tv Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX October 4, 2015 10:00am-11:00am EDT
if not, we'll make it again on the spot. see you tomorrow. that's the dd commitment. america runs on dunkin'. i'm chris wallace. a big potential shake-up in the race for the speaker of the house. congressman chaffetz says he's seriously considering a run to lead the republicans. today he'll announce his decision on "fox news sunday." everything thought hillary clinton was unbeatable, but we put together a benghazi special committee. her numbers are dropping. i did not intend to imply in any way that that work is political. >> kevin mccarthy was the
front-runner for the job, but now is facing criticism from the republicans for his gaff. we'll discussion the future for the gop and a exclusive interview with jason chaffetz. and the crisis in syria deepens as the russians bomb assad's enemies and tell the u.s. to get out of the way. >> the wreckage of this policy has now stepped in vladimir putin. >> what does putin's move mean? we'll ask retired general jack keen and ryan crocker, former u.s. ambassador to iraq and syria. plus another mass shooting, as a gunman targets christians at an oregon community college. >> our thoughts and prayers are not enough. this is a political choice we make, to allow this to half every few months in america. >> our panel weighs in on the president's comments and what can be done to prevent more massacres. and our power player of the
sesame street's maria on inspiring generations of children, all right now on "fox news sunday." and hello again from fox news in washington. speaker of the house is a big job. he or she leads one half of congress and is second in the line of presidential succession. when john boehner announced his resignation last week, it seemed almost certain his number two, kevin mccarth would succeed him. suddenly that is in doubt. joining mess now is jason chaffetz, chair of the pourerful house oversight committee. welcome back to "fox news sunday." >> thanks for having me. >> just five days ago you said you supported kevin mccarthy for the position, and it was widely assumed he would move up when john boehner moved out. why are you even considering the idea of running against
mccarthy. >> kevin mccarthy is a good man, a big reason why we have such a solid majority, but things have changed. there's really a math problem. you need 218 votes on the floor of the house. there's 246 republicans that will voice, but there are nearly 50 people and a growing number that will not and cannot vote for kevin mccarthy as the speaker on the floor. he will fall short of the 218 votes on the floor of of house. >> so what are you going to do? are you going to put your name forward when the house caucus votes on thursday? >> today, here, i am announcing my intention to run for speaker of the house of representatives. we were entrusted by the american people with the largest majority the republicans have ever had since babe ruth was swinging the baseball bat, but they didn't send us here to perpetuate the status quo. they want us to tackle the issues. they want you to take that fight for the senate, to the president
and they want us to take that fight for the american people. >> so before we get into some of the substance, i want to ask about the procedural issue. it's complicated. first there's a vote on thursday, then the full vote at the end of the month. do you pledge to support whoever wins the vote in the house caucus on thursday, or even if you lose, will you take your candidacy to the full floor at the end of the month? >> i think mr. mccarth has the full majority of the conference, and we'll have that vote on thursday, in many ways it doesn't matter. the real vote is when you call that name out in front of everything in the house. the vote on thursday is closed door, secret ballot, i will support the nominee, but i just don't believe that the nominee, if it's kevin mccarthy can actually get to 218. that's why i've offer myself as a candidate to try to bridge that divide. i think the 50-plus people find i'm a fair, even-balanced person
that i can bridge that divide between some of our more sent members. >> so you're saying you will continue your candidacy until the full vote of the house at the end of the month. >> what i'm saying is we walk out -- i want to win, i hope i win, but there's no doubt that the kevin mccarthy have the majority of the people -- >> are you saying you will -- >> i will walk out of the there and support the nominee. if it's kevin mccarthy, i will support him, but he still has a math problem, still can't get to 218. i hope we can avoid those problems, and turn the fight instead of internally, turn the fight to the democrats and fight for the things we came to congress for. >> why do you think 50-plus and whatever and the more hard-line conservatives won't vote for mccarthy but will vote for you? >> i think the american public want a change, a fresh start. there's a reason why we see this
