[laughter] what is this, cynicism week? [laughter] >> i usually do highpoint, but i will do a low point. just with the images and pictures starting to come out about this bill along the coastline, i'm sure we will see a lot of what has been happening. >> it is one of the most ghastly things. it is a huge hit by nature -- on nature by man. we talk about things that hypothetically could happen and it has happened. that is our program for today. we're so glad you joined us. please come back and see us and check in with us at whitehouschronicle.com send an e-mail and you will get a cynical reply from my colleagues. until next time, cheers. captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- >> white house chronicle is produced in partnership with whut, howard university television. >> this has been white house chronicle featuring llewellyn king, linda gasparello, and guests. this program may be seen on pbs stations and cable access channels. to view it online, visit us

. >> rich, you're being too cynical here. >> with good reason. >> what you are talking about is common. one of the things is having managers more involved in the hiring process. versus someone who doesn't know the job. that makes sense. >> this is why rich is absolutely right. when government sucks up all the capital in the marketplace to pay for jobs where people aren't working, it doesn't allow the capital to go to a more productive use in the private sector. >> the private sector and capital couldn't be good for private sector. hold on, quinton. this is for steve. go ahead, steve. >> why is it that the only time the government gets efficient is when it hires bureaucrats? again, you don't grow an economy by growing bureaucracy. >> it's not efficient. >> david: quinton? >> it's not efficient. you are making comments about pay structure, which are true, but are irrelevant. if he is hiring faster, he is acting more swiftly, getting better feedback. >> why hire before reforming a pay structure? why bring all the people in before reforming the pay structure? >> why introduce -- >> david:

but the flip side, that cynicism, it would not be just republicans he was trying to lock down.rying to lock down enough democrats to get the thing passed. >> absolutely. many of the efforts that were taken that maybe were interpreted as trying to get some republican votes also had a lot to do with some of those centrist or moderate democrats, especially in the senate, but to some extent in the house as well. i am thinking in the senate about joe;8 lieberman of connecticut, the third-party candidate, ben nelson from nebraska. he was no. 60. he was the final vote that they vote. senators lincoln and landry, also conservative democrats that took a long time to bring along. we are seeing this again in congress on things like regulatory reform, climate change legislation. it is always difficult getting those centrist democrats on board. some people would say throw the bill out there and let them filibuster it, but president obama wanted to take a different approach. tavis: two quick questions before my time runs out. it is a lot of the land, but how much of this is going to be chall

i would not say more cynical. we were older. a lot of us anyway and there is something about this event that made us older. they say that you're not grown up until you lose somebody that you love of. i grew up on november 22nd there is a loss of innocence and because of the subsequent violence in our society through the '60s the wars and all the we have experienced a sense, there was terrible violence prior to this says the worst world war and many letters in here from veterans and holocaust survivors. one letter from the holocaust survivors says he saw murders, shootings, hangings , every day and nothing had affected him as profoundly as the death of president kennedy. there's something about this having lived through that i am not sure the generations that did for all those rating heartfelt letters but profound shock perhaps yes and no preferred is a long winded answer to say yes been at some sense and in no way am i trying to romanticize the early 1960's it is the age of segregation of terrible violence in this society but at

[applause] in an age of instant access to information, a lot of cynicism and news, it is easy to lose perspective, in flood of pictures, in a swirof political debate. power and influence can seemed to ebb and flow. wars and grand plans can be deemed one more loss -- won or lost day-to-day, hour to hour. we have experienced the immediacy of the image of the suffering child, or the boasts of a dictator, it is easy to give in to the belief that human progress has stalled, that events are beyond our control, that change is not possible. but, this nati was founded upon a different notion. we believe that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that trh has bound us together, a nation populated by people from around the globe, enduring hardship and achieving greatness as one people, and that belief is true today as it was 200 years ago. it is a belief that has been claimed by people of every race and religion in every region of the world. can anybody dbt that this

they have just been playing a game of cynical politics in washington. when they do have an >> -- when they do have an idea, it is an old one. >> when you see rand paul, d.c. trying to compare other republicans to indirectly? >> i think every race is different. the question is whether or not republican candidates subscribe to that same particular views as rand paul. if they embrace him and his agenda, and we're finding out more and more about his agenda and what he stands for, if they embrace that, that could become an issue in a particular race. if they distance him -- the distance themselves from him, that's different thing. he is a reflection of the great uncertainty that surrounds a lot of the tea party candidates. the tea party movement is a diverse movement. it is not a hamas genius movement. -- as of what genius movement. it is not a homogenous movement. they do not represent the middle of american politics and they're driving republican politics further and further right. people are signing statements and pledges that lock themselves and to posit

