tv Politics Public Policy Today CSPAN May 13, 2013 8:00pm-9:01pm EDT
the last american newspaper reporter to interview president assad back in 2011. the national press club ordered -- lauded >> david cameron is in the u.s. this week. that is next >> are our series continues with to focus on lucy hayes, wife of rutherford b. hayes. live coverage begins in an hour at 9 eastern. president obama was asked about last year's been gauzy attacks on the u.s. consulate and about the targeting of conservative political groups. from the east room of the white house, this news conference with british prime minister is 30 minutes.
>> good morning, everybody. can we please have a seat? i hope you had a wonderful mother's day. it's always a great pleasure to welcome my friend and partner, prime minister david cameron. michelle and i have wonderful memories of from when he visited us last year. there was a lot of attention about how i took david to march madness and a year later, we have to confess david still does not understand basketball and i still don't understand cricket. greatsaid before, the alliance between the united states and the united kingdom is rooted in shared interest and shared values. it is indispensable to global security and prosperity. but as we have seen recently, it is also a partnership of the heart.
in the united states, we joined our british friends and mourning the passing of fairness our grid thatcher, great champion of freedom and liberty and the alliance that we carry on today. and after the palming some boston, we were grateful for the support from friends around the world, particularly those across the atlantic. at the london marathon, runners paused in a moment of silence and dedicated the race to austin. david will be visiting boston to pay tribute to victims and first responders. i want to thank you for reminding us in good times and bad, are two people stand as one. david is your first and foremost as he prepares to host the g8 next month. agendaupdate you on the as it takes shape and we talked about how the summit is an opportunity to sustain the global economic recovery with a focus on growth and creating jobs for our people. michelle and i are looking forward to visiting northern ireland and i know the summit will be a great success under david kospi leadership. we discussed the importance of
moving ahead with the eu on discussions with the transatlantic trade and investment partnership. our extensive trade with the uk is central to our broader transatlantic economic order shipped which supports more than 13 million jobs. i would like to thank david for his support in building on those ties. i believe we have a real opportunity to cut tariffs, open markets, create jobs and make all of our economies even more competitive. with regard to global security, we reviewed progress in afghanistan where troops continue to serve with extraordinary courage alongside each other. i want to commend david for his efforts to encourage dialogue between afghanistan and pakistan, which is critical to regional security. afghan forces will take lead in the the security forces this spring. coalition forces will move into
a support role and our troops will continue to come home and the war will and by the end of next year as we work with our afghan partners to make sure afghanistan is never again a haven for terrorists who would attack our nation. i am dated david on secretary john kerry's movement on negotiations and we reformed -- we reaffirm our support on working in north africa, including economic reforms that have to go with political reforms. we discussed syria and the appalling violence being inflicted on the syrian people. together, we will continue our efforts to increase pressure on the assad regime to provide humanitarian aid to the long suffering syrian people and strength in the moderate opposition and prepare for a democratic syria without bashar al-assad.
that includes bringing together representatives of the regime and the opposition in geneva to agree on a transitional body that would allow for the transfer of power from assad to this governing body. meanwhile, we will continue to work to establish the facts about the use of chemical weapons in syria. we discussed iran and the failure of tehran to hold up to its nuclear obligations. the burden is on iran to engage with us and our partners in order to resolve the world's concerns its nuclear program. finally, we are reaffirming our commitment to global development, specifically we are encouraged by the ambitious reforms on the way for the global fund to fight aids, tuberculosis, and malaria. david has made it clear that the summit will be another
opportunity to make progress on food security. thank you very much for your leadership and partnership as we prepare for our will work in -- as we prepare for our work in northern ireland. it is clear we face a demanding agenda, but if the history of our people show anything, it is that we persevere, as one of those london runners said at the marathon, we will keep on running and keep on doing this. that is the spirit of confidence and resolve we will continue to draw upon as we work together to meet these challenges. thank you very much and welcome great >> thank you for the warm welcome. it is great to be back with you here in the white house. thank you for all you said about margaret thatcher. it was a leisure to welcome so many americans to her remarkable funeral in the uk. i echo what you said about the appalling outrage in boston and i look forward to going to pay my tribute to the people of that remarkable city and we will always stand with you in the fight against terrorism.
