columnist james grant. >> i make my living about -- by writing about markets. it's much too expensive for some of the people out there. not think the trouble lies so much with wall street. wall street is what it is. wall street -- what we ought to be more on our guard about are the institutions in the federal denied in that are their intentions. the federal reserve, or the treasury. the securities and exchange commission. these institutions are set up as benefactors to the public. i think increasingly come they are not so. >> author and columnist james

grant, on c-span's q&a. host: joining us, robert costa, a national political reporter for the washington post and a moderator for pbs's washington week. thank you for joining us. your story sets the stage. tell us where we are at and what is new right now. guest: over the weekend, there were talks at the white house led by vice president mike pence, but he was the main principle involved. other people involved included administration officials, secretary kirstjen nielsen, and congressional aides, both republicans and aides to house speaker nancy pelosi. they did not make much progress over the weekend. where we stand on monday morning, i spoke to vice president pence on sunday night. the administration continues to maintain that they want $5.7 billion for a border wall across

the u.s.-mexico border and they are talking about a steel barrier versus concrete. is that a concession? it depends on who you ask. that is their position at the moment. they have detailed immigration funding requests across the federal government for humanitarian needs, beds at the department of homeland security to deal with migrants. they have detailed all of these different things. the administration has laid out its position, but it's position has not necessarily changed over the weekend as these negotiations have unfolded. democrats continue to say they are open to these discussions about broader immigration policy across the federal government, but they do not want to have those kind of negotiations until the government is reopened. the administration does not want to reopen the government until they get a border wall. where are we really heading based on my reporting? we are heading toward the president continuing to threaten to declare a national emergency. people inside the

administration, some of my top sources, say they believe that is where this could head this week, with the president use that kind of declaration to force a reckoning on the issue. the political fallout could be dramatic or not. that is where we are. host: who do you think is advising him on getting to this national emergency position? guest: there are hardliners like stephen miller, one of the top domestic policy advisers, but the president listens not only to his advisers in the administration. there are people on the outside, and conservative media, who he is listening to. he is hearing this clamor on the right. is maybe you have to declare a national emergency. if you look at talk radio, cable hosts are rallying around this position. why are they doing this? they feel at this moment a divided government. the president is somewhat boxed

in. how does he move off of his border wall demand without appearing to his base like he is caving? at the same time, he needs to get the government reopened if he wants to have a functioning administration at some level. there is a belief that declaring a national emergency brings that administration's view to the fore in the public debate. you hear it from some of the callers, some people are identifying with this national emergency idea. democrats have skepticism about the way the administration is portraying this. last week, speaker pelosi was certainly skeptical the way the administration was framing this debate. they believed they were using the migrant influx at the border as a way to get what they want on the wall and not addressing it in a bipartisan way. host: robert costa with us until 9:00 and to take your questions on the current situation on the shutdown. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002.

you can also send thoughts at our twitter feed. the shift from a concrete wall to steel, you highlighted that. what was the thought process behind making that change? guest: it is a way for the administration to try to act like they are making a concession. the president long promised on the campaign trail a concrete wall. a wall is a wall. this debate has been stuck in semantics for some time. democrats know and republicans know there has been certain kinds of barriers alongside the border for a long time. not a massive wall, but there have been barriers. there has been funding for barriers. the administration has made the idea of a wall such a signature promise for this president that they are trying to fulfill that promise. at the same time, they know democrats do not want a wall. speaker pelosi has called it immorality to have a wall at the border. you are seeing the president

trying to navigate these different dynamics. he knows he is an divided government, but he believes he cannot let his base be disappointed. at this point, democrats believe they have leverage. they are newly in power and they are saying to the president, this is not just about the wall. this is about defining the whole year. both sides feel if they break right now, it will define the year for them, that they were the ones who blinked first. host: if i am a congressional republican, how tight am i hanging onto this with the president? guest: that is the question. i spoke to peter kane. , the new york moderate republican, from long island this weekend. president trump called him. if trump is calling peter kane, that is revealing, he is trying to keep moderate republicans from breaking. you have susan collins in the senate, cory gardner up for reelection. they are calling for the government to be open.

