Skip to main content

tv   Key Capitol Hill Hearings  CSPAN  February 21, 2015 6:30am-8:01am EST

6:30 am
6:31 am
6:32 am
6:33 am
6:34 am
6:35 am
6:36 am
6:37 am
6:38 am
6:39 am
6:40 am
6:41 am
6:42 am
6:43 am
6:44 am
6:45 am
6:46 am
6:47 am
6:48 am
6:49 am
6:50 am
6:51 am
6:52 am
6:53 am
6:54 am
6:55 am
6:56 am
6:57 am
6:58 am
6:59 am
it is huge, it is with mitt romney's announcement is going to be bigger than we thought might be more disjointed. if anybody is making a prediction about that they're crazy but i think is more likely to be romney/clinton. >> what do you think, bill? >> it is good to see you this morning. i hope you recognize how fortunate you are to have brian lamb here today. we have a lot of fun.
7:00 am
you should consider yourself lucky. i do think it is going to end up being jeb bush and hillary clinton and i am already bored to death. it is the worst thing that could happen to either party. on the republican side at least the way i see it, he should have been president, he would have been routine and had not been summarized. he was the pick of the litter and we ended up with a dimmer poll metaphors all over the place but george got it, he didn't. lost the chance and doesn't mean you get a third one. i don't think the nation is ready for a third bush. as someone who knows about a competitive race for 20 years it is a big mistake but i say the
7:01 am
same thing and democratic side what does it say about the gene pool of the nations shall we have to go back to 1992 to get a democratic candidate for president? i love hillary but she had her chance and blew it. the democratic party particularly needs new ideas new leadership. it would be better for both parties if we had any other shoelaces. >> i will go with -- >> is the mic on? turn it on. there we go. >> i think we will see hillary clinton, there's a yearning for change just nobody within the democratic is that wasn't which isn't surprising, are rallying of democrats around person for the last eight years. this happens a lot for the party in power. everyone focuses on the prison
7:02 am
in the white house are to get a bench. also hurt when you lose the massive number of seats in the house, state legislature and the senate every midterm election which happened under president obama. on the republican side neck and jeb has a very uphill challenge. there's a greater yearning for change among republicans than there is among democratic voters. if i were betting for the republican side i would bet for republican governor whether it was from ohio or scott walker from wisconsin, those guys had two things, the experience and the fresh face and they are not from washington. they will have trouble raising money but we have seen before the all you need is really one friendly billionaire and suddenly your money problems are over. >> you talk about the need for a fresh face and i hear that constantly particularly in
7:03 am
today's media environment, something new and fresh and differences. mitt romney has won twice rick santorum, mike huckabee, we are talking about a large number of folks out there again. what is it with dynasties in american politics. is not a new phenomenon but we may never see a cycle quite this pronounced where the names are all of this familiar. >> with the exception of george w. bush you have to go back to nixon in 1960 to find a nominee who wasn't a second or and bob dole's case a third go around with republicans have the thing for liking people who have tried to run before so that is part of it. i think democrats probably have an easier primary if clinton
7:04 am
does run and i am proved wrong. i have to say it, romney would get in and clinton would not get in i will leave it there. the thing about republican primary is it is not just a legacy primary, you have a number of fresh faces they're so the republicans will have a discussion, they will emerge after a very bruising and sometimes bitter conversation and the republicans will know that person who emerges is the person may be they didn't all want as we saw with several previous nominees but a least they were ok with rallying behind for the election so the democrats have a tougher challenge because of a do coordinate hillary clinton they don't have that conversation. may be better for than for the folks in power for winning an election but not necessarily better for developing those ideas.
7:05 am
if there's not much of the bench out there, there are lot of ideas to put out there have but the party should hope jim webb and elizabeth warren or somebody from that wing of the party are serious about running and to run just to have that conversation. >> you mention the democratic fresh blood. as the general rule, that is what barack obama does and you would agree, he was a new face and the new police. is there something invigorating about that in either party? >> in both parties. a quick note on the dynasty. it seems to me there's a difference between being the nominee and running for the nomination. we are more forgiving to people who run for the nomination and finally get it.