thank you for the remarks about cricket and basketball. i have not made much progress. i made some progress on baseball, so maybe next time we will work on that one. thes good to be back for first time since the american people return due to office, and as you say, the relationship between britain and the united states is a partnership without parallel. day in, day out, around the world, diplomats and intelligence agencies work together, our soldiers serve together, and our businesses trade with each other. our armed forces are defending the stability that will make us all safer and in the global economic race, our businesses are doing more than $17 billion of trade across the atlantic every month of every year. in a changing world, our nations share a resolve to stand up to, terprise and
freedom. we have discussed many issues today. let me highlight three. the economy, the g8, and syria. our greatest challenges to secure a sustainable economic recovery. each of us has to find the right solutions at home. for all of us, it means dealing with that come restoring stability, getting the economy going, and seizing new opportunities to grow our economies. president obama and i have championed a free trade deal between the european union and the united states. there is a real chance to get the process launched in time for the g8. the next five weeks are crucial, to realize the benefits this will bring will take ambition and political will. that means everything on the table, even the difficult issues, and no exceptions. for britain alone, an ambitious deal could be worth up to 10 billion pounds a year, boosting industries from car manufacturing to financial services. we discussed the g8 summit in some detail. when we meet on the shores in northern ireland five weeks
from today, i want us to agree ambitious action for economic growth. opened rate is at the heart of this, but we have a broader agenda -- open trade is at the heart of this, but we have a broader agenda. i am an unashamedly pro- business politician. as we open our economies to get business growing, we need to make sure all companies a their taxes copper lake and enable citizens to hold their government and businesses to account. today, we agreed to tackle the scourge of tax evasion. we need to know who owns a company, whether taxes are paid, and we need a new mechanism to track where multinationals make their money and pay their taxes so we can stop those that are manipulating the system unfairly. finally, we discussed the brutal conflict in syria trade 80,000 dead, 5 million people forced from their homes, syria's history is being written in the blood of her people.
it is happening on our watch. the world urgently needs to come together to bring the killing to an end. ine of us have any interest seeing more lives lost, in seeing chemical weapons used, or extremist violence running even further. we welcome president putin's agreement to achieve a political solution. the challenges remn formidable, but we have an urgent window of opportunity before our worst fears are realized. there is no more urgent international task than this. we need to get syrians to the table to agree on a transitional government back can when the consent of all the syrian people. but there will be no political progress unless the opposition is able to withstand the onslaught and put pressure on assad so that he knows there is no military victory. we will increase our efforts to support and shape the moderate opposition. britain is pushing for more flexibility in the arms embargo and we will double support to the syrian opposition in the coming year.
armored vehicles, body armor, and our generation is ready to be shipped. we are hoping local councils govern the area they liberate and we are supporting jordan to deal with the influx of refugees. we will also do more to help those in humanitarian need, helping torture victims to recover, getting syrian emily's clean drinking water and access to food -- getting syrian families clean drinking water and access to food. whatever our differences, we have the same thing -- a stable, inclusive, peaceful syria free from the scourge of extremism. there is real political will behind this. we now need to get on and do everything we can. thank you once again for your warm welcome and our talks today. >> we have time for a couple of questions. we will start with julie pace. >> thank you, mr. president. i want to ask about the irs and benghazi.
