tv Washington Journal CSPAN November 14, 2010 7:00am-10:00am EST
afghan president karzai calls on the u.s. to leighton troop presence and his country. our role in afghanistan. what it means in that country and also, our relations with the afghan people. 202-737-0002, our line for democrats. 202-737-0001 for republicans. if you are independent, our line to call is 202-628-0205. front page of "the washington post". president karzai is at odds with general david petraeus. he says lighten up.
president karzai saying saturday that the united states must reduce the visibility and intensity of its military operations in afghanistan and end the increase special forces and night raids that aggravate afghans and could exacerbate the insurgency. he wanted american troops off the roads and out of the afghan homes and a long-term presence of so many foreign soldiers would worsen the war. his comments placed him at odds with general petraeus who is made capture and kill missions essential component of his counterinsurgency strategy and who claims 30,000 new troops have made progress in beating back the insurgency. comments coming as american officials are playing down the importance of the ju, 2011, the date the president said he will begin to withdraw troops from afghanistan.
the afghan president has placed himself squarely in favor of a lighter military footprint as the administration reduced the progress of the afghan war in debate intensifies about the pace of the withdrawal. again, our focus for the first 45 minutes -- these comments from the afghan president, saying to lighten presence. first of all he said, we would like to have all long-term relationship with america. that is what the afghan people want, but we would like the afghan countryside, the villages, the town's not to be so overwhelmed with military presence. life has to be seen as more normal. 202-737-0002, our line for democrats. 202-737-0001 for republicans. you can join the conversation online at twitter.com/cspanwj. joining us on the
republican line in washington, d.c. good morning. caller: i want to specifically ask a question. does this have anything to do with the negotiations with the taliban? because they get open negotiations with them and perhaps this is one of the agreements. i was interested in that. joins us from memphis, tennessee. welcome to the program. caller: good morning. i think we need to be out of afghanistan, because it is not going to work. it never has. it was a misadventure. and the reason we went in and was not a valid reason. host: there is a related story from the "miami herald".
much has been wasted. the essence of it is that the afghan reconstruction effort is faltering, according to u.s. officials. dozens of structures across the country were poorly constructed or not completed. tens of thousands of afghan soldiers who were supposed to be living in garrisons are still housed in tents. "billions spent, much of it wasted,"a story from the "miami herald". president karzai has told u.s. troops to lighten their presence in afghanistan. are independent mind. good morning. caller: real quick, i am a military veteran. if president karzai wants us gone, and if the taliban comes back, i do not want to hear this
guy crying again. president bush is speaking at 3:00 eastern time, discussing his new book -- "decision points". live coverage on the c-span 2's "book tv." republican line. good morning, from detroit, michigan. caller: [inaudible] fantastic. t there ians wneen before us, and they went in with their full military, which is formidable and they met with defeat. one thing i would like to bring up is the bags of cash that karzai has admitted taking from the iranians. of course he wants us out of
that country because of the corruption endemic. they are the largest heroin producer in the world. host: a divided congress facing key deadlines. the lame duck session gets under way -- bush tax cuts. time running out on unemployment extension as congress returns. with the lawmakers set to return this next week for the lame duck session, uncertainty is looming over the continuation of emergency unemployment benefits. she goes on to say the congressional democratic leaders have yet to formulate a plan how to proceed with the expiring extension of the debate on the issue -- expected to take center stage this week. november 30 is fast approaching.
lawmakers will have to balance the extension with the remaining half the agenda items that include decisions on whether to extend the bush tax cuts, tax in the alternative minimum tax, or are continuing resolution to keep the government running into next year. misty joins us from hamlin, west virginia. back to the issue of afghanistan and a comment from president karzai. caller: good morning. how are you? host: fine, thank you. caller: well, this is my first time calling so i am a little nervous, ok? i think, you know, he needs -- host: we are getting a little bit of feedback because you have the television on. if you could turn the volume
down on your said we could hear you much better. the president is wrapping up his asian tour. he is back in washington this evening. in "the new york times", an exhausted white house and media entourage. it is the longest trip of the president's presidency. we will go to jim, independent line, from knoxville, tennessee. caller: i am a military lawyer. i know how to win e afghanistan war. burn up all the opium plants. we learned our lesson with -- in vietnam with agent orange's, but we could use of napalm. this is not secret knowledge. it is common sense, which is one of our least common sense is. that is it. host: "prior to the usa invading, poppy was at its lowest production.
get a clue." we go to joan in stillwater, minnesota. republican line. caller: my opinion is, why are we taking care of the whole world and why are we killing the cream of our young people and not taking care of our own country? our own country is going down the tubes. my children and grandchildren -- what are they going to have here if we keep in these foreign wars? host: "the new york times" writing about the situation in afghanistan and a profile of a british general majored nick carter. he will travel to lisbon as part of the nato summit next week. "general david petraeus, the commander of coalition forces, is moving to increase afghan police forces drawn from villages in southern provinces and employing the help of former commanders to recruit them, according to nato
officials. previous efforts to raise local defense forces have failed mostly because of a lack of support in the communities and from the government. the police are reputation for discipline, and drug abuse -- poor discipline, and have proved easy prey for the taliban. the village based forces can work as part of the coordinated military and civilian strategy and has been able to gain traction in the south since the arrival of the 30,000 additional u.s. troops and extra afghan troops this year." that story from "the new york times". the front page of "the washington post" has the interview with the president karzai 8 asking the u.s. to lighten its presence. birmingham, alabama. your reaction? caller: i am a first-time caller, and i think we should bring our boys home. too many are giving their lives for nothing heard we need to
take care of the citizens over here in the united states. i have been a voter ever since i was 18 years old, and now i am 76 years old. i've been watching this program for many years. host: thanks for calling. hit -- this is the headline -- president karzai calling on the u.s. to light in the troop presence. frank is joining us from bakersfield, california, on the line for independence. good morning. caller: what i think we ought to be doing is we ought to be buying up the opium pods from the farmers in afghanistan, destroying them, and we are to be bringing in an army of agronomists, people that could help the people of afghanistan grow other crops. we have squandered billions there, and we have not dealt directly the afghan people. we have to circumvent this gentleman because he is not a
leader. he is a drug dealer. again, what we have done with all of these billions of dollars that we have inflicted upon of this world a largest opium crop that we have ever seen. -- opium -- herion is heroin is dirt-cheap everywhere. we ought to be buying up the opium crops, training the people and have them grow other crops and eliminate this poison from the planet. host: we get a preview this past weekend. the debt commission chair, erskine bowles, and former republican senator alan simpson of lining their recommendations. a lot of issues on the table including mortgage reductions, social security reform and defense cuts. "the new york times" week in
review has this -- "ok, you fix the budget." an outline of where spending cuts could take place, how you can go from a deficit to surplus. you can check it out this morning on "the new york times". amy is joining us republican lineup from maryland. go ahead. caller: i appreciate all you do. my thoughts on this is a people in america need to realize we went into that region to fight terrorism, get rid of it. afghanistan is one of the main areas surrounded by pakistan that has taliban. so we need to stay there, make sure they are out, just like in iraq when we cut back forces and with untrained military to control the situation, we will need to turn around and go right
back in there. host: page a-18 of "the washington post", in an hour- long interview with editors, president karzai saying he was speaking out not to criticize the united states but in the belief that candor can improve what he called a great relationship between the countries. he described his own skepticism with american policy in afghanistan from last year's presidential election which he said was manipulated by u.s. officials to his conviction that corruption has been caused by billions of american dollars funneled through unaccountable contractors. he said afghanistan had lost patience with the soldis and armored vehicles on the roads. karzai wants us out, but he wants to keep the money where it is. you can join the conversation on twitter.
caller: good morning. i am calling because everybody is talking about destroying the poppy fields. i was doing my own research not too long ago, because it seemed like in the last two years, there was an overflow of heroin into the country, and i thought that is what we were supposed to be doing -- destroying those fields. if you get on the internet into your own research, back in 2001, before we came into the country, they had it really the taliban had gotten rid of the poppy fields. was the lowest point of heroin. since we joined in, all of the heroine is all over the world. it will not be the first time the cia has brought drugs in. remember ollie north. i do not know what we are doing
over there. we need to get our people home and let them fend for themselves. i do not know. it is just crazy. host: our viewer, "did russia's spent seven years trying to get rid of the poppy fields in afghanistan? what is really going on?" the obama administration and its nato allies will declare late this week at the war in afghanistan has made sufficient progress to begin turning security control over to its government by spring, months before the july deadline, to start withdrawing u.s. troops. even as it announces a transition process which will not immediately include troop withdrawals, nato will state its intention to keep combat troops in afghanistan until 2014, a date originally set by president karzai. the contradictory messages to be
released at the nato summit in lisbon are intended to reassure u.s. and european audiences that the process of ending the war has begun. the military setting intelligence -- citing intelligence indicating that many taliban are growing weary of the fight. patrick joins us from highland park, california. good morning, democrats lined prepar. caller: i was calling to make a comment about how osama bin laden has succeeded in his attack against the united states, because not only did he put the united states into a state of paranoia but he has ruined our economy with the wars we are fighting because of this terrorist threat. i really believe that we could focus on the war against terrorism with a lot less money.
if we continue on this road, we will end up a third-world country, because of this expenditure. we should have seen that from russia. host: mary has this point. "lower the trip levels? getting slaughtered now. we need troops and our states were the mexican cartel has invaded 200 cities." "the new york times" with this headline -- secret papers detail ex-nazis. "a secret history of the united states government's nazi hunting operations includes a that they created a safe haven after world war ii ended details decades of clashes here and abroad. this is a 600 page report,
providing new evidence about more than two dozen of the most notorious nazi cases of the last three decades." john joining us from san jose, california, on the republican line. good morning. are you with us? caller: yes, i am. am i on the news right now? host: go ahead. know --we will gyou caller: i think we should get out of afghanistan. there is nothing there but trouble for everybody. the government will not tell you the truth, they never have, they never will. we need to take care of our own country. thank you. host: this is the headline of the interview with president karzai. "they're raiding homes at night.
it is terrible. a serious cause of the afghan people's disenchantment with nato. arresting afghans. this is not the business of any foreign troops. afghans have to do that. one of the most important elements of the transition are raids of the afghan homes. the raids our problem always. there were a problem then, they are problem now. they have to go away." next from georgia. good morning, joe. we will try one more time. no. l.j. in atlanta, georgia. good morning. caller: i have been listening to all the calls come in about the situation in afghanistan. thoughtveteran and i've about our involvement there since we began it almost 10
years ago now. when you look at this situation, after the amount of time we have spent their, you have to come to the conclusion that our leaving there is long overdue. i think it is got into a point were we cannot define what we are still there. the mission has changed since we went in. we went in there because of al qaeda. the mission has evolved into something else. we have spent an enormous amount of treasure there and will continue to do just that. i think our military leaders, and i'm a bit disappointed with them, they have not been more vocal about being victorious or defining what victory is in a place like afghanistan. we could have learned lessons
from the russians. one other thing. i am surprised that the way we have fought this thing from the beginning, because i can remember almost 30 years ago when we really tried as a country to develop war -- forces to fight these types of wars. we started developing like fighters or light forces. we started to build up our special operations command. it has been that type of warfare for them, but what you found out is we put all kinds of our, the best of our forces, our light forces and on and on, and i cannot understand why. host: jan has this point. "we should have been training farmers to plan other crops years ago. we knew about the opium problem before we invaded them." looking ahead to congress returning this week.