7:06 am
>> john mccain? >> in 2008 when they got it right. there is not the same feeling about mike huckabee or rick santorum taking another shot as there is mitt romney who was the nominee carrying the banner of the party and lost the party and giving him another shot. this gets back to the adlai stevenson he was a lot stronger the first time around, second time around the party did the job. it is problematic if not dangerous for either party to do that but your question on the democratic side, i have been and i say this for a long time, the democratic party's biggest mistake would be if she gets in to just sit back and let her have the nomination and think she will be a stronger candidate without having a primary goal. primaries are important. they shape the attendance, the
7:07 am
candidates, and this to me is elizabeth warren. if she doesn't go she will never be present or have another shot. elizabeth warren could run could win, the primary, could beat the president of the united states insurance for it. if she doesn't bernie sanders is going to go for short, he will become a democrat and he will run and somebody will get out there and i believe challenge hillary clinton and raise issues she will never talk about. >> you think hillary clinton should secretly or not so secretly, given a fight or make a better candidate or forced? >> be careful what you wish for? >> it is be careful what you wish for. politics as a baseball fan is like sports. you want to go to spring
7:08 am
training before you start your season. you want to work out the kinks. this is a lot to me like but 2,000. >> turn iphone -- >> all i said -- >> will hillary clinton be president? al gore, that challenge, he was part of the establishment, bill bradley can in and he got a fight at the end of the day not as competitive as people hoped it would be. not sure it feels like what we are looking at for 2016. here is the difference between jab and hillary. everyone knows their last name but nobody knows jumbo issue. if i went and said where is jeb bush from? from texas, he was the governor of texas, what else do you know?
7:09 am
they know nothing about this guy. hillary clinton, everybody knows he shows to redefine himself she will try to redefine yourself. the populist messenger the voice of working people but we are hearing out there from the focus group but people know who hillary clinton is. hillary clinton has a better chance and at the end of the day, simply because he is an unknown. >> one challenge for jeb bush, it strikes me as difficult to run for president when your own mother told you not to. barbara bush repeatedly said it is time for somebody new in the country. i don't see how that is not the first argument, let it go, it -- >> it could be related. how many people had a mother, i
7:10 am
can't believe you are marrying fat guy, i can't believe you would ever do -- st. got i didn't listen. >> who knows exactly not someone from the outside. first lady and mother of a president. she says she has come around on it. to go out there for all year who knows? i assume that will not determine the republican nominee but as a voter i would leave that out there, the head of this dynasty we had enough of a dynasty. >> let's go back to the midterm election. it wasn't that long ago. it was the origin night for
7:11 am
democrats, no way to spin it. everyone thought would be a bad election and was the worst election than anyone thought. two questions i want to pose to the group. what happened? and second does it matter? what impact does it have on 2016? what happens? >> the republicans got more votes. you are absolutely right. democrats got wiped out at every level. longest the halls, and a lot of people lost governorships, lost 500 in that range, at 800, state legislators. and washington's gridlock getting anything done, action
7:12 am
happening at the state level. >> and the bench. >> and determining a lot of policies and medicaid expansion. and access to the internet, involved in that. it was a total wipe out. or democrats are totally off message about issues the american people resonated with the american people and also there's one other failing. democrats of always been better at turning out the vote. i heard somebody mention voter
7:13 am
turnout. this time the republicans have a ground game it was a better ground game than the democrats. >> that is another thing. republicans are good at getting people out in midterm elections and democrats notoriously state home. >> you have been researching the democratic turnout. >> bill is exactly right. the turnout is a problem but it is a problem in the midterm elections, voters are younger, more diverse, less economically sound lower income voters, they tend to vote in presidential elections, republicans vote the
7:14 am
opposite of that, it is a problem for democrats. there are two issues in this election. they are not just done for democrats but there was very little they could do. the days of the democrat winning in the deep south are over. it is just a matter of time before it caught up to democrats. they lost in deep red states, no surprise. what was surprising for democrats was they didn't have a message that resonated with their voters. pew came out with a study that was written this week about this economic agenda. what is their economic message the democrats at the mid elections, we don't have a message that talks to those voters those female, more diverse, less economically secure, younger voters, just mumbo jumbo of information.
