Skip to main content

tv   FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace  FOX News  January 18, 2015 3:00pm-4:01pm PST

3:00 pm
respond. san us an e-mail and we will respond to those as well. back here next sunday morning 11 o'clock and 5:00 eastern with the latest buzz. filling in for chris wallace. k ab fig >> president obama pushes his domestic agenda ahead of the tuesday state of the union address but threats abroad mount. the president draw as line in the sand over iran. >> we have a chance to resolve the nuclear issue. my message to congress at this point, hold your fire. ron johnson and ben card an member of the foreign relations committee are here. the supreme court takes up same-sex marriage. >> right here. right now the. >> we debate the issue with two leading advocates ted olson and
3:01 pm
the dice overturn california ban on same-sex marriage. and president of the family research council, tony perkins. >> plus, mitt romney and jeb bush steal the 2016 spotlight. we weigh in on how two of the biggest g.o.p. names could shake up the race for the white house all right now on fox news sunday. >> hello from fox news in washington. president obama prepares to deliver his 7th state of the union address, the first before a republican-led congress. after hitting the campaign trail he reboots the domestic agenda for fighting cybercrime, help people go to college and give workers extended paid family leave. last week's attacks in france and the censure of congress in iran have cast a shadow often his domestic policy. joining us to discuss islam and terror and the handling of the
3:02 pm
issues from wisconsin is sent ron -- is senator ron johnson and sent ben cardin. welcome, both gentleman. >> mr. chairman, i start with you. what is your take right now? do you believe that there are lone wolves or sleeper cells here in the united states motivated by radical ideology that are either capable of or planning attacks on the homeland >> i am not aware of specific cells but when you see what is happening in europe and you see how widespread that is from france to belgium to germany you have to assume that is certainly a risk we do have to consider and we have to do everything we can to make sure our intelligence agencies are working in cooperation with other foreign intelligence agencies and our agencies here in america are also pulley communicating so we do not have the stovepipes that led to 9/11 a dozen years ago.
3:03 pm
>> a concern, senator cardin those who travel freely in and out of areas that host training camps for terrorists, what can we do about that? >> as we saw in france, we have to be very concerned about foreign fighters who hold western passports that have been to syria, who have fought with isil and are in europe and could travel to the united states without a visa. in some cases they are americans who we know have been associated with the extreme groups. it is important that our intelligence community concentrate on those who are the highest risk to the united states. we have to share that information between our european partners and the united states so we know exactly where the individuals are and we can be on the highest alerts. >> senator johnson your colleague mentioned syria of course, an issue of growing
3:04 pm
concern. i will put up a map showing what appears to be a doubling of the territory controlled by isis since we began airstrikes with coalition forces in that area. we also have the complication of assad, still operating in that area, and there are many reports that his forces and those loyal to him are actually fighting against the forces that we are counting on to fight against isis. what does this administration need to do with syria? >> what we need to do is accomplish the goal that president obama stated: degrade and defeat isis and the super the better. the problem is, we are not seeing the leadership out of president obama to accomplish that goal. we had a debate on authorization to produce military force but the command neither chief would not bring forward the authorization land he needed. we need define what he means by "defeat," and define a strategy for accomplishing that goal and he has to come to congress asking for the authority to accomplish that strategy and
3:05 pm
that goal. >> senator cardin we know the against department is report there could be a thousand or more united states trainers that will head overseas to that region and they will be there to train syrian opposition forces and we have 2,000 personnel on the ground in iraq and we are told that number could go as high as 3,400 this year and all along the administration has said, no boots on the group a very specific language they have been using there and i want to play a little bit of what secretary of state john kerry said when he testified before you last december at the foreign relations committee in the senate. >> president has been crystal clear that his policy is that united states military forces will not be deployed to conduct ground combat operations against isil. >> a strategy troops in troops out, at what point do you think the president has an obligation to come to you for the authorization for use of
3:06 pm
