with someone who previously worked for john boehner and paul ryan. on this week'sce leadership elections. ♪ president trump is moving forward with his decision to have the amount of troops -- to inve the amount of troops afghanistan by inauguration day. we want your take on this debate. if you support the president's decision, dial in at (202) 748-8000. if you oppose it, (202) 748-8001 . if you are a veteran that served in iraq or afghanistan, (202) 748-8002 is your number. active military, please dial in

at (202) 748-8003. you can join the conversation by texting us at that same number, also going to twitter @cspanwj or facebook.com/c-span. the acting defense secretary outlined the president's decision yesterday. [video clip] by january 15, 2021, our forces, their size and afghanistan will be 2500. iraq will alsoin be 2500 by that date. with ouronsistent established plans and strategic objectives. supported by the american people. it does not equate to a change in u.s. policy or objectives. moreover, this decision by the president is based on continuous engagement with his national security cabinet over the month

past. including ongoing discussions with me and my colleagues across the u.s. government. i have also spoken with our military commanders and we all will execute this repositioning in the way that protects our fighting men and women, partners in the intelligence community, diplomatic corps, and our superb allies that are critical to iraqiding afghan and civil society. secretaryacting of defense yesterday. in the headlines, republican leader mitch mcconnell because the drawdown a mistake. here he is on the senate floor yesterday. [video clip] host: we will get to that in the minute. let's go to joel first in florida. you oppose the president's decision. caller: absolutely.

another -- will have isis will become worse. history will repeat itself. it is a big mistake. host: ok. so what do you think should happen? this is a promise the president made. caller: yes, but i mean, come on, let's be real. trump promised many things and never delivers. he is a liar. a pathological liar, simple as that. host: joel's opinion in florida. here's the majority leader yesterday. [video clip] sen. mcconnell: let me start by saying, as i indicated yesterday, i think it is important in the next couple months not to have any earthshaking changes with regard to defense and foreign policy.

i think a precipitous drawdown in either afghanistan or iraq would be a mistake. i have said so publicly that isy and i hope precisely where these discussions in the host: the majority leader yesterday repeating what he said before. yous in south carolina, oppose this decision. tell us why. believe it is a detriment to national security. host: in what way? i mean, what concerns you about this? caller: it concerns me because of me being a veteran myself. i know the support veterans need overseas and this would harm .hem over there, needing additional support. so it makes no sense to withdraw

just for a holiday when we have national issues at stake here, and that is upholding the front over there that we have already established. host: are you worried about al qaeda? caller: yes. real. host: chris in south carolina. here is the acting defense secretary on america's goals in afghanistan and the decision to drawdown. [video clip] >> we set out to accomplish three goals in 2001. first, go abroad and destroy terrorist, their organizations, and their sanctuaries. two, strengthen our defenses against your attacks. and three, prevent the continued growth of islamist terrorism, to include by working with allies and local partners to take the lead in the fight. today is another critical step in that direction and a result

of president trump's bold leadership. with the blessings of providence in the coming year, we will finish this generational war and bring our men and women home. we will protect our children from the heavy burden and told a perpetual war -- heavy burden war.oll a perpetual and celebrate all those who helped us secure freedom over oppression. host: do you agree or disagree with the white house's decision to withdraw, draw troops down, not withdraw, in iraq in afghanistan --iraq and afghanistan? yvonne, in kentucky, you oppose. why? caller: we put the rest of the and foughtarm's way so long to stabilize the place

and now we are going to destabilize it. i am against that. host: you are concerned about the troops that are left behind. caller: yes, i am. host: ok. how long do you think, though, we should stay in afghanistan? unless wedon't know are there and know exactly what the consequences would be one way or the other. host: do you trust military leaders, numbers of congress to make this decision? caller: i would respect our military leaders. host: ok. post this morning in their story this morning notes you only saw the acting defense secretary at the lectern yesterday. they note the chief of staff army general -- the chair of the joint chiefs of staff, general mark milley, did not appear alongside him at the lectern, leaving the views of taught military officials in question.

he has been seen opposing cuts. and when national security advisor robert o'brien announced in october that the president planned to withdraw 2500 service --bers from stan this year from afghanistan this year, general mark it -- milley called it speculation. don, you support. why? caller: it is about time. we have had 20 years to try to get it right. apparently we have not been able to do very much. so what is the point? host: well, what do you say to those who are critical of the decision that we need to have a foothold there to prevent al qaeda from rebuilding? caller: again, i say why? what's the point? we are not accomplishing anything. afghanistan is exactly the same if not worse than it was when we got there.

having is the good of 5000 guys sitting in the desert waiting to go attacks and? -- to go attack something? host: $1 trillion in afghanistan over the last 20 years. nearly 800,000 service members have deployed to afghanistan at least once according to the pentagon's statistics. that does not include aid workers and contract workers. glenn in florida, you oppose. good morning. what do you think? thisr: yes, i oppose because i believe this is a last toch effort by trump complete promises for his supporters. there is no way in the world you will move that many troops out of iraq and afghanistan by inauguration day. it is logistically impossible to do so.

and to move those troops out of those locations will be stabilize those areas because we cycles asad any new far as our troops. we do not know if it is safe or not. because the military is not talking about it, they know this is wage and. trustnot something i trump to do correctly because he just wants to make it worse for the biden administration coming in and make himself look good, so i do not think it will happen. it takes too much time to move troops out that quick. host: on that point, glenn, look at what they want to do. net gain is, 4500 troops. -- in afghanistan, 4500 troops. they will reduce that to 2500. by january 15.00 go ahead. caller: why would you reduce to

that amount when you don't even know if it is safe? the key question is it safe enough to do so? we would not be there if it was not, because you would reduce them over a period of time gradually if it is safe, not that many at a time. you don't know that and only the people in the pentagon and on the ground know that. i don't think the white house knows that because this is just in the attempt to get people out before he leaves. -- just an attempt to get people out before he leaves. i know about logistics. you cannot move that many people and equipment. it is going to cause more problems for the president. host: as you are talking comment we were starting to show these numbers. total u.s. military casualties in iraq.

deaths, 4505. military casualties in andanistan, 2447 have died 21,000 have been wounded. and we told you a hundred thousand have been deployed -- we told you 800,000 have been deployed in afghanistan at least once. marking woodstock, connecticut, your turn. in woodstock, connecticut, your turn. caller: i support his takeout. i want to ask you people who oppose this -- how many of your sons and daughters have been there? how many have come back with diseases, ap tatian's, ptsd? amputations, ptsd? 2500 people, that's nothing. the whole thing to keep them there is to keep the gravy train going for the industrial

complex. you need to wake up and find out what your supposedly leaders are doing for your country. this ridiculous. -- it is ridiculous. host: can you hang on the line? i want to show you and others senator tammy duckworth, a purple heart recipient for her service in the iraq war. [video clip] >> president trump has upended any sense of stability in the department of defense. aside from reports that he wants to attack iran, we can our military, betray our allies, he also fired to secretary esper and replaced him and other top pentagon officials with a series of unqualified loyalists who seem to have been chosen for their loyalty to this one man in the white house rather than their own competence. this up people represents a dangerous escalation at one of

the most fraught moments possible. let me give you a little historical background. our enemies historically have tested us within the first year of each administration. less than six weeks into bill clinton's term, a truck with explosive detonated in the world trade center. within six months of barack obama taking office, north korea rattled sabers twice, launching a rocket over the pacific and conducting a nuclear test. four months after trump was testedn, bashar al-assad american commitment against the use of chemical weapons. i must add to george w bush's presidency the 9/11 attacks. our troops will always do everything in their power to keep us safe. i have confidence in their proficiency and professionalism. unfortunately, the commander in chief is making a harder for

them to do their job. host: mark in woodstock, connecticut. in aor tammy duckworth wheelchair because of her service to this country. what do you think after listening to her? caller: i think it is crazy. she of all people should know. she went over there, now she is in a wheelchair, what has changed? nothing. not a single thing. if the american people did their homework, look what happens when we went into iraq. like 200 something acres of poppy fields. now how many poppy fields are there? thousands. we are over there to protect the poppy fields. we are not over there to make democracy. feed theer there to industrial complex. that is all it is. how many congresspeople and collect can go in and $174,000 a year and come out 10 years later millionaires?

they are taking you for a ride, people. host: samuel in tennessee. you oppose. tell us why. caller: thank you for your excellent work, greta. i would normally want the troops to come home as soon as possible. we have been over there for so long. but once i watched the movie "the last outpost" a few months maybe the gist of the movie was maybe not follow every order, maybe to question authority. made soink -- glenn many good points about the situation a couple callers ago. i just implore people to watch "the last outpost" to see where our defense dollars are spent and how the soldiers sacrificed

so much. i will get off here, greta. thank you. host: ok, daniel. the navyw you what secretary had to say about the president's decision. the price of leaving too soon for in an accord native way could be high. -- or in an uncoordinated way could be high. ice is good rebuild in afghanistan. -- isis could rebuild in afghanistan. we went into afghanistan together, and when the time is right, we should leave together and coordinate it in an orderly way. nato allies to uphold this commitment. patricia, good morning. caller: good morning. host: what do you think about this, patricia? do you support it? caller: i support bringing troops home, yes. the caller before me made every

point i was going to make. the only thing i believe is that if it was vice president biden making the decision, it would be graded with all kinds of praise -- making the decision, it would be greeted with all kinds of praise. i think because donald trump is making the decision, so many callers have just called in and say they disapprove. i believe it is a matter of politics. the point about the poppy fields was excellent, just excellent. host: patricia, what do you think about republicans on capitol hill, who, some of them, disagree with the president? caller: there will always be disagreers in any political organization. that is why it is called politics. host: patricia in nevada. let's listen to roy blunt, part of the republican leadership in the senate from missouri. [video clip] the troop: i think in

somalia anda in iraq and afghanistan, none of those places are nearly as secure if we leave as they are if we are there. i think there is some room, , butding on the discussion particularly in afghanistan, if we want to continue to move forward with the peace discussion with the taliban, i think we have to have a presence. and if we want any chance of enforcing a peace agreement that involves the tele-man, we have to have -- agreement that involves the taliban, we have to have a presence. and we have to look carefully at the number you have to have for their presence to be meaningful in those three places and anywhere else in the world we are thinking about repositioning.

all of these things have significant long-term consequences and my advice would be to remember that an american presence does matter and does make a difference and has made a difference. and none of those places would be safe -- would be as safe if we aren't there as they are if we are. bluntsenator roy yesterday. emmanuel in jacksonville, florida. your take on the decision in the white house to reduce troops. what do you think? caller: i agree he should bring the troops home. i have to give kudos to mark in connecticut, who made some excellent points about poppy fields. i did not know how true that is, but getting back to the core, the principles of american government is that we are supposed to stay out of foreign table months. this country has been involved

in foreign entanglements since the end of world war ii. look at vietnam, korea, and the other wars we are in, but most of all vietnam and now iraq and afghanistan. i mean, the whole purpose of these people being in these regions is to make money. it is not a reason. weean, how can you say that are protecting america, national security, against afghanistan? it just makes no sense to me. in that theater is long enough and it is time to bring the troops home. i think it should be a full withdraw rather -- a full withdrawal rather than a partial. buthould give them weapons, they should defend themselves. host: the new york times this morning in their peace note that in the february 29 agreement between the u.s. and the taliban

that started the troop with drawl, the taliban agreed to publicly separate itself from al qaeda, which was under taliban government protection when it launched the september 11 terrorist attacks, and to deny their use of afghan territory as a haven. the withdraw has -- the withdrawal has continued and there has been no evidence of any decisive severing of ties between the groups. supposed toawal was be contingent on the taliban agreeing to sever ties from al qaeda. florida, youaton, are a veteran of both afghanistan and iraq, is that right? caller: yes, i served with the 10th mountain division. i am a 20 five year veteran. i believe we should come home. we have spent too much time and money.

