[applause]. mr. bush: thank you. well, how much were you paid to say that? [laughter] mr. bush: yes? how about a two-part one question. >> the first thing you already talked about, balanced budget, but i have a bigger question. i'd like to know how long it would take to resolve the $18 trillion. don't answer it yet. and the second question is, i we can ke to know how protect our borders better. i know there are a lot of things hat have to be done, but those are the two that truly interest me. mr. bush: sure, so the way to will e the budget, which get us towards the path of reducing the debt, rather than ust accepting the debt level, is to grow the economy at a far faster rate, have entitlement reform, reform our social security supplemental retirement ystem, cut back on discretionary spending in general, shift power back to the

states, and the one reversal of that trend of shrinking government in my mind is, we need to rebuild the military. and whatever it takes to be able a secure america has to be the highest priority. now, we can reform the defense department. there are more civilian employees than men and women in uniform, which doesn't make me.e to their procurement processes, as i mentioned, needs to be stream lined. there's lots we can do to shrink the cost of doing business in the defense department, but we allowed our defense capabilities to flat line, and modernizing it constantly so that the new threats that exist in the 21st century can be met. so other than that, the rest of the government has to shrink, nd ultimately, you get towards the balanced budget, and the growing economy means instead of 100% of gdp, the debt level, you get down to a level that is manageable. on immigration, i've done -- i'm situation. i've had the same view for the last four years.

i know that's really kind of politics because everybody is doing the curly shuffle all the time, whenever there's a little bit of heat, they change their views. i wrote a book about it called a migration war." it's not best-seller. you can buy it for 1.99 on amazing. -- amazon. i encourage to you do it. what i'm ip 1 says saying now, we need to secure the border and we need to deal ly in a ple here illegal way that does not give them a path to citizenship. means g the border building and sensing where appropriate. not across the board. t's not responsible to say we're going to build a wall and let mexico pay for it. file here, mexico is not going to pay for it. shocked. it's not going to happen. but we need more fencing in places where it's appropriate. and it's been funded and the administration refuses to do it. a need to use technology in more appropriate way.

we have drone technology and have been fighting for it so ong, applying that in an appropriate way. gps technology has exploded. there's ways to monitor the a way that creates greater security for us. we need to have more border they need to and be more forward-leaning on the budget. we need an e-verify system which allows for businesses to check to make sure that people are here legally. which means you can't forge a social security card to say hey, wink-wink, nod-nod. you have to have a system that is truly verifiable, and with employers that hire illegal immigrants. across the board, we need to sanctuary cities. this insidious idea that local governments can avoid federal law and endangering their communities, it makes no sense. a targeted approach will create border security. as it relates to people that are idea of justy, the

i nding people up, trust me, can do this. 500,000 a month, that's the trump plan. 500,000 a month, that is the number of people that interact with our criminal justice system today. t means you double the number of people -- it would overwhelm our courts. t would make it impossible to actually carry out the regular business of the courts to keep us safe. smart this is not a idea. it's not a serious idea. the better idea would be once the border, is to say here, come out from the shadows, pay a fine, get a provisional work permit and work. no government assistance. learn english. don't commit crimes. and work. and over an extended period of time, you earn legal status, which doesn't mean you have a ship or cutting in line on people that have been patiently waiting. i don't know of another option hundreds and cost hundreds of billions of dollars and wouldn't create real country.ity for our so that's what i believe we need

to do. it's a serious problem, as you all know here in new hampshire, not just because of the rule of law. that's important. it's also an important issue because of now the threat of terrorism. you'd need to have a control border for that. because of portant the heroin epidemic exists. if you can provide powerful, igh-grade heroin at an extraordinarily low price, you'll see people being provided not using opiates but using heroin, and the in the stateexists and other places now, it's an epidemic, so controlling the border also has the purpose of stopping the flow of illicite drugs into our country. yes? >> thank you. i was stationed at a nuclear germany in the '70s. >> how about a nuclear triad. >> yeah, that's what i was going to ask.