phenomenon across the country, and you don't just give an automatic promotion for the existing leadership team. that doesn't signal change. i think they want a fresh face and fresh new person who is actually there at the leadership table in the speaker's role. you've got to speak, you've got to be able to articulate the republican message to the american people an take that fight to the president, but you also have to bridge internally. that's where we've got some conflict going on right now. >> how do you explain in what do you mean, that you would bring the internal conflicts better than mccarthy? >> he's been in existing leadership for years and years. the strife and divide is getting worse, not better. what i'm trying to offer is we need internal process reform and how we select the committees, bringing more votes to the floor. i don't expect every vote we bring to the floor we win. i want to vote more, not less. i want the committees to be more empowered, and i think that's what our broke membership wants
on the full political spectrum. >> so you're basically saying you would be more amenable, more friendlier to the hard-line conservatives, the freedom caucus, the tea party people than kevin mccarthy? and how could you be any more effective, given the fact you'll still have president obama and enough democrats to sustain a filibuster, so how will you be more effective? internally i think we have to bridge the divide. i'm being recruited. i didn't wake up last week and think i'm going to be speaker. i've had enough members to saying please, jason do this. realistic we can't promote the existing leadership. that internal factor is there, and i think will continue to the floor of the house when that vote actually happens. i think a new fresh face who says, look, how are we going to hold the line for the full
going to fight for. i am not there to promote the status quo. i'm not there to do what mitch mcconnell or the president wants to do. lightning round. quick questions, quick answers on some of the specific issues you would face. president obama announced on friday he will not sign another short-term spending bill when this continuing resolution runs out in december. would you be willing to risk a shutdown to defund planned parenthood? >> well, look, we're going to have that discussion internally. moot job is to help put a bill on the president's desk. the president's solution is to borrow more money from china? that's not a solution. i want to solve this problem. unless we're actually solving the problem, i have a hard time putting anything over there onto the president's desk that doesn't also solve the problem. i want to solve the problem. >> respectfully, because you're maybe the next speaker, how far
parenthood. >> the job as speaker is to united party. from the whole political spectrum, then we're going to fight and make that case to the american people. what about budget caps under sequestration. are you willing to lift the caps so you would have more spend been on both defense and domestic spending? spending. personally i don't believe we can continue to add to the deficit, so i like the budget cap. i do believe we need more money for the military, for the v.a. we ought to take care of the people who take care of us. i want to fight cancer that is killing people every day. but that's not the job of the speaker. you have to respect the body and go fight for that. the government will reach
president? and from the democrats in order to vote to lift the debt limit? and are you willing to risk the possibility of default in that negotiation? >> our job in the house -- we have 246 members. our job in the house is to actually put forward a bill. i would like it to see actually cut the deficit, not continue to add to the deficit. i don't want to borrow more money from china. i actually want to fight for those things that will solve the problem and not keep punting it down the road. >> would you demand something in return for racing the debt limit? >> we're not going to unilaterally raise the debt limit. that's not a responsible thing for the company. the debts was $9 trillion when president obama took office. we're approaches $20 trillion. we've got to solve that problem, not just say let's borrow more from the chinese. >> would it be fair to say as
speaker, congressman, you would be more confrontational than boehner has been and that you believe mccarthy would be? >> i'm going to be myself. i'm going to get that body behind us, and you want a speaker who speaks. we feed somebody out there who is actually going out there and making the case to the american people, talking to the senate about what we need to do, going on the national television shows and winning that argument. we don't seem to win the argument. that's a problem. >> just the suggestion that you would run for speaker has brought out some criticism from conservatives. they note you ran a hearing on planned parenthood this week. take a look. >> your compensation in 2009 was $353,000. is that correct? >> i don't have the figures with me. >> it was. congratulations. critics say i focused on the wrong thing, you focused on the
fact they're trafficking goddy parts. >> i issued the subpoena. we don't have the videos yet, but i think it's legitimate to question how they spend money for a not-for-profit organization. 127 million more in revenues than expenses and they want more federal money? i think we can tackle it both on trafficking in fetal body parts, but also about the finances. >> they also note in june you stripped conservative congressman mark meadows of his subcommittee chairmanship because he baulked, went against the house leadership in terms of giving fast-track trade authority to president obama. you took sis subcommit year chairmanship away. is that the kind of charm you'll be? >> no, i think i learned a lesson.