these are contractor wars. we could fight them with special ops on the ground. in the technology we have, we could put a missile in your front door. so there is no reason for people to be on the ground flipping for i.e.d.'s getting blown up. it makes no sense. it is time to bring the soldiers home and the airmen and the rest. i don't believe it, i don't like it, and i think we should get out of it. host: 10, how long were you in afghanistan? -- tim, how long were you in afghanistan? caller: three tours there and three in iraq. it has been a nonstop rotation. you go from one to the other to the other. obama did his withdrawal , let all the fighters come in. they were out in the open. it was ridiculous. they drop their weapons, all the people we trained in iraq, all

that time and money was wasted. they walked off the battlefield. you are not going to solve a religious war going on for thousands of years. you cannot change them. we are just out there guarding the fields, like the guy said. host: why was it an error by president obama but not now by president trump? caller: it is a different situation. we have pretty much knocked them out. with technology today, there is no reason to be on the ground. you do not need boots on the ground, going outside the wire every day and getting blown up, or sitting there when they have the hi ground shooting at us. it is just general playing word games. host: how long is each tour? caller: it started out longer and then they cut it back.

tours stillf the has an impact on your mind and body, you know? served, your body is torn up, your mind is torn up. host: jim, thank you for your service. we will go to richard in minneapolis, who also supports the president's decision. go ahead. caller: yes. good morning. i think they should take some of the troops out and let nato or europe go in there. why do we have to do the heavy lifting? another thing, i think they should drop a bomb, a bunker buster bomb on the nuclear facilities in iraq. aden is just going to send bunch of cash in an airplane. shouldther thing, we send the minneapolis city

council over there because they are turning minneapolis into afghanistan. we are going to have a war on the streets here. host: all right. in new york, david, an iraq veteran. when did you serve and what were you doing? caller: i would rather not go into it. however, i served in the first phase of the iraq war. basically i would support president trump's withdrawal and orderlyy withdraw in an fashion, bring everyone home, our veterans, because it is a futile war in both laces and the situation at the local level is far worse than we arrived there. and we have created too many enemies. as my colleague said earlier, we have the technology. we also have a very fast, rapid

deployment if necessary of force in the region that we can deploy anywhere within 24-40 hours. -- 24-48 hours. there is no need to remain there. them, theis, for people in the region, to come to their senses through education and self empowerment, to reform their socioeconomic and lytic gland religious histories and bring them to the 21st centuries. perhaps if we leave them alone and provide them only with enlightenment them outside that would be far more effective than using military hardware on them. host: david, what did you think of the headline earlier this week of president trump asking recommendations to bomb iran

? caller: well, that is not going to gain anything in the long run. if anything, it would further entrench the failed theocracy and religious fundamentalists in that country. that country has been yearning for reformation of the religion and socioeconomic status for 150 years. it is not something that has happened overnight, so why give the fundamentalist right to pretext to justify and rationalize their fake policy in place, where a bunch of gangster like mentality is wasting and siphoning off the resources, financial and otherwise, for ds in theological en region? host: thank you. david served in iraq.

the headlines in the papers this aek, this from usa today -- withdrawal of troops in trump's waning days. in his opinion piece, donald trump cannot figure out whether he wants to start wars or end them. graspresident does not that there is a contradiction in boasting of exiting endless wars while starting new ones, or boasting about his success in fighting terrorism while pulling troops from the countries where terrorists operate." opposen connecticut, you the drawdown. good morning to you. caller: thank you. i felt compelled to call in today after hearing a number of callers erroneously stayed that the poppy fields being protected are in iraq. the poppy fields i am familiar

with, having spent three years in afghanistan, were in afghanistan. while i oppose the methodology for withdrawing troops from iraq and afghanistan, i don't disagree with the intent. i don't believe that we should be having any of our troops in places where they are not welcome. and it appears from the recent information that iraq is at the point where they would have requested u.s. troops be withdrawn. so in my opinion, there should be a withdrawal there. host: david, i will come back to you on afghanistan because i want to share with others on your point about iraq. american troop presence, seen as a hedge against the resurgence of isis and iranian influence, has

already come down to about 3500 this year. under the new order, pentagon officials say it will come down to 2500 in january. unlike afghanistan, the cuts have not been a source of alarm. the prime minister described the cuts as being agreed to and desirable for both sides." caller: caller: yes, in afghanistan, the mission in afghanistan is significantly different than what it is in iraq. presence and neato presence in afghanistan is to prepare the troops -- presence and nato presence in afghanistan is to prepare the afghan troops for responsibility. at this point, the taliban will be enabled by this precipitous withdrawal of forces, being, in my opinion, done for political purposes only. and afghanistan might find

itself the new home for isis. host: david, can you share what you were doing in afghanistan? caller: and afghanistan, i was employed outside the wire and inside the wire, as those who have served over there would understand what that means, in a civilian capacity. host: can you tell us what inside the wire, outside the wire means, for those of us who do not know? inside the wire means you are in secure military -- you are on a secure military installation, outside means you are in the general population of afghanistan. host: so you are a contractor? caller: indeed i was. host: can you tell us what you are doing? -- what you were doing? caller: i cannot. are still well

supplied and funded by cash, meaning american withdrawal would not imply automatically a collapse. afghan officials say they have plans of their own if the u.s. continues to withdraw and the peace talks drag on. caller: for my personal experiences, the amount of supplies has to be complement it by the amount of training. the afghan forces require a significant amount of training. we are not in there alone. we are there with our allies. it would justify having those troops stay there to bring the indigenous forces the capability. host: david, when was the last time you were there? caller: 2012. host: david in connecticut

opposing the decision by the president. take a look at the reaction from capitol hill by republicans. bythese tweets . "i am hopeful but suspicious of the taliban rejecting al qaeda way.y meaningful it is a ripe opportunity for isis and al qaeda to reemerge." decisions should be based on national security interests, not politics." senator mike braun -- "the conflict in afghanistan has carried on for 20 years because of the business as usual thinking president trump was elected to end." representative crenshaw -- "it will not be good for american security. we will be right back in the same place as before 9/11.

no deterrence." thomas massie, a libertarian and joined a letter withdraw troops from afghanistan and iraq." texas, and iraq veteran. when were you there? good morning to you. when were you in iraq? caller: i was in the first desert storm in the 90's and also in operation iraqi freedom in 2003-2004, when we first went in. opinionat is your on the decision? caller: strictly opposed. very critical time because anywhere we have had

conflict around the world, be it germany, vietnam, korea, we still have a presence. we have a military presence all over with american troops that are there. it is vital for the stability of both of those regions to maintain a small number of troops. that is a coalition of both army, air force, and marines. so when you look at the total number, it is not army only. it is a coalition of all forms of service. iraq is a war-torn country, separated by three states. i heard some comments about poppy fields. we maintain stability and always should in those regions until such a time to where it may never get to a point where we w from a combative wall, but represent a stability role. we are there and we should stay

there. i oppose the president's decision on taking troops, moving troops, at this time, from afghanistan and iraq. let me say this. one of the biggest things i have a hang up with. if you have never worn the uniform, it is easy to make a decision. if you have had boots on the ground -- and i'm not talking about a friendly visit -- they understand clearly what war looks like, what conflicts look like and what stability looks like. presidento advise the and for that to be not really isten to or adhered to misleading the american public, because we who have actually --n uniform understand actually worn the uniform understand what war is. donald, what do you make

of the joint chiefs of staff chair general milley not standing next to the acting defense secretary when he made this announcement? has said onlieve he many occasions that as it relates to the president not really understanding. i don't care how many briefs you get. you cannot learn how our forces operate in four years. milley is notl standing there, he is making his point heard that i do not stand along with this president's decision as it relates to withdrawing troops. general milley understands exactly what is going on both with our allies that are there and those to whom have been serving over the years. we need a physical presence at least to deter any form of resurgence of isis, al qaeda, or anything in that region,

especially when you look at iran. iran is right next to iraq and afghanistan. if we withdraw troops completely, that gives iran the ability to continue to rise up. that gives insurgents in iraq to continue to rise up. george bush said it like this -- it was an axis of evil abroad. it may be dormant now, but it takes nothing but us to reduce our presence in those areas for that to research. organism, a new something we have probably never seen. host: donald, thank you for your service. a reporter for fox news tweets yesterday -- "moments after the secretary for withdrawals, rockets were fired in baghdad. many in the pentagon warmed -- warned that it could embolden

militias to test u.s. resolve." alan, good morning. caller: i am worried about the reason he is doing this and not what he is doing. we have not had transparency for his taxes in several years to reveal what exactly is his relationship with the person who seems to be controlling these policies from the beginning. host: allen, so when it comes to troops, reducing troops in afghanistan, iraq, you just think this is politics? caller: i believe it is not just politics. i believe it is his last act in his promise to cooperation with putin to weaken america's standing in the world. whether it is about the ompromat with k

the videotape or the deutsche bank loans keeping him afloat, he is not a free-agent. he is acting at the behest of a man who he says he trusts the judgment of more than our national security officials. he has been trying to split us from nato. he has been doing everything possible in the last several years with kid gloves, treating putin-like the only person he would never criticize, to help his and putin's interests in the world. if he felt this was a popular move, he would have done it earlier, not a tawdry, last minute pardon at the end of his term. he is finally paying off the obligation he has to the man who put him in the white house. the senate needs to wake up, do their job, and whether by impeachment or resolution bar these moves militarily until

they are considered more carefully. doing this stop him last minute vandalizing your locker room after graduation. and: roll call reports, there are many headlines, senator chuck grassley, republican of iowa, says he tests positive for covid. he is missing his first roll call vote yesterday in 27 years. streaka senator's voting is over after 8927 consecutive votes. they note this, the 87-year-old left capitol hill on monday evening for the first vote of the week to limit debate on the latest of president trump's judicial nominees. missed a roll call vote in 1993 when he was traveling with president bill clinton to tour flooding damage

in iowa during what the national weather service described as the great load of 1993. -- great flood of 1993. grassley set the record in 2016. a democrat of wisconsin was the previous record holder at 22 years, five months, 28 days. that senator left office in 1989. the grassley streak ends 27 years, four months, and three days after it began. the headline related to that in the washington post this morning. absences, sinks the president's nominee to the fed." economist judy shelton, the president's nominee, appeared before the senate banking committee, and she was not approved yesterday. more reaction on capitol hill, this time from democrats, to the

president's decision to reduce troops in iraq and afghanistan. trump and pompeo are initiating a series of spiteful policy changes designed to constrain the options available to a biden presidency. nathan kuro -- the war in afghanistan must and. americans have carried the burden for two decades, but there is a right way to do this, and president trump has instead chosen to play politics. our people and allies deserve better. with the- i agree president on their withdrawals. if we cannot live -- if we cannot win in 19 years, staying there another 19 will not change the outcome. and bob costantini -- after speaking with the acting secretary this morning, i think drawing our footprint down to 2500 is the right decision.