republicans calling for the government to be reopened. we saw and a vote last week in the house, moderate republicans like one from the suburbs of philadelphia and peter kane of new york and other moderates voted to reopen the government. the challenge is not just convincing the country and democrats it is a national emergency, the challenge is convincing republicans to hold with the president. as speaker pelosi brings up bill after bill to reopen the government, those republicans in swing districts are under pressure to maybe vote to reopen the government. senate majority leader mitch mcconnell is going to try to protect his members. not bringing up nancy pelosi's bills from the house so there is not some kind of vote after vote in the senate. house republicans, if they start breaking away and say it is time to reopen the government, that will weaken the administration's hand. host: do think there is a connection between that sentiment and what the president

is expressing as far as using a national emergency? guest: the administration, when you talk to top people, they know the window is small. maybe a national emergency is a way to force the issue in a drastic way right now. the longer this drags on and speaker pelosi just keeps passing bill after bill, they are aware republicans are going to say enough. if food stamps are affected, if more people continue to be hurt because different parks are closed, if you have the housing and urban development part not -- department not functioning in a proper way, if you have tax refunds for some reason, once you involve people's food, money, taxes, political pressure could increase. that is what we will have to watch. where do republicans go this week? if republicans come on tv and start using the same language president trump is using, which this is a national emergency, we know the republicans have

political capital, president trump is in a decent position negotiating-wise. it is for others to decide what it all means. negotiating-wise, democrats are watching every moderate republican closely. the minute the crack gets wider, the democrats are going to say we are never going to budge. host: our first call, spokane washington, laura, republican line. laura, you are on. go ahead. caller: good morning. it is good to see a reporter there. i would like to know what it is you would define as an emergency. i would like to know why it is that pelosi and the rest of them seem to think they can take our president and our country hostage over their fetishes. it is the taxpayers' money, not hers. this is a national emergency. the president has a far better knowledge and wisdom than anybody in the democratic party. i would like to know what your

definition of an emergency is if we have thousands of people flooding our border, people dying and everything else, and you people don't want to do anything to stop it. guest: my definition of an emergency doesn't matter. i am a reporter. what matters is how you see it as an american citizen. it is also a matter of how the country sees it more broadly. that is the debate. speaking to the vice president on sunday, he kept coming back in our conversation on how he sees the migrant situation at the border, as a crisis, because of people coming up from central america, because of the way he believes the department of homeland security and the border patrol is underfunded. and now working at the highest level possible at the border. he defines it as a crisis. that is his definition. democrats do see, when they have engaged with the department

of homeland security, crisis-like moments at the border because of what is happening with people coming up from central america. the debate here, and what matters, is that many democratic leaders see the same issues republican leaders are already at the border. top democrats believe republicans are using it as a partisan cudgel to get sweeping conservative immigration policy enacted, whether part of a shutdown deal or a broader immigration deal. both parties can see the facts of the number of migrants coming up, the number of people coming across the border. those facts exist. both parties acknowledge that. the solution is what is being debated. that word crisis -- how do we define crisis? that is what the administration is trying to say. if they cannot get the democrats convinced it is a crisis, you

may see the president declare a national emergency. the political risk for the president is that if he does believe this inherently and he declares a national emergency, there could be unforeseen political and policy consequences. what does it mean to have the military have a major presence? what happens in public reaction if the army corps of engineers starts to dig a wall at the u.s. border? no one has seen this happen before. host: there is a question off of twitter, a viewer asking if there is an architectural plan for the wall? >> the administration has had prototypes for the wall. what makes it complicated is there are wall-like structures on the border. the president has looked at concrete structures, there are now this idea of steel slats aboute keeps tweeting that have see-through areas. , part of the reason this steel conversation keeps coming up is the image of a concrete wall,

the administration knows it reminds people of the berlin wall or some kind of ominous structure and they are trying to make it seem less ominous. teel reassures democrats at any level remains to be seen. i have not seen one democrats be governed go, oh, now that it is steel that suddenly changes our mind on the wall. what you see is the administration not wanting to go along with what the democrats call border security, which is immigration security measures that do not have to do with a -- with a wall like structure. funding for border patrol, funding for ice, that is what the democrats would like to see more money to. republicans understand this. in this letter i reported on i , reported that the administration lays out $800 million it would like to see added to humanitarian needs and

at the border. it is something democratic aides have discussed behind the scenes at the white house. they would like to see money for that. democrats do not want to talk about adding $800 million to the budget for humanitarian needs until the government is reopened. what the administration is trying to do is try to entice democrats to talk about a wall if more money for other programs was involved in discussion. host: here is the story on the website of the washington post that our guest contributed to. trump officials make new offers, seek novel ways to deal with impact. new york, democrats line, paul. caller: congratulations for you for taking over. you have done an excellent job. i get most of my news from c-span and pbs. the second thing is, could you change your set back the way it was when you had that roundtable? guest: it is a roundtable still. it is different colors right now. you like the orange set? that's fair. caller: it was awesome and you looked awesome in it.