a guy standing on the stage debating with you had no idea was, and nuclear triad was consistently asked over and again, what would me do and had no answer. could you fill in and give us an answer? >> yeah, he was breath taking. it was breathtaking. i don't know how else to describe it. jaw droppedably, my down, i mean, this is the triad launch land and sea capabilities to create a has been effect that extraordinarily effective since the world war ii era, and it has to the world.ity trump's advisor or communications director this i believe, said hey, on't understand the triads, that's not the big deal. it's making sure you have a president that will use nuclear weapons. no, no, no. 15-yard penalty. loss of down. what the objective is. i mean, think about it. man with a a serious

serious proposal. for the triad ed to language in a sense. we haven't invested in modernizing it. it's both dangerous not to do that, and we need to make sure that we have this deterrent situation, which means that we need to -- our submarine capability -- if i was answering the question, i would say that's probably the place where we need because est emphasis, the higher class submarines need to be modernized, and it needs to be done now and we can't wait any longer. board, all of the legs of our deterrents effect is important but to have a president to not understand the responsibilities of having access to the nuclear codes, dang, i mean, you must your diet spit out coke [laughter] this is the point. the point.

look, people in new hampshire re going to have the chance to decide this election in many ways. and the trump phenomena is one to be respected. peoples' angst. for legitimate reasons, people but people in new hampshire are going to have to answer the question, do we want they -- he may have thought nuclear triad was a new tripod or a new kind of camera or something, i don't know. do you want someone who's entertaining, but not a the nder in chief, to be president of the united states? yes, sir very good actually a lead-in. frequently in senior levels of government we talk about the national strategy, and the cold war strategy of containment is a great example of that. it lasted for 40 years through many changes of who was in the oval office, who was leading congress, and it's something that the american people could relate to, not just in the

military with the defense strategy but with our athletes against the olympics, our fortune 500 countries and knowing this is our economic system versus another economic system, my see ion is, what do you over the last 20 years has been our grand national strategy and how might you steer with that grand national strategy? >> great question. i think we've had -- you know, the world has transitioned, and i don't think we've transitioned with it. one of the real challenges is, we have a mid-20th century world government on top of a 21st century world, and you an't -- let's talk about military strategy for a moment. you can't fight both wars. onalcan't fight the conventi war of the mid-20th century, the cold war and also deal with hese asymmetric threats of terror. we need to transfer ourselves to what the new threats are. the new threats are in cyber

security. the new threats are these nation states that are aggressive. part of the challenge, but we have these merging threats like isis that literally came out of nowhere in the void that was created when iraq.ft in a period of time that was warp speed from a historical point of view, 30,000 battle garnering orists hundreds of millions of dollars now created a new threat that ago.'t exist a few years so i think the grand strategy is how do we protect the homeland these new threats while aintaining some level of support for recognizing that america can't just do this alone. security o build a arrangement that includes our partners and our allies. theave to lead, but i think grand strategy is one of american leadership, not in the absence of other people making as well.mitments so in my vision of how the world the support for

nato being the central part of it. right now, russia, donald the new ig friend, buddy, is challenging the notion winning. and they're you see countries inside the nato alliance that now are, you now, trending towards the -- towards putin, towards russia. if we do nothing, if we continue down this path of leading from behind and pulling ack, that the europeans will stop the sanctions on russia for their invasion of ukraine, and kind kraine receives that of treatment, how do you think that impacts all the rest of the europe and eastern central europe? the united states has to play a role in these places for country, for our own and so from the military and foreign policy point of view, i a new e can create strategy that is kind of emerging, a fusion of both the conventional side of this as well as the new threats, and economically, we've got to

fix -- if we're going to lead the world, we have to be an economic super power, which to feel t people have like the system works for them, and the great challenge there, i two-fold. is one, the rapid nature of change because of innovation, and utomation creating real challenges for us to create igher waged jobs, and globalization kind of accelerating this as we go along. we have these trends we have not adjusted to and a serious strategy needs to recognize the orld as it is, not as we want it to be. not going to close down -- you know, there are people on the say, we'll ght that just build a wall, a protectionist wall. we'll just look inward. no, that doesn't work. looking inward means you're going to lose. you're going to lose wages, job opportunities. we have to actually be world where the pace is much faster so a trategy as it relates to

prosperity means radically changing how we educate, simplifying our tax code and taking power away from washington, moving to an outcome system that ory focuses on every well intended some benefit for society and also some detriment and having an honest discussion of whether every one of these rules is appropriate, because they're not. we're stifling our ability to compete f we can't compete, e'll lose our will, and if we lose our will, we can't lead the world and when we pull back, we see what happens. it's ugly. that's the phenomenal question. yes, sir? >> hi. mr. bush: hey. snowden, do you think those were good or bad for the country. bad. ush: >> and if you weren't running for president, who would you vote for? [laughter] mr. bush: that's a trick question. why is it bad? law, for ed the