military force with isis? >> he should come to us for the use of force and i have been vocal about the fact that congress has a responsibility to clarify exactly what the presidents authority is. i want to disagree with senator johnson on the president's strategy. i think the president is right this is a complicated situation in iraq. we think a stable government that includes moderate sunnies is important to cut off the support for isil. we are working on that. we have a greater ground capacity in iraq to deal with the growth of isil than we do in syria. in syria we are doing a training mission and we started that training mission, we are giving air support. i agree with the president, i don't want to see us involved in a protracted ground campaign where we saw an iraq in affect as far as the ultimate security of the country. it is important that the ground support be done by those in the countries themselves. >> senator johnson i know you voted against in committee last year the discussion of the
3:07 pm
authorization. what was wrong with it for you and what specifics do you need to see for the administration from them so you can move forward with this conversation? >> the authorization voted open was limited. i am not going to vote for an authorization to produce military force and put the finest among us at risk unless the commander in chief is fully committed to success of the goal. do you not do that. here is the problem: as long as isis is not losing they are perceived as winning and if they are perceived as winning they are good at recruiting and using social media and they will continue to inspire the the attack we have seen in paris, ottawa sydney, ft. hood texas it and is not going away. a key point of trying to protect america, to keep america safe and secure, we have to defeat isis. we cannot let them continue
3:08 pm
threatening the rest of the world for years. >> speaking of what inspires the groups the administration said guantanamo bay has been an inspiration for terror groups. senator cardin, five more releases this week and these are men from yemen with all kinds of accusations against them. they are being released to areas that share a border with yemen and we are told the brothers in paris traveled to the area and got training in yemen and returned home. is this the time right now, to be releasing detainees like the ones we saw released days ago? >> it may not be the time to release the detainees but it is past time to close guantanamo bay. the money can be put to pet are use protecting the security of our country, it is millions per inmate we are spending to main tin gitmo bay where we could, if
3:09 pm
congress would permit we could transfer some to the united states. we know how to keep them safe from the public or we could bring them to justice or transfer them to other countries where they could handle it. but to continue with blow -- guantanamo bay it is something we want to move away from. on the use of force, the president is operating on the use of force of isil based on 2001 and 2000 authorizations from congress. circumstances have changed since those days. it is critically important that congress exercise its responsibility and pass an authorization for the use of military force for the president. >> what i hear from folks on both sides they need to hear from the administration the specifics so well watch to see if that is coming in the days and weeks ahead as both sides are asking for it. i want to play this piece for
3:10 pm
you to respond senator johnson. >> the prison at gitmo continues to inspire violent acts around the globe. it is not nasa we can avoid violence by keeping the prison open and keeping them locked up. >> senator johnson senator cardin said we know how to handle them transferring to united states prisons. the congress has blocked the administration from doing that. so what do you do with these people? >> the people at guantanamo bay are evil people and they will many of them, will return to the battle. one of the first lines of defense, the most important things we have to do is have an effective intelligence-gathering capability and a way to do that is capture the unlawful combatants and detable them -- detain them and interrogate them. that is how the develop the intelligence to try to foil future plots. the fact we will try and close
3:11 pm
we guantanamo we don't have a place to put terrorists we capture to keep america safe this is no time to transfer the individuals that are high risk individuals. we have released literally hundreds of prisoners from guantanamo and the people are the worst of the worse and should not be released. >> another area of contention between the hill and the white house are negotiations with iran over the nuclear program. we have heard something about this from both of you and you have both signed on to legislation that would enact tougher sanctions if the deal does not work out. the president said stay in your line and hailed fire saying that you are going to be responsible if things go south with this deal because of the provocation regarding sanctions. here he is on friday. >> i have said we leave all options on the table. but congress should be aware if
3:12 pm
this dippic solution -- this diplomatic solution fails the military solution would be heightened and congress will have to own that. >> senator; that a fair assessment? >> there is no disagreement between the overwhelming majority in congress and the president that if iran does not agree to give up its nuclear weapons they are going to reimpose the relief they have received but there will be tougher sanctions imposed. we want to work with our coalition partners to make sure that the sappings are -- sanctions are enforced internationally. the only issue now is the timing. we hope negotiations go satisfactorily and iran will not become a income weapon state. but if they move in that direction we are going to pass tougher sanctions. the question is, when do we do it? that is the issue and the discussions taking place on capitol hill.