at the same time, this reduction must be responsibly and carefully executed, quoting the chair of the house armed services committee, democrat adam smith. senator jack reed, the ranking democrat in the senate on the armed services committee, "we cannot let our armed services become a casualty of trump's wounded ego. there is a right way to do this. president trump is choosing the wrong way." bob in pittsburgh, you support the president's decision. good morning. caller: i do. i will tell you why. toond world war, we went in when it. -- win it. the korean war, truman sued for peace instead of trying to win. vietnam, the same thing. later, we go into

afghanistan and iraq. we are killing all these americans. let these people kill each other. the second world war, the philippines. my brother lost a friend in vietnam, and the ones that came back said, why were we there? we were trying to win. it is the same thing. how many americans will get killed? it has been going on since 1950. we have accomplished nothing. i salute these guys calling in from the military with their opinions. i have nothing wrong with that. that's good. i also have vietnam friends they came back. and they were wondering why are we there if we are not going to win? this whole thing is over money and that is why trump wents to

ended -- trump wants to ended. host: bob's opinion in pennsylvania. let's go to ronnie in irving, texas. you oppose. you are next. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i'm not necessarily opposed to bringing the troops home. the timing stinks, though. host: were listening. -- we are listening. the timing stinks. caller: yeah, the timing stinks. this obvious he is doing for political reasons. if he were serious about doing it, he would have already. he is putting up another roadblock of the new biden in -- of the new biden administration coming in. making snap decisions instead of what is good for the country. it will be so good to get him out of there and had a leader in that thinks with his head and what is good for the country instead of his selfish own reason.

he is a disgrace. i cannot wait until january 20. bye, trump. host: here is a text from one of our viewers. "i did not agree with the war in iraq. taking trips out now, however, would hurt the incoming administration." tim dewey we on facebook, "why would you tell everyone about your troop movements, timing, security reasons? you never should." dusty on facebook, "the war is older than some fighting it. bring them home." tracy says, "i believe it should be left to the incoming --inistration and less in administration unless in emergencies. they should not be done as a last-minute attempt to shore up the legacy of a lame-duck

president." like in miami, you are supporting the president. go ahead. caller: yes, i do support the president. the only reason anyone ever went to afghanistan, and everybody is or, now, for opium rare earth metals, which they have more than anywhere else. that is the only reason anybody is dragging it out. every war ever fought was over economics. einstein said one day we will fight a war over race. we already did. it is called vietnam. do you want to put people there to fight? take these antifas and send their butts over there to get there asses shredded. host: ok. let's go to mike in missouri, who opposes. good morning. caller: i most definitely oppose

whileecause trump, campaigning, said if joe biden was elected, there would be war, isis would reemerge. well, bombing iran starts the war for joe. removing our troops let's isis reemerge. isis reemerge. trump is making all the things he said come true without joe doing it. and removing our troops let's isis back. -- lets isis back. this is to cause joe biden trouble in his presidency. i think now is the time that all americans, republican or democrat, should be wondering what was said in all the secret meetings with the russians, with putin in the

russians -- putin and the russians in our oval office? one more thing i would like to say before i go. people are wondering, why the spread of the covid across our country has popped up? it is simple. it is trump's super-spreader fears he see had across the country. thousands of people not wearing masks. host: a couple headlines i want to share this morning you might be interested in. the wall street journal -- election security watchdog is fired. the president fired the top election security official at homeland security. in recent weeks, he disputed unsubstantiated claims of fraud advanced by mr. trump. that in the wall street journal. also this in the new york times -- for the west wing, the president-elect named five advisors for the campaign. i will point out cedric

richmond, who has been in congress and had an advisor position in the biden campaign. leaving the house to serve as the director of office of public engagement in the biden administration. let's go to perla, stafford, virginia. hi, perla. good morning. caller: good morning. host: you support the president on this. tell us why. caller: my husband was hired military. so i am supporting for the kids to come home. retired, my husband is now, but my son looked up to his father as a hero and wanted to join the military. it is amazing when a father says no to his son to go and fight this war. and the people who fought this war, you know, from the i amning -- i'm sorry,

having a hard time right now. host: that's ok. we are hearing you. caller: the fathers that fought for this war and are now looking at their own sons fighting there. that go on, these suns have their own children will be going out there for what? how about asking the wife, the mother, and the children about this war? no one looks up to the military now and says, oh, i want to do that because my father is a hero. dodger. a draft biden and obama never served in the military. and trump is bringing the military home. t is the devil. so i don't know how these women can sit at home, wait for

the sun, hope take -- wait for the son, hope they come home alive and still have limbs on their body. a couple horrors. you asked these servicemen, what is it that affected his mind, and mentally? i have a nephew in law that could not sleep in his room because a lightning would scare the hell out of him. and he is only 30 years old. host: and he served? caller: i am latina, but my son, wantsband and i, my son to go, and we are like, no, you cannot go because war is ugly. and his friends were eager to go and they come home. their minds are not even here anymore. host: perla in stafford,

virginia. this headline from the hill newspaper reported on back in august. about three quarters support bringing troops home from iraq and afghanistan according to that pole and it jibes with other polls taken as well. from marco in minnesota, reduction of troops will create a vacuum for the taliban. the generals are disagreeing with trump's decision. were in virginia, "there never enough troops to accomplish the mission in a timely manner in the first place." that is why the war lasted 20 years. not totally against troop withdrawal when done correctly, but it is doubtful that this incompetent president is capable. days is not enough time. 120 is minimum. one more.

any lame-duckpose president making such an important decision, and this one in particular. treasonous. she writes. woods, laguna california, you support the president. good morning. caller: good morning. i do indeed. this has been the most expensive war in american history, more expensive than world war ii, and we are no closer to winning the war than we were at the beginning. insane. this is we have to stop the insanity now before other brave young men or soldiers, aren killed in this foolish because. thank you very much. host: ok, mike. tom in woodbridge, virginia, posing. your turn. caller: thank you guys for

taking my call. you are a national treasure because the american people get to hear voices from all over the theyry, however uninformed may be, so i appreciate that and know a lot of other americans do. i am serving in the army reserves. i have almost 20 years of active duty time. i have two children wearing the cloth of our nation right now. so these people who are talking our soldiers dying, you have to factor in many of them don't really have anybody that is serving because only 1% of americans are serving. a lot of these guys don't know what they are talking about. i support what the president is doing contextually because what he really wants to do is save american soldiers lives. that is where his heart is at on it. the problem is that i feel he is

perhaps making the same mistake that obama made, but obama's mistake was worse. when we withdrew from iraq the first time, many people in the intelligence community were warning -- i was one of them -- that this would give birth to the rise of isis and it did. and in fact, because the deaths and crucifixion of christian of women, therape enslavement of women. we warned of that, but obama wanted to keep a political promise. i am not trying to make this political. it is just a factual statement. and i am afraid that what trump is doing now on his way out the door in his desire to get out of endless wars and to protect our american soldiers, he could as some ofe it worse

these other veterans and military advisers and military professionals are suggesting. i am one of them. we need to stay for stability purposes. because the reason these arab countries are signing peace treaties with israel is because they believe that we will have the islamicf radical terrorists come for them. and so that is why it is important that we stay there so that we can keep the islamic radicals in a box. if we do not do that, then we are going to have the equivalent of the theocracy in iraq. the iranian the offer see in iran is already controlling iraq. theocracy in iran is already controlling iraq and libya already. so what really happened with aama is that when we created

vacuum by our premature athdrawal, we created stability vacuum that allowed isis to storm across iraq and syria and they were literally knocking into -- in literally the same way. the only reason we were able to fight isis back is because the russians bombed out of them in syria and we bombed them in iraq. but the people on the ground doing the fighting's were iranian militias. those militias are incomplete and outer charge of iraq and syria. the are the backbone of fighting forces holding isis at bay. if we leave, they don't have the capability. these guys are tough guys, but they are the enemy. shia sheer militias --

militias are the greatest threats to our troops in iraq. if we leave, we are turning over iraq and area -- and syria to iran. have the does iran resources, financial and otherwise, to have a foothold in all of that area? guest: -- caller: here's the thing, these people are ideologically motivated. they will do it for a handful of goat and a few pieces of meat. it does not cost much money. point, theys a good do not necessarily have the resources. so what you will end up with, and i hope the presidential advisory team will do this, if we withdraw, what could happen because iran is not we could end up with a

failed state of iraq, a failed state of syria, and that will cause further destabilization in lebanon and iran and afghanistan and we already know that yemen is divided. there's about 20 groups fighting in yemen. so we are put in a situation where there is a regional mosaic .f crisis listen, this is what we are therefore, there's a whole lot of innocent women and children that are being butchered by these radicals. completely, and we cannot get in there when necessary to put the hammer down on some of these islamic radical groups like isis, we are going to end up with is an emergence

of a more virulent, more .angerous islamic state host: we will return to this conversation later on in the program. coming up next we will take a look at the state of the republican party since the election with brendan buck, who formerly worked for the house speaker paul ryan and john boehner. and we will focus on the democratic party with john lawrence, the former chief of staff of nancy pelosi. ♪ our guest will be live on sunday, december 6. the most recent books include begin again, james baldwin's america, and urgent lessons for our own.

and exodus, democracy and uncommon faith. join in on our life to our conversation. watch in-depth, sunday, december c-span two. >> follow the transition of power, president trump, might -- president-elect joe biden, all at c-span.org. washington journal continues. host: rendon buck joins us now, the former press secretary to john boehner and former counselor to speaker paul ryan. mr. buck, let's begin with the election. what do you think is the fate of the republican party after november 3. guest: it is surprising.

it was an election where you have the rare event of an incumbent president getting voted out. but republicans seem pretty happy, generally, with the outcome. becauseuse he lost, but down validated well. there was a lot of expectation that after this election, if the polls were right and it was going to be a blowout for democrats there would be a lot of grappling within the party about what it stands for and where to go from here. we have not seen that at all. in a lot of ways or publicans feel like -- in a lot of ways, republicans feel like down ballot outcomes are justifications of everything that president has been doing an trumpism has worked. you have a situation where democrats were expected to take another 10 to 12 to 15 seats and have lost close to 10 in the house. certainly democrats are demoralized about not getting the senate. everybody i was hoping for or expecting perhaps a conversation

among the party about what we really stand for, i think that's put off. for the time being, despite the fact that we lost i think it's going to be donald trump's party and he's going to be the biggest voice. host: how you react to this headline in the business section of the new york times, counties for and had higher job losses. ultimately this election was more about donald trump than joe biden or any other particular factor. this was a referendum on donald trump and i think a lot of people who came out were really just trying to send a message to the president. the biggest areas of the country, if you're looking for the story of the election, the biggest areas of the country that put joe biden over the top or the suburbs, with more educated, affluent white women who had had enough. they came out in droves. that's ultimately what drove the outcome of the election.

i think a lot of us expected that covid would have a bigger impact. and i think joe biden's mandate coming out of this is to address .hat crisis but jobs, the economy, all secondary to donald trump, his personality and a referendum on him as a person. host: if that's the case and, how can you say trumpism worked? guest: i'm not necessarily saying it does, i'm saying that's what a lot of republicans have internalized from this. i think if there was a blowout election you would see republicans saying we need to rethink this. but given the strong showing down ballot, the way republicans are still in office have taken this is to say that maybe the politics that drives grievance, that cells with republican voters and it shows we can turn voters.

