tv Tonight From Washington CSPAN May 6, 2011 8:00pm-11:00pm EDT
birthday and his legacy of leadership. this is an hour and 10 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, it's my pleasure to introduce as often as a person who needs no introduction, but perhaps a little information anyway. many of you may not realize that he was born, not in manhattan, but born in brooklyn, and somewhere during his formative years, he became a serious yankee fan. [laughter] which i suspect growing up in brooklyn might be the cause for some other kind of award, but this isn't the day for that. [laughter] born in brooklyn, went to manhattan college, went to nyu law school less you think his new york bonafides are not real.
when ronald ragen became president, rudy was an attorney general. much to the prize of some folks went back to new york and while it may have been a surprise to some people and rudy and i did cannot know each other at that time as i look back on his career i realize that my guess is what he was doing was going home to do something, some things for his city that seriously needed doing. he tried the move ya commission trial -- mafia commission trials getting new york out of the clutches of some people who were certainly doing it no favors. he ran for mayor the first time in 1989. he said at that time that if david won, it was going to be more of the same. well, he was 100% right. it was more than of the same, perhaps even worse than before,
so rudy not being a quitter came back four years later, and that time in a landslide, lost the first time by 47,000 votes i think or something like that out of 2 million cast. he came back the next time and won it by better than 50,000, 53,000 my numbers tell me. he then became the first mayor of new york i believe to ever reduce taxes. [laughter] [applause] then seeing that worked pretty well, he did it 22 more times, and put new york on the road to recovery. i've spent over the course of a lifetime quite a bit of time in new york. i will tell you, mayor, that in the early days, in the 60s and 70s when i went to new york, it was my intention to leave as soon as i could get out. [laughter] i noticed after rudy giuliani
had been mayor really only a brief period of time, i neatsed -- my wife is nodding yes -- we noticed a very, very substantial change in the city. rudy giuliani made an enormous difference for that city, and it has never looked back, much thanks to him. there is more to the law than being an academic, being an intellectual. part of the important thing about the law is how you use it, and the reason that new york became as good as it is is because rudy knew how to use the law. the men come to mind, there used to be people when you came out of the lincoln tunnel, they had dirty newspapers and they wiped the windshield and you were afraid not to because god knows what would happen if you did that. he told the police department to arrest them.
they said, we can't do that. he said, find a reason. get it done. that's using the law within the confines of the law. he's good at that. we have today a award winner deserving of this award which mr. mayor is the highest that we give. absolutely deserving of it, and it is our pleasure to present it it to you. i want toed -- i want to do what i always do and that's read the description on the award. it's something that cannot be improved with shoty memories like mine. this award is presented annually to a republican leader in recognition of an accomplishment and leadership for our country. this award recognizes those leaders who protect freedom and the rule of law while upholding republican ideals in the face of
adverse political challenges. our awardee is all of that. mr. mayor, it is my pleasure and honor to present you with this award, and thank you so much for being here. [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] >> thank you very much, david, for that award. it means a great deal to me. i have tremendous admiration for david whose contributions to the republican party and to the health and correct direction of our country are enormous, and it's a great honor to receive
the award from you and to be with all of these republican warriors, there's more republicans in this room than in all of new york city. [laughter] i was the first republican elected mayor of new york city in 25 years. i was the first one to remain a republican in 50. [laughter] it is tough to be a republican in new york. my predecessor republican changed parties while he was mayor, and my successor republican changed parties about two years ago, so i don't know who i go back to. [laughter] for example, this is a city that didn't vote for abraham lincoln. [laughter] you get an idea of how democratic it is. [laughter] i love being a republican mayor of new york city because i got accused once of appointing too
many republicans. well, i appointed all six republicans in new york city. [laughter] i couldn't possibly have appointed too many republicans. i couldn't find any. i used a republican approach to governing. i borrowed a great deal of it from ronald reagan who i know you're especially come men rating at -- honoring at this meeting. the idea we should get government spending under control, and i learned that from having having the honor of working with ronald reagan, and the president appointed me as associate attorney general. after i was appointed but before the con fir ration hearings were completed, i had a breakfast with 19 other people with president reagan and got to know him, and the day that i had that breakfast with him it was the day he was almost assassinated.
