book "andrew jackson and the miracle of new orleans, the battle that shaped america's destiny." watch the 18th annual national book festival live on c-span2's book tv saturday at 10:00 a.m. eastern. susan: "newsmakers" welcomes this week neera tanden, president and ceo of the center for american progress. she has been in that position since 2011. c-span viewers are familiar with the center for american progress, which is a progressive think tank based in washington, d.c. let me introduce you to our reporters. darlene superville, her first visit to "newsmakers," glad to have you, covers the white house for the associated press. jerry seib, executive editor for the "wall street journal." we will jump right into it. somene, you are up with questions. darlene: hi, neera. i wanted to start with the big

news of the week. how should democrats respond to paul manafort, his conviction on financial crimes? paul manafort was president trump's former campaign chairman. also, the guilty pleas by michael cohen, president trump's longtime personal attorney. how do you think should democrats should respond to those developments? neera: there are two issues at play. -- one is iink think both cases feed the idea of a culture of corruption in washington. democrats have been talking about the challenge of corruption. we have these two instances, and with the news around duncan hunter and a few weeks ago, chris collins, members of the house of representatives, who were indicted for basically self-dealing as part of being members of congress. i think that is a full picture of the swamp that is invading washington. the public rightly feels that people are helping themselves,

and not serving the public. i also think this is connected pretty strongly to the russia investigation at large. that is a situation in which news seems to be accelerating and getting closer and closer to the president. that issue, i think, candidates , people should really talk about what is happening in washington. i think the russia investigation is an important one. it is about what happened with our democracy. so i think it is vital. the mueller investigation seems to be picking up speed as well. jerry: neera, in the broader public conversation, the developments, the manafort and cohen developments have brought forth talks of impeachment. would there be an impeachment of president trump? could there be one at the end of this investigative road? is it useful for democrats to talk about impeachment? is it honest for them to not talk about impeachment? how should democrats approach the impeachment question?

neera: i think the issue is -- what are the facts? it is possible the president himself is talking about impeachment and the impact on the markets. my view of this is the impeachment process is one that starts with an investigation. what we learned this week is that the house and senate are incapable of holding the president accountable in republican hands. and i think absolutely, , democrats if they take the house back, the senate back, if they take every chamber, they should start an investigation. the impeachment process is the end really of that. the investigation is what starts that process. i think the american people are wondering why no one in washington, neither house of congress is willing to look at the facts that we have in front of us. jerry: as a political matter, it does seem that impeachment is a topic that would generate more enthusiasm among base republican voters who want to stop it than

thisratic base voters at neera: so far this week, it does point. seem like republicans are talking about impeachment more. steve bannon has a whole strategy of making this around impeachment, but my view is the heart of this issue is accountability. and having -- our founders assumed that congress would hold the president accountable. when the republicans have both houses, that has not happened. and i think the whole process starts with accountability. darlene: what issues do you think democrats should be running on as we get closer to the midterm election? you mentioned the culture of corruption a moment ago. there is impeachment swirling in the air. what should they be talking about if not impeachment? neera: republicans in the house and senate have taken a number of votes. and i think those issues, the votes that have been taken,

particularly on health care and taxes, are critical in places all around the country, from red states to blue states. my view is the fact that the republicans passed a tax bill that has actually ended up raising premiums by weakening the individual mandate. premiums have gone up. the ways in which washington has worked to hurt and not help people should be front and center in the congressional debate. that means talking about repeal the aca. that means i also think talking about the tax plan, which is not producing wage gains for people struggling in this country. i also think that the culture of corruption is a critical issue. i think all three of those issues are ones that candidates are campaigning on. both in swing districts, base democratic districts, as well as red states. jerry: let me take you deeper on the health care issue. our polling shows it is the number one issue for democratic voters. it raises the question on what

democrats should stand for on health in 2018. should there be a consensus democratic position? is there a consensus democratic position behind a medicare for all, single-payer plan as an ultimate solution, or should they be talking about restoring and fixing obamacare? neera: i think in 2018 and 2020, most candidates believe health care should be a right. i think how you get there, there is a wide variety of views. so obviously conor lamb and , danny o'connor, who campaigned in special elections, are talking about expanding the aca and building on it. a lot of candidates have supported a version of medicare for all. i guess you could say it is medicare extra. the center for american progress has put forward a plan. medicare extra basically ensures everyone outside of a payer-based system can have medicare as an absolute right.