. >> it is a simple -- it is a cynical question. >> you predisposes something. senators are supposed to go there with the purpose of grabbing as many federal dollars as they can and brad the back to the states. that is not how the government is supposed to function. if we need another veterans' hospital, that is a fair question. if the veterans administration says we need a hospital, we figure out how to build one. looking at harry reid's majority, anything would be better than that guy in washington. >> including me? >> including you. >> the problem is spending money it does not have in this competition to see how many tickets they can grab. which should have been sent back? we should not have built a shooting park. can i say we should not have built a veterans hospital? i do not know. your question suppose is the only measure of power and importance -- >> i want anyone to jump in on this. the whole premise of harry reid's re-election is we do not want to go from one to 100. the way the system works, even though mr. chachas does like it, they will be in the roo

constitution and declaration are requiring divine inspiration in spiteçç of a full century, an cynicalwithout the critical last cast stand of the constitutional program in republican presidential context in 1912. as a result of that effort and contrary to the title of this panel 1912 was not the election that transformed america. it was in a deeper sense the election that preserved america as it came down to us from the declaration of independence and the constitution. [applause] >> thanks for very fine remarks. we will go straight to questions. we have 20 minutes. please raise your hand and wait for the microphone to reach you and identify yourself and your affiliation before asking your question. >> just how conservative -- [inaudible] >> taft and the taft republicans would have made modest libertarians uncomfortable. one has to make the distinction between constitutional and legislative precisionism, they were not constitutional progressives, and one would have to put that experience with taft in the context of contemporary experience. >> what interested me is the relationship of th

and it -- i think the relationship became very cynical in that period. c-span: this is way off the subject, but in their book, you s -- talk about mao tse-tung not believing in treating cancer. >> guest: mm. c-span: what's that about? >> guest: mm. i think he thought that he had seen too many incidences where it got treated and the person died anyway. and he -- he would say these things like, 'oh, you know, let him go back to work or get some enjoyment out -- out -- out of the last few months of his life instead of wasting it with these horrible hospital treatments in which he looses his hair or has to go through surgery and -- and is miserable and then he dies anyway.' c-span: did he... >> guest: he believed in -- in this very pragmatic way that you're going to die anyway if you get cancer, so you might as well make the best of it. c-span: did -- did -- did he prevent john li from having treatment? >> guest: i -- i believe he did. i -- he certainly pres -- prevented cong shung for a period of time, another one of the po -- the revolutionary politburo me

they've just been playing a game of cynical no politics in washington. and when they do have an idea, it's a rerun of an old run. >> we have time for a handful more of questions. let me ask you about rand paul. do you see or do you plan to try to tie other candidates that are running and the republican field to rand paul directly? >> well, no. i think every race is different. and the question will be whether or not the republican candidates subscribe to the same particular views as rand paul. i mean, if they embrace him and his agenda, and we're finding out more and more about what he believes and what he stands for. if they do that, of course then that's something that could become an issue in a particular race. if they distance themselves through rand paul, that's something else. but i do think that he is a reflection of the great uncertainty that surrouppeds a lot of the tea party candidates. and the tea party movement is a diverse movement. it's not a homo genius movement. but we are finding that a lot of the views of the tea party candidates are out

no monuments are built to si cynics.eople your comfortable introducing to your family, your minister. always have good manners. this is time honored, not old- fashioned. good manners will open doors that nothing else will. given the choice between two confident people, most of us will opt to hire the one with good manners. for example, no matter what the adults say about calling them by their first name, do not do it. believe me, they remember, and not as timely as you might think. i think got my grandparents made me put a handle on grown folks names and tell me to say please and thank you, yes, sir, and no, ma'am. [applause] finally, finally, the golden rule that is virtually universal. treat others the way you want to be treated. [applause] when others hurt you, you may be required to treat them far better than they treated you. [applause] and far better than human nature would suggest they deserve. help others as you needed to be helped. if you want to receive kindness, respect, and compassion, you must first give the

