tv Tavis Smiley PBS November 13, 2014 11:30pm-12:01am EST
11:30 pm
good evening from los angeles, i'm tavis smiley. the seismic shift in congress as republicans take on the house and senate in the wake of the midterm elections. we got a sense of what this mean for the country and for president obama's final two years in office. first from reince priebus, chairman of the committee, and two, two editorial director for strategic partnership for atlantic media. we're glad you've joined us. those conversations coming up right now. ♪ ♪z/
11:31 pm
and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. ♪ . the election last week that resulted in the republican takeover of both the house and senate signals a new agenda in washington. they're set the table for what the republicans have in mind for the country is the chairman of the rnc, reince priebus. he joins us from washington. mr. chairman, good to have you on this program. >> hey, thank you, tavis. thank you for having me. >> my pleasure. let me start by asking what it is that you heard, what did your party hear the country say last
11:32 pm
week? >> well, if you don't mind, i think there are three thing. i'll keep it short. number one, people were not satisfied with the direction that the president and his lieutenants were taking this country. and so those bills and that piece -- those pieces of legislation were rejected. the second thing was people in the states were satisfied with many of the republican reformer out there like scott walker and people like rick scott and others. but the laugh thing is the piece that i think people -- last thing is the piece that i think people said they wanted thing to get done in washington, and/ thy wanted the president, they wanted republicans, they wanted everybody here to start getting some reasonable things done for the good of this country. and so all of that together, i think, sent a pretty broad message last tuesday. >> what has the party defined as reasonable? things to get done that are reasonable? >> for one thing, simple things like, you know, pass the budget.
11:33 pm
i think you need to get the house and the senate together to pass a budget. obviously when it gets to ways and means and appropriations, you're going to need the president. but first thing, pass a budget. second thing, i think you can look at keystone pipeline. i think that those are -- that's a bill that a lot of democrats support. i think the president wants to support it. i'm not sure, you know, what the holdup was. i think tom stier and some other things came in to play. i think that's a measure we can get done. i think trade agreements are some places that the president and the republican party can agree to. but i think it's really important for the leadership in the house and senate, john boehner, mitch mcconnell, and others to say here are three or four thing that are achievable, that are reasonable, that are generally liked by the american people, to show that it was worth the g.m. bell to go with the republican party across the board on tuesday. i think that's important. >> so god help us if it took the
11:34 pm
results of last tuesday for our so-called leaders in washington to know that the american people want them to work together on reasonable legislation. it can't be that it had to take that kind of seismic shift for the leaders to at least fundamentally understand that we send them to washington to work together, which raises this question -- if there are three or four pieces of legislation that republicans now believe they can work with the white house on, why didn't they believe this before election day? >> well, i think we did. we had 360 bills sitting in harry reid's desk. i wanted to make sure it's very clear, a lot of those bills -- i'm guessing, but i'm pretty close -- about 50 of those bills were actually drafted by democrats in the house and also supported by republicans. tavis, most of the bills that we're talking about working with the president on were passed by a 2/3 majority in the house. harry reid -- and i know it's easy to set up these villains. but harry reid of the person that didn't want to vote on any
11:35 pm
of those bills because he didn't want to put any of his members in a position to have to defend one of those votes in this upcoming election. i think what you're going to now is the president should come down to the hill, sit down and look through those 360 bills and say, here are the 40, 50, or 60 of these bills that we're willing to work with you on. i think you'll see people wanting to get it done. >> i not the american people watching, with all due respect, are having a hard time trying to juxtapose these things. i hear the point you're making. i think the general consensus is there's been more collaboration across the aisles in the senate than in the house. the house had been much more stern, much more bestallwart in their beliefs of what they will and won't do than has been the case in the senate. you sthauggest it's the senate where there are v been problems versus the house where they've been recalcitrant. >> that's exactly what i'm
11:36 pm