3:13 pm
>> quickly a final word, the president said he will veto it. can you overcome that? >> first of all i have no faith this administration and this president has the negotiating capacity, the ability to do a good deal with iran. the negotiations were lost from the get go when we lessened sanctions and we allowed iran to continue to enriched uranium contrary to all u.n. resolutions. i do not see a good deal coming out out of this administration and a bad deal is worse than in deal. i think imposing additional sanctions is the only way to bring iran to the negotiating table in good faith. >> senator johnson and cardin thank you both for joining us today. >> next, does releasing detainees from what guantanamo bay make us safer? what would you like to ask the panel about gitmo?
3:14 pm
go to our facebook or twitter and we could use your questions on the air. okay, listen up! i'm re-workin' the menu. mayo? corn dogs? you are so outta here! aah! [ female announcer ] the complete balanced nutrition of great-tasting ensure. 24 vitamins and minerals antioxidants and 9 grams of protein. [ bottle ] ensure®. nutrition in charge™.
3:15 pm
in my world, wall isn't a street... return on investment isn't the only return i'm looking forward to. for some every dollar is earned with sweat, sacrifice, courage. which is why usaa is honored to help our members with everything from investing for retirement to saving for college. our commitment to current and former military members and their families is without equal. start investing with as little as fifty dollars.
3:16 pm
3:17 pm
there was a unanimous recommendation from his national security team that steps could be put in place to ensure when the individuals are transferred that we can significantly mitigate any threat they have to the u.s. or our interest around the world. >> the only reason most of these people have not planned another 9/11 at guantanamo bay is because they've been in jail. you let them out of jail, they are going to be on the ground planning another 9/11. >> white house spokesperson josh earnest and lindsey graham clashing over the potential
3:18 pm
threat posed by prisoners at guantanamo bay. time for our sunday group. columnist george will and evan bayh. kimberly strausen and political analyst ron williams. welcome to all. and before we get into the discussion of guantanamo bay i want to show you polls to show how americans are feeling about this. should it be open or closed. 56% say keep it open and 32% say close it. and when we talk about the president transferring out detainees the question of whether he is exceeding his authority, doing that 54% say yes and 37% say no. george, what does that say about the administration? >> they have an uphill climb and paris didn't help this. but the two arguments are, one, that it is expensive. whatever it costs, it is rounding, nothing in terms of
3:19 pm
the federal budget. and then the idea it is a recruiting tool for terrorists. as i recall, the uss cole was attacked before gitmo was opened. the world trade center was attacked twice before gitmo was opened. there is no empirical evidence or plausible assumption that says people are becoming terrorists because of gitmo. >> we asked viewers what they wanted to ask you, the panel about this and so this is what we got from social media. two related questions on facebook. kelly bailey wrote why on earth can't congress step in and put an end to the president overstepping his bounds. the american people do not trust washington, d.c. at all. does anybody want to make a bet at the end of his presidency, he pardon every prisoner there. and on twitter is there any way to stop president from releasing these terrorists. and we're going to have a group of gop senators introducing legislation attempting to block
3:20 pm
gitmo. will they get anywhere with it? >> they might get a majority. but will they break a filibuster is another question. the president will keep enough democrats in line to keep that or sustain a veto. but i tend to side with george the root causes of alienation that lead to terrorism in the middle east are economic, political and much deeper. gitmo is a symbol and i don't think it will have much impact. it is hard to believe that isis or al qaeda or the recruits will lay off the americans simply because they are closing guantanamo bay they will just simply find another excuse. >> and we talked with senators johnson and cardin about the growing threat in syria and how that continues to bubble up as a player as folks are training there, traveling there and returning to their countries. kimberly kimberly, how does that impact our conversation about missed opportunities for this administration in syria? >> it is remarkable that they
3:21 pm
are doing this at the time they have. remember the hist ory the president campaigned on this and congress said no and barred him from moving prisoners to the united states and trying them here. it has smoldered since then. they've now picked up the pace, at exactly this moment where we have this enormous question about all of these people using syria and afghanistan and iraq as a terrorist sanctuary. and we know from the director of national intelligence that 30% -- and that's probably a low-ball number of those we've released from gitmo, have gone back to violence. so there is no question about what is happening. and the idea we're going to actively feed this group of people to go out and cause more mayhem is remarkable. >> an the administration tuckishu with the numbers this week. but as ed henry was appreciating josh earnest whether it is -- what the recidivism, it will cause another "charlie hebdo."