so when we apply this cynicism once you know that the people pushing this bill are the ones that have benefited 4-1 in contributions from these very firms that will be so-called reformed, then you take a more skeptical look at what's in the bill and we get to find out a little bit more about what's in it. as obviously as some of my friends have not looked at it thoroughly enough to know what's in it and know it's not really the financial reform bill that they thought it was. it's more like a financial deform bill, more of another bill bailout bill, or i would say perhaps we could rename it as the goldman sachs monopoly bill. a friend across the aisle had a blowup of some of the monopoly pieces. it applies. it's a perfect, perfect display for this financial bailout bill because it's going to allow certain firms to have monopolies. this bill is going to create some monopolies. so one of the truths about this bill is that there are back door bailouts despite the rhetoric there are backdoor bailouts in this financial deform bill or the goldman sachs monopoly bill. the dodd bill from the s

every one of you, even the most cynical, understands and cherishes the function of the free press and the preservation of our system of government and in our way of life. and want you to know for all the jokes and the occasional gripes, i cherish that work as well. in fact, tonight i wanted to present all of you with a bipartisan congressional resolution that honors all the wonderful contributions that georgists make to our country and to the world, but unfortunately, i couldn't break the filibuster. thank you very much, everybody. god bless you. god bless the united states of america. >> we have made history tonight, so it's not 11:35 p.m., but i give you a man who's good at any time of the day or night, jay leno. >> thank you. >> thank you, ed. thank you very much. this is every comedian's dream, rich people eating. as you know, there was quite a secure line here. i got stuck behind the arizona delegation. luckily their papers were in order. and i have the distinct honor of being the only person on this panel not subpoenaed by rod blag owe jesk, so i think that's pretty impressive h

there will be many around you who are no walls, cynical, and negative. -- who are no it also, cynical, and negative. they are cancers of the spirit and nothing worthwhile. do not inhale their second and sixth -- second and cynicism and negativism. some, even those with the most opportunities in the best country will complain and grieve the ceaselessly at and the item and ad nauseam -- it may be pared to ask them a question as a complaint about the lack of imperfection in you or others and the lack of our imperfect institutions or our country -- just ask them what they are perfect at other than complaining. look, many have been angry at me because i refuse to be angry, bitter or full of grievances. some will be angry at you for not becoming agents in their most recent seven causes. don't worry about it. no monuments are built to sex. associate with people to add -- no monuments are built to 6. associate with people who at to your life. -- no monuments are built to cynics. always have good manners. this is a time honored, not old fashioned. good manners will open doors that nothing else

we are definitely not cynical. we don't believe -- we believe in a regulation of the free market but we believe in a free market. we believe to put the senses around the free market in certain ways obviously they have to be regulations. but cenacle is a government sort of running the economy. that is the direction we are moving now centrists are opposed to that. that's one of the reasons many independent have turned from obama. so to answer your question a little more generally, i think there is some overlap between some of the third-way movement and what i am calling centrism. but again, there's sort of part of what i hope to do with the book really is to try to lay out what i think most independent source centrists can get behind. it's not necessarily a litmus test. we don't disagree among ourselves like any other group but i think it is an effort to try to sort of go down the line in part one first of all here is why liberalism and conservatism in the terms used or deformed and second of all here are the positio

said the normally cynical william minkin. he begins to see him in retrospect a praise worthy person. the company remembers only the grateful fact that he let it alone. well, there are worse epithets for a statesman if the stay ever comes when jefferson's warnings are heeded at last and we reduce government to its simplest terms it may very well happen that cal's bones now resting inconspicuously in the vermont granite will come to be revered as those of a man who really did the nation some service. as one might expect from a man born on the fourth of july. yes, calvin coolidge was born on the fourth of july. july 4th, 1872, to be exact. in the minuscule central vermont hamlet of plymouth. not particularly near anything save maple syrup and hillsides. he was not born rich nor poor. though by the standards of 1872, plymouth notch, his father colonel john coolidge, was a man of means. a general store keeper, insurance agent, farmer and politician. of his father calvin would write the lines he laid out were true and straight. and

i want to address a cynical view of american politics which you quoted correctly which is the big banks do it. last year when the house debated the bill healthcare was taking up most of the attention. so, the bill was almost an inside game. healthcare having been done, this year the senate conducted its bill in full public light and you saw that. the big banks didn't win anything that they should not have won. they were not able to block anything they should not. anything looking for a tkphapbgs that when the public is engaged democracy works well gets it from this bill. look at the contrast. there were a couple of votes on the floor last year with regard to derivatives where i was on the losing side and i believe i would win today because of this. but i will say the older assumptions that the big money gets everything they want it is very hard to see how anybody can look at the process in the senate and not realize informed public opinion working with the senate leadership prevailed. >> did you tell the president you would have a bill before the july 4 recess? >> i believe we would. >>

