particulars that we face inside the beltway are not really compelling people outside othe beltway. we're looking at is the congressional elections coming up if it is a perfect political storm. that is what we are facing. a perfect political storm based on a neeto get our financial house in order. different people to find that in different ways. some focus on the deficit but i think that is a gain nter. the way in which we approach this is there are three pivot points for our security policy three that we need toeep in mind. one was the end of the cold war. the oer obvioly as the 9/11 attacks. the third, which needs to be elevated to a national security concern, is the meltdown of 2007 antwo dozen aid. i think we need to take that to heart. that means thinking about security in different ways. and doing things that inside of the beltway seen quite difficult because of the interest disturbe i think we will find a certain degree of support outside of the belt with because there, people's thinking i that in major change is requed. really what we are doing is saying let's turn ourselves

are not really compelling people outside of the beltway. we're looking at is the congressional elections coming up if it is a perfect political orm. that is what we areacing. a perfect political storm based on a need to get our financial housin order different people to find thatn different ys. someocus on e deficit but i think thats a gain tinter. the way in which we approach this is there are three pot points for our security policy. threthat we need to keep in mind. one was the end of the cold war. the other oiouslys the 9/11 attacks. the third, which needs to be elevated to a national security concern, is the melown of 2007 and two dozen d. i think we need to tak that to heart. that means thinking about security in different ways. and doing things that inside of the beltway seen quite difficult because of the interest disturbed. i think we will find a certain degree of support outsidef the belt with because there, people's thinking is that in major change is requed. really what we are doing is saying let's turn ourselves to providing pe

are not really compelling people outside of the beltway. we're looking at is the congressional elections coming up if it is a perfect political storm. that is what we are facing. a perfect political storm based on a need to get our financial house in order. different people to find that in different ways. some focus on the deficit but i think that is a gain tinter. the way in which we approach this is there are three pivot points for our security policy. three that we need to keep in mind. one was the end of the cold war. the other obviously as the 9/11 attacks. the third, which needs to be elevated to a national security concern, is the meltdown of 2007 and two dozen aid. i think we need to take that to heart. that means thinking about security in different ways. and doing things that inside of the beltway seen quite difficult because of the interest disturbed. i think we will find a certain degree of support outside of the belt with because there, people's thinking is that in major change is required. really what we are doing is saying le

, and need to work inside the beltway, and rededicate itself to discovering the national narrative that actually matches the instinct that already exists amongst millions ofamericans, that we n do better than we are doing today. 90. [applause] >> i want to thank carolyn for the inspiring talk. i also want to note that miles referred to baseball and the average length of games. i'm a red sox fan. [laughter] spirit as you on the red sox-yankees games last about four and half hours that i will not take all the time here. for those of you who know my dear home state, we believe devoutly in political participation. the late mary mcquarrie, great columnist from the "washington post" and before that he washington star, once said that every baby born in massachusetts is born with a campaign managers gene. we like policy so much that kids used to put up her stickers on their bikes here now, this does not always match with honest government. i think there is a lesson here, that we should not always pretend that participation automatically leads to honesty. we used to joke in massachusetts that th

let the mets south on 95 from the beltway down to 32. here is a live look outside. it looks great in both loops. we switch over to a live view of traffic at the key bridge. east side looks good. no problems at the bay bridge. that is the latest on traffic pulse 11. . >> thank you. a second wildfire in arizona has now grown forcing residents to leave their homes. is the second fire to hit flagstaff in the past week. homes north of flagstaff are threatened. police have arrested a man in connection with the first wildfire. they say he was negligent in disposing of some hot coals. 19 people were injured after a fire on a subway. most injuries were related to smoke inhalation. last july, means materials in the subway station caught fire. 20 people are dead, over 50,000 are homeless after the was flooding in brazil. the region has received 14 inches of rain. flooding killed at least 44 people while leaving thousands homeless in the same area. >> most of general motors workers will not get a summer break. the automaker has been forced to shut down over the summer because o

i think we will find a certain degree of support outside the beltway. there people are thinking that a major change is required. what we are doing is saying, let's turn ourselves to providing people with options to change that matters, that really matters. >> but needed questions the -- let me take questions for this in particular. >> i wanted to put something in the question that is not exactly a question. >> please. >> you were talking and rhetorically ask, why do we need those things? the question answers itself. in all of the panel discussions, there is no mention of what drives the defense budget. it is not because they are surrounded by enemies. it is the military. >> that is a part of it. there is a real fear there. there is a concern about terrorism. i think that is too reductionist in the argument. there was a factor. there was also -- we have allowed to go unchallenged for too long with the notion that we have to be there. nato is driven by the military complex. i think it is japan -- driven by this year. >> i would like to commend the group f