minds with my committee and reconsidered that decision. we've got to win the argument and make result cass, not just knock people over the head. it's a lesson learned. i think i'm better for it, and i think mark is better for it, and we're certainly friends to this days. you're in an ugly sit's carom of the oversight committee, you held a hearing about the continued security lapses at the secret service. here's a clip. >> don't let anybody get in that gate, and when they come to the gate and they've got a bomb and they say they have a bomb, believe them, take them down, take them down. >> now an inspector general's report has revealed that within days of that hearing, some 45 agency employees got ahold of your 2003 application to be a secret service agent and someone leaked the fact that your application had been rejected and director joe clancy is now revising his original account to
said back then that he didn't know people in the agency were looking at your file. question -- what action should be taken at the secret service and should director clancy step down? >> the secret service is demonstrating why we started to investigate them and that i shenanigans. i think the question is really for the department of justice. you had 45 secret service agents violate federal law according to the inspector general? why isn't there a special prosecutor over there? it's kind of scary. i fear that these people -- if they do this to me, i'm sure it's probably not the first time. i'm a sitting member of congress. nobody should have that done. it's a violation of federal law. >> do you still have confidence in director clancy? >> i lose it every day. again this is why almost two years ago we started investigating the secret service. they've had a series of mishaps and they're entrusted with guns near the president, the most sensitive classified information.
problem. thank you? congressman, and we'll follow week. >> thank you. we'll bring in our panel to discussion the shake-up and the latest from the campaign trail. and what do you think? president obama and the democrats? let me know on facebook electric guitars it's the story of america- land of the doers. doin' it. did it. done.
doers built this country. the dams and the railroads. john henry was a steel drivin' man hmm, catchy. they built the golden gates and the empire states. and all this doin' takes energy -no matter who's doin'. there's all kinds of doin' up in here. or what they're doin'. what the heck's he doin? energy got us here. and it's our job to make sure there's enough to keep doers doin' the stuff doers do...
look, this is not what you'll see with speaker of the house. telephone never my intent to imply anything. i want to be clear that this is where we're going. kevin mccarthy trying to walk back his links the house benghazi committee to hillary clinton's drop in the polls. it's time for our sunday group. brit hume, julie pace, who covers the white house for the associated pace. ben domenech, cofounder of the web magazine "the federalist" and christi parsons who reports on the white house for tribune newspaper. brit, how damaging was the statement both to his prospects to be speaker and also to the work of the benghazi committee, and what do you make of someone like jason chaffetz, a member of the house committee announcing
>> in the case of chaffetz, if it hadn't been he, there would have been somebody else. i think the episode was damaging to the committees investigating benghazi. it gives the democrats a talking point, a shillelagh, that they can beat the republicans' heads with, adinfinitum. he's right. if they go to the floor with him as kind of their nominee and the people on the right who don't want him don't vote for him, he can't win. then they go to a series of votes, it could go on for a long time. we're a long way from having this matter settled. mccarthy i think started the unraveling process about i his gaff on the committee, which kind of gave people an excuse, a
reason not to support him. this is a manifestation, chris of the divisions within the republican party we are seeing reflected in donald trump's ascendancy, and the complaints we continually hear about the leaders in both house and senate i don't think there's any way of knowing where this is going. >> julie, we saw the president seeming to almost dare to pick a fight with him on the budget or anything else. here is the president. >> i will not sign another short-sighted spending bill like the one congress sent me this week. we purchased ourselves ten additional weeks. we need to use them effectively. >> with the split that we have seen and we saw again this morning, among house republicans, do the president and white house officials feel that they can beat republicans, congressional republicans in any kind of a shotdown?
debt limit or any of these things? >> later in that conference you saw the president acknowledge that the speaker's race is basically going to cause a lot of chaos around the things he's talking about. >> they think that mcconnell and previously boehner had looked at the landscape an figured out a shutdown, a fight over the debt ceiling is not good for republicans going into the 2016 election. they think mcconnell is still in that same place. the question is whether the new speaker will be in the same space. with chafe either now in the race, it cigarettes complicated, but they think the politics favors a pretty clean straightforward budget process, not a shutdown. if they feel there is a shutdown or default, that the republicans take the blame, whether that's fair or not? >> they think they would take more of is the blame. they think that the president and the white house would good
some of the blame, but the majority would fall on the republicans. you saw some developments in both parties, some former allies creating summer distance between themselves. on the republican side, jeb bush took a swipe at his former protege, marco rubio. here that is. >> i'm a proven leader. i disrupted the old order in tallahassee. i relied on people like marco rubio and many others to follow my leadership. >> what does that tell you about the current fortunes of marco rubio and jeb bush. >> it's interesting. in the old ways of approaching politics, you wanted to be a governor. in order to get to the presidency, you wanted that experience path. jeb is confronted that you gain more of the tools by actually being in the senate, by walking back and forth from your office to the floor, being confronted by all sorts of gotcha questions. in a certainly sense it's an
ought to matter to voters currently, but i think he had an interesting moment, being attacked for a comment he made in the wake of the oregon shooting, which was really spun completely out of context. >> this is when he says stuff happens and you don't have to react immediately. >> i think this is a moment he could seize in a sense he hasn't had so much of the give-and-take with the media. i think it would be an opportunity for him to show he is a leader and pick a fight that could be to his benefit. i'm not sure a fight between him and marco rubo accrue toss that effect. >> why would you think he would be going after rubio as opposed to trump or carson or -- >> i think he realized rubio is more in his lane. he has an appellate to people that share his views on immigration and the kind of change that needs to happen in washington.