people can keep their employer-based system. obviously, a lot of democrats support medicare for all. i personally think in 2020, we will have a robust debate, the democratic candidates for president will have a robust debate about which version of universal health care, or which plan to get to universal health care is the right step. i think that will be a healthy debate. i don't think one side will win over the other immediately. but i think in the 2018 debate, the 2018 races, in the house you have a lot of challengers running against republican incumbents who voted to strip health care from 23 million people. i think that should be a front and center issue. also, they voted for a tax plan that actually worked out to increase premiums. both of those issues are health care issues candidates should campaign on. darlene: before we get to that how many seats do you think , democrats will win in the house and senate in november? [laughter] neera: i'm never going to be optimistic about a campaign again. [laughter]

neera: i am not going to believe the polls again. definitely learned that lesson. i would say what has been interesting about the special election so far is that democratic enthusiasm has been very high. usually in midterms, democrats are voting at higher level than republicans. often anywhere between eight points and 15 points. if that carries through, democrats could win 30 seats to 40 seats. it is a very gerrymandered system, so in 2010, republicans won 60 seats with a wave election. i don't think democrats could win that many. but i think the energy and enthusiasm is pretty intense. i will just say over the last year and half of the trump presidency, i have never in my career in washington seen this much level of political engagement and enthusiasm. the marches, the energy, and now

that is really translating into voting. people are voting at higher levels. districts that are really republican districts are ones in which you have democrats voting at parity or at higher rates than republicans. jerry: you have a strange situation in the sense that on the one hand, the president's job approval is relatively low, by historical standards, but the economy is performing extraordinarily well. which should be good news for republicans. you have unemployment down, workforce participation up, worker productivity increasing. that is a good economic message for republicans. what is the democratic counter on checkbook issues, which tend to, at the end of the day, when you get to november, tend to rise to the top of the agenda? neera: first of all it is , striking how low donald trump's approval record is right now given the economy, which i think says a lot about him.

i worked for bill clinton during the impeachment process, and his job approval was much higher at that point than donald trump's. i think what is ironic about the situation we are in, particularly with the economy, is that a lot of these factors were pretty good two years ago when donald trump was campaigning. he made an argument, which was that wages and incomes had been struggling. i used to think he had a pretty good point there, which is that broad economic numbers have been positive, and have been positive for a long time, hide or mask a particular situation, which is that wages, particularly for people that haven't gone to college, have been struggling for a long time. we have a very unusual situation where wages remain stagnant, perhaps fallen behind a little

bit, in the last year and a half as we are approaching 3.9% unemployment. there is something really different and new about that. as you said, productivity is rising, and we are seeing stagnant wages. i personally think this will be the central issue for 2020. which is, how do -- i don't think this is just an issue in the united states. i think this is broiling politics in europe as well, and throughout the world. how do you get wages rising, particularly for people who don't have a college degree, which still remains 63% of americans, in an economy being led by factors in globalization but technology as well? i think this is not going to be as much of an issue for 2018. donald trump, what is happening in 2018 will be central but the , next democratic nominee has to actually have an answer on those questions. darlene: i want to go back to the house for a minute. there has been talk about nancy pelosi and the leadership

structure on the house democratic side. if democrats were to retake the house in november, do you think it is time for nancy pelosi, steny hoyer, and jim clyburn, for those leaders to step aside and allow for new leadership to rise through the ranks? where are you on that? neera: two things here. one, there has been a strategy around nancy pelosi. demonizing her and using her as a campaign wedge, trying to, i think, basically reinvigorate tribalism amongst republicans by attacking her in the midterms, and i think one of the reasons people go after nancy pelosi is she has been an effective leader for democrats and has been an effective speaker. at the same time, it is important for us to have new avenues and paths for a new generation of leaders in the house and senate.