. >> you talked about candidates that will listen to young voters, not having been inside the beltway language, being open, direct, and honest. is that unique among but -- among young voters? >> my sense is that the older voter is used to political rhetoric. they have had for decades. young voters because of the information age and technology and because of video more than anything else, you cannot hide stuff. young voters are much, much more prone to research something. i cannot have a staff meeting in my little firm without mike young staff -- without my young staff who go to google to look at something while we are having a discussion many times throughout the meeting. it is a situation where you grew up with the internet. voters older than you grew up without it. they are not quite there. every year increases in terms of the importance of shooting straight. if candidates don't get that, they will lose. young voters will pull away if it is a bunch of political rhetoric and not based on the facts. >> the difference happened with with the videos -- with web videos. it is very fast pa

and this is our firstenture out of thewaington beltway. so thank you for being receptive to us, and i guess we may see you back inside the beltway. >> you do every couple of months beuse i go down there to try to -- >> turn it ov. [laughter] >> i guess i have demonstrated physically my lack of understanding of risk. [laughter] yeah, i get down there actually quite often as it is on behalf ofhe new school trying to -- >> yeah, but you're queuing up asking for money rather than -- >> well, queuing up is all right. >> good to see you. thank you so much and thank you for your hospitalit >> let's begin our proceedings. again, thank you, president kerrey on behalf of the financial isis inquiry commission, i want to thank everyone at the new school for their hospitality, all of you for being here today. as always, i want thank vice chairman thomas and george hugh graham for taking the lead on this hearing. today's hearing on credit ratings is part of our larger investigation into the causes of the financial which economic crisis that continues to

particularly, i deny i have been in the beltway bubble.i have been living in seattle for the past 15 years. i do think all this talk about the washington bubble is a little phony. there are actually more and the rest of the country than in washington city because we get a constant flow of people who have been from other places. what you said about how people have unrealistic expectations, i completely agree. host: the next phone call from philadelphia, on the democratic line. caller: of a like to start out by saying our president is doing a wonderful job with everything that was left for him to have to take charge of it -- i would like to start out by saying. he took charge of november 5, 2008. once he won the election george bush just disappeared. please do not cut me off. this country, not just the government, has always operated on mis-truthis -- lies. the polls the state that 70% up to 85% that say the country is against the administration, you are only polling the 70% or so of the people who did not vote for barack obama. you must cle

>> we will be trying to get perspectives outside of the beltway. in the short term, we will be investigating the 2010 midterm elections. it also has the capability to go to places where breaking news is happening. we may go down to the gulf and to some stories on the oil spill. we are not bound by traditional constraints because of technology. we can go anywhere, there quickly. -- get there quickly. >> you will be on the road 10 months out of the year. how long will the lcv be out there? >> it will be a fairly simple scared will -- similar schedule. kit will be going to weeks at a time and then we will swap roles, maybe be back in office. but over those weeks we will be investigating and shooting stories, supporting each other when we are back in office. it will be a lot of trouble, but it should be good, for the foreseeable -- travel, but it should be good for the foreseeable future. >> we are going to go back out there in a little bit to take a look inside. host: welcome back to "washington journal." let me introduce you to our next guest, john b

people here were actually warmer to the proposition then people outside this room or outside the beltwayd i think there needs to be a connecting with the kind of anger. and it's rather disputing people whether the government works. we need to say no you're right, how do we make your voice better heard. whether that goes to making sure everybody can go. i mean, it would be against that? i think that's a pretty milquetoast the word. i think we can evolve further for talk about drinking against a government secret keeping. if you want to get the public going and connect with the anger inhe feeling that's out there, we need to change your language any think we need to embrace the anger and move with it, rather an stated off. >> i think one of the challenges is that people are very frustrated and rightfully so. and there's not necessarily a constructive space for people to gravitate towards. there are negative spaces for people to gravitate towards and there's a reason you go there. i mean, evn if the state allows you only the opportunity to vent, that makes you feel slightly better. you know

particularly, i deny i have been in the beltway bubble. i have been living in seattle for the past 15 years. i do think all this talk about the washington bubble is a little phony. there are actually more and the rest of the country than in washington city because we get a constant flow of people who have been from other places. what you said about how people have unrealistic expectations, i completely agree. host: the next phone call from philadelphia, on the democratic line. caller: of a like to start out by saying our president is doing a wonderful job with everything that was left for him to have to take charge of it -- i would like to start out by saying. he took charge of november 5, 2008. once he won the election george bush just disappeared. please do not cut me off. this country, not just the government, has always operated on mis-truthis -- lies. the polls the state that 70% up to 85% that say the country is against the administration, you are only polling the 70% or so of the people who did not vote for barack obama. you must cl