3:22 pm
and is obama prepared to do whatever it takes to defeat islamic extremists, 38% say yes and 55% say no. i think he is losing the battle on this. >> i think the democrats are a momma party and the republicans are the daddy party and the republicans will get out there. >> dick cheney and the like and take it to the terrorists. and that sentiment remains especially when you hear criticism to closing guantanamo bay. the supreme court has ruled this is an affront to american constitutional law. that you can't keep people for an uncontrolled amount of time without charging them with crimes without taking them to court. this is just not legal. this is not american. but given the amount of fear in our society people say don't let those guys go if it is one person -- i think the white house said 6% or 30% as kimberly was saying. so people have a sense, we have
3:23 pm
to fight them at every edge. and when you hear from this white house the refusal to call this terrorism islamic then the right, the base on the republican party said this president is weak on fighting terrorists. i think the record is to the contrary. i think this is a president who uses drones. i think we have done well in terms -- we're the only country going after isis right now. all of these europeans and the concern about president obama not standing in the front of the rally last weekend i think it is the united states that puts blood on the line to fight the terrorists. >> we do have some coalition forces working with us although at a much lower rate than we are at syria and iraq. there has been bipartisan success in keeping transfers of the gitmo detainees from coming here on to u.s. soil and federal prisons. somewhere else we're seeing bipartisan unifications is on the sanctions with regard to iran. we heard there was a dust-up of sorts as only there would be in washington between the president
3:24 pm
and senator menendez. talking to them privately hold your fire don't move forward on this. you're going to undermine what i'm trying to do and senator menendez stood up and said he was offended that they've been working on this for 20 years. where do they go from here? >> my guess is senator menendez is offended by cuba and felt he probably wasn't collaborated about on this issue. and this is a fundamental issue of how you vieh the regime. a majority in the senate will include they are radicals that respect only power and force and the threat of additional sanctions will be essential to any hope of getting an agreement. some other people possibly the administration, feel they are more of a rational regime and we can get an agreement that will
3:25 pm
be enforceable. so therein lies the fundamental difference. they just have a different opinion than the president. >> the president went out of his way to be offensive. he cannot credit the good motives of people that disagree with him. and in this closed meeting, according to people that were there, talk the long view and don't listen to your donors. and people said well who are you to talk? so the president says furthermore, he said if we pass the sanctions, we will be blamed if the talks collapse on or around the june 30th deadline. sounds to me as though he's planning for a collapse and looking for an alibi. >> i think it is a mistake on the president's part too because he's facing domestic policy to struggle to get democrats to come on -- i mean republicans will struggle to get democrats. foreign policy there is some bipartisan unity out there and
3:26 pm
on the sanctions and needling senator mel epdez doesn't help his case. >> and they have been ruling out all kinds of things before the state of the union because there are so many international issues. and overnight we get from the white house the plan to raise taxes on those making more than $500,000 to get rid of the inheritance tax loopholes. and there are good things attaches to that things we would agree for cuts to middle class families and child tax credits. but listen, he knows this won't get through the house and senate so is it just making the gop go on defense and look like they are advocating for rich people? >> um yeah. politics of the moments is working class discontent. and you see this on both sides. mitt romney tries to relaunch his efforts focusing on trying to do more for the middle class. the president talking about more in terms of everything from leave to our people, to doing
3:27 pm
more with community colleges and now this tax break. and it is strongly focused again, on saying that democrats care about the working class. i think you'll see from republicans, senator mcconnell doing the same thing with xl gas pipeline and cutting back on the numbers of hours you qualify for obama care and i think that is what you'll see in the state of the un -- union. >> we have to leave it there. but we'll see you later in the program. what do you think about the dust-up with senator melendez. let us know what you think at fox news sunday. and up next the supreme court about same same-sexthis tylenol arthritis lasts 8 hours but aleve can last 12 hours. and aleve is proven to work better on pain than tylenol arthritis. so why am i still thinking about this?