the second thing is if you could , keep checking for -- false statements so people don't make statements that are not true. i get the truth from you and c-span, from pbs and c-span. a lot of regular television shows say things that are not true and they do not correct them. i would appreciate if you could correct statements that are not true. guest: i would not agree with your blanket statement about cable channels. there are good reporters trying to provide facts. you have the right to your opinion, of course. i appreciate the comment about washington week. we had the same set for 17 years. we have a new set. when i feel is an icon. ifill is an icon and we miss her terribly. the new set is still in her model of focusing on the reporting, on the conversation. no distractions.

that is what she stood for and what we are continuing at the show. with regard to fact checking, washington post has a fact checking operation that is first rate. in this era, it is important for journalists to make sure context is being provided at every turn. i believe at the washington post and pbs and i know here at c-span context is being provided. it demands viewers and readers to do as much as those journalists. sometimes the onus is put on journalists to guide people and that is fair. that is our job, but i would also challenge you to make sure you read more, think more, and not expect people to your spoonfeed you information and to get information on your plate every day. you can make the right kind of judgment. host: wyoming, independent line, ron.

caller: i have a question for you. it has been a thousand years since i was in high school and social studies. it seems to me there is no provision in the constitution for a government shut down, but there is a provision that a bill is placed on the president's desk, the president signs it or vetoes it. if it is vetoed, it goes back to the house, back to the senate. they vote on and override. it does not appear that has been done. as far as the wall goes, i don't know, i don't care if it is built or not. i do not believe it will do any good. i don't believe the american people, 800,000 of them should , be held hostage when there is a provision in the constitution to take care of this problem. thank you. guest: in terms of the veto override, you bring up a reg -- relevant point. you could see house democrats

pass something and you could see the senate pass something and put it on the president's desk. if he decided to veto it, it is his right to do so. you could have it kicked back to congress. constitutionally, there could be a veto override. why is that not happening? democrats control the house, republicans controlled the senate. you don't have mitch mcconnell trying in any way to put this kind of political pressure on his own president by taking up a house-passed bill to reopen the government, using senate republicans who are vulnerable in 2020 to reopen the government without wall funding and then , putting that bill on the president's desk, a president who is known for lashing out, then hoping he signs it and going through the process of a veto override with divided government. mitch mcconnell, that is not his style. could he constitutionally do it? certainly. you will not see him take up a democrat bill from the house and throw it on the president's desk.

at least not yet. mcconnell has had the opportunity to do that already. the house passed the bill, the senate has had that opportunity for a while. the senate passed its own legislation to try to reopen the government through february 8 through a voice vote as a way of trying to move this debate forward, but mcconnell is not the kind of person who will have a major veto override process. as the shutdown drags on, there could be pressure on mcconnell to take something up, to give senate republicans like cory gardner, like susan collins, a chance to vote to reopen the government. then we will see how the president reacts. for the moment, it is about our republicans going to hold or -- -- or not. you have a lot of concern grown across economic and financial

community with the department of treasury. you have people saying let's separate the department of homeland security funding and put it on its own island and keep having that brutal fight month in, month out and try to fund the rest of the government. speaker pelosi is a savvy political operator and she might saying bill after bill, fund the treasury. where are house republicans going to vote on that? you're not going to fund the treasury? we have tax refunds coming up, the irs under a lot of strain. we have a debt limit coming up that needs to be extended. are they not going to fund the treasury? it puts moderate republicans in tough position. some of your voters may want a wall, but if you are up for reelection in a swing district, you may vote to reopen the treasury. pelosi is going to see how many people she can peel off this week. this is going to be a contest. this is a standoff politically.

can speaker pelosi figure out a way to break republicans down? the other point is, can president trump come up with a way to convince the country there is a crisis? one of those sides is going to make more progress than the other. host: hank, south carolina, republican line. go ahead. guest: thank you. do you remember the pbs documentary, maybe 15, 20 years ago, court of shame? it was in a certain section of south carolina. i live in that corridor, and we have a bunch of rural schools, some with two or 300 students. every school in this county has two or more second-language teachers.