when did you first learn the irs was targeting conservative clinical groups? do you feel the irs has betrayed the public's trust? what do you think the repercussions for these actions should be? on benghazi, newly public e- mails show the white house and state department appeared to be more closely involved with crafting of the talking points and first acknowledged. do you think the white house misled the public on shaping the talking points and do you stand by your assertion that the talking points were not purposely changed to downplay the prospect of terrorism? prime minister cameron, on syria, if the eu arms embargo and -- embargo is amended, are you encouraging president to take the same steps? >> let me take the irs situation first. i first learned about it from the same news reports i think
most people learned about this. i think it was on friday. this is pretty straightforward. if, in fact, irs personnel engaged in the kind of practices that have been reported on, and were intensively targeting -- intentionally targeting conservative groups, that is outrageous and there is no place for it. a have to be held accountable because the irs as an independent agency requires absolute integrity and people have to have confidence they are applying it in a nonpartisan way. you should feel that way regardless of party. i don't care whether you are democrat, independent or republican, at some point there are going to be republican administrations and at some point there will be democratic
once. either way, you don't want the irs being perceived to be biased and anything less than neutral in terms of how they operate. this is something i think people are properly concerned itst. the ig is conducting investigation and i'm not going to comment on their specific findings immaturely. but i can tell you that if you've got the irs operating in annie's single -- in anything less than a neutral and nonpartisan way, then it is outrageous and contrary to our traditions grade people have to be held accountable and that has got to be fixed. we will wait and see exactly what all the details and facts are, but i have no patience with it, i will not tolerate it, and we will make sure we find out exactly what happened. with respect to benghazi, we have now seen this argument that has been made by some
primarily up on capitol hill, for months now. i have just got to say here is what we know -- americans died in benghazi. what we also know is clearly they were not in a position where they were adequately protected. the day after it happened, i acknowledged this was an act of terrorism. americanedged to the people was that we would find out what happened, we would make sure it did not happen again, and we would make sure we held accountable those who perpetrated this terrible crime. that is exactly what we have been trying to do.
over the last several months, there was a review board headed by two distinguished americans, mike mullen and tom pickering who investigated every element of this. somethey discovered was pretty harsh judgments in terms of how we had worked to protect consulates and embassies around the world. they gave us a whole series of recommendations and those recommendations are being implemented as we speak. the whole issue of talking points, frankly, throughout this process has been a sideshow. what we have been very clear about throughout is immediately after this event happened, we were not clear who exactly carried it out, how it had occurred, what the motivations were. it happened at the same time as we had seen attacks on u.s.
embassies in cairo as a conse of this film. nobody understood exactly what was taking place during the course of the first few days. the e-mails that you allude to were provided by us to congressional committees. they reviewed them several months ago. fact,oncluded that in there was nothing a file in terms of the process we had used. -- nothing a foul in terms of the process we had used. then this gets spun up as if there is something new to the story. there is no there there. thesen mind, by the way, so-called talking points that
were prepared for susan rice five or six days after the event occurred, much matched the assessments i was receiving at that time in my presidential daily briefing. and keep in mind to to three days after susan rice appeared on the sunday shows using these talking points which have in the source of all this controversy, i sent up the head of our national counterterrorism up to capitol hill and specifically said it was an act of terrorism and that extremist elements inside libya had been involved in it. ourhis was some effort on part to try to downplay what had happened or tamp it down, that would be a pretty odd thing that three days later, we end up putting out all the information that has served as the basis for it may have
included elements that were planned by extremists inside libya. who execute some sort of cover- up or effort to tamp things down for three days? the whole thing defies logic and the fact that this keeps on getting turned out, frankly, has a lot to do with political motivations. we have had folks who have challenged hillary clinton integrity, susan rice's integrity, mike mullen and tom pickering's integrity, and it's a given that my integrity gets challenged. they have used it for fundraising and frankly, if anybody out there wants to actually focus on how we make sure something like this does not happen again, i'm happy to
get their advice and information and counsel. is,he fact of the matter these four americans, the people i sent into theield, i been very clear about taking responsibility that we were not able to revenge their deaths and we are doing everything we can to prevent it in part because there are still diplomats around the world who are in very dangerous, difficult situations. we don't have time to meet laying these kinds of political games in washington. we should be focused on what we doing to protect them? that is not easy, by the way. it's going to require resources, tough judgments, and tough calls. there are a bunch of diplomats who know they are in harms way and there are threats that come through every so often with our embassies and consulates. that's not just us, by the way. the british had to deal with the same thing and we have a
bunch of people in the state department who say i'm willing to step up, i'm willing to put myself in harms way because i think this mission is important in terms of serving the united states and advancing our interest around the globe. we dishonor them, we turned things like this when -- we dishonor them when we turn things like this into a political surface -- political circus. we are trying to hunt down the folks who carry this out and fix the system so it doesn't happen again. >> on the issue of the opposition in syria, we have made the decision to arm opposition groups in syria. what we have done is amend the eu arms embargo in order that we can give technical assistance and technical advice.