7:15 am
republicans have a message obama stinks' democrats didn't have that message. will they find that economic message to go to those voters who came out for barack obama, and will then come up for hillary clinton. and the analogy between the two voters in this country, cracker barrel voters. and horry county in the united states and who they voted for for president in the last election overlay all the cracker barrel's and wholefoods in the country. if you live in a county 77% of those voted for barack obama.
7:16 am
of we're and cracker barrel healthy 26% of them voted for barack obama. the cracker barrel county is one that is rural. this was the cracker barrel election and it will look a little more -- the question for 2016, can republicans come in a whole foods district or do too well in the cracker barrel? >> maybe now you are a real voter. >> we are seeing democrats try to get the message, a new proposal and a lot of echoes of what elizabeth warren is talking about. i was intrigued that elizabeth warren went to a lot of these places where barack obama, campaigning in west virginia. the elizabeth warren economic
7:17 am
populist message could work. they didn't bring that on but there was a sense that that is how you bring back the blue-collar working class democrats. >> i don't know that i would read them. i don't know that i read much more into issues of message out of 2014. republicans said obama isn't getting it done and that resonated with a lot of independent voters and it didn't need to get any further beyond that. the presidential election is different, and as far as it is talking about we have a conversation to be nominated and what they choose to pursue. we have a chance for those conversations. they are two interesting people, one on each side. rand paul i hesitate to say is a
7:18 am
warrant like figure and the fact that he is willing to go to places and talk to audiences a lot of other republicans have not necessarily, they left out, they have begun work or don't particularly go after, 47% never vote for us rand paul doesn't believe that 47%. you will try to make a case for them and elizabeth warren, proposed real quickly, mentioning proposal tax increases on the wealthy with a number of specific tax breaks a fairly straight wealth transfer of money from wealthy to lower and middle income folks through tax credits for income it will be interesting, a proposal that never get anywhere in congress but serve as a good economic rallying cry. i would like to see that as an
7:19 am
issue democrats decided to run that firmly on in the next election because there are important points to raise about who's doing well or who is not doing well when you get republicans having to defend why the tax code does have the race looking like they do for the wealthiest and why the income under president obama, the top 1% of the 1% continue to have done very well. >> the hay to the castle they are on probation. this is not not watershed election that reoriented a generation where they stand for the last decade or back and forth suggests any majority, the american people are not sold with either party. what do they need to do over a
7:20 am
two year period to satisfy probation officers of the american people, to say they were right in the judgments in 2014 and wrong in the judgments they made in 2006-2008? >> i don't expect to get a call from john boehner or mitch mcconnell, but i would be glad to offer some. and mitch mcconnell said this he won now we have to deliver. now we have to prove we can get this congress moving we can get things done, we can govern, i get in a lot of hot water for up on the entire road from democrats saying i feel i have some optimism, a huge amount
7:21 am
some level of optimism about the ability to get things done in the next two years because republican mitch mcconnell and john boehner recognize they have to show some accomplishment. and barack obama does too. the ingredients are there for a total chaos and also to come together on some issues like trade or tax reform or some others. what they have to deliver is why i am a little puzzled by the way they started out having control of congress and the first moves were to repeal the dream act. when you only get 27% of the latino vote in the last presidential election you don't want to go into this one by starting out with a declaration of war against the latino community. mitch mcconnell in the last day,
7:22 am