from "the hill", jonathan allen. "status quo -- house democratic leaders moving to lock down the line up that will look exactly the same in the minority as it did in the majority, even as the junior and disaffected lawmakers clamor for change at the top. nancy pelosi averted a wednesday showdown between her top two lieutenants by announcing that she will create a new post for james clyburn who was expected to lose a race for the minority whip to steny hoyer. clyburn would become the assistant leader. meanwhile, greg walden, republican of oregon is heading up the transition after four years in the minority, republicans take over. he is our guest on "newsmakers" that airs at 10:00 eastern time. among the issues being discussed, how do we reduce the deficit and whether or not
reducing staff and salaries on capitol hill will make a difference. here is an excerpt. guest: i asked jim nestle to come in. he chaired the committee in 1994. i wanted to find all lessons learned. what did you do that worked? what would you recommend? one of the things he said, they sent pink slips to every person on the capitol hill. he said he got a call from the library of congress saying, i got a pink slip. i am appointed by the president, so you do not have the authority to fire me. we need to be thoughtful about it didn't realize our limitations. but they also said down with the doorkeeper at the time and said, what to do all day, because we do not know? never could get a straight answer.
eliminated the position and nobody noticed. host: greg walden, our guest on "newsmakers", coming up at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. you can also see it at 6:00 p.m.. president karzai as the u.s. forces to lighten up their troop presence, especially with night raids and bombing. "our country must be tired of this war. we can hardly get a barstool general to tell them how to kill them all. that will fix it." president obama is returning from japan today. another foreign trip next week. the headline there is that nato is beginning to withdraw some troops but maintaining a presence in afghanistan through at least 2014. damon joining us from minnesota on the republican line. good morning. welcome to "washington journal".
caller: i have one question, do you believe any of the war propaganda that you read on air? host: how about answering your own question? caller: i don't, given the record of not telling the truth. the question is, do you believe any of it? host: thanks for the call. we will go to james, independent line, washington, d.c. caller: i am calling to follow up on a couple of people discussed the opium crop in how we cannot seem to stem the flow of opium to the world market appear. anybody who has an idea of what happens when a country invade another country, case seek to exploit whatever natural resources are there. -- they seek to exploit whatever data resources are there, not to mention the profit that comes from
illegal drugs. the british fought two wars to introduce and keep the flow of opium to china. and the u.s. smuggled opium and sold opium in order to support a secret war in laos using air america, a cia shell company, that france supported goods secretly into cambodia -- a secret cpany that's it transported goods into cambodia. "the time has come to reduce boots in afghanistan to reduce the intrusiveness in the daily afghan life." on our twitter page, "why not force president karzai to partner with a pharmaceutical company to refine the poppy crop
for pharmaceutical drugs to export instead of opium for the black market?' you can also send this email. betty is joining us from little rock, arkansas. democrat line. good morning. caller: good morning. we should not have been in afghanistan or iraq. host: that's your comment? caller: that's not all. because president karzai, that anyway.'s buddy we invaded those two countries. we need to bring all of them home. we have more terrorists year. we need -- we have more terrorists here. the republicans and the tea baggers are more danger to this country than the real terrorists. host: lilly dobbs is 14 months
old. returning to hemingway, south carolina, after nine months in afghanistan. welcome to "washington journal" on the republican line. caller: good morning. i have a comment about this afghanistan war. we should do the same thing to them does what we have done to japan one week -- when they bombed pearl harbor. i think we should drop a few atomic bombs on them. there would be considered casualties of war. [unintelligible] what makes the united states to think that we can go over there and solve the problem? host: we have a $13 trillion deficit and if an anti-war president will not end the war? who ever world?
from "the new york times", in one moment here with some and heartbreak. a look at the afghan war and the first medal of honor to be presented to a living american since vietnam. it reveals a lot about the war of afghanistan. the "a" section of "the new york times" this morning. christopher from new jersey. good morning. welcome. caller: thank you for taking my call. my comment this morning would be, we definitely need to pull out. it is costing us so much money. the recent elections, everyone was talking about fiscal conservatism and we need to stop spending and cutting costs and everything else. i did not hear anybody, the tea party, mention the fact we are spending $2 billion a week to fight a war. and now karzai is saying that he does not want us in this country, what are we doing
there? that is my comment. host: "president karzai was put in by the u.s.. we will remove him at the right time. you betcha," says this york. speaking of the tea party, the post tea party nation. "republicans lost the presidency in 2008 because of the worst economic crisis since world war ii. republicans have regained the house of representatives for the same reason. not since carter handed the office to reagan, had a president of one-party bequeathed a successor from another party so otter and economic disaster as george w. bush bequeathed to barack obama. while the bush administration thank you is in bold steps to correct the disaster, the unpopularity of its troubled assets relief program -- the obama administration inherited a political disaster alongside the economic disaster."
we will hear from former president bush at 3:00 eastern time. he is in miami speak about his new book, "decision points", which was released last tuesday. in l go next to clifford maryland. good morning. caller: like a lot of americans, i reluctantly and supportive of the afghan war in the beginning. the taliban -- we warned them we would retaliate and we did. i think we are in a quagmire. my father is a veteran. awhile back he said, if we want to win, we need to do one of two things. either we pull out. reinstate the draft.
put half a million men in there and finish the job. i know we will not do that, but that seems to be, what option do we have, the way things are going now? that is just a thought, for what is worth. host: the front page of the miami herald -- billions spent, much of it wasted. this is reporting by four reporters from afghanistan. we read an excerpt earlier, but the essence of it is, dozens of structures across the country are poorly constructed or never completed. the story this morning in the "miami herald". we will go to beatrice on the republican line in washington, d.c. caller: i know just what we need to do about afghanistan. what we have to do is get a hold of a couple of very intelligent high school, college students,
and teach them to become miners and get the people in afghanistan to understand that they have so many precious minerals and gold and all kinds of things there and substitute that for the poppy crops. and they -- the prospect of getting people to become miners instead of fighters would probably appeal to them. and that is a doable. all we have to do to start is send over a bunch of our own to teach these people ought to be engineers and miners. host: cover story of "the weekly standard". looking back of the midterm elections and at marco rubio. inside the campaign. one of the newly elected senators, that our senators to be watched.
caller: good morning. what i would like to tell the american people is we haven't all voluntary military. people do not get drafted -- we have an all voluntary military. they signed up at their own well. if they do not like the situation that the country puts them in, do not sign up. there is your option. host: "the new york times" sunday magazine has "pleading sanity. the anchor talked about his partisanship. also from "the washington post", former reporter and anchor ted koppel. "we live now in the cable news universe that celebrates the
opinions of individuals to hold up to the twin pillars of political partisanship and who are encouraged to do so by their parent organizations because of their brand of analysis. the commercial success of fox news and msnbc is a source of non-partisan sadness for m e." and you can read more from "the washington post"'s website. we go back to the 1970's, 1980's, when most of americans were a separate but together, watching walter cronkite. they offered relatively unbiased information about their respective news organization and believe the public needed to know. the ritual encouraged shared perceptions and even the possibility of a compromise among those who disagreed. ted koppel said it was
imperfect, untidy, little eden journalism where reporters were motivated to gather facts about important issues. we did not know that we could become profit centers. no one had it in that apple yet." caller: i think we should definitely get out of afghanistan. i think george bush has no conscience. he is out there trying to sell his book. dick cheney is just waiting for and she needs a cold heart. we have no business being there. host: thank you. "try something hard -- governing." the house majority is an early system of its preference of politicking over the tougher job of governing in hard times. profiles of the incoming republican freshmen are not encouraging.
have denied the signs of global warming, 39% sign-on to ending the birthright of citizenship under the 14th amendment. in principle, congress's oversight of the executive branch can be a necessity. both parties push its limits from time to time. no is no time for searches for sensational distractions when voters cry out for solid progress." lee is joining us from new mexico, democrats like. good morning. caller: good morning. last time i called you was 2003 . host: don't be a stranger. caller: i think what -- am about this is something i never thought i would hear myself say. we have got to stay there. it is not because of afghanistan
and it is not because of pakistan. look to your left. take care, steve. host: thank you. last night, ""saturday night george w.e west and bush characterized. "back to the bush coalition. where have we seen as coalition before? last week's midterm battle was clear. it was an election about barack obama and the american people voted against them. voters nationwide disapproved of the president's performance by a 9 point margin. while their impressions of the republican party were negative, they gave the gop what turned out to be at least ta 7 point margin a victory for the house of representatives. disaffection was not limited to the sluggish pace of economic
recovery. voters also disapproved of the health care bill, the stimulus package, and the level of deficit spending. they expressed a sense that government has become too big and too intrusive." phil joins us from oregon beat florida, democrats won. good morning-- from boyton beach, florida. caller: i think we have accomplished everything we want to accomplish in afghanistan, in terms of our immediate goals of driving up al qaeda and handling a the portion of the taliban that supports them. president karzai wants us to reduce forces or to leave, we ought to begin doing that. i think the future, in terms of fighting terrorism, should probably be handled best by drones and by special ops. think of all of the billions of dollars we would save. the other thing we ought to do,
in terms of finances, we have thousands of conglomerates and multinational conglomerates in this country who have never really paid their fair share of taxes. give you one example. exxon mobile last year profit to the tune of almost $1 trillion as reported on c-span and on cnn. what did they get? they got a $156 million refund. they never paid a dime in taxes. that type of situation has been going on for years in this country. if we solve the problem in terms of them paying their fair share of taxes and we stop spending hundreds of thousands of -- sending hundreds of thousands of boys overseas, we would not be concerned about deficits or the course of health care. thank you. caller: another regular viewer, "what we spend so much of the military? what are we afraid of?
if we're the best place to live, then what a big military?' welcome to the conversation. caller: good morning. i am wondering now that the steep -- now that the democrats got wiped out on the domestic situation, what will lead you do about -- what will you do about afghanistan and bashing bush? the mainstream media is going back to that in order to fight uh -- yes, i am here. well, i am saying the mainstream media has nothing to say about this, like the upcoming trials for corruption and all that. that is what they should be covering, the domestic scene. stay with that now that the republicans are in charge of the house in washington. instead of running back overseas
and bashing bush. host: will be talking about domestic policy for the second half of the program. nick, independent line, good morning. caller: we will not leave afghanistan into present karzai to protect cheney's cos. we will not leave until our business interests are taken care of. it is pretty sad to see the american public duped the way they have been. host: the democrats' line, from north carolina, good morning. caller: about afghanistan, if they want to lighten up on the trips, why don't they let them come home? if they want to fight in squabble amongst yourselves, let them do it. host: the first sentence in "the washington post", president karzai as saying saturday that the u.s. must reduce the visibility and intensity of its
military operations in afghanistan as well as end the increase special operation forces, those night raids, that aggravate afghans and could exacerbate the insurgency. one of our twitter viewers saying, "did the u.s. government say that if the iraqis would ask us to leave, we will? the policy should be the same in afghanistan." new york, rick on the republican line. caller: i watched that special buy for world order where he was questioning the generals about growing opium and afghanistan -- i was watching geraldo rivera who was questioning the general is about growing opium and afghanistan. the taliban will get it. [unintelligible]
he will talk about the truth about what is going on ifin afghanistan. has the right idea. bring the troops home, the economy will fix itself. host: president karzai is at odds with general petraeus? the look of the electoral map, what it means for 2012. the former president on a book tour, making a number of appearances. later today, he will appear on union"state . of the he was satirized on "saturday night live". kanye west ' apologize. the president said that he
forgave him. he explained -- george of the abortion and kanye wet. >> what's up, clown? >> i am not president anymore. >> it is just custom to call you that. >> cool. >> so everything is good? >> it is all good, because you know we have problems and resolve those problems. >> i love kan-way. >> kanye and w, special friends united by forgiveness. >> come on, haters, recognize that. >> i would not -- i would not have thought you have that much in common. >> come on. we are both rich. we're both impulsive. he interrupted taylor swift and an awards show.