i have a picture of my shaking hands with ronald reagan that morning, and, of course, a few hours later he was shot. i spent the rest of that day trying to get him out of the hands the washington police and turned over to the fbi because we were very worried that maybe something would happen to him because the idea of lee harvey oswaled and what happened to him was fresh in everybody's memory, and then william decided that hinkley had to be arraigned in open court before the end of the day along with judge wester, who was the head of the fbi at the time, we had to clear out the courthouse, check is out, make sure there was nobody there, reestablish the number of people that went in, and at about eleven o'clock at night, we had the arraignment in court in the federal courthouse here, and it
was a very strange day having had breakfast early in the morning with president reagan, and there being in court with his attempted asassin, and i always wondered if he was successful, what would have happened to the future direction of this country if we look back on it. i'm sure i'm emotionally biased in favor of president reagan having worked for him as the associate attorney general and united states attorney, but i do believe i'm objective in saying he was the most consequential president since roosevelt, had the most impact on changing the united states and changing the world. liberation of millions of people, most presidents don't get to liberate millions of people. ronald reagan did because he had such a firm strong view on how to deal with communism which was a lot clearer and easier to
understand than his predecessors. he had the conviction that communism was evil which he was not afraid to say, and you had to confront it rather than negotiate with it. the prief thinking -- prief -- prior thinking to communism was we can live with it. he found the idea of coexistence with an ideology and a practice that enslaved millions and millions of people and that also, by the way, had them in possession of nuclear weapons that could be used to destroy the world, that that was just an unacceptable condition for the world, found the idea of mutually assured destruction completely insane. you keep the peace based on the theory that either one of you can destroy the world, therefore neither one of you will unless either one of you is controlled by a maniac in which case you might destroy the world.
every day of his presidency, he had the desire to defeat communism, and if you look at the decisions he made, some of the very, very cor race gas decisions he made, i believe that's the thing that finally ended the soviet union, brought down the berlin wall, and created freedom and the possibility of freedom for millions of people who didn't have it before. most presidents don't get to do that, and that would not have happened with somebody else elected president in 1980 whether it was some other -- whether it was the reelection of jimmy carter or even if another republican was legislated because there were few republicans at that point that had that kind of determined view of how to deal with communism, and his view on the economy was equally strong, and he reordered our economy. we're still reacting to the ideas that ronald reagan first prom -- promulgated when he ran for president in 80. we're still debating that, the
size of government, how large should government be? should the approach to poverty be a government approach or a private sector approach? ronald reagan found the size of government ridiculously large. he was a new deal democrat who converted to republicanism because he thought the new deal, and then finally the great society went so far it was counterproductive. people were being locked into poverty opposed to given a road out of poverty, and he did everything we could to change that which he did during his administration by lowering taxes beginning all of the ideas that eventually led to welfare reform, changing the way in which government interacted with our economy, moveing us much closer 20 a free market -- to a free market economy, and he did something else too. all of that led to a resurgence
of american exceptionalism, of american pride, of the idea that we weren't at the end of the american empire. in the late 1970s, you can go back and look. a lot of books were written and a lot of articles were written and a lot of speeches given about how america was kind of out of gas to be overtaken by japan and other countryings that we have run our course, and we were a country now of limited possibilities. sound familiar; right? [laughter] remember there's people who believe that today in america. in fact, some of them are running america today. [laughter] the idea that we're artery no better than anyone else, we're just another country with our set of problems and our set of
assets or maybe we're not even as good as others, and ronald reagan found that tab totally wrong, not a correct view of this country, and he changed in a very short period of time of how we felt about ourselves, and do you know something, that's the most important thing a leader does. the thing i'm proudest of by being mayor of new york city is not reducing crime which i'm proud of and glad to do it or changing welfare, we moved 6,000 people off of welfare, most of them to work, or changing the tax system and creating surpluses, all of those were building blocks and something bigger than that. when i became mayor of new york city, the "new york times" took a poll, and the poll said 68% of the people in new york city don't want to live in new york city anymore. they want to live somewhere else if they could, and about 65% of
the people in new york city thought new york city was going in the wrong direction. that is the most disturbing thing that can possibly happen because it means that people have started to lose hope, and when people start to lose hope, they don't create great things anymore, and i felt that what i wanted to do was to change that, and by the time i left office, we had a new york city in which roughly the opposite of that, 70% wanted to be there and liked being there and 70% thought new york city was going in the right direction and not the wrong direction, and i often think in new york city with the depressed attitude that we had in the early 1990s would have had a much harder time overcoming as quickly the tremendous damage done to us by the attacks of september 11. it helped new york city, but when we were attacked, we were a strong city, a confident city, an optimistic city, a city that
believed our best days were ahead of us, so the attack was a temporary interruption of that feeling, and the city was able to get back on track very, very quickly. most important thing that a mayor, a governor, a president can do is to reestablish people's belief in themselves. ultimately, they're the ones who create things, do things, they are the ones who produce jobs. they are the ones who invent great medicines or tremendous technologies or the government either hinders that or steps aside and encourages that, and ronald reagan understood that, and this country needs that right now. we need to be reminded that america's best days are not behind us but ahead of us. there's ever reason to be believe that and predict that. there's not at all an irrational prediction. we're still the strongest