saying, tavis. obviously, i think it took some time to get that message out. but if you look at the production -- i mean, if just look at the public sector of reforms that have been passed through both chambers, what you will see is that almost -- 90% of everything that's actually been accomplished over the last two years has come out of the house, and a lot of that wasn't just republican support. i mean, look -- we're talking about education reform. we're talking about school choice. we're talking about things that would reform the job training, the skills act. those things came out of the house. and they're fitting in the senate. i don't have the exact number off the top of my head. but the number of votes that harry reid has allowed on the floor of the senate is at a modern time historic low. by far -- like not even close. and so i think that was something that did play out across the country, tavis. but it played out in iowa and
11:37 pm
colorado and north carolina. maybe not nationwide, but the people that voted on tuesday knew that a lot of the obstruction that was going on in washington of coming out of the senate. and they also knew they didn't like some of the thing that came out of the senate like obamacare m bill. they rejected it. so look, i understand that it takes two to tango. however, i think that it's time now for the president to work with the house and the senate. and i think starting with those 360 bills, i think you're going to progress. >> why should i believe that mitch mcconnell as majority leader in the senate will have any easier a time herding conservative cats, shall we say, than john boehner has had in the house? >> well, look, you say john boehner in the house, but that's where all the public sector came from. i mean, that's where the bills were coming from. again, i go back to what i said before. many of these bills, tavis -- 50 or 60 -- were drafted by
11:38 pm
democrats. and it came out of the house. almost 2/3 of all the bills sitting on harry reid's desk were passed by a 2/3 majority of the congress. i mean, either -- what i'm saying is true, or i'm lying. i don't think eye lying. >> no, i'm not -- i'm not -- >> what i'm suggesting -- >> i'm not calling you a liar. >> i know you're not. >> what i'm asking is, a question that is fairly obvious i think to most americans which is that john boehner has had a great deal of difficulty -- i don't need to eenumerate it for you, you're the chairman. he's had a great deal of difficulty in the house because a particular wing of his party has given him a very difficult time. all i'm asking is, with the ted cruzs and others in the senate, how do you believe that mitch measure colonel will ha-- mitch have an easier time with unity even though you hold the majority? >> i think you get unity by focusing on a few simple things
11:39 pm
first. i think you build the time bee one base hit at a time and one first down at a time. i think if you look at it that way as opposed to going for, you know, a hail mary or a grand slam, i think that's how you build a team. i think people do believe that we can get enough cooperation both within our own party and across the board to get a budget done, to get keystone pipeline done, and to start the process of actually moving forward with some sensible things that the american people can agree to, including everyone in our own party, and some democrats, as well. so you know, look, i mean, the proof will be in the pudding, right? >> right. >> so i think that now's the time to get some of this done. i think the first quarter next year will be really important to our country in showing that we're going to progress in the house and the senate. >> to the victor go the spoils. it's clear that the republicans cleaned democrats' clocks last week. and yet, this is the midterm election. important, but not all
11:40 pm
encompassing. that is to that democrats didn't do well on election day with blacks or hispanics, frankly. as i said weeks before the election, i didn't see how they were going to be inspired to turn out in major numbers. that turned out toúñ the case. republicans showed absolutely no gains. no inroad mas made whatsoever i regard to black and brown voters. that might win you the midterms in 2014, but that dog ain't going to hunt come 2016. what does the party do over the next two years to make inroads to hispanics and african-americans in the most multi cultural america ever? >> well, actually, i mean, turnout in a midterm among black and hispanic voters was almost at an all-time high. actually it did happen. we won 2 % of the black -- 26% of the black vote in ohio. 12% in north carolina. and i know that those aren't huge numbers, but you know what, it's a lot of progress. across the board, we had one of the biggest turnout operations among black republican voters that we've had in the history of our party. i'm not suggesting to you that
11:41 pm
we have solved these problems. what i am i think we need to get better. that mean we need to double and triple down and get our message out to black and hispanic communities across america. i don't think that we've carpeted the world in two years. i agree with you. but i do think that if we can hit numbers like 12, 15, 17% of black voters and 35, 37% of hispanic voters, mitt romney would be president right now. so we're working on it. i think we're making a lot of progress. and i think if you peel back the onion a little, you'll see that we actually did make historic gains in this midterm as a republican party. >> i'll close on this note, mr. chairman. how important then is it for the
11:42 pm