starters. law.secondly, he broke the and thirdly, he jeopardized national security interests for our country. fourthly, there are men and women in positions that work for agencies with three letters that now are in jeopardy. he has made it impossible -- not impossible. he's made it extraordinarily hard for us to reestablish the necessaryips that are for our intelligence communities o be able to do their jobs. the net effect of this is now we it. the impacts of so now you have a situation where it might be nice to know, back, who this couple in san bernardino were interacting with. i'd like to know. i hope that the president of the united states would like to know. that security breach that took place makes it harder, the breach, makes ty it harder to have a conversation maybe, you know,

the german intelligence authorities, or the french. to create see efforts encryption so that the terrorists actually use the same technology to protect their messaging that others feel compelled to do as well. and now we see the european countries saying, you can't go these or through platforms. we're going to prohibit it. we've created a different no tionship where there's trust anymore, and that could be of longest lasting legacy snowden's efforts. he should come back and serve time. he's not a hero. he's not going to be on the magazine", i don't think. any other questions? i don't know, there are a lot of running.ple i have a lot of respect for many f them, i just think i'm the best. [applause] i'm training myself to say things like that, because i was way that you a

don't -- you know, you don't toot your own horn. that, i could aid feel a looming presence of barbara bush behind me, and she to whack me dy across the head. so sorry, mom. [laughter] but i do think my record as governor and my life experience, 32 years in the private sector, ight years where we accomplished more --i mean, the people in washington, i mean, the debate. talking like gibber babber. i wased an amendment, and thinking about killing something but i actually was for it. sense. it made no they've lost their way, and people look at this and hear this stuff and they go, well, it doesn't make any sense to me. that's the problem, we need people that actually know how to done, and governors do that. they do it regularly. they have to make tough decisions. so if i had my, you know, favorite candidate, it would be governor of as the reform-minded conservative, consistently so, that served in

a big state, handled big challenges, and had ideas for the future. oh, that's me. [laughter] yes, ma'am? >> so many times during disagree with me don't have bad motives. because now it looks like every time someone disagrees with someone in washington, the first impulse is to say that they're they're wrong. not that they're wrong, but they have bad motives, but, you know,

they're part of -- the president's classic example ould be the iranian deal where in the midst of trying to get it passed in congress, he said approach opposed who to the iranian agreement were in cahoots with the death to america crowd. no offense, mr. president, you're the one negotiating with the death to america crowd. a bad reement was agreement. he should respect people that have a disagreement with him, tendency k there's a in washington today to push down anybody that disagrees with you and make yourself look better. and then that result is there's a gap of trust that doesn't make done.sible to get things there are too many lessons in history in our great country where the opposite took place. we've had a 240-year run here, i think, at the republic. pretty good run. i'd say the greatest run of any country ever created. and out of that period of time, we've probably had 10 years of massive dysfunction. you in the 19th century, they had food fights and duals and stuff.

they got this thing to work. omnibus brag about an bill that no one read that's long dealing ages with a trillion dollars of pending and i'm sure there's ugly things in there. even shut down government. that's how low the bar is. how do you start? by assuming that the other people don't have bad motives and at least listen to them to common ground. ronald reagan and the social now what,olvency, for almost 40 years. democrats.it with clinton did it with republicans. democra did it with democrats, for a lot of the legislation. we've got to restore that. you can't make the democracy work unless the bigger the challenge, the more important it is that both parties have a role to play in it.

democracy make our work by jamming it down the throat.eam's we've had dot frank, the stimul care.lus, and obama not a single republican vote in any of those cases and even to this day, they remain unpopular because the president didn't take the time to try to forge consensus. that's my answer to you. i had a quick story. a friend of mine was the united invited nator who got to the white house to have dinner with the president up in the residence. it's pretty cool. i've been there. it's a nice place. [laughter] you've tory, you know, got things on the walls, the food is good. it's tradition. it's the white house, for crying out loud. it's the center of this extraordinary country, in some ways. and so he's going up to the rickity elevator with the usher aid, and the young aid says, this is exciting. you're the first republican that the president has dined with

uring his time, and i'm thinking, this is year 5. really? if you could get to the white house and get things done, have glass of wine gout on the truman balcony and need your help on this and look at the washington monument. i think that's a good place to forge consensus. but this president never felt compelled to do it. that's just wrong, a missed opportunity for him and our ountry >> i've been concerned about the state department and the fact that more and more of the decisions appear to be made out and in the office crowd that, you know, they accumulate. i would love to see -- in fact, i kind of think about the state do about the e i va, you know, that we needed a

more professional state, and we need -- like how many times have hey held press conferences to explain the foreign policy decisions that they're making, and where they're headed, and a lot of that is being taken to the president's voice. one her words, he's the speaking for the state department. would you be able to be encouraged to form a more active state more department? mr. bush: great question. believe.hat i the nsc, the national security has i think doubled in size in the last generation. nd this president has consolidated more power inside the white house for foreign prior, than any president and it's allowed foreign policy politicized. the benghazi issue is a good example of it.

it was clear that this was a terrorist attack, and hillary clinton sent an e-mail to her daughter and to the prime minister of egypt the day after that, tack saying just that they prolonged the lie for as long as they could to make sure that it didn't damage the president's re-election chances. that's not how the presidency should work. you should appoint men and women of real talent in the department department of state, build a team where the national security council isn't the place where decisions are ade, where the president calls in and kind of creates the political solution to the mess or whatever. you've used the national security council and the head of mediator for disputes, and you allow for a hearty discussion about what the policy should be. and the president ultimately has to make the choice, but i would back to the dod and to the department of state and i

to account.hem my biggest problem with the that, ment of state is man, they operate sometimes without enough attention, give them ity -- you accountability, and you professionalize it, you'll get a good result. to just u allow them kind of run wild, they're not necessarily carrying out the actions of the president. -- or yesterday, john kerry i guess was in moscow, and he said something that was breathtaking. he said that the united states does not have an interest in regime change in syria. that's news to everybody in our country because that has been the official policy of the united states. i mean, i don't know -- all of a sudden, you're just going to rewrite history and ignore the fact that they had one policy? the last ent, i think time he spoke, said that the policy was regime change and yet now he says that russia and the united states have similar interest in providing security in syria and assad, in effect,

would have to stay. to have leadership in the white house. the president has to lead as it relates to foreign policy, but it ought to be done in a way where once you establish what the vision is, and what the empower is, that you the state department and defense their ent to carry out world. i think you could cut the nsc in half, and that would send a pretty powerful signal of what you're trying to get to. great point.a yes, sir? donald u believe that trump would lose in a complete landslide to hillary. mr. bush: yes. >> if so, how do you show the current trump supporters that, in reality, they're not supporting trump. they're supporting hillary? mr. bush: it's a great point. i respect the fact that people are supporting mr. trump because hey're angry, and i totally respect the fact that they're angry for good reason.

washington is broken. it starts with the people are angry because the president and then washington itself is dysfunctional, and the in charge of congress made a big over-promise when they gained control. and i think people saw all this, and now they see the big results, and they're quite upset. trump basically is -- you know, understands that and with his grandiosity has garnered their support. so the challenge, i think, is to people understand that candidates that may have more detailed plans, more relevant plans to solve these problems, understand why people are angry, and then make the case that just having someone that understands your anger isn't enough. you've got to have someone that can fix these things that are broken. you have to have people that peoplee ability to bring together. one of the tools of leadership and learned through trial error through my life is one of

the powerful things that you can you plish is knowing what don't know. the minute you get to that point to be e the humility curious enough to learn is when you can become a leader. i'm afraid mr. trump doesn't have that leadership skill. i mean, he's been the front-running candidate now for five months, and not knowing i t the nuclear triad is, mean, he's not moving forward. he's going back as it relates to his knowledge. and so i think people will begin to see that and realize as you closer, we're electing a president, not an agitator in actually someone who needs to be a commander in chief and bring us together on the economic side as well. that's beyond question. trump loses to hillary clinton. beyond question. yes, ma'am? i want to ask you about this

epidemic of mass shootings we've had the last several years. t does not seem to be getting better. it seems to be getting worse and i know it's a very difficult not an easy ously fix. what are your ideas for taxing this. mr. bush: yeah, it's certainly more visible. it's certainly more visible. i don't know if we have more mass shootings. it appears that way. i just don't know what the facts are. and it's so debilitating and sad to see it and people i think are scared for all sorts of reasons. the terror threat is a real one and people are scared and you see the violence and you see isturbances in the big urban areas where, you know, you have t between police and kids that don't seem to have any hope about what the future looks like. we're kind nse that of unravelling, and it's deeply troubling to me personally, because this is not the country i know that we need to be.