i don't know if that's a good long-term play. i don't know if you could have trumpism without trump. there's going to be a lot of people are going to try to position themselves to be in the 2024 standardbearer. whether or not they could do that with trump hanging out is an open question. i think a lot of people were , and people are trying to adopt populist policies that president trump made famous. i don't think it's necessarily a good long-term plan but it seems like they're not moving away from it. host: what advice would you give to the party about making adjustments, based on the outcome and the turnout that you saw in suburbs and other areas. thet: for me the story of election is that character matters. that was really what was on the ballot in these places. i don't think the suburban areas are necessarily progressive. i think that's why we saw down ballot races go so poorly for

democrats. it's interesting, if you look at the polling over time, people ask who do you think is going to when, not who do you want to win. you saw people thinking donald trump going to win. and towards the end a number of voters woke up in the polling showed that more voters thought joe biden would win. when they thought joe biden would win they thought perhaps they should maybe put a check on a biden presidency. that tells me that voters in these areas are not necessarily signing up for a bold progressive agenda, tax increases, they just wanted to end the donald trump presidency. there's a lot of opportunities to win back those voters. but you need to show that you learned a lesson, that you are not just a trump party. that you have ideas, that you care about things, that you have character, and those things matter. particularly in the margins we are talking about. host: who, in the party,

represents the future? guest: certainly right now it is still donald trump. i think people are looking for what's next. we are not at that point yet. it's obviously been reported the president is talking about running again in 2024. i would be shocked if he does not at least present the appearance that he is gonna do that for the next two to three years. but he's going to have the largest voice. there's always this recency bias, and does his light dim because he loses? perhaps. tohink it's important appreciate that the party does not exist in the way that used to. there's no real establishment. we have personalities these days. donald trump is clearly the biggest personality. and the way he has taken hold over voters is the most important thing to appreciate. it's not that members of

congress who go along with whatever he says are doing it because they like him, necessarily. or respect them personally. it's because when they go home and they hear from their constituents number one thing their constituents want to know is are you with the president? i heard so many times when i was in the house. trying to sell the bill, here's the reason you should vote for that. members would say i am with you, i understand what i need to hear that trump is for because that's all my constituents care about. and the a lot of voters number one issue for them to support for the president or that hold up in congress and colors the entire party. are there other people who may want to take the party in a different direction? obviously there's mitt romney who has staked out his own ground i don't know if he has interest in running ever again. ben sasse is not a donald trump style republican. the problem for them is that the lane is very narrow for those many of people, because so

republicans are donald trump republicans. he's taken over. they could try to leave a movement but i don't think there's a lot of space. a lot of voters are not leading to a movement because there aren't any there. host: we have what representative kevin mccartney just said after he was just elected to the minority leader position again. [video clip] ipresentative mccartney: think the president, regardless of whether he's the president or citizen trump, he will play a part in this nation. i look at the number of members got elected, they got elected under president trump, who helped them get elected in the process. we expanded the party, how will it look different? water -- broader. it will reach more people. it will expand like we have not from new americans, to

first-generation, to expansion without. you will continue to see and it -- a desire to put america on a path where the next century is ours. we have rebuilt the military to continue that, to make it stronger, despite what the progressives would want to do on the opposite side. we have looked forward to making the streets safe and secure despite what the other side wants to do about defunding the police. we have wash what we have been able to do with criminal justice, despite what joe biden had done as a senator, locking people up based upon the color of their skin. we will continue to build on all of those things we believe in. thosewhy is he making specific points? guest: is making a point that republicans had a really good election night down ballot. and expanded their numbers by electing women. by adding african-americans and asian americans to the conference and away we have not been able to do in a while.

he has a good story to tell from the election. and that the president seemed to minorities, with particularly hispanic voters, there's a story to tell. whether that's enough to get you over the top, i don't know. going ton mccarthy is be doing is really running hard against the joe biden administration. kevin did an incredible job in bringing republicans right near the finish line. we are going to have a republican minority, you need 218 and they have 214. so close. to fromd to do now is just being a donald trump party to being a good opposition party , running against that progressive agenda. host: how you do that, if you are in your role that you have been in, to the speaker's office, what advice would you be giving kevin mccarthy right now

about how he plays out the next two years? onst: he needs to be focused the democrats. it's much easier to be a minority party when you have an administration today gone to the biden administration's legislative agenda has probably taken a serious hit without having control of the senate but we don't know that for sure and it seems that way. that means there's no shortage of things that joe biden will end up doing through administered actions, executive orders that i think will fly in the face of what average americans were expecting from a joe biden administration. joe biden ran as a centrist. i think he is naturally a centrist. but he's facing a lot of pressure from the left, the progressive wing of his party to do more, to go bigger and be bolder. i think you'll end up doing a lot of those things. i don't think the country centerleft. i think the country center right. that will provide a lot of

opportunities, to the extent that joe biden has to continue aoc's of the world. and he will have to do that. those are robert -- those are opportunities to remind people that who is in the house makes a difference. they can serve more as a check on the biden administration that's the most powerful message you have going into 2022, it will party can serve as a check. you always ask the question, would you rather have a congress that helps the president pass their agenda or one that serves as a check? overwhelmingly, the american people like checks and balances. that's the message i'm sure kevin mccarthy will run on. host: and he has promised, or predicted, that republicans will take back the house in 2022. let's take calls, sabrina in north carolina, on the independent line. caller: i'm curious on the

stimulus packages. is notstand that biden for those but we desperately need them. asheville has several businesses closed due to covid and there's hardly any work. so my question is, do you think that biden is going to pass any relief packages for the people? i think he wants to. one of the situation -- this is one of those situations, where everyone wants to do something. i'm disappointed congress didn't get something done. from my perspective nancy pelosi got in the way of that, that she did not want to change the election. she was clearly running out the clock on the trump presidency,

thinking she could potentially get a better deal with biden. i think that's a risky proposition. the idea that republicans who are hesitant to get there andre donald trump administration are now going to come and be with a isen administration on covid -- i'm skeptical. do i have confidence anything will happen now? all appearances are no. does not even seen that there are conversations taking place. the president has not demonstrated a lot of interest in governing. but i think it will be a top priority of the biden administration. if there was a mandate beyond being a good guy, it was to resolve this crisis, not just the public health crisis must be -- but the economic crisis. he will have to find a way to do things. the problem is what senate

republicans want and what he wants and what nancy pelosi wants are in -- are different in detail and scope. this is where joe biden's reputation will have to come into play. he's known as somebody who can get along and has a track record of working with mitch mcconnell to get things done. but there a long playing field here before they can get to the finish line. in quincy,, michigan, a democratic caller. caller: good morning. congress,licans in from what i remember, expressed their real opinions on donald ,rump before he was elected which is basically that he's a joke, a carnival barker, a con man, all supported by his trump

university lawsuits, where he had to pay out what was it? over $20 million for defrauding students? $2 million for defrauding charities? anyway. they gave their real opinion. jettisoned jet -- all integrity, except for perhaps mitt romney who has a to thehat doesn't hinder to the base,r which is a cult of personality. is, i've twoon questions. happened to the republicans that cared about deficits? host: let's take that question. guest: you're starting to see

them do that now. that was one of the biggest hangups on the covid relief package. nancy pelosi was talking about deal in herrillion first offered. one of the things that really setback negotiations early on with you had a lot of republican senators who strayed out the gate said we are not interested in spending that much money. the first timele .he cares act passed trillions of dollars that has to in days with big republican support. that was unthinkable a few years ago. but it is starting to catch up with them a little bit, certainly deficits have been going up. this was a president that never really cared about them. mild boss try to convince him of the importance of that and he made very clear early on that that was not something that motivated him. there's only so much you can ask

out of republicans who keep voting for trillions of dollars in spending. early on that was one of the hangups. i think donald trump had leaned into this early on, it was not until september or october he woke up to the fact that this was not getting done. i think it was too late at that point. if you had come out earlier in the summer and set republicans you need to do this and get behind this, there might have been a different story. but his absence left many republicans coming out saying we are not spending this much money . that's why the bill that senate republicans have come up with this only in the level of 500 million. far less. republicans had enough spending. joanne, in nevada, a republican. delegate incame a

2008 because i did not like the centrist mccain. to electingent centrists and there was no area for them to go to to bargain on the deal. everybody met in the middle, everybody was happy. everyone collected their salary. i worked for mccain to bring in votes for him. we could not get people out to vote for him. mitt romney, we cannot gather 20 meete in a carwash to because nobody liked him. he did not bring the party together. trump has brought the party together. right, let the democratic party go to the left and let's make the deal and meet in the middle.

you people have let us down a bad road -- let us down about road for 30 years. i'm tired of centrists. ?ost: is that what happened when republicans held the majority in the house, when you were there serving speaker paul ryan, is that the strategy and did it work? guest: that caller is a great example of the state of our politics. there is very little center. i would argue that there's very little dealmaking going on. we are very divided and both parties have largely taken the approach that you stick with each other and bring out your base and fire up your run voters and that the path ahead. volatile type of politics. but i would disagree little bit, does not lead to a lot of deals being made. what ends up happening is you have a breakdown in the legislative process because there's no compromise at any stage.

you have to govern by crisis. i mean government funding aadlines, the fiscal cliff is great example where we are running up against a deadline because there was no ability for lawmakers to do their job before that because nobody was willing to compromise before that. sase leaders come together at the last minute to try to stave off crisis and avert disaster and pass a deal at the last minute. it's a terrible way to legislate but it's what we are left with. i understand why people are frustrated seeing that. reflectionhat it's a that the polarization has not allowed us to come together as a functioning legislative system. , in newt's go to fred york, an independent. caller: thank you for taking my call. i wanted to say that both local parties are puppets. you get a guy like trump, not controlled by either political party, i thought he would get assassinated.

theyught won't happen if had a non-democrat or non-republican president. i figured democrats and republicans would get together and assassinate him. i think donald trump didn't get a -- assassinated because he was under the republican banner. host: let's go to john, in new jersey. caller: on the next republican republican.x i liked john mccain, i'm a vietnam veteran. i went to war for men like donald trump to say hey listen, i have bone spurs, and take golf lessons instead of taking care of this pandemic. guilty party and him are of spreading this nasty disease around the country and the

gentleman on the panel, i care about your party i quicker party because it has nothing to offer me. i only care about me like donald trump tears about him. -- cares about him. he has not admitted to the president-elect that he has won the election is because he wants to hold onto something that he ain't got. he stole the apprentice from mark buffet a and did no good that were building his buildings in atlantic city. in, do'm going to jump you think it's time for president trump to concede the race? guest: oh certainly. issensical -- it

nonsensical. one of the things i have learned with this president is that you have to demonstrate that you have to do things because it's in his best interest. he's not interested in helping the party or anyone else. i think what he can appreciate is that he's hurting is our legacy by doing this. also the potential to hold the senate majority, which i think would hurt his legacy by doing this. there is no basis for this. time is running out and you will have state starting to certify results shortly. but i think what he is doing is very harmful. i'm from georgia, i'm looking at those senate races, those runoffs which will determine the outcome of the election. his message to voters, that your vote does not matter, elections are rigged, democrats are out to get you, that starting to seep into voter psyche and it could hurt turn out and result in republicans staying home which

could give democrats those two seats, giving them the senate majority. i think that's a terrible thing for his legacy and he should stop for his own best interest. host: we are talking about your challengede being and senator kelly loeffler. those are the two senate special elections, those runoff races are taking january 6. in oklahoma, a republican. go ahead. caller: i wanted to say i don't believe we have a national agenda and that we have not had a national agenda for many years. maybe immigration on this last election in the verbiage of that , people need jobs why are we bringing people and can't we cut it off, that might have been important in this election.