they are so bad, they cannot get spanish teachers in the united states. they have to recruit them from other countries. maybe you could write an article the shortage of second-language teachers for our students. we are paying property taxes for all of these students i know this is out of your lane, but maybe you could get somebody at the washington post to write an article about the shortage of second-language teachers for our schools. we are paying property taxes for all of these students and they are just on the margin. host: thanks, caller.

guest: this is an interesting idea and we will look into it. host: independent line, silver spring, maryland. caller: the republicans are using the border acute -- according to the country to shut the government. i would respectfully disagree. that is very wrong. it is the courts themselves. there is a government shutdown because of the influx. if you look at our programs, the first beneficiaries are americans or hispanics, not russians or chinese or nigerians. that money could go better. that is all i have to say. guest: appreciate the perspective. host: another topic. this was the house majority leader steny hoyer on meet the press. one of the topics that came up particularly when it comes to democrats is the topic of impeachment.

>> i do not think an impeachment process is inevitable. that is not what we are focused on. we are focused on getting the government open. that is the primary, first responsibility. >> impeachment talk is a distraction? >> impeachment talk right now is a distraction. we will have to see what the mueller report says. nancy and i have both said that. what we want to do is concentrate on our agenda. we want to make sure we get reforms done on redistricting, on campaign finance reform. we want to make sure we get ethical reports. host: he makes that statement and seems like many democratic leadership feels the same. what does that suggest on this topic? guest: suggests leaders want to control their conference. they want to keep some of the more left-wing members who are calling for impeachment already. sherman of california has

already proposed and impeachment resolution. you have the remark about president trump and impeachment last week. that is hovering over the democratic conference, but democratic leaders know, having served in the congress back in 1998, 19 99 with press clinton -- with president clinton is that the way impeachment plays out can have an unpredictable element were -- where you do not know how it is going to play with the country. you want to proceed carefully so does not seem like you are using impeachment to rally your own base but doing it on behalf of the country. that is the tone of hoyer and pelosi. they are going to wait for mueller to make his final conclusion about russian interference in the campaign and

the conduct of president trump in regard to obstruction of justice. the only thing i would add is let's say president trump declares a national emergency on the border and you have an uproar among democrats who think the president is abusing his power and you do not have a conclusion from robert mueller. this president is going to test this democratic party. speaker pelosi may want to hold back impeachment talks, but the more this president acts in ways that aggravate democrats, it is going to be harder for her to believe she can control this impeachment conversation. that is going to be something she is going to deal with the whole year, this new wave of younger democrats -- host: who may not be okay with that position. guest: part of the reason they swept the house was because of president trump being unpopular in their districts.

it will be interesting to see how she can hold that all and for how long. she knows what she is doing. she believes the president is already boxed in on immigration with the wall. her people tell me if she can stave off the wall, she can break the republicans on immigration, maybe she can get him to work with her on infrastructure or prescription drugs. try to see if the president can maybe actually play ball on a few issues. and let the committees throughout the year spend time bringing everybody up to capitol hill. not just on the russia probe, but on the epa and all these different agencies, the departments. wilbur ross, department of commerce. pelosi knows it she has subpoena power. the democrats want to impeach not just on the russia probe, they want to paint a picture of an administration that is pretty tough.

they want to pull up the carpet and show the country what has been going on the last two years that they may not know about. part of the way to do that is to have committees hold hearing after hearing. host: robert costa joins us. he is a political analyst at nbc news and msnbc. democrats line, dorothy is next. caller: hi, i really enjoy you. i see you on pbs and msnbc. one thing i like about your reporting, you report factually. what i wanted to see about this wall is this. everybody is forgetting mexico was supposed to pay for the wall. the people that want this wall, they haven't taken into consideration that you got to go over water, rocks, people's

domain and everything to build this so-called wall. the crisis we are having in this shutdown, and all of these kids and all the people locked up in cages at the south border, that is the crisis. what i'm trying to say is that what i'm trying to say is that we had a lot of opportunities to come up with an immigration package, which would have probably been fair to everybody and could have avoided all of this. the republicans refused to take it up as they had the $25 billion we were going to try to incorporate. there were. so many opportunities to fix this immigration problem for them to get on the air, especially the president and say 4000 terrorists is crossing our

border and scare the american people, and some of these people bought it -- telling the american people they are going to invade our country and do this and that. a lot of them bought into this and really think we have a border crisis. host: thank you very much. guest: thank you for your perspective. you talk about an immigration deal and how the republicans of yearsk in 2013 and a few ago, even more recent than that , they were talking about an immigration deal. when you look at this administration, your point is provocative because, i think as a reporter, did the administration miss when they had an opportunity to do a daca deal for a border wall? you had democrats talking about protecting dreamers, protecting migrant children from the

