decisions, specifically the decision they handed down on gay marriage. we have seen a split among some republican candidates for president. some say we should keep fighting, we should push for a constitutional ammendment to define marriage as being between a man and woman. others, such as jeb bush and marco rubio, say the fight is for religious freedom at this point.

where do you come down? do you think republicans should push for a constitutional amendment? matt schlapp: let me start off by saying don't you think it is interesting that when john kerry ran against bush, he was for traditional marriage, not gay marriage. barack obama when he first ran for president, he was for traditional marriage. hillary clinton has changed her position. barack obama has changed his position. we have had a lot of change in a short period of time. when you look at polling numbers, it seems like there has been a shift in acceptance towards gay unions. the question is where does america stand. the constitutional amendment process, i think, is a very honest way to handle this. i would never want to draw metaphors and politics, so let's stop that conversation and start a new one. the question of civil rights in this country. we obviously fought a war over it. we passed three constitutional amendments. the court got involved because these constitutional ammendments were effectively not being implemented.

i think on big questions in society, when you are in a democracy that cherishes a constitution, you cannot change the words of the constitution without doing it through the amendment process. what the court essentially did if they destroy the meaning of these words. people say, well, we should focus on religious freedom enshrined in our first amendment. what will those words mean? i no longer know. i think they will mean what five justices on the supreme court say. i think it is very valid for candidates to say we should get to the question of religious freedom. we should have a bipartisan understanding of what they made. great luminaries on the left like ted kennedy, used to lead this conversation. this is a conversation about the left and the right should be able to have together. i hope we do not have to amend the constitution on religious freedom. it is all black and white. we do not have an established church. people have a right to practice or not practice religion. as far as the constitutional amendment on the question of gay marriage, another movement that i care a lot about -- the right to life movement has tried to amend the constitution to protect the unborn -- is very difficult to get a constitutional amendment passed.

people who care a lot about traditional marriage, they have every right to go down the path, but they should have their eyes wide open about how difficult it is. in the meantime, if they decide that is the right effort to put their focus on, we also need to make sure that religious freedoms are not trampled, and i do worry about that. susan swain: before we leave this area, on your website in response to these two landmark decisions, some pretty strong words. matt schlapp: yes. i will admit to that. we had some internal conversations about what we should say, but i felt pretty strongly about them. susan swain: let me read just some quick quotes to our viewers. about the chief justice, you said that he sprayed graffiti on the constitution. about chief justice roberts, and justice kennedy, you call them political hacks without term limits. matt schlapp: that's right. in the first question of graffiti, i don't want to think that five members of the

constitution can actually change the meaning of the constitution. graffiti is -- they have cosmetically damaged it. john roberts was absolutely dead wrong, i believe, on the decision on obamacare. he was on the minority side on the issue of marriage the constitutional rights therein. i think the question is whether they are honest with the president to appointed them. people say this shows you that george w bush did not make the right pick. george w. bush, george h.w. bush, and ronald reagan, they all batted about 500 on their picks to the supreme court on these really hot button issues. it is a real problem for republicans. if you look at democrat presidents, at least in my lifetime, they never whiffed. every sale person they picked for that court is very reliable on those hot topics that the left cares about. they bat 1000. we bat 500. that is not a winning formula for making sure that those constitutional protections that conservatives care about, and original understanding of the

constitution, would continue. i think they lied to the presidents. either they lied to the presence, or they have changed their mind over time. if you look, and i did, for the testimony that they gave the senate during the time that they quote unquote interviewed, they said very different things certainly in anthony kennedy's case. he has dozens of decisions before this. there is no question that the kind of justice he said he would be, and the kind of justice he has become, you cannot square it. they are acting like political people. john roberts is a good man try to find political harmony for the country on tough issues. unfortunately, that is not the role of the chief justice. the role of the chief justice is to look at the black letter wall and square that with the addition. he is not to bring harmony to the people. we can leave that to other people. not the chief justice of the supreme court. he is acting more like a