>> that's right. no time for haters. >> kanye has me doing the twister. twitter. he was teaching me. it is short. you puke out what's on your mind. and it's lenient on grammer. i call myself notsocuriousgeorge. i get it now. host: our thanks to nbc and the "saturday night live" from last night's program. coming up later, kevin madden, longtime republican strategist and michael bocian, democratic strategist, to look at congress getting back to work this week. terence samuel of de "national
journal". but first, a look of the issues on the sunday morning program. >> reairs begin at noon eastern on c-span reappeared topics include a lame duck session of congress and the new balance of power on capitol hill. first on nbc's "meet the press", david gregory owelcome david axelrod. senator john mccain, and alan greenspan. at 1:00, it is a this week on abc. her guests include madeleine albright, republican senator lindsey graham, and senate budget committee chairman kent conrad. fox news sunday begins at 2:00 p.m.. his guests include jim demint and david axelrod. the:00 is cnn's "sate of union."
guests are mark warner and jim clyburn. face the nation from cbs. guests are republican senator like rand paul and chuck schumer. brought to you as a public service by the networks and c- span. reairing at noon. at 4:00, face the nation from at cbs. listen to them all on c-span radio on 90.1, on iphone c hannel 132, or online at cspanradio.org. >> in an ideal world, the fact people were shorting the mortgage market, would be that there are investors the think
that this market will crash and burn. but the market was opaque enough that you could not see that the way you could see it in the stock market, and because of the way these instruments work, you are not bidding on real mortgages but you were inventing on the casino version of a mortgage. >> in 2003, bethany mclean wrote about enron. this week, she will talk about the financial crisis in "all the devils are here". tonight at 8:00 eastern on c- span's "q&a". >> see what people are watching on the video library, with the most watched videos and most share. it is on our homepage. you can also click our special 2010 analysis tab to view our continuing coverage of the midterm elections. watch what you want when you want. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our sunday round table with michael bocian and kevin madden, a longtime republican
strategist. let me begin with the a look session of "the washington post" -- the outlook section. won and done? president obama must decide how he wants to govern. in recent days, he has offered different visions of how we might approach the countries problems. he spoke of the need for a midcourse correction. the essence of the story is that if he wants to be a great president, he should not seek reelection guest. guest: i think he can move the economy ford and still seek reelection. the other story in "the washington post" today says that the president is looking for common grounds with republicans. guest: i agree with the premise of the peace which is that the president has a conflicting reactions to the electoral judgment you that he got last tuesday, but, i think there is a
major flaw in the reasoning of being a one-term president. these sorts of conversations used to be relegated to a three martini lunch and in washington, but now they find their way onto opinion pages. but if you were to decide if you become a one-term president, you would lose all leverage you would need with capitol hill, the senate, and the house. so i find it hard to believe that the president would ever take seriously this type of advice, even though, as provocative as it is. host: there are a couple political stories and "the new york times". a photograph of him from "the new york times". below that, democrats reaching an accord on the leadership in the house. this came yesterday where congressman jim clyburn agreed yesterday to fill a new leadership position, assistant to the speaker. in essence, we have a new congress, new members, 60 plus
democrats leaving as congress and the same democratic leadership. guest: a lot of republicans are cheering as from the sidelines. others are privately patting each other on the back. republicans would look at nancy pelosi's leadership team and say, beforehand, there were partisan liberal, and now they are a reduced minority, a reduced caucus, and they are even more partisan and liberal. republicans are relishing the fact that they are going to have t years to contrast our agenda with that of nancy pelosi, jim clyburn, steny hoyer, harry reid and president obama. host: this is from bill kristol. nancy pelosi for minority leader. he concludes by saying that nancy pelosi will be an exemplary house minority leader,
may she live long and prosper in the job. guest: i do not think the optics are good for democrats to have the exact same leadership, but i think the reality is that the same people can very easily show zero rather different leadership's the -- can show a rather different leadership style. speaker nancy pelosi accomplished a lot. credit should be given to that. i think we have seen after past midterm stabbings in 1994 that president clinton, -- -- midterm stumpings, the president clinton was able to achieve a great deal. one question is do republicans want that? guest: or reject the idea of raising the profile of a leader in the house and the minority, because the public does not have a good sense of that person. but what is interesting here and what i think has created an advantage for republicans is,
you have a minority leader with 100% name i.d. she has seen -- she has been seen as a partisan individual. it is a much easier for oil. i did not agree to the idea of trying to elevate john boehner because the public did not know who he was. that will change. john boehner has a much better chance of managing his profile as he becomes a bigger than it nancy pelosi did. guest: there are two times in history that the speaker of the house has made -- has played a major role. nancy pelosi and nude gingrich. both in similar ways. in two years, things can change tremendously. i think the republicans look like an almost extinct courtesy, ago. 20 months i think the same can happen with the speaker and the leadership.
host: michael bocian, a democrat strategist. kevin madden, a republican strategist. the first republican presidential debate will take place next spring. dick pullman this morning, the 2012 gop field is quite a crowd. expect to see a grassroots starlight sarah palin and an established and picked. guest: i got my first call at 10:00 on november 3. a.m. i did not even have my coffee yet. i think pullman is a great observer of politics in a very important swing state in 2012. there are going to be different levers working right now.
there are a lot of folks that are anti-establishment. they do not want to follow the normal course of how any party would pick a nominee, which is, especially in the republican party, where history has shown that we have been prone to pick the person who is perceived to be next in line. if you look at this particular political dynamic, there really is no next in line. you could make a case for different candidates, whether it was sarah palin, mike huckabee, or governor mitt romney, who gave senator mccain a tough run. there are three arguments you could make that that is the person next in line. but then there is a great number of governors looking at the race and candidates who have a lot of appeal because they are not part of the perceived status quo or establishment that could very easily break through in a crowded race. guest: i think one thing we learned from the primaries in
2010 is that the republican party does not have a lot of control over its primaries right now. so i am thrilled that you got a call that early, because as a democratic strategist, the earlier the primary starts for president, the better off. guest: i am sure some democrats got calls, too. guest: the republican primary -- who can run up for this to the tea party. host: how serious is his potential candidacy? guest: are taken at his word. anybody that you talk to close to governor jindal says that he is not looking to build a national network that he needs should he decide to run. he has attracted profile for the republican primary voters. folks that are professional observers of the race here in washington, d.c., somebody who does not look like every other republican is something that is
a very attractive. a conservative governor, somebody with a real record of reform. all those made him an attractive candidate. i do not know if we will see him in 2012. but you could be sure that he will be playing an important role in any vp selection process or in future presidential elections. host: in, our, or maybe? mitch daniels? guest: maybe. host: mitt romney? sarah palin. guest: maybe. sarah palin is a maybe. that is the question i get the most. . .
guest: i think maybe the more tabbed will be seen and whether they have an opportunity to be seen as mainstream candidates like mitch daniels while appealing to the excited conservative base. you could take thune or daniels and they are conservative but do they have the excitement and factor that says i'm not part of the establishment. that is an open question. host: our sunday roundtable looking at politics. the next congress prepares to attack office in january. we will get to your phone calls in a moment and you can join us online with the twitter page or send us an e-mail. the "washington post" what are the issues that will come up i
because it has driven them. i think we will have the debate and it will be fast and furious. >> this is from john. i hate earmarks except the one in my community. let's wash that new fire truck my congressman got for me. guest: i think he is making the argument that they are a check on presidential power. i don't think that argument will take him very far. i think there is a reality that the earmark process has become a major problem, not just in the public's view but in reality. a lot of them are very parochial and not in the public's
interest. at the same time i think there are ones that are great community projects. the fire station is important and the federal government may in fact have an important role in making sure the firefighters have the funding and resources they need. i think the reality is that this will be an interesting battle because i think many people have run on earmark reform and ending wasteful spending in washington. i think those who sit in the highest seats of power like senator mcconnell are deeply tied to the process and rely on it in a state like kentucky which benefits tremendously from it and i don't think they will let it out of their hands very easily. host: you worked on a item of campaigns. guest: i worked on eight house races this cycle. four incumbent, three of whom were re-elected. i was involved in two senate races, alexi giannoulias who
lost in illinois and was involved from the democratic senate campaign committee side on the colorado senate race as well that electing for the first time michael bennett. host: thanks for being with us. kevin, you are an old pro at this. let me ask in john boehner. he takes over as speaker of the house. what does he bring to the job? he is your former boss. guest: yes, so i have done this for a living before. one thing you have to remember about john, it is true when you work for him reform is at the heart of everything he does. when he first came to washington, he reminds people of this every day and he has been here since the late 1980's, he told the people of his district if they wanted to send somebody to washington to rob the federal treasury vote for the other guy.