as i said in my statement, that's exactly what we are doing. we are continuing to examine and look at the arms embargo to see if we need to make further changes to facilitate our work with the opposition. i do believe there is more we can do in order to work with them. in -- to those who doubt the approach, if we don't help the syrian opposition, we recognize as being legitimate and signed up for a statement about the future of serious that is democratic and respects the right of minorities, if we don't work with that part of the opposition, we should not be surprised that the extremist elements grow. being engaged is the right approach, and it's an approach i share with the president and other colleagues in the european union area -- in the european union. >> prime minister you are talking today about a new eu --
u.s. trade deal. you are now talking about leaving the european trade union. if there were a referendum tomorrow, how would you vote? earlier this year, you told david cameron you want a strong uk and a strong eu. how concerned are you that members of david cameron's cabinet are openly contemplating withdrawal? anyyria, what gives you confidence the russians are going to help you on this? >> on the issue of the referendum, there is not going to be a referendum tomorrow and there's a good reason why there's not to be a referendum tomorrow. it would give the british public a false choice between the status quo, which i don't think is acceptable.
i want to see the european union change and see britain's relation with the european union change. it's a false choice between the stuo and leaving. i don't think that's a choice the british public wants or . everything i do in this area is guided by a very simple principle, which is what is in the national interest of written? is it in the national interest of britain to have a transatlantic trade deal that will have our nations be more prosperous and get our nation to work? yes, it is, so we will push for that deal. is it in our interest to make it more open, competitive and flexible and to improve written's lays in the european union -- britain's clays in the european union. europe has to change because the single currency is driving change for that part of the european union that is in the single currency, and just as they want changes, i believe written is entitled to ask for and get changes in response. finally, is in britain's national interest, once we have
achieved those changes to consult the british public and a proper referendum? i believe it is. that is the approach we take, everything driven by what is in the british national interest. that is what i'm going to deliver. it's absolutely right for our country and has strong support throughout the country and in the conservative party. that is exactly what i'm going to do. on the syrian issue, you asked what are the signs of russian engagement? i had very good talks with president putin on friday area we had a very frank on rotation in that we have approached this and to some extent do approach this in a very different way. i have been very vocal in supporting the syrian opposition, saying assad has to go, that he's not legitimate, and i continue to say that. president putin has taken a different point of view.
but where there is a common interest is that it's in both of our interests that at the end of this, there's a stable, democratic syria and a stable neighborhood and we do not encourage the growth of violent extremism. i think the russian president, the americanlf can se the current trajectory of how things are going and it's not in anyone's interest. this major diplomatic area we are -- diplomatic effort we are trying to bring transition at the top so we can make the change that country needs. >> with respect to the relationship between the uk and european union, we have a special relationship with the united kingdom. we believe our capacity to partner with a united kingdom that is act of, robust, outward
looking -- that is active, robust, outward looking, and engage in the world is in our own interests as well as the world. participation's in the eu is an expression of its interest and its role in the world as well as a very important economic partnership. ultimately, the people of the uk have to make decisions for themselves. i will say this -- david a six point that -- david's basic point is that if you can fix what is broken and an important relationship before you break it off. that makes some sense to me. i know david has been very active in seeking some reforms
internal to the eu. those are tough negotiations. there are a lot of countries involved in direct ties that. but so long as we have not yet evaluated how successful those reforms will be, i would be interested in seeing whether or not those are successful. again, i want to emphasize these are issues for the people of the united kingdom to make a decision about, not hours. -- not hours. davidespect to syria, said it very well. if you look objectively, the entire world community has an interest in seeing a syria that is not engaged in sectarian war, in which the syrian people are not being slaughtered, that an island of peace as opposed
potentially an outpost for extremists. that's not just true for the united states. it's not just true for great britain or countries like jordan and turkey that border syria, but it's also true for russia. i am pleased to hear david had a very constructive conversation with president clinton -- president putin shortly after the summer station that took place between john kerry and president putin. our basic argument is that as a leader on the world stage, russia has an interest as well as an obligation to try to resolve this issue in a way that can lead to the kind of outcome we would all like to see over the long term.