basically from what we heard told the house republicans we are not going to do that. we are not going to go there because it is not a smart move for the party. we got to deliver on some issues that are important to the american people yet anything obama is for, the chamber of commerce the 1% is good and there are things like immigration reform, even climate change, tax reform, trade issues. not far left issues but things where they come together. >> we have seen the dynamic play out prominently in side republican circles the last four years, they have been trying to hold back, john boehner has been trying to hold back forces in his conference over and over again, they're pushing and pushing and they shut down the government in a most dramatic way. can republicans deliver enough to their base so they don't have
7:23 am
insurrection in their own ranks and reach out to the middle of the country that gives them a test run? >> can they do that? does it matter in 2016? or whoever the republican nominee will be the one who has to answer those questions which is why it is so important the nominee does not come with in washington. it is harder to separate yourself back. then say washington is such a mess they can't figure out immigration. we figured out taxes in my state. to understand why the house and senate work so differently you all understand the difference between the house and senate, puts you in a unique category. even more than ever the house is so incredibly poor, it is almost impossible to expect republicans are going to vote
7:24 am
for something more to the center or center-left, or to the center right. there are only five democrats left in the house of representatives that sit in the district barack obama did not carry. whenever there's a compromise those that the only people republicans go to. same on the republican side. there are 20 republicans is sitting and obama district. 87% of the republicans in congress are white and male. the average republican district in this country is 75% white. the average democratic district 61% right. when you understand where people are coming from and what their districts look like it can help to understand how difficult it is to get some of these pieces of legislation through.
7:25 am
don't have to worry about general elections or losing in november. they worry about losing in a primary and people in my district are not talking about these things they are not talking about those things because they are all talking about the same thing. this is what makes john boehner's challenge that much more difficult. mitch mcconnell's challenge, some of those folks are incredibly polarizing on but republican side and also has to worry about a handful of republicans in 2016 represent. states, pennsylvania, illinois florida, ohio wisconsin, so mcconnell's challenge is how to let protect people in. states, also representing ted cruz and other conservative republican agenda?
7:26 am
that is never -- >> one other thing to throw into the mix is national security foreign policy, we saw it come up in 2014 with the rise of isis and ebola, very much on the minds of voters a couple months ago. we have seen some politicians tapped into this as part of the broader anxiety out there, people feel insecure generally come as good as the economy has been, economic and security, and we have been generally you see things like what happened in paris or belgium and you realize we're on the cusp of something very serious. what is your sense on how that plays out? is this a national security election? usually we say it is about the economy. >> will be more so than the last
7:27 am
two which were domestic elections that national security is already having an effect. part of the reason republicans are not going to insist on these provisions, stop the dream act and stuff, executive action on immigration, is what happened in paris and the pipe bomb plot in ohio to bomb the u.s. capitol a couple blocks away. yesterday that was on republicans's minds. they are meeting in pennsylvania and said we are not going to -- the two provisions that would stop those executive actions, the dream action and the president's november action on immigration were attached in the house as amendments to the homeland security spending bill. republicans realize if they insist on keeping those amendments in the democrats will filibuster and president obama will be to let you end up with no homeland security spending bill. republicans said we're going to pass homeland security spending bill which means they can't use the power of the purse and they
7:28 am