he first made a name for himself as part of the gang of seven that exposed the house banking scandal. he has great respect for the institution but sought to make it work better for both parties and be more transparent. so, i think that is something you are going to see particularly with this earmark ban. john was the last, when he was majority leader, worked hard to institute the last earmark ban. i think you will see more of that. he's somebody who takes a very team oriented approach. i think it is something drilled into him since he has grown up because he was one of like 12 brothers and sisters. you can't get along very well with other people and work very well in a team oriented way if you don't find a way to get along. that is something that i think -- and i think one other thing to remember is he was a small busine businessman. so he understands a lot of the pressure people are feeling in
this economy, whether because of regulation or taxation. he is accepts active to this -- sensitive to that as he works on legislation. host: he got pretty emotional when he declared victory but those of us who have seen him here and interviewed him that is not unusual. guest: it is not. he works on a charity for inner city schools in washington, d.c. and every year when we used to have the dinner to raise funds to help some of the inner city schools one year we made sure everybody had tissues in case they were the ones close to him but it is directed by things he cares about so when he talks about education he helped push through earmark reform and helping children, disadvantaged. it is something that hits him in the heart. host: marcus joins us on the
democrat line from silver spring, arkansas. hello? we will go to jim in fairfax, virginia. you are on the air. caller: good morning. i've got one question and one comment, please. that question is as a strong supporter of israel congress would not condone any illegal settlements in any other country except israel. why does congress condone settlements, illegal settlements in occupied territory? not only congress but the press also? and the one comment, to the republican strategist, sir, when boehner is asked will he compromise, i suggest that he says i will cooperate with the president when it enhances the american people. i will not cooperate with the president if it -- what is the
word i'm looking for -- if it enhances the liberal agenda. that is all he has to say and the american people would be behind him. guest: the first part of the question about israel, it is obvious that for a very long time israel is such a strong ally of the united states and has active constituencies within congressional districts and all 50 states. so, it is an issue that many americans -- i'm sorry -- many lawmakers pay great attention to. but they believe it is the most important footprint of democracy there. to the second question that jim had, i think that it is emblematic of a lot of voters who voted for republicans and
believe that we need to stop this growth of government, stop the spending in washington, stop the size of deficits and they have very calcified opinions on it and they believe the leverage lies with a lot of republicans on capitol hill as we begin to contest some of the issues with the administration and democrats on capitol hill. guest: on israel i would say it is one of the hardest issues that president deal with and i think under the clinton administration we were at the doorstep of piece with that and didn't get there. i think the last two presidents have struggled with it. i think that president bush largely ignored it the first seven years and tried to get very engaged at the ends and was unable to make progress and i think president obama has had a little trouble in his own right with signals getting mix and not clear with the prosecutor. host: next is randy from
riverside, california, democrats' line. caller: good morning. how are we doing? host: thank you. caller: i have been listening to c-span 26 years. my question is to both of the guests. how did this tax bill occur? did it occur with congress passing it? was it through reconciliation to obama? could he pass a middle class tax bill -- did he write a middle class tax bill, the reek significance and -- reconciliation and let the republicans pass the bill for the rich? host: that is one of the things they will be facing. guest: i believe it is an option but if i listed the number of options that folks on capitol hill had to move the middle class tax bill reconciliation would be low denny on the list. this -- would be low down on the
list. probably try to have it in the lame duck but later. host: michael, did david axelrod tip his hand by indicating the president may temporarily support the bush tax cuts the next year or two? guest: i think so. there are two optionless. looks like what they are leaning toward is a temporary extension of the tax cuts, deal with the question of whether we continue the tax cuts for the wealthiest in a few years. the other option a lot of democrats and those on the left are pushing is force the republicans to vote on extending the tax cuts for the middle class, straight up or down, not on that for the wealthy. in 2008 voters had a clear choice. i don't think anybody was ambiguous about mccain's position or obama's position and they wanted tax cuts for the middle class and not extend them for those above $250,000.
now does the obama administration say we want to compromise and move forward and temporarily extend them or try to force republicans to take an up or down vote on straight middle class tax cuts. it remains to be seen. my sense from david axelrod is the democrats are more likely to proceed with the compromise, extend the cuts for everyone for the next two years and then deal with the question of the tax cuss for the wealthiest after that. host: james from dresden, tennessee, republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. [inaudible] host: i'm not sure if there is a question there. caller: i say why don't they load the planes up. bomb all those strongholds.
host: i didn't get that. let me point out the cover story of the weekly standard inside the rebound yo campaign a big win -- rubio campaign this is a seat the democrats hoped to capture but in a three-way race it was not close. guest: it was not. rubio is an interesting story. the record seemed to have a tea party label and he fits within that realm. it was very mixed. rubio had a very convincing victory, was able to win and to be honest i think he wins a two-way or three-way race here. i think it was a very difficult thing, the only chance to prevent him is if crist was the only opponent and even then i'm not sure. but some of the other candidates with the tea party label, sharon angle, ken duck, christine o'donnell, had a more difficult time and were not able to succe succeed.
it will be interesting to see if there is a tea party caucus. i think they have strong positions. the rhetoric was not compromise, negotiate, look for solutions. it was we need to stop washington from push being the agenda they are pushing. to the degree they push that you will see stalemate. guest: on mike's point, i think democrats probably made this mistake early on and continued to make it throughout the campaign and some of them are still making the same mistake. thinking the tea party is a mondolithic block of voters tha moves from one candidate and one issue. i don't think it does. i think it is a reform element within a center-right electorate and the candidates with the tea party support that did well and won did so because they won the big middle as well as activating their base on the key issues that were animating the
electora electorate. the ones that didn't win that support didn't focus on winning the debate in the middle and didn't do as good a job of bringing independents in some of the states that had obviously profiles that much much more geared toward having a debate that was based around moderation versus trying to just generate that activist base within their republican party. i think that is one of the distinctions i look at when i look at the candidates into won and those that didn't. guest: from the data i have seen it is a grassroots movement, not monolithic. but it is not a center-right movement t. is a right-right movement. most of them are to the right on almost every issue of the base of the republican party. guest: the reason the ones won, i think people who deride the tea party do it at their own
peril and they make the mistake by calling them extreme because i don't think the issues were extreme and i think those issues were animating the middle. independents were very angry and anxious about spending, amount of spending in washington, size of deficits that were growing and the growth of and size of government. host: john has this point on the twitter page. the tax increase on the rich will generate 1/14 annually of the deficit. it is inconsequential. the president says that the across the board tax cuts with cost the federal budget $750 billion over 10 years. guest: 1/14 of the deficit is a lot. there are not many other things will take more of the deficit away than that. there are other policies most of them difficult to touch like social security and medicare. i think the way to look at getting out of the deficit there
is you have to look at a best of your knowledge of clunks to get there. >> at the end of the day economic growth and revenues that brings it is the biggest piece of. but 1/14 is not a small amount with the federal deficit. host: kevin, karl allen of hobbes, new mexico, the answer is simple. keep that money in the district. if the taxes were not routed through the hands of congress there would be no bribing to send some of their money back to them. guest: i agree. that is the funnel principle -- fundamental principle. have it more localized. host: john is joining us from lancaster, pennsylvania. independent line. caller: good morning. my question is on the tax policy that the federal government in has been pursuing and both parties. there's got to be -- i'm an independent thinker, i'm a
realist. i understand that government is going to grow in good times and bad and it seems like profits on wall street in good times and bad. no matter whose money they are spending they win. so if we are going to subsidize these people through tax cuts, why can't we target the tax cuts to investments instead of offshore, onshore. they create jobs for the american people. and increase opportunity in this country. it seems like the way the tax policy is implemented and the tax breaks and loopholes in the tax code benefit people that, you know, are in the offshoring or jobs. you get more productivity, you get more opportunity through a job. you get more cost to government, more growth to government through social programs when a person qualifies for them that doesn't have a job. guest: i think that is right on
many fronts. our tax policy right now is at least agnostic as to where the jobs are created and it is arguablehat they incent creating jobs overseas. if republics can come on board in terms of shutting down the tax loopholes that allow corporations to get incentives to create jobs overseas we will have a lot of common ground. the central principle of our economic tax policy is create jobs that are made in america. i think there is a lot of agreement and i think that the republican party has not been along with those policies. there have been votes on it. host: kevin, tom downs says shouldn't the g.o.p. congress initiate a repeal of the healthcare bill as the first order putting dealt legislators
on the record of voting for or against the bill? he said this would set up the elections for 2012. guest: they will. there will be a debate on capitol hill and a vote most likely in the house of representatives on the issue of repeal. i think it will be one framed to tom's point about the economy and jobs, quite frankly. one big problem many republicans and voters have, independent voters as well, have with obama care is it set one giant federal standard for what used to be state-by-state regulated markets and has created a certain level of uncertainty with the tax code for many small businesses that want to hire and expand. one reason y wil have a debate on capitol hill and a vote to repeal obama care is that doing so and dismantling it would create more certainty in the markets and help people create jobs because of the regulations and taxation that have been instituted by democrats on capitol hill it has
created a degree of uncertainty in markets. host: talking about the states and how politically it has changed, the column in the "washington post" a couple of points. republicans picking up at least 675 state legislative seats november 2 as with the increases in the house the biggest gain any party made in state legislative seats since 1938. today republicans control 26 state legislatures, democrats is 17 and five have split control, new york officials are determining who is in charge in the state senate. also this setting the stage for the electoral man in 2012 where republican governors are now in battle ground states of ohio, pennsylvania, michigan, wisconsin and florida. . one of the most fascinating parts of the election is it turned on the head the phrase that all politics is local. in wave elections of the past the more local the race the more chance you had of withstanding a wave. the wave affected the national
races, u.s. senate races most. this year the opposite happened. u.s. senate races the democrats fared the best and were able to withhold in washington state and west virginia and colorado. in the house it was a massive wave and in the state legislatures larger, in the range of 20 state legislative bodies turning over to republicans. so, it is fascinating. in many ways the local races were a national election played out at the local level and democrats had a lot of trouble. so, very, very difficult politics we face moving forward. guest: it will affect the healthcare reform debate which will take place on the legislative track and the second is litigation that is taking place in the states. with the different compositions now in the states there may be more states joining those lawsuits. so i think that will affect it. then congressional redistricting which is about to occur will have a great impact on it.