getting marco rubio out of that lane i think is key for him to success. >> and then there's hillary clinton who as over recent days come out over the keytone pipeline and took issue with how president obama is leading our efforts in syria. take a look at this. >> i personally would be advocating now for a no-fly zone and humanitarian corridors to try to stop the carnage on the ground and from the air. >> hillary clinton is not half baked in terms of her approach to these problems. she was obviously my secretary of state, but i also think that there's a difference between running for president and being president. >> christi, how do they feel at the white house from the president on down about hillary clinton putting some distance on a variety of issues -- keystone, syria, other issues, between herself and the president? >> i think they feel like she's
staying in the realm of basically campaign rhetoric. he dismissed it just as things you say when you're running for president, they don't obligate you and so far they're not critical that he had to call them half baked. i don't think they love it, but i think the president is willing to keep it kind of cool until she becomes more strident. >> do you have a sense that there's sort of a line -- if she stays on this sort of the line she's okay with it, if she goes to that side of the line she might push back? >> i think that's the case. she said there's a few place where is she's broken with the president with policy while secretary of state. she has clearly laid those out that she wants to show some daylight and sting distinguish herself a bit. she's more hawkish than he is.
biden watch, in or out? >> i don't think anyone knows. it's day to day it seems to flip back and forth. when you heard him speak last night, it was almost a campaign speech, he was drawing distinctions with the president, very forward-leaning, but then he has other moments that you don't get the sense he's quite ready yet. >> i think that's right. i think the vice president did an interview with a catholic magazine this week where he sounded very much like an interview with colbert. >> where he's emotionally not there? >> where he's emotionally not there. it's clear he's not ready to say he's in, but he's not saying he's out. >> will he be in the debate this monday? >> i don't think so. >> i'm not going to ask brit, because he headaches predictions, which makes him the smartest person on the panel. up next a dramatic escalation of russia's involve involvement in syria, but
won't engage in a proxy war. we'll talk with a top american general and diplomat about a (gasp) shark diving! xerox personalized employee portals help companies make benefits simple and accessible... from anywhere. hula dancing? cliff jumping! human resources can work better. with xerox. which allergy? eees. bees? eese. trees? eese. xerox helps hospitals use electronic health records so doctors provide more personalized care. cheese? cheese! patient care can work better. with xerox.
it is time to deal out-of-pocket costs. commentator: the 32-year-old head of a pharmaceutical company of a life-saving drug overnight by 5,000%. i'm announcing a detailed plan to crack down on these abuses. commentator: he may be lowering it after hillary clinton blasted him out of the water. her plan would limit the out-of-pocket costs that consumers have to pay. clinton: nobody in america should have to choose
the white house is rethinking its strategy. joining us at the map to break down the military situation is retired four-star arm general jack keane, and from crennel station, texas ryan crocker who served president from bush 41 to obama as ambassador. general keane, let me begin with you. show us where and who the russians are heading. >> this is a blowup of the syrian map, which doesn't show all of syria. the orange is the regime control area and the yellow and green represents the rebels. the green is isis. what's happening in the last year, the rebels have made some significant gains in palmyra and up here in the north, this encroaches on the coastal enclave which is right here, where the russian base is.