lose their leverage to stop the immigration action. that is a clear indication that they realize national security is going to be more important, is more important and will affect what happens in congress. another immediate affect out of pennsylvania is house speaker john maynardboehner was asked about the plot -- not clear how all real the threat is but he was plotted with attempting to murder an official but john boehner said the plot to bomb the capital part of the way law-enforcement can across that what was because of the section 2154 intelligence surveillance act. better known as part of the patriot act, this is what allows
7:29 am
the government to collect business records which it has been very controversial, allows -- the nsa. it is not clear they would not go into details about what but fbi used, what provisions were used to learn about the plot but his colleagues have to keep that in mind. if it is not renewed, section 215, john boehner made the case that those powers are important and we will keep that in mind. there's a movement to end collection of data and those things are going to clash. another example of where national security is playing a role. >> that is republicans. >> you actually had a couple months ago in the senate you had a bill that ends elections, a bill passed the house, came up in the senate, senate republicans led by mitch
7:30 am
mcconnell filibustered that bill in border to block it saying we need to protect these powers, democrats were looking to get it done before they lost control of the senate because they figured republicans would be more reluctant to change those. we will see that play out. it split democrats and republicans far more. fascinating to see if they don't do anything at all goes away. rand paul, senator from kentucky from the libertarian when clearly wants to see that end of collection of data voted against the senate bill figuring if we do nothing all the powers go away in mid june. a lot of strategic voting and strategy going on. >> is this going to be a national security election? >> absolutely. this all ties together in the us sense of the challenge for the
7:31 am
republican party is it going to be a national party or a regional party? they know how to win congressional elections no doubt about it but they have got to reach beyond that. the interplay we are seeing, the issues where the tea party has been able to rule the day for the past couple years. some centrist or established or wiser republicans are saying look, we have to come -- calm the craziness and show some leadership on some issues and come to the center on some issues. on national security absolutely. it is isis, and al qaeda left,
7:32 am
very much so and now the real threats are not the big attacks but smaller attacks like we saw in paris. how do you possibly protect against that? it has everybody on edge. on top of that is cybersecurity. i don't think -- everybody is concerned about it. that is one issue republicans and democrats are looking at, we are really vulnerable at target and home depot and centcom. even the white house system was hacked into. everybody is vulnerable to this. says -- both parties need to do something about it but i haven't seen anyone come up with a technique, get better hackers on
7:33 am
our side. but those issues are front and foremost. >> lot of guys in their basements in their underwear the we could recruit to help do that. >> we ought to recruit them. we ought to bring ed snowden back and make him head of the nsa. he knows more about it than anybody else. >> another huge issue will fall in congress right now fought war against isis is being fought to go after the taliban and dark tide in afghanistan and the 2002 authorization, the president has been reluctant, he says:course, if you want to approve what i am doing great, i will accept that. john boehner says no the president's job, you have to send something to get us of the rise. what you doing now, we need new authorization but it is up to
7:34 am
you to send it so they spent the last four months haggling over who will take the step to write the rules that will determine how we fight this war. it looks like we have finally gotten past that. the administration is going to send language and have another board debate. talk about national security both parties as well obviously there are folks who think we should have the power to have ground troops in iraq or wherever if they are needed to combat isis and other folks want a clear declaration of no ground troops, folks who want a time limit on a resolution allowing it to be open-ended, not just authorizations in iraq and afghanistan and folks who want tight control on that. they will be debated judging by the past few debate. i will be surprised if anything gets done. my prediction is in six months we will be fighting wars on the old authorization.