dream, to suggest someone is not american or does not speak for those values different than others is cynical and unfortunate. >> host: we have another tweet describing herself as a geeky old broad not ready to retire. if california is leading the nation in trend then does that mean republicans will be irrelevant nationwide instead of just california? >> guest: i was on the schwarzenegger transition to team and we have a lot of hope but did not take into account would have been to you when you slapped with a kennedy every night. we became dissolution and quite quickly. the parties are irrelevant. i think that people are voting based on a candidate and individual framework. i think we'll find more conservatives ultimately in the republican party that is just happenstance because of the reagan legacy but they are irrelevant. as americans both democrats i am inclined to say through february of '08 but as americans boating in november democrats as they did in massachusetts start to vote based on their situation and he or she is a democrat so that will be just fine people are finding out that is n

they sound so cynical. i think it is a good idea, but i think there is an ulterior motive for doing it because i think they will do anything to get their point, even distort facts. and the garden called ahead of me, -- and the guy that called ahead of me, i called mistakenly on the republican line. they made me hang up and call back on this line. host: thank you very much. the lead story in the politico this morning -- the committee would require all airlines to check all foreign flights 30 minutes before rival in the u.s. crompton, md., kathy on the republican line, what do you think about the you cut program? caller: i believe firmly in the idea. i think it is our chance as americans to be heard. i think we have data a lot of practice as citizens in cutting back -- we have had a lot of practice as citizens in cutting back. perhaps our input could be used to the advantage of the economy. we are broker, both in our homes and in our country, and i think that if it is time to cut we should have a say. host: j

is that a real cynical attitude was that some people supported this law hoping the courts would invalidateit. so they wouldn't -- so they could make their political statement and at the same time then just have the courts take care of the problem. i think change happens because people demand it. people insist on it. you know, there's that great winston churchill quote about american during world war ii. did you ever hear this one. churchill said americans could always be counted on to do the right thing after they exhausted every other possibility. and i think that's the case. this is a hard issue. and again, it's not a new issue. and so why do you go to washington? why 100,000 people come out in phoenix? because they're insisting on the right thing and that's how change -- and that's how change happens and that is how doors -- and that's how doors open. >> all right. last question and then we'll open it up. polling, right? everybody follows the polls. the polls show support for the arizona law. now some of that support might be dropping a bit but consistent high support by the average ame

now, it is not just cynical. it is sinister. is going on is a combination of political dishonesty to advance at an agenda and media dishonesty to promote an agenda. they are linking together, feeding each other, and having a destructive effect on our entire system of governance in our country. immigration might not be our issue, but the crisis on our southern borders is a perfect illustration of the same dishonesty and corruption that have infected the gun debate for decades, and the consequences of the ruling class refusing to do anything to contain the crisis ultimately endangers your right to keep and bear arms because all of you sitting here this morning -- you know exactly where it leads. whether it is laws against our violent crime, illegal immigration, or any think -- anything else, the consequences of selective enforcement are always the same. bad guys get a pass and good guys like you get it in the chest. when violent crime explodes as a result of their own refusal to enforce the law, those same politicians attacked you

mentioned tony's name, if you are defining satire as being with, tumor, some form of sarcasm and cynicism, being ironic and that is probably the key word, being ironic, how ironic it is and i can't think of a more ironic writer than ishmael reed. if you pick his stuff up, all of his books have an aspect of some element of irony and which and humor. ralph ellison's invisible man, what i am suggesting to you is just about all of the writers, we talked about this earlier, most writers at one time or another in their career have dabbled or had one of their books or essays or something like that that had elements of satire. invisible man's satire can go in different directions. from tragic to, a to sci-fi to speculates to fiction to fantasy, beyond the literary genre. in living color or saturday night live or mad magazine. all these things, some aspects of satire involved. we talk about douglas turner ward, that is where you find it happening in the theater. many times we talk about george wolfe, the colored museum. the ridicule and to stab to change things. a number of these driving concerns

speak to those values because they may be at a certain point in the road different than others is cynical and i think unfortunate. >> sue mcallister tweets in and she describes herself as someone not ready to retire from the central valley of california. is california's leading the nation in trends, then does that mean republicans will be irrelevant's nationwide instead of just in california? >> you know i was on the arnold's fortune maker transition team and we all have a lot of hope for mr. schwarzenegger and what we didn't take into account what would happen to you if you-- with the kennedy every night. we became disillusioned quite quickly. the truth is i think that the parties are irrelevant. i think that is already happen. people now are voting based on a candidate and an individual framework. i think we will find more conservatives ultimately within the republican party. i think now that that is happenstance because of the reagan legacy. but i do think that they are irrelevant and they think that, as americans both democrats-- i am declined to state at this point i have been a demo