situation. the reason for the air strikes are to stop this advance by the rebels, particularly in this area and here, the starbursts indicate the strikes over the last few days. there's been a couple out to the east near isis's headquarters near raqqa. that's window dressing, this is the focus. the second purpose is not just to stop the advance, but to set the conditions for a ground counter offensive to push back the rebels in that area. >> the u.s. officials are reporting that 3 to 600 iranian forces are being deployed into syria, and that's in addition to the 1500 that are already there. your sense of where they're going to be deployed and what this russian/iranian allyian in syria is going to mean. >> first of all, the
russian/iranian alliance strategically is a game changer. influence. in terms of what's taking place in syria, this regime would have fallen without russia and iran. russians are bringing in about 3,000 more to add to what they have here, which is 7,000 on the ground. this el will provide advisers to the regime military, and localized local militias. this ground offensive could not success without iran's influence and without russia airpower. general, come join me at the desk. while you do, let me turn to ambassador crocker. this is a big deal. this is the first time that russia has struck militarily outside of the old soviet union since the fall of the -- the end of the cold war. and it's also really the first time that russia is involved in an aggressive fashion in the middle east since, what, the 1970s.
how big a deal is this no putin? for putin? >> it is a big deal for vladimir putin and for us. what we are seeing is nature abhorring a vacuum. in the case of iraq and syria, the vacuum that we left when we disengaged is now being filled by people we really don't like. so i see a continuum here. islamic state, iran, iranian-backed shia militias in iraq, and now russia. so when we step out, others are stepping in. i see this russian intervention kind of the latest move in a pretty negative process that's been going on for several years now. >> let me pick up on that. ambassador, at the u.n. this week, it seemed that president obama was inviting russia and iran into the syrian conflict. take a look. >> the united states is prepared
to work with any nation, including russia and iran, to resolve the conflict. >> ambassador, you said this -- russia has played a horrible hand brilliantly, we folded what could have been a pretty good hand. explain what you mean by that? >> the russians are moving in because of the weakness of the assad regime. it's defensive in nature. they're trying to prop him up, as the tide of the battle turns against him, as jack keane said, it's iran and it's russia keeping him in the game. for us to think for a moment that russia and iran are aligned with our interests in the region, that is lunacy. the pattern of air strikes points it out. they are attacking the forces we're supporting. they don't care about islamic state. so our interests and theirs are completely misaligned.
we're not moving at all. there are things we could do. that's what i mean about a potentially pretty good hand. we could impose a no-fly zone. we could make a dramatic step on refugees. we could engage diplomatically and politically. that's the big absence right now. send john kerry to baghdad and have him sit there working the political problems that underlie the weaknesses of the iraqi military. those are political problems, we can make a difference, but we have to engage to do it. >> general keane, both you and the ambassador made a big point about the fact in the northeast part of the country, that's where eye says is where isis is, and the moderate are in the northern part, but foreign minister lavrov said this week there's no difference
between the rebels they're hitting the anded ones we are hitting. >> if it likes look a terrorist, if it acts like a terrorist, if it walks like a terrorist, if it fights like a terrorist, it's a terrorist, right? >> is general, how do you answer -- >> from a russian perspective they're just focusing on the rebels that are putting pressure on -- frankly isis does not put much pressure on the regime. it's more concerned about the caliphate and expanding outside of iraq and syria from the headquarters in iraq, so the focus for russia will be on whatever rebels are encroaching on that regime and that kind of pressure. >> ambassador crocker, as you mentioned here, you said earlier that the president should impose a no-fly zone over that section of northwest syria where civilians are, where the
moderate -- relatively moderate syrian rebels are. he said no way will we get into syria. he suggested another quack mire there. is this such a sure loser for putin. should the president be so confident that this will end up bad for putin? >> that would be basing a policy on hope. that has never made sense, it doesn't make sense now. of the game. i think we could do it with a no-fly zone. jack keane would know this better, a no-fly zone to stop the hidual barrel bombing of his own people. >> ambassador, if you interrupt you have a no-fly zone in precisely the areas that the russians are attacking now, aren't you creating the danger of a super power confrontation of the skies over northwest syria snirchlts i wish we had established that no-fly zone
before the russians came in. that might have dissuaded them. i think we should still step up. a no-floyd zone can be forced not with manned aircraft necessarily, but with offshore missile, and i think we should tell the russians we're going to do it and then do it. that is not an end in and of itself, but checked change the political dynamics to make the russian, the iran yawn and their client t. at the aseed, realize they have to negotiate a agreement. i want to ask you both about the big news of this weekend, of course the tragic events in afghanistan where apparently a u.s. air strike and the effort by the u.s. to help the afghans take back the city of kunduz, an american air strike reportedly hit a doctors without borders
general keane, how can something like that happen? >> it's usually a human mistake. we have tremendous pilots and great technology. it's a targeting problem as opposed to anner rant missile. it's one of those two things, wrong targets orrer rant missile. these things happen, as sad as it is people out here sacrificing their lives in a combat zone and they're killed by a united states pilot. it's an unbelievable tragic event to be sure. >> sadly, though, these things do happen in war. the good news is they rarely happen with u.s. weapons. that's the good news. ambassador crocker, finally as the former ambassador to that country, how badly does this hurt or standing with the afghans? >> it is a very tragic event, as jack said, but the afghans count on us. they will know it was a mistake.