the first is what do you think is the fact, inside and outside the beltway, of the citizens united case. the second is, you talk a little bit about the role of solicitor general. what you think? does the personality matter? the third question is more pop culture. did you see a recap on hbo and did you think that was informative for the american public to see how bush versus gore would look in the supreme court? >> it is an extremely important role because the united states brings many of the cases to the court and participates in most of the cases. so the position that the united states advocates can be very influential. in terms of whether the personality of taken verses also matters, i doubt it. i think the court is looking to the solicitor general, basically coming to the court, maintaining credibility, bringing the quality of that office, maintaining the quality of that office. you can have a lot of different personalities that do that. i do not think the personality matters what. -- matters much. they want somebody who is obviously up for the job, and both are. >> what about the ef

said that government works the people here were warmer to that proposition than those outside the beltway. there needs to be a connecting with that kind of anger. we need to say, i know it is not working well for you. how can we make your voice heard? whether that goes to making sure -- who would be against that? i think that transparency as a milquetoast the word. if you want to get the public going and you want to connect with the anger and the feelings out there, we need to change our language and many to embrace the anger and move with it rather than staved off. >> i think one of the challenges is that people are very frustrated and rightfully so. there is not necessarily a constructive space for people to grab it. there are-spaces -- there are negative spaces, a bit of that all allies to the opportunity event, that makes you feel better. then you take a breath and you may realize a little letter that you did not ads solve the problem, but it made you feel better at that particular moment. but i think it's some point, it sounds like a mutual accountability equation. we as voters also

will take a while before that worked through the system, and there can be general health beyond the beltway. host: of the were saying that bankruptcy is almost synonymous with unpayable costs. how are we dealing with this issue? guest: it is part of the overall debt burden that individuals are facing. many hope that the health care bill will make health care more affordable and will reduce the incidences of the uninsured and medical expenses that can lead a family to seek bankruptcy protection. host: we have a link on c- span.org if you want to get more information from the american bankruptcy institute. charlene, republican line. caller: good morning. how are you? host: good. caller: in the early 2000's, i had a bankruptcy. host: walk us through the numbers. how much were you earning, what was your debt load -- caller: well, it was against my belief to file bankruptcy, because i work for equifax. i told people to not file bankruptcy. so what i had to file it myself, it was just crushing. i had a nervous breakdown and had to go out on disability. and that was the reason that i had to file.

as atool for counter terrorism and as ben was saying this is a timely subject f you ha tside the beltway and you are at all conscious he will have noticed talk recently about whether and t what extnt the federal court should be used against international terrorts, and there a i think some pretty strony held views on the subject there are those who thik rely i think law enforcement should be the main or the only ssage with whiche combat terrism anthen there are also those who think we ought notto use all enforcement at all ainst terrorism d a suspect members of both caps are well and abl represented in this audience which is a great and with my luck the only thingou will be ableo ree on the end of this, whatever i say is clearly fr. so noetless, i'm goi to try to talk about the subject in four parts. first, i will review some of the cent history of our national counterterrorism strategy as i untand and i will foc here a little bit on the origins and evolution of the national security dision a the doj which i have kning a little it about nsc be interestingo you in any event. i sort of hope

it's critical that the evolving door be clos, was all to inspire a conversation, not just within the beltwayt a national conversation. about how government can be rededicated to the american peop. and we think that the roles have done that, is important, it's important for the american people, not only to know -- important not only for the revolving door to be close, but al for the amrican people to know that the revolving door is closed. a critical part of our mission of the presidents objective is to restore t trust of the american people in their government. less there was any doubt that this message was getting through, i vvidly remembe veral months into the administration, on the front page of the "n york times there were two articles. one aricle wasa running down the left column, both above the fold. one article was a discussion on the executive order, andthe pros and cons of the executive order. and the on the column running down the right side, of the paper, was a discuion about allegedly mproper lobbying contacts in washington. if you had any doubtthat the "new york times" was engag

if you hang out inside the beltway and you are at all conscious, you will have noticed some talk recently about whether, and to what extent the federal courts should be used against international terrorists. there are, i think, some pretty strongly held views on that subject. there are those who think, really, that law enforcement should be the main or the only method by which we combat terrorism. there are also those who think we ought not to use law enforcement at all against terrorism. i suspect that members of both camps are well and ably represented in this audience, which is great. with my luck, the only thing you will be able to agree on by the end of this is that what ever i say about it is completely wrong. nonetheless, i am going to try to talk about this subject in four parts. first, i will reduce some of the recent history of our national counterterrorism strategy as i understand it. i will focus here a little bit on the origins and evolution of the national security division at the department of justice. knowing a little bit about that may be interesting to you, as i hope it