republicans, mr. boehner and mr. mcconnell, and their members to show they can in fact lead between now and 2016, and what is the consequence if for the next two years they don't get anything done? what price will you pay in 2016? >> i mean, we'll find out. i think that john boehner and mitch mcconnell, they really do believe that it's important to have a simple achievable agenda that can be accomplished rather quickly, to show the american people that what they did of worthwhile and would have good, fruitful results. i think you're going to see them very committed to that endeavor. >> congratulations on your party's victory last week, mr. chairman. an honor to have you on the program. i look forward to doing it a few more times between now and november of 2016. thanks for coming. on. >> that would be great. thanks. coming up, we continue ron brownstein. stay with us. ♪
11:43 pm
joining us here in l.a. for a change, with his perspective on the changes in washington, ron brownstein, director for strategic partnership for atlantic meadia. also author of six books including "the second civil war: how extreme partisanship5 polarized washington and america." back to l.a. your asign. at the "national journal" brought you -- your assignment at the "national journal" brought you back this way. glad to have you back in l.a. we started the conversation with the chairman. you said you're not buying what you thought of spin? >> i think the presentation of the house is kind of a chamber of bipartisanship really. i mean, we are looking at the highest level of party line voting really ever recorded going back to the first congress did es. today in our/x -- congresses. today in our first -- in first congresses, there's no overlap in the chamber.
11:44 pm
almost every voting record is more liberal than any republican. it is going to be difficult especially after the election which carved out what was left of that democratic kind of more moderate to conservative vote where republicans usually go to work with democrats. those were in many cases the people who lost. the likelihood is that the chambers are going to be more polarized. i think you'll see more conflict than not. >> there are at least two major boogiemen that the chairman and other republicans have blamed for th\eñ demise of the democra last week. president obama and harry reid. you heard him -- hit both hard. strategic, i'm asking your own personal, political view. strategically, are obama and harry reid to blame for what happened last tuesday? >> i think obama is significantly much more than harry reid. the reality is that we are moving toward nationalized, almostvñ quasi-parliamentary elections. people are rendering a verdict on which party they independent control at that moment. the phrase i use a lot is the
11:45 pm
name on the back of the jersey matters less than the color on the front of the jersey. people are really voting for the red or blue team at this point. if you look at the exit polls, president obama of -- president obama was at or above the national approval rating, 42%, at or above that in five states with senate races. democrat won four of the five. he was below that in 17 states with snit races. they lost -- interstate races. they lost 15 of 17. exactly what happened to bush in 2006. republicans lost 19 of 20 senate races in states where he was below 45%. what we are seeing are nationalized elections, and the president does cast a big shadow over those, i believe. >> if you think, as some do, that obama and harry reid and the democrats, nancy pelosi, they went too far in this direction with control of the house and the senate now, what's to stop republicans from going too far in the other direction? >> that is a big risk they face. essentially what we saw in 2010 was republicans have the best midterm election for either party since 1938. and by august of the following
11:46 pm
year, you know, even with that big tailwind, by august of the following year, the approval rating for the congress had cratered. ultimately, president obama was able to win a surprisingly comfortable re-election given where unemployment of at this point. obviously i think the risk is the same. that you mistake the midterm election trat now so different from the presidential electorate. we are almost talking about two americas. we should probably talk more about that. the risk for republicans is over-interpreting the mandate, governing in a way that alienates some in the middle and narrows choice for candidate that causes problems for 2016. if the republican congress votes -- if president obama acts unilaterally with executive action on immigration, the republican congress votes to overturn that, it will put enormous pressure on every potential republican candidate in 2016 to say i will overturn it, as well, and that will constrain their able to reach out to hispanics. >> you say if as if there's some question whether he's going to do that. >> no. i think he has -- you know, he's locked himself in where he has
11:47 pm