no country, no military does more than the united states to avoid this kind of thing. tragically it happened. i don't think that is going to fundamentally change how the afghans look at us. right now they need us badly. they are desperate to see us stay and engage in the military. that will be the dominant factor. thank you both, and we'll syria. thank you, gentlemen. up next we'll bring back the in oregon, and president obama's declared intention to politicize the issue. and what would you like to ask the panel, just go to facebook or twitter with the the
member somewhere will comment and say obama politicized this issue. well,ing this something we should politicize. >> president obama responding with obvious emotion to the latest mass shooting at an oregon community college and declaring he will push again on the issue of gun control. we're back now with the panel. brit, what do you think of the president's comments both in the immediate aftermath and then at his friday news conference and his intention, he says, to keep talking about the need -- >> i don't have any problem with politicized. issue. if a president has an idea he believes ought to be advanced to try to stop these recurring mass killings, there's not wrong with his doing so. the problem i think is this is
not an issue that's served the democratic party very well as repeated defeats have proven through the years. furthermore what he's talking about is he speaks vaguely of common-sense measures. well, what common-sense measures does he mean? it looks to me as if the gun control he likes is the kinds they have tried in australia, for example, where they confiscated guns. you couldn't pass that through either house of the congress with full democratic control of both houses. i think it's a quick xotic mission, but i don't have him problem talking about it. he bought the guns legally, he had no record, no mental health record, does it give the government any pause that any realistic law probably wouldn't have made any difference in this case.
>> they try to talk it in a broader way not specifically this law would have stopped this incident. the president has said repeatedly he thinking the problem is the broad availability of guns whether purchased legally or not. to brit's point here, the president is really lacking in specifics about what he wants to do moving forward other than simply talking about it. i think that underscores the political position he finds himself in. we'll see him launch a big push for legislation on capitol hill. i don't think we'll see him pushing state legislators or governors to do anything. i think he will simply be talking about this, because he knows the political p environment hasn't changed. the shooting that took place in oregon was on the 274th day of 2015. according to a website called mass shooting tracker, it was
274 days, and they define mass shooting as one in which four or more people including the shooter were hit, which raises the question, then, can we do anything about it? >> it was interesting to listen to the president saying what he said the other day. from my perspective, if you actually think through this process, if you take logically the steps he's taking and assume for the sake of argument that he's correct, that his policies are popular, they're common sense, they're constitutional and that the only thing that's preventing them from going through is the intransigence of the republicans or gun lobby or some other effect, there's a problem with that. this president, when he came to office, he had the house, he had the senate, he had his own party there, he could have had any legislation then that he wanted that he was willing to push there. so when it comes to assess what kind of gun policy we have, the president needs to look in the mirror. i think it really is about him.
path, to pass obamacare, to use political capital in other ways. when he complains -- the fact is it was a democratic senate after newtown that killed his approach to gun legislation. i don't think this is something that stands up along the logic of what he's saying when you this i about it. >> how would they respond to that at the white house. >> i think they would say that the president had a limited amount of political capital and only a two-year period where he describing. when it comes to trying to pass something through the senate, it's a difficult issue. not all democrats are supportive of the gun safety measures that the president was pushing. we asked you for questions for the parnell, and we got this on facebook from eric. he writes -- the shootings in oregon and the amount of dead ends up being an average weekend in chicago, but you never hear the president talk about that. christi, how do you? answer eric and this complaint that you hear from a lot of people that the president's outrage on this issue is selective.
