democratic congressmen left. only one of them is white. he's from savannah, georgia, and republicanicting in that state has just taken his home city away from him. >> it's possible there won't be a single white democrat remaining from the deep south by 2013. >> your hardest -- >> the brutal police beatings of these civil rights marchers in selma, alabama, led to the passage of the 1965 voting rights act. it guarantees blacks an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. but when blacks are jammed in to districts of their own, republicans benefit. >> redistricting has helped whitewash a lot of the districts surrounding african-american majority seats. >> democrats in north carolina now have seven seats in congress, republicans six. next year, the gop could win as many as ten seats. state senator bob ruchio led this redistricting victory. aren't you guys stacking the deck? >> not really. >> he says democrats could be competitive. >> they have a chance of winning every one of those ten elections. >> from the outside, this looks like pure political grab. and the republicans

the problem is republicans know that they can hardly get anything through the house that has any whiff of a tax increase in it and democrats felt burned by the budget control act because it had no revenue increases in it and they are not going to do it again. republicans know they can negotiate in good faith and agree to a certain amount of tax increases but at the end of the day, they cannot get it through the house. >> i also think you have to look at the big picture of the election coming next year and the political calculations both parties are making. what really is the risk of failure and the risk of a deal? what really is better? is it better for them to anchor their bases and take on these hard issues of entitlement cuts and tax increases, or is it better to let it go and keep the issues alive? >> thank you for being with us today. then the next, the c-span series "the contenders" on key figures who have run for president and lost but changed political history. today, the life of hubert humphrey. then, a hearing on bonuses for executives at fannie mae and freddie mac. after that, defense secretary leon panetta on s

our problem on spending is not republicans or democrats. it is both. i agree with atr, but there will never be 60 of me here to make that happen. how do we solve the problems in front of our country if in fact we are not going to increase the revenue of the federal government? i can show each of you an idea where you could agree with $350 million we could take out of the budget tomorrow. there are tons of things we all would agree on, no matter what our political philosophy. the bigger question is -- why have we not done it? the press, i believe, has given grover way too much attention and ignored arp, which is exactly the same force on the other side, which is you cannot touch entitlements. they are both running ads. they are both generating letters. they are doing all the things they can. a real world as we will have to have revenue increases and we have to fix entitlements. forget what your party is. forget what your stand is. in fact we are at the point in time that i think we are, it will not matter whether it is republican or democrat control of

republican takers. here's something he had to say last sunday. >> there's not going to be a tax increase. part of the reason is the democratse decided they're going to blow this process up in order to blame the republicans for nothing happening. >> so let me ask you first, senator coburn. norquist says flatly there is not going to be a tax increase. in your opinion, can there be a deal if there's no tax increase anywhere? >> well, i go back to what chairman bernanke said. we're not going to have the big deficits in the future because people aren't going to loan us the money. if there were 60 tom coburns in the senate there wouldn't be a tax increase. but to get where we need to be as a country, there's going to be required some cpromise. you can call something a tax increase or you can call it a revenue increase. most of us would rather see revenue increases by reforming the tax code. but i tell you, there's just as much pressure on the other side when you see the commercials on television from aarp saying you can't touch medicare. well, i want to tell you, we're going to touch medicare because there's no way we can borrow

and that line in the sand we haven't seen republicans willing to cross yet. >>> democrats blasted republicans refusing to budge on tax hikes for the wealthy. the gop argued democrats are more interested in raising taxes than trimming entitlement programs like medicare and medicaid. >> there was an unwillingness to cut any kind of spending at all unless there was a huge tax increase. >> reporter: the panel must come up with a proposal by midnight eastern tonight to vote on it by wednesday's deadline. >> nobody wants to give up hope. reality is, to some extent, starting to overtake hope. >> congress formed the committee last summer to end the bitter debt ceiling standoff. if members don't reach a deal, about a trillion dollars in automatic spending cuts would take effect beginning in 2013. an extension of payroll tax cuts and long-term unemployment benefits could also be in jeopardy. both are set to expire next month. susan mcginniss, cbs news, washington. >>> a man suspected in a new york city bomb plot remains behind bars this morning. new york's police commissioner says 27-year-old jose pim

republicans i talked to, democrats i talked to, say the white house has been hands-off when it came to the nitty-gritty time on this. >> they were asked to be hands off. the republicans said don't let obama come into this, because if he does, it will make it political. we've been in constant touch. i personally talk to the white house perhaps once a week. to see, you know, if there was something else we could add. how could we do something? they've been intimately involved, but carefully so they didn't politicize it. i think they did the right thing. can i just say something? >> hold on. it is going to be politicized. we have a presidential election next year. there are four different panels, including the one the president started, simpson-bowles that was not acted on, all have failed to take on the biggest problems. does he, the president, not face a political cost at the polls for the fact that washington can't get the job done? >> this is congress. this came out of congress. this is an idea that came from the leadership of congress. and congress is supposed to do this. you know the