3:28 pm
how are ya? good. aleve. proven better on pain. [ fishing rod casting line, marching band playing ] [ male announcer ] the rhythm of life. [ whistle blowing ] where do you hear that beat? campbell's healthy request soup lets you hear it in your heart. [ basketball bouncing ] heart healthy. great taste. [ m'm... ] [ tapping ] sounds good. campbell's healthy request. m'm! m'm! good.®
3:29 pm
3:30 pm
3:31 pm
. the supreme court announced it will -- take um same-sex marriage. we want to discuss what the constitution says, if ythi out we want to talk about the rights of same-sex marriage and the advocates. ted olson score add big victory in california, and tony perkins welcome bark, both gentleman. >> when the supreme court takes a case they set up specific questions they want answers. i will read those. does the 14 the amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? second, does the 14 the amendment require states to recognize a license when it was lawfully licensed out-of-state? >> reason those two questions
3:32 pm
were asked by the supreme court is because those were the issues in the states from which the four states -- kentucky michigan tennessee and ohio -- some of those states prohibited recognition of marriages that were lawful in other states. some prohibited marriage between anyone other than a man and a woman. those were the two basic questions the court was presented with. it wanted to make it clear and hear from the litigants as to those two questions and not a last other stuff. >> phrasing on the first question does that say that the 14th amendment say the state license it compared to giving same-sex couples a right to marry? it is a red flag for some of us? >> i didn't put too much weight on that because the issues that have come up, there are four other appeals court that decided that states can not prohibit marriage between persons of the same sex and it gets involved in whether states are engaged in
3:33 pm
the marriage business by provide licenses and then providing laws that give benefits to people that are married. i wouldn't put too much significance on the way the question was phrased. >> normally a case gets an hour but they give 2 1/2 hours to this. tony looking where same-sex marriage now is legal across the country, 36 states and here in the district of columbia and 70 percent of americans now live in places where same-sex marriage is legal. you have love the fight? >> keep if mind only 3 states have the voters voted. two-thirds of the states people live in states where the voters of -- or the legislature have confirmed the national definition. we hope the court will side with the american people the majority of voter whose have been very clear if the last two decades that marriage is the union of a man and woman and decide with 9 american voters and not with a handful of judges. most people don't want lawyers and judges running the country. >> sadly we do, no offense.
3:34 pm
now, looking at justice kennedy because everyone is going to watch him. he has had a number of opinions and decisions that have been very friendly to same sex relations talking about the dignity and the children being raised and he said a lot about states and their rights to define marriage. i will read from the 2013 striking down a federal ban 6 benefits for those legally married. he said in talking about new york making its own decision to permit same-sex marriage, he said "these actions were without a doubt a proper exercise of its sovereign authority within our federal system all in the way that framers of the constitution intended." last year in a case that involved a measure passed by voters in michigan with respect to banning racial and gender preferences in public hiring of education, he wrote this "it is the right to speak and debate and learn and as a matter of political will to act through a lawful electoral process." and the respondents insist that
3:35 pm
a difficult question of public policy must be taken from the reach of the voters and removed from the realm of public discussion dialogue and debate if an election campaign. ted, tony says in numerous states voters went to the poll so why is the language from justice kennedy different in the context of same-sex marriage? >> i would like to make a point with respect to what tony perkins said a moment ago, there are continue states where the legislature or the people have voted to authorize same-sex marriage. that is quite a number in and of itself but the supreme court again and again, has said that it is its responsibility to decide when the constitution trumps the will of the people. justice kennedy held for the court strike down a colorado measure a number of year ago that discriminated against gays and lesbians and he voted for the court and wrote the opinion for the court striking laws in texas and laws throughout the united states that prohibited
3:36 pm
private same sex conduct in the privacy of the home and he voted and wrote the opinion in the deci striking down the legislature's overwhelming decision to help act the defense of marriage act. ultimately, the reason we have a constitution, the reason we have separation of powers, the reason we have the 14th amendment is to provide the courts with the opportunity to override the will of the people when the will of the people leads to discrimination against a segment of our society. >> the difference is this is not recognizeed as a fundamental am right. we are talking about something that is unprecedented n two decades we have had state after state go to the poll and people express themselves. this is not how we reach raw essential consensus over major issues like this. as evidenced by what will take place the 42nd of roe vs. wade and the court said they will decide this in 1937 and it has