i don't think it's any secret that there remains lingering suspicions between russia and other members of the g-8 or the west. it has been several decades now since russia transformed itself and the eastern bloc transformed itself. some of those suspicions still exist and part of what my goal has been and john kerry's goal has been is to try to break down some of those suspicions and look objectively at the situation. if in fact we can broker a peaceful political transition that leads to assad's departure, but a state in syria that isaccommodates the interesf
groups andnic religious groups inside of syria and end the bloodshed and stabilizes the situation, that's not just good for us, that's good for everybody. we will be very persistent in trying to make that happen. i'm not promising it's going to be successful. frankly, once the furies have been unleashed in a situation like we are seeing in syria, it is very hard to put things back together. there are going to be enormous challenges in getting a credible process going, even if russia is involved because we still have countries like iran and nonstate actors like hezbollah that have been actively involved. on the other side, we have organizations that are
essentially affiliated to al qaeda that have another agenda beyond just getting rid of assad. it all makes for a combustible mix and will be challenging, but it is worth the effort and what we can tell you is we are always more successful in any global effort when we have a strong friend and harder like great britain by our side and strong leadership by prime minister david cameron. thank you very much, everybody. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> she is the first first lady to earn a college degree and during the civil war, though serving under her husband called her the mother of the regimen.
she hosted the first annual white house easter egg roll. lucy hayes, wife of rutherford b. hayes. we continue our series on first ladies with your questions and comments by phone, facebook, and twitter. tonight live at 9 eastern on c- span and c-span3. senator joeinia manchin sits down with margaret carlson of bloomberg news to talk about the prospects for -- the event was hosted by the aspen institute. it is 25 minutes. , hassrupting the senate's -- with joe manchin the third, moderated by margaret carlson, columnist at bloomberg news.
[applause] >> good morning. i have with me the entrepreneur of the senate. that is an oxymoron, i know. senator mention rides motorcycles, he haunts as a member of the nra, but he has emerged as the person leading the fight for gun-control in the senate, voting against what you might think the senator from west virginia might do. [applause] before i get into the politics inside the senate in washington, i want to travel for a moment back in time to this past weekend. you or a member of the nra. the nra had a highly publicized ,eeting this week in houston and which glenn beck gave the
keynote. i would put him at the top of my do not sell to list if i were doing background checks. [laughter] as a member, just tell me what display andof their of the nra as an opponent. >> first of all, let me thank all of you for having me and being part of this great forum. you have to put it in perspective. if there are 5 million of us that belong to the nra, it is a very small representation of the nra. i have said all along that there are more nra members like me to understand there is a certain thing called done since, things that makes sense, things we should do as law-abiding gun owners. they are doubling down, and i think the leadership is trying
to take the membership in the wrong direction by making them believe that someone is trying to take your second amendment rights. if they would just explain the bill that we worked on, which is a compromise. it is not the president's bill. it is a compromise bill from those who come from -- when i first got to the senate, someone said i never knew anybody that had a gun. i was raised in a town where i did not know anybody that did not have a gun. we have to make sure we understand as a law-abiding gun owner, i am not doing anything wrong. i am not going to sell it to someone i don't know. when i go to a commercial transaction such as at a gun show or online, i don't know that person. we not at least know if i
am a law-abiding gun owner, should i not at least know that i can exercise that right, that someone has been checked? that is pretty simple, and i think the majority believe like i believe. that is just common sense, that if i cannot bring credibility, then why would i be involved in the political process or be in the senate? i knew him through his daughter so sometimes i slip and call him joe. sometimes he slips and calls me honey because he is from west virginia. [laughter] thing. the the caricature that came across this week was that you on your gun, but because i do not own a gun, i am and defeatist and sneering at people -- i am an
and sneering at people who do own guns. thisis what came out weekend, and what comes out of this fight. it is the undercurrent. >> what you saw as the division going on throughout the country. we are divided what your democratic republican, conservative or liberal. they want to divide you and in this category or this category. i don't know why we cannot sit and talk. i don't know why my friends on the republican side or the democrats cannot work together as americans. i think the country should rise above all our interests. >> have you talked to wayne lapierre? >> they took a position that basically, background checks are fine. they support background checks. i spoke to him when i was putting the bill together.