7:35 am
>> general security concern sitting in focus groups in the last election you heard it a lot from voters, the sense that things seem out of control. 1-woman some did not really well and quite sadly when she said sad things are starting to become familiar. everyday you turn on the tv whether it is ferguson, a school shooting whatever is happening in paris, seems like every day we turn on whether it is domestic or international, bad bad bad stuff at every moment and nobody seems to have any control on it. nobody is able to stand up and say here is how we deal with it here is how leaders make it feels safe and so it is security on a basic level lagos to feeling safe at home or feelings a financially, feeling safe in terms of retirement and what happens to your kids and more
7:36 am
than anything else talking to women voters there is a sense that doing very basic things like getting on the school bus and that is a depressing place or country to be. >> people want to line up. >> the authorization of the use of military force in washington the fact is stunning to me the we have been that this war against isis for eight months and is an undeclared war and congress hasn't even wanted to take up but new authorization for the use of force. they were going to do so. some people wanted to do so before the november break. we can't do it now it is too
7:37 am
complicated. then they came back before christmas, oh no, don't make us work so hard now. wait until the beginning of the warrant at the beginning of the year still nothing. in the senate the past two struggles to voices that say we cannot continue this war without a declaration of military force are rand paul and tim kane. >> mendez, a top democrat on the foreign relations committee, absolutely split the party. the house is the same. barbara lee is the strongest voice and the tea party members are saying that president acting without congress offer rising so you would think they would want to do their job. >> i would take what you said with the stalemate over the authorization for use of force, taking it at more broadly, that describe the entire last four
7:38 am
six years of government. president obama's last big accomplishment through the legislature other than spending bills which had specific deadlines, the last big accomplishment was the wall street reform legislation, and joy and majorities in both chambers, was unable to work with congress since losing a giant midge -- majority and republicans made a point, not a single one of them voted for the affordable care act, three voted for the stimulus one immediately switched parties, one of the left congress left the senate. only one person voted for the stimulus, all the members of the senate from the republican party, republicans said give us the majority, we will stop the president and do -- got control of the house and were not able
7:39 am
to get their agenda through. given control of the senate we will get there. then nothing changes. the president says you don't have to work with me, show me good faith you are willing to work on my issues that republicans say we won the last election, you have got to come to us and sitting there staring at each other saying you got to make the first move, it really is like belize and girls, middle school dances standing on both sides of the wall staring at each other waiting to come to the middle and nobody's doing it. it is stunning. >> and blame the voters for giving us -- give us your name and tell us where you are from. >> from pennsylvania. we listened to a number of speakers expressed the idea that the president's political inexperience from an academic background, is a liability when he is in office.
7:40 am
he had numerous ideas for the legislative agenda but once he was in office it became difficult for him to get those ideas past because there was not much of a political relationship for those in washington. you guys mentioned the idea of elizabeth warren serving as the foil to hillary clinton and democratic primary but she helped shape clinton's views biltmore but you seem very enthusiastic about the idea that not only did she win the primary, but do you think she could end but if she was president with the same issues president obama has? >> that is a long and complicated question. barack obama everybody said don't run, doesn't have enough experience and the won anti won.
7:41 am
his successor's lack of success as president i would not attribute to the fact he had only been in the senate for two years. might have been better to have more experience but there are other reasons. i am writing a book about it, so much on to it. i don't think he took advantage of the powers of the presidency from the very beginning we could have or should have. the reason i am enthusiastic about elizabeth warren is the barack obama moment, two years in the senate, no one said she had enough experience or needs to grow but the train doesn't stop at the station very often. maybe one stop, she gets on or she doesn't. the reason i think recanted his see is appealing is she is talking about the economic issues the american people care
7:42 am
about. income inequality minimum-wage, one of five children in the country live in poverty, she is just saying 1%, need to build the middle class. that is what the democrats have a message that she can deliver better than anybody. so can bernie sanders. hillary clinton won't solve the issues. >> i will disagree with bill which means i will probably be wrong place today but i think president obama's lack of legislative experience has had a major effect on the way he conducted his presidency and lack of accomplishment. one of the issues i cover closely is immigration. i have looked at his history as a state senator in the light through time as a u.s. senator and on.