kaye the embargo, but when you are defining than is being with humor, some forms of sarcasm and cynicism, being ironic and i think that is probably the chief board. it is like being ironic, how ironic it is that i can't think of a more ironic greater than ishmael reed. if you pick a stuff up, almost all of his books have an aspect, some element of irony, wit and humor. ralph ellison's invisible man, what i am suggesting to you is just about all of the writers, and tom and i talked about this earlier, that most writers out there at one time or another in their career have dabbled or had one of their books or essays or something like that that had elements of satire there. certainly with the invisible man, which satire can go in so many different directions. it can go to the tragic. it can go to the comic. it can go to the sci-fi. it can go to speculative fiction. it could go to fantasy and you will find it even beyond the literary genre. at talk about it from a television stand blind like in living color or saturday night live are mad magazine. all these things have dabbled or have had so

i don't know if that's cynical. it's sort of the reality of doing tv work or, you know, marketing. >> were there any companies that you wanted to work for and how many companies did you actually do the work for. >> i worked for four companions. dole and pill gram's pride which was the biggest chicken company in the world. i worked for an upscale mexican restaurant in manhattan and then i worked for a mom and pop flower shop in what's called the flower district in manhattan. it's like a couple -- in an old area. it used to be a lot bigger and it's shrinking. it's wholesale flowers. very old school. almost all the workers are either ecuadorian, guatemalan, mexican. very unregulated. the idea of would i want to work for them again? no. i mean, i had actually a lot of respect for dole. not that they were paying us well. but they -- i felt like they explained policies and safety things in a way that seemed meaningful. and the foreman was really sort of respectful of workers. i think that's a little bit different, though

explaining why americans are more cynical than they usually are about politicians.ther colleague put together looking at charlie crist and politicians and making the argument a lot of people think they're weasels who can't be trusted because sometimes they are weasels who can't be trusted and how crist said he'll never leave the party. he left the republican party. we saw this with arlen specter. no way i'm going to switch parties. he switches parties. another had run on this platform saying there's no way i'm going to seb more than three terms. guess what he does? >> he breaks a pledge and wants to run again. i think this feeds into the cynicism that a lot of people have about politicians doing whatever it takes to win, which is what they often do and often have to do if they want to have the power that was accrued. >> coming up next, a check on market futures with erin burnett back in new york and live at the stock exchange. don't forget, "morning joe" is now live on satellite radio, tune into sirius 90, xm 120. "morning joe" to go. we'll be right back. resilience

another has cynically claimed to be abiding by the treaty while violating its safeguards, expanding its enrichment program, failing to cooperate with the iaea, and ignoring the injunctions of the security council. but amid the amid these challenges, once again, most nations have the opportunity to choose a different path. the message of president obama delivered in prague last year has a new urgency. rules must be minded. violations must be punished. words must mean something, and the world must stand together to prevent the spread of these weapons. at this conference it is time for a strong international response. these review conferences have been held every five years for the past four decades, but too often they have fractured along familiar clients. nuclear weapons states versus non-nuclear weapons or the west versus non-alliance movements. instead of working together to produce -- to face a common challenge, we have retreated to a predictable position to protect our presumed interests. this time must be different. as one minister said to me, we not only must think of side of the f

voters are very cynical and skeptical. they've heard a lot of this before.eople ask me often, if arnold could not do it, the action hero, why can you? no one has ever confuse me for arnold, that is for sure. i do have a black belt. i think i could take him if i had to. i am not like governor schwarzenegger or most people who have run for office. i have to order, tenacity, and backbone. i can get done what i am going to get done. i've been crystal clear about my conservative principles, too. it is important for the republican primary base. what are your principles and will you stand by them? my principles have to do with my passion for individual liberty and personal responsibility. i have a passion for free markets and smaller, more accountable government. the legislature is going to have to approve a lot of the things i'm talking about. people also ask me what i would want to be governor and have to deal with the legislature. honestly, ladies and gentlemen, this is the best time to run. it takes a real meltdown, are real crisis, in order to galvanize voters