economy on earth, still produce the most ideas and processes and the most new ways of dealing with information. we're still the country that has the most positive attitude in the world. think of the wars we fought over the last century. it has to be the first time in the history of a world that a big country like ours sent hundreds of thousands of its young people to die, not to create an empire, not to expand their control of the world. there were great empires before, the roman and british empires, but those empires were created for the benefit of rome and england. what was america doing in the first world war? trying to make the world safer for democracy. what was america doing in the second world war? trying to save the world from
fascism, and what was america doing in vietnam? whether people agree or disagree with the war, what was the motivation for vietnam? to save people from the spread of communism. what is america now doing in the middle east? specifically as we speak right now in libya? we're not, we're not conducting the things that we're doing in iraq and afghanistan and in libya in order to spread the american empire. the only ones i can think of who have thoughts like that is donald trump. [laughter] not that i totally disagree with him. [laughter] wants us to take that oil to pay the bills for the trillion dollars that we spent. there's a certain -- there's a certain logic to that; right? [laughter] that hasn't been the way in our country, but just think about that. that's a very unusual exceptional thing for a country
to do. i can't think of another country that's ever done that before. a country that actually worries about the condition of other people and gives up lives in order to help other people and make the world a safer place for them because we recognize ultimately this is how it benefits, it makes a safer world for us. if you look at what's happened in the last six months, whether it's in tunisia or egypt or libya or syria or i'm sure within iran, the whole set of values that america stands for are now the set of values that these people are demonstrating and protesting for, demanding and revolting for, and in some cases they don't completely understand it. in some cases it's not the full version of what we mean by democracy, but the reality is
somewhere deep in their hearts, they've seen other people live in freedom. they've seen the benefits of what people get living in freedom. they say to themselves why not us? why can't we have that freedom? why can't we have that kind of control over our own lives? why can't we have the ability to have something to say about the way we spend our money? why can't we own property? couldn't possibly be a better time for the ascendants of american ideas and ideals. a couple years ago when president bush said this in his second inaugural address, there was a great deal of skepticism of supporting freedom throughout the world. how did america do that and participate in that? freedom and democracy are inconsistent with the muslim world and inconsistent with the middle east and other parts of the world. president bush understood that that suspect the case. freedom of democracy aren't
limited to religion, not limited to regions of the world. they are desires that exist within the human heart, the human soul, the human brain. a human desire is to have more control over your own life. in order to release that, you have to see examples of it. you have to see that it's possible, and, of course, the internet and the information revolution we live through now makes that information available to everyone. people in china are watching what's happening in the middle east, and don't -- make no mistake about it, it is creating in them the same questions that are created in egypt. why do we live in this kind of oppression? why do we live with a system of law that protects us or be the determining factor about what kind of education our children have or how many children we have rather than having the government decide that for us so
what are these thing portending? it shows for us a future in which more and more countries in this world, more and more places in this world are going to see the american model as the model they want for themselves. it doesn't mean it'll be a straight line in that direction. in many of these cases, there's detours along the way. it is quite possible that in these revolutions we have going on, we're going to have situations like we saw in iran where a dictator is replaced by a worse dictator. that's going to happen. it happened for a period of time. it's not going to happen everywhere. in some places there's significant long term improvement, but the general thrust of the whole process is in our direction, and up stead of worrying about whether america, america is going to be the preimminent power in the
world, the question we should ask ourselves is if america doesn't lead the world, who will? who will do it as well as america? there is nothing arrogant about that. there is nothing to be embarrassed about saying that. that's just a simple reality. with the world -- would the world be better with china leading the world? would america be better with some of these countries still struggling with the idear of a rule of law, freedom, democracy leading the world? i mean, the reality is the world has really had a superpower that has the most vaitions that we -- motivations that we have. doesn't mean we're perfect or don't make terrible mistakes, but in the course of human affairs, this is about as good as it gets, and i think one of the things the country needs badly is reestablishing american
exceptionalism. first, we have to believe it. we have to present it to the world in the right way, not arrogantly, not in a superior way, almost with a sense of humility because none of us deserve what we have in america. we're very lucky to have it. most of the people that have lived on this earth have not had what we have or the opportunities we have, the help that we have, the rights that we have, the possibilities that we have, and it's our obligation, it seems to me to try to share that with the rest of the world, and it's our obligation to ourselves and our children to do that because it is quite correct that if this world were made up of countries that were all democracies, with a rule of law, that's the way we would end a war. democracies don't go to war with each other. full-fledged democracies don't go to war with each other. they date with each other.
sometimes they get angry with each other like when we ban french fries from the united states congress. [laughter] remember? we didn't go to war with france. we ban french fries. [laughter] okay, we can deal with banning french fries or if they want to ban pizza. no, can't ban pizza. [laughter] my grandmother would turn over in her grave if they banned pizza, but the reality is that that is a correct view of what america can contribute, and it is an absolutely correct thing for america to offer that to the world. it doesn't mean we can intervene all the time. it doesn't mean we have the resources to intervene all the time. it does mean we can always help. you can help the spread of freedom and democracy without intervening militarily.