political hack that the person we were so excited and worked so hard to get on the court. pete schroeder: thinning off of that, there have been rulings -- one that came after same-sex marriage and they see it was striking down the -- in your view, is a liberal court at this point? matt schlapp: if you look at it you have john roberts and anthony kennedy competing for the title of the swing justice. that was not the type of justices that they would be in their confirmation hearings. if you look at the roberts court overall. what troubled me most about the obamacare decision is i do not

think he believes what he's doing. he is fixing a statute that has faulty wording. they had to use this vehicle. it is what had to be the law, but there are these fatal flaws. it is not the judiciary's law to fix the statue. that is the legislators job. by the way, in a democracy, it is very important. it allows the american people to reengage in a topic. the american people are working hard all their jobs, engaged in their lives, they are not political like we are. wendwhen these issues come back to congress, it gives the american people to dig back in. obamacare has never been popular, it is not popular today. now, we will have another election where the question of obamacare will loom large over election. wone of the reasons that is true is because of what justice

roberts has done. sean sullivan: i want to move to foreign policy for moment. there has been a lot of resistance from republicans on capitol hill to the agreement with iran. what do think and what affect will have on the presence of campaign? -- presidential campaign? matt schlapp: president obama has a completely different model from what i saw. george w. bush as we know, he had his views and could be assertive in those years, no question. there were times when he wanted to be uncompromising, but by large he thought his role was to work through the democratic process to get what he wanted. what you see with president obama is kind of opposite. obamacare happened with only democratic votes. except for that one short-term commerce and from louisiana --

all democratic votes. all of his other achievements, they are with the presidential pen in the oval office. he has not really worked with the other side. with iran, it is a shame that we have not built a bipartisan compromise on these big questions of foreign policy. i do get makes us look weak abroad when it looks like just one party is engaged. with big issues, it is that are to have some sort of bipartisan coalition on them. on the question of iran, it is what he is done with cuba, is my fear he is doing in the middle east -- he wants a deal, he wants to get to a point where there is harmony with other side. what usually starts off with it as an apology of how america has acted in the past, getting in and negotiating a week deal, and getting a lot of products for being a peacemaker -- he got a nobel prize even before on

unpacking his back in the white house. i think he is creating havoc for hillary clinton, quite honestly. will hillary clinton approach all of these issues the same way? she will have to explain and defend it. the thing i think is the saddest is barack obama is fine with iran having a domestic nuclear capability and having a nuclear plant, but he will not allow us to build any here. he thinks they are immoral. he thinks the least safe country is fine having these materials. these materials could turn into weapons within a decade. a lot of experts say what you get on this path, it will actually go much faster. once they get these weapons, it is very little we can do to take them away. we just had a panel on the hill about one week ago with mcfarland and flynn, who was essentially let go from the

obama administration. he was chief general on intelligence at the pentagon. the big concern is that a republican president cannot come in and necessarily do all this. once it goes down a certain track, it is very hard to undo it. it is very important for the senate to do its part and docket down. pete schroeder: on a related note, the president is working towards normalizing relations with cuba. he plans to get an embassy up and running there. is that another issue where republican should take a stand and draw a contrast with the president jekyll matt schlapp:? matt schlapp: absolutely. my father-in-law spent six years in one of fidel castro's gulags. terrible things happen. his room it was assassinated. his soulmate -- cell mate

was assassinated. my father-in-law have three buildings in cuba. fidel castro took those buildings. we basically signed an agreement with them to normalize relations. we did not get any of those buildings back. we did not make them pay reparations for all the people they murdered. they looted the people of cuba, and we made them do nothing. that is the type of foreign policy that leaves most americans scratching their heads. this is not the way americans do business. we stand up for people, we stand up for human rights. there is i know human rights and cuba. there are more political prisoners at the end of this process than the beginning of this process. we are rewarding terror, strong men and once again, it will loom large over the 2015 presence of race. the american people fundamentally disagree with the