to do it. now, how big t, how broad it is, is something else. the fact is there was not a single republican elected to the senate who explicitly endorsed the senate bill, that passed in 2013. that was kind of the minimum compromise, pretty close to what a democratic president could accept. i mean, there's really not a lot of reason to look at the composition of the new congress and have a tremendous amount of optimism to be able to deal with immigration in a way he could accept. i think that puts incentive and impetus on him to act unilaterally. >> i'm going to bite on your bait about the midterms and electorate and the general -- presidential, rather. the midterm presidential and how different they are. i agree. tell me more about why i agree with you. >> look, the one-sentence version in american politics at this point in history could be democrat cannot win enough white voters to consistently win the congress. republicans cannot win enough nonwhite voters to consistently win the white house. we've had three elections in a row> where republicans have now won just about the same percentage, 3/5, 60% of white
11:48 pm
voters. that's what they won in 2010. in 2014, the republicans again won exactly of 60% of white voters. because the electorate of so different, republicans had a landside in 2010. a resound, victory in 2014, and got waxed in the middle. thecosm zig of the electorate is so -- the composition of the electorate is so different. young people and minorities vote much less than in the midterm. it's dependent on voters who don't show up as much in the midterm. it's a problem for the country because we have such different signals sent every two years. it is difficult for either party to establish a direction. >> i'm tickled to hear white voters referred to as 3/5. >> there you go. >> i digress on that point. let's talk -- we talked about president obama. let's go back and talk specifically about his legacy. i do this because none of us are
11:49 pm
stupid. we see that for the next two years, he's found a legacy trying to secure his legacy, whatever that's going to be. his staff is talking openly about it if anonymously, certainly on the record, how he views the next two years, what he can get done, vis-a-vis his legacy. i could be wrong -- i don't think i am. seems there are what's your send of how he's going to have to balance his legacy with what's right for the country? >> so i think -- i have a slightly different take. i think the biggest single aspect of his legacy is whether a democrat can get elected in 2016 and defend the big initiatives that he has
11:50 pm
undertaken as president. particularly the health care law, which it seems is again -- republican have unified control, there will be enormous pressure on them to try to repeal what he's doing on climate, the big agreement with china that was announced at his epa regulation. any action he takes on immigration, and the dodd-frank -- all of those big achievements, important legislative achievements. no other president ever got a health care bill even to the floor of the house or senate. he got it into law where up to ten million people are being affected. all would be at risk if a democrat loses the white house. if a democrat cannot hold the white house in 2016. i think that the biggest single question in his legacy is, is he putting the party in a better position than it was than he left them in 2014 to compete. and i do think that that will be a constraint on him in going too far towardwt making deals with republicans that would alienate his coalition. i think keystone is an exception because from all indications the president has been frustrated from day one at the symbolic value attached to this by each side. he simply does not believe it as
11:51 pm
nearly as important as what he is doing at the environmental protection agency with the regulations on carbon emissions, power plants, potentially this significant deal with china announced this week. it would not surprise me if he gave ground on that one sooner or later. i think on health care, on immigration, on the underlying climate rules, i think he is going to dig in in a way -- look, he is not bill clinton in his orientation. his first instinct is not standard finding the place where left and right converge. he came out of a different political tradition, governing in a different time. it is more possible to win simply by mobilizing at least at the presidential level, the democratic coalition. i don't think the pressure on him to cut a lot of deals is great. i guess we'll see. >> you mentioned health care, obamacare. what are the chances that to stop the republicans from completely trying to obliterate it -- which i don't think they can do because the supreme court's already spoken. but what are the chances that he compromises on certain thing even on his own signature
11:52 pm
legislation to get along with or to achieve some other goal in these next two years? >> no, first of all, the supreme court may get another bite at the apple. we're not sure they're done adjudicating the health care law. i one aspect of this that a lot of democrats have been uneasy about. you could imagine something -- i think on the core issues, though, of the individual mandate and the subsidies and exchanges, i think he's going to be very firm. i think -- i had a conversation with one of the white house political advisors a few weeks ago. and i said, look, you're looking at a difficult election in part because of what we talked about. your approval rating is done. when the president is down, it hurts all of his -- all of his people running under the party banner. a been true naturally the last 20 years with nationalized elections. don't you have to recover by 2016 in order to give the democrat a fighting shot at winning the white house? they said something interesting. they said, as far as we're concerned, the issue is not the overall approval rating.