sometimes you have to. that should be the rare occasion. we didn't have to intervene militarily in poland, but poland is now free. how do we do that? we did it by supporting their movement, by giving them moral support, by giving them other forms of support, by giving them information, by giving them ideas about being on their side. that's what we should be doing in iran today. it is inconsistent to me that we would call for the oust of gadhafi who surely has to go, and not call for the ouster of ahmadinejad. gadhafi is a horrible dictator and hobble to his own people. he doesn't pose near a big threat to united states as iran does. gadhafi is basically a neutered foreign leader. he does terrible things to his people, all of which are unacceptable, but the risk
represents to the united states is nothing that ac ahmadinejad presents, and if we are going to be calling for regime changes around the world and in certain places, why not remove some of the most unfriendly dictators while trying to do that and not just see the ones partially friendly or somewhat neutered get removed without taking advantage of the movement to drive out of power those who are truly danger to us. [applause] it would seem to me that one of the things missing right now for america is a clear vision of what our foreign policy should be with regard to all of these movements. it would be very simple to really state what our foreign policies should be. we should support freedom movements all over the world. we should support it with
everything that we can possibly think of short of military intervention, and them we should militarily intervene when horrible things are happening in a country and that also presents a danger to the united states of america. that second element has to be present otherwise we intervene in one-third of the world or one quarter of the world, and the confusion that this administration has shown over the last four or five months about egypt and libya comes because they don't have a clear vision like ronald reagan had about what they want to achieve and why they want to achieve it so when they're in the situations they don't have a clear my philosophy or vision to turn back on that helps theming through figuring it out and how to do it. if you can see it with -- you with see it with mubarak. demonstrations are announced, and we see mubarak is stable.
the president says mubarak is not a dictator. that was announced in the first two or three days, and our policy at that point was we're going to keep mubarak there because we're afraid of what might replace him. then things got worse, pressure grew, and the policy changed from mubarak is stable, mubarak is not a dictator to mubarak must go. without thinking out clearly what might replace mubarak and without knowing what might replace mubarak, and it seemed as if the policy was being made on the fly rather than some kind of a superimposed policy that everyone can understand being used to try to guide us through that situation. then we come to libya, and that starts the same way. demonstrations start in libya, rebellions begin, and our first reaction was we're not going to
intervene because although gadhafi's terrible and does terrible things, there's no clear and present danger to the united states posed by gadhafi, but libya. then as tensions mount, as the arab league decides that gadhafi must go, the president announces that gadhafi must go, but the president hasn't thought out what the implications of that are, and a couple weeks go by as the president decide whether or not to join a no-fly zone that france, england, the arab league, and the united nations all want, and timely we join the no-fly zone, but we still, with all of that, don't have a policy that makes any sense. we actually have a policy that contradicts itself which is why it's very, very hard for our nato allies to follow us because we're not leading. here's our policy.
we've intervened in libya with a no-fly zone to protect the people of libya and particularly the civilian population in libya, but we're not in favor of regime change. we're not going to remove gadhafi. that may happen, but we're not going to do that. now, what are we protecting the people of libya from? if it's not from gadhafi, we're not protecting them from tornadoes or storms or some foreign elements that might come to libya. we're protecting them from gadhafi, so how can you possibly resolve this? how can you possibly end it? how can you follow it and make logical decisions about it because if it's correct, and we're there to protect the people of libya, then we can only succeed in protecting the people of libya by doing what we
say we're not going to do which is remove gadhafi. the only possible way to protect the people of libya is to remove gadhafi because he's the danger to them. our policy is to protect them, but not remove gadhafi, so nobody can understand this. i think there are two -- there would have been two acceptable decisions about libyament decision number one would have been not to intervene on the theory that although it was horrible and terrible and awful what he was doing to his people, this is not directly endangering the united states of america the way assad and ahmadinejad threatens the united states and participated in helping kill americans in iraq. the second decision would have been because of the location of libya being in the middle east, because the middle east is such a tender box and because gadhafi was engaging in such brutal action that could end up
encouraging others to do the same thing, it was necessary for the united states to intervene, but then we should intervene for the purpose of removing him and not intervene with this totally contradicting policy that makes it very hard for people to follow or figure out what are we going to do next? this is the failure of lack of vision, lack of being willing to set forth a goal that people can understand that you're going to have to follow, and this was the greatness really of ronald reagan because his vision was clear. he could articulate itment sometimes you can't always achieve every goal that you want, but when you state it, people know what to rally around, agree, and disagree with you, and we're going to face many of these questions in the next five or six or ten years because this movement is not stopping.
it's not under our control. it shouldn't be. this is happening in the hearts and minds and souls of individual people, and with the information revolution we're going through, this is going to spread throughout the world. what you see in libya, you will see in china. there are 600-700 million people living in poverty in china. why we're so scared of chie ya i can't figure out and why they have the economy in 2016 can only come about if we do everything wrong. right now, we're doing a good job of that. [laughter] if we do everything wrong, then china will be the economy. china has to answer a question that nobody in the history has ever answered yet. somehow between now and 2016, they have to move 600-700 million people out of blinding horrible poverty unknown to anyone in the united states, and they have to continue to have
their economy grow at 8%-10% and still solve that problem. china's economy is build on a false foundation. it's built on a foundation of hundreds of millions of people living in poverty. if we wanted to take half of this country or two-thirds of this country and allow them to live in the kind of poverty that chinese are living in, we would have a gdp that would probably be three times the size of the gdp we have today, except it would be concentrated in the hands of a few people. china has to overcome that and deal with the contradiction of being essentially a free market capitalist economy with an authoritarian political system, and they don't know the answer to it, yet, and that answer may be superimposed on them, and that's a tremendous challenge to have to go through, so america should deal with china.