foreign-policy approach of this president. sean sullivan: looking at the 2016 bits, there is more than a dozen candidates. who is resonate right now with conservative activists? who is hitting home at the base? matt schlapp: first of all, i have not endorse any particular candidate. at the american conservative union, we do put on cpac which will be march 2-5. on the top of my head, i am consumer of news as well, and i deal with a lot of conservative activists across the country and they love scott walker. they love him because he had taken so many hits. he is like -- when you were young there was the clown doll you would knock him in the nose and he would pop right back up. carly fiorina, taking on hillary

clinton so boldly as really earned her a lot of praise out there. ted cruz strikes a chord with people. he is the anti-washington candidate. any candidate that runs against washington the cycle, democrat or republican, will resonate. people really believe that this town is broken. once again, i think the fact that we have so many candidates -- there are a lot of republican operatives saying it is a bad thing. that is incorrect. it is a good thing. it is wide open. the second-place finisher is not the first person standing this time. that is exciting. i think republicans are acting more like democrats. we don't have a plan, it is not organized. we will have a little bit of a chaotic process. democrat are acting more like republicans with their hand chosen candidate and pushing her

through at all costs. by the way, if i were hurt, this is looking like deja vu all over again. she is the front runner, but bernie sanders is gaining a lot of steam. if elizabeth warren wants to get in the not endorse hillary clinton, that race could get very interesting. pete schroeder: there's a handful of what we call the nontraditional candidates in the gop field. people without a background in politics -- donald trump, ben carson, carly fiorina -- what you make of the fact that there are people running for the highest office without a background in politics? matt schlapp: there could be candidates to decide to run with no understanding of how the government works. i can think of trump fiorina and carson who have not had off

held in office, i think it is great. carly fiorina, as a conservative woman who has had great business success, she is a great spokesman for our party. she would be ready to be president if she want the nomination. and donald trump, he brings a whole another perspective that resonates with the american people. if i can make the decisions -- make predictions, one of these people will get their. the critical thing for us is we hold the support that these people are getting together. if you look demographically across the country, our path to winning is narrow. we need a big broad coalition on the right that makes us bigger. if we had one candidate that was left over from the last time

and if they were to have an easy walk, i would predict that they would get destroyed by the clinton political machine. they are pretty tough. we have seen it before. i think the candidate that emerges will be ready for battle, and i think they will win. i think the american people -- just look at the numbers. they don't want a third term for this guy. i'm not sure they will give her, if she is the nominee, that same path. susan swain: let me pick up on your reference to the demographics and challenge. it has been ap piece on the shifting demographics. what is your concern about the republican party? matt schlapp: we go to "kno" too quickly. we are sometimes the guy in the corner crossing our arms saying,

we are not for that. the country is changing. we need to reach out to every kind of american. by the way, how is the obama economy working for you? are you hispanic african-american? a member of the lgbt community? whatever it is. what do you think about the foreign-policy of obama? do you feel safer than you did a little less than a decade ago? we have to be reaching out to all of these americans. we have to reach out aggressively to the immigrants. some people will say to me what's the first thing you can do to reach out to immigrants better. the first thing we could do is watch our language and be welcoming, tell them we need them on the team. that will go a long way. the second thing we need to do is talk to them about the issues that would make their life better. i think there with of

culturally, but maybe not economically. people see what is happening here in america, and they are worried about a strong centralized government. i think we have a real case that we can make to these voters, and i believe we will do it. sean sullivan: real quick, you mentioned scott walker earlier. he is not an official candidate yet, but he says on the campaign trail, here here is -- he hears a lot that a marco rubio ticket would be good for the country. why does he say that? matt schlapp: because it would be. if you have had a chance to listen to both of these candidates, they are compelling. have great track records. you know how to connect to people. i think they both connect to the working man and working woman. they have not come from great wealth. i think it would be a fantastic