i don't think that means pushing aside nancy pelosi or leaders, but i do think it is important in these elections in 2018 -- what i think is incredible is how many fantastic candidates are really running. people who are iraq war veterans, people who are former prosecutors, people from outside the political process. we have more women running than ever before. i think you can have an almost 1974 level of change with a new generation of leaders, and there should be a path for them. but i don't think that means we should actually basically fall for a republican strategy of demonizing nancy pelosi. i say that as a person who worked for hillary clinton for a long time, and republicans are pretty good at going after and demonizing strong women. i would say that has been a strategy, and i don't think democrats should fall for that strategy. but they should allow some pathways for this new generation of leaders. susan: 10 minutes left. jerry: i want to take you back to a subset of the economic

conversation we were having a minute ago, which is trade. skepticism about free trade was prevalent in the republican party before donald trump arrived. he took skepticism to a new level and took democratic voters in the process. the question is where should , democrats be on free trade in 2018, because there is a moderate element of the democratic party that has been, and remains, in favor of the free trade agreement. but there is a certain amount of skepticism in your party as well. what is the consensus position, if any, on trade? neera: it is the democratic party, so asking for a consensus position on anything is a lot these days. i think you are going to have to forgive me for having a nuanced conversation on this for one minute. jerry: it is c-span. that is allowed. [laughter] neera: look, i think there has

been a real challenge on what globalization has done to wages in the united states. that is not necessarily a product of individual trade agreements. in fact, the most pressure on wages has come from china. the united states does not have a bilateral trade deal with china. having said that, i do think that many things can be true. first, china does not play by the rules. right? it is a mercantilist economy. it has a variety of ways, currency is one option , enterprise is another option using the power of the state to achieve economic ends. it is not playing in the same way the united states is. there is an essential unfairness there. i think in some ways, donald trump is right about that. now, is a trade war the best

mechanism to accomplish a better result from china? i don't think so, myself. i think tariffs and a tariff war tends to basically hurt both sides. it may well hurt china, but it will also produce american -- it will also hurt american producers. i think there should be a broader strategy about uniting more partners to address what china is doing. i think that a criticism that previous administrations have not done enough about china and how they are operating on the global stage is completely fair. when we look at trade deals going forward, we do have to think about how it works for american business and american workers. but that doesn't mean ripping up our trade relationships with europe makes a lot of sense, or having a trade war makes a lot of sense. there is a nugget here, which is that there is a middle path.

i think there will be a rich debate about this in 2020. i think a lot of people look at what trump is actually doing, and saying "that doesn't make a lot of sense." because he is actually, in the end, going to punish a of american workers and consumers in the way he is going about this. there has to be a smarter way to take on the real issue, which is that china doesn't work fairly. we put up with that for a long time. darlene: judge brett kavanaugh's nomination to the supreme court, is that a done deal? neera: i don't think so. let me say this. darlene: why? let me say this -- ialt worked on health care. right after trump's election, i was part of a lot of meetings where people just assumed the aca was doomed, because republicans held both houses of congress, this was a major promise for them and a number one agenda item. but i think people engaged in

that process, and it was an important process, and we're still early. we haven't gone through the hearings. my worry about the kavanaugh nomination is it will be kabuki theater. the norms in washington will just accept the kabuki theater. people have platitudes about respecting precedent. those are the same platitudes that then judge robert announced in his confirmation hearing. and then as a supreme court justice ignored the same precedents he said he would support. i think democrats, in the process, have to try to ensure judge kavanaugh doesn't get away with that kind of kabuki theater. i would say, just returning to the first question, this is an extraordinary moment for the country in which the president

of the united states essentially was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in that michael cohen pleading. he is at least implicated for illegal actions or illegal activities. he has nominated a potential supreme court justice, who is out of the mainstream, particularly in his views on presidential authority and whether a president, for example, could be subpoenaed. i think this is an extraordinary moment. i hope that the country rises up, particularly in the hearings. there has been more activity among progressive groups, particularly in the last couple of days. we have seen democratic senators say "hold on. this is outrageous and out of the norm. in some ways anti-democratic, so we are going to take the step of canceling meetings with judge kavanaugh." they do not have a lot of rules