it made some incense, and i've got to tell you, if newtow didn'tn changes, then nothing will. people andf these the courage that these families have. it makes you think, can we do something a little better? not one of those families ever came to my office and said i want to repeal the second amendment. i want to take everybody's guns away. none of that. we want you to keep your guns as a law-abiding citizen and we want you to be able to exercise your right, but we also would like to prevent one person who should not have a gun, if we can prevent another family going through the tragedy ideas went through. if we had one thimbleful of courage, we would be some kind of a body, but self preservation kick then basically at the political level, which you saw
the worst scenario, and people were just not looking at the facts. >> this brings me -- there is a theory that he may have the wind at your back, that by losing, you might win. if you had taken this victory and it would have made everybody sit on their laurels, look, we won. now you go out and the country and the politics of gun control -- >> not done controlled just background checks. is not universal background checks. it is criminal and mental. let me explain the difference for those who might not come from a gun culture. there are three types of categories of people that own guns. a person basically owns a gun like myself who wants to do sport or hunting or gun rejigger sport shooting. you might want it for defense for yourself or your loved ones, and he might be just a pure constitutionalist.
allare myself against aggressors, and you are ready for that. i guarantee that most of us belong in the first two categories, for sport or self- defense. a very small percentage is over here. when you talk to a gun owner, a person basically says, would you have this certain type of gun? they are going to look at you and say, why you have that fancy car you drive? what you have a card with a speedometer that goes to hundred 50 miles an hour when the speed limit is 65 or 70? why do you need it? do you follow me? you have to understand, news at universal background checks, the first thing that comes in the mind of a gun owner, universal means registration, registration means confiscation. die.a law-abiding why do you want to know everything? just follow me through.
now we are going to have a criminal or mental background check. i am ok with that. i am not a criminal. it is debatable whether i am saying or not, but i have not been adjudicated. the law is very clear. you have to have been adjudicated. all of this scenario sprung up. if a psychiatrist could you on medication, they can put you on a background check. it is very clear. it is against the law to use any form of record keeping for registration. it is against the law. what would make you think that now they want to start registration? what we did, we said basically any government agency or any person that tries to use recordkeeping and confiscating that to build a registration would be a felony with 15 years of prison time. so we were very clear, and everything we have in this bill, but as a law-abiding gun owner,
some guns i cannot go to other states and by. why? i have not done anything wrong. if i can pass a crack -- a background check, you can go to another state and by car. you can buy anything you want anywhere in the country. once we can remove that scenario -- the problem is this. i cannot believe people at the nra or any gun organization believes that this bill -- if anything there are things in this bill they really like. they are afraid that is the first that, because they have seen the government overreach. whether regulatory agencies are epa,ype of agency, the they work under rules and regulations, so they interpret. the president's agenda is to overreach and be more socialistic, if you will, and more controlling and the government overbearing. they are scared that this is the first that. we are dealingrt of
the constitution, the second amendment. any changes to this piece of legislation has to be done through the legislative process. there is not an agency that can evaluate and make a determination or evaluation or have a chance of overreaching. i am trying to explain that to my gun friend and hopefully we can give them some comfort. >> let's move from the mentality of the gun owner and the nra to the mentality of the senate. we have had no adjudication as yet, so they can all buy guns. of theo the politics republicans in the senate and the vote. when john mccain went home, he had rose petals strewn at his feet. this is what actually happened to john mccain. senator kelly ayotte of new hampshire, by contrast, was driven from her own town hall meeting. forward,ics going