america should have relations with china. america should try to guide china in the right direction, but not sit here being frightened of them becauseno reason for that. i really think that this next election in 2012 is going to be about whether we can give ourselves the chance of another renaissance for america, a chance of reawakening america, of inspiring us to lead rather than to follow, of being proud of ourselves for the things that are good about us, and have us do what we always do which is we correct ourselves. there's another way in which america is exceptional. america has been the most successful country in society in the history of the world at self-correcting. we recognize sometimes a little late, but always the injustices and the bad things that we're doing, and we straighten them out. we haven't had to have someone else come here and straighten us out in all the years we've been
a republic because we have a system that self-corrects, and there's no reason why we can't do that again, and we do that in the best way human beings ever figured out how to do it by conducting elections. we do it by conducting elections that are as fair as you can possibly make them, and you help us do that. that's why i love the work that republican warriors do. you help us make sure that the elections are fair and honst -- honest. i'll conclude with one story about the election i lost in 1989. about four or five days before the election, when i knew it would be very close, i asked one of my political mentors in a very experienced new york city political figure. i said to him, how many votes do we have to win by to overcome the cheating? [laughter] of course, there used to be a lot of cheating in new york, not
quite like shog, by it was bad. he said 50,000 votes. he said we have to win by 50,000 votes to make up for all the precincts in which there's no poll watchers to make up for all the dead people that vote. that's something i always felt very inadequate. every time i ran, my democratic opponent had a greater ability to appeal to dead people. [laughter] than i did. we had an entire cemetery vote in queens. it was amazing. he said 50,000 votes, and i lost by 47,000 as david said, and i don't know, i mean, that was the era before the 2000 election when you followed the rule of richard nixon which is you don't contest elections. they get -- however they are decided at the box u you leave them alone.
i was a catcher in baseball, got thrown out of too many games where the umpire didn't change his mind to contest the election, but the reality is the second time we ran, we organized 3,000 warriors who went to every polling site in the city along with about 3,000 firefighters and correction officers who volunteered, sometimes the warriors were afraid to go. [laughter] warriors are very smart, but firefighters and correction officers have a much bigger impact when a big bus of illegal voters show up who are now voting for the third time that day, and because they are in contact with each other, they remember seeing them at one precinct and then another, and when the firefighters and the correction officers go up and
say, aren't you the same people that voted two hours ago in another precinct? somehow the bus turns around and goes the other way, and because of that, you know, at least we felt we got an honest result the second time around. that reality goes on in america. it's not correct. it's not right. it's awful. i'm sure there's times in which republicans cheat too. republicans aren't free of vice. it's pretty much equal amount of virtue and vice that goes around, but republicans don't control big cities, and that's where you can get away with it much more than in rural areas and where it makes a bigger difference because the gross vote is higher. we need you. we need you in the next election coming up because i believe the next election will really set the direction of america for a very, very long time if we don't get it right. i thank you very, very much for all you do, and i'm happy to
take any questions that you have. [applause] [applause] sure. >> speaking of presidential -- >> wait for the mic. >> excuse me. speaking of presidential elections and the necessity of beating obama and as a giuliani supporter in the last election, is there any possibility you would consider a run? [applause] >> sure, but not right now. i enjoy the debate last night so much -- i'm kidding. [laughter] i will sure think about it, but not yet.
it's too early, and i want to see how it all develops and my major goal is to elect a republican in 2012, and if it turns out i'm the best one to do that, then i could probably be talked into doing it or convince myself to do it. if i thought somebody else had a better chance to do it, then i would be a very enthusiastic supporter of someone else. let's see how it all develops. luckily this is developing much later than last time so we'll be able to make a decision to that a little closer in time when the election takes place. i remember in 2007, by this time we had 12 republican candidates. i had lunch today with john mccain, and he and i ran against each other last time, and we were good friends, came out of it good friends, and i announced if i was not running, i'd support him. my staff got very angry when i
said that, but the reality is that in 2007, we were disabilitying issues that ultimately had no relevance to the relevance in 2008 because it was so -- i remember our debates were about immigration. they were about -- they were about stem cell research. they were about just a whole host of issues, very little about the economy. i went through i think 11 debates. they maybe asked five questions about the economy. a lot of questions about iraq as you would imagine because at the time the president first decided on the surge and the democrats were in favor of purling out of iraq and republicans were mostly in favor of the surge, but not everyone. the election was decided on the economy, and we didn't debate that at all. we didn't conduct our primary
around, well, who would be the best candidate to guide our economy? you know, that wasn't even a thought on our minds so i think this year it's developing later and it should help and we'll get a better idea of who can be the best candidate in the general election, and we'll have to do that. you have to win general elections, not just primaries. >> mayor? >> thank you very much. [applause] >> we are now fortunate, the icing on the cake as it were, we have with us to my right i see the current chairman of the republican national committee, a man whom i've come to know over the last couple of years, very well, a man who made a very hard decision frankly when he decided to run for chairman this time,
fortunately for all of us, he made the right decision. he ran a vigorous forthright campaign, led for every ballot, one going away. the day that he took office, he began to repair what needed to be repaired. frankly, there was a lot that needed to be repaired, but certainly not the least was our finances and the confidence of our major donors. he started this, i guess the election was over on a saturday, and he started that on a sunday. i talked to some of those people, and i know he already accomplished much of that, and i know given his tireless effort and his abilities, i should say when they ran for the chairmanship he was chairman of the state party of wisconsin,
and i think all of us can be rightly proud of wisconsin in its most recent supreme court election, the election of a freshman senator and the election of a very vigorous governor whose doing the things that we very much need to have done. all of that happened on the watch of chairman reincepriebus. i would be proud if you would join me and tell us how you did it and what you're going to do next. [applause] [applause] >> well, good afternoon. i hope to try to keep remarks brief, but i did want to thank
colita and the mayor, david, jc, larry for having me this afternoon, but i do have to say to david, a person who i think is really led the iron sea through many years, obviously, four years as general counsel and just really a life counsel really to the rnc and to me. i appreciate him. he checks in often, finds out what's going on, gives me advice, and i appreciate people like that that take you under their wing and their statesman to our party, so thank you, david. [applause] thank you very much. well, it's true, my name is reinc priebus. i know it's a bizarre name. i promise you i'm as normal as they come. my son's name is jack. my daughter is grace.