on their side on this, they don't have a lot of procedure they can use, but i do think judge kavanaugh is an extraordinarily unpopular nominee. i think democrats, this is the moment where people are going to remember where they stood on these kind of constitutional questions. jerry: you don't have to be too old to remember the days when supreme court nominees were confirmed with 90 plus votes in the senate. are we beyond that? is that never going to happen again in this country? because it seems to be the ultimate polarizing topic. the supreme court nomination. neera: i think this is a great issue, and we should get to 90 votes. but i think what is odd about where we are is judge kavanaugh is not a moderate nominee. if he had been a moderate nominee, then i think it would have been important for democrats to support him.

but he is a nominee who is not only supported by the federalists, but on case after case has basically taken almost the furthest right position. we are getting a polarizing debate, not because of the partisans on each side, but because of the nominee himself. the president of the united states did not have a big electoral mandate. he had several people to choose from. he chose someone who is pretty extreme in his views. or at least to the far right. i will say in the last year of his term, barack obama named merrick garland, who had the support. did every liberal love merrick garland? no. but he was a person who had ruled sort of in ways that were unpredictable in some cases. if we were in a different situation, had a moderate nominee, you wouldn't see the

intensity of opposition to judge kavanaugh. darlene: i wanted to ask you about news today. there is some news out that senator mccain and his family have decided to discontinue treatments for brain cancer. is there anything you would like to say to his family or senator mccain? neera: obviously, senator mccain is an extraordinary american and is really a role model. i didn't always agree with him on every issue, but i think to the point it was politics again, where you can disagree with people and still respect and admire of them, he is obviously an example of that. i wish his family very well in this situation. really, the whole country should, and most of the country does, mourn the possibility of losing such a great american. susan: we have about a minute and a half left. on your listed issues on the

campaign, you did not really mention immigration. it was not very many weeks ago where that was all we talked about in this country and the separation policy. how important will immigration for voters goin this fall? the second question is -- is dismantling i.c.e. an effective campaign position for democratic candidates? neera: my view is we should reform i.c.e. we have had a mechanism of enforcing immigration laws for decade, after decade, after decade. so that is an important function of government. i.c.e. is a little out of control itself, so it should be reformed. on the question of immigration, let's just be blunt. conservatives in campaign after campaign are running what i consider basically racist ads, attacking latinos and gang members in places we have seen no gang activity at all.

i do think republicans will use immigration as an attack line against democrats. i think there are ways to state the democratic position, which is to have comprehensive immigration reform, which mean s strong borders and a path to citizenship. that is ironically enough very popular with the american people. it is important to fix this going forward. the family separation policy is a vital one. i personally think what we will see on immigration is the effort to divide more americans. susan: we have one minute left for questions. jerry: i will circle back to the midterm elections. what is the key voting bloc? just as a pure political matter this fall, who matters the most? neera: what is fascinating is how white, noncollege women go back and forth. the resistance itself is led by white college-educated women. or i should say college-educated

women, white, black, latino. in doug jones' race, african-american women were the wall there. in connor lamb's race, white college-educated women are shifting dramatically to the democratic party and are active, knocking door-to-door. i think that will be a central question. i think where white noncollege women go in the election will be a really important question for 2018 and 2020. jerry: it really is the year of the woman. again. neera: absolutely! [laughter] neera: it happens every two or three decades, so it is not that often. [laughter] that is it for our time. thank you for being a guest on "newsmakers." neera: thank you so much for having me. susan: "newsmakers" is back after our conversation with neera tanden. our two reporters, jerry seib and darlene superville. darlene, before we get into a discussion of the elections, you

spent a lot of time at the white house. what is that mood after the week we had just gone through? darlene: the mood is a little bit subdued. although it was an extraordinary week, there have been a lot of weeks like this at the white house. the president is obviously frustrated. there is a feeling that the walls are kind of closing in with associates left and right seemingly turning on him and being willing to talk to the feds about what they know. but it is kind of a subdued mood. we had one breaking this week with sarah sanders that was a little bit contentious, but that was it. susan: the president on friday is heading to ohio to get involved in the election. let's move to the elections. the optimism level among democrats at this point -- how would you read? jerry: what was interesting in the conversation with neera tanden was that they are trying to contain their optimism. on the one hand, they had been there before in 2016 with hillary clinton, and they are