11:53 pm
the issue is the approval rating with the core elements of our coalition. and that kind of implied to me that they will have an eye on trying to keep that coalition together. >> speaking of the core elements of his coalition, there's no doubt about the fact, hillary or anybody else, we fully expect that president obama will be campaigning for the democrats come 2016, especially if it's mrs. lit, -- mrs. clinton. another talk for another time. you have worked with diversity, and hope to work on that issue. >> absolutely. >> what are the chance that's black democrats still smarting from the fact that democrats ran away from him, democrats made him the boogieman, democrats gave him the heisman in the november elections of 2014. what are the chances that they say, you know, you can't do that to our man? kentucky, allison grimes wouldn't even admit to voting for the guy. >> that was someone who does not understand modern politics. the reality is, you can un, but you can't hide. whether you invite the president into the state or not, the
11:54 pm
president is now on the ballot with you. and it is really counterproductive and almost irrational for candidates to run away from the president. a story i love --6l1w charlie c as a republican at the end of the 2006 election wouldn't invite george w. bush into the state to campaign for him as governor of florida. in 2014 at the end of the campaign, he wouldn't invite barack obama. and each time, and each time the vast majority of people who disapproved of the president voted against him. that's the reality facing hillary clinton or anybody else in 2016. the outgoing president casts a big shadow over the election to replace him. one more number -- if you look back at exit polls, in 19 8, 88% of the people who disapproved of reagan on his way out the door voted for dukakis. in 2000, 80% of people who disapproved of clinton on his way out voted for george w. bush. in '08 it was roughly 2/3 of ,ez of clinton voted for obama. the next democrat nominee has to figure out a more compelling way to talk about what has and has not been achieved over the last
11:55 pm
eight years because the big lesson of 2014 is this will not go away by ignoring it. if voters do not think that the direction that the president has pursued is generally beneficial for the country, look, the next republican is going to be less continuity with obama than hillary clinton no matter what she does. >> yeah. obviously given our conversation tonight with the ruchairman, i don't mindñ-[ talking on the satellite feed. you see why at the top of this conversation i was almost giddy that ron brownstein is back in l.a. after a few years of being on the east coast. >> yeah. >> good to have you here. good to see you. that's our show for tonight. thanks for watching. and as always, keep the faith. ♪ >> for more information on today's show, visit tavis smiley at pbs.org. hi, i'm tavis smiley. joining me next time for a conversation with oscar and emmy winner tommy lee jones about his movie "the homesman." that's next time. see you then.
12:00 am
>> welcome to the program. we begin this evening with the mayor of london, boris johnson. he's written a new book called the churchill factor: how one man-made history. >> what he thought was that britain and america, with american firmly in the lead, represented values, ideas of freedom and democracy, free speech, independent judiciary, habbuous corpus, whatever, that were incredibly important. and that were actually peculiar to those english-speaking cultures. he thought. this was his-- and actually there's a lot of truth in that.a those ideas are not banal, they're not trit, and they are not up contested. there are many parts of the world including china or russia or wherever
100 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
WHYY (PBS) Television Archive Television Archive News Search ServiceUploaded by TV Archive on