specifics ook at the of why it is that people do what hey've done, outside of the radicalization question of san bernardino, the question, say, f sandy hook or these other mental the question is derangement. these people are deeply mentally out of control, and then they have access to weapons in all sorts of ways. there hasn't been any kind of one pattern about how they access weapons but the one common denominator is they're crazed, they're deranged, hey're sick, and they act on this sickness in a way that is devastating. so there should be, at a minimum, a consensus about how we need to figure out how to a deeper understanding of -- and a deeper network for mental health challenges. how do you interact? how do you identify someone before it's too late? how do you give them the kind of

medical help that they can get? how can you make sure that deranged can't access guns to buy guns directly. i'm not sure i'm totally committed to that yet. we need to be spending more money on mental health networks across the country as well, and reengage ed to with -- we need to reengage with ourselves. it that a couple have been radicalized for three years or something and building pipe one of the was making $60,000 and was a well-regarded employee. that no one knew they were organizing this, we have to do better at reconnecting us. i don't have an answer. the internet creates a barrier. you can live your life online,

and never interact with people. when you get out of control, all of your thoughts are validated by the marginal side of the internet. this is the huge problem. there is no easy answer, as you said. i don't have an answer. you start with a mental health place. one more. fatherppened to see your when he first started his campaign in atlanta, georgia. i want to thank you and your family for providing all the services and for being there to support the american people. my son happens to be a pharmacy manager so we hear about this all the time. drug addiction in new hampshire is a very significant issue, mostly heroin. other than securing the border and having another war on drugs, what is the specific steps you could take as president to stem

the tide? mr. bush: when i was governor, we created a strategy to deal with the problem. florida was the door for importation of illicit drugs for a long time. , particularlysful the federal government. the flow of drugs diverted to mexico. if you go to family court, to drug court, where my daughter , and i have first-hand knowledge of that, you see the challenges of addiction. deeply it was personal. i was a governor, and my daughter had to go through this challenge she faced in a public way. it was not easy. but we created a strategy that dramatically decreased drug use. the way you do it is to create

a strategy. i looked at it as a business strategy. in the first week, the former president of the -- created a summit. he brought in all of the prevention coalitions and law enforcement together for the first time in the state history to say, "you take the strategy. i will take the lead and my wife will take the lead in going to the legislature and they will fund the strategy." we actually did it. i called it the forefront strategy. he created coalitions in every community, 67 counties. the expanded drug treatment -- they expanded drug treatment, because it was underfunded and it has to be part of the answer. there are other then just plain treatment, to give them confidence, interaction with going through the same thing. there is a restorative part of this, a network that of this that has to be built.

places that don't have it are going to work as well. cops, law enforcement people need to be fully engaged. there needs to be a federal, state, and local effort to deal with addiction to hair when in -- to heroin in new hampshire. there is a high-impact drug area, where federal money exists. it should be far more coordinated. controlling the border is part of it, but there must be a better network between local and federal agencies. the thing i would add to this, because your epidemic here, p articularly prescription drug use converting into heroin use, they are over-prescribing like nobody's business. it is crazy. 90% of the opiates scribed are

world arebed in the prescribed in america. people have issues removing pain, that does not necessarily solve the problem. creating a bunch of addicts is certainly not a solution. there needs to be a lot more regulation and training for saying,s, other than here, here's of the fill -- another fill. in fact, the fda just approved the use of opiates to children. this was like six months ago. that makes no sense. we need to press the pause button on that. the final step is, illicit drugs, legal prescription drugs, there should be a tracking system to make sure people are not pharmacy shopping and doctor shopping. there are pharmacists who view this as a way to make money.

doctors as well, overprescribing. you need a database to do this. in florida we did this, this was done after my time. there was dramatic reduction in the legal use of prescription drugs. it went down 90% or something. members of the legislature did an extraordinary job. this has got a be a conference of approach. thank you very much. happy holidays, merry christmas. [applause] ♪ [indistinct chatter] [indistinct chatter]