3:37 pm
not and it will not define it if it imposes one size fits all scheme of marriage on the membership. >> the united states supreme court continue time over the last 120 years has said that marriage is a fundamental right. >> marriage but unlawful same sex. >> never once did it say it had to between a man and a woman the continue times it said it was a matter of privacy, liberty, associations dignity and respect for the individual. that is what the constitution is all about. >> and the roe vs. wade, ginsburg has said it went too far too far localizing abortion across the board rather than allowing it to play out state by state and many make the same argument with same-sex marriage if you get a sweeping decision it will not help you it could hurt, because it seeps that justice ginsburg is suggesting that pro life forces were mobilized and motivated by roe vs. wade. >> in 1967 the supreme court struck down laws prohibiting
3:38 pm
interracial marriage and today we do not understand that we could possibly have from hinted marriages between people of different marriages. the president's mother and father could have not been married in virginia they would be guilty of a felony. overwhelmingly young people support the right of individuals to geld married to the person they love. the american people now are 555--- 55-60 percent in favor of same-sex marriage. >> let me ask, tony, i talk to and i am sure you have talked to civil rights leader whose do not like the comparison and they do not feel it is appropriate. >> you had a man made barrier keeping the races apart and here you have judges attacking a natural bridge that brings the seconds together. if we take down the state rights to define marriage for public
3:39 pm
policy purposes, if two people would love each other can get married, ted is okay with the story from new york magazine that an 18-year-old daughter wants to mary her biological father. >> are you interested in what you read in "new york mag." it is easy to say the sky is going to fall but we are talking about something that is permitted in 36 states or 37 depending on south dakota last week, and the district of columbia no harm has been done whatever to heterosexual marriage. >> religious liberty is placed on a collision course with sexual license because of a handful of unelected judges and lawyers. the american people have a right to speak. they have. the court should respect the voice of the people. >> it will be five votes at least and we will see which way they go. good to have you here. when we come become two former governors shake up the g.o.p. race for the presidential nomination. what will their potential
3:40 pm
candidacies mean for republican loyalties and for donors? first, a light moment as president rackets to news of a potential romney three-pete. i may i would like to hear your reaction to the news that mitt romney is thinning of running for president again? >> on your last question i have "no comment." in a work, work, work world... take time for sunday. just know that your truck... has a little thing for monday.
3:41 pm
3:42 pm
3:43 pm
> >> we need to unify behind our candidate and i believe the best candidate is mitt romney. >> i am giving serious thought to the future. i know we can win in 2016 as a party. >> some not -- thought they
3:44 pm
could win in 2012. >> minimum romney this week is leaving the door open for a third presidential bid with a potential head to head match juan for the two g.o.p. heavyweights. back with the panel to talk 2016. juan you are probably not going to vote for either of those victims but what do you make when jeb bush got out there with the announcement it seemed like it sped up everyone else's timeline. >> in question. the game begins. it is not only, gentleman start your engines but now it is a point where it is a primary campaign about money and donors and that is the real conflict here. you have to separate out people who are in the top tier and when it comes to top tee ability to raise money on the republican side it is jeb bush and mitt romney. the question for donors and this week i talked to some donors on republican side they don't feel any passion or ron for mit
3:45 pm
romney to get back in. friday united, san diego, republican national competent meeting the case was made he has a new narrative and he thinks with a strong foreign policy saying obama administration has been weak, and more of the in terms of speaking to the middle class about upward me belt mitt romney can be the best republican candidate for 2016. i am not sure the grass roots agree. >> neither do some of the people who could possible be his competitors in 2016. here are a couple of them weighing in on a possible three-pete. >> i do think though that the same old same old has been tried and if we try the same thing again we might get the same result. >> if we are going to be up against hillary clinton veto offer a new and fresh approach ideally one that will set cans from the states. >> kimberly we saw senator rand paul and scott walker potentially throwing their hat in the wring and they will not
3:46 pm