partition in exchange for $25 billion for a border wall. the administration, because of its hard-line conservative blocked -- balked at this. even though the president has made noise about doing a daca fix, they said no to this daca for a wall deal. that was $25 billion. now, they are talking about $5 billion. as history looks back, they may wonder, the president decided to do a tax cut and health care first. he did not do infrastructure but first. would it have been like if they had pursued infrastructure first? more of a bipartisan plan. decided to muscle through more traditional republican legislation. like ifld it have been the administration had taken the democrats' offer? the daca fix for a border wall? downe government shuts right now, would that actually

be built right now in 2019 if that deal had been taken? politics is so much about timing and understanding the deal in front of you, rather than the deal you may seek. this administration, run by someone who champions himself as a negotiator, has had some opportunities. they just bypassed them in the past. now facing $5.7 billion it wants for the wall. democrats are saying no thanks. this idea of a daca for a wall has come up in conversation, but both sides are so done in along partisan lines, no one is really talking about that until the government real. -- reopens. reflectivei think is of where the country is. a lot of people have different views on whether this is a crisis or not. theadministration says border is a crisis. other people say the migrants coming up from central america are a crisis. just like there is a democratic and republican caller, as a reporter when i talk to voters,

i hear totally different views about how they see the border. it is most interesting to me, not just how people see the is a crisisher it or not, but how this administration politically has handled all of this. they said no to these deals in the past and now they are in a jam. host: texas, republican line. guest: i wonder if you had said anything negative about barack obama when he campaigned on reforming immigration in his first year in office. he said it over and over again. i bet you there wasn't one reporter who was curious enough to ask president obama in the following seven years if he was going to resolve the issue. he had a super majority and did nothing. why don't we look back at history instead of slamming and crushing trump on every single paragraph you utter. it drives me nuts. you're not objective. your job in washington is to go after trump.

go after trump. go after trump. go after trump. i wonder how many times you have been to the border? i wonder if you have been on horseback, in a helicopter? i wonder if you have talked to the border patrol. wonder if they will be on c-span sitting across from you. host: you have asked several questions. we will let our guest answer. guest: i appreciate your perspective. i am a nonpartisan reporter. we report objectively at the washington post. on pbs, we have a nonpartisan discussion. we pride ourselves in that. we do not take sides. you have a right to your view. i'm not here to argue with you. at the same time, you bring up a relevant point. president obama, when he had control of both chambers in congress, did not achieve much on immigration, if anything significant. this like president trump did with the republican control of the house and the senate for the last two years. president obama pursued democratic legislation on health care and climate change and

issues in the stimulus package, he covered those fights. we saw in 2013, the republicans and democrats tried to have the gang of eight. immigration talks fell apart. there was an effort during the obama administration, but that fell apart. rubio tried tor be a leader, then the whole thing collapsed. that 2013 immigration fight is in part what led to the rise of president trump. i remember talking to then mr. trump in 2013 and 2014, he was paying attention to those failed immigration talks then. he started to make some moves towards a presidential run in 2014 in light of what happened on immigration in 2013. he saw an opening in the republican party that was trying to do moderate reforms to immigration. he thought voters would not be with the party on that, so maybe he could be the republican that took a far more conservative

position. i think your comments, respectfully, are part of this charged debate. immigration remains probably the most charged debate we cover because people wrap it up with not only the issues at the border, but issues of national identity and the economy. there are strong views on both sides. this is part of what both parties are dealing with in washington. they know people have passionate takes on immigration. they at times take out these passions on the press. as some have today. they also take them out on lawmakers or elected officials. this is the environment in which this debate unfolds. host: as a national political reporter, what goes through your mind when you see stories, even like today, and one of the pages that joe biden might be considering a run? guest: we go from the shutdown to biden?

that is a shift. [laughter] vice president biden is someone talking to his advisors and saying, is there a front runner? not really for the 2020 democratic nomination. senator warren of massachusetts is already in iowa. vice president biden has to make a decision in the coming months, but probably the coming weeks. is he going to be in this race or not? there's only so long you can wait in presidential politics for your moment. there are people like beto o'rourke. the texas congressman who are gaining a lot of attention. youngera new wave of democrats. even though she's not going to run because she is under 35, cortez ia oh because io -- ocasio-cortez. they are savvy. they are plugged in with the younger generation. senator warren is signaling to them that she is what them in spirit even though she is from a different generation of democrats. where is biden? he was helpful to democrats in