7:43 am
there are two things that come out of it. as a state senator he was reluctant to take hard positions on a number of issues. there is a driver's license bill but came up in the state senate in illinois and he did not want to be seen as being on that. he told a sponsor this is too politically tough for me. if you need me in the end i will be with you on the vote but i don't want to go out and vote on this if i don't have to. the sponsor turned out to be one vote shy of getting it passed so he never brought it up for a vote and obama never had to take a position on that in the state senate. this has been true at number of different issues where he has done this but immigration has always been a political issue for him and a difficult one where he struggled to figure out how to approach the legislative process. i think he has used his
7:44 am
presidential powers to -- not an extreme degree but a full degree. his immigration executive actions are currently being challenged in three or four separate courts. obamacare is being challenged, a lawsuit by the house of representatives, folks who think because he has been unwilling to work with them on legislation and struck out on his own, they try to rein him in. the president after passing obamacare said i don't -- we won't repeal it but if you bring me suggestions how to tweak it, let's do it. yet we have seen bipartisan support not overwhelming bipartisan support but there is bipartisan support for changing the medical device tax for obamacare 40 our work week definition issue that obamacare defined employers, 30 hours of work full time. there are democrats whose
7:45 am
support changing that. there's a movement in congress but the president said no because that is on the staff to repeal. he has shown an inability to find areas where he can cooperate with republican congress. >> stephen erickson, you actually sort of touched on what i was going to ask, but realistically i find it increasingly for the republican party to win a national election considering demographic changes and house vote, durrell college is structured what do you think they could do to change their perception as the old white man's party in the next two years? >> i would suggest the back and read the moratorium the republican party commission and
7:46 am
presented to the american public which came to the conclusion the republican party has to do a better job reaching beyond its older white male base and reach out to women and latinos and african-americans and do so with their agenda, that is what the report said. lindsey graham in the 2012 elections that republicans basically will never win the white house unless we show the we are the party of inclusion and diversity and particularly reach out to the latino community. that is what the report said and i endorse it and i think they have gone the opposite direction. >> you have so many republicans hopeful for jeb bush candidacy. he is married to a mexican woman speaks spanish fluently, from estate that is incredibly
7:47 am
diverse. take floor off the table for democrats they can still win the white house. it allows you to go to places like colorado, nevada. 2014 was very much about republicans running in their home turf and was in that sense a very regional election. the fact that republicans could win in colorado was -- corey gardner, the republican who won in that election. he has given a good road map how to win in the state with demographically it would look impossible for a republican. republicans don't need to win 50% of hispanics, 50% of women 50% of younger voters in the way democrats don't need to win 50% of white voters. they just need to do better than 27% so is really about increments. that is not as hard as you need
7:48 am
to go out and get from 20%, 50%, that is hard. 27% to 40, 42%? the other question. >> which is how george w. bush got it. >> the slide on white voters did not start with barack obama and the democratic party. it has been going on for quite some time. there is -- the demographics favor the candidate, but you can't lose, you can't get 20% of the white vote anywhere, you can't get 20% of the hispanic vote. >> harvard university the comparison was made between the american people not knowing jeb bush and the snow in hillary clinton. as a voter there's a misconception in the media that
7:49 am
we do know hillary. we know her policy, do we really know her? what can she do to rewrite her narrative to the american people to make her appeal not just to her base but to independent voters and excite the used again as obama did in the last week to presidential elections? >> the most lasting critique of hillary clinton, that we never saw her, we didn't see her as a white or as hillary. >> i don't know if you can do that 25 years later. she has been in the public eye for so long that the perceptions of her are pretty hardened. i don't know what she could do go out there and put a buy out about my life and my personal story, if that would be enough. i agree that changing the focus
7:50 am
was very much in 2008 about policy no personal, policy, that brings in the personal. i don't know if that will change anybody's perception of her for better or for worse. >> it is locked in. hillary is who she is and the american people know her like her or not, very hard to change the public image that she has. running around with charlotte. there is a softer side of her. whether it was enough's i'd don't know. >> mack alvarez from north
7:51 am
carolina. the chairman was here and spoke about the condensing of the republican primary schedule, basically getting it to a shorter time period so the nominee could act as general election money in an earlier time frame and we saw chuck todd wednesday night and could have been paraphrasing, the stupidest thing he could have done this. in your opinion -- >> whatever we try to go, nobody knows what the process is going to look at. we work on those debates last time. the problem with the debates, much more about the candidate's performance in the debate, not the number of debate. when you have people say not smart things in debates that tends to be a problem. if you have people saying smart things the debates would be a