but prior to that, i think it was possibly balancing the budget. and trump did balance the budget at the expense of a lot of americans. but we need another national agenda. maybe these new gop women will get this country back on track incentive pandering to these minority votes. we have thought these fights over and over and they keep coming up during elections and nothing gets accomplished. i think people appreciate the fact that president trump actually did do some of the things he promised and he's just try to complete that now with the troops. we did not go over to win those wars, we went over to be a presence and influence the world and vietnam was the same way. crazys is all kind of these things these people say. they don't even understand what's going on. host: i'm good have brendan but respond about -- buck respond

about a national agenda. guest: i think what she's getting at is that there's not been a lot of things that pull us together for national unity to get something done. i think the covid crisis is going to do that. i think it has been for the past year. that's going to be the dominant story for the next six months in politics. both in responding in the public health situation across the country as cities and states are doing, but certainly in washington, trying to pass a new legislative passage -- package but also a new administration. we have a vaccine coming online, this could be a moment we are happy with because we are able to pull together but we have a long way to go. host: what are the vulnerabilities of kevin mccarthy as a leader? vulnerabilities? his strength has always been his

ability to hold together his members, even when he was a relatively jr. member he understood politics better than anybody. now he's not necessarily -- if you want to contrast him maybe with my old boss, he's definitely less of a policy person. but to his credit he is much more of a policy person and that's why they worked well together. did not necessarily focus on the policy or the detail of the bill, he understood what motivated members. that is what's going to be helpful for him in the minority, taking back the house. it's largely politics. you are not writing bills or setting a policy agenda. you are driving policy and understanding what's good. and getting over that finish line of taking over the majority. i think he is well-positioned because of his political acumen,

but less on the policy agenda. host: can you give us an example our story that illustrates his political savviness? guest: early on they would call his office the clubhouse because there were always members there, they made it a hang out, and they thought that everybody joke, he has food in videogames. and he laughed at it, and it showed early on, he understood that politics is played in personal level. relationships drive getting things done. whether i'm looking at dash cam i was the freedom caucus that was our problem. they were always shooting at us. kevin mccarthy has really

neutralized that, and has been able to work together with an alliance with a freedom caucus because he worked so hard on those personal relationships and you always knew you could get kevin dunn because he had worked so hard on that. there were plenty of times when things have blown up, when we were in the speaker's office, particularly with the administration you needed somebody to deliver a message and it was always kevin, because he had developed such a good relationship in the white house with the president and a lot of his senior staff. host: did he ever push back on being the messenger? guest: he relished it. he loved the interplay between people. he craves conversation and is always talking to someone. i worked with kevin from the lisle. one of the things that was most stunning to me, we were getting

into an suv going to an event somewhere and he started calling reporters. i was his press guy, i was always taken aback by that. but he loves the interaction, he loves talking to people. he loves hearing what people are hearing and knowing where you are from, your wife's name, your kid name, your dog, and really developing that connection. he's a people person and he always has been. he loves going in and being the one in the room to solve the problem. savannah,g to georgia, maria, and independent -- an independent. could you please turn off your television? go ahead. caller: i have enjoyed the conversation that your guest is providing. this is the first time i have had some sort of idea of what's happening with the republican party. the president can salvage his

legacy if he can beat the next fournd spend the years building up his base, because there are 72 million people out there and leave the presidency with dignity and respect for the democratic party. guest: i agree. ais president has developed following unlike anything we have seen maybe ever in presidential politics. the loyalty to which republican .oters give him his remarkable it rears its head everywhere through our politics and legislative and electoral process. he will be the most sought after surrogate in the midterms to get people to come out. he really is the party at this point. the question is what can he do with that? can he that remarkable power that he has, whether it's the power to marshall voters, get our attention?

he controls what we talk about and really has over the last 45 years. joe biden is the only one who did -- you could figure out how to deal with that. but he's never really used it for good. superpowers he has he uses for his own self-indulgence, to get attention for himself as the end goal in itself. what he could potentially do, and he has the potential to do all kinds of things no other president could do, like get a deal on dreamers and immigration, or on guns that no republican do other than him, use those powers to have people follow him no matter what policy is for or to use that power to get attention for himself and drive towards outcomes. drive towards policy goals, not necessarily saying those are the only things he should focus on but he has the ability to do all kinds of things no other republican could.

if you just focused his energy and his following end his power to get attention on an agenda he could be really powerful and that is something he could run on. host: did your old boss, paul ryan, share that opinion, that he had superpowers that he did not use for good? did he try, in his conversations with the president when he was in office to try to convince them of that? awet: he was in all of -- of his ability to rile up voters, to move past policy. in a lot of ways the last few years has been a post-policy world where is really whether you are with her against the president that clouds everything . it was really hard to grasp that. everything has to be looked at through the prism of where the president is.

forof his primary jobs those two years was to try to help the president to be a better president. that was a lot of conversations and advice on things he should or shouldn't do or should and should not say and approaches he should take. i'm well aware that he's one of many voices the president was hearing. but it was definitely his goal touchhe outset to try to -- to try to help him be a better president. how successful we are as hard to judge. but he spoke to him quite regularly. certainly more early on then towards the end. the president still has some issues with the former speaker. but he certainly try to help, talk to him a lot, give him advice about using his megaphone to advance things in a positive way. host: their relationship seemed publicly strained. the president was critical of him. what impact did that have

personally on paul ryan? guest: he's a pretty resilient guy. i don't know that it impacted him too much. he understood that this is part of the job. and this was a unique president, someone who came in without a lot of experience. he saw his role early on in educating him. here's how this works in terms of a congress legislating. here are the steps we can take. health care was one of the top priorities, explaining that if we are going to do health care it needs to be done through the budget reconciliation process, granular things. strain perhaps there was that came over a period of time, largely around the issue of immigration. the president wanted money to build a wall in a way that was really hard to do. there were just not boats for

that -- votes. we try to get what we could but it took a lot of bites of the apple and i think that tired his patients. if there was one issue it would have been that. i don't know what really motivates the presidents animus that he has towards the former speaker. i know that paul is fine and happy with how it worked out on his end. insighthave a ton of into what the president is thinking. but he did try to help. the former speaker support the reelection of president trump? guest: i actually did not asking that question. you will have to invite him on to know he voted for -- no who he voted for. host: denise, in washington, a democratic collar. caller: first i would like to thank you, c-span, i have learned a lot about government

and how it works by watching people debate on the floor of .he senate and the house and i kind of understand my government a little better. i'm not pleased with either side or down the middle because it has not been about we the people . it's been about one man and his personally, i'm extremely happy with him being gone come january. i think you will take matters in hand, i think he's been working before his time and i'm speaking of course at the 46th president and his vice president, which women should have been involved at that level long ago. but it's a man's world. in a man's world it's not easy. and in donald trump's world it's

really askew. he sees it one way and everybody else goes down that way. he could care less about americans or america because he's done nothing except kill people since day one. host: i'm going to leave that they are. let me ask about the president's decision to draw down troops. you have seen mixed reactions from lawmakers in both parties. do you think there would be support on capitol hill to pass some sort of resolution disagreeing with the president out of the house or the senate? guest: there might be. one of the areas of this presidency has been the general willingness of republicans to go along the policy positions the president has made. foreign policy is one of those areas where it has not been true at all. seen this, or the

decision on syria withdrawals, this is the same story. this is an issue area where republicans have been consistent in opposing the president's isolationist policy. it is so ingrained in who republicans are and i don't know that it resonates much with voters. so maybe it gives them the space for this to be the one issue. but for whatever reason, republicans have been clear they don't support this decision and there are consequences to doing this. so there might be room for some type of resolution. i don't know how many tools they have a change policy, certainly the new administration could change it. i think a publican's have been vocal in opposing it. -- republicans have been vocal in opposing epithets not unique with national security issues. brendan buck, now a

partner at a public relations firm, formally worked under paul ryan and john boehner, thank you. when we come back we are returning to our question about the president's decision to draw down troops in iraq and afghanistan. back with your phone calls and just a minute. ♪ >> listen to c-span's podcast, the weekly, we are talking about women in the recent election with kelly dip bar and what changed the election cycle for women and why. you can find the weekly where you get your podcasts. >> you are watching c-span, your unfiltered view of government. created by america's cable television company as a public service and brought to you today by your television provider.

washington journal continues. host: we are back with our question, u.s. troop reductions in iraq and afghanistan, if you support the president's decision . dialing at (202) 748-8000 .f you oppose (202) 748-8001 if you are a veteran dial in at (202) 748-8002. if you are active military dial in at (202) 748-8003. christopher miller announced the troop drawdowns in those two countries yesterday. [video clip] 2021, ourary 15, forces, their size and afghanistan will be 2500 troops. be 2500 byll also that same date. this is consistent with our established plans and strategic

objectives, supported by the american people. and does not equate to a change in u.s. policy or objectives. moreover, this decision by the president is based on continuous engagement with his national security cabinet for the past several months, including ongoing discussions with me and my colleagues across the united states government. i have also spoken with our military commanders. we will all execute this repositioning in a way that protects our fighting men and women. our partners in the intelligence community and diplomatic corps, and superb allies which are critical to rebuilding afghan and iraqi security capabilities and civil society freight lasting peace -- for a lasting peace. host: that was the defense secretary yesterday. reactions hill, mixed

. the leader of the republicans in the senate, mitch mcconnell, kentucky, telling reporters that the drawdown is a mistake. here's what he said. [video clip] mcconnell: let me start by saying it's extremely important in the next couple of months not changesany earthshaking with regard to defense and foreign policy. i think a precipitous drawdown in afghanistan or iraq would be a mistake. so i said publicly yesterday. that's precisely where these discussions end up. host: we turn to you to get your take. in las vegas opposes this. caller: it's the wrong thing for

him to do. he's doing everything he can because he lost. he don't care. he's going to jail, i don't know why people don't know this or see this. all he has done since he has lie, lie,fice is lie, and do bad things. he's going to jail. when he gets off the plane in florida he's going to jail. they will be waiting for him. it?: do you oppose because it's coming from president trump? guest: i have people in the service. yes. i am concerned. wichita, kansas, you support the president. caller: good morning. go ahead. i support the president, because politicalou can trade power for firepower, that's a sure trade. and peter, opposing, in

massachusetts. caller: hello, thank you for taking my call. i oppose it for two reasons. to puti think it's crazy it in the public domain, to talk about the timetable. we need to go forward more gradually. and one final comment. the tokyo nhk newscast this morning talked about this and they showed an american soldier walking through a field of pop pies. so clear is the message from that picture. there is a demand for those poppies. for the opium. where does that money go? the taliban. we have not successfully addressed a drug suppression program that should have been

undertaken because it's a amount of money. solved and funding corruption in afghanistan. if we pull out now it will create havoc for the people. the: so let's listen to acting defense secretary because he outlined the goals of this administration. [video clip] >> we set out to accomplish three goals, go abroad and destroy terrorists. their organizations, and their sanctuaries. two, strengthen our defenses against future attacks. and three, prevent the continued growth of islamist terrorism to include by working with allies and local partners to take the lead in the fight. today is another critical step in that direction and the result of president trump's bold leadership with the blessings of providence in the coming year,