spooked by that. on the other hand, it is a weird climate. no one is really sure. you look at the traditional indicators. the president's job approval is down, democratic enthusiasm is way up. for a midterm, that is always bad for a president's party. all say it should be a good year for democrats, and they should take back control of the house. the senate is hard to call. but it is a weird time. there is nothing normal about the political environment. i think democrats look at this and say "this is our time, and we shouldn't mess it up." but they are worried there are x-factors. what if republican enthusiasm rises as you get closer to november? what if democratic enthusiasm falls? there are so many unknowns. i think democrats are optimistic, but trying to contain the optimism. susan: we heard the culture of corruption phrase. which nancy pelosi has turned

into a hashtag. are they going to be run as a national campaign, or are they saying to the candidates "address issues in your own districts"? darlene: i think it is a little of both. in the districts where chris collins or duncan hunter is, you could make it specific to that district and member of congress. on the broader level, you can make it a national issue, because of all of the things going on with the white house, the president, his former lawyer, his former campaign chairman, the charges they pled to or were convicted of this past week. i think it can kind of run on two tracks. it can be localized, but it can also be nationalized. leadership is from the top down. so there can be a trickle-down culture of corruption argument. if you will. susan: let's talk about nancy pelosi and the attacks against her politically by the republicans. normally, that makes someone's star rise among partisans.

but at the same time, we are seeing some restiveness among democrats. what are her chances of retaining leadership? jerry: look, i think first of all the demonization of nancy pelosi that we will see in 2018 has only begun. remember, we are just getting out of the primary season. we are just heading into the general election season. the republicans clearly think demonizing nancy pelosi, putting her alongside every democratic candidate is a winning strategy for them. they think it has worked to help them in special elections and some primaries already. you will see more of it. i do think there are democrats who are uneasy, not just with nancy pelosi alone, but with kind of the generational cast of leaders at the top of the house, the democratic caucus, that perhaps have been there for too long in the eyes of some democrats. you heard neera tanden talk about the need to create a path for younger leaders to emerge in the democratic party. that is true. as they discuss this internally

they are also concerned about , the way that pelosi-led leadership projects to the general electorate. having said that, nothing will change. the fact that nancy pelosi will likely be the speaker of the win won'temocrats change between now and november. i see no scenario in which that happens. susan: past week in august in past years has been a pretty quiet week. what are you looking at as the week progresses into labor day? darlene: the president has another rally next week. the president of kenya is coming to the white house on monday. of course, we just have to look for more fallout from the russia investigation that is being led by robert mueller, the special counsel. also, more developments in terms of associates of the president deciding to flip and tell what they know about what went on during the campaign or even before the campaign. jerry: i would just add one thing is flowing below the radar screen amidst all this scandal talk. north korean diplomacy is about

to go back up. you have mike pompeo, the secretary of state, has picked a special envoy to north korea. they will travel to north korea together and also visit south korea. there will also be a meeting between the north korean and south korean leaders themselves. you are about to have a new burst of diplomacy. on north korea. susan: plus, there is some news this morning that mexico might be nearing some agreements about reforming nafta. this goes to your column last week, which is that the administration steps on some of its own good news. thanks to both of you. please come back. glad to have you here. darlene: thank you. thanks for having us. jerry: thanks. [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. 2018] infor u.s. senate gaveling today at 4:00 p.m. eastern time, resuming debate on the nomination of lyndon johnson to be assistant health and human services secretary.

scheduled for 5:30 p.m. eastern time. florida on the victory to senator john mccain. the senate back in session at p.m. senator mccain died on saturday at his home in sedona, arizona. on wednesday, he will lie in state at the arizona state capitol in phoenix. thursday, a funeral for senator mccain in arizona. on friday, he will lie in state at the u.s. capitol, where he served since 1983. saturday, a funeral at washington national cathedral. sunday, senator mccain will be buried at the u.s. naval academy cemetery in annapolis, maryland. c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979 c-span was created, as it over