i got reince. it what happens when a greek and a -- get married. it's a disaster. [laughter] i had a lapel pin once. i did some fund raising in orlando, and someone pulled my lapel sticker off and said, look at this, if you take the vowels out, the first thing you get is rnc, and it gets better, and the last thing you get is prbs. you know, this is made for me, this job. [laughter] obviously the cheese heads have had a pretty good run, and we won't talk about the packers, but later on i mention a few of the cheese heads as i walk through some short remarks for
you today. it's obviously a great thing to be back with you. i was here in grand rapids when you had your meeting a year ago, and today you're celebrating ronde reagan -- ronald reagan the 100th birthday, and it's obviously an honor to be alongside of america's mayor, mayor rudy giuliani. he said i like fred thompson, he plays me on tv. [laughter] i know how dedicated this group is to voter integrity. [laughter] i know how important you are ensuring voter integrity and that our elections are fair. all of you are familiar with the election laws in wisconsin because there's a test case of how bad elections can be run, but with our new governor scott walker, i think we're ready to
change that. you've always done -- [applause] i can tell you as chairman of the party, you've always done a great job of sending us the best and the brightest into our state assisting efforts in wisconsin, making sure that we can do everything that we possibly could do to help run our elections as fairly and as accurately as possible. ronald reagan obviously is your honoree for your meeting. he charmed us with his humor and blessed us with his leadership. my task as chairman of this party is to help elect a republican president who shares ronald reagan's vision, his vision of an america that removes the government's intrusive obstacles to opportunity, an america built on principle and purpose, an america that is strong, safe, and free.
that is the america ronald reagan created, and i fear that is the america we're losing with each passing day under our president barak obama, and that's what -- [applause] and that's what i want to talk to you a little bit about today. there's no doubt about it. the president is a gifted politician, but good politics do not inherently yield good policies. good speeches do not create good jobs, and winning debates does not implicitly mean that you're winning the future. the president says that he wants an america to live within its means. the president says we need to reduce the deficit and address the debt ceiling. the president says that we need to reduce wasteful washington spending. i agree. we all agree.