2018. he was on the campaign trail. but he needs to make a case for himself. where is the biden case for biden? his biggest appeal is that he was vice president to barack obama. president obama's legacy lives on in the democratic party. he remains very popular. as does his wife, or former first lady, michelle obama. biden's association with obama and that whole brand is powerful. but the joe biden brand solo has had difficulties in the past. he ran for president in 1988. he tried 10 years ago. he tried multiple times over the last few decades. never really caught on. it was only as a vice presidential candidate he struck gold and caught fire with president obama on the campaign trail. he is seen as someone who can connect with voters. working-class voters, like where he grew up in scranton, pennsylvania, the industrial midwest. that is a place where the democrats need to come back and win michigan, ohio, pennsylvania.

but he's not the only person out there. sherrod brown. senator klobuchar of minnesota. these are all people talking about those voters. even the senate democrat from pennsylvania has spoken publicly about seeking a 2020 bid. biden because of his stature can wait, but he keeps telling people the best person to take on president trump, but he has to prove it. it is going to be a competitive primary. biden, even though he was a vice president for eight years, will not have the same kind of frontrunner status as secretary clinton had in 2016. she was challenged by senator sanders significantly, but she always had so much of a donor class and party leadership with her. biden has a lot of support, but there is not a groundswell, even among the upper echelon of the democratic party to make sure he is the nominee. he may be waiting for that at some level, but in this new

dynamic where people with an instagram feed or twitter feed can suddenly have 2 million to 3 million followers you can't sit , back in delaware and hope it comes to you. host: what you think senator warren faces as she has this consideration? guest: in iowa over the weekend, she is still questions about her native american dna test during . questions -- tough from voters. she was able to turn the conversation back towards economic populism, back towards fighting the wall street banks. she has a message she has cultivated for years that populism is ok. president trump won on populism in many respects. she says, i am a populist, but an economic populist with a different target. president trump took up immigration as his populist issue. senator warren says she's taking on wall street. she's talking about an america where people used to have more

unions, better advantages in her view. she's trying to harken back to a country that was more industrial, more union based. she says she will have tougher regulations on banks. she is trying to speak to the same trump voters, in a way. by may have been tempted president trump in 2016, and it might have kept you back from the democratic party. that could resonate. this country is still looking for an outsider change agent, , a someone who is going to be a populist force, but they are willing to hear someone from the left make the argument. she could be a popular candidate and you have to give her credit, she is out there early. she's not waiting to see what ife president biden does or senator gillibrand jumps in. she's not waiting to see what senator sanders does. he is very much in her lane politically. she is saying i'm going to got to iowa and set the tone. she is not had a perfect last six months, but she is out there. in american politics, you have

to be out in the arena to win the nomination. for now, she is ok. host: this at the utah independent line. caller: good morning. i appreciate c-span, i appreciate you robert costa, the perspective you bring and the honesty and truth that you bring. there have been two republican calls and one democrat called , and 50% of this population in this country that is independent. you should have two independent calls for everyone of those parties. with the congress approval rating around 16%, how is that not dereliction of duty? they are sent to washington to ifresent the people, and only 17% of the people are pleased with what they do, they

are not representing them. their passing on a spending bill in 2017 that didn't find the daesh fund the government. -- that did not fund the government. there wasn't a budget included. they are supposed to have a budget on october 1 of every year. how are they not breaking the law on the constitutional level. is our vote every four or six years the only say that we have? host: thank you. guest: your frustrations with congress are not surprising, as you detailed. the approval ratings for congress are always pretty low in recent years. the issue facing independents like yourself is this. we still have a two-party system in this country. you may not feel like you have a place to go politically, that the right has moved too much toward president trump, and the democratic party moved too far to the left, so where do you go?

that will be something we are all watching in 2020, us reporters. former bloomberg, the new york mayor, is talking about running in the democratic primary, but he is quite centrist compared to other democrats. could an ohio governor like john kasich, a republican, decide to run as independent and appeal to someone who is more center or center-right? orld someone like ben sasse, senator corker, senator flake, retired senators, could they run against president trump for the republican nomination to offer independent type voters in option -- an option to make the republican party grapple with the fact that it has moved to close to president trump? both parties are going to have potential primary candidates who skew more towards the center than the base of the respective parties. at this moment, it takes a lot of money to run as an independent for president. bloomberg is probably the best

chance to have a major independent candidate, someone like ross perot, the money to get on the ballot across the country. even bloomberg with his billions of dollars is saying it's probably best if i run inside of the democratic party. just like president trump was not seen as traditional republican. some people think he is the first independent president and spirit, but of course, he passes republican bills. he doesn't talk about policy the way speaker ryan would, but he chose to run in the republican party. that was really the only path to power. we haven't figured out a way for independence to truly have a seat at the table. that is something that i think will vex this country for years to come until it does more of a debate for opening up the system. michigan, democrats line, raymond. hello. caller: hello.