the democratic hardy then looked a little bit like the republican party today in that it was very fractured and there was an extreme wing, the mcgovernite wing of the democrats and now the republicans have a tea party but what the republicans don't have this bob strauss figure. they are still fractured. so, bob really came in at a key time. i started researching his time at the dnc first, the first chapter that i wrote. i started in the middle and his election to the chairmanship and the national archives has all of the transcripts from the dnc meetings. these can be some pretty dull readings. but not when bob was chairman. bob was really known around town and around the country because he did become a household name after he was chairman like reince priebus the current rnc chairman. i was laughing at the national archives. they frowned upon laughing. but bob was really hilarious and so he went about his job of keeping the party together with a sense of humor. during -- it was a very controversial election when he became chairman. this was after mcgovern lost in 72. nixon won every single s

democrats blame republicans for the democrats. the republicans, of course, blame the democrats. blames them all. let's get some perspective from a former corporate ceo who is now the mayor of the largest city, new york. the super committee has become a super failure. mayors, governors and average americans are asking why. why this collapse? >> i don't know why it collapsed but let me say it is not the instability in europe. it is not the monetary policy of china that is the big problem for america. it is this cowardness and this partisanship in washington that is really hurting our country. if you take a look at whether it was the deficit ceiling fight or this fight, the number of jobs that were destroyed, the wealth that was ruined and taken away. it's just mind-boggling. really, nobody could write a novel where this scenario took place and sell a book. people would say impossible. yet we've just seen it. both sides of the aisle. both ends of pennsylvania avenue. they cannot even come up with something that would not have even solved the problem. you think about it. the $1.2 tr

but the republican party is negative. this works to the democrats man is ourew bau guest until 9:00 15th. the phone numbers are on your screen journal@cspan is the e-mail. 242 republicans in the house, 192 democrats, one vacancy and you said you think a flip may be coming. guest: i think it is possible but not inevitable. i think democrats have a good shot at retaking the house. redistricting is doing better for democrats. we saw the course overturn of the gerrymandering in texas. it looks like it will give democrats a few extra seats produce see that in california, colorado, arizona, florida. i think you are saying this shift away from the republicans. democrats were behind three or four points and now we are ahead of three or four points. i think president obama is finally moving of this message about being a grown up in the room to find a compromise. he is taking a much more aggressive populist tone. it started defining the choice in the election. before there was no choice. this puts the republicans under more of a microscope and they are not do

democrats, independents, and republicans. supported by experts and economists. ll across the political spectrum. to their credit, many democrats in congress were willing to put the politics aside and commit to reasonable adjustments that would have reduced the cost of medicare. as long as they were part of a balanced approach. despite the broad agreement that exists for an approach, republicans in congress refused to listen to voice of reason and compromise coming from outside of washington. they insist on protecting tax cuts for wealthiest 2% of americans at any cost. even if it means reducing the deficit for deep cut for education and medical research. at this point they won't budge from the negotiating position. so far, that refusal continues to be the stumbling block that prevented congress from reaching an agreement to further reduce the deficit. we are not in the same situation we were that we were in, in august. there is no eminent threat to us defaulting on the debt we owe. they are $1 trillion worth of spending cuts locked in. part of the law this summer

republicans and democrats agree on this. that is not a good policy. we have to get this legislation and through which allows citizenship. we have to be strategic in our immigration policy. all of this discussion about illegal immigration, that is at issue. who do we want here? we want bright -- we want people to contribute to our society. there are proposals out there. our country -- every internet company, which we dominant the world and -- our tax policy and trade policy increasingly encourages -- rather than creating jobs here. >> i want to go back to the earlier question there are a lot of issues but not necessarily deficit reduction issues. what is the purpose of including visas and other issues in your recommendations to the deficit reduction committee? >> it will come from raising taxes, cutting spending, or economic growth. we have stalled as a country. a lot of companies are going abroad because there is not growth in the net states. we must be a growing economy. a growing economy will solve the jobs problem, they will go a long way to solvin

you have mitch mcconnell, the senate republican leader, and the senate democratic leader leaving their offices to go home at 7:00 p.m. it is almost as if they are saying, "well, there is nothing we can do. we will live to fight another day." it is almost as if we have reached the point where people have actually given up and given in to the sense that washington is completely broken and nothing can happen here. the always something seems to have been is in an absolute crisis. -- the only way something seems to happen is in an absolute crisis. tavis: given what we have seen about austerity in europe, whenever the eventual that you mentioned earlier rise, and and these cuts kick in automatically, if you think we of protests in the streets now, if you think americans are upset now, i mean, how ugly can this get when americans really start to feel the impact about what these across-the-board cuts will mean if congress does not do their job? >> you are not kidding. one block from our office is heading towards the white house, you have a few dozen people camping out in tents, but this is a v

republican leader in the senate blamed the failure on the democrats. >> i know for a fact that republicans wanted this committee to deliver and the good news is we'll still see $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction. but frankly, it's hard to escape the conclusion that some in the white house and even some democrats here in the senate were rooting for failure and doing what they could to ensure that that failure occurred. >> republicans are now threatening the extension of the payroll tax holiday, which gives about $1,500 to 120 million families and cuts payroll taxes for 98% of businesses. senate majority leader harry reid said not extending the tax holiday would have major consequences. >> if republicans block this legislation, 120 american families and 98% of american businesses will not get a tax cut next year. instead, 120 million families, and millions of businesses, will be hit with a tax increase. those numbers are startling. they're shocking. >> it is even more shocking when you see what a failure to extend the tax holiday would do to the rest of the economy. moody's chief economist s

like that the margin is start but when you get a republican who can appeal to the democratic voters or independent voters that republicans can surprise some democrats. they raised something like $400,000 in the first three days as a candidate. that's more than both of her democratic opponent raising the previous quarter. so it is a sort of sleeper race to watch an opportunity for the republicans may be to create a bit of a surprise. in connecticut interestingly i think it's the end of the day we will break towards democrats the two contests on the republican side better going to be such, competitive next year for the races in nevada which i think is the greatest contrast of the need to candidates who are going to run up against each other. you've got dean heller, the guy that rides his horse into the sierra nevada mountains for his idea of a vacation every summer from carson city and then shelley berkley whose dad was the maitre d of the sands, she was a cocktail waitress herself the real of that contrast. it's a state in which those areas are sort of fighting for political dominance

they have just not been able to bridge the divide, bridge the gap between democrats and republicans on the issue of taxes. democrats, jen, this really will be no surprise to anyone that's been watching congress work over the past year. democrats in this committee, they insist that revenue, tax increases need to be part of any final deal to reduce the deficit to be part of a quote, unquote, balanced approach to debt reduction. republicans disagree. they are strongly against tax increases unless it's part of a broader tax increase that would bring down overall rates. that being the major sticking point, jim, and with such little time left, it appears barring -- we want to call it a mirrorically mirroacle, that this committee will announce they weren't able to pull it off. >> earlier this morning on "good morning," senator kyl said we may have an announcement one way or another later today, and there was all that talk over the weekend that this is expected to fail, and now we're hearing, oh, they may be running back in behind closed doors to talk about this. how much of this is face savin

the electors that have come up through americans elect who those electors would suprt, the republican or democratic nominee. and the competition between the republican and democratic nominee for the presidency would now hinge on the area of debate that isn't out here at the exemes but is in in this middle space for stable governance -- >> but you're saying to mehose members of the house who will vote are obligated -- what are they obligated to do? >> it would never go to the useless because the electors that are americans elect electors would support the republican or democratic nominee as determined by the delegates to give them the 270. so it will never go to the house. >> you can tie a b on it. rose: tie a bow on it? >> more competition is good. more competition in terms of right now, when we're talking about puing candidates in, competition for ideas between the general election and when the electorates vote to make sure people are represented. >> rose: who has endorsed this? >> if you look at our board of advisers and directores, former governor christie todd whitman, president obama's directo

with democrats and with republicans. um, and i think it's especially pertinent now with the recent passage of those three bills, um, last night, the trade bills with colombia and panama and south korea. and, um, everyone's making such a big deal about, you know, how they got those through so quickly and how bipartisan they were. and it's true, but this bill was also divisive, and it wasn't just three countries that bob was negotiating with, it was 102. um, this was one of the really large gap rounds of trade, and so i wanted to read a little bit, um, about how bob negotiated through congress. um, at the part -- the bill ended up passing 395-7 in the house and 90-4 in the senate. and, um, after the house vote came in, bob said to stu i'den sad who was domestic policy adviser, stu, who were the seven sons of bitches who voted against my bill? [laughter] so he expected a victory, and he got one. and this was a controversial bill, it was very divisive, and he still got his 395-7 vote and 90-4 vote. so at this point in the bo

and when either republicans or democrats control the white house. i have not agreed oftentimes with republican presidents that served while i was chairman. i respected them and i respected the white house and i respected the traditions of the congress and the subcommittee. the process of this committee so far has shown a great inclination towards haphazard behavior and clearly shows a lack of respect for the president. and at its base is conducting an event here which forces us to the conclusion that this whole sorry business is politically motivated. the simple fact of the matter is the information has been offered by the white house more or less formally to deliver what you want in the way of papers. my advice to you, mr. chairman, is to take that opportunity and let us get these investigations back to the point where they are bipartisan rather than where they become because of bad management, tangles between republicans and democrats about what we're going to do. i yield back the balance my time. >> the gentleman's time has expired and recognize m

the governor who doesn't care whether it's a republican idea or a democrat idea. hat on public television here talks about how weak the republican legislators are. no wonder you have so little success among house or senate members over there, governor. you have been an ineffectual governor. >> you did say, quoted in the paper in tom loftus' piece in the courier journal. that issue, expanded gambling? >> yes, yes and we're going to address it, you know? >> what is your proposal going to be. >> work with the house to come up with a proposal and we're going to pass that proposal and put it in front of the senate and i wish instead of you asking him about him being governor, if you would ask if he's just going to be president of the senate? he doesn't have to be for it. but will he allow a vote in the senate? >> what is your proposal? you want members of the general assembly to say they'll be for anything without knowing what your proposal? now you can set there, governor and smile all that you want to. four years without a proposal that's passed the general assembly t

after months of go-nowhere talks, republicans and democrats are expected to announce they simply cannot agree on how to