have open arms for him returning. >> they are hitting on some of themes that you are hearing. look romney is out there and making his case for why he should do this again. there are some compelling reasons, this is the third time at the rodeo i understand the mechanics of the race. i will have the donors. maybe this is buyer's remorse because they want for obama and should have gone for him but the fundamental problem in 2008 and 2012 he lacked a compelling narrative, a compelling reason why he was in the race. a particular anchor on him, as well, was the question of income inequality and the republicans understand that the department are gearing up to make that their number one issue and that has republicans worried. when you listen to romney it is not clear he has a way to navigate that or he has any answers. that is why you see so much push back on another run. >> george, you have a new piece out breaking down a lot of the
3:47 pm
mechanics, the electoral votes where republicans are and whether this is a good idea or not for mitt romney to try again. >> it is hard to have anonymity in american politics particularly among republicans but mitt romney does so, as far as i can tell there is no one expressing the desire for another romney campaign. is the field weak? this is probably the strongest most diverse republic field since 1856 when there was first a republican field. is the party weak? they criminal 31 governors seven of the ten largest states have republican governors and they criminal both legislative chambers and the governorship in 23 states with 251 electoral votes and the republican party is geared up for a very san francisco show in 2016 and they do not need to look backward. >> i didn't think new jersey governor chris christie was going to get in and he certainly
3:48 pm
is not in but he is doing important meetings with donors and he gave his state of the state address this week in new jersey. he talked about a lot of places out of new jersey. he talked about how he has talked with people would have anxiety and worried about jobs. shear more of what he said in the state of the state address. >> i saw it on the streets of chicago and felt it. in the suburbs of maryland. i heard it from farmers, in kansas and from teachers in colorado, i felt it from veterans in maine and from workers in arkansas. >> those are not placed in new jersey. >> you are an astute student of geography. it looks like governor chris christie is going to run and he, governor walker possibly marco rubio is very talented young man, they are most affected bit romney and bush challenge pus they are auditioning to be the
3:49 pm
more establishment candidate and there is a "movement," candidate, huckabee, rand paul would be the last man standing there and maybe santorum and this is shape unas a very close competitive presidential election with a slight advantage to the democrats because of the bias in the electoral college the improving economy and some demographic changes. if the republicans do not blow it however by getting way, way too far to the right and having a very nasty protracted process you are looking at a close election. can they go through a talented field while still trying to observe ronald reagan's commandment, run with a positive vision about the future without running down the other republicans and one of them will be the standard bearer. >> seemingly to stop control this week we see the nine debates sanctioned by the rnc
3:50 pm
and a tightened calendar that could be aimed at that. now, the democrat side, hillary clinton, people are still split. it seems like she is in but i hear people saying, not sure if she research op session teams to take out little rock. they are working on it. do you think she runs and is she a lock as a nominee if she does? >> i think she's running. i don't see any indication she's not running. i think all of the contrary indications are people who are enthusiastic about elizabeth warren, people running ads and raising money for elizabeth warren. have been in this morning's paper said she's not running. she wants to be the outsider. with we come back to a clear theme, republican or democrat. this is a populous campaign about appealing to working-class folks and the question for
3:51 pm
hillary clinton is sh the new york senator from wall street and does that mean she can't be an effective candidate that will stir up up the democratic base and we are asking who's the republican, rand paul, ted cruz whoever that can stir up the republican base. >> we want to put up the ads so people can see them and know what we are talking about. to elizabeth warren, we know you say you are not running but we need you. please run. an interesting piece in the "washington post" saying she not running but wants to keep the heat on hillary clinton when it cot comes to wall street and all of those things. >> when we hear people say they are not running for president they are debate willing to run for president. she will sit back. this movement is building. they are running ads. there is a pent up belief from the aggressive party, the ascendant side of the party and they need someone like elizabeth warren to come in. she will wait until she says i'm
3:52 pm
needed and have to do this. i will not count her out. there is a passion for someone like that in the party. >> two things, i think what senator warren is trying to do is influence dialogue and debate. she has. the question is for mrs. clinton can she capture the passion of the progressives and do enough to avoid a ralph nader point. >> we could talk about this for ages but only two years to go. up next the power players of the week. 16 congresses partisan divide.