i would like to discuss, in "the times," they think the people involved in the shutdown, essential people, they are calling in sick. the reason they are calling in they don't have money to fill their car to get to work. have you researched that? guest: yes. thank you for the question. there have been numerous reports about federal employees, in particular employees at the tsa at airports, who are may be calling in sick because they are dealing with different financial issues and having issues with pay, or they are frustrated. this is something that has bubbled up in the reporting across the board, not just at

the post, about federal employees having difficulties if they are furloughed, not getting paid. that is something the president has to confront, as he went to camp david briefly on sunday. he asked several reporters, can you emphasize, understand the struggle federal employees are dealing with? and he said, as you might expect , he fully understands, but that is something he will be tested on. not just can he cut a deal with the democrats. and he holds back federal employees. are there going to be masses of people calling in sick? who knows. the fact that it is splintering in the coverage shows you the frustrations are mounting. people's insecurities are mounting. that creates a boiler politically that president trump cannot avoid. more federal employees have issues and the more the federal

government is not functioning, the more there are political consequences. we will be keeping an eye on that. host: the president just released a couple of tweets this morning. i will read them to you. with all the suggests -- success manyountry is happening, have become crazed lunatics who have never given up on the truth. -- not the first time he has said something like this. as a reporter, how do you react to that? guest: i'm not surprised. this is language the president has used before. it is truly unfortunate the president chooses to use the phrase enemy of the people. it is an unfortunate phrase. we are not the enemy of the people. at the washington post often says, as reporters, we are at work.r, we are

respectfully to the president, i would say we are doing our work as reporters reporting on this administration and the shutdown. color orc-span american code, you are welcome with your critique of the press, but we have the right to report on anything and investigate anything, you have the right to have your opinion. he has the right to his opinion. the press is not the story. too often, politicians on both sides, whether it is democrats taking shots at the press or republicans trying to make the press the story. story is the story. it is what the press is covering. using the press as a foil can be politically useful. politicians have done it for decades. president trump is far from the first trying to use the press as a punching bag. what matters is not the president lashing out at the press. is the president going to find a way out of the shutdown?that's

all that matters to the country, and all that matters to me as a reporter. he has these critiques, he made them before, he made them this morning, duly noted. host: republican line, jay is next in fayetteville, north carolina. caller: thank you so much for having me. i appreciate everything you have been talking about with the people calling in. i was going to ask you a question about the divided party you were just mentioning. there are two parties. the democrats and the republicans. the people you are announcing that was going to be running for president, if this keeps going on, and the american people that have voted for president trump, they see all that is going on throughout the united states of america, and the democrats will not give in -- like nancy pelosi

said the other day, she said, we have one dollar, that is what the question was. will you give one dollar? she said yes, i will give one dollar. with regards to the people of the united states, we're supposed to stand up for all of the american people, that's in washington. getting to the border wall, if people would really think about it, the immigrants come here to work. they do. trump has already said, he acknowledges, they can work and then go back. if you look at nancy pelosi, she doesn't even live in the district. she serves in california. if you look at her home, she has a wall about 20 foot high all the way around her property.

host: for the interest of time, what do you want our guest to address? caller: i want him to address, why did the reporters, why do you all not report what is actually happening in washington? host: thank you. guest: appreciate that thought. when you think about the last two years, republicans held a house, the senate, and still hold the white house. there were many opportunities for republicans to pass more significant legislation with regard to a border wall. they pursued health care legislation. they pursued a tax cut legislation. yet, the wall here in january of 2019 remains something the administration is still pursuing. they had two years to pursue far more funding for the wall, but for many reasons, it was not put on the table. there was talk of a deal but it was always tough for republicans to come along with aspects of the wall.