senator mccain voted in favor center mentions bill and senator ayotte did not, of course. so the politics going forward, you've got to get some republican votes. let's do republicans first and then we will go to what president obama in the rose garden after the vote referred to as the calvert sent his own party. >> first of all, let me say that i've been the political process for quite some time in the state of west virginia, i started in the early 1980's as a house delegate member. we have a citizen legislature and west virginia. we still believe that we all have to live by the laws we create. , ran forck for 60 days governor, but it did in 1996, became secretary of state, then i became governor for two terms. >> wasn't 60% or 70%? >> we were very lucky. reelection to the senate with 60%, which is a
landslide in the current environment. but dawan. all myme say that political career, i've never seen anything that makes so much sense, that resonated with so many people in so many different sectors of society, whether you are a gun owner or supporter or not. whether you are republican or democrat. this resonated with everybody because it made so much common sense. and something makes this much common sense, you have public support and the facts to back you up. all you have to do is walk out in your community and say this is what i voted for in this is the reason why, and this is what we do. i have done that all over my state. some of the toughest critics are gun owners, and they all agree. scared, i don't trust government because they won't stop there. that is where i hit my what if. i understand, from the political
standpoint, republicans and democrats. for a job, we are all in survival mode. we all are as human beings. don't agree with but you think i've got to do this right now because my job, my livelihood might depend on it. why would you put a politician any higher than that? and hold them where they should be above all this human nature, and is not. that are looking at this. i know this is right and i know the facts are on my side and i know public opinion, but when it gets down to brass knuckles and we are going to fight this out in the next election, i have to decide how much i want to take on. i know this is a good, strong, grass-roots group with a lot of money and support and high approval ratings. due of one to really take them on? that might not be for me, but do they really have to go out and be against me?
they calculated this and basically that had to make that determination. mccain and iohn was so appreciative, he saw the facts and he is not afraid to walk into the devils' nest, if you will, and explain to him he is wrong. >> center lindsey gramm and senator kelly ayotte went in the other direction. senator graham has an election coming up. he may feel that it cannot stand to have the nra against him. is there going to be a movement that challenges the nra? is mayor bloomberg -- he was ridiculed that the nra. is he going to make the difference if there is a counterplan? >> we all have a different approach. , if you think about this you were in a state such as west virginia or north dakota or
arkansas, which is a rural state, and it has turned mostly read in the last 10 years, and most of the south has all gone red. that was the case, how would you approach that? would you say i am going down there to be up joe manchin because he did not vote the way he should vote? amwould you go and say, i going to appeal to the law- abiding gun owners in that state to understand that this was the best piece of legislation, it made all the sense in the world, and give me enough support for my constituents i don't have to do hand-to-hand combat with that your help in me. if you want to defeat me, i am not up until 2014. try to convince me to change now, but if you beat me up now, i am going to hone her back and defend my position. against the wall. i am going to hunker down.
or are you going to give me a chance to make a change? if you cannot change your mind, you cannot change anything. that is what we are trying to do right now. >> yesterday senator reid said he might bring the bill up again. >> it is coming back. >> but your colleague, senator pat to me, said he was with you, you had the votes. is he going to be back with you again? is he willing to bring up the legislation again? but has he said to you? publicly he said with what he has not been as enthusiastic, is what you mean. some of us are little bit more enthusiastic. i was being cut by glass half empty on pat toomey.