we will finish this generational war and bring men and women home. we will protect our children from the heavy burden and toll of perpetual war and we will honor the sacrifices made in service to peace and stability in afghanistan, iraq, and around the world, and celebrate those who helped us secure freedom over oppression. host: the acting defense secretary outlining what the administration has set out to do. but they are saying for the troop withdrawal is in afghanistan, the number at 45 hundred, they want to take it to 2500 by january 15. in iraq the numbers around 3000 and they want to bring it to 2500 before inauguration day. thatogistics is something senator tammy duckworth, a veteran and senator of illinois addressed. [video clip] duckworth: we are going to

lead the troops there in a manger disadvantage -- in a major to savannas. caches will be left behind because we lack the logistic capabilities to bring the equipment back. we bring back cap the troops by the beginning of january that means we are leaving a quick and behind that the taliban and our enemies can use it to attack the remaining troops in theater. this is the wrong way this is why the military commanders have spoken up and said this is the wrong thing to do. we want troops home, let's not bring them home in a body bag. that's potential with going to happen if this president gets his way and put his own political timeline ahead of our national security. host: iraq veteran tammy duckworth there. the washington post has reported this morning that the war in afghanistan has cost $1 trillion -- 800,000 service members have been deployed to

afghanistan at least once. bob, and personal, virginia, you support the president on this. caller: i support them 100%, mainly because sooner or later we have to get out. we have to stop this nationbuilding thing. though weion, even get out and we hope that afghanistan and iraq can stand by themselves, the prediction is that's not can happen. they're going to go back to the drug thing in afghanistan. they will go back to inner fighting in iraq. it's gonna happen. host: so why support the decision? that's not concerning two for america safety? caller: i support the decision

because those things are going to happen anyway. all of the troops in afghanistan, and i love them, all of the troops that died, i'm a veteran myself, but in the future it's going to be seen that they'll died for not. for nothing. because those countries are gonna go back to their old ways and nothing will have been accomplished. and i'm sorry to say that. at theet's take a look statistics from the defense department. , 4505.al deaths in iraq 32,000 have been wounded. in afghanistan, the death toll, 2447 military casualties. 21,000 wounded. -- rashid and

washington, d.c., you oppose drawing down the troops. caller: i do oppose withdrawing for a few reasons. that you can see in history, when the cold war ended and the u.s. abruptly , -- and itporting happened in afghanistan in that time. is a war with the afghan national security forces and under extreme pressure from the taliban forces, they will reach out to the u.s. support forces that can help them. withdrawal, the control will go again into civil war and islamic extremists and

fundamentalists will pop up and they will have ices with them -- isis and al qaeda. happens is that the 20 years war, the treasure, the wastedill just be because they will come back .gain it's just gonna be repetition. so instead of just abruptly theyng back the troops political away from isolationism or they get the same thing. caller in steve -- in

phoenix, arizona. caller: i support the president. i think the people who want to stay in iraq are the people who wanted to invade in the first georgethe people who got bush to evade the neocons. they did not want the u.s. to invade because of weapons of mass destruction because they were connected to al qaeda. they wanted him to attack iraq because the really powerful .orce were the shiite militias -- and theons neocons are passionately attached to israel. they want us to stay in there to continue to fight with the shiite militias because there is an alliance that is holding israel and check from dominating -- in check from dominating

.ebanon attacked solemani and at the same time killed the leader of the shiite militias. they are determined to get us out. if we don't get out, they will fight us and will be never ending war and probably drawing us into war with iran. host: ella, supporting. been over the years we have been in afghanistan as to really why are we there. i had been introduced to a lot of information from sources that ,alk about lithium and gold minerals in abundance in russiastan and china and

are mining in afghanistan for these precious metals. metals. i am wondering if this isn't part of the reason we remain in afghanistan. i guess that's it. it is a question on my mind. host: evan in south san francisco, opposing. caller: ivan. --yvonne. i don't trust him in the right way for protection of our soldiers and country. he waits for the new administration to do what they need to do. and bow out gracefully would be nice. earl in california, he served in iraq. when did you serve? 1990's.in the

i was in south baghdad. host: what is your opinion about the president's decision? caller: as a veteran we tried to have any opinion on the president. we support the civilian rule of the government. my comment is we are a peaceloving country and we love peace as we should. we who bear the burden of war a the war more than anything. we know who our enemies are. american't the public support cousin killing them? of whatat do you make the new york times reports today, which is the february 29 agreement between the u.s. and the taliban to start troop withdrawal?

they agree to publicly separate themselves of al qaeda, which was under the taliban government's protection when they launched the 9/11 attacks. that has not happened yet. drawdown was a condition of the taliban breaking their ties with al qaeda. um, i refer to my previous comment. why aren't these people dead? why haven't we killed them? joe and alabama -- in alabama. tell us why you supported. -- support it. caller: it is a great strategic move. president trump has done something hard for me to believe. look what he did in the middle east.

no one has done what he has done. and the amir in hubby dobby and bahrain -- abu dhabi and bahrain making a great piece move. -- this movie is making now, the first thing he did, he came in and had the isis caliphate stretched out. are you there? host: we are listening. caller: hey got rid of the caliphate. who could have thought he could've done that in two years he did it? -- he is pulling out the troops. which is strategic. they caning happens,

put them right back in. he's really done a great job. this is no big problem. becauseit is political there are members in the house and senate, some republicans and democrats and all of that. everybody is about this one subject. it is in flux. host: let's hear from bill, veteran of the iraq war. louisville, kentucky. caller: good morning. i think we ought to get out. remember eisenhower told his years ago beware of the military-industrial complex and the neocons. they want to fight wars all the time. we only thing we do is act as policeman over there.

this nationbuilding nonsense needs to stop. remember what we did for them at tora bora. we destroyed them and we did it with airpower. if anything happens we can send in the air force and wipe them out within 25 minutes. if we are willing to do that. host: when did you serve in iraq? caller: in the 1990's. secretary-general put out this statement about the president's decision. "the price for leaving too soon could be very high. afghanistan risks becoming a platform for international terrorists to organize attacks in her homelands. and isis could rebuild in afghanistan. the caliphate it lost in syria and iraq. we went into afghanistan together. on the time is right we should leave together in an orderly way. i count on all nato allies to live up to this commitment for

our own security." the new york times notes that the american troop presence, which is seen as a head against a resurgence of the islamic state and powerful iranian has come down to about 3500 troops this year. it will come down to 2500 in january. the cuts have not been a source of alarm. the prime minister described the cuts is being agreed to and desirable for both sides. in afghanistan, security forces are well supplied and funded by an influx of foreign cash. meaning a further american withdrawal would not automatically entail a collapse. military officials say they have military planes of their own if the united states continues to withdraw and peace talks drag on without progress." pat in texas. you support drawing down the troops? caller: i do support the troops.

i will go to the old slogan. democrats get us in a war and republicans get us out. that being said -- host: what about george w. bush? caller: that's the one exception. host: what about george h w bush/ caller: i'm not going down that way. democrats are always complaining about how much money we are spending. how many of our poor boys are getting killed over there? let's bring them home. you can't have it both ways, lady. host: ok. don in st. paul, minnesota, opposing the president's decision. caller: i oppose it. president trump has been a total disaster in foreign policy. previous callers talk about

democrats starting a war. not true. it's pretty much been a republican. we are into two wars started by republicans. been there. iraq was a total disaster. president bush totally blew that. i am a retired veteran. behind and not having adequate force to protect themselves is totally unconscionable. we are having a change of command. the new commander should be making these decisions and should be handed off in controlled way. totally disagree with it. host: mark in new york sends us this text. you can do the same if you text at (202) 748-8003.

" aren't we sentencing them to death?" you can text us with your first name, city, and stated that number. paul in kentucky supporting the president's decision. caller: hi. i support president trump on this. i'm a veteran of two wars, korea and vietnam. we did not learn our lesson after world war ii. we messed up in korea. we messed up and vietnam. why we want to keep up wasted money? people don't even have good public water. roads.t even have good that money can go for a lot the americand people don't want to take care of the veteran the way they promised. why make more veterans? it is time to get out and quit worrying about -- thank you.

.ost: brady in lima, ohio when did you serve? back in the early -- 1989 to 1994. all i have to say is look, i will fight for my country no matter what. there becauseover this is about democracy. democracy is about standing up for what you believe in. to me. i took two bullets for my country. i have no shame about that. for anybody to get on tv and say that we can't protect the innocent, that's just wrong. that's all i got to say. host: roy in jacksonville, florida, supporting the president's decision. caller: i'm in support of the president.

i thought it was a great move. if anybody says we should stay there, what have we gained from it? 19 years of war. blood and treasure. it was a good decision the president made. when genghis khan and all of them was in the area going down -- silk road, they concert conquered the various nations of the india. the russians cannot do it. genghis khan did not want none of it. why is america there 19 years? the man on the phone talking about freedom and democracy. everybody don't want american freedom and democracy. we need to get out of this thing thinking everybody is supposed to follow america because of our ideology. it is not so. if anything, we need to take care of america. o, the megan negr

indian,- the american look at our economy. no jobs or nothing. let's stop all this foolishness. the man made a good decision. host: polls back the president. here is one from august. three quarters support bringing troops home from iraq and afghanistan. troy in pittsburgh. when did you serve? caller: 2001 to 2010. i think it is perfect because 2000 soldiers puts us where we can go back to where we were rotating into kuwait before iraq started. about between 400 thousand -- 300,000 to

400,000 u.s. army soldiers. this is not world war ii where we had one million men. giving relief to 11 bravo's, first-line fighters, this helps them out. we are at brigade level. 2000 is right around brigade strength. the third brigade out of fort hood or down in georgia can go , or the 82nd airborne can go over. the 101st can go over. it is not a big drain on the u.s. forces. host: michael in baton rouge, louisiana. you also support the president's decision here. caller: thank you for letting me speak. i do support the president. i pretty much support just about everything the president do. he is not a democrat or republican.

he's an american. we all are americans and we should all support the president. i also think that we should never have been in iraq or anyplace like that at all. this president had the foresight to bring us home. i appreciate him and everything he has ever did for this country. he is the best president we have ever had on this planet, bar none. he will be back if they go him out of office which they are really trying to do. host: i want to thank all the veterans for calling in today. thank you for your service as well. we will take a break. we will take a look at the future of the democratic party with john lawrence, former chief of staff to speaker nancy pelosi. we will be right back. ♪ watch in-depth with chair of academic and studies at onnceton university live

sunday, december 6 at noon eastern. his most recent books include "again again: james baldwin's and "an" "exodus," uncommon faith." join the conversation. , december 6, at noon eastern on tv on c-span2. use mobile devices and go to c-span.org for the latest video, live and on-demand, to follow the transition of power. president trump, president-elect biden, news conferences and coverage at c-span.org. washington journal continues. host: joining us now is john lawrence, visiting professor at the university of california

washington center and the former chief of staff to then congresswoman nancy pelosi from 2005 to 2013. now she is the speaker of the house. john lawrence, when did you begin your time with the speaker? when did you end and describe your relationship with her. guest: 1975 to 2013. the last eight years from 2005 to 2013 i was the speaker's chief of staff. before that i held a number of different positions with another member and with two committees. being the chief of staff of the speaker is very much like drinking out of a fire hose everyday. we had two years under president bush. then two years under president obama. during that time we covered everything from the financial collapse to the passage of

health care and stimulus and the after effects of the financial meltdown. the last two years we lost the majority so we were in the minority. and highite a diverse pressure ride i/o is described as just drinking out of a fire hose everyday. host: i want to show viewers with the speaker has to say when she was asked about the election results. [video] >> we had a very deep victory two years ago. i don't think people are quite understanding of the 40 seats that we won, 31 were in trump districts. he wasn't on the ballot and right away we said he is going to be on the ballot. at the steeper climate these districts. we saved most of the seats. we are very proud of that.