host: margaret, lakehurst, new jersey. democrats line. welcome to the program. caller: good morning. i have a comment and question if i may. my comment is i'm a 75-year-old woman who has been following politics ever since the tpeufir stevenson-eisenhower campan and frankly i don't recall a more despicable campaign against a new president and a congress than the one that has been carried out against president obama. it started from the day he took his oath of office. that is my comment. my question is, did anyone check out the validity of speaker boehner's tears as hillary clinton's tears were questioned? thank you. host: that does go to the issue whether there is a double standard. guest: for john boehner? i think that was in the heat of
the campaign and hillary clinton was running for the presidency and i think when people look at the presidency the debate begins to be whether or not they have the gumption or spine for the brutality of the executive office. i think we have to remember that particular debate -- i'm sorry -- that particular incident worked in hillary clinton's favor. she always had a problem sort of connecting with voters and reminding them why they liked her and believed that she was tough around that moment played to her. i can guarantee you the validity of john boehner's tears. he can't fake those things. the first part of the question, i think about the debate we had in this campaign and whether or not it was targeted toward president obama, look, president obama took the oath of office on january 20 with 70% approval rating. not three weeks later when he went down to the williamsburg retreat with democrats he lambasted his republican
opposition on the issue of stimulus. so he poisoned the atmosphere from the beginning largely on his own. with obvious help that there were partisan opponents on capitol hill. but i think he had such, set such high expectation for partisanship and that moment when he gave that speech and attacked the republicans he largely help set the stage of his own demise. guest: but there was a principled opposition on capitol hill and the president very quickly got into a very partisan fight with them and it did set the tone for the entire debate the last two years. host: this is from the front page and jump page of the "washington post" the soul searching in the obama white house one saying they have spent the last dozen days soul searching and game being out the
short, medium and long term and this from "newsweek" this week truth or consequences, and evan thomas saying two years into his presidency broils remains a remote and mysterious figure. not that he is not familiar. if anything he is overexposed. a common sight on tv but for all of his presence he is oddly irrelevant. thomas saying obama's only hope to be an effective president is to talk straight about the looming economic disaster now facing the country. guest: after almost every election we start to see the op-eds if we only said this we would have won. i think what you see in that article and the reality is it is not just the message. while there are elements of the message that could have been better, the democrats' message could have been the 10 commandments or the messenger could have been moses because the reality was bad we had
unemployment so high and you pass things to address it, it is hard to win. what we see in the article that you are referring to is the white house is beginning to say it was not just that we had the message wrong. we need to make serious progress on economics to move the country forward as piece number one. second, and by the way, voters are not patient and it is understandable. when unemployment is this high you won't be patient when you have a president that ran with the idea that it will take more than two years that he inherited that is a mess is hard to have voters swallow so that piece is very important. the second piece in the article that gets back to what we were discussing earlier is this notion of working across partisan lines. i think it was a president who saw him beyond partisanship, somebody who could work with anybody and we can look back and point fingers, whether it was democrats or republicans who violated that, but i think the question is moving forward do
people want to work together. the signal so far from the white house are yes, in fact they do. it is a big question for the republicans. the minority leader in in the senate said his primary goal is to deny president obama a second term. if that is his governing progress, we won't see progress. if he says we will put it aside and try to get things done i think we will see a lot of progress. host: kevin joins us from san jose, costa rica. welcome to the "washington journal." caller: thank you for taking my call. i would like to ask kevin a question about the tea party. could you explain to me which of the democrats beat any of the tea party support, any of them. it is just about big government expanding or the obama agenda. just explain to me which candidate did the tea party, did
any one of them support. because i don't think it is big government, antibig government movement. it is an anti-obama movement. when the tea party started, it started when he came in. do you remember, they were out saying outrageous things about obama. they were saying kill him. they were saying kill people who just transformed the tea party movement. it is an anti-obama movement. a lot of people know these republicans, they are not out to help the small guy. their main objective is to gain power. host: to kevin's point and emma who sent this twitter saying could we have a third party called a free market party for all the conservative rums, democrats -- republicans, democrats and libertarians who wo worship markets and privatize
government. guest: if you are looking for folks the tea party supported it is hard to find where you have some sort of identifiable or measured support for the tea party because it is not a honor lift thick group -- not monday lift thick group that hands out endorsements. it is like mike said before a very grassroots up from the ground movement. it is important to remember that a lot of the democrats that lost lost because they became very attached with the pelosi, reed, obama agenda on spending and didn't have a great deal of support. but there were a number of democrats that once they got it and realized this is a movement that people are organizing around when it comes to their unhappiness with spending an deficits that a lot of democrats started to change their tone. they no longer used the
terminals -- terminals like tea baggers and they say i'm a lot like the tea people. howard dean is one of them. russ feingold was one of them. some of the blue dogs like gene taylor were actively trying to at least court or tamp down tea party opposition by pointing out areas where they disagreed with the president or tpharpbs seu pelosi. and on -- nancy pelosi and one person said third parties are like bees, they sting and die. host: she claims she has 60% of 9 write-ins counted and an 11,000 vote lead over her challenger saying there is no chance joe miller can catch up. he is still trying to fight this legally. guest: i think joe miller is an example of a republican primary that got out of control and they elected somebody who was a very
troubled candidate and ran into additional problems of his own. christine o'donnell in delaware is another example. what is interesting is i suspect what you will see is murkowski got a lot of democratic votes. alaska is a very hard state for democrats to win. it is incredibly conservative and i think what you saw is a lot of democrats who said we can't have joe miller being us in the -- representing us in the senate and some voted for the democrats but a lot voted for lisa murkowski and what will be interesting is how does she govern. does she move back into the republican fold or have some independence joe lieberman style. host: our guests are both here in washington on this sunday morning. thank he very much. please come back again.
a lot of issues on the table. bush era tax cuts, more debate over the deficit and leadership for the next congress. guest: a hroplong list, short . i think what you are looking at is the big issue being the bush era tax cuts. i think what yo you sense is th is a desire on both sides to get some kind of deal. the white house indicating it might be willing to do some permanent extension for a short period of time, backing off that earlier this week. however, i think what we are looking at is a sense on both the part of the white house and t the, some democrats in the soon to be minority who are willing to get this off the table for a while. host: what is the mood of the democrats as they come back this week and look ahead with 60-plus members not coming back in january? guest: i think it is fair to say they are fairly depressed.
you look at the maneuvering and you think the democrats will apparently return to the same leadership team that led them into the election and we will have the same team going into the next cock -- next congress in the minority and there is debate about whether that is correct but i think you have a sense in the house among the democratic caucus that they had a really bad week a couple of weeks ago. host: paul kane writing about it in the "washington post" and in other newspapers reporting on the agreement reached yesterday with pelosi as she moves into the minority leader position. jim clyburn who would take on a new position said the best way to resolve this issue, the leadership issue, is maintain the diversity and cohesion in our caucus for us to pull up another chair to the leadership table so essentially it will be
nancy pelosi is the democratic leader, steny hoyer as democratic whip and james clyburn as the assistant. guest: you have a caucus that is more solid ly in tune with te leadership that existed in part because the people who were least aligned with pelosi have in fact lost election and will not return. so, what you have is a caucus that is more progressive or liberal and more aligned with the speaker. as a result, i think she didn't have any trouble winning. to resolve the issue of who should be in the leadership they decided to add a chair to the table. host: our phone linesre open. 202-737-0001 for republicans, 737-0002 for democrats. you can join us at twitter.com/c-span wj or
c-span.org. our guest is the showed of the republican transition team joining us at 10:00 eastern in a program taped friday. among the questions asked whether there should be term limits for committee leaders. >> do you believe that the republican leadership should issue waivers? >> i don't want to prejudge what the conference will do and i'm trying to be careful about prejudging what they will come forward with before we have the listing sessions and invited the other side of the aisle to help us with their ideas as well. i'm trying to stay out of making firm statements in some of these regards. i would say this though personally. we have a six-year term limit for committee chairs and it would take a change in the conference rules to alter that. now, i also have this notion that your time in the minority is not as powerful as the time in the majority. i think looking forward we need
to have that discussion about if you are in the minority does being the ranking member of a committee have the same value as being the chairman of the committee. i think that is a valid discussion we should have looking forward. >> the rules of the conference everybody knew what they were, six years and i would be surprised if the conference votes to change those rules. host: terrence samuel, what is going on there? guest: i think you are seeing small maneuvering on the part of the new majority in terms of how they govern themselves. these are small issues that i think don't rise to the level of kind of the big important ones that they will face once they take control of the house. but you see already some of the difficulty that the republican majority of the house will face. it will be different than when they were in the minority. they simply now are wrangling
about who gets to hold on to power and which in some ways is a large part of the argument they made during this campaign, that washington needs to change and people need to not spend too much time amassing power but this issue of whether or not chairmen get waivers is about people who have power holding on to it. host: with change comes new power players. this is what the national journal looks inside some of the power players behind the stage and also on the stage. guest: on the stage. we see obviously with the democratic majority in the house dissipated and this new republican majority, people who are either close to the speaker to be or in some way influential in issues that will matter next year making a move.
the cover is amazing ly congresswoman of minnesota and the theory here is that here is somebody who has been an early tea party favorite and chair of the tea party caucus in the house and will now have, i think, a larger megaphone -- not to take the metaphor too far -- in terms of representing that much larger caucus that will join in january. host: but she won't carry it to the republican house leadership. why? guest: because there are a certain number of spots, the speaker, representative boehner, soon to be mortgage leader representative cantor had a clear idea what they wanted the leadership team to be. she was not part of it. she made a brief and avoided run for conference share and at some point on thursday -- wednesday -- came to the decision that that was not a good and promises
to be a conduit to the leadership but as of now not a member of it. host: let's go to some of the leaders to watch in the u.s. senate, all newly elected beginning with governor and son to be senator joe manchin from west virginia and rob portman of ohio. the republican from ohio. marco rubio. michael blumenthal and chris koons. >> let's start with governor manchin. very tough race in west virginia. hugely popular governor who i think in every way indicated why democrats were in trouble. he was at 70% approval rating. as soon as he got into the race as a democrat for the senate suddenly you saw his approval rating drop. he was in a tight race with a tea party backed republican nominee. and he barely survived.
and there is some sense that manchin's experience is probably indicative of what democrats face in 2012. because he is such an anti-- i mean he campaigned against the president so stridently there is a sense he might be a potential switch party target for the republicans come 2012 when he faces re-election for the full term in the seat that was once held by robert byrd. host: rob portman. guest: not a newcomer. u.s. trade representative, o.m.b. director in the bush white house. member of the republican majority in the congress during the 1990's. but a very adept player in washington, understands the rules of the place and will probably be able to hit the
ground running very quickly. host: marco rubio the subject of a cover story. his speech was almost reminiscent of barack obama's speech talking about his uprising and talked about as a 2012 national candidate. guest: he is the republican in this class with all the tools. if you remember 2004 barack obama senate win he very quickly became the star of the class and delivered the keynote speech at john kerry's nominating convention in boston that year and was clearly on the path to something bigger. i don't think anybody suspected it would be as quickly as it happened. but i think republicans look at rubio and see their barack obama. he's got a terribly interesting life story. he is a great messenger.
and he is not -- he's been preparing for this, you get the sense, and is willing to take it on. i think he is clearly going to be the star of this class going forward. host: among the democrats on your list, the former attorney general in connecticut richard blumenthal who faced a $47 million by linda mcmahon and won. this is seat currently held by chris dodd. guest: i think we need to remember that democrats are in fact still in the majority in the senate and will be that way come january. you have two new democratic senators, chris koons and richard blumenthal and in some ways they are the two that bring to the senate and senate democrats -- these are the members who faced the voters in a tough time and survived. chris coons is taking the seat once held by vice president
biden which i think in some ways gives him a connection to a washington brain trust that will be helpful to him. i think that those two guys will play some very helpful role for the democrats in trying to decide how they recover from 2010. host: joe man chip takes office this -- manchin this week and this was held with the death of byrd in west virginia. arthur joins us from staten island, new york, with treps samuel of the -- terrence samuel. good morning. caller: good morning and bless c-span and bless you, sir, the last bastion of real news. mr. samuel i have heard you before and this is so refresh g refreshing. my kquestion is for you. as far as the vote results, even
though more republicans have gotten in, would you say it is more so the change is because of people's frustration with how government is going not just the last two years but even beyond eight years? that is number one. number two, if you, regardless of your perform views of democrat or republican, had one suggestion you could give to the president in direction that he should go or both parties should be take, what would that be? and if you could talk about what is freedom works? thank you very much for your time. host: thank you. guest: let's talk about the election results. i think you have a sense that as big as the republican wave was in the house, we need to remember that the senate remains democratic, the white house remains in democratic hands.
so, i think that the idea that this is the dawn of an aggressive new republican agenda needs to be tempered some. but i think also if you look at the election results, it seems the voters -- and we can go into the reasons for that -- over the last three years have decided to vote out anybody who has been in. so, in 2010 democrats seemed to be in control of everything and voters returned republicans to control of the house. in 2008 republicans were in control of the white house and democrats won. 2006 the president and the congress were republican controlled and we know what happened there. so i think there is a kind of rolling theme here that the voters prefer the people who are not in power and it will be interesting to see if that
continues into 2012. host: 23 democrats up for re-election next year. one republican is ben nelson. kathleen has this. ben nelson is next. start packing your box others become a hrulg republican. guest: democrats are in a very tough place come 2012 in the senate. they have about a third of the senators always up. 34 in 2012. 23 of them democratically held and in very tough places. ben nelson in nebraska is one. ken conrad in north dakota, two. but very tough races for democrats. the big five, again, florida, ohio, pennsylvania, virginia. and it will be a tough time for
them particularly if the dynamics remain as they even though there is no reason to necessarily believe that will be the case. 9.6% unemployment is a tougher way to go in washington. host: and that is official. many argue it is higher. it higher in states like nevada and michigan and parts of upstate new york and ohio. our guest is the managing editor of the national journal which underwent a recent revamping both on the website and -- guest: we like to to do things. host: what is the biggest change? guest: there is a sense that we want to be closer to the news. the national journal has been for a very long time a very table, credible publication in washington aimed at a very powerful class of washington players. the sense is that we will now take much that credibility and speak to some larger issues and play on a larger playing field.
host: another race in massachusetts where scott brown is trying to -- will be running likely for a full term the seat previously held by edward kennedy. we have a caller. caller: good morning. my comment was for your last panel of the journalists, but -- host: terrence samuel can probably answer it. caller: my comment is about nancy pelosi. she has no right to be named speaker of the house. you talk about transparency. if you recall, when they were voting on the senate was going in to use the 60-vote quorum to pass the health bill, the day they were going in, prior to them going into that meeting she came up before the cameras on tv, she had the health bill in
her left hapnd and held it up i the air shaking it and made this comment. once this bill is passed, you will know what is in it. and, trust me, that woman is not respected by many democrats, nor republicans or anybody i have spoken with. thank you for taking my call. host: well get a response carolyn referring to the 60-vote margin in the senate. her thoughts about that? > guest: nancy pelosi is as responsible for the passage of healthcare as anyone. it was her leadership and tkorpbgedness -- doggedness that got it through and set the stadium for the negotiations that went on to get it passed. she has been during this election maybe the most unpopular figure in american politics.
republicans and their allies spent about $67 million in ads against her and in every contested race there were ads using nancy pelosi against the democratic candidates and there are some questions about how much she cost the democrats this election. she clearly has said that it was not about nancy pelosi. it was about 9% unemployment and people not being patient enough or necessarily willing to wait for the benefits of these changes to kick in. but clearly she's not a popular political figure in the country and we have a story that explains that. her inner circle understands that and is beginning to try to fix that as she takes over as the leader of the phaoerpbt party. -- minority party. host: let's turn to some of the house medicals to watch as
republican -- house members to watch. guest: we are guessing based on some important things here. again, republicans in the majority in the house dealing with difficult and democratic senate. tim scott important because the first african-american republican elected from the south since reconstruction. inspiring story, a man who has worked for senator strom thurmond during his last re-election for the senate. scott is conservative who represents that district almost perfectly, so, the racial aspect is only interesting in that it is one of these new since he is
first since reconstruction. recognizing the need for some diversity in the republican caucus, we think scott will get a lot of attention. he has already been named to the leadership transition to the new majority so i think we will see a lot of him. >> christie nome in south dakota. guest: that is a hot bed of turnover. the interesting thing about kristi noem is she beat a democratic version of her. young, rising superstar in the democratic party. a person in touch with her state. she has great tv presence and adds a voice and a refreshing quality to the republican caucus that i think the leaders will use to their advantage as much as possible. host: shawn duffy of wisconsin.
guest: one of the guys who i think you need to watch. he is used to -- he is used to being in front of the camera. a member of the real world cast boston a few years ago and just a fun, interesting personality, a guy who used to be a lumberjack and was then district attorn attorney. very, very concerned about spending and taxes and i think one of the people they will use to carry that message to the extent that they need surrogate voices. host: the banner special issue power players and michelle ba bachman. we are talking with terrence samuel looking at some of the new players in the congress. gloria joins us from south bend, indiana. independent line.
true about what glorious has about who won this election. we see democrats taking a drubbing across the country but we see the voters saying they don't necessarily think that the republican house will be much more effective in doing what they said they promised. the sense of stalemate that gloria refers to is something that many people share particularly going into a presidential election cycle with democrats, a huge democratic class up for reelection. there will be a republican majority in the house that would like to see the senate and the white house switched sides. host: south hampton, pa., are line for republicans, good morning. caller: good morning, thank you for cspan. it has been well over one year
since i have had an opportunity to call in. st: don't be a stranger. caller: i appreciate the opportunity to make a few points here. it will be fascinating to see if the republicans will be traded tea party movement. -- betray the tea party movement. i have spoken with numerous people and i have identified with the tea party. i have spoken with a number of people who have attended these protests or rallies, what ever you would call them, and my sense of what it stands for is first of all, fiscal responsibility with the deficit of over $1 trillion, bankruptcy looming. it is really a failure of the system leaving a legacy of
disaster to our grandchildren. number two, no amnesty for the illegal aliens, no path to citizenship, repatriation through enforcement. host: you brought up the issue with immigration. will that be one of the leading topics in the next congress? guest: we suspect not. this is not a place where i think there is a lot of agreement on. the majority leader in the senate, harry reid, says he will bring up -- may bring up emigration during the lame-duck in part because they are worried that it spills over into the next congress, nothing will get done on it. it is a point of contention. given what the caller just said about the tea party movement's
position on this and the fact that they now have more voices in the congress, it is not likely to be something that lends itself to any kind of agreement or compromise. host: are you still with us, john? caller: i sure am. it would be an enormous the trail. what a disaster if the congress in the lame-duck session was to take up some of these contentious issues that have been clearly -- the voters have rejected these ideas. for them to take up this. to get back to my point -- what the tea party represents, because of the deficit, because of the failure of these wars, because of the enormous cost, the third thing that the tea party represents a which is not getting publicity is the mainstream media is not giving voice to the fact that the majority of the tea party people
are opposed to this intervention of foreign policy, fighting for democracy, making the middle east safe for israel. this whole thing of spending trillions of dollars of our money when we don't have it to spend. interestingly enough, i don't know if anybody has seen it, but let me bring to your attention scott mcconnell the former editor of the american conservative had a marvelous day -- guest about how they neocons are trying to coopt the tea party motion and suggest that they stand for intervention of foreign policy and a strong military. freedomworks is not a true tea party movement. that is dick armey with an enormous amount of money. he is a fraud. he is for amnesty. he is for foreign wars for democracy, said tuesday.
dick armey is not a genuine grass-roots tea party person. he is one of these people trying to coopt the movement. host: thank you for the call and do not wait for another year until you call caller: thank you very much guest: what you see is what people in the republican party and the tea party are concerned about. this republican wave was essentially driven by a tea party enthusiasm and the agendas that will confront this new republican majority in the house and in t country generally are not necessarily the same thing. john outlined some very specific things on the tea party agenda. those items get dropped into this huge bucket of government when you get to washington.
the speaker is trying to figure out what to do with the debt ceiling at what to do about medicaid and medicare and entitlement spending. suddenly, the discussion is not nearly as clear cut as we need to cut federal spending. republicans will have a lot of trouble staying loyal to that sense that they wanted to change things in washington. host: jim heinz on our tour page -- said the representative in tap -- in south but predictions -- in south dakota is a typical tea party candidate and took contributions and gripes about welfare. guest: there will be arguments like this going on constantly in part because -- if you look at what happened during this election, essentially, this is
an election waged against too much spending on the basis of fiscal responsibility and, in fact, the election was more expensive and cost more money than ever before. it was ridiculous. enormous, enormous sums of money. part of what you see here, the south dakota rep was against welfare but for fiscal responsibility but to get to washington tothe game requires that she go out and raise that money and that is what she did. how do you reconcile those things is what of the things to watch going forward. host: ill. -- don't forget to mention bobby schilling from rock county, illinois.
guest: he is one of that new members who is on my list after the top five and i think he was one of my honorable mentions. that is a classic swing state in illinois in the old sense. republicans could not win in chicago but outside the city, it was the republicans running the table as they did in much of the midwest. host: doug holsiecken joined us yesterday and he is the head of the american action forum. he put many issues on the table that this congress will be dealing with in terms of the deficit and the u.s. tax code. here is an excerpt from yesterday's washington journal. >> there has been a big incentive for the headquarters
to go overseas. no firm located in the united states. this has made it much more desirable for the r &d to go offshore and when that happens, the manufacturing will go offshore. we have the highest rate and we're the only country left on the glove that tries to tax on the basis of world wide profit in every year. every other country has switched to a system where they tax based on what happens inside their jurisdiction and does not attempt to tax the other side. if you are the last one swimming against the tide, you have something wrong host: hearing those comments yesterday, the deficit is the real issue in the next congress. guest: it will be an arena for huge confrontation. his point that you cannot tax our way out of this is something that people understand and agree
with. the other part of the issue/equation will be jobs. to suggest that companies only get taxed on in-state profits, domestic profits and not worldwide profits, i think, raises the question of whether you are sending american jobs offshore. that i think will also be a huge point of debate host: good morning to you from hawthorne, new jersey, democrats online. applaud the me up new direction. i like the new ipod app. host: it is coming. caller: i applaud the new direction of the national
journal. it will make it that much easier for us to pull it down. i have a question on the democratic organization. it is passed the point now and maybe because egos are involved -- i thought it would be great for nancy pelosi and for stan a lawyer to swap jobs. -- steny hoyer to swap jobs. have steny hoyer be the minority leader and have nancy pelosi be about with. both of them are accomplice politicians but i think what the right has done is successfully demonized nancy pelosi. i think it would be much more a challenge for them to bring up john boehner against stannate player that is for nancy pelosi to be there. i think it would be great to lead steny hoyer to two years
and when the democrats when the house back again, reverse the roles. i guess that will probably not happen. guest: that is an interesting idea and i think you are right that it would be more difficult for the republicans to demonize steny hoyer then it is to demonize nancy pelosi san francisco liberal just does not apply. a maryland a moderate is not nearly as cutting as the a san francisco liberal. and a demotion of nancy pelosi would look like, i think, a concession to the republicans. i don't think she was willing to do that. in fact, i don't think i have heard the idea floated until now. host: from amherst, n.y., independent line. caller: good morning. listen, can we have our the park
-- perfunctory discussion about your twitter and your phone lines? can we do that? host: i will come back to that, i promise. caller: good morning, how are you? you have to start writing some stories about the next president of united states of america, hillary clinton. if you are not writing that story, first of all, tell me where bill clinton has been. i have not heard a peep out of him and he is my men. we are heading down again. goad mom. you write that story because that will be the story. find bill clinton wherever he will be, that is where hillary clinton will be politically. this country will need those people. you know it and i know it. god bless president obama. he is doing the best he can but
he just does not know what to do. host: stay on the line and we will get a response. guest: week certainly heard in washington rumors about whether the president should seek reelection. there are two democratic operatives in the newspaper today said to get -- suggesting that if the president wants to be great, he should step aside. host: it says he should try to seek reelection in 2012. guest: that leaves open the possibility of it replaces him at the top of the democratic ticket and i would dare say that hillary clinton would be one of the top candidates for that. will that happen? i would not put my money on it. host: as promised, you loved twitter and one more e-mails, correct? caller: let's put it this way, pent-up bell, obama game --
this is a failure. you will be the first one that did this experiment and throw it away. we need more phone calls. this is a serious times. this thing you are doing with his bed -- by the way, nobody is following the rules. we want to be fair but it is stupid. you could be a top story tomorrow. announced that he will stop this -- if you had more people doing it, fine. it is just so stupid. host: don't hang up, we have more than five people and we are trying to expand the people that can send in comments we have simply been trying to use technology by reaching out through social media. are you still there? i guess he hung up.
do you twitter? guest: i do. it is very time-consuming. you have to pay attention to it all the time. host: thank you very much for being with us members to watch and the sun -- behind-the-scenes players to keep in mind. thank you for being with us. we will look at the president's travels through asia and what it means for the u.s. economy and global trade in a moment. first, i look at some of the issues and guests making news on the sunday morning programs. >> sunday talk programs begin at noon eastern. topics today include the economy, the lame duck session of congress, and the new balance of power on capitol hill. first, here in these "meet the press." the republican speaker of the house newt gingrich will be there.
at 1:00 p.m., is abc's "this week." former secretary of state madeleine albright and lindsey graham and senate budget committee chairman kent conrad fox news sunday with host chris wallace begins at 2:00 p.m.. the guest will be a republican senator jim demint and white house adviser david axelrod. at 3:00 p.m., is cnn's "state of the union." republican senator john cornyn and republican senator mark warner will be on. democratic senator jim clyburn and keith shuler buried at 4:00 p.m., in "face the nation." there will be decisions ahead on entitlements and spending cuts with republican senator rand paul and democratic senator chuck schumer. the five network tv talk shows brought you as a public service by the networks and cspan begin repairing at noon, 1:00, 2:00 p.m., 3:00 p.m., and finally
4:00 p.m. ,"face the nation." listen to a mall on cspan radio on 90.1 in the washington d.c. area, or online @ cspanradio.org. >> in an ideal world, the fact that people were in the mortgage market would have signaled people that there were these smart advances that think this will crash and burn. the market was opaque enough that you could not see that the way you can see it in the stock market. because of the way these instruments work, you're basically not betting on realm mortgages but you were inventing on the casino-version of a mortgage. >> in 2003, the thinning mclean road "the smartest guys in the room." her new book is "all the devils are here."
that is to nine on"q &a." >> you can watch the cspan video library. it is on our home page are you can also click our special 2010 election analysis to view our continuing coverage of the midterm election. watch what you want, when you want. >>"washington journal" continues. host: the president is on a four-day travel through asia. thank you very much for being with us. let me begin by asking you what kind of a week to the president have? guest: he had a tough 10 days. he tried to go to asia and come back with two victories and he wanted a trade agreement with south korea and he wanted that other countries cut their
exports and he did not come home with a victory. tough time. guest: i have to agree with that the g-20 summit communique but it will not really change the economic issues. host: let me share with you abc poll jake tapper. he had a summer of what happened in south korea out, president obama concluded the summit of the g-20 economic superpowers by trying to exploit the limits of american influence them a part of the reason that sometimes it seems as if the united states is attracting some dissent is because we are initiating ideas. we are putting them forward.
>> a remarkable admission for a president who won the office running against leaders who set their sights only an incremental change. >> instead of hitting home runs, sometimes we will hit singles. they are important signals that a strike 1, the president failed to convince the south koreans to open their markets to american beef and cars. at stake is $10 billion in exports and 70,000 american jobs. >> i am not interested in signing a trade agreement for the sake of an announcement that a strike two, the president felt to convince chinese president to change policies that make it cheaper to manufacture in china by artificially building up the dollar and holding down chinese currency. the president used his sharpest language yet. >> is undervalued. china spends enormous amounts of money intervening in the market to keep the undervalued. >> mr. obama's third strike was
failing to convince the other to death 20 leaders to agree to use stronger language in the joint declaration against currently manipulation like that by china. it could not help that the federal reserve announced plans to inject $600 billion into u.s. economy prompting some g-20 nations to accuse the u.s. of currency of manipulation. presidents rarely get everything they want but coming off the midterm election, a shellacking rooted in economic anxiety, obama and the american economy desperately needed a win. host: that was on the abc news website. among the meetings with angela merkel last thursday and south korea, she has been among those critical of the fed policy which has been keeping interest rates low, may be helping the u.s. economy but having a domino effect guest: worldwide this started one year ago. guest: shortly after his inauguration, they met in
london and france and germany and they were pretty as a tent in accepting this huge stimulus package now they are afraid that of another $600 billion into the money market will devaluate the dollar and weaken the world economy at the cost of others. i think they totally disagree with what obama is proposing as his new idea. guest: the federal reserve is almost entirely unfair. they want to stimulate the u.s. economy and they are taking actions that they think are entirely reasonable. they are cutting interest rates and when you do that is that your currency goes down. for germany or china to say that the u.s. is now engaging in currency manipulation is somewhat ridiculous in my view. host: we will get to your phone calls in a moment. the numbers are on your screen.
guest: the question about the devaluation of the dollar -- the united states was criticizing china in not having an actual currency balance. at the same time, they pumped $600 billion into the money market and devaluate their own currency so they lost moral ground for their own argument against china. guest: china is trying to devalue its currency. the federal reserve is trying to stimulate the u.s. economy and as a byproduct, the u.s. dollar is going down. host: why did the negotiations in south korea felt that guest: the beach and the cars are the two major obstacles for the south koreans are hesitant to import beef from the united states because of the mad cow illness. there was a case in seven years ago.
then, the koreans want a stronger environmental regulations for cars which is a trick to keep the americans out of their own market. they have a very closed market in south korea. they are not very willing to let the americans in. president obama was right in pressing hard on that issue. host: the south korean leader of is ahyundai executive guest: and that is true. host: caller, go ahead caller: president obama is using much stronger language than any other u.s. presidents. this is because of what is going on in the united states and the world. i believe some of these other countries are just not used to this type of president. host: robert hardin of the "
financial times." guest: the question will be whether we see substantial action to press china and we do not see much sign of that. we will have to wait and see. host: some opinions for ""the washington post." the chief economist for moody's rights," the global economy process gets -- prospects in than one factor, policy-makers ability to avoid protectionism if they're able to avoid erecting barriers to trade and prospects will be bright parade if not, the fragile global recovery will come undone guest: i think that is a very valid concern. you have a china which is keeping its currency down and the u.s. economy is weak. that leaves the rest of the world between the devil and the deep blue sea. how can they keep their own
economies going when there is no source of demand from either of the two large players? the risk of erecting trade barriers or increasing currency manipulation in order to attract such demand is very high. host: another point of view is a h dougolz eakin. he says it is a choppy sea. unfortunately, export-led growth is already a policy of china, japan, germany, brazil and a host of other key economies. guest: he is partially right. the united states has lost a little of the competitive edge over the last decade. i think there has to be worked to be done to improve the infrastructure to improve manufacturing. i think obama fears this and this is his message. it is hard to moderate a message
of decline in a very severe economic environment. host: matt is joining us from augusta, ga., republican line, good morning. caller: my question to the two gentlemen is -- i would like their comments on ze robertlnick and sarah palin if they had a correct on the $600 billion going into the economy, they were saying that we are dealing with fire. guest: i would have to say that they are almost 100% incorrect. if you look at what happened with inflation over the last few years, it has gotten steadily lower and lower and that is what the federal reserve is concerned about.
the policy should be seen as basically a natural to make sure that the u.s. economy does not tip over into a dangerous deflationary spiral. there are risks, of course. when you are in an extreme situation with economic policy there are risks. the idea of this policy is playing with fire and that it risks our benefits is incorrect. guest: i did sigridro withbin because i think they are playing with fire. $600 billion is a large sum. there are fears of inflation. there is fear in european economies that have bad experience in the pre-world war two era and that is one of the major fears that people will lot of these days suffer. host: let's turn our attention to china. there are two editorials -- an
emerging but fragile china. he begins his piece by saying they toured our power and wealth that has accumulated in just 30 years are evident in its pulsating streets, shopping malls, and military maneuvers but less visible in securities -- insecurities lender on what is driving the country's politics. china's strength and weaknesses it should be measured with care. there's also a "from the baltimore sun." china is one of maryland's biggest overseas customers, buying jet engines, hotel services ,etc. the value of maryland's exports to china has grown along with the chinese economy from $81 million to $565 million last year. maryland by is far more from china, television appliances, toys and other commodities. in maryland does a $600 billion
in trade with china. guest: the second point is very important. it is a great thing for the u.s.. at the moment, china it sees the rest of the world as its market. it provides the market for everyone else. is this context where you have to see the chinese debate about whether to let that currency go off. as far as china is concerned, their economy is growing at the moment and its political stability depends on exports. it's which is to something else prematurely, the concern of the chinese leaders is that they will no longer be able to supply the jobs. that is what you have to understand when you think about why they are not letting their own currency go up. guest: i agree. you have to watch the chinese economic growth with great care. there are certain obstacles on the way. china has market problems and
skill problems and they have environmental problems. in the long run, i see a number of risks to the chinese economic growth. we tend to overestimate emerging countries and new world powers. we overestimated the united states power for a long time. we should come to a pragmatic and realistic point of view and say china is a great country. its economic growth is vital to the world but look at the many obstacles and don't just over estimate. host: you can log on law zeit.de h robertardin is joining us. caller: my question is about the asian trip. when obama was in india, he made
one of the biggest weapons deals in the history of america. -- he snubbedtan pakistan and is trying to surround -- trying with different sales of weapons like to taiwan. my question is this -- why wasn't there and a coverage about this deal which included boeing and lockheed and major companies? obama is trying to get jobs for the little people and there were only a few small little companies that produced about 100 jobs. why hasn't that been covered? guest: great question but there are many policies involve. weapons sales are always not really put on a poster. countries are afraid of taking
political risks with weapons deal very when you look at india and pakistan which is a rival country and the kashmir questions in afghanistan. the government is very hesitant in just advocating its weapons sales. you are right that weapons sales mainly are dealing with big companies. don't underestimate also small companies that deliver to the big ones. host: going back to ""the washington post." you are most concerned about internal stability. guest: i think that is fair. the u.s. has legitimate concerns. that is why we have these intensely difficult negotiations at the g-20 because there is a fundamental difference of interest and it will not be easy to result host:. the chinese are facing a major
generational change within their own right in two years. chinese leaders have engaged in living assertively and they have bludgeons japan into releasing its fishing boat captain from the justify the arrest, repeatedly berated the u.s. over economic and diplomatic differences and threatened retaliation against european governments that dare to send representatives to the december 10 ceremony awarding the nobel peace -- peace prize to a chinese citizen. guest: we will see a change in the chinese leadership in the next year. who will come to power? one of the big questions in the future will be will the communist party in china keep its grip on the country? we all know from history that economic growth demands for democratic changes. that is one big challenge for the chinese government. they have not yet answered that question very host: the next
state visit will be president hu jin tao coming next year. caller: good morning, steve, good morning cspan, good morning america. i'm calling about the economy and i would like to make comments to both your guests. i believe the republicans said they tea party a be is like ae because it stings and just goes away. i believe these people getting all these products from china, south korea, japan, mexico, canada will get [inaudible] a nthere will be great competitn there. the chamber of commerce that
recommends businesses, they will have an alert coming for picketing and boycott companies and what ever did this. most republicans and democrats -- i believe the tea party will actually progress and they will progress as the american citizens tea party. host: did you want to response? guest: i think we will see the tea party and the upcoming months and years. i don't know if they will get stronger. i think they might have reached their peak. will the republican party be willing to work together with the obama government if the obama government reaches out its hand to the republicans? i think you will see major efforts in trying to get
compromises on very basic questions of the u.s. economy, the deficit reduction, trade issues. those are quite difficult to deal with the tea party. they are very much against trade agreements. republicans are very much for it. obama wants them and they are pivotal to the united states gaining strength in the economy. i think the tea party is also heading to difficult times. host: you studied in hamburg, germany. robin hardin is a professor of economics. the republican line is next. caller: good morning. i am concerned because the $600 billion being tied in with the
manipulation by george soros and his people to devalue the dollar and how that ties in with the currency debate over in china. guest: the president is addressing that issue on friday host: here is what the president had -- said as a matter of war with reporters and south caria. -- in south korea. >> when people talk to me about the u.s. economy, their main concern is is a growing fast enough? many countries including south korea depend a lot and exports and the u.s. is the world's largest market. they want to see us grow. the one unemployment to go down in the united states. i think they are very interested
in what additional strategies can be used to encourage takeoff in the u.s. economy. i'd describe to them some of the steps we are taking and will continue to take in order to make that happen. the last point i would make about the fed decision -- when i am asked about it, my simple point is to say from everything i can see, this decision was not one designed to have an impact on the currency, on the dollar. it was designed to grow the economy. there is legitimate concern that we have had low inflation. a huge danger in the united states is deflationary barry and
we have to be mindful of those dangers going forward because that would not be good for the united states or the rest of the world. host: let's go back to gordon in the tyler, texas. caller: i did not hear anything about george soros. two weeksderstand how ago he was hinting that the devaluation of the dollar in a gradual model -- matter was important for whatever his plans were. all of a sudden, we see all this money invested by the fed and it is being printed up. i don't know how that works. guest: the $600 billion
stimulus cause the dollar to go down. there is no mystery about this. the fed takes down the interest rate and that makes it more attractive to hold short currency and another -- all their savings in another currency. a weaker dollar encourages exports. the second point on what opec -- what president obama said it is what is in in the interest of the rest of the world is a strong u.s. economy. it is unfair that the fed is being criticized by germany or brazil or china because if it works to stimulate the u.s. economy, this can only be a good thing for them. it is extremely concerning to see president obama commenting on the fed decisions and the federal reserve should not be politicized in this way. i think it would be great if politicians on all sides would not comment on host: robin
hardin is the edit "for the u.s. *." the u.s. has 4000 american cars cars and guest: the korean market does not open up to cars. there's a trade imbalance and i think it should be changed. i think obama was correct in pressing on this very hard currenrd. about the $600 billion being pumped into the economy -- one risk is that it delays the problems of the deficit reduction and of bringing the house in order. suddenly, you see that your
money is going down and exports are going well it sometimes hindered you in doing your homework. some of the critics are correct in saying to do your homework and don't just try to manipulate the currency to boost the economy. host: this was a story in ""the washington post." the essence is that among the banks helping general motors with its initial public stock offering next week, two identified by the i initialscbc and cibc, our industrial and commercial banks of china. the essence of this is if you did not like a government voters, you have two chinese banks involved in a public ipo. guest: it should not be a
surprise. you have the trade deficit with china than chinese savings have to come the other way. that will go into things like u.s. treasury bonds and gm stocks. host: did you want to follow up on the earlier point? guest: south korean labor costs are a fraction of u.s. labor costs spurted i think we should expect there to be a lot of u.s.-made cars driving around in south korea. host: chris is joining us from toronto, canada, good morning. caller: thank you for cspan and thank you for the guests for
taking our questions. host: go ahead. caller: hopefully, you can get to these questions. i want to know if you heard about the chinese constructing a hotel. i saw some websites on and how they were able to accomplish and that person. guest: i'm not familiar with this but the chinese are building up things in very quick time. how do they do it? i have visited china and i am amazed how fast and accurate they build things. you can look of their high waves and there is efficiency there. host: your follow-up? caller: as we all know, the
chinese system and the american system differ in both economics and public -- politics. what are the advantages and disadvantages of the chinese system and what are the advantages and disadvantages of the american system and what can america do to effectively compete against china? guest: i think that is a great question. you have a one-party regime in china. the chinese say that you cannot install a democratic system at the moment because a democratic system is very complicated. with one party, you just do this today and you shift money around and you don't have to think about parliament or the legal system or the court. in the long run, because economic growth means very educated people and means knowledgeable people and means global people, it requires
democratic reform in china. in the long run, the chinese will not be able to avoid democratic changes. of all systems that are terrible, the democracy is still the best system that works. host: desoto, texas, democrats line, good morning. caller: i think president obama was already defeated before he ever went to the summit. when the republican party took millions through the chambers to influence the voting system here in the united states. we are dealing with china, one of the largest communist countries, why don't just go to balls outd take ourour of china. if we can't import to south
korea couple out our military and let them drive their cars and let north korea do whatever they want with them. guest: well, you have to negotiate with countries like china. there is no alternative to that. on south korea, there is a good chance there will be a trade deal in the end. it was a mistake in thinking we could make this a deal tied in with the g-20 summit. guest: there was a lot of conservative money flooding into the republican party from outside. to be fair, you have to say that the democrats raised a lot of money and if you compare the numbers, there was not such a big imbalance in the spending on this campaign. i totally agree that the united states but should also look closely to cuba but cuba has around 11 million people and
china has more than 1 billion people there is a huge imbalance. no one can avoid china these days and cuba should not be neglected but it is not comparable. host: this is a report from the president's trip. he is relying on personal appeal rather than his policies pretty encountered criticism in india, resistance to this trade ambitions in korea and dissatisfactions from the g-20 on monetary policy. this made for a unscripted encounters with the public and some awkward moments. guest: that is totally right. he did not really work with his personal appeal that much, maybe in india but not that much at the g-20 summit. they know what to expect so he
had to change the policies and he is trying to beat the united states salesman. this is the message to his voters that combat jobs and economic growth is the first priority. that is what he promised and that is what he tries to fulfill a host:. we can fight communist china by not buying their cheap toxic products. allen joining us on the republican loss caller: 9. good morning. my question is about the fair tax. both britain and germany are taking a more fiscally conservative policy with their governments, i am wondering what their view is, both guests, on eliminating income tax and going to a straight national sales tax for the citizens with respect to the united states. host: similar to what you have
in great britain. guest: a tax policy is an interesting idea and well worth exploring. it is inefficient kind of tax. it does not distort the economy. you have to bear in mind that the u.s. problem is closing a deficit. whether you could couple that with raising the taxes is a big question guest: the german model is different. it is not as much about taxes. it is more about being fans -- fiscally conservative than lowering the deficit and a little bit about austerity the germans are very big savers. they like to save a lot of money so they have one of the highest savings rates in the world. that makes them less vulnerable to prompt economic disasters because they work with their
savings. that is different in the united states where people don't save that much. every economic change really affects people here immediately. they feel that immediately. that is different in germany. host: bloomington, indiana, independent line caller: good morning to all three of you. you mentioned the chinese manipulation of their currency and the united states doing it as well. you characterize the united states manipulation as more and the bridge and a sense. how can you distinguish between the two. the general question is really just -- does the china government have an accurate sense of its international influence and do we have an accurate sense of how we affect
the rest of the world? guest: the u.s. is not manipulating its currency. the u.s. is trying to stimulate the economy and get down the an unemployment rate. it is not manipulation. globally, we distinguish between companies like china and other countries in asia which are manipulating their currencies and others which are not. that is very important. what was your second point? guest: it is about the political influence in china and i think they are not concerned about it. there is demand for the chinese to live up to their economic power and to take more responsibility on the international a rematch. the chinese are not really willing to do that. at the same time, there are worries that the chinese might build up their military and play a stronger role in southeast asia. that may not be to the advantage of their neighbors.
international responsibility is a huge, huge problem. when you look at their role what comes to the iran sanctions, they are always very hesitant and they have to live up to their responsibility. if you want to be a world economic power, you must meet the other requirements. host: we're talking with the washington bureau chief androbin hardin with the "financial times." caller: why are we turning to
china and other people for their education and their knowledge when we can educate our own people here? host: we are short on time and we will get a response. guest: the u.s. is not turning to china for its education. they're turning to china for cheap manufacturing goods. as china grows, china will become more competitive in the high-education products. the big challenge for the u.s. is how to improve its education system to stay ahead of bad guest: a big advantage of the united states is that it can always turn to skilled people around the world and invite them to come to the united states and work here and prosper. the immigration attitude is one of the greater advantages. at the same time, there are many
problems. when you look of the infrastructure and the shape of the schools, they need to be improved and i think the obama government and republicans are aware that there must be a huge effort to renew american school systems and infrastructure. host: thank you both very much for being with us. as you might imagine, the president's trip to asia is the subject of a party last night on and "he paused saturday night live." >> next on cspan, president obama was in south korea for the annual debt 20 meeting where he met privately with the chinese president. >> that after a man [applause] . -- a good afternoon [applause] earlier today, representatives of the 20 largest economies concluded the fall session of