7:52 am
problem. same with the calendar. in human nature, work this time, let's engineer based on what we know from the past, nobody can know what 2016 will look like so maybe this will be great maybe it will work. also the check point, a don't disagree but what it could do is shorten by shortening the time frame you don't know the candidates well enough so you have an unprepared candidate in the general election. they're starting off today and i don't think that is a shortened time frame at all. i just don't know that tweaking here or there, primary or debate schedule or convention has any impact on weathered this person is elected president. >> i agree with that completely. >> the only thing left to do is
7:53 am
the issue. the candidates, the money, the infrastructure, they don't need the parties anymore for their voter base. they have outside vendors, supertax. the insert their influence. >> it moved up the data of the convention. it will be in july. wherever it is, august would have been better. >> 120 degrees. >> i was personally -- >> i am from harvard university. it seems every time we start to have a conversation about the 2016 event and it devolves into speculative politics particularly i am seeing this
7:54 am
from people in comedienne and what i am wondering is media has the power where they could educate and inform the public so winston of focusing on speculation do you think maybe with this upcoming election the media could move towards more hard-hitting investigative journalism thought we haven't seen in so wrong to help the public make informed decisions instead of seeding this contention machine that pc. >> as a member of the media. >> representing the mainstream media. the media is not monolithic. there will be some tremendous investigative work by a lot of media outlets and silly stories that are done which sometimes they realize it. i am of the opinions that getting people involved in the process and accessing their interests and getting them to
7:55 am
come in at any level is important. there's a core of people i would not argue is a majority or anything close to that wants to know the policies investigation or things like that. there's also a segment that won't pay attention until they see the hat they are wearing or the outburst in iowa, people vote for lots of reasons lose some people vote based on policy positions and some people vote because they like somebody or don't like the musicians they like. we don't get the power to save this is what people are interested in and therefore is the news. we are all going to strive, i speak for everyone here to to filling and nourishing coverage of elections. >> there are enough out there. there are plenty of substantive
7:56 am
stories out there. what changed over its last few years once with the number of people covering the campaign, number of people through the senate press gallery and the capital and the number of people, number of reporters covering that institution has grown 3 or fourfold on a daily basis, about the same amount of substantive policies out there and those stories are still being written. what fills the gap is the other story. i also think voters engage this on different levels. if you want serious policy stuff, if you want to find out where everyone stands on an issue that is out there if you find it out. people doing hard hitting stuff what proliferated as a lot more so many voters vote at that level as well. and true for all these things
7:57 am
did whatever level you want to engage, a voter wants to engage politics it is out there for them to find. a matter of going and finding it. >> just doing scott walker's background information. milwaukee journal sentinel is a great paper, has a great profile of scott walker, great stories, great discussion about stuff he has done. you can spend all day watching the stage of the state union. i watch all of them because thanks to c-span they show that. >> it is it elliptical. >> it is all there for you. i don't think we have to stop looking at just the big enemy and blaming them and saying to voters it is not hard, there's a lot out there.
7:58 am
i would trust that major newspaper, news organization before i would trust something your uncle sent you in an e-mail list, all my friends are saying this. >> look. we are not all proud of the recoveries we see. a lot is -- we are always talking horse races. the thought 2016 to date is great, the 122016 january of 2013, not great. we won't talk about 2016 until 2015. i focus on the issues and the same things, the senate, the house, and campaigning, a lot of
7:59 am
stuff doesn't get done. >> sometimes we see in to that but the other side of it is we report what the campaign is all about. they would rather talk about a tax on obama or their lifestyle or whatever. or focus on substantive issues and substantive differences between themselves and their opponent and where they take a country or state in a different direction. we would have to follow that. >> thank you all. sorry we didn't get to the other questions. we are out of time. [applause] >> we are going to take a break in a moment but i want to present our guests with their fashionable and functional bags so they can look like you and make you look ten years younger
8:00 am
and you have your own coffee mug as well and we want again to pay special recognition, we have an column on stage, of the washington centers of think you all for joining us. [applause] ..


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on