we now have a president of our party in the white house, joe biden. we have a majority in the house, albeit smaller, but nonetheless a majority. chairs of, committees, subcommittees and the rest. the beautiful diversity of our caucus. we see it as a tremendous opportunity as we go forward because we have to address the fact that president trump, to his credit, turned out a big vote in some of these districts. people wondered how he won the before, they were so trumpian. with him on the ballot bringing a bigger vote. but we are getting ready for the next time. a number of candidates have already said they will run again. i will not make any announcements for anybody but a number have told me they are ready. they love being in congress.

they were proud to have one. won.ve they were proud of the campaign they made. host: this figure thought the democratic party -- the speaker thought the democratic party would pick up seats and they lost seats. how did that happen? at theyou have to look 2020 outcome, which was disappointing for democrats in terms of the house and senate in the context of what happened previously. from 2010 reapportionment, democrats were disadvantaged in many states. they did not do a good job in the 2010 election with respect to legislatures that your boundaries. republicans were able to maintain a majority for most of the subsequent decade. in 2018, the public reaction was very strong against president trump. democrats came out in large numbers. we saw a lot of folks switching among suburban women and

democrats were able to win in 31 seats president trump had carried just two years earlier. by the nature of these off-year elections where it is a different electorate, usually a smaller electorate, and very the firstssessment of two years of the presidential term, democrats were able to pick up a significant number of seats in the swing districts. there are not that many swing districts anymore. in 2020, they lost a small number of districts in a very large -- historically the largest election turnout in the history of the united states. then't have any question speaker and democrats in general would have liked to have won and retained those seats and pick up additional seats. the fact of the matter is they are not that many swing s seats in the congress. in 2018, many were vulnerable.

in 2020, unfortunately it was a democrats that had margins shrink and it will be a democratic majority but a smaller one. in the house of representatives in particular, the majority is important. if you don't have 218 votes, you just having a conversation. that means the democrats will elect a speaker and control committees, elect chairs and establish the agenda for the house of representatives. even though it is a narrow margin and it will be difficult when you get down to vote, the democrats are affection -- factional iced party -- factionalized party. democrats remain in the majority and that was the primary goal. host: john lawrence, the x clinician right now -- the explanation right now -- we do about the make about the districts. what was it?

abigail spanberger says this. "we want to talk about funding social services and ensuring good engagement and community policing. let's talk about what we are for and not ever use the word socialism ever again. while people think it doesn't matter, it does matter. we lost good numbers because of it." guest: i don't think there is any question in certain districts and in some of the districts democrats lost using the word socialism is probably not the prime idea for messaging. i would just point out it is not as though socialism was the message or the frame the democratic party decided to use in 2020. there were a handful of people on the democratic caucus who talked about democratic socialism and socialist policies. the republicans were fairly words to using those

suggest that was the overall objective of democrats in general. it wasn't and i think with the president elect biden and other democratic candidates were clear. that small group of people within the party using that language did not speak for them and do not speak for the agenda of the party. you can't control what other people say. the one thing i know from almost 40 years in-house politics is that these elections are won and lost at the district level. you have to look at the dynamics and at specific districts. i appreciate representative samberg. she understands her district. i don't know if she knows the details of what happened in the other districts or what variable or message it was that led to those seats. i would point out that the nature of those districts was very tenuous.

in an election year we had a large turnout. it is not surprising we would lose really a handful out of those 31 seats. the democrats are going to have to work hard on their messaging because there is an ideological diversity within the party and what works in one district will not work in every district. i worked on nationalizing health races and messages. it's a tricky thing to do. you have to remember that message of socialism and the far-left, that was pushed by hundreds of millions of dollars of republican messaging. there was not a dime of democratic money or democratic effort meant to promote that message in any congressional district. host: we invite viewers to join the conversation. what you think that november 3 election mean and democratic leadership. our guest is john lawrence, former chief of staff to nancy pelosi. visiting professor at the university of california washington center.

he has written the book, "the class of 1974." it was released in march of 2018. yourlawrence, what is advice if you were still chief of staff about how she governs over the next two years? her opposition, her opponent, minority leader kevin mccarthy is predicting republicans take back the house in 2022. guest: i think mrs. pelosi understands very well you cannot do the congress forward by looking over your shoulder. she has been and remains quite interested, notwithstanding some of the ways she has characterized, trying to frame legislation in a bipartisan way. canknows legislation that be developed in a bipartisan way endures much better and gets better public buy in and does not face the kind of factional attacks wetionalized

have seen from much legislation. , asink she understands that we have seen from house apublican party since 2009, refusal to participate in all most all legislative initiatives. no matter how much they were involved. that includes the affordable care act where there were hundreds and hundreds of republican amendments considered and many adopted. yet no republican votes. did you have to go forward. she will have a difficult time putting together those 218 democratic votes, let alone bringing republican votes along. i go back to what we heard from senator mcconnell. make barack obama a one-term president. what we heard from republican leader john boehner in 2010. we have no interest in working on you with jobs legislation or health legislation. i was in the room of those

things were said. i think the speaker will have to make a determination that there are certain hyper yardage the american people want, whether it is covid legislation, health care, pre-k and education support. whether or not that is climate change. we will move forward & legislation. we will develop it away that keeps democrats together and hopefully attract some republicans. if we get this absolute refusal to participate, we will still push that legislation and this time have a president that supports it. host: brian in illinois, independent. caller: good morning. i have spent my life as a union electrician. many family members were members of organized labor. an issue i think the democrats get wrong and the democrats lost ground in the house this past election is immigration. democrats, the liberal urban elite say immigration is nothing but good.

there are a lot of good aspects to it. what drives working-class class and working people crazy is that the democratic party, the people attitudeit have this that we can have semi-open borders. they don't come out and say that but if you added their policy positions, it is mass migration. we are coming out of this viral pandemic. good paying jobs are going to be at a premium. most americans are having a hard time making a living. we have leaders of the democratic party that want to say let in more immigrants. host: the issue of immigration, john lawrence? guest: i don't think that's what the democrats are saying. you are repeating the way republicans mischaracterized democratic positions. i would point out when president obama was in office he was criticized by members of the congressional hispanic caucus and others for taking the very

vigorous position on border security and deportation. senate look back at the when it was under democratic control in 2013 that passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill similar to the house. speaker boehner refused to allow a hearing on it. i don't think it is fair to say that a party is for open borders. i don't know any democrat supporting that. democrats have in the last two years when in the majority have supported additional money for border security. they also support money for not throwing children out of the country who were brought here and are productive residents, productive in the military or in the universities. childrenot want putting cages -- putting cages.

the republican party was in control of the house of representatives in 2010 to 2018. they are in charge of the senate since 2016. they had plenty of opportunity, particularly under two years of president trump to develop a comprehensive immigration bill that the democrats did when they were in control of the senate in 2013. they had not done anything. they said immigration policy is to lockup children and throw people out of the country. that is not an immigration policy. that is a punitive policy. look, there is a huge national consensus that we need strong borders but we also have to have a reliable amnesty program and a program that deals with the 12 million people already here, particularly with young people that were brought here through no action of their own. that is going to have to happen on a collaborative, bipartisan basis. we will see from president biden

and likely speaker pelosi an opportunity to do that. the question is whether people will be supportive and are going to join in that effort or we will just hear continuation of policies that really denigrate refugees and people who have legitimate claims to come to the united states under current federal law. host: andrew in houston, texas. democratic caller. caller: you for taking my call. -- thank you for taking my call. texas,gards to my state, the democrats did not do as well as we had hoped. they did not do as well in the statehouse for the state legislature. also had a couple of races of the houston area. dan crenshaw and another candidate. host: why do you think that was? why do you think that happened? caller: part of it was

messaging. i think the events of the summer -- the civil unrest we saw you saw extremists from both sides in the streets. i think people in texas consider themselves to be law-abiding citizens and have a lot of respect for lawmen. that goes to our history with the sheriffs and the texas rangers. defund the police really did hurt them. i'm sure mr. lawrence would agree with me that there really weren't any elected officials from the democrats out calling for defunding the police. once again we had to battle misinformation and i would like to say to all the voters out there, democrat or republican, stand in the light of the truth. do not believe this information. vet your information well and do not be prone to extremism and provocation. thank you. host: john lawrence, isn't it a

messaging gain? did democrats fall short on that? guest: i think there is probably no question the civil unrest that occurred was not helpful in terms of distracting public attention from other issues. 1.i would make is let's remember in all of this covid assistance we have been -- the democrats have been trying to pass, but good chunk of money that goes to state and local governments to help with police and other first responders. that has been blocked by the senate. when we get down to the question of who is supporting the police and who has been supporting interoperability of communications and support for state and local law enforcement through the legislation congress actually runs and funds, democrats have been very supportive of that. i think the caller understands this. there is an effort to take the actions of a few hundred people

in a few cities around the country -- we are talking about ridiculous anti-police policies, which are not supported by even the minority community by any assignn the cities, and that rhetoric to members of the democratic party. you can count the number of people who would use that language on one hand in the congress. that is not representative of the democratic party. we have to do a better job making it clear democrats pulled a strong record in terms of providing financial assistance and support both in terms of funding, helping state and local governments, in terms of equipment to help the police do their job responsibly. at the same time democrats will be strongly outspoken that the civil liberties and civil rights of american citizens have got to be respected by everybody. when we have situations like george floyd in minnesota and

other cases, people have a right to protest. people have a right to demand police reform. host: john lawrence, here is a text from nathaniel, a democrat in waverley, ohio. "when will mitch mcconnell and nancy pelosi finally come to terms and agree on an american stimulus package?" the washington post editorial time argues today it is the speaker negotiate with republicans. "when negotiations between mrs. blows the other trump administration broke off before the election the latter had upped its offer to $1.9 trillion. the speaker objected. it lacked details such as the proposal -- such as a plan for containing the virus and was smaller than the $2 trillion the house passed in october. president trump was sending mixed signals well mitch mcconnell -- well mitch mcconnell would accept anything more than $500 billion.