the administration now with democrats feeling like they got elected to control the house and part because they opposed the wall and president trump, now, republicans are coming to those democrats a couple months after the democrats win power for opposing the president, and the president saying, you now have to help me on the promise i couldn't achieve during my first two years, that is my demand. politically, if you are objective, that is a tough thing to throw at the democrats. the president may believe he can break the democrats, he can declare a national emergency, maybe get them to come closer to his position on a wall, but the expectation that a wall, $5.7 billion, the number cats will suddenly say yes after they won the house of representatives on something their own base sees as totally against american values, expectation,nable

objectively speaking, to think this is somehow going to be something that unites all parties here in january of 2019. opposition to the wall in the democratic party israel. -- is real. the support for it in the republican ranks is of course very real. this is now divided government and the president have to think about what he is really willing to do to get this promise. he had an opportunity for two years. now he believes he can try to leverage the democrats by talking about a crisis at the border. the democrats feel they don't need to necessarily budge at this moment because they have power and they think the president is flailing. both sides are digging in and that is where we stand. host: i want to read you a tweet from the msnbc twitter feed. -- can you expand on that?

guest: last week, mitt romney wrote an op-ed about the washington post about how he is frustrated with president trump's character and conduct in office, especially foreign policy. he doesn't like the president deciding to remove troops from syria. you see in romney a hawk, newly ascended elected to the u.s. , senate from utah. former republican nominee. why does he matter? because he is a former republican nominee. he is coming at the president with stature, with a high profile. he is not just someone who is a senator taking shots. this is someone who was a former nominee in the seat of power on capitol hill saying enough of this, president trump. i was up there on thursday. i don't think a lot of senators loved this. republicans did not love this op-ed. some privately said he was getting a little too out on a limb early on for a junior senator. romney is thinking to himself, talking to his allies, he is at a later stage in his career, what does he have to lose? why not just to find early on that he is on opposition of

president trump? what was most interesting about the op-ed is it sparked discussion about 2020. does romney run against president trump for the nomination? should the robert mueller report be pretty bad against president trump, should something happen with the economy? maybe. at this point, some republican donors say romney is the best effort. if it trump administration were to collapse, who would step in? these are early days. it is just a lot of chatter. like everything in politics, is -- just because it's chatter does not mean it could never happen. these kind of conversations matter as the debate unfolds. romney is going to be a key figure in 2019 as the shutdown continues, as the president continues to deal with speaker pelosi. where is romney? that will be a question on the lips of many reporters. where is senator romney on this?

he is a figure with stature and someone who will be looked to as the voice of the republican establishment. host: what are you paying particular attention to this week when it comes to the shutdown? guest: vice president pence is having lunch on monday with president trump. having spoken to him on sunday, he has been at the center of the negotiations. he has been dealing a lot with senator schumer, who was in all of the meetings over the weekend. pence is critical because he is going to communicate to the president where things stand. is there a deal or not? you have to watch, is there going to be a national emergency declared or not? president has threatened this to the media. the president has a decision to make. this is not a president who is signaling he is taking some kind of softer approach as the shutdown drags into week three. the key thing i will reiterate is republicans, do they stick with the president or not? do moderates say, enough, reopen the government? that is what speaker pelosi is watching. host: robert costa of the washington post and pbs, joining

us for a discussion of this week ahead in washington. thank you for your time. announcer: c-span's "washington journal," live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up tuesday morning, a discussion of the green new deal and energy and environmental issues in the 116th congress with league of conservation voters senior vice president, and heartland institute senior fellow james taylor. then we talk about the latest on the government shutdown with christina marcos. be sure to watch "washington journal" at 7:00 eastern tuesday morning. join the discussion. announcer: here is some of our live coverage tuesday. at noon, the house returns to debate a handful of bills, including legislation of reauthorizing public health emergency preparedness programs. of the p.m. on day 18 shutdown, president trump

addresses the nation on what he calls the humanitarian and national security crisis at the southern border. on c-span two a conversation on how governments incorporate religion into foreign policies. that's at 9:30 a.m. then the impact of the new congress on u.s. policy toward north and south korea. the senate will meet at 3:00 p.m. eastern to debate defense and security in the middle east. ate coverage on c-span3 p.m. we get an update on the energy industry from api, the lobbying group for the natural gas and oil industries. members oflected congress talk about a 571 page bill that lays out the house democrats' priorities. in the afternoon, the house rules committee meets to set guidelines on spending bills covering financial services, where history unfolds

daily. created as aan was public service by america's cable television companies. today, we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington dc and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. next, a discussion on the use of social media. ofakers included co-authors "like more: what is the nation -- the weaponization of social media." >>