a real cynical view of things fr and i don't know arizona well enough to make a broad, generalization, having said tha is that a real cynical attitude was that some people supported this hoping they would validated so they could make theirttitude validacal statement and at the same time then just have theso court ta tke care of the problee i think change happens because people demand p it. people insist on it. you know, there's a greatople d winston churchill quote about you knans during world war ii. churchill said americans could always count on to do the right d you thing after they've exhausted every other possibility and iwae think that's the case. t this is a hard issueo and agai. is not the issue and so why do you got' washington? why did 100,000 people come out in phoenix because insisting on and so why the right bank and that's how change happens and that is how doors open. -- a >> alright, last question and then we'll open itow chang up. polling, right? everybody follows the polls. it. polls show support for thet? arizona bob. some of that might be dropping o bit, but pretty

we have stood up to the naysayers, the daughters, the cynics that claim that women cannot win. taken on conservatives that want to control our bodies and our lives. we have taken on those that want us to go back to the kitchen. we have said, not on our watch, not in this time, not with emily's list. we have watched pradesh choice democratic women take office -- pro-choice democratic women take office. they have used their political power to help stop domestic violence and try to find a cure for breast cancer. they have fought for peace and for jobs. they had taken on the special interests to protect our environment and our health. the women have governed with a strong and progress of hand. the savaging kindergartens and invest -- working with kindergartners and investing in some many different projects to better our communities. [applause] perhaps no one has been -- done more to improve the lives of women then nancy pelosi. [applause] you are a marvel. the speaker is one of the best listeners i know. she is compassionate, a brilliant political strategist, and she is tough. a re

is that a real cynical attitude was that some people supported this law hoping the courts would invalidate it. so they wouldn't -- so they could make their political statement and at the same time then just have the courts take care of the problem. i think change happens because people demand it. people insist on it. you know, there's that great winston churchill quote about american during world war ii. did you ever hear this one. churchill said americans could always be counted on to do the right thing after they exhausted every other possibility. and i think that's the case. this is a hard issue. and again, it's not a new issue. and so why do you go to washington? why 100,000 people come out in phoenix? because they're insisting on the right thing and that's how change -- and that's how change happens and that is how doors -- and that's how doors open. >> all right. last question and then we'll open it up. polling, right? everybody follows the polls. the polls show support for the arizona law. now some of that support might be dropping a bit but consistent high support by the average am

every one of you, even the most cynical among you cherishes the free press and preservation of our systemvernment and our way of life. i want you to know that for all the jokes and the occasional gripes, i cherish that work as well. in fact tonight, i wanted to present all of you with a bipartisan congressional resolution that honors all those wonderful contributions that journalists have made to our country and the world, but unfortunately, i couldn't break the filibuster. thank you very much everybody. god bless you and god bless the united states of america. [applause] >> we are going to make history tonight. it's not 11:35 p.m., but i give you a man who is good any time of the day or night. jay leno. [cheers and applause] >> thank you, ed. this is everybody comedian's dream, rich people eating. i got stuck behind the arizona congressional delegation. luckily all their pips were in order. and i have the honor of being the only person on this panel not subpoenaed by rod blagblag. that is impressive. i see the white house press corps is very excited. so this is it. enjoy it while it last

every one of you, even the most cynical among you cherishes the free press and preservation of our systemof government and our way of life. i want you to know that for all the jokes and the occasional gripes, i cherish that work as well. in fact tonight, i wanted to present all of you with a bipartisan congressional resolution that honors all those wonderful contributions that journalists have made to our country and the world, but unfortunately, i couldn't break the filibuster. thank you very much everybody. god bless you and god bless the united states of america. [applause] >> we are going to make history tonight. it's not 11:35 p.m., but i give you a man who is good any time of the day or night. jay leno. [cheers and applause] >> thank you, ed. this is everybody comedian's dream, rich people eating. i got stuck behind the arizona congressional delegation. luckily all their pips were in order. and i have the honor of being the only person on this panel not subpoenaed by rod blagblag. that is impressive. i see the white house press corps is very excited. so this is it. enjoy it while it

so don't be surprised at the cynicism of the american people. mr. president, i want to tell the manager as he -- because he was not here, i'm trying to get a list of speakers, get a time agreement and give him a time agreement at least on this side as soon as possible. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. dodd: let me just say to my friend from arizona, senator, what i'm going to do is call up an amendment that will be a side by side arrangement. i won't ask for any time on this. i appreciate you getting back to me so you can set a time certain so you can vote on both amendments. i'll call up amendment numbered 3938. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. dodd: i thank my colleague. i see senator chambliss here and senator isakson. i will wait and respond in a minute. i will yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. the clerk: the senator from connecticut, mr. dodd, proposes amendment numbered 3938 to amendment numbered 3839 -- mr. dd: i ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as

[applause] in an age of instant aacess to information, a lot of cynicism and the news, it is easy toes and the swirl of -ppolitical debate. as we experienced the immediacy of the image of a suffering child, it is the beast -- it is easy to givv in to the belief that human progress is staalee. that events are beyond our control. the change is not possiblee this nation was foonded different notion. we believe that all men arr created equal. thee are endowed by their%+ cceator with certain inalienable rights. among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. that ttuth has bound us together, a nation populated by -ppeople from aaound the globe, enduring hardssip and achieving greatness as one people. thattbelief is as true today as it wws 200 years ago. it is a belief that has been claimed by peeple of every race and every religion in every region of tte world. can anybody doubt that this belief will be any less true or powerful two centuries from now? a fundamental part of our be america's support for those universe of rights that form the creed of our foundation. we will pr

frenzy intentionally misled people and i think that's one of the things that contributes to people's cynicismour own side who say, wait a second, we're angry for a reason. we believe these are sacrifices we shouldn't have to make. assemblyman -- go ahead. >> go ahead, karen. >> well, i do think, though, that there should be a responsibility and that people should understand, we were in the worst recession since the great depression and that's where i think frankly that the radio shows could have been helpful in explaining how dire the consequences have been of this recession. it wasn't just a matter that people couldn't get along. we really faced a very difficult challenge. >> and still do face a very difficult challenge, so assemblyman villines where does california go from here. >> i'm hopeful to dove tail on the question you had also that i think people count on us when we're elected to know the facts and do the best we can to solve the problems. not everyone will know how bad it was and what we needed to do. that's okay. where we need to go now as a state is to come together and realize b

i want to address the cynical view of american politics, which quoted correctly. big money does it in the big banks do it. last year, health care was taking up most of the attention. the bill was almost an inside game. health care has not been done. the senate conducted its bill in public light. you saw the big banks did not win anything they said they wanted. there were not able to block anything. anybody looking for a demonstration that when the public is engaged democracy works well gets it from this bill. just look at the contrast. there were votes on the floor of the house last year where derivatives were on the losing side. i believe there would be on the winning side today. the old assumption that big money gets everything they want -- it is hard to see how anybody can look at the process in the senate and not see how informed public opinion, working with the senate leadership that senator dodd and others provided, prevailed. >> you believe the president will have the bill signed before june 7? >> i believe we will. >> will the derivatives provisions surviv

we can disagree with people, but we do not have to demonize them all the time and be cynical about their intentions. i am afraid there is a lot of that going on in this country. if anything can get done throughout the rest of this year, it will be a miracle. host: al kamen points otu this are we morning, whtyy so slow -- compared with our cousins across the pond? the headline -- "britain does it fast, so why can't we?" a republican on the line. caller: we have an incredible example in my congressional district. we had a special election this past week, a primary. and it is a runoff between tom grace and another fellow. and whoever wins this, they have to run again july 20. not only is a very inefficient, but it can be very costly. people that lost, they can run again. i think we need to make fundamental changes, because it is very expensive to have to pay for two, three, four elections in the period of two months to fill a congressional seat. host: how would you fix it? caller: make this election -- do not make them have to run again july 20. only have that election, and if you won that,

the other guy, at least that's what three oil executives predictably and cynically told the senate hearingn tuesday. the administration and congress will have to press a lot harder to figure out what went wrong and what must be changed, including how the industry needs to be regulated to ensure this never happens again. we're covering another hearing this time on the house side on the gulf oil spill. president and chairman of b.p. america again and also the head of trans ocean limited and timothy probert of global business lines with halliburton and jack moore, president and c.e.o. of cameron who has been involved in this process. that hearing at 10:00, starting up just about now on c-span 3. houghton lake, michigan. bruce, independent, hi. caller: hi. i just like to make a comment this morning on the representative you had on from washington. host: yes. kathy mcmorris rodgers. caller: it was unbelievable to me the things that were coming out of her mouth. i just couldn't understand these people have a vocabulary of about 12 words that they keep repeating. and iel this you, i'm not losing