3:53 pm
3:54 pm
in my world, wall isn't a street... return on investment isn't the only return i'm looking forward to. for some every dollar is earned with sweat, sacrifice, courage. which is why usaa is honored to help our members with everything from investing for retirement to saving for college. our commitment to current and former military members and their families is without equal. start investing with as little as fifty dollars. with congress under way, with the 114th congress underway, some say our government is more divided than ever. two former members are working
3:55 pm
to address that problem. joining us now former congressman tom davis ark republican and martin frost a democrat i to discuss their new book "the partisan divide congress in crisis." welcome back. >> good to see you. >> why did you decide to put the book together? there is gridlock on the hill like nobody's business but is there a way to fix it. >> the public needs to understand how to fix it. we hope it will be a book for young people to learn about our government. our government faces an enormous problem. lack of confidence in the congress. we think there can be changes so they can work between party lines. >> congress is the lowest rated when you talk about approval across the board, the hill white house, supreme court, why is congress always in the single digits? >> they are not getting anything done. it is gridlock. we have involved in to a
3:56 pm
parliamentary system in gridlock and it hasn't worked. >> the minority party used to have a different role. sometimes people talk about obstructionism but there used to be more of a role. >> the minority partner used to be a minority partner in trying to solve the problems of the country. what we have now is the most action in congressional districts is the primary. while not too many people lose their primary they are worried they may lose to someone in the extreme in the primary. if they consider to talk to the other side they can't do that because they will get a primary challenge with a lot of money and small turnout election election. we suggested go to bipartisan commissions to minimize that. >> everybody says -- the old saying was politics was local but i know you think much of it has been national nationalized. >> we have a chapter in the book
3:57 pm
saying politics is no longer local and we use illustrations, but the real problem is we're sitting there and members are worried about the primaries. 8 november 80% of the politicians. >> you have the organizations that can spend millions of dollars, not have to disclose donors. the supreme court will not limit the amount of money people give but you could require full disclosure and we think that will help the situation. >> are there people you see on the hill and house that would be good compromisers and can work across the aisle. >> i think the leaders want to go there but their members won't follow. the members get pulled the other way. campaign finance reform coupled with citizens united moved the money >> and i can tell you in my own
3:58 pm
state of texas, there are a lot of, i think fairly reasonable republicans who would love to try and work across party lines, but they are scared that they're going to get a primary challenger from the far right in a low turnout primary so they're paralyzed and can't move. i think there are a lot of good people in congress that would like to do this. somehow we've got to change the system so it makes it possible for people to talk to each other. >> congress in some respect has abandoned its role in the balance of checks congress in some respects has abandoned its role in the ju balance of checks and balances of power. >> look at earmarks for example. first 150 years of thehe republic t congress would designate eir projects. they have abandoned that an given it to the executive has branch. by failing to getd po budgets in on time and continuing resolutions. a good that transferred power to the refo administration to move money around. is so they punted. th >> good example is immigration reform. refuse republicans now are saying this isser the whabl the president did with the executive order butsident they refused to take up the ith
3:59 pm
issue. they just handed the issue to th the president. this is like the situation with the person who kills his parents and throws himself on the mercy g on t of the court because now he is an orphan. doesn't make sense. i think members like to be re-elected.sch members don't like to take tough votes. we like to cut ribbons. >> open schools. >> exactly. now the primary the nai main the focus, they focus on primary voters who are a slin slice of the electorate.t, >> we suggested a national hat's primary day which would with t increase turnout and the media would focus on what is going on.nd it makes it possible for more moderate people to be elected. > god to see you.resting, the partisan divide. check it out, interesting read
4:00 pm
and educational, too. that's it for today. have a good week. right now, the aftermath of multiple gunshots fired near the home of vice president joe biden. i'm harris faulkner. the incident amid heightened security fears across europe and the globe. no known connection to any of that at this point. the secret service and local police are working to determine who fired the shots, and if anything was actually hit. agents say the gun fire came from a passing vehicle outside of their security perimeter. so you know, that perimeter is several hundred yards away from the biden's private home in delaware. we're told no one was hurt in this. the vice president and his wife were not home at the time t. oddly abou


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on