i said i believe what we did was the right thing and we are still with it. he is very good at the financial end of it. we work together on many bills and a bipartisan bill, but on this legislation, that might think, do i need to fight this thing? needed to make sure -- we five senators. i know the vote was 54-46. harry reid change the vote at the end, by voting on the prevailing side you have the right to win back the consideration of that bill again. so we really need five votes. toomey will be working with us and if we have our target on five and we are able to talk to some of them voted i think would be wrong, based on some of the facts. you have to give me a reason to come back. i cannot just say i had a change of heart because it looks like
to pressure me. >> let me give you an example. let's just say mark pryor in arkansas. he votes against you. can you bring him back in a state like arkansas? where do his interests lie? some of these people i think voted not knowing that the 9% that be as vocal as the 1% showed up at the nra in houston. the mosts one of beautiful people you ever met. the most congenial, and it can work with him. he is bipartisan. he is just a great guy. his father was a great senator before, so he comes from all lineage of that. he has to make a decision. a certain hard-core right is never going to vote for mark. a matter how reasonable or compromising might think i am, i
just understand that is the way things are today. you have to carve out the middle. you will not have the far left and the far right. they cannot run the country. it's going to be run from the middle. so now mark has to evaluate, is there enough support out there , for an help me offset valid reason that he thinks the bill needs to be redefined. what i have said very clearly to all of my colleagues, i cannot go back and create another background check on the internet and the gun shows just to get your vote. then i have sold myself, and i cannot do that. i think they respect that. what i can do is redefine. you come to me and you are mark pryor and you say i don't think it is clear, i think it is left for interpretation. and i really trade my gun to my
cousin or might distant cousin or my brother on the internet, because he lives far away and that is the only way we communicate. i said mark, i think we have taken care of that, but we can redefine that and say that any immediate family transaction be exempt from background checks. than covers it all. does that give mark enough? i don't know. >> but mark is never going to get the endorsement of the nra. but -- >> does he want the other 80%? >> he does. is he going to spend all this energy fighting the wrath of the gun groups or the special interest gun groups which has leadership not in touch with what they are making the rank and file believe. has to spend all this time and energy and money it gets money being spent, or if he leaves them alone, did they leave him alone? >> but for the first time there
may be money spent on the other side. >> exactly. the only thing i would say to mayor bloomberg and all the people understand are extremely now,, and i am to -- right .his is an educational period give a reason to vote for something. 2014 is not that far. see the a chance to fact of the bill and be comfortable with it. texted president obama help you or not help you? >> here is what i have told vice-president biden. i have the utmost respect. i have some differences with the administration. i am a democrat but i still think we need an all new energy policy. there's a balance in everybody's life to look for. i tell the vice-president, with
all due respect, there's not a gun owner that i know in west virginia that believe that you or the committee put together will the men -- defender second rights to own a gun, don't come from a gun culture. you just don't have that credibility. you did not have a bunch of guys taken out and teach you how to shoot. they just did not teach you the culture. , mr. president, and all due respect you don't have the credibility for me to believe you are going to protect my rights. and i know how we were trained. but i don't have to be gay to be in favor of gay rights. why do i have to own a gun to understand gun owners? [applause] >> i guess we are a fickle group
of people. be a bar yould have to reach. >> we use them going hunting or shooting, people like you have three eyes, like you have done something wrong. that is as natural to us as anything. growing up in my little coal of arlington, my father never hunted or was an outdoors person, but he wanted to make sure i was exposed to it. culture hunting and do the things i enjoy so much. i am thinking that is pretty where i come from. so i understand. >> i am from pennsylvania, i am understand. before we go, one of the reasons i wanted the senator to come is because he is the salesman of the senate. he is the shoeshine and small guy there. guy there.
>> you believe that, don't you? >> who would you drive across the country with in the senate? this is going to be riding shotgun with you? own here, chuck is one of the most . i think the world of chuck. he comes from a completely different world and i come from, well. >> you are both salesman. there you go. >> he gets more air time than i get. are so many good people in the senate. more a positive than negative. what you see is negative and that is not who we are and not should be. it starts at the top. the president is trying to keep people together. you should respect your president. you don't always have to agree. i would tell the president, and we talk about different things,
but you always should want your president to do well. if it is in your or the other party. you should always want this country to do well. president has got to do well. you ought to be helping him rather than tearing him down. thank the senator for coming. you brought good weather and your optimism, and you are such a good joe. >> don't lose faith. don't lose faith. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> c-span, created by america's cable companies in 1979, brought to you as a public service by your television provider. >> in a moment, our series,
first ladies, influence and image, continues. we will focus on lucy hayes, wife of president rutherford b. hayes. later at memorial ♪ >> it is so unfair to her. it is a dismissive, condescending title. it suggests she is smooth talking and her function in life was to not serve alcohol. lucy hayes is so much more. as was her husband. everything she accomplished in the white house was in spite of the fact her husband's legitimacy to be president was questioned. >> she was a charming person, very live