defining what is the correct religion, what is the correct doctrine and what is not is usually into cynical to our goals, counterproductive. we're delighted when we see a senior saudi clerics issuing a fatwa against al qaeda and against terrorism. in countering the narrative that mike and others here put together. clerics are cited. we're always encouraging in conversation whomever we can to amplify on the is. we're happy to see them. to the extent that this is an intra-muslim discussion, i do not think our getting engaged benefits it. i would also say that we're quite clear about condemning an ideology which focuses on a reordering of the global order and which has violence at its heart. we have no problem condemning this kind of killing of innocents and we do it at every opportunity. -- killing of innocents and we do it at every opportunity. innocence and we do it at every opportunity. this is a global conversation. >> thank you. i want to follow up on something you mentioned briefly. the new de-radicalization program. could be more specific on how it might work -- could you be more speci

[applause] in an age of instant access to information, a lot of cynicism and news, it is easy to lose flood of pictures, in a swirl of political debate. power and influence can seemed to ebb and flow. wars and grand plans can be deemed one more loss -- won or lost day-to-day, hour to hour. we have experienced the immediacy of the image of the suffering child, or the boasts of a dictator, it is easy to give in to the belief that human progress has stalled, that events are beyond our control, that change is not possible. but, this nation was founded upon a different notion. we belie that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that truth has bound us together, a nation populated by people from around the globe, enduring hardship and achieving greatness as one people, and that belief is as true today as it was 200 years ago. it is a belief that has been claimed by people of every race and religion in every region of the world. can anybody doubt tha this belief w

but don't be too cynical. the sun is coming up. for somebody who has been out there working, i can see it happening and it's very exciting. last year, the house of representatives unaimously passed the national whistleblower. for the first time in 31 years, the white house is not either opposing whistleblower rights or just paying lip service to them. for the first time since i worked on us in 1979, the white house is working full steam ahead on the front lines to pass a strong whistleblower protection enhancement act as we can get. meanwhile, the obama administration, despite our frustration with the special counsel has appointed administrative leaders to the agencies that adjucate government and corrate whistleblower rights that is the strongest lineup, the most impressive lineup in the history of whistleblower in law. and if the senate leaders get the same fighting spirit that the rest of the government seems to be getting in the new leadership, we won't be able to be stopped. we can get over the hump to get credible rights for

and the people themselves grew cynical about the democratic process. people stopped attending town hall meetings, and many even stopped voting, thinking their votes didn't matter anymore, and neither did their voices. then something happened last summer. in every corner of this country, people started to gather. first in small groups, and then in larger and larger crowds. they acted individually and independently. but their message was all the same -- listen. and now finally, we want america to know, we are listening. that's why we're introducing america speaking out, a 21st century innovation, that will revolutionize the relationship people have with congress. this is our effort, a republican effort, to change the course of history and the policies in washington, to return to 300 millions of americans their voice, and the way that they are governed. we recognize that americans don't want an agenda imposed on them from washington. they know the best ideas don't come from washington. they come from the people. america speak out will return them their vo

culp i think the cynicism and skepticism toward american policy, the bill was intended to support civilian institutions at the expense of just giving money to the army and that in the pakistani government deal with it. yet, when this bill came out, because there were elements that tried to give up the civilian government influence over the army's promotion process, the pakistani people were up in arms that the u.s. was trying to influence the policy. host: louisville, ky. republican line. caller: i was wondering if you could differentiate between the pakistani taliban and the afghan taliban. wh binds them together? is it religious ideology or political ideology? if you hear so much about each one, and what are their relationships and their differences? guest: a fantastic question. i will try to trace the lineage. the afghan taliban are running afghanistan before september 11. most of the leadership goes to pakistan following the american invasion. over the next several years, the al qaeda leadership also takes refuge in pakistan's tribal areas. in response, costumes -- postions are joining

but don' be too cynical. the sun is coming up. for somebody who has been out there working, i can see it happening and it's very exciting. last year, the house of representatives unanimously passed the national whistleblower. for the first time in 31 years, the white house is not either opposing whistleblower rights or just paying lip service to them. for the first time since i worked on us in 1979, the white house is working full steam ahead on the front lines to pass a strong whistleblower protection enhancement act as we can get. meanwhile, the obama administration, despite our frustration with the special counsel has appointed administrative leaders to the agencies that adjudicate government and corporate whistleblower rights that is the strongest lineup, the most impressive lineup in the history of whistleblower in law. and if the senate leaders get the same fighting spirit that the rest of the government seems to be getting in the new leadership, we won't be able to be stopped. we can get over the hmp to get credible rights