pelosi'sbelow sees -- strategy was to hold out, it did not work out." did she misplayed her hand? guest: i think that was very wrongheaded. you can't negotiate with yourself. the way in which even the washington post trained that point, you have one suggestion coming from president trump. another coming from senator mcconnell. another coming from the other groups of republicans. even on the sheared top level number there is no agreement. mrs. pelosi past three different versions of the stimulus bill. it has come down each time. still she cannot get the republicans to come and say here's the bill the house republicans will support, the senate republicans will support, and the president will sign. she cannot continue to go to negotiations and say if i lower

the number to this number? how about if i lower the number to this number? that is counterproductive to her interest. point number two is this is not a numbers game. we are talking about what the money is used for. republicans are still not willing to give adequate on appointment assistance. they are not supporting extended nutrition assistant. they are not supporting aid for state and local governments. and up to the election they opposed additional financial assistance to aid the states and complying with the kind of special needs they have because of the election. it is not just a numbers game. there are two obligations here. the republicans have got to get their act together. the democrats in the house passed three bills and the republicans,enate congressman mccarthy's public into the president are playing three different fields. they are not in agreement and misses below seat -- nobody can negotiate where she has one

position and there are three other positions coming at her. we have to agreed not just on the number. you have to agree on what the money is used for. i don't think she is being unreasonable. she is saying, then offer -- come with an offer. she can't create the republican position for them. they have to do that hard work and they are refusing to do it. host: talking with john lawrence , former chief of staff of speaker pelosi. jake sherman of politico tweeting up mark meadows will be with the senate majority leader today in the capital. government funding also runs out and 23 days. in addition to possibly having an agreement over more economic thefor the covid pandemic, congress and white house have to agree on a government spending. john lawrence, what do you think will happen? guest: this is a continuing resolution because congress was not able to reach an agreement

on all 13 appropriation bills by september 30. they have to continue funding. they do in short-term increments. one option is another short-term continuation until sometime after the biden administration takes office. most people would like to see and on the best. mnibus.t -- an on th when the new congress comes in, they have to start working on the 2020 to budget and the appropriation bills. they don't want to be handicapped having to work on the 2021 version. these bills to get worked out because there is a huge penalty here if they don't. the government can shut down. nobody wants to see that happening around the holiday season, particularly with the kind of difficult organizational things that exist during the covid crisis in congress. there is a fairly good likelihood they will come together. whether they do that for a

short-term continuing resolution or a longer-term omnibus is based on how well negotiations go. these kinds of issues generally get worked up because they encompass the vast range of legislation that affects virtually every area of the congress. everybody has an interest in getting them solved. host: dylan and sturgis, south dakota. caller: i appreciate it. the virus has gone governore since our let the bike rally in here. a lot of our kids are getting it from schools too. police, we need our police here. i am a disabled veteran. my wife died of covid about eight months ago.

she couldn't get the chemo. she ended up passing away. people are on v.a. and social security. i hope the government does not shut are paid down because there are a lot of people at food banks. a lot of people aren't even wearing masks around here. when the rally came, nobody was wearing a mask. it was like madness around here. now we are just booming. tosident trump, he goes up mount rushmore up there. there were 6000 people. nobody was hardly wearing masks. it just spread like crazy around here. it is just terrible appear. host: i am sorry to hear about your wife. john lawrence,? -- you are thoughts?

guest: express my condolences on the loss of his wife and appreciation for his service to the country as a veteran. i remember the sturgis motorcycle rally. a huge annual event in south dakota. governor was very strongly opposed to wearing masks. my son is a doctor. he's in the hospital everyday. he assured me the coronavirus is a nonpartisan virus. it has nothing to do with being a democrat or republican. quite frankly, if you look at just the way canada, just across the border from us and nothing far from south dakota, is managing this crisis. very small cases. looking at australia. there are ways to deal with the crisis. the science is in -- physicians say

we could have 90% containment if we just wear masks. there is no reason whatsoever why we would should not be wearing masks and doing all these other things that can really reduce the spread. d.c. tofrom washington, new mexico at the beginning of october when the president was in the hospital. i would say 95% of the people we saw along the way and nt and hotel for not wearing masks. now you have that explosion in the central area of the country. i'm not surprised. i just hope that tragic cases dylan relate in his own family -- relayed and his own family finally make the point to people. there something we can do to reduce the spread of the virus and contain it. host: john lawrence, what is it like to work for speaker pelosi? guest: i'm glad you asked that.

i am writing a book right now about that. hopefully i will be able to finish it reasonably soon. it takes the reader behind-the-scenes inside the conversations and negotiations and personal discussions that explain how she works. know therebviously i are different views of her. i have a particularly personal one. she is tireless. is this unique combination of political strategist who understands things like messaging and campaigns and fundraising, but also understands the intricacies of a vast array of policies. she is a vigorous defender of her institution, which she views as a coequal branch of government.

coequal with respect to the senate. she is a firm advocate for her members. that involves ceaselessly meeting with her members. that includes the vast array of ideological points of view within the caucus to try to formulate policies that unify democrats and help them in terms of both their particular constituencies and electorally. she has the capacity for sheusting her staff because at 11:00 ortty much 12:00 in the evening as she is at 7:00 at night. there is a reason she has been elected repeatedly since 2002 as a democratic leader. if u.s. totty good

why that was and hopefully i will be able to convey that in the new book. host: house democrats hold leadership election today and tomorrow. someone at hakeem jeffries to challenge the speaker. what he think about that and what do you think about hakeem jeffries is the future of the party? guest: i think congressman jeffries made the right decision. i'm not sure he had a decision to make because i'm not sure with the argument against mrs. pelosi's continuation would have been, which is why no one decided to run against her. two years ago when there was an organized effort to move against her, one of the people leading moulton, wasseth interviewed and he said she's a really good strategist and a really good fundraiser in a really good negotiator. why are you opposing her in that case?

caucus must remember they make this decision as to what is in the best interest of the democratic caucus. when the republican caucus decided newt gingrich was no longer the right person to be speaker, they threw him out. when the republican congress decided john boehner was no longer the right person, they threw him out. the democrats have retained nancy pelosi because she keeps the caucus together and she maximizes the chance for the caucus to expand its numbers in the next election. what has been happening in the last several years has been a new, younger generation of democratic leaders, including mr. jeffries and kathleen clark of massachusetts and others have been moving into secondary leadership positions within the caucus. of. pelosi has promoted many

those people into positions like assistant speaker or to keep positions and committee chairmanships and subcommittee positions so they are in a position to develop the legislative and political expertise to serve the next generation of leaders when that is going to occur. i think there is a high level of confidence, both within the caucus, with her continued leadership for the next two years and also they can now look over the next congress work two a or two and say we have skilled group of people who learned the complexities of the caucus, the rules, and negotiations that take place in the house and senate and white house. that next generation will be in place whenever mrs. below see for the -- hello see -- mrs. caucus -- the

host: what are her weaknesses or vulnerabilities? know, i aml you probably not the best person to ask. i tried to take a dispassionate look at her. i think there is always some she has accumulated so much power within the speaker's office that the regular order, that is going to the committees with legislation has been diminished. more and more power is concentrated in the office of the speaker. i would just point out two things. number one, two that has become an issue over the last 20 years or both parties because of the narrowness of congressional margins. developing legislation and committees that often produce legislation satisfactory to the committee but not necessarily to the caucus or the house as a

whole has become problematic. we have narrow margins. you have a lot of discipline in designing a legislation. the other is that it is true more legislation is formulated at the speaker level. people need to understand it is not just like the speaker is sitting around and penciling in the policy. she is bringing in the chairs of committees, subcommittees, leaders of different caucuses in the democrats. she is negotiating with the white house were with the senate -- or with the senate. sometimes there is more public concern she has a chelated theysive powers than necessarily is in the caucus itself. host: bill, an independent. caller: my biggest concern with the democrats losing seats in the house, this is a policy goes back to the time of clinton.

it seems for the most part they no longer listen to the american people. they were concerned with the wishes of the corporate pac donors. they have moved to a centrist policy that little distinguishes them from the republican party. the policies the people want to see put in -- 72% of people want medicare for all. when democrats to get power, they put somebody like joe biden in eightce who years of their last term gave us donald trump. where do we go? host: let's take that criticism. john lawrence? guest: i beg to differ there is no difference between the democrat and republican parties. we would have had big bipartisan margins for things like the stimulus to bring us out of the recession. we would have had big bipartisan

margins for the affordable care street for the wall reform and other legislation. i think the democrats -- industry. democrats -- it is true. democrats don't embrace the most extreme positions because they have to get votes across the array of the democratic caucus. vice president biden has endorsed a public option in the health care. we could not get that because of opposition in the senate. the democrats support strong climate control legislation. the republican party opposed that. democrats supported universal pre-k. republicans have opposed that. democrats and put a conference of immigration reform. republicans have opposed that. there is a lot of distinction between the two parties. that is different than saying democrats have not adopted the

position that one particular faction of the party once. -- wants. the democrats are a big, diverse family. i will say this. it would be extremely helpful if the caller were correct and there was more consensus between democrats and republicans and maybe a few republicans would support some of these bills so they didn't have to pass only with democratic votes. i would point out that in the years republicans were in the majority in the house and senate, you had not seen legislation on any of those pass. not even the legislation they say they support. they were in power and have the ability to pass those bills at any time in failed. you can contrast the democratic with theetty clearly republican record.

i would hope there could be movement on things like immigration a responsible gun policy or expanded health care that 70% of the making people want. that will take a bipartisan. action and bipartisan agreement we don't see that happening right now. jean, delroy, ohio. caller: i would like to put out a quote that was said by aoc in december's vanity fair. she says this. "it is not an accident that every cycle the bogeyman of the democrats is a woman. a couple of cycles ago it was pelosi. then it was hillary. now it is me. now it is also the squad, as they call them, which is minority women representatives duly elected. i would argue that pelosi is always the bogeyman. they even got on her choice of ice cream this summer.

it went viral. the expensive ice cream she had in her freezer. host: john lawrence? guest: i would recommend people not attack nancy pelosi's choice of chocolate ice cream. stay away from the chocolate because you will get into trouble on that one. i agree with the caller 100%. the misogyny that has been leveled against mrs. pelosi, where there have been hundreds of thousands of commercials and hundreds of millions of dollars spent specifically against her. platformthe republican -- they did not have a 2020. it was fire pelosi. they did not talk about any other issues. correct in terms of how president has treated women -- trump has treated women, referred to mrs. pelosi

and much more broadly. i don't have any disagreement somehow or other women in public e aice seem to becom particular issue for criticism. host: eleanor in illinois, a republican. caller: yes. host: go ahead. caller: i have a process question. how many people are in the office of all these legislators? unelectedto the question for the electorate that there is a lot of people who are running policy in all of these agencies not elected. if he could speak to how many people are in each staff congressional office. guest: ok. because each district is about the same size,

every member has the same congressional office. 18 staff people. those can be distributed between the congressional office in washington and district offices that are maintained to provide constituent services at home. basee senate there is a staff. the size of the staff varies on the size of the state. people who represent california or texas will have a lot more staff than people who represent rhode island. they have to respond to many more constituent requests and operate much more constituent offices. they are committee staffs, both majority and minority staffs. the caller referenced the executive agencies. there you have a different situation. most people who work in the executive branch are civil servants. they continue from one

administration to another. the president brings in about 4000 appointees. they work at the behest of the administration and those specific agencies. host: john lawrence, why would one be in trouble if they mess with the chocolate ice cream? is a very speaker particular -- is very particular about her chocolate. chocolate ice cream is one of enjoys.s she really my understanding is it is one of her favorite rectus foods -- breakfast foods. criticize her on health care or immigration policy. stay away from the chocolate. host: john lawrence, favorite story you are remembering as you write the book about speaker pelosi? those there are a lot of stories. to the every member back

days of the financial crisis. host: the house is about to come in, mr. lawrence. i have to ask you to make a quick. guest: the financial crisis six weeks before an election. she could have said, president bush, see if you can take care of it. she said it is a national problem and we have to do this and voted a controversial bill. i think it was her greatest moment as a national leader and one that deserves to be historically recorded. host: john lawrence, former chief i of staff to nancy pelosi. now is impervious or at university of california -- now the visiting professor at university of california washington center. 4:thor of "class of '7 congress after watergate in the roots of partisanship." the house is about to gavel in

further legislative session. we now bring you live coverage here on c-span. [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. 2020] the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. november 18, 2020. i hereby appoint the honorable henry cuellar to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, nancy pelosi, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of house of january 7, 2020, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate.