tv Soho Forum Hosts Debate on President Obamas Legacy CSPAN February 20, 2017 1:04pm-2:43pm EST
with the soho forum debate jonathan chait, whose new book covers president obama's legacy. he recently debated matt welch, of reason magazine. the event begins with the director of the soho forum introducing comedian dave smith. as a tradition of the soho forum, we begin with a warm-up act from a great libertarian comic. back by popular demand, dave smith, whose podcast, part of the problem, here he is, libertarian comic dave smith. [applause] >> thank you, gne. how is everyone? what a great event. libertarian comic even sounds boring to me. as soon as i heard that intro, that sucks.
i have to come up with a better thing. what is he going to do, talk about the budget? debate abouteat obama, is a great or not? this'll be a lot of fun. personally speaking, i think obama is great at lots of things , like killing people with sky robots. he is amazing at that, the best ever. spending money, he is like a god. spending others people's money, he is like mj in 1996. untouchable. i'm sorry. this is usually a more libertarian leaning event. today i think we brought in some of the lefties. there they are, laughing. it has been years they had been suffering through trevor noah. i'm sorry, i'm not taking shots. i am sure it is funny in south africa.
i liked obama the candidate. he was pretty good. remember that 22-year-old handsome guy right out of college and it was all hope and change and yes we can. now today it is president morgan freeman coming up. there has been another isis attack. it is not as fun. addresssee his farewell , at the end he said, yes, we can again? it was the first time he has said yes, we can, i think, in eight years. he did not even really sell it that well. it used to be you believed it. this time it was -- he said yes, we can, but it sounded more like, i cannot
believe donald trump is going to be president. this is really ridiculous. that?azy is just enjoy it. we are right here having an open, free-flowing discussion of ideas. this will probably be illegal in three days. let's have some fun. trump is coming in. i kind of like the trump moment. it is crazy. we are at the end of the empire here. you may as well have some fun. this is what historians never account for. how did rome fall? no one ever tells you how god dam entertaining it is. if you talk to somebody who was there when rome fell, how did you let the empire fall? are you kidding me? there was a lion show. you get to vote if the guy lives or dies. five dollars is what it cost to get into the show.
are you crazy? that we are at the end of the empire? is there a historian or two in the crowd? in historyexample where there is a republic that becomes a great nation, and then turns into an empire, and then gets way too expanded militarily, spends itself too far into debt, the culture collapses, and then everything works out cool in the end. everything is fine. a lot of examples of that happening in history? no. it is over, baby. that's just throw trump in on the way down. that makes perfect sense to me. i don't know. obama. legacy ishink obama's tied to trunk, because that is how it ends. endorsed hillary, who was a slightly flawed candidate, if i'm being completely honest.
there were signs, now that you look at it in hindsight, that maybe she was not the right person for the job. , and thise at the dnc is not a conspiracy theory, the campaign openly said this. they said the goal of the democratic national convention was to humanize hillary clinton. that was their goal. how terrible is your candidate when she has been in the public eye for 27 years and the big problem we are having is that other people are not believing she is, in fact, one of them. they do not see her as a human. they see her as some kind of pantsuit lizard creature from another planet. the whole convention was trying to humanize her. -- i metton got up hillary 30 years ago, and we fell in love just like humans.
very subtle. she is totally normal, i swear. surround her with charming people. that was their plan. she will catch it eventually. but she lost. i don't know. obama said he could've beaten trump if he had ran. i don't know. i don't know if anybody could have been donald trump. he found a style of debating that is just bulletproof. do you remember the moment -- rand paul, probably the best candidate in the race, he said -- he did not do great, if you paid attention. there was that one point when ,onald trump said in the debate he was like, the problem with tpp is that it doesn't address china's currency manipulation. then rand paul said maybe i should point out china is not involved in the tpp.
and donald trump was like, whatever, you are at 1%. the audience looked at that and said, we want count that as a win. you cannot beat that. by the way, there is not much of a light. gene jets gets closer to me. once i feel his breath on my year, i will finish it up. this is a wonderful event that you put on here. let's have some fun. [applause] >> thank you, dave. the podcast guy who does a terrific podcast twice a week. now for the main event. we are going to close the voting in a moment. based on his record of accomplishments, barack obama has been a great president. closing the voting. speaking for the affirmative will be jonathan chait. speaking for the negative will
be matt welch. jonathan is a regular political columnist for new york magazine and the author of the just "audacity: how barack obama defied his critics and created a legacy that will prevail." he will be doing book signings and selling's in the corner, which you can talk to him about after this. taking the negative is matt welch, a reason magazine editor, a featured player on the regular podcast, the fifth column. our debaters had to find it -- decided to do something offbeat. they each get 10 minutes to do con, and then 20 minutes of informal discussion between them, before we go to the 30 minutes of questions from the audience. jonathan, you have 10 minutes to establish in the affirmative the case for the proposition.
take it away, jonathan. thank you. [applause] if you were expecting a formal debate, you will be disappointed. i don't have any experience in that, but i do argue with people. i have argued with plenty of libertarians going back to college, of course. the thing i found about arguing with libertarians is, about politics, it is a little bit like making a group decision about where you are going to go to dinner and somebody there is kosher. that person will not agree with you that you should go to a barbecue place, no matter how good you say it is. they are not going to like the ribs. that is a little bit of an analogous situation. you have a value system which i don't agree with but i think i understand and try to respect, that believes government should have certain circumscribed rules. i will not tell you that you are going to like what barack obama
did. he does not hold to that ideology, those are not his rules for what government should be, and he had completely different ideological starting points of what to do. what i want to argue instead is that, by barack obama's own standards and values of what he did, was successful. he attempted a lot of change, and for the most part, that change worked, by obama's known standards. i will not go through anything about the whole book, but i will run through the main examples of where obama really did things that accomplish their stated purpose. the economic recovery. the united states was plunging into the worst crisis, as everyone knows, in 75 years when he took office. he took a series of measures to stop it. the stimulus, of course. it is believed by pretty much the entire economic field to
have substantially mollify the scale of unemployment. the university of chicago did a survey in 2014 to was the unemployment rate in 2010, lower or higher, and weighted by confidence level. 90% of economists said that unemployment was lower because of the stimulus. a survey of macroeconomists found complete consensus. people who are paid to do this for a living for business firms, almost no one does not think the stimulus did a lot to increase in gdp. the range of the responses was of additional% growth in 2010 alone, and enormous amount. the stress test, mostly forgotten, if you go back to early 2009, the banks were failing. investors were terrified of risk. skyrocketing because people didn't know what was going to happen with the banks.
worked.ss test actually it became a punchline, they subjected every bank to a test of the assets, whether it had enough liquidity. after they were done with it, those spreads went down to normal levels, and the crisis in the banks was solved. the auto bailout, a method that libertarians object to, but you cannot possibly object to the results. shows thatcounting they saved hundreds of billions of dollars in value. the midwest was basically going to be completely sunk when the auto firms and the changes in the suppliers went down, leading to the kind of people affected would have brought down my home state of michigan, northern ohio, indiana, parts of illinois . you have to remember, these firms ran their own welfare states, their own pension programs, backed by the government, their own health care systems.
so if those auto companies went down and there suppliers went down, you would have a lot of people who's pensions the government would be on the hook to supply, they would be getting coverage through the affordable care act, not through what they negotiated, and the payout by the government would have been 10 times higher than what they spent to save those firms. you can object to the method but the auto bailout worked. the affordable care act. decades, the united states developed the cruelest and most inefficient health care system in the world. the united states spends vastly more on health care than the next highest country and is also the only industrialized country that does not have basic health insurance available to all its citizens. we are spending a time and yet we had people suffering, dying for lack of access to care, which should not have in an industrialized country. they attacked both of those problems with enormous amounts
of progress and success. i think people are most familiar with the change in the uninsured, 20 million people gained coverage who did not have it previously. all kinds of measures of medical distress. have you skipped a doctors appointment due to cost, medical bankruptcies, those are always down. access to insurance for people has improved the readings and measures of how people's health and well-being. is the cost side of it. that is a big part of the objection you get from the right. for, and a lotid of people scoffed at the fact that it was paid for, but the congressional budget office has revised the affordable care act covered provisions numerous times, by hundreds of billions of dollars. the government is spending less than it was originally projected to spend.
in fact, the federal government is spending less on federal health care now, after obamacare was passed, then it was predicted to spend in 2010 before obamacare. medical inflation has come down to the level that we can actually spend less than we were expecting to spend by covering 20 million additional people. why has that happened? reforms that they introduced had tremendous impact. they introduced comparative effectiveness research, different kinds of treatment. rather than just going in the dark or listening to what lot beers -- lobbyists told them, they had better funded research to say which treatments were actually doing the job. they started a countable organizations, so instead of having this model where doctors are treated for every patient, the more you do, the more you get paid, you are reimbursed on
the basis of their well-being. the easiest and clearest one to understand, a great example of how the law has succeeded, is how hospitals were traditionally paid when somebody got an infection in their hospital. before you have the hospital and the patient, a patient gets infected, they go back to the same hospital. then the hospital makes more money. they change the rules and gives hospitals and incentive to reduce infections. as soon as that rule went into effect, the infection rate dropped. 20,000 a year fewer people are dying from infections in hospitals, and they are saving money. lowest rate of medical inflation over the last several years, in 50 years, and some of that is large factors, things that we cannot pin done with experiment of surgery, but it is strong evidence a lot of these payment reforms had
changed the cost model and have really freed up huge amounts of budget space and have resulted in these massive savings in health care sector. first, people did not pay attention to the stimulus but they invested in green energy, research tax credits. the crossed of green energy technologies has been coming down. over the last eight years, wind and solar are down 50%, 75%. in many parts of the country it is cheaper to build wind turbine power plants, solar power plants , then it is to build coal or natural gas. in missions, greenhouse gas emissions, which had risen for decades for ever since industrialization pretty much peaked under obama, and have dropped, and continue to drop. they built on the progress they have made through a lot of those investments and changes. made a bilateral do with
china in 2010 for both countries to reduce emissions. then they build on that to have the first international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas omissions. that will think probably be the most important legacy of this administration. all of those changes have an economic logic of their own and diplomatic logic of their own that is continuing. more medium-size reforms that i think are important. dodd frank was a tremendous change on wall street. the percentage of profit made by financial firms was 30% of all profits before the crisis. now down to 17%. the interest rate favorability to fail firms, which used to have an advantage, now have a disadvantage. now they have higher rates to borrow. that it is a penalty to be
too big to fail. >> [inaudible] jonathan: i will be fast. obama raise the taxes on the rich. cut taxes on the lowest 10%, increasing their income by 9.7%. really important educational reforms, which maybe i will talk about later. [applause] >> thank you. jonathan: by the way, i lobby to shorten my own time, so i am to blame. >> ok, you get 10 and a half minutes. speaking to the negatives. take it away. matt: since you forgot to at the beginning, let's give a round of applause to gene epstein for organizing this. i figure started by insulting you will not help out. thank you to the smith family foundation for this and thank
you for jonathan for writing a well-timed book talk about this. it came out today, and you can get copies over there. i highly recommend it. i would point out the question on the table here, important to get a little bit lawyerly, is not whether barack obama was a better president than the new, we are guy coming on friday. he hasstion is not -- got a pretty handsome and attractive family that seem like nice, classy people compared to pretty much everyone else who has resided in the white house. isis not whether we like pop-culture choices compared to george w. bush's. it is whether or not he was a great president. there is an affirmative we have to prove here. jonathan has given his level best. take on somey piss
of that. in order to be a great presidency, there has to be -- they be a few exceptions -- in which a presidency can be great, can be commonly discussed as also, in which it is not associated with having a great achievement in foreign policy. jonathan does not talk about this much. he has a foreign policy chapter and it is entertaining. he knows he does not have a lot to work with. he treats then subject honestly and has some pretty interesting writing about choices we make in the middle east. one of the sentences here, not being george w. bush may not qualify as being the pinnacle of achievement, but certainly beats the alternative. having auggest not very obvious foreign policy game really hurt the argument that this was a great residency.
i think it is worth lingering a little bit on some of what happened in foreign policy. as,ll that barack obama ran i would say not as a fully antiwar candidate, but anti-dunmore candidate. smart wars, not dumb wars. he got a lot of the jews in his campaign based on the 2002 speech early against the iraq war. so what does he do as president? he immediately surges in afghanistan. more than two thirds of u.s. soldiers who have died in afghanistan happened in the obama presidency. why? really, why? it is hard to fathom why. it is because he decided on the campaign that iraq was the dumb war and afghanistan was a smart war. we searched and there even though it had an expiration date. we are basically at status quo, give or take, in afghanistan. 8000 troops, he is passing off
that war. he is the first president to be at more every single day of his two-term presidency, as far as i know. these are human lives that have been lost, for something that is actually hard to explain in any rational sense. at the 2008 m accredit convention, there was a lot of that happened in the wake of vladimir putin aggressively against georgia. joe biden stood up and said we will not stand up to this, we will hold you accountable for this. treating him with a newfound respect, among other things. obviously, vladimir putin has not been held accountable. it is a hard question, but the reset with russia, much like george w. bush's friendship with vladimir putin, turned out to be a nothing burger, which was predictable to a lot of people who pay attention to russia.
keep in mind, the obama administration was canceling missile plants in the czech republic, poland, as kind of a sop to treat vladimir putin with respect. then we are throwing troops to norway, poland. this was a strategic bubble with the behavior of putin in this election, which only has been controversial. i would also put into this category, intervention into lowered a low bar to begin with him when we intervene in a place. we intervene because we wanted to prevent a massacre that we thought may happen in this city. ito not mean this to say underplays the horrible devastation of muammar gaddafi or what would happen in that city, but there was no other reason to do this. we deposed a dictator and helped create an incredibly chaotic dynamic in the middle east. and we did so -- keep in mind,
this is the presidential candidate who told charlie that, of course, a president obama would not seek to create war abroad without getting congressional approval. so much did he flout that imperative at the time, when congress came back to him after the more than 60 days, which is supposed to be the cut off, and said, we are supposed to vote on this. he said, it is not actually any kind of war, saying it is a kinetic military action, so a different category. this gets into a big disappointment about barack obama, not just to libertarians, but a lot of people. , becausese of obama concert to shalott professor, he was going to roll back the aggrandizement of the executive branch of government.
2007, that was the subject. he said he would do this, it would be the most transparent administration in history, on and on. beginning with deciding not to release the great photos in which he promised to do, he went back on that promise. he didn't have the most transparent presidency. i'm happy my friends in the press are now getting excited about the president. that is a little bit unfair because some free press groups have been tough on obama. but he use the espionage act in all kinds of ways. he commuted chelsea manning's sentenced today. if that undercuts my argument, i'm sorry, but i wanted to spread that news. this promise of this constitutionalist guy come in many ways, failed. he is leaving donald trump with a more loaded gun when it comes to executive power, then he would have otherwise had. that is the opposite of the promise going in. think about this in terms of the
drug war, something i pay attention to. with not think a guy openly be laughing and anyone who is asking a question about maybe legalizing marijuana or tolerating states who have done so. he immediately passed george w. idings record of rating dispensaries before turning the cheek as colorado and washington legalized. with, i leaves you think, is a jobs big three, stimulus, obamacare, and global warming. is the greatit unknowable. he prevented a great depression. we cannot run the counterfactual. in order to hq's a bit of doubt into the narrative, i can say, if you are looking for people who said at the time that the stimulus, as enacted, would lead
disappointing to japan-style growth, you would have maybe all three of us onstage. in 2009 i ran a cover -- it was probably racist, and i'm sorry for that. the notion that libertarians and anti-stainless people had at the time, if you just throw a bunch of new government spending out, and it is not done in the keynesian way, injected and withdraw it, then we are going to lead to this period of stagnant disappointing growth. the other people were saying, like paul krugman and christina romer, who warned barack obama, if we do not stimulus enough, if we do not do at chilean and-a-half.
that points to the problem with the counterfactual. we just cannot know whether this prevented the great depression or not. i want to believe it did, honestly, because i want the policies that were enacted to be good. but i don't think we can prove them. we cannot base the greatness of a president on a counterfactual. they didn't come close to coming through. obamacare, one third of the country has a choice of one insurer right now. two thirds, the co-ops, have collapsed. it is going to get repealed in a couple of days, or weeks. not obama's fault necessarily, but his role in creating the law as structured made invulnerable to supreme court level, led to the debt spirals that people were worried about. i don't think it is as cracked good as johnloyed presented.
>> [inaudible] 10 more seconds. the biggest contributor to fighting carbon in america has been fracking. [applause] >> ok. 19 minutes for polite conversation between our two antagonist. john, no doubt you want to say a few things. the conversation, freewheeling conversation, such as you suggested. go ahead and speak your piece, that will respond. i thought we were going to do five minutes of conversation and then five minutes. my book is that president obama was an average foreign-policy president. huber, iran, a good success. transformation came on the domestic side. you are just giving
me the flip side of the argument i am making in my book. that is the argument i'm endorsing. a franklinying he is roosevelt on foreign policy, but on domestic policy, he is. right that counterfactual as are hard, but we do make predictions. in 2012, you wrote the true cost of our size of government is more stupid politics and a protracted recession. we talked about how obama spend the time talking about the various things obama needs to invest in to create broad-based growth. it is a basic provision between those of us that see prosperity [indiscernible] recession andthe we have brought broad-based growth. median income grew 5%. one of the highest rates of improvement for average people. so it is not just a matter of counterfactual's. we have evidence the economy is
performing better than people who believed that stimulus thought it would. on obamacare, i don't accept that it is facing repealed. you have a six republican senators expressed concerns or outright opposition to appear without replace. it will never be replaced because republicans had seven years to come up with replace and still have not. without replace, no repeal. i am not giving this law up for dead. analysis of the exchanges and found that you had a one-time price correction in the exchanges because insurers price their premiums way lower than originally forecast. now they are back up to the original level. it is basically stable which is why enrollment increased. you have no signs of a debt spiral. how much more time do i have? there is really no evidence that you have a ratchet in spending from the stimulus.
you had a one-time bump in spending and then it went down. i don't really know why you are saying that it was not stimulus. it was keynesian stimulus, one-time injection of spending that receded, which is why the deficit is a third of the level it was in 2010. trillionwent from 2.7 -- 2.8 trillion to 3.6 or there about in obama's. it has not come below 3.6, as far as i know. >> [inaudible] jonathan: i can address a little bit of the foreign policy. i think you're giving short drift to the things they did well. the iran nuclear deal was an important achievement. >> [inaudible] jonathan: i will do a rebuttal of the comedian, the crowd, i will get everyone. was just a joke.
his arguments are completely ignored. jonathan: exactly. syria is a mess, libya, they saved tens of thousands of people who could off he was saying, i'm going to slaughter them like rats. they saved those people. they didn't have the conditions to put in a stable government afterwards. i'm still glad they did what they did. it did not work out quite as well. i guess i have to disagree to be a great president, as it is commonly defined -- that guy was a great president -- you have to have a huge foreign-policy success. i'm also wondering why a libertarian would say that. who are the great foreign-policy president in american history? biglly the ones who won wars. i don't think you should have to have that foreign-policy achievement to be considered a president who, in the common vernacular, was great.
five minutes to you, matt. as i was saying, spending at the end of george w. bush's term was 2.8 trillion, give or take. obamao 3.6 trillion under . kind of has been in that ballpark ever since. is percentage of gdp. it has gone down since. matt: i am just counting the number. i am also pointing out that barack obama, in his original state of the union address in 2009, devoted, as he done on the campaign, paragraphs talking about the necessity of cutting down the debt. that is what john beats him up the most for in the book, participation in simpson-bowles and debt reduction. i think that was one of the great successes of the presidency.
but barack obama campaigned on a net spending cut. he spent a third of the debate against john mccain talking about not kicking the can down the road on entitlements under his watch in the january 2009 interview. at the end of his presidency, he says we need to expand social security and make benefits more generous. he has yielded to the bernie sanders wing of the party on that. he described george w. bush's expansion of that as ,n-american, when he doubled it $5 trillion to $10 trillion. it has effectively doubled under obama's watch. the congressional budget office 's look at the budget looks like edward much painting. it is grim reading. the next president, and it is donald trump, god help us, is having debte
service in eclipse the amount of money we spend on military spending. that will happen in three years according to the budget office. we are getting to unprecedented levels of indebtedness. for those who don't think that is a problem, i envy how you sleep at night. for the rest of us who know that occasionally interest rates go up, when that moment happens, we will back and say, what did we do? not just during barack obama's presidency but george w. bush's presidency, i see them in tandem . that is a failure. yes, he did try to create this grand bargain, and it did fall apart leading to the sequestration cuts, which is one of the good things to happen. that stimulus ended up being on net a ratchet. plateau of new
spending and we are there. congressional republicans just past $9 trillion in new spending out there. going to hangs over the obama legacy the moment interest rates go up. the main point obama was making about long-term debt was that mostly we have a health care cross problem. they are eating up a larger and larger share of the budget. that was why he became interested in the simpson-bowles plan, as you said. turnedlth care reform out to be in tuttleman reform because medicare was a big part of the changes in obamacare. i know you didn't agree with it when it passed, you said it expands federal responsibility and raises the cost curve, you said the numbers were pulled out of joe biden's can't and will be door by the costs within a euro to. in fact, costs have come in below target. the slowing down and the changes in health care spending has had a dramatic effect on the budget.
in fact, the long-term deficit is below the level that simpson-bowles was targeting. you are sad simpson-bowles failed, but you can be happy that we actually succeeded in the slowdown of health care costs. matt: i am not happy with the long-term outlook of the federal budget. part of that was not just bending that particular cost curve. it was also addressing social security and raising retirement ages, doing things that were the table. donald trump ran screaming against that. and 2013, every single state of the union , every single one mentioned long-term entitlement .eform as a pressing issue that has stopped since then. it is no longer a thing in
two-party politics in america. i think that will come back to bite us. the original thing that you quoted [indiscernible] i will read it, if you want. matt: i think we are good. perhaps you want to elaborate on your point about commissions? matt made the point about fracking really being the main thing that has address that problem. there is no question fracking changes have given us a lot of breeding time to reduce emissions. it is less than half the change in the commissions but it is a big part of it. the degree to which it is a part of a change is reducing is smaller going forward. it is a big part of the initial jump. the degree to which it is contributing to the missions is shrinking. the obamaou think
administration has made wind and solar power viable and competitive in the wave of the future, in terms of real cost-based investment? has that happened? jonathan: i think it has. the $90 billion in the stimulus has yielded tremendous results in terms of making that technology affordable. you are talking 10 times the penetration of these technologies compared with before. in many parts of the country, it is cheaper. the only advantage that coal has, the plans are already built. ,f you are building a new plant it is cheaper to build wind and solar. those are coming down so fast, and an increasing number in those areas, it is wind and solar. tesla is rolling out an all electric car that will be price competitive with gasoline cars in the next two years. a lot of companies are following suit. you are seeing tremendous success in these technologies. they knew they did not have time to just wait on the market on
its own to develop everything because images are rising globally so fast, you have to speed of the adaptation curve. they have had success in getting that. gene: my question to you is, would you grant jonathan's one claim that obama's nuclear deal with iran was a plus? matt: i don't know. i don't think he knows or anyone else. i don't think we can know until five years, 10 years . did they build one or not? we know that it prevented a run-up to hostilities between them. i know a lot of people, myself included, are happy not to see us go to war again. read up a lot of money to one of the nastier regimes in the world, and they has planted it in the usual nasty ways. we don't know. grantuch more willing to and unalloyed good with what obama has done with cuba, with ending restrictions, limiting
restrictions on what americans can do in cuba, which strikes me as a ridiculous policy we had for 50 years. i wish he would've gotten concessions from the other side. i think those policies have been good in the scheme of things. when you are facing a world in which our biggest threat is -- a big threat of spreading islamic terror, the biggest other challenge is the expansion of vladimir putin. i don't think we can say he moved the needle in a very positive direction on those two big challenges. i think the sanctions on russia were tremendously effective. i agree -- i will disagree about obamacare being rolled back. sanctions on russia, probably toast. i don't see donald trump being committed to holding up that sanction regime against putin, to say the least.
but that worked, those were , which a short of war lot of the hots for criticizing obama for not arming ukraine, not using military measures. those were strong economic sanctions that dealt a pretty devastating blow to russia's economy. matt: i want to jump onto the fracking thing. something like 60% of the change in carbon emissions has to do with swapping out energy sources. the biggest part of that is swapping out fracking for coal. that has beenf market driven. obama's war on cole has been quite oversold. fracking got cheaper. he did not get in the way substantially of fracking. i don't think he was holding chewing celebrations on the white house lawn, certainly not a popular topic among democratic parties, particularly in the state we are in. but that point out something with obama emma which will make book a little
more prescient, talking about how libertarians are disappointed with every president until they are out. it is already starting to happen with obama. he will be given credit for stuff that he did not do a lot to do. he will begin credit for gay marriage, which he opposed for a long time, and then let joe biden do the trial balloon. he will be given credit about pot, even though he was terrible on the issue until colorado and washington forced his hand. this is not a small thing. i give him credit for this. he did not step in the way of progress that americans were making on their own, but he did not lead for them. that is also true for fracking. that is important for a president, not to muck things up. i say in my book, i don't give him credit for gay marriage. that was something that was going to happen organically.
she is commonly given credit, but i don't mention that as an achievement. there are a lot of things that he has done that a lot of people don't understand, appreciate. education reform, i did not get to it because i use my time poorly in the opening. that may be something in which we have agreement. in the stimulus, they had a great con race to the top. it was a 9 billion dollar reward for states to reform their systems. the genius of this grant, it only went to the winners. 30 states say, here is what we did, do we went? they say, no, only five of you win. they leverage huge amounts of change and only gave the money to a fraction, so you have this tremendous proliferation of standards, accountability measures, charter schools, and you never talk about it. the reason is teachers unions hate it, and obama needs them to vote. republicans, who may be inclined to like it, will never admit that obama did something that they like. there is tremendous change in
public education. if you follow policy, you will find it is one of the most dramatic improvements you are seeing in so many states. that is something that you will see continued to go on for decades. matt: i'm not sure. ultimately a drop in the bucket in terms of how much stemless money went of two bailout local governments so that they could keep their 80% spending increases from when times were good, taking care of teacher pension obligations. race to the top did change behavior, it is a good thing, i agree with jonathan. is the lasting element of it , by the way, pointed by hillary ran about education reform, which is to say she was steadfastly against it. talking like education like a 1975 liberal, and not in a good way. that speaks to something that we should look at here. a truly successful president,
you cannot always point to the scoreboard on this stuff. but from the time that barack obama took office to when he left office, the democratic party, which he is the most visible figurehead, has lost 60 congresspeople, around 10 senators, 12 governorships, statehouses as well. ness has been discredited as a governing idea under his watch. that part of his legacy points to -- the legacy is ultimately people seeing him him what they want to see and thinking he is still this glamorous character who agrees with me about the stuff i care about. but there is not a lot of lasting institutional reform, good stuff, that is going to last. jonathan: i want to respond to that. the last five presidents have left congress in opposing party control because there is in
natural thermostatic response about which party they support. it works its way out at the local level. one person measured the number of gubernatorial seats in up or down ballot measures, and basically obama is in the middle. this idea that he had an historic collapse is not true. he is right in the middle. the fact that he is at 60% tells you more about what the public things about him. we are going to have people lined up to ask questions. 30 minutes for that. as you are lining up, i want to throw out one question as moderator, as somebody who covers the economy. main question for you, jonathan, with matt commenting. the nonpartisan congressional budget office has been warning for years that the debt is out of control. they keep stating that the direction in which we are going, we could face a fiscal crisis.
as recently as august of last year, they issued the same arning, basically all that obama did, the same warning that we faced a fiscal crisis, the debt is out of control. a 30-year projection. doesn't bother you at all that the danger still exist according to the nonpartisan cbo? jonathan: the best measure we have that is interest rates. when debt starts to crowd out private capital, interest rates rise. that is what happened in the early 1990's, what forced washington to act on the bipartisan budget deal of 1990, the one republicans rolled it against. that is what shaped the modern republican party. george bush said interest rates are going up, we need a budget deal. he goes to democrats and said the rich have to pay their share. bush ultimately agrees. the entire congressional right-wing caucus revolt against
him. since then, they have said we will never make a deal like that. that is the worst thing any president has done. no new taxes is our religion. that is it now and forever. that is an important context, not because i'm try to point the finger, but that tells you those are the circumstances under which you have to, and usually will have to act. that shapes the politics of long-term debt. thatyou have one party refuses on principle to secede to every revenue increase, and obama tried to get them to trade higher revenue for spending cuts -- she went to john boehner in private, in public, super commissions. it is just religion in the republican party. i do not see how it is incumbent on the democrats, when you are looking at the united dates being one of the lowest taxed countries in the advanced world. in fact, if we were simply an average taxed country, our
debt would disappear. the federal reserve has put a pillow over the face of interest rates now for seven years. when we lift the pillow, we are going to wonder what the hell we were doing. [applause] frame your question as a question and tell us who the question is addressed to, if you can. toi would like mr. chiat answer this. i want to put out a few ideas with regard to obamacare that i'd like you to comment on. the question would be, how do you regard these ideas? you defended obama by saying that he succeeded by his own measures, by his own standards. , would argue, for obamacare that he felt very short of his own standards. the cape and first against the
mandate, a hillary clinton idea. campaigns against the mandate in 2008. he thought it was unworkable, was authoritarian. he didn't use that term, but he thought it was restrictive. one. two, the ultimate system included mandates, but they have continued to be deferred by him through executive orders. so he is not even carrying .hrough what the law is saying he is deferring implementation of the law because they are unworkable and would create a political backlash ahead of the 2016 election. three, things like the class act, a long-term care benefit, collapsed before it could be implemented. it was never funded because it was unworkable from a financial standpoint. and on and on, the co-ops .ollapsing he the main thing that
campaigned on was that he was going to transcend politics, these political definitions. not a symbol -- single republican voted for obamacare, the first piece of health care in history that did not have bipartisan support. i would like you to comment -- gene: ok, take it away. jonathan: the main goal of the legislation was to increase access into decrease cost. the class act was a side program that ted kennedy could do, they decided it would not work. the co-ops were a hobby horse kent conrad, a couple of senators. those were never anything close to integral to the loss functioning. that is why i say the law is doing the two main goals that they articulated over and over again which was to bend down the cost curve and increase access to health insurance. true, the republican party
refuses to support this legislation. republicans met before obama's inauguration and planned out a strategy. if we avoid putting our fingerprints on any of his legislation, it will be seen as partisan. that will make it unpopular. among -- that will give us our best chance to regain power. the republicans had come up with a clever tactic, which no one to doer had the guts before. that doesn't mean that doesn't mean a lot is responsible for their choices. mitt romney is the one that set of the prototype for the health care law. mitt romney actually ran on a national version of his health care plan in 2008 and lots of conservatives were totally happy with it. publications were talking about these great things that he could do at the national level. this will give our party a chance to win. once obama embraced the model, they decided these elements, especially the mandate, which romney endorsed, was the most authoritarian thing the government had done.
the republican calculation which proved correct, if they opposed everything obama did, they could drive high levels of opposition. that has continued to but that is something where you have two credit republicans for coming up with a clever strategy. >> in passing the law, it had a mendacity, saying you could keep your doctor, you could keep your insurance, saying a dozen times that premiums were going to go by 2500. >> they went down by more. they went down by 5000. >> i would be glad to look your math. >> because you had the lowest
health care growth in years. this is a victory of the people over the special interests, as though they had outlawed the opposition 521, which they did about the pharmaceutical industry. ast irritated me strongly someone who is following the event at the time. >> i was struck by your 'sference to obama accomplishments in relation to his own standards. let me mention three stories i'm sure you are familiar with -- one is the fast and serious gun program and the second is the wiretapping of james rosen's telephone. the third is the irs targeting tea party groups. what does it say about obama's standards that he says those are not scandals and how can a president be great to claims those things are not scandals? >> and there was no irs
targeting of tea party groups. it was fully investigated. left-wing groups had been investigated by the exact same standards to the exact same degree. a myth that lives on in right wing media. this is a fantasy. it's not true whatsoever. i realize republicans need to have a scandal in their brains to think this happened but this is a nonevent. they found out there was no different treatment of right-wing groups and left-wing groups. is the motto of the forum. >> without adjudicating that claim, you guys seem to have it under control here, i would point out journalists from the --had their photos tapped
phones tapped. the obama administration has been an incredibly disappointing, blocking freedom of information act requests, informationbpoena so that they cough up their sources, cracking down on whistleblowers. all of this would be disappointing for any president, but particularly a president who was showered prematurely, like the nobel peace prize, but about being a wonderful transparency president before he did much of anything and it is a sign he was not that person. >> thanks a lot for doing this. i love that it is two blocks from my house. you are wonderful. i would like for you to touch on race relations in america and how obama was either a leader or not. >> time is up. we are good. [laughter] [applause] >> you could take that first one. the insist that you go.
racehave a chapter on because of the first thing people are going to her member about barack obama. first, i think you was uncertain in how you handled it. you had a case with this misleading video on breitbart that tried to make it appear as though this civil servant was discriminating against people and they cut off the video where they said that's not what she was doing, but obama was so scared by this attack that they fired her before they had all the facts. int was then being uncertain the face of this backlash that they face but over the course of the presidency, they found their footing and it's hard to summarize, but i think what what i tried to argue is that race was not something that happened to obama, but
something he did. he managed to weave the story of racial progress in to the heart of the american story in a way no previous president had. he tells the story of america as a story of progress in which civil rights, the flight -- the fight against slavery is integral to the american story. culture that is going to last for a long time. >> i have found myself in his second term particularly the waynted with which he and his administration in moments of high stress we had. that changes the way we talk about stuff in the media on college campuses. some of the best things the isma administration has done the department of justice investigations into places like ferguson, the facts they have conjured, showing patterns of
policing for profit, prosecutorial abuse, and pointing out a lot of what people are saying about the case at hand is a myth and that's not how it went down. and inere good things many moments, i think the went to race quicker than he did what we could have done in a real moment that we have had and i hope we have but i worry that we don't, the possibility of criminal justice reform. you cannot take a policy and go into someone's heart and twist the key and they stop doing a racist. but what you can do is stop having the federal judiciary and
criminal justice apparatus take eyewitness testimony so seriously. llshit forensic bite mark and things like that. we have known a lot of those reforms. when you take the power away from people who may or may not be racist but may use their power in ways that have disproportionate effects, we go after the power. i feel like a president who is in an awful, very difficult spot to put it mildly when it comes to race relations in this country, when looking at criminal justice reform has made it more about race relations than criminal justice reform in his rhetorical approach to that and i fear that has led to us not taking advantage of this moment to do more than we could have done. [applause] >> just a point of verification on the question.
, sevenight years countries bond, 26,000 bond to doctors without borders hospital being bombed by a 16-year-old a boyan boy and fascinated by our country in the middle east and a yemeni wedding being bombed, how can you reconcile all the things that happen in foreign policy with this president and say this man is great, this man is moral -- she's done things that if i were president, i would press that button as commander-in-chief and kill thousands and thousands of innocent people. >> this does relate to what i did not run on a ratcheting down the war on radical islam. he ran on ratcheting up. if you remember the presidential debate with mccain, he said i'm going to go into pakistan, i'm
osama bin laden and mccain said you can't go into pakistan, that would start a war . he said that's what i'm going to do. he decided he was going to and he did says it would be painless, he did not i thinke were, but there is a persuasive argument to be made that for all the horrors of war, when you are in a war that they have chosen the least terrible path to prosecute. with half a war dozen countries. when we haveroblem forget thewars and drone thing, the president is given a kill list. that is what he is handing over
to donald trump. these handing donald trump a loaded gun. kind of atablished as normal thing that a president will have a kill list and there isn't any territorial integrity that we need respect out there in the world. that is ultimately a dangerous place to be because there will come a time when we are not the only one who control drones out there. don't want a place where weddings will be subject to these types of things. rhetoric onbama's an open immigration policy, he increased restrictions on cuban refugees. cuban refugees tend to vote republican. what do you think of the move? is it a shrewd political move? >> i will take it just to irritate people.
like, youhe castro's want to say is bad. on the other hand, something like 50,000 cubans walked across last.s.-mexico border year. when you get across the border, unlike people from anywhere else, you are given a check, you are given pathway to can ask for you benefits from the welfare state. a lot of cubans, including marco then writing about the abuses of the system. a lot of cubans have been coming across the border and say i'm a refugee, i'm on the clock, i'm going back to havana. it has been a pre-condition from the castro's. at the same time, what they are
doing with this policy is making cuba like venezuela. why can have their response don't we make everyone more like -- jefft i understand flake, the last time i looked is not a democrat and is not a fan of commies and said this is a great move as did some other people as well. as usual, obama does not get a lot from the other end and that is irritating when cuba has cracked down on a lot of people and still has a lot of people in jail. even though it is an immigration restriction, it makes a certain amount of sense. don't want to argue but i do want to point out that matt has shown a lot of integrity. he's not using every answer to score every point he can. i think he is trying to eliminate the audience and i he deserves aay,
lot of credit. >> we feel the love between these two guys. like that makes me feel uncomfortable. -- the gem and earlier to my question about race relations but there's a lot of areas that the a lot of obama was supposed to unite the country. every president says they plan was his bigut this platform. it feels like there's more attention than ever after his presidency. how you see his legacy playing out there? he's at 60% approval now. >> i don't believe polls anymore. >> don't believe polls, but the final polls miss by about 1%. 1%,he polls are off by obama is only 59%.
are not going to find a polling error on a scale that is going to get that wrong. there was an intense racial is asian to the backlash of president obama. i try to make the point in my book that people who oppose them have good ideological reasons to do it and those reasons need to be taken seriously. is demonstrably the case that a major source of oppositionsupport or to him came from race. look at donald trump. look at donald trump. if you think the two party was really about limited government and constitutional principles, if you think that is what was motivating this mass upsurge in hate toward obama, donald trump is the answer. donald trump is the antithesis of all those values.
donald trump won the republican nomination by being the most racist. in fact by being the only racist in the ring. scientists who look at the correlation between racism and politics in the obama era found everything became toialized and the degree which people's racial views correlated with their political views, again i say in the book that there are plenty of times people on the left, people on my point,erlearned this accused people of harboring racial bias or making a statement they could have just as easily made about a white democrat, and i think people on the right have good reason to be aggravated that they are being -- they have the right to have their ideas treated seriously
and not have their motives be interrogated. ,onetheless, on the aggregate if you want to look at the american public as a whole, it is impossible to did i racism became a huge motivating force to the opposition. >> i apologize for all the heckling. >> i love it. it gives me strength. to answer your question, i think one of the more irritating and on theama category of disappointment because of the way he came on the american stage was he was forever portraying what he would describe restful choices and then made a false choice of his own. some would say america should not spend any money doing this and other people say america should spend all the money. i'm going to spend the middle amount. he was the goldilocks guy.
in hisconsistent rhetoric and when he would get way they wouldhe .escribe both sides as soon as you are on the opposite side of an important issue obama was talking about, you discover your position was being caricatured. i would not say as bad as the person waiting around a long form birth certificate, but you are being caricatured. that was irritating whether or not how much credit i want to give him for increasing polarization, we are right now where there isnt a split between the cosmopolitans and the countryside. the city mice and country mice are going in their respective corners right now and they are
going at it in a way that is new in the modern era. it is weird and i don't know how much that would have happened if barack obama was a different person or whatever, but i don't think he rose to the moment in the way he treated people with different points of view. i think you characterized the opposition that way in the moment. mymy friend just took question. i'm a cuban-american and am rarely upset with your response but i take it personally because i am cuban-american. want to go into why do you consistently use the cbo? more importantly, we have agp at 1.2, 1.5 and over 100 million people on federal where -- federal welfare.
you thinkine how president obama is a great president when we have so many people on welfare and the welfare lines inbred lines would be a source for who knows how long. the big thing is -- that's it. that's the big thing. i don't think the cbo is garbage. i think is respected by people on both sides and justifiably so. i use some statistics in my opening statement about the economy and when i did not get promised ifromney his policies reduced taxes and got big government out of the way, they were strangling growth, we would get 6% unemployment. we are under 5% now. unemployment is below 5%.
if you go by mitt romney's standards, we have gone beyond the measure of success. if you look at the measure matt was using, the economy is growing -- >> am going to address your point. i predict the labor flight -- labor force participation rate is at the lowest -- some of it is due to aging and we have the dam boomers, and i'm sorry for insulting you, but they are exiting the workforce and there is reason to believe looking at the disability numbers that toicies have contributed people not reentering the workforce. even as the headline unemployment rate looks shinier right now, the fact of the labor
force participation rate and wages have been flat but they are starting to go up bit, people feel like things have sucked for a while now. that is a real feeling. wasn't there, we would not have an independent socialist come close to winning the democratic party nomination and then who knows with donald trump winning the republican nomination. there's a real sense of economic dissatisfaction. there's a world of difference between 1.2% growth and 3.5% growth and i would put that at the doorstep of obama era economic policies. >> professors reinhardt and regard it a paper about how financial crises lead to deeper recessions than other types of recession. it's going to be much, much worse if you have a financial
crisis because it's much deeper effects. standard, to recover we have had has been unusually strong. of the dozen countries with systemic financial crisis, only to have recover their gdp by 2014 -- the united is in germany. if you look at historical countries that have had the kind of systemic financial crisis, the growth pattern is ranked near the top in that recovery. that does not mean things are always going to be great, but it can be years and years until you recover the standard of living that is lost and it has been bad luck for president obama. unlike roosevelt who took office three years after the trough of took offerion, obama right when we were plunging off the cliff and all he could do
was mitigate the damage and that's not something you're going to get a lot of credit for. >> but it wasn't him who mitigated the damage. >> i'm sorry -- let's have the next question, please. >> think you for your time. my question is for you. i don't know your name -- i'm going to make two points and asked to questions and at basically it. i'm a financial advisor and i think in terms of dollars and cents, everyone is familiar with the concept of net worth. everyone has a number and it might be 10,000, negative 2000, whatever. when you talk about black people than -- black people and
minorities, i've of the opinion that average net worth for black people is lower today than it was in 2008. if you look at black unemployment and other financial indicators, those numbers have not trended in a positive direction. second, with the ferguson stuff, talking about riots and property damage and people destroying buildings, that scares away capital. when you have investors and people say i've want to make some money so i'm going to open tv andalmart, they go on see these raging fires in places these are country and spontaneous situations that pop up and you never know when it's going to happen. if i had a couple of million dollars to throw around, i would not invest my money in a black neighborhood right now. stuff in there is chicago murder rates, but the point i want to make is what about results? it seems black people are not doing well right now and obama
has not had a good effect. do you feel obama was a good leader for the black community? what does the democratic party offer black people and why is donald trump bad for black people? >> that like a half hour worth of responding. let me address -- let me address the obama part. is lower among african-americans that was in 2009. the unemployment rate fell disproportionately among african-americans. theink matt and i agree on obama administration's response to ferguson and policing reform or maybe we don't. you are looking at me curiously. the obama administration went into a lot of these communities, met with stakeholders, purity activists, met with police, found common ground and have
been working community by community and found policing that could be acceptable and legitimate in the community. i think that is mostly positive. he's never endorsed writing. he's condemned writing. endorsed shooting police officers. he has condemned shooting police officers. when the justice department did its ferguson report, they said that hands that don't shoot narrative was not true. they were really honest and said to their supporters what you think there did not happen, but what they found about the predatory practices of the government on the community there and the practices of the police department were well taken points. because they were fair on both sides, the report on all those issues was accepted and they have some success with the solutions. i'm happy they did reports and that they are good, but there's a lot of discussion
about we need to have more discussions and focus groups. we know what to do. one thing that you do is stop the federal government working from local governments to take people's stuff. which wast forfeiture rolled back under eric holder. and loretta lynch rolled it back. what do you think a bad cop is going to do when you have a tool saying i don't like you, jim epstein, you are probably on drugs -- even though i'm not going to charge you with a freaking crime, and going to take your iphone and your bike and fancy camera equipment and share it with my bro's back home and we are going to use that for our own police department. we know it is wrong. we have not changed it at the
federal government will. i'm disappointed the talks have not led to let's just fix this thing and stop getting bad people tools. be deliberative. >> the equitable sharing program is a federal program. in general is handled at the local level. >> you said obama chose the least terrible path with regard to the wars. when the least terrible path be to stop murdering women and children and when do we stop the wars? is anon't think there easy answer to that question. you have a large group that is at war with america in places where they are getting through and killing people at a higher rate. >> it has clearly failed.
when do we pullout? access the counterfactual problem. i don't think if we hospital strikes against al qaeda, we would have a success and could go home. i don't think that's a realistic counterfactual program. i don't think we should be droning people in countries we are not at war with. >> after the orlando massacre, there were a lot of -- that was a freudian slip. there was a lot of commentary about gun rights and obama said we had to clamp down on gun rights, but there was no mention of the terror. i was wondering if thousands the wife of that terrorist has been and i did, how do you feel about his relationship between guns and terrorism and whether or not he addresses the subjects based on what happened?
>> we have to let that question stand because i have my fingers crossed. we are out of time, but you the positive goes first. we have five minutes of submission from jonathan, followed by five minutes of summation from matt. think about how you'll vote. five minutes. jonathan: i have lost the thread. >> you have lost the thread. based on his accompaniments, obama has been a great president. that has been the thread. toathan: they case i try make in the book is that he had some clear successes and foreign policy. he had some questionable situations where it's hard to figure out if there was a better path. it can't be called a success. he didn't have any major failures on foreign policy. domestic policy, he set out to change a lot of areas of government.
and he did what he wanted to do. i know people are talking about trump the enabled the roll it back. that he's discovering that it's much easier said than done. votes toly has the roll back the upper income tax that obama passed. republicans care a lot about it and it doesn't hurt anybody directly. taking away insurance to 20 million people without having a plan to replace it, which they don't, will produce enormous pain. not only the people that would have gotten that care, but to doctors, hospitals, and insurers that are screaming their heads off. something like you did with health care will stand. reforms he put in place on have their own momentum. it will continue. energy, they wind will continue to expand. electric cars will continue to expand. other countries don't want to go back to unlimited carbon
emissions. they responded to the election of trump saying that we are not going to tear up this agreement. we will find a way to work around it. . frank reshaped the finance industry and took away the too big to fail benefit. increased the amount that firms have the hold. reduce the amount of risk. reduce the amount of fraud. you need 60 votes to take that down. education reform is working its way through schools across most states. and it's working. these charter schools that have blossomed, some of them are having extraordinary result. though students won't want those goals taken away. i don't think anybody will do that either. nobody will bring back the 2008 financial crisis. by definition, you can't go back in time and change that. most of what obama did, contrary to what people are saying, will stand the test of time. it will be difficult or
impossible for trump to roll it back. host: thank you. matt, you have five minutes to make your summation. you should know, in case you don't, that i am the type of her's and that a year ago this time i was busy frantically trying to collaborate with lucy steigerwald and ken lane, just a throw to bizarre people names out there. yes, that is obviously for steigerwald. a book titled "every president is terrible." yes, i'm coming from a slightly negative point of view when it comes to assessing president. -- presidents. i have tried to be fair in this presentation. i was a teenager in california near where the western white house was at the time, ronald reagan, as a way of demonstrating that jonathan's
attempt at the premise here. reminding people, obama, presidency, great. same sentence. i would not describe ronald reagan as great. but it's not hard. you don't have to screw up the base or prove a negative if you try to think about the things that jump out at you with ronald reagan. someone who obama was very conscious about trying to emulate. he wanted to have the same impact on american politics as ronald reagan. he read up on them a lot. ronald reagan helped croak inflation. he helped croak the soviet union. the economy ran pretty well for the last six years there. it's not hard to make the case. you see it. it's there. you can dispute parts of it and i would agree with a lot of it, but those are the big ones. with obama, it's that we didn't
prevent the great depression. obama care, which today, it is the first day in which 50% of americans have said ok, maybe i like this thing. faced with the way the repeal and replace hamburger is being made on capitol hill. faced with changing their health peopleatus, as a lot of and during the implementation of obama care found out themselves. but it has never been popular. it is not a widely hailed law. bill clinton was running against this back in the fall. aspects of it. it doesn't make sense. we are proving negatives. on climate, again, we're talking about the biggest impact. the measurable one is not getting in the way of racking -- fracking. whether the paris agreement turns out to be a great thing or a lasting thing, these are things who want to see in the future.
we will find that out. these are in the future. we might also find out that a lot of things that don't seem like a problem now are going to look problematic in the future. dodd frank, although it's a great ill, i'm not so sure. is the reason you can't use your debit card to buy a 40 ounce anymore. because of the micromanagement of interbank fees and these kinds of things. it didn't touch fannie mae and freddie mac. there was a kind of root and branch look of the bigger centers of the financial industry collapse wasn't there. we are not going to see it until the next financial crisis. if you think there's not going to be a next financial isis, i signingint you to the ceremony when george w. bush said, this is the most sweeping reforms we've had since the new deal and the great depression. there will be no more enrons.
we are done. in this shiny new future. will look not just at foreign policy which i don't think has been a success at all. i would characterize, unlike jonathan, libya as a very important failure as well as giving donald trump a loaded gun. we will look five years from now when the next bad thing happens. what did this guy do for us? we will think of that behavior worse and we currently do now. even as we remember the guy who we kind of liked as a dude. host: ok. that closes the debate. [applause] you want to come forward, please look at your cell phones. vote on the resolution. for, against, undecided. >> i give my concession speech now. host: you never know.
these things are very unpredictable. heavyguably have a advantage because the hecklers were against you right away. have a little bit less than five minutes, actually. ok. we are looking at the vote as it is coming in. the polls are still open on the west coast. talk to your neighbor to get some advice. jonathan will be over there signing books as well. those of you who asked questions or didn't get your questions answered can talk to jonathan or matt afterwards. they will stick around. how is it looking in terms of numbers coming in? >> is camille foster in this room?
host: is camille foster in the house? ok. ok. ok. we have verified camille foster is in the. camille, stay where you are. we just want to know if you are in the house. yes. camille foster will be an upcoming debate. will be debating black lives on the campus. i'm going to be an upcoming debater. how do we stand? is a coming through? can you show me the before and after? close the voting. all right. thank you. ok. the vote results. wow. ok. matt welch though
has won the debate. jonathan lost some ground. you lost 9% and started with 31%. it went down to 22. 54% to 75%.om it looks like matt wins the tootsie roll. jonathan will be signing books. jonathan will be signing books. he will be over there. >> i'm sorry 50% of you were ready to think obama was a great president. i wasn't quite getting that vibe. host: we will post that later. jonathan will be selling books over there. to talk to jonathan, we have wine, food. matt will be sticking around if you want to beat up on him.
thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] this congressp: will be the busiest congress we've had in decades. live at 9 p.m. eastern on c-span and c-span.org. listen live on the free c-span radio app. >> this will reports tens of thousands of protesters are expected at demonstrations across the u.s. to rally against president trump on this president day. ralliesresidents day are in chicago, los angeles, washington, d.c., and baltimore. among others. others will be attending in new york city to protest president trump's policies. bushr florida governor jeb
talked recently about leadership and lessons he learned as governor. he is interviewed by his son, the texas land commissioner at the bush presidential library at texas a&m university. >> howdy. everyone, to the george bush presidential library center. i'm david jones, ceo of the library foundation. it is my honor to welcome you and invite you to join me in welcoming the first president of the united states and misses bush. [applause] [cheers and applause]