>> are you still number one in fantasy football? >> i lost my first round of playoffs. i thought i needed the court. -- a decoy. >> thank you for your time. >> never pick against the patriots. or brady. those guys know how to do it. >> thank you. how are you doing? nice to meet you. thank you.

thank you. nice does not mean weakness, it means being respectful. the lakers on the stage that made tough decisions consistently for success is made. i don't know how to do it. once you learn how to do it -- that's right. thank you for being here. have you got a camera? gettinget in here. >> thank you. >> thank you. goodbye. thank you. hey, man. where are you going to school?

>> university of south carolina. >> usc? i appreciate it. >> thank you. how are you dealing with over prescription? tough, we are dealing with cancer right now. >> is no database, right? voluntary. we found, with the medicaid program, there would be 1% of the doctors and family, who were like -- [indiscernible] a crushed finger. it was really painful. doctor who prescribed,

-- , had the greatest nap in my life. i had another one, and realized, this is too good. well.works so works so well that you become interested in feeling good rather than relieving pain. [indiscernible] mr. bush: the other thing i did not mention are the drug courts. this guy right here is going to make it happen, chuck morse. give a diversion out of the criminal justice system. the onus is to get clean. if you don't, you get back into

the system. that was a real help for us, as well. good luck to you. >> governor? mr. bush: how are you doing? dad -- [indiscernible] there,hey have to stay they're going to have to take -- he doesn't have any -- [indiscernible] mr. bush: i know. why can't he have care at home? frail?oo >> yes. he can't walk on his own. mr. bush: how old is he? >> 94. mr. bush: well. >> i wish you all the luck in the world. mr. bush: my dad to the similar

circumstance--dad is in a similar circumstance. >> i know. mr. bush: what are you doing? president -- i am a vice president down there. they've moved me down to australia. mr. bush: do they have an office here? >> they have a plant, but it's shutdown. mr. bush: well, welcome to florida. don't leave until the primary, i want your vote. [laughter] [indistinct chatter]

mr. bush: yeah, oh my god. i know. [indistinct chatter] mr. bush: we have to track it down. we have got to get it. i've got to look at it. thank you. thank you for being here. [indiscernible] mr. bush: give it to killian. i love you, love you too. thank you, sir. [indiscernible] mr. bush: sure. i can't guess if some of your anti. anti- or

the security clearance audit have been, you know. [indiscernible] you know, it is, it has been devastating. he may have done it for principled reason. what he did was wrong. it has made it hard now to deal with threats of clearance. it's just a fact. anyway, merry christmas. -- geti get not a graph an autograph? mr. bush: franklin pierce? i hope i can make it. what's the date? >> the 19th. mr. bush: thank you.

[indiscernible] mr. bush: it's dead, the battery thing. i use twitter. i get notifications on twitter. i look at e-mail and the calendar, principally. good luck to you. ♪ mr. bush: all right. >> are we ready on the porch? >> can we get a photo? here. out.ticle is coming i have a picture -- mr. bush: that would be cool. i don't know if we will bring a -- that that would be pretty cool.

[indiscernible] [indistinct chatter] >> the presidential candidates month and a half away from the new hampshire primaries. journal, wengton heard more about what was happening in that state including the debate last night between the democratic candidate. host: the story from the union leader website. "democrats found some common ground in the new hampshire presidents of debate, seeing donald trump as a the factor recruiter for the islamic state terrorists, a criticism of the feminine based on his proposal -- front runner based on his proposal. hillary clinton is worried that his rhetoric reinforces anti-islamic sentiment."

joining us is the publisher and president of the union leader, joe mcquade, in new hampshire. guest: good morning. host: this is the only democratic debate in new hampshire before your primary on february 9, correct? guest: yes, much to the chagrin of new hampshire voters and people who like the primary to the local -- to be local. there's an odd twist to it. whichcal abc affiliate, participated in these things since time immemorial, was thrown out of the debate as a cosponsor because of a labor issue with its stations. abc: you did cosponsor with news, and they did pull out.