ticket. i can come up with a couple different scenarios. i don't want to sit that i not the point of being overconfident, by phil good about our chances to win -- but i feel good about our chances to win. susan swain: each shader, and sean sullivan, we are back after half an hour with matt schlapp. where do the people he represents it into 2016? pete schroeder: that is a major question. the dynamic you have seen over the past several cycles is republicans have gained ground on off years. one of the big challenges for the conservative movement this time around is making more of an impression, as matt mentioned begin more those demographics that are normally reliable to democrats -- how do they

transition to get some of the success of they have on congressional elections on the broader scale? sean sullivan: that is really the fund with the question. he talked in his interview about making the election a referendum on the third obama presidency, a third term for obama. of course, obama's numbers now are not as bad as they were in 2014. we do not do with it will be like in 2016. if his numbers continue to read on, it makes the argument that he just tried to make harder to convince middle-of-the-road voters who are not necessarily tuned in to these elections until after the primary. susan swain: how important is the fed going to be and the impact on the economy as we get closer to 2016? sean sullivan: when you look back to the 2012 election, in 2008 as well, do people feel the recovery? do people feel that things are headed in the right direction?

i think whichever candidate can make the case -- if you're hillary clinton, you want to say that we are headed in the right direction. if a republican candidate can make the case that we are not that is very convincing. susan swain: where is the overlap between the tea party and the american conservative union membership? pete schroeder: both of the groups are nebulous by definition. i think there is fairly heavy overlap. when you look at where the american conservative union is going to play a role in 2060 you need to look at the tea party -- at cpac. you will have all of these candidates coming out and almost auditioning for the supporters -- the primary supporters that

you really need to organize to advocate for you, to raise money from. those are the types of people they will be try to win over. susan swain: we started of the conversation with your questions about donald trump, after week in which his remarks have gotten a lot of secondary and tertiary stories, with people be visiting business stories and the like. were you surprised by his support for mr. trump? sean sullivan: i think his answer reflects what donald trump makes things difficult on the republican field. on the one hand, he defended him overall, but he wanted to distance himself a little bit on the rhetoric that he used on immigration. people do not want to go out there and trash donald trump, but he says a lot of controversial things, they do not want to embrace his views. the 12-13, 14 candidates will get the same questions that we just asked him and he will have

to figure out how to answer it, it is not easy. susan swain: when you look at what is happening in the dynamics of the race so far, what do you think about bernie sanders resonating, and also donald trump pulling in second place? what does that say about the public wanting to hear from the candidates? pete schroeder: we are all early on, but there's already a sort of fatigue component going on. people rolling their eyes at the idea of a bush-clinton race. when you look at bernie sanders or donald trump, their candidates the on paper and have a view that is not so broadly based, but then they get out there and deliver this message that speaks very specifically to a group of people in a profound way. they are able to work up a level of support. you throw into the fact that we

are heading into the election and there are also the ways for people to get their message out there. you see the candidates taking advantage of platforms and niche audiences. whether or not that translates into someone who is a serious general election candidate is one of the questions, but you obviously think can insert normally you would think maybe that will make a run out of it and that would be the end of it, they are able to make much more of an impact. sean sullivan: i think there is a general populist movement, and that is why bernie sanders is popular and intriguing to voters. susan swain: thanks to both of you. >> next, the publisher and executive editor discuss the future of "the new york times." after that, the former fcc chair and others discuss the latest tv technology and regulations. then, radio hosts and others

talk about the future of radio. >> three men and a woman believed to be members of a puerto rican nationalist game that attempted the assassination of president truman opened fire from the visitation gallery of the house of representatives. five congressmen were hit. then, jeffrey davies of tennessee, george of maryland and another were seriously injured. the gun wielder perpetrated a criminal outrage. >> it was one of the most violent acts that happened in the chamber. there were debates right after that that we cannot let this happen again. what we need to do is wall off the visitors gallery with