>> that's an interesting question. i don't think it's true that he doesn't talk about gun violence in chicago. i think he has talked about it quite a bit. in fact you remember not long ago a 15-year-old girl was killed in chicago, an innocent bystander to gun violence in a gang conflict -- >> i think it's fair to say, though, he does seem to focus on the big matt shootings, and not the steady drumbeat of gang violence in a city like chicago. >> when he talks about the urban violence, there are other factors that he trying to attack like my brother's keeper initiative and some of the rhetoric, and his personal mission i think will tinge long after he's in office, but i think he sees the mass shootings as a separate thing. it's a dynamic in the case of gang violence, he feels like he has policy prescriptions he can push or at least talk about when it comes to mass shootings.
reaching the point like many people, who just feel like there's not -- there's not an obvious solution to attacking this. >> in the time we have left then, there a solution? >> i don't think there is. evil people will always exist, this el will do evil things. it's much more difficult to come up with a policy solution to deal with a maniac, a lunatic about this fellow, he was embarked on a murderous rage than dealing with the problem of crime in the inner cities. >> i know after newtown and after some of these, the president has talked about the gun control, but also the mental health aspect. i must confess ignorance on this. has anything happened there so that you have more american health intervention, more of a connection between gun purchases and mental health records? you've seen some tweaks, signing some executives orders, trying to move the ball forward, but nothing in a major way, and certainly when you do look at a lot of these mass shootings,
it's also one area where you have some common ground between the democrats, republicans, gun control advocates, and those who don't want to see more legislation, mental health does seems to be something you can't potential see progress made. >> so brit, going back to something that ben is said in the previous panel segment, you had jeb bush get hammered this week by a bunch of people for saying stuff happens, and sometimes you just can't find a solution for it, and "stuff happens" wasn't the most eloquent way to put it, but what do we do? do we have to accept this is going to happen and there are limits to what government can do? >> well, it's a law enforcement issue, also as you and julie were talking about, a mental health issue. i don't think the president or anyone on his side of the equation or really any of the republicans is being very bold or creative about articulating possible ways to address these things. mental health issue is obviously a problem. this guy probably should not
have been on the streets. he was evidently in pretty bad shape. it's a tricky thing to do, but it's not i think mission impossible. what we need from the president is some kind of a balanced approach to the issue. that would be true of hillary clinton or anyone else running for president. we're not hearing that. it's not an easy problem. but i think it's -- it would be helped by at least some thoughtful new ideas on the subject. >> but -- just very quickly, you he hadn't been incarcerated, he hadn't committed a crime, so -- >> so the question is what is a thoughtful way to get at that? i don't have the answer, but i think there probably is an answer. >> thank you, panel. this will be an issue we'll continue to discuss and see you next sunday. up next on you power player
after 43 years, maria generations of children knew her as maria on "sesame street." but now she's stepping out of character to talk about her own challenges as a kid and the impact her role had on so many young viewers. here is our power player of the week. >> somebody handed me the torch and i ran with it. >> sonia manzano has been a television trailblazer for
as maria on "sesame street" she taught us about letters, life, and love. >> see, she's there. >> as one of the first hispanics on tv, she filled a big void. >> how does it feel to be an icon? >> my husband wakes up every morning and says, hello, icon. >> really? >> yeah, he thinking it's funny. >> to understand why, just look at her life. growing up as a puerto rican immigrant in the south bronx back in the '50s. my father was a violent drunk. there was domestic violence. >> what role in that life did television play for you? >> television was my sanctuary. i loved "leave it to beaver" and "father knows best." >> but there was that void. >> i never saw anybody who looked like me or lived in the in.
society that didn't see me. what's the name of that song fast forward to the early '70s when she got the role of maria on "sesame street". >> i was a teenager when i started, when i fell in love and got married, so did maria. >> i do. >> maria had a baby on "sesame street" shortsly after i had a baby. so she's really me in a -- as a better person. i'm kinder, i'm more patient. >> why are you retiring? >> 44 years is long enough to propose. coming out. sonia won 15 emmys writing for "sesame street" now she's maria." >> do you think you provided the
hispanic or not, that you found watching tv as a kid? >> i know i did. they have said to me that they thought i was their friend, their mother, their girlfriend. >> and what does that mean to you? >> it's just wonderful. sonia says when she started on "sesame street" she wanted to end racism and close the education gap. while that may have been a little ambitious, she said she contribution. >> made a lot of people laugh, fool around with the muppets. >> geronimo! >> learning how to do a take to the camera. i had a producer who always said so it's our drop in the bucket for an equal society. i think that that means something. >> sonia isn't finished giving. she's donating some of the profits to help build a children's museum in the area where she grew up, in the bronx.