trent lott and tom daschle, the democratic majority leader. >> right.u're writing a book together. what do you think your experiences could teach the so-called cats who weren't born while you were a reagan conservative? >> well, when i was majority leader, bill clinton was president, and the leader of the democrats was tom daschle. and what did we do working together? and by the way, it wasn't easy. [laughter] but we passed welfare reform, we cut taxes, we balanced the budget, we had a surplus, we passed safe drinking water, telecommunications reform, we raised military pay. what among those is not conservative? and we did it working together. but a lot of the key, for me, was having somebody like tom daschle that i respected, that i tried not to surprise him. we talked back and forth regularly. so much of washington depends on communication and chemistry. and if you don't talk and if you don't have a relationship, you're probably not going to get anything done. so we've written a book called "crisis point." that's because i think that's where america i

. ♪ mark: joining us now at the reagan library, former senate leader, trent lott. k you for joining us. were talking about his previous presidential run. what you see in him now that makes him ready to run? trent: in the 1990's he had been in the house. chairman of the budget committee. active unarmed sources -- armed forces. i did not think he was quite ready for it. he has been in the private sector. he learned a lot. being elected governor, being ohio, john kasich is the last man i had a conversation with before i spoke the bill clinton about budget deal. i think he has the whole package. he is the right age. he has the right character. he has the experience of dealing with budgets. he is not a guy talking about what he would like to do. he has done it. i think being governor of ohio is a big state. john: those are experience points mostly. there is a character question. many knew him in the 1990's. he was impetuous, he had a hothead temper. he was a mature and now. now they see a different character and him. talk more about that. how has he changed? he was more

you know, i have been endorsed by trent lott lately, the governor of alabama, look, we're moving in manyrent directions. here's what i think, are people upset? of course they are. at the end of the day, they want somebody who can land the plane. at the end of the day, they're going to want somebody who can actually get the job done. for me, balancing the federal budget, turning ohio around. defense experience. and look, i'm just being myself. i'm having a great time on the campaign trail. >> what happens to that energy? two-thirds of republican primary voters who say they want somebody without government experience, what is that about? how do you counter it? >> george, when i'm in new hampshire, iowa or south carolina, wherever i go, we're getting very big crowds now in new hampshire on a comparative basis. i think you listen to what people want. my father, caring male, i have come from a blue-collar community as a boy. you have known me a long time and you know that most of my career i have been, you know, a change agent. and i think people want a change act. but i think they want to ma

if you were watching "countdown to the closing bell" day before yesterday, trent lott, the former senatoraid we will not have a government shutdown. looks like he will be right. >>> do we have a winner? do we have a ceo winner? twitter, the stock jumping right now, following reports, that's a session high right this second, up 4%. the news is at least in some websites that current interim ceo and co-founder jack dorsey could be named the social media giant's new permanent ceo. he's filling in right now, but does this mean the little blue bird is preening itself in advance of a sale in fox business senior correspondent charlie gasparino. what do you think? >> hope so. give a little context what's going on. recode reported, that's a tech website run by kerry swisher, good friend of mine, probably one of the best tech reporters out there plugged in. if carasays it, i take it to the bank, we try to independently confirm it, i haven't seen it in the journal yet, if kara says something like this is happening. liz: she says what? it's all jack all the time. >> jack is going to do both, he's goin

there's a great post in "the washington post" from trent lott who basically said i used to be on the flank, and i quote him now, and now i'm an establishment moderate. when the hell did that happen? so i think there's been a fundamental change in the party that's very hard to come back from. i think the problem for the right wing of that caucus is they don't have enough numbers to take over, but they have enough numbers to disrupt. kim strossel says they can obstruct the agenda but can't elect one of their own leaders. this is a recipe for a perm conflict in that caucus. >> we have, what is fairly labelled anarchy in the house in the last week. kwh is now in many ways starting to mirror the presidential campaign you have things that i think most long-time republican observers would be out of control with the crazy name calling that have never been seen in the campaign before. >> yeah. i think weer. >> watching the republican party implode on itself. it's so different from the '60s. there's more of a cohesion than there is now. i think when we see these presidential candidates say wha

and that's trent lott and tom daschle. and they have already issued a number of ideas about how to reform this place. but the point i'm making is that when people believe the senate senate -- but the point i'm making is that when people leave the senate, they point backing and say there is a bipartisan opportunity, a bipartisan responsibility to make this chamber work. what we're saying is that this can't be accomplished through folks who have left the senate. that we must in bipartisanship here solve it ourselves. that any rule changes that are are -- are envisioned, any agreements that are forged have to be done here on this floor and that we are extending that invasion -- invitation, as you put it, to our 98 colleagues to be part of that dialogue. we can draw on the ideas that our former members have put forward as a starting point. we can draw on the ideas that you and i have put forward. but these ideas, there is no one way to address this. we're inviting others to brainstorm together in a dialogue to try to gather a

the one of the central findings in your paper and this is a good point to bring in congressman trent lott a couple of issues the second round but congressman, you got the full range of government activities under your purview in the district to serve and when you're lieutenant governor. certainly or ambassador you saw the foreign policy implications of sequester but now you're facing the potential of the entire federal government. i just want you to please comment on how you see the problem, how you just described it, the one where but to face potentially but also lessons and historical realities of sequester and shutdown support. >> bob, i enjoyed reading the paper. i think the last couple of minutes on the effect of the federal work force was to be the most important part. i oppose some or put in place in the district than any other in country a more federal contract employees also. the coup de grace of his negative impact was the shut down in october 2013. but it started long before. i didn't always get the sense of intel serving overseas in switzerland surrounded by wonderful, not jus

and here is the kicker interested because the specific question of does trent lott apply to x, y or z, give it does should be overruled. this is a straight up case that was keyed up as presenting the question of whether abood should be overruled in the first i think there would be some dispute about what is the overruled after the second question but it is all set up with just those questions before the court and no other way for the court to get around in some narrower resolution of this case. they've taken a case squarely to decide whether to overrule one of their precedence. the past two terms are bit of a caution against putting too much into the court's decision to grant on a question to overrule one of its cases, because we've seen a couple of the cases into what h it did and there wasn't a majority to overrule. i don't think it's a fair rule of thumb to assume just because they grant on a question like that they necessarily have the votes to go all the way. that said, i would not feel very good come into this if i were the respondents given what we have seen from the roberts co