what happened? guest: it was overreaction. the candidates and the dnc, there was a small labor unit at the station. they were bargaining, and they had to dispute about pensions. station, ao the negotiating session date had already been set. they demanded that the candidates and the candidates manifestation that they agreed to talk. the station said to get a date. dnc said they were out. abc when along with it, so channel nine was out. host: let me ask you about the endorsement came after thanks giving. that governor chris christie is "right for the dangerous times. he has dealt with major disasters.

is and ist like it not china about it. -- shy about it." he's moved ahead in the polls, and do you connect that to your endorsement? polls will, the real pencil toters put paper, finger to machine. i suppose that the publicity surrounding the endorsement cause people to look at christie. what theyl decide liked, not what the newspapers say they should do. on february 1dner , as we move into the christmas holidays, give us a overview of where the race currently stands. guest: it stands with christmas.

people in new hampshire, including the diehards, will for a weekt the race or two and enjoy christmas and new year's with families. one of the complaints about the democratic debate was not only as of the only one being held in , they decided to have this on the saturday night before christmas. -- thehe other tory and auditorium was full, i'm not sure how the people were going to watch on television. although governor o'malley tried his best to get airtime, it really looks like a sanders-clinton match. even though his supporters are , isionate and boisterous

would not be surprised if mrs. pulled out a -- here as she did in 2008. she has such great standing as a female senator of a state. forces, whether bernie's renegade rebels can overcome that. that's going to make a great story for the newspaper do cover -- to cover. host: final question, trumpaise aimed at donald and the vladimir putin. what was your thought on that? got to be best buddies on 60 minutes together,

even though they are three cottons apart and never met. i don't know whether it helps or hurts. it probably hurts putin. host: what do you think nikki loeb, your former boss, with thought -- would have thought about this race? she would've called up happy canada and try to get them buchananhe race--pat and tried to get him back into the race. [laughter] a lot of the media coverage is being sucked up by donald trump, which is too bad. i can see why mrs. clinton was hammering on him last night. good to divide republicans and divide christian and muslim communities, but she

tile for the great general election. host: thank you, very much. merry christmas. guest: merry christmas, steve. >> on the next washington reveals bob cusack highlights from 2015. jeffrey smith, who served a year in prison for campaign fraud in for, offers solutions recidivism and to improve conditions for inmates. join the conversation on facebook and twitter. live atton journal" 7:00 a.m. on c-span. all persons having been us before the honorable the supreme court of the united states are admonished to draw and give their attention.

>> monday on "land marquesas" we look at the case of one of the before theve issues supreme court, abortion. >> this was decided in january, 1973. that iscase controversial, one that's constantly under scrutiny. suppose,a question, i whether it ever will cease to be under scrutiny. >> wanting to terminate an unwanted tenancy, but unable to because of texas state law, norma mccorvey agreed to be the plaintiff in the case. wanting to be anonymous, she was listed as "jane roe."

wasopposing attorney district court attorney henry wade. he case made it all the way to the supreme court. >> she has been refused care because of texas law. she filed suit on behalf of herself and those women who have , in the past, or in the future, received termination of a pregnancy. >> we will speak about wrote the impactroe v. wade, its then and now. we will speak with clark melissa murray. that is live, monday night, at on0 p.m. eastern time

c-span, c-span3, and c-span radio. order your copy of the landmark for $8.95anion book c-span.org.g on >> with cumbersome holiday the future whole lineup of primetime programming. the new series, "limerick cases." --landmark cases." tuesday night at 8:00, we talk about a cultural divide in america. charleston aht, church- charlestone ame hosts a discussion on gun violence. book tv, nonfiction books and authors.

tuesday night at 8:00 features books on present of history. thursday at 8:00 p.m., the events and people in history. a christmas at 8:00, several afterwards programs from this year. 10:30 pm, a program on russian spies. wednesday night comedy 150th anniversary of the end of the civil war. thursday at 8:00 p.m. eastern, tom brokaw on world war ii and its impact. christmas, friday night at 8:00, we travel to williamsburg in the 1770's, talking about colonial life on the eve of the american revolution. summary of the programs featured in prime time on the c-span networks this week. >> tonight, on c-span, q and a q&a with author

and historian craig shirley. that's followed with british by mr. david cameron taking questions from the house of commons. ♪ >> this week on q&a, craig shirley discusses his book "last act" about ronald reagan's life after the presidency. craig shirley, your book is called "last act." white as you feel the need to do this book? what. of time did you write about -- what period of time did you write about? mr. shirley: