marriage. it's more important than the money folks. believe me i know plenty with lots of money and are not happy people. religious freedom, the right of people, faith to freely practice their faith, so important. freedom of any kind means no one should be judged by their race, or their color, and the color of their skins should not be judged that way. and right now we have a very divided nation. we're going to bring our nation together. if i win, we will bring our nation together. [applause] the importance of faith in the united states society, it's really the people who go to and work inwork religious charities, so important, and share their values. these are the foundations of our society. we must continue to forge our partnership with israel and work

to ensure israel's security. [applause] keeping people of faith save from threats like radical islam whether protecting them here are standing by israel, all of us need to confront together the threat of radical islam. we have to do it. [applause] now hillary clinton or as i call .er crooked hillary clinton [applause] crooked as they come, refuses to even say the words radical islam. refuses to say the words. unfit to beakes her president. in fact, she wants a

500% increase in syrian refugees to come into our country. no good. no good. can't do it. we don't know where they come .rom, where they are trump, trump] [indiscernible] [refugees are welcome here] usa, usa]

mr. trump: thank you. all right. [indiscernible] [usa, usa, usa] [indiscernible] mr. trump: thank you. freedom of speech. thank you.

very good. [indiscernible] mr. trump: we are so bad and so divided, this is such a shame. by the way these are professional agitators. they come in, their sender by the other party, believe me. [indiscernible] so where it left off. 500% increase in syrian refugees. without documentation, we don't know where they come from, hillary will bring hundreds of thousands of refugees, many of aboutave hostile beliefs people of different faiths and values, and some of whom absolutely and openly support terrorism in our country. we don't need that. we have enough problems. we have enough problems right now. [indiscernible]

[applause] here is some of what we can accomplish together. judges so important. so important. who will uphold our laws, protect our constitution, and protect the rights of all americans. and as you know, i put a list together of highly, highly and you willges see and i think it's unit, and appreciated, but a lot of people really come together over that list. that is one of the most important reasons why we have to win the presidency if we don't, it will be a whole different country. by the way, these judges are all pro-life. [applause]

we will restore respect for people of faith who dutifully raised their children, follow and weaws and rules, have to really take care of our neighbors. because right now, our neighbors are not being taken care of. we have to restore the rule of law on our border, and our government, no matter where it is. it has to be restored. [applause] and by the way, we have to pay great respect to our police and law enforcement in this country. believe me. they are not being treated properly. so all of this includes tough new ethics rules to restore dignity to the office of the secretary of state. [applause] which itas it --

hasn't had in a while folks. if you look at the iran deal, truly one of the worst yes i have ever seen negotiated. [applause] we will protect the right of churches to speak their minds on political matters free from intimidation. new immigration control to keep a safe from radical islamic terrorism. here is what hillary clinton were due to our country. she will appoint radical judges who alleges -- will legislate from the bench overriding i'll tell you, the will of the people will mean nothing. thejudges will abolish

second amendment and destroy the rule of law. abolish the second amendment. and i will tell you, the national rifle association, the nra, two weeks ago endorsed donald trump. i think is the earliest endorsement than ever given to a presidential candidate. so i was very honored. they're great people. she will keep obamacare in place, which puts medical decisions in the hands of government. not good. obamacare, we will repeal and replace. [applause] mr. trump: she will restrict religious freedom with government mandates. she will push for federal up until theortion moment of birth. which is where she is as you know. she will undermine the wages of working people with uncontrolled

immigration, creating property and income insecurity. hillary clinton's wall street agenda will crush working families. she will put bureaucrats, not parents in charge of our lives. and our children's education can have it. she will the chopping kids in failing schools. she will plunge our inner cities into even deeper poverty if that is possible. hillary's agenda taxation, and she wants to raise your taxes to it, here it, she wants to raise your taxes tremendously. regulation, we are perceived, government control, and open borders have economically destroyed our inner cities. her policies will be a crushing blow to all poor people in this country.

or education policies, economic policies, or immigration policies, enter trade policies will plunge our poor african-american and hispanic communities into turmoil and even worse, despair. believe me. you look at what is going on. the democrat party has run the school boards, and the police departments, and the city councils, and the mayor's office is in most of our inner cities, almost all of our inner cities. they have run congressional offices. they have hardly failed in almost every single community. in fact, you could actually say in every community. i'm going to turn things around. [applause] trump: hillary clinton has jeopardized, totally jeopardized

national security by putting her e-mails on a private server all to hide her corrupt dealings. this is the reason she did it folks. it is to hide her corrupt dealings. she is now under criminal investigation, that was announced yesterday by the white house. it is criminal investigation. first time ever by the way of president of united states endorse somebody under criminal investigation. interesting. she even appointed to the national security board someone with no national security experience, instead, he was a donor. a recent donor to hillary clinton's campaign. and also gave as much as $250,000 to his foundation. they all looked, said where did this guy come from? he made a contribution of 250 thousand dollars, all of a

sudden he is on this very important and vital board. this position dealt with tactical nuclear weapons and had top-secret clearance. and he knew nothing about it. made $153illary million giving speeches to special interest groups since 2001. that's a lot of money. that's a lot of money. own hillary clinton. the owner. and bernie sanders is right about that. i have to tell you. it's true. [applause] is -- i will be working for you. i just spent $55 million running and this is my money. not easy, but i just spent 55 million of my money running in the primaries. other people spend many times

that amount and they didn't do so well. for you.k i'm working for you. i'm doing this because i want to put back, i want to give back, i want to get back to our country. [applause] mr. trump: together friends we will chart a new optimistic course for america. we will put america first. [applause] when you look at our deals come our military deals, trade does, all of, we don't put america is. i don't think anybody negotiating these deals even knows anything about what they are doing and i don't think they care about america being first. i care and you care, not us is the way it is going to be. [applause] mr. trump: and that is a big, big part of why i'm challenging hillary clinton today. to replace her support for increased refugee admissions we have to do it.

for new jobs program for our inner cities. we have to take care of the people that are here. [applause] we have to temporarily stop this whole thing with what is going on with refugees. where we don't know where they come from, but we have to take a rest, we have to take a timeout, we have to use the money to take care of our poorest americans and work with them so they can come out of this horrible situation that therein. -- that they are in. we will restore faith to its proper mental and our society. that's what we have to do. and we have to do that soon. we will respect and defend christian americans. christian americans.

we will give parents control over their schools. so important. values ourold the founders gave us, which are not doing now. we will work together to rebuild and restore and lift up everyone, not a certain group, everyone. the whole country. we're going to lift up. we will make america great again for all americans. and we will do it together. i want to thank you. this is been a great honor. amazing friendships i have in this room. thank you all very much. appreciate it. thank you. thank you very much. thank you. [applause] thank you. [applause] thank you everybody. thank you very much. [applause]

announcer: and donald trump issuing the street this morning about the orlando nightclub mass shooting. quote horrific incident of florida. praying for all the victims and their families. when will this stop? when will we get tough, smart, and vigilant? some reaction from other for the lawmakers. florida representative w -- debbie wasserman schultz tweeting heartbroken over another mass shooting. my thoughts are with the victims. their loved ones, and the entire landoll lgbt community today. congressman david jolly tweeting this. this is our parents feel that it's resulted enjoys confronting

to deter out the answer b evil so that this may never happen again. words cannot express the horrific pain that we feel about this loss. pray for linda. and congressman deborah ross tweeting devastated and heartbreaking. trying for all those murdered and injured in orlando this morning. president obama will have a statement on the mass shooting in our land a. we expect that payment -- expect a statement at 1:30 p.m. eastern. we will then open up our friends for your chance to offer reactions. now we look at the causes of political polarization in america and the erosion of bipartisanship. panelists include former rnc formern haley barbour, a clinton white house press secretary mike mccurry, and bret stephens from the wall street journal. this runs just over an hour. we will bring it to you until the president comes out. [applause] great to see you all here this afternoon.

thank you for joining us. thank you so much to those dallas morning news for hosting such a remarkable event. it is true critic came up earlier today, it's not always easy to embrace all kinds of diversity in any given event. but i want to celebrate this event having been such a remarkable job of embracing diversity. is terrific to be an event cohosted, cosponsored by the george bush's library. it is a remarkable occasion for all of us. i want to put you out of your suspense. can democracy survive? yes. [laughter] [applause] so the question i think we'll probably almost be talking about today is how? how bad is it actually? to be really think there is an issue here and if we do, what do we do about a? we all know a couple of basic

facts. for example, there is a shift in how much members of each party. check their unfavorably. in 1990 four, 16% of democrats republicans unbearably, in 2014, 30 8%. on the other side of the are, in the 17% of republicans and democrats unfavorably and 1994, now it is 42%. mostps even the interesting data point is the one that suggests the issues are no longer ideological, but it become a matter of why style and identity. the fact that in 1960, 4% of democrats and 5% of republicans would have disapproved of their child marrying somebody from the other party. but one of those numbers now? 33% of democrats would disapprove of their child marrying a republican, and 49% of republicans would disapprove their child marrying a democrat.

the funled out some of facts. but you study this for a living, is polarization real? >> had a political scientist understand that. i think it is true that polarization is real. political scientist at us every much longer history than the one that danielle described is to look at patterns of the world. measures ofthe best how bipartisan nine national institutions of the overtime. theheadline fact is that bipartisanship in congress now is at its lowest level since reconstruction. to put that in perspective, harvest -- party system based on the regional cleavages of a civil war had more bipartisanship than the current congress. polarization has not been a constant history to much of the 20th century, was not that light up. there were large blocks of conservative democrats, liberal

publicans, lots of bipartisan compromise and the important landmark pieces of legislation it 20 century. we have seen over the course of the past four years, roughly from the late 1970's through the current, and marcia thierry nation and the level partisan -- bipartisan cooperation and i think it is a pretty serious consequences for the governing of our society. >> so what do you think cap and? had explained the stucco >> that is one of the --how do you explain this? that is one of the core academic mysteries at this point to explain why the bipartisan relatively unpolarized system began to take a different trajectory. there are lots of arguments out there. related to individual circumvent such as the election of ronald of -- thee defeat impeachment in 1998. 2000 election. i don't think there's much

behind those arguments. they were specific events. there has been a lot of focus on the way in which we conduct our elections, whether be partisan primaries or gerrymandering congressional districts, or uncontrolled campaign-finance. i think there's very little evidence that you really have much at all to do with gerrymander congressional districts of the weather we conduct primaries. there was a lot less polarization in the 1950's and 60's with a lot less gerrymandering and a lot more candidates. there's some evidence he campaign-finance system has contributed to its a system that was already polarized. i think the campaign-finance system is probably making it worse at this point. i'm inclined to believe that our politics become a polarized because the united states has become a much more diverse and heterogeneous society of the past 45 years. whether that be through changing patterns of immigrations, the

racial ethnic compositions of society, whether the economic differences like economic inequality, wealth inequality, i think we just become a much more divided society on many of the political areas. that will be reflected in the way that congress represents the type of society that we live in today. >> so you point to some of the historical touch points and said he went sure any event matters, but we do often hear about on theand tipper neon -- on the bus of the 90's. i want to turn to mr. macquarie who both lived through the highly contentious events of the 1990's and i'll start with the governor barber appeared to her chairman of the republican national committee from 1993 to 1990 eight during the. of the contract of america on the government shutdown. from the point of your lived experience, did you feel a

change in how members of the two parties with each other? >> the versailles never want to washington in 1988, from mississippi, some of you may thought this was a south new jersey accent. [applause] [laughter] asked in a united states senator jim eason was an old segregationist, my granddaddy was his daddy's lawyer. they told me to come back at he said., i came back, on verdict attended kennedy. teddy kennedy into conservative republicans from nebraska and a democratic senator from georgia. he was the chairman -- he was the democratic chairman. they knew each other, their friends, they socialize, having a drink together was not unusual. it is incredibly unusual today. most of the members don't live there, it used to be the kids are to be the kids at the school together, they played ball

together. their wives knew each other, their husbands. but that is one of the reasons i think. i think another reason and i have a different view than most, i think gerrymandering has made a difference because particularly in the house we after theense sprinkler 1962 is made u.s. house of representative than the state register. about four years ago, both parties figured out we have control the legislature, we can change things around a little bit and we live a lot better deals. today there are probably 300 and 50 of 435 house seats that are not competitive between the two parties. those three of 50 members of the house, they're not worried about the general election, there were about the primary. state democrat district of the northeastern west coast or wherever, then i

can let anybody get to the left alone. safe republican district in the heartland, they're not gonna anybody get to the right of them. that has hollered out the center and house of representatives. it has also directly affect the u.s. senate, but it certainly indirectly does. because the legislation they see, because of the arguments of the arguments that the senators constituents are hearing. i don't think there's any question this is happened. i think there is more than one reason. >> we will come back to that. because i want to hear more about nolan's you another sign appeared but i want to push him on this question of party strategy. party started june the 93 does your moving into the majority republican congress, that was one of your future -- future competence to but often those elections and to give your party that sort of power. how did your party strategize in the early 90's? >> i will say to you is a big advantage that we had contracted with america. contract with america.

we had not had a majority in both houses of congress in 40 years. the last time republicans won out and 52, and the loss of 54. and i was 1994. contract with america gave people something to vote for. people voted republican for congress that you're either regular republicans or they voted against clinton. they were medically and clinton over asked wires you. having something to vote for mike contract for america made it easier. but it also meant only got the majority, we had an agenda. days,nt the first hundred seems like 400 days bringing up all the pinpoints of contract for america. the interesting with democratic national convention in 1996 when president clinton made is acceptable speech. you mention six things that have been done that were in contact with america. and forg welfare from,

shortly thereafter, the very -- first balanced budget in a generation. but did youries think about bipartisanship at this time. i want to add another detail. this is the. of 1995 or the white house is a study in the impact of the internet on political communication. and that is when we get to the first indication of this idea of the white staff right wing conspiracy theories as being on a path against the clintons. how did you guys see this question of bipartisanship? >> remember the beginning of 1995, this was after the speaker gingrich took up his, we start 1995 and just very intensive environment and remember in the early part of that year, there were routine stories in the press about is the president relevant anymore because all the energy was with the new speaker in the new majority in congress. but then the building in oakland

the city was blown up and i think at that point president clinton found his voice again and began to the contract on america. as we used to call. it. [laughter] and we hit over and over again the fact that we needed to invest in the future of the country. we needed to balance a budget, we needed to protect our environment, we had to make sure that we cap social security and medicare strong. that discipline around the message carried us all the way through the year to the point and 95 only had the big showdown with the republicans over whether or not the government would be shut down. and leon panetta would be sitting here ran the staff meetings at the white house in the morning and i would have to honestly say that we did not know and we are not confident that we would come out ahead. the republicans over the question who is going to be blamed for shutting down the government. i think because our discipline, think because the president went

on made the case, we actually i think we think -- came out on the upper end of that. with a very strong headwinds. i will go back to one thing. when mrs. clinton was in the senate we had her down for breakfast event. what is the source of this dysfunction and gridlock and polarization in the united states senate, the world's greatest alliterative body? >> sorry. [laughter] she she said we don't trust each other. we don't spend enough time with each other to get to know each other well. if i feel like i go up halfway and put something politically at risk, i don't have any confidence someone will be be

halfway. timeld add to that in that -- yes, there was a study of the internet in 1995. there was one all-news cable station at the time because fox had not come along. no one was using social media. the internet site for the white house had transcripts of my , which i guess are mildly entertaining given the subject matter. ian eraot -- it was where the mainstream media shaped the contours of the national discussion. you still had at that point probably 75% to 80% reporting they got most of the news from broadcast reports from daily newspapers, from the traditional sources of information.

we used to be coherent as a country. that has all the segregated now. newspaper circulation seven declined. audience share for the major networks have been in decline. we don't gather around a common campfire to share our stories and develop a narrative. that is one of the things that does not bring us together as a country so we have a common good conversation. >> you are making an argument ,hat fragmentation fractionalization is what people call it. there are a look to think people often invoke as causes. redistricting, general fragmentation of the country. sometimes people also place of the fact that roughly 1980 election seven much more contested and they were in the decades prior to that. we should recognize that we live in a period of contested tory

that contestetory politics. people are fighting with each other over the direction we are heading. you are in the thick of it. it's a very contested election season right now. how has this issue of polarization affected your addingto be a voice thoughtfulness and deliver this enesse public -- deliberat to the public? >> if you're in the opinion usiness and you offer of view not-- offer a with it what is in line to your audience anticipates, you will not be some of it is treated that he will be treated as a traitor and you will hear it almost immediately from 4000 people on twitter denouncing you

in one way or another. it takes some intestinal mollifye not to try to that side of your audience. to think that it might be an audience beyond simply the angry people who have time on their hands to fire off a tweet or a nasty e-mail. that is a real issue in journalism. one thing i fear about modern journalism is that editors increasingly have lost control of the narrative. why? we are looking newspapers at -- they are looking at stories that are going to be popular with audiences. did you get on the most viewed, most popular, most e-mailed list this week? what does that say about the quality of what you are writing? there is nothing more depressing them of the wall street journal since the huge expense to deeply

report a story from burma and about four people read it. forget it. i could write a piece about donald trump and another would have a huge audience. there is a shallow link of journalism, and therefore a shallowing the public rhetoric. people want toy, play to those shallower narratives. it becomes difficult to see complexity in issues. it becomes so much easier to simply say, you are on one side, you are on the other, there is no gray zone and no room for that areor views shaded or colored by some kind of complexity. that's a real issue. is thing i want to point out

since i read about for policy what is happening in the united states is happening all over the world. the philippines just elected as president a man it was described as the donald trump of the philippines. right-wingopulist party, in many ways a liberal party governing poland. the same story in hungary. the right is gaining traction in france. the left is gaining traction in spain. the kind of centrist politics that defined the postwar era are fragmenting, fracturing, falling apart. not just in united states. i think it is worth asking why this is a global phenomenon. tolstoy says "all happy families are unhappy in their own way." it all seems to be happening at the same time. -- i'ma question that

not worried about whether democracy can survive. i'm sure democracy can't survive. i'm worried if liberalism can survive. i don't mean liberal as a left-wing. i mean liberal as in the set of values that informed tolerant, pluralistic, rules-based, law-based societies. what he makes about journalism and the pressure of this purity is felt by political operatives and elected officials. there is a group in the country that wants. he given -- purity. but purity is the enemy of victory. i worked for ronald reagan. ronald reagan compromise on everything. the democrats had a majority in the house the whole time. he compromised.

--says the gather friends that agrees of the 80% of the times of friend, not a traitor. if you think it is hard at the wall street journal, think about if you are in the campaign headquarters in south carolina or kansas or montana. that pressure of if you are not ine, i will be against you your party's primary. >> where did that come from? what was the moment you first register this was a dynamic. >> i think a lot of people attribute this to divided government. republican congress, democrat house, democrat white house. i don't accept that. ronald reagan was enormously successful in divided government. leon panetta and i were talking. we pass immigration reform, social security reform and tax reform with huge hundred-seat

majority's in the house. they are complex and controversial. the bill clinton was the same way. in six years and all republican congress we passed welfare reform, the first balanced budget in a generation. the president has to lead. this president has not chosen to try to lead the congress, but he is polarizing. that is not the only reason but it is a fact. >> one of my previous bosses with dana patrick moynihan and he wrote about defining deviancy down. that is probably what has happened here. there is been a slow-motion erosion of bringing together the common good and a sense of common purpose. even when clinton gingrich were battling back and forth they were battling and on the phone every night yapping at each

other. it would annoy the staffs because they would get in their space. at the end of the day they were working in the system design to reduce an outcome, which was either some form of compromise or some sort of mutual agreement where you are going to head. our fundamental functions of government, the things that madison wrote about in the federalist papers are not working. >> so the question is the breakdown of social relations in the capacity to compromise, ethical orientation to the common good our symptom or cause. out of 40 back in and share more. -- pull you back in and share more. >> i think they are tightly related to wants a -- related to one another. everything is very competitive. every election is about control of the white house or control of one or both branches of congress

. brett'so follow-up on point about orthodoxy. one of the things that is gone hand-in-hand with polarization -- being a republican is having a set of policy positions. they also have go together. theybody understands republican policy position on each and every issue just as they often understand the democratic policies. extreme orthodoxy within both parties and the willingness to kind of punish has gone along with it in a lot of ways. i think the opposition of compromise comes the fact that these coalitions as we are seeing today are kind of fragile

in a way. you have to enforce this orthodoxy because it is not particularly coherent. when you look at donald trump, i guess the silver lining is he is the first person willing to challenge this orthodox. the republican positions are not coherent and it doesn't appeal to voters. i don't know if he's going to go out there and break it. we will see what happens in the future another candidates willing to say the rolling in position on trade and immigration are not was at appeal to broad swaths of the electorate. we will see what will happen. getting back to your original question. why do all the things go together and are they starting to change at the same time? it is so very hard to explain. global -- think the the system is collapsing globally? >> lots of reasons.

large point i would say is 1978, france has not had a single year of more than 2% growth. not once has it been more than mediocre growth. 25% youth unemployment. the same story throughout much of europe. for the last decade we had about 2% growth. stack and economies tend of the radicalized politics. ,t least for the last 10 years and i don't seem to be marxist in the material, -- >> that is the chicago training coming out. >> historically and economies were investors do very well or speculators see very poorly, it

tends to be a reading ground for certain kind of political radicalism. if you are an investor in the dow jones industrial average and the last eight years you have , been great. if you had a savings account at td bank, maybe it made 100 bucks. that is a phenomenon that is true from japan to europe to the united states. i think there is an economic explanation. there's also a historic fact and in the 1920's and 1930's for a , broad set of reasons, the west came disenchanted with april -- liberal democratic policies as a set of institutions that created mediocre outcomes, but were broadly fair and inclusive. there was a sudden thirst for a charismatic style of politics for men of action, guys who would cut through the bull and make things work.

the businessman ethic that will throughout the regulatory nonsense. the famous story in new york ridendonald trump has a to the republican nomination and make it happen. i think part of the story here is that a failure of ordinary politics to deliver on the expectations that modern western societies have in terms of their economic well-being, anxiety, prospects, has typically and again turning people into saying look at these more radical nonmainstream alternatives. what the hell, let's give it a shot. i think there is a lot of that in the politics now with the strength of bernie sanders and donald trump as the presumptive nominee. it also throughout the entire world. if you're just an ordinary middle-class person or lower middle class person with money

in the bank, you have not done well. you have seen the speculate in class done fabulously well. that is one of the contingent factors. those are a few that come to mind. >> again, i'm not try to punctuate what he is saying, look at it this way, for three years in a row, public polling has measured by real clear politics average that they publish every day, more than 50% -- 60% of americans have said america is going the wrong direction. americans are of republicans, that means there are a whole lot of people who are not republicans or independents or democrats that have now for three years thought by a huge majority we are going in the wrong direction. why would they not? because if you are in the heartland or middle-class or or working-class or small business person, you can tell -- can't tell the difference

between the recovery and the recession. still feels like a recession. the national association of counties report that based on economic indicators like growth and gdp and income tax, only 7% of our 3000 plus counties are out of the recession. 93% are still in the recession based on those measurements. you see why people are mad and scared. another point that i think is interesting and the hardest thing to understand. we have polarity with essential parity. the two parties are very close in numbers. they have the white house, we have the house and senate. we have 31 governors and most of the legislatures, but they have an edge in the electoral college. usually in our country, at least since the civil war, when we have been at parity, we then

bunched in the middle. they ain't no middle. >> this election season is an interesting one. because on both sides of the spectrum, we have the center, we have heterodoxy coming back. policy paradigms breaking. people put new issues on the table. trump and sanders, and debt and immigration. then the question is an you make the point that there are serious economic and political problems that move politics toward extremes and empty out the center. the question is if we think about how to fix it, how much do we need to address these physic -- basic issues of interaction, civility, tolerance, for alternative views, as part of preparing to actually engage in policy questions? that is, do we have to fix polarization in order to do work on policy?

or can we just muddle forward and not worry about polarization and just focus on policy? with you think about that? >> we need more campaigns that are aspirational. hearing this discussion the one thing i'm struck by are those numbers that say a majority of americans no longer believe that if they work hard, their children will have a better quality of life than they had. that is the fundamental american dream. that has been in the dna of what we think we are as americans. unless we restored some sense of hope for the future -- by the way, there are different measures. some measures, if you look at things that obama has been able to accomplish, that indicate that we have had some kind of recovery. 77 straight months of job

growth. anyone from the white house with your they would take off a list of things and say obama has basically accomplished a great deal as president. i am a communications guy. i don't think they have told that story very well. i don't think the country feels it. that is the important thing. we have got to restore that sense that we can move forward and we can provide a better future for our kids. we need candidates and politicians who speak at that kind of lofty level. to really make us feel better about our future. we are not getting a lot of that in this campaign. host: do we need to be, in addition to securing those aspirational and common purpose narratives do we need to do the , institutional work? we can bring it back to redistricting. we might debate on whether we need to work on that. do we need to restructure the electoral process as part of building incentive to work in the opposite direction?

>> i would like to restore the actual process. -- electoral process. i think one of the reasons why there are 350 members of the house has more with regional realignments in the south. people tend to find themselves in regions which were heterodox in the 1960's and 1970's and are now strongly partisan. i don't think gerrymandering is going to do it. i think campaign-finance has to be looked at. i don't think it is the primary, initial cause, but a major contributor. if you go back to 1980, the top 0.01% of donors contributed 8%. the top 10,000 people contribute at about 8%. now, they contribute 40%. we have a campaign-finance

system that is fairly unaccountable. very wealthy people can put their policy views before the people without the same type of accountability that actual parties and candidates have. i think that is been a fuel for exacerbating polarization. itleast in the last decade has only gotten worse. at termse have to look of institutional reform is about government. i think ultimately polarization is not necessarily a bad thing. in the 1950's, political scientists worried there was not enough differentiating between the parties. the eisenhower republicans looked a lot like truman democrats. that is a real problem because voters don't have choices. it is hard to hold parties accountable. if you wish for something, you might get too much of it. we have a situation where we

have differentiation, but we have not figured out how to govern with that level of differentiation. some of it is changing norms. i understand where you're coming from if you understand where i am coming from. we are going to have these debates. we are not going to paper them over. we just have to figure out ways to solve them. congress could come up with procedures that are less partisan and more able to have debates and resolve them. let me just give you one example of an institution that i think should be reformed. in almost every other parliamentary democracy in the world, the speaker of the lower chamber is in an administrative bureaucratic position. they are elected to stand up and recognize speakers. kind of uniquely in the u.s., the speaker is a partisan institution. we can see what happens when you have the speaker of the lower house being a partisan institution. where a small fraction of the majority party can hold up

-- a position hostage. there are things like that that we can do. i don't like ideas of saying, let's try to eradicate polarization by eliminating differences of opinion. i don't think that is consistent with our underlying values. >> can i throw out one modest proposal? it connects to the idea of campaign finance reform. many of these members of congress are part of the reason they have their heads down when they were in washington, going to fundraiser after fundraiser. they spend all their time doing that. i was thinking the other day what if every wednesday that congress is sitting in session, we declare from 8:00 until 10:00 in the morning to be a fundraising-free zone? [laughter] and we instruct the party committees, the dnc and all those people raising money, that will be sanctions against you if you host events for your candidate during that time.

because the expectation is that a member will call someone from the other side of the island say, let's have breakfast. let's sit and talk. there was a wonderful group called the faith and politics institute that gets people together for bible study. that has been very important to the members that participate in it. at least 1/3 of the senate. we create some spaces for these people to get to know each other and create relationships that can then translate to more trust. when a caps on legislating and doing the work of the country. >> my own modest proposal was marry a liberal. [laughter] >> or a conservative. >> well, advice that i took. and it does me some good. both the essence of a good citizen in a liberal democracy is a person that can say i might be wrong.

i am only in possession of say, 80% of the truth, and i don't know which 1/5 is wrong. that is an important personal characteristic to have. i guess the question i come to is what are the institutions in our society which are cultivating qualities of self-doubt? i meant that. this is something we think about often in our editorial meetings. which might shock some of you to hear. [laughter] >> tell us more about self-doubt at the wall street journal. [laughter] >> we try to resolve them before we go with the paper. [laughter] but also, in terms of our pedagogical institutions, i would turn around on you -- what are universities doing? one of the things that astounds me when i get mail in connection to the current article season -- -- current political season is this line that we gave up on this do nothing republican congress.

we give them the big majorities and whether they do with it? we are tempted to write back, to you realize that the government can't be run out of the congress? you need the cooperation of the president? that is the way the system works? this nonstop assault from certain radio show hosts about the losers in congress that do nothing, they didn't overturn obamacare and x, y, and z. clearly these people don't seem to know how our system of checks and balances work. i wonder why that is. i wonder what failures have taken place from grade school to college, to what people are listening to on the morning commutes or what they are reading in the papers if they still read papers, if they don't understand these things. all these institutional fixes are terrific, but they are not going to work unless you have human beings who might say to

themselves, i might disagree with the president. i might disagree with him it vehemently, but i don't think that he is a bad man. right? can we do that as a country? i guess that is the question i keep returning to. one last point. the republican party was born , emerged from a president that summoned the better angels of our nature. i wonder who was summoning those angels in our political season this year? when one guy is saying put all of wall street in jail. another guy is asking for mass deportations of one ethnic group or another. who are the summoners of the better angels? that is what i am concerned about. >> i want to pick up your question about education for a second and talk about civic education. i think it is -- you list the victims of polarization. i think civic education is one of them.

governor, i believe you were in office when they were working on a common core curriculum, which was in its beginning a bipartisan effort on the part of governors at the state level. as we know now, it has become a controversial issue, fully embedded in the polarized conversations. one feature of the core curriculum was that national governors association worked with educators around the country, the goal was to establish standards in math and language and social studies education. that third piece fell out. it was unachievable because of polarized views about how we should engage with american history. in some sense, the battle what -- the battle over whether or not the narrative should be triumphalist, fundamentally critical about the failings of the u.s. and efforts to overcome them.

we have a quite deep problem with regard to this issue of education. in our inability to share a common historical narrative. i don't know. are you in office? >> i was in office. some of you may know that my state is a little conservative. [laughter] they were a lot of people against common core. i publicly supported the development of common core. i supported -- but here is what it never gets said. common core only affects english and math. that is the whole curriculum. english and math. all the complaining is they are going to take religion out of the schools. they are going to teach god knows what in terms of history and social studies. that's bunk. [laughter] i mean, the mississippi state department of education ultimately decides what the

curriculum is. they have common core standards for english and math they decide, are we going to use these? the state totally controls it at the end of the day. the federal government doesn't. but that goes back to something that i think was the one point onward to make here if i didn't , any other. i became chairman of the republican national committee at about the time of the rise of rush limbaugh. fox news. i loved it. i mean, i had grown up in the same america as y'all. when i graduated from high school and any we get 6:00 90% of the stations, we thought all of those tv stations were liberal. the new york times, the washington post. we would finally get some conservatives out there, tell our side. it works that way for a while. but in the last three or four years the most bitter, the most , harsh, the most negative

critics of republicans have been the conservative media elite. the sean hannity's, the rush limbaugh's, the laura ingram's, some of these people are friends of mine. but the fact of the matter is, and it may be just because of ratings but they are the , leaders. they are the agitators for the purity cause. for the people who say if you , don't agree with me 100% of the time, you are a bad person. that is just exactly the opposite how you win in our system. the american two party system is about a bigger party. it's about addition and multiplication, not about division and subtraction. like i said mitt romney got 60 , million votes last time. if you think we are going to have a party where 60 million people are voting on everything, you need your head examined. my wife and i don't agree on everything. [laughter] she says i have the right to be

wrong sometimes. [laughter] but in our party we cannot get , to where you have to agree on everything to be a good republican. one of the biggest victories we ever had in 1994, one of the things i was most proud of, in state after state, you see pro-choice republican voters for pro-life republican candidates because they decided he agrees with me on 10 issues out of 12, and i'm not going to vote. that is how parties are supposed to think. until we get back to that, we are going to have a hard time. >> what do we do? >> on this prior point, there was or is a national civics curriculum that looks at k-12 that would leave us with more

fully functioning citizens going out into the world as they move into college and become voting age. i think there has to be an intentional commitment to that kind of work in schools. we are asking a largely public school system to do some things that are risky. i acknowledge that. social studies teachers, when they are dabbling in government works and how they function, you know you're on shaky ground sometimes. you might get some parent group coming in to complain. that is where collectively voices can stand up and say we cannot avoid to cheat these students out of some basic understanding of this country. and understand pluralism and diversity and the tradition we have. i think a lot of work has to be done on that. i'm going to tell a short story. when i first went to work in the senate presss a

secretary in 1979, there was a big piece of labor legislation to reform labor law. i worked for the chairman of the senate labor committee, very pro-union democrat. as i wrote a press release one day, it was aimed at orrin hatch, leading to filibuster against labor law reform. we are old enough to remember this. i wrote a quote, "any senator who would suggest that the -- this legislation leads to mandatory unionization breaks truth to the breaking point." the guy he was my boss and mentor, the ministry of assistant, he said come with me. he took me out in the hall, and he said you better be damn glad if that press release didn't go out. if that have gone out, i would fire you. that puts in the mouth of our boss a statement that calls one of our colleagues in the senate

a liar. stretches truth to the breaking point? that is toxic language compared to what we have now? [laughter] my question is, who are the people taking the young hotshot press secretaries out in and washing their mouth out with soap? who are those enforcing some sense of civility in our discussion? the media is gone. the media used to be something like a referee. but now they are more a part of the problem than the solution. collectively, it sound school marmish, these people that say to our party committees and some of the people who are throwing give up -- out these toxic quotes that is not how we , conduct ourselves in politics. we frankly don't have enough people doing that. >> let me ask one question before we turn it over for

questions. your point about setting standards was very well taken. thank you for them. i want to ask a question. brett, from your point of view, what can newspapers and news organizations do to set better standards in this regard? can they do anything? is that a lost cause? what do you think? >> that is a great question and more than a 2 minute answer. [laughter] look, there has been a shallow ing of the news. it turns out that not only it makes for bad journalism, it makes for bored readings. it's not an accident that the newspapers that are still doing reasonably well are the ones that take the deeper dives. because in the country of 300 million, if you have even 1% of the country, that is a lot of readers. the journal has 2.4 million. we would like to get to 1%.

and that means bucking the almost irresistible trend towards catering to the audience preferences. and to what seems to be popular now. it means, essentially, following steve jobs' admonition that you don't know what you want until i give it to you. you had no idea you wanted an iphone until you got one and then you cannot live without it. or whatever kind of fun you happen to have. i think the news business could do something similar, which is to try and wrest back control of who actually gets to set the agenda. there is a wonderful line in "scoop," a novel in which the lord whatever his name is, the evil press baron asks that all

questions be answered with "yes sir" or "up to a point, sir." [laughter] yokohama is the capital of japan. the answer must be "up to a point, sir." a lot of we do in the news business should be considered in an up to a point way. of course we want our readers to be in sync with us, like what we do, but up to a point. we also want to have grown ups in charge of the newspapers, not be slaves to audience preference. i think that is true in academia, where i sometimes feel professors have lost the agenda -setting prerogative. may be in government as well, where senators are terrified of being primaried. how do you get the grown-ups to be in charge? it's a great question but i don't think liberalism survives unless those grown-ups reassert

those prerogatives. host: let us open it up since we have these mics. we would love to hear from you. start over here. >> i understand that george washington in the early days of our country warned of the beginning of the two-party system being the death of the republic. so this year in the primary what i am seeing, and i understand that in primaries there will always be a disagreement and people saying mean things about each other. but in this particular year, candidate after candidate has said that one of the candidates is a con artist, a pathological liar, dangerous. all sorts of scary things. and now suddenly that he is presumably going to be the

nominee suddenly that is okay. , i have a problem with the idea that party politics is just some kind of a game. and i think the preservation of our country as we know it should be more important than that. i'm wondering how you see those things. >> well, yeah. [laughter] mike mentioned that wonderful from pat moynihan defining , deviancy down. we have a new normal in this country where serious presidential candidates get away with saying things that i find a scandalous. that is not going to stop unless some larger number of americans say no, this is not right at all and we will run you out of our political system for saying these things.

this is what worries me about this political season. bear in mind, i will say something overtly partisan -- these are the candidates we are getting. this is that candidate we are getting. when growth is around 2%. one-day growth is going to be minus 2%. what are we going to get then? and what will be considered all right then? one last point. you mentioned george washington. i was rereading the other day. george washington spent time as a young man writing out rules for conduct and stability. -- civility. it is well worth reading, not spitting in public or how to comport himself with a lady. this is how the republic was founded, with a man of that kind of character. and republicans especially who go on about the character issue, maybe should care more about the character of the candidates they put forward for high office. >> let me make one observation

about the two party system. montesquieu, or one of the 19th century french philosophers said that the two party system is the miracle of america because it acted like a teeter-totter. if one party got too far this way, the public would run to the middle and straighten this out. that certainly hasn't happened in either party this time. one of my old friends from the white house days said, can you understand any of this? i said no, nobody can. i have never seen anything like it. he said yeah. they had to create a new term after sanders and trump. it's called electile dysfunction. [laughter] [applause] we are hoping one of the big pharmaceutical companies-- [laughter]

>> i think we all needed that. thank you. >> mr. stevens made a remark that i fully agree with. i too would be concerned if we become a country with a minus 2% growth rate, reminiscent of the early 1930's. my questioning goes to the opening remarks when there was a presentation of statistics that the negativity that is felt towards our potential candidates for president. over the past 30-40 years, we have seen a diminishing percentage of our citizens voting. are we going to continue to see that?

and if so, isn't that a real threat to the democracy? >> actually we haven't seen a diminution of percentage of citizens voting since 1972. there is a good reason why it dropped, is because 18-year-olds got the vote, and they still don't use it. once you factor that in the real , changes in the electorate, other than increasing numbers of noncitizen residents who cannot participate since 2008, turnout , has been higher than it as ever been. it looks like it will stay there but it hasn't resulted in diminution of this conflict. one thing that concerns me, you do look at public opinion polls and see that voters have much more extreme views then nonvoters. it seems obvious that you should get some of the nonvoters to vote. the evidence shows once they become voters, they become just like voters. [laughter]

and they have just as extreme views. i hate to be negative on this. turnout is probably not the problem. the problems are probably deeper than that. >> i was wondering about how much the polarization has to do with the income gap between wealthy and poor? and i had a question for the governor. if you were still the committee, the republican national committee chairman, would you have endorsed trump? [laughter] >> life is a series of choices. [laughter] and if the choice for president is hillary clinton and donald trump, i'm going to vote for donald trump. it wasn't my first choice. but that is down to the real choice i've got. twohaving been through

perot campaigns, a third-party candidate is a vote for clinton. you might as well go and vote for clinton instead of some third-party candidate. i was chairman of the republican national committee. thank you. i don't know if you were born then. [laughter] no, okay, thank you for that. thank you for confirming that. it's not my party. and donald trump is going to get 12 or 13 million votes in the republican primaries not mine. , mine was not one of those. but he has won, and i'm not going to put my opinion, my views above these people. they have the right to pick the nominee. and i have the obligation to compare the choices. i voted for some democrats in my life, don't get my wrong.

i'm just not going to vote for this one. >> one thing we do know is that periods of american politics in which partisan divisions have been the largest are also once -- periods of time in which economic divisions have been the largest. earlier, polarization was quite high during the gilded age through about the 1920's. obviously a period in which the golden age was one of high economic inequality. the low periods of polarization in u.s. history have basically been from the 1930's to the 1970's, the lowest recorded levels of economic inequality. and the upward trend begins in 1975, which is not quite -- coincidently the the same time economic inequality started going up. there's a lot of debate about what the ultimate causes for that association are. but i think that based on my work and others that there is some causal relationship.

that is different groups of americans suffer different economic success. it polarizes the discourse and leads to greater divisions. some of it is related to low growth. economic inequality and low growth tended to correlate with one another. and low growth does lead to political extremism, as we have seen in the united states and increasingly throughout the rest of the world. >> thank you. and thank you for assembling a great panel. this is been a terrific day. thank you for sharing your thoughts this past sunday. very appreciative. my question is along the lines of the difference between governance and ideology. we see ideology playing out for several decades, as far as what

colbert would call truthiness. the idea where facts are now seen as subjective, not objective. and that plays so much in our political campaign process. now i see it much more read into our governance. what we have state legislatures here in texas that propose solutions to nonexistent problems. and spending huge amounts of taxpayer dollars on problems that don't exist, but exist in people's minds, or placed there through politics. again, where it is not based on fact, but based solely on opinion or identity politics. what do we do about how it creeps into the way we govern?

>> i was a republican governor, the second since reconstruction in my state. i had a democratic majority in the state house everyday. and i had a democratic majority in the senate seven years out of 8. the last thing that i wanted was a partyline vote. what did we do? we make sure the democrats understood my job was to get the job done. that we had problems that we had to deal with big problems. i never won a vote without winning democrats over. it was just mathematically impossible. we did it by dealing with the facts and focusing on solving problems. but you will be surprised. i used to tell trent lott, i would like to say he was a third-year law student and i was a freshman. i would say, trent, senators

talk about doing things, and governors do things. [laughter] that is the attitude that you have to have. brett and michael both talked about that as we went through this. learn to work together and learn to get the job done. it doesn't have to be 100% my way every time. it's not going to be my weight 100% of the time. i have an ideology, but my job is to get the job done. >> i want to defend the press, since we are here. in honor of the 100th anniversary of the pulitzer. a surprising thing for a guy that used to be the human piñata for the press. [laughter] the ability to make facts come alive, and make the truth important enough and vivid enough that people engage it regularly -- that is the hallmark of brilliant journalism.

it's not sufficient for journalists and editors to say we have to get more likes, more more tweets. we have to boost circulations,. that is never been the task of the journalist. the task has been to take the important information and make it interesting enough of that people will pay attention. we did not know enough slaughterhouses in chicago until muckrakers mucked. that is what we have to get more out of. i tell editors and folks that i meet with all the time, we understand in communications and the business of politics that you have to say things over and over again for them to penetrate. you all in the news business, we tell you once, and we've given you the news. therefore is no longer news and we don't have to report it again. these things that matter need to be on the front page day after day. with interesting angles and

different takes and new perspectives. we get some of that. i don't wnat to shortchange the kind of journalism that is out there. we need more of that if we are going to get people to focus on what is important. [applause] >> if we could thank our panel for this terrific conversation. thank you so much. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] now at there live white house. bc the brady press briefing room at the white house. you see some of the network asorters doing the reporting a way for president obama to come out. he was scheduled to come out at about 1:30 eastern time. as is often the case in these fast-moving events, the president's schedule slips low bit. he will be out shortly to make a statement on the mass shooting this morning or last night in

orlando, florida now being reported as the worst mass shooting, the largest number of dead in american history. some 50 dead in orlando. as soon as the president has concluded his remarks we will open up our phone lines and ask for your reaction to last night's events. we are told the president will be out shortly. we will watch and wait for mr. obama. >> as we wait for the president to come back out, we thought we would bring you an update from this morning's washington journal. a look at the iran nuclear deal one year later. back we want to welcome barbara slaven it was then for

the last five years of the atlantic house and the u.s. institute of peace and usa today. thank you for being with us. the iran nuclear deal almost a year old. be p5 plus 1. five permanent members of the un security council. united states, britain, france, russia, china and germany. host: a lot of questions if we can trust the running your later. what is the answer? guest: so far so good. they have carried out all their obligations under the nuclear deal. i think the problem and the confusion comes from the fact that there are other issues we disagree with the iranians about. the opponents are focused on those areas and you give about the actual nuclear aspect. host: this is from washington post.com. for the inspectors, they are pretty well stretched. who is involved in the inspection and how do we

quantify that iran is living up to its agreement? unprecedented verification and monitoring mechanisms. we have the international atomic energy agency. it is the one responsible for the monitoring. the united states contribute over $200 million a year to this organization. they have people on the ground 24/7 monitoring all of iran's declared nuclear facilities. uranium mines, centrifuge factories, the sites where uranium enrichment is still continuing. it is a lot of work. this is not your grandfather's iaea. there are a lot of mechanisms available. there are remote cameras. digital sensors that will let you know if there is radioactive material in a place for it should not be. there is like 17 facilities they have to check. we also have a lot of help now

from technology. host: this is from the director general of the international atomic energy agency and the following. it is fragile. reaching an agreement was very important for making it sustainable requires a lot of effort." they just indicated having to catch iran if they were cheating. what do the inspectors look for? guest: they look for radioactive material where it should not be. they monitor to make sure iran doesn't have more than 300 kilograms of low enriched uranium. -- that is two thirds less. 98% less than the stockpile. they had 10,000 kilograms before the deal. 300 kilograms, you can't make a bomb out of that. even if you were to enrich it to higher levels to bomb great, you won't have enough. you would still only have a quarter of what you would need. they check the levels and make sure iran never goes above this

and they don't have access heavy water. that is another suspect material. 60 centrifuges 500 spending and x numbers of these things. -- today, asobama: americans, we grieve the brutal murder, horrific massacre of dozens of innocent people. we pray for their families who are grasping for answers with token hearts. we stand with the people of orlando who haven't doored a terrible attack on their city. a terrible endured attack on their city. we know enough to say that this was an act of terror and then act of hate. as americans, we are united in grief, outrage, and in resolve

to defend our people. a meeting with the fbi director and my homeland security and national security advisers. the fbi is on the scene, leading the investigation in partnership with local law enforcement. i have directed the full resources of the federal available the made for this investigation. we are still learning all the facts. this is an open investigation. definitiveched no judgment on the precise motivations of the killer. fbi is appropriately investigating this as an act of terror and we must spared no effort to determine what inspiration or association is killer may have had with terrorist groups. is that he was a person filled with hatred. over the coming days, we will uncover how and why this happened and we will go wherever the facts lead us.

with myning, i spoke good friend, orlando mayor, redirect and i conveyed to him deepest condolences of the american people. any one ofhave in our communities. i told the mayor whatever help he and the people of orlando need, they are going to get it. country, we will be there for the people of orlando today, tomorrow, and all the days to come. we expressed our profound gratitude to all the police and first responders who rushed to harm's way. their courage and professionalism saved lives and kept the carnage from being even worse. it is the kind of sacrifice our law enforcement professionals make every single day for us and we can never thank them enough. this is especially a heartbreaking day for our fellow americans who are lesbian, gay,

bisexual or transgender. the shooter targeted a nightclub where people came together to be with friends to dance and saying . the place they were attacked is more than a nightclub. it was a place of solidarity and comeerment were people who together to raise awareness, speak their mind and advocate for their civil rights. a sobering reminder that a tax on any americans, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation is an attack on all of us and the fundamental values of equality and ignorant tea that define us as a country. no active hate or terror will ever change who we are or the values that make us americans. most deadlythe shooting in american history.

the shooter was apparently armed with a handgun and powerful assault rifle. is therefore a further reminder of how easy it is for someone to get their hands on a weapon that lets them shoot people in the school or house of worship or movie theater or in a nightclub. we have to decide if that is the kind of country we want to be. we can actively do nothing as a decision as well. days, weming hours and will learn about the victims of this tragedy, their names, their faces, who they were, the joy they brought to families and two friends and did difference that they made in this world. say prayer for them. say prayer for their families. that god will give them the strength to their the them bearable and he will give us all the strength to be there for them and the strength and courage to change.

we need to demonstrate that we are to find more as a country by the way they live their lives than by the hate of a man who took them from us. draw go together, we will inspiration from heroic and selfless acts, friend to took care of each other and save lives. faith ande of violence, we will love one another. fear andot give in to turn against each other. instead, we will stand united as americans to protect our people and defend our nation, to take action against those who threaten us. god bless the americans we loss -- we lost this morning and may god continue to watch over this country that we love. thank you. >> there you see the president making about a five and a half

minute statement on the white house. you can see the phone numbers on your screen. for your reaction to the events last now for the 50 now dead according to press reports, making it as the president said, the worst mass shooting in american history. the associated press reports the father of the man named as the shooter at the nightclub says he is in shock, like the whole country. he said he was not aware of anything his son, omar mateen, might have been planning and said his son got angry when he saw two men kissing in miami a couple of months ago and the father said he thinks that may be related to the shooting. from orlando -- the associated press saying many awaiting word on whether their loved ones are among the 50 people killed and 53 hospitalized. one woman standing in front of a will and a hospital said she has not heard from her son who was

at the club and she fears the worst. she's at her sons friend made it out alive by hiding in the bathroom and running out as bullets were flying. you see the numbers on your screen. we are looking for your reaction and your thoughts on this day. we will start in los angeles with martin. caller: thank you for accepting my call. this is coming from a heterosexual person. i think it is deeply sad that this happened, but my initial reaction to president obama's speech was you should clearly see the frustration not in just the gun violence but against this americans on american killing, and you see it in his facial expression that it must be very difficult to weigh on him. that is my initial reaction, noticing it was a very short

speech compared to the newtown shootings, that we don't have the full information, i'm surprised at how short it was , he seemed ay little frustrated. host: think very much. we move now to the bright and clear more, oklahoma. welcome to c-span. what do you think? isler: i think that this another showing that we as americans need to continue to practice our second right amendment of being fully armed. if there would have been people in their that would have been armed, maybe as many lives would not have been lost. another thing i'm deeply concerned about is the presidents continue at sea of ignoring our open borders. we have hundreds or thousands of

these people coming in every day. it doesn't matter how many that's here. if they think by disarming -- host: you are aware the shooter has been named as an american citizen who was living in florida, right? yes, i do realize that but the thing of it is is he has ties to isis, evidently because that was his words before he started shooting everybody. call.thank you for your we moved to dover, florida. your reaction to the president's remarks in the events in florida? caller: i would say get rid of the guns. are -- you cannot get the guns -- this is what a canadian did.

out, $200giving money per gun. have guns today. if you have a criminal record, you are not going to get one. we have to do this. i cannot believe what is happening in america. this is 2000. get rid of the guns. reapply to them and get the gun back. if your name is good to me or credit is good and you are a good citizen, so be it. you have to have one for your section. now withgo to tampa laura. your reaction to the events in orlando and the president's remarks? caller: i think they need to get rid of the guns and take the peopleay from all these that don't supposed to have

them. that's where it longs. around andtred all that's the way i feel about it. very much. you let's look at some statements being released. senator harry reid saying this active hate occurred during lgbt pride month and makes it all the more horrific. hatred of a terror and bigotry have no place in our country and we will not allow our nation to be ruled by fear. as we thanknnell's the citizens and first responders who helped save lives amid horror and chaos. monitorcontinue to developments to determine the exact nature of this crime. representative nancy pelosi saying our hearts ache for those killed in this senseless attack and we pray for the swift recovery of all who were wounded.

we will not allow hate and terror to succeed in blinding us with fear. to your calls now. we will pick up in new york with david. all i have to say about this is there's a real good chance that why this shooting took place is because of obama trying to make everybody decide that a girls bathroom can be a boy's bathroom or a boy's bathroom can be a girls bathroom or a locker room. tot: i think we will move on ronald and mckinley ville california. caller: in eureka. hello. that with the oj to the o.j. to go case and john f. kennedy assassination. what we are hearing is the police story, the authorities version of this event.

as usual, the alledge and suspect is not there, there's no presented, so i want to say when i heard last night on live tv, man saying there's two shooters and now all of a sudden there's one shooter and we see even the black lives matter movement where you can't leave everything the police say and in the bigger picture, the john f. kennedy assassination and o.j. trial, there are federal authorities that set up allgs and frame people for of these different reasons. divide and conquer -- we have everyone scattered and scared -- i urge people and reporters to look into how many shooters there were and don't believe the authorities version and see who benefits from this. we are going to move on.

thank you for your call. your reaction to the president's remarks or other remarks rum leaders here in washington and the event itself? presidentthink the did a terrific job in addressing speaking to usd knowpeople and to let us we are standing with them for the loss of their loved ones. but what took place, i think it was a real tragedy of a young man taking matters in his own hands because he was angry with what he saw. there's a lot of things that we see but we don't take action in our hands or go to try to take someone else's life. it is not good to take something we cannot return. you for your call.

but we are going to do now is show you president obama's remarks from just about 10 minutes or so ago and then once again, once we hear the president, we will open the phone lines backup. here is president obama just a few minutes ago at the white house. president obama: today, as americans, we grieve the brutal murder, the horrific massacre of dozens of innocent people. we pray for the families who are grasping for answers with broken hearts. we stand with the people of orlando who haven't toured a terrible attack on their city. who have endured a terrible attack on their city. we have to say this is an act of terror and an active hate and as americans, we are united in

grief, in outrage, and in resolve to defend our people. a meeting with fbi director komi and my homeland security advisers. the fbi is on the scene, leading investigation in partnership with local law enforcement. i have directed the full resources of the federal government be made available for this investigation. we are still learning all the fact. this is an open investigation. we have reached no definitive judgment on the precise motivations of the killer. appropriately investigating this as an act of terrorism and we must spare no effort to determine what if any inspiration or association this killer may have had with terrorist groups. what is clear is that he was a person filled with hatred. over the coming days, we will uncover why and how this happened and we will go wherever

the facts lead us. mikemorning, i spoke with good friend come orlando mayor buddy dyer and conveyed to him the deepest condolences of the american people. this could have been anyone of our communities. i told the mayor whatever help he and the people of orlando need, they are going to get it. as a country, we will be there for the people of orlando today, tomorrow, and for all the days to come. express our profound gratitude to all the police and first responders who rushed into harms way. their courage and professionalism save lives and from being even worse. it's the kind of sacrifice our law enforcement professionals make every single day and we can never thank them enough. this is an especially day foraking days --

our friends who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. the shooter targeted a nightclub where people came together to be with friends, to dance and to sing, and to live. the place where they were attacked is more than a nightclub. it was a place of solidarity where people come together to raise awareness, to speak their minds, and advocate for their civil rights. this is a sobering reminder that attacks on any americans regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation onan attack on all of us and the fundamental values of equality and dignity that define us as a country. no act of hate or terror will ever change who we are or the values that make us americans. today marks the most deadly shooting in american history.

the shooter was apparently armed with a handgun and a powerful assault rifle. this massacre is therefore a further reminder of how easy it is for someone to get their hands on a weapon that lets them shoot people in a school, or in a house of worship, or a movie theater, or any nightclub. we have to decide if that is the kind of country we want to be. to actively do nothing is a decision as well. in the coming hours and days, we will learn about the them's of this tragedy, their names, their faces, who they were, the joy that they brought to families and friends, and the difference they made in this world. say a prayer for them. say a prayer for their families. let god give them the strength to bear the them bearable and that he can give us all the strength to be there for them and the strength and courage to

change. we are to demonstrate defined more as a country by the way they live their lives than by the hate of the man who took them from us. draw go together, we will inspiration from heroic and selfless acts. friends who took care of each other and saved lives. in the face of violence, we will love one another. we will not give in to fear or turn against each other. instead, we will stand united as americans to protect our people and defend our nation and take action against those who threaten us. may god bless the americans we lost this morning. may it of them for their families and may god continue to watch over this country we love. thank you.

host: there you saw president obama just about 25 minutes ago or so at the white house making his statement on the mass shooting in florida. for those listing on c-span radio, if you would like to give us your reaction, here are the numbers. we are looking for your reaction to the events and to the president or mark. we will go to ohio with hayden on c-span. been on twitter looking at the effects of this and i have been seeing leftists and rightists pushing their agenda and it's just not the time.

i see anti-gun agendas and anti-transgender and lgbt agendas. it's just not cool. i don't find it ok that people are asked avoiding this opportunity. even president obama mentioned gun control and i just don't find that ok. i found all of this agenda pushing -- not to say not many people are not morning, but i just find it awful that people would take advantage of this. call.thank you for your you did mention facebook and twitter and you can see they are on your screen if you would like to offer your opinion and read what others have to say. to move over to louisiana -- i'm sorry, seattle,

washington with anita. is that right? welcome to c-span. sad at what'sry going on. i have a lesbian sister and i know this is tearing her apart. our agenda as far as this can control is bad. i know in american has a right to protection but when it comes to you having a gun and going into a place and killing a person because of their race, color, creed or origin or what ever it may be, it is totally wrong. guns don't kill, people kill we've and it's sad that all so far as a nation and people can think of our agendas and gun control, not about the people that were killed, their

families, the person that did so sickening and if he didn't want to be american, he should not have. what they have done in his country -- what would they have done to him if he had killed 50 flat out people for no reason? it makes no sense. children dying, people dying because of race, people dying because of their sexual gender, what has this country come to? on bound our president's hand and let him do and these thisists trying to get money for these guns and all of this craft where the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor, this all needs to stop. thank you so very much for

joining us today. statement from pope francis at the vatican expressing the deepest feelings of horror and condemnation over a massacre at a florida nightclub that killed at least 50 people. democratic presidential candidate bernie sanders of a guest on "meet the press" this morning and offered his comment on the mass shooting. here is what he had to say. into politicalt questions, what is unfolding in orlando is on top of mind for many viewers. we don't know the motivation. we just know there's a lot of dead and injured people. gun related, terrorism related, it is a massive shooting. what is your opinion? mr. sanders: it is horrific and unthinkable and our thoughts go

out to all of those who were shot that they can recover. and i have to tell you that 25 years ago, i believe in this country we should not be selling automatic weapons which are designed to kill people. we have to do everything we can to make sure guns don't fall into the hands of people who should not have them, criminals, people who are mentally ill, so that circle continues. >> do you think we can ever have a conversation where we have the terrorism conversation in the gun conversation where everybody can sit down and have this without trying to let a size one of events over the other? do.sanders: i i think there's a very broad consensus in this country, not 100 percent of the people. they have to understand we have to do everything we can to protect guns from falling into the hands of people who should not have them.

that means expanding the background checks and doing away with the gun show loopholes, i think there's a wide consensus to move forward. host: hillary clinton tweeting this morning that she woke up to hear the devastating news from florida. as we wait for more information, my thoughts are with those affected by this act. tweeted horrific incident in florida. praying for all the victims and their families. when will this stop? when will we get tough, smart and vigilant. let's pick up in louisiana with isabel. you are on c-span. caller: my prayers are for the deceased and i just want to say the government, they are doing isis is a bigut agenda and as citizens, we need to step up and get involved to

help our government. whether it is to pick -- two pitch in our help in anyway possible or help the government because the way i look at it is they are trying but it is still happening. the government is doing everything they can but our lives are still in danger. as citizens, we need to get involved and help our government. now we go to market in newport, minnesota. you are on c-span. caller: thank you very much. another sad day in america's history. my thoughts are definitely with the victims, with the families, definitely with the law enforcement agencies and the people who have to go in there

and clean up another mess. americans when we are going to wake up, pull our heads out of our rent and say enough is enough? we can talk about how we can do this or do that, but we are soft and it appears to me that these types of things, you cannot stop them all, but let's stop some of them. stop the anger these people feel that they have go out and do this kind of stuff, it's just beyond a human being's reality. host: we are going to try to squeeze in a couple of more calls. billy from alabama, is that right? caller: thank you, sir. i just want to call and say don't let one apples spoil the

whole bunch. we have to work together. we are all americans, black, white, gay, straight -- we are all americans and we have to stick together. everyone has to go back to doing unto others as you would have done unto you. host: sherry from dripping springs texas. interesting name of your town there. caller: thank you. i wanted to say my thoughts are survivorsictims and and families and is helping with the aftermath, i want to affirm my solidarity with the gay, lesbian and transgender community and want to make a about a writer that you had to confirm that i feel as she does that liberalism is a better idea for human beings and finally that i

agree wholeheartedly with bernie sanders that -- and president obama, that i don't see a reason for individuals to have access to automatic weapons and i'm to live in fear and not respond out of fear. going to go to celia from roxborough and you have the last word this time around. go ahead. caller: first of all, i would like to thank our chief and commander, president obama, for taking the time to attempt to console each of us and each of us are going through something today after having heard of this tragedy. second of all, each of us deserve, every human being living deserves to be happy regardless of their choices in life and