this debate in washington, the president has said a lot of things, but here's the problem. the results don't match the rhetoric. the president says, and he says, and he says, but this is what we've seen. every day washington borrows roughly $4.5 billion just to pay its bills. 43 cents on every dollar spent in america is borrowed. when my children are my age, get this, when my son jack is 6 who is my age, we will spend 43 crepts on every dollar made in america to run the federal government, and the past two years, nondefense discretionary spending has increased almost 25%. now, how many families in america have had their own
personal budgets increase 25%? total federal spending as a percentage to gdp will rise from roughly 25% of where it is today to 40% 30 years from now in 2040, and if we do nothing, we just someday in the current trajectory, give speeches, ignore reality, in 2040, our national debt will equal twice, twice the size of our entire economy, and that is the economic definition of bankruptcy. on top of it all, medicare itself will be bankruptcy in nine years. this is america. this is the greatest nation the world has ever known, and it is a nation that is going broke. as a matter of principle, a government that loses its
sovereignty to its bondholders cannot possibly guarantee prosperity or freedom. a government that buries the next generation under an avalanche of debt cannot claim any vees taj of the moral high ground, and a government that stifles economic growth with excessive taxation, litigation, and regulation cannot create a competitive climate for economic expansion, and at the end of the day, a government that is controlled by china cannot possibly compete with china. [applause] the facts are as staggering as they are unsustainable, and they constitute more than just a political case against president obama. they tews -- constitute an economic case
against president obama. make no mistake, the battle we are in is more than just financial. the battle that we're in is the fundamental battle about freedom, opportunity, and self-determination. ask yourself, do you think that we're winning the future? for the first time in many years, more americans believe that the next generation, your kids and my kids will be worse off than this generation. on the day after the government had this scare that we were going to shut down the government, the president made a special trip, do you remember? to the lincoln memorial, and stood in front of the monument to announce with pride that the lincoln memorial, ladies and gentlemen, will stay open. well, this debate is not about keeping the lincoln memorial
open. this debate is not about keeping the washington monument open. this debate is about keeping america open. it's about creating an economic climate that will facilitate demonstrative growth and encourage american business owners to keep doing business in america, not overseas. this is a debate about making an america that creates opportunity, not an america that facilitates dependency. a few weeks ago, the president took a second shot at proposing a budget. remember, it was a speech. [laughter] a budget that even if the speech was a budget would do little to address the crisis we're facing. this was a political speech, and
clearly our president, barak obama, is willing to sacrifice the future for short term political gain. sure, we all know the president can talk about hope all he wants, but here's the problem. hope suspect hiring in america. -- hope isn't hiring in america, and more alarming than anything, we learned recently that the president's economic advisers privately urged standards not to lower its outlook on the united states from stable to negative status. their argument? obama's advisers say the s and p was underestimating the ability of politicians in washington to fashion a compromise to curve deficits, that a change in ratings was not needed at this time because the debt was manageable, and the administration had a viable plan in the works.
s and p ignored them. i'm no economist, but i know the importance of having good credit. we all do. america's create just went from stable to negative. americans have not only seen, but they felt the consequences of barak obama's america, and as runlet -- ronald reagan said, don't be afraid to see what you see. i believe, like i'm sure a lot of you, that we're in a battle for freedom in america. the same battle of freedom that founded our country is the same battle of freedom that james madison reaffirmed in the bill of rights, the same battle of freedom that founded our party in 1854 in ripen wisconsin, of
i ran for chairman of this party because i'm concerned about the future of this country. i know that we have a battle to fight. i know that we have to save america and that is why i ran for the chairman of the party. we are the gormley organization in america that can coordinate our ground operation, our election day operation, our phone calls, door-to-door absentee ballot, we're the only entity in america that can take over operation and coordinate with a presidential candidate. i believe that all of us in this room have been blessed in different ways, everyone of us. but in order for all of us, because you're with me, right? we have a battle for freedom to fight but in order for us to do that, in order for us to win to make obama a one-term president and save our country, we need to work together, and that's why i'm here, number one to say thank you, but i'm also here to
last night five republican candidates for president debated in south carolina. ceq roll call columnist craig crawford gave his reaction on the washington journal. this is 45 minutes. >> host: so, craig crawford, what have we learned last night that the gop debate?es. >> guest: the most famousaul person there was ron paul. [laughter] o i think there are af lot of neww candidates introduced teo the public in that debate lastthe night, and thing about these early debates, when the big names don't participate, you get to meet new people. herman kang surprised me. group frankoup, the luntz had on fox overwhelmingly supported him.
the father of godfather pizza. he is probably a longshot, obviously. he is articulate and plainspeaking. he is like ross perot. like donald trump without the craz >> saying that ron paul comes the closest to president closest to obama. guest: drudge did a screaming headline on the poll. i saw this yesterday. ron paul has been around a long time. he has a feverish following. he raised a million dollars -- i
learned his supporters are very supportive. i think that voice, that libertarian voice, questioning the role of government, is a worthy debate to have. a lot of americans believe this. a lot of things were said that wouldn't work in a general election. it is good to have that debate. the ytaley say things the short- shots aren't afraid to talk about. host: we talk about 2012 presidential politics. the republican field. divided by political
affiliation. twitter.com/cpsanwj. craig crawford, of cq rolecall. guest: he used his time to introduce himself. a lot of republicans are flocking to him. the big story was people who aren't there. mitch daniels, newt gingrich. this wasn't a real debate for the real race. when we get to the crux of it -- we see a different dynamic.
host: were insiders surprised by haley barber's decision? guest: this reminds me of 1992, when clinton got in because the big names didn't. clinton only ran because al gore chose not to. mario cuomo did not get in. they were afraid of george bush. they thought he was a shoe-in. clinton proved them wrong. it is looking like that on the repubican silican side. host: crawford is the guest. first tweet for them. if kaine and paul go third
party, is this a risk? guest: i would say this would help obama. host: i think that tweeter meant that. guest: i think that would be a big boost for obama. they have enough juice going so that they'd stay in the party. host: first call. clearwater, florida. republican line. caller: ihavi have two issues. i will be concise as ican. this thing with the assassination, it is an old diversion.tric ok of he leans on his strategists on his staff, on how to divert the
thoughts of the american people, or the fact we sold our country to china. and we owe everybody substantial amounds of money. astrnterest ins nomical. maybe obama thought he should press the panic button and see, what could we do that would be considered monumental enough to divert the american minds off the financial situations. guest: you say obasama's killin gis g is a diversion, but he
spent months planning this. he was quite methodical about this. whenever a president is trying to divert the public, the public will pay attention to what they want to. host: 90% approval rating for bush afte rthr the gulf war. obama has gotten a bounce from the killing of bin laden. it is a poll that showas the high single digits, 9% for obama's approval rating.
the same george w. bush got after capturing saddam. if that holds, and that is the bump, it is surprising. the iraq war didn't have the consensus for hussein than fo r this. the iraq war was fairly unpopular. bump.d expect a grat eeater it will fade into memory. it helped him in the short run. he may have more umph and on the military front -- it will be hard to say he is weak kneed. a lot of people had said that. host: i get your reaction from
chris in 'bama. anyone who can't kiss grover's ring -- guest: the issue is powerful. none of these republicans who are serious and seriously taken are off the tax -- are on the wrong side of the tax issue. you have governors here with tax records, gary johnson of new mexico. i thought he was very weak. i was surprised. his record should be fairly appealing, other than wanting to legalize marijuana. but i thought he was a little
unsteady in that debate. a bad he's got a pretty good track record but to explain to republicans his desire to legalize marijuana, and i think that he brings a sort of combination of a businessman background and successful governorship that is sairly appealing to voters, buti i just thought his delivery lasi night was halting and on steady
questions, which he wasn't. but that always looks bad. host: waukegan, illinois, betty, democrat. caller: i'm a 72-year-old african-american born in greenville, south carolina, my memory is so horrible i don't go back for family reunions. the debate was good to see the republicans have an african-american there. i wish donald trump had a come. thank you, have a good day. guest: that is an -- i'm glad you bring that up. as i watched herman cain it
would be if they responded to the first black president with their own black nominee. he is a long shot because he has no political background though he tries to make an asset out of that because they elect on experience and how is that work being out. i think he has a strong style. i was talking about gary johnson being so unsteady. herman herman cain seemed like the more veteran politician in the room. he has been a talk show host so he had a little practice. host: others have suggested allen west and herman cain be the g.o. pfpp. party. did anyone ask candidates if they approved of new g.o.p. governor attacks on public
employees and public commons? guest: they got into that a little bit. that was asked, the whole wisconsin thing. i didn't -- there were not any real memorable responses. most of the focus was in that section on unions. and whether there was union bashing. the candidates seemed to back away from wanting to attack unions. one questioner made the point in the past republicans of reagan notably succeeded by appealing to union voters, not necessarily on union issues but getting those votes and going out of their way to bash unions might, looking at history, might not be too productive. host: next call is baton rouge, louisiana, roy, republican. caller: i find it very interesting that ron paul is so
consistent with the audiences at the debates. he got applause almost on every answer. guest: even for heroin. caller: it seems to me that there are -- they are determined to make him out to be a caricature almost like a pariah. he is never taken seriously to be the republican nominee. i don't get it. if he got on stage and debated any of the democratic nominees, which will be obama, i think he would hold his own and he would get the american people to see that the primary cause of our financial woes is the way we conduct our monetary policy by giving our money -- print being our money and regulating to private bankers. if we don't cut the head off the snake it is never going to
change because we will never be sure of our own situation. why don't they take ron paul seriously? guest: i think because he is so radical to conventional thinking in washington. he is taken seriously by a lot of voters but i agree, i think the media establishment and washington political establishment -- when he says things like abolishing the federal reserve, that seems radical to washington thinking. i think he is threatening to them. there is a lot of threatening talk from ron paul to the conventional establishment media and political, so there is an effort to marginalize him. but i take him seriously, i always have. i think the financial meltdown really plays into his hands. that is an example of the thing he had been talking about for years. host: do you think ron paul has
a chance of getting the nomination? guest: i'm beginning to think this could be a year when republican voters figure, kind of like a goldwater year, where they figure obama is going to win anyway, we are going to make a statement. we are going to send somebody that scares the hole out of everybody -- cares the hell out of everybody because we know we can't win. that might not be a conscious vote on the part of voters but when goldwater was nominated that was really the birth of the conservative movement in the republican party. many republicans knew they couldn't win that election but decided if we are not going to win we are going to make a statement and gold water is our man and he went out there and said -- what was it? violence in the name of liberty is no vice or something like that. maybe one of the callers
remembers. host: do you think it is president obama will be re-elected? guest: i think -- i don't think it is inevitable but as i look at the republican field, it feels like that. and obama is a great politician. when he is on the stump he can turn it up. here is why i think he gets re-elected. there were a lot of new voters, minority, ethic voters who came out it droves in 2008 to elect him. they disappeared in the midterm election. you look at a lot of races around the country, virginia, north carolina, they didn't show up, which is why democrats did so poorly. my theory is when he is on the ballot again they come back. all about obama. they are not into the democratic par party.
unless they are disillusioned. but i don't think so. i think there is a wave of voters that come back for him. host: could ralph nader do damage on the left to president obama? guest: i think a lot of democrats have become save have i to the point that ralph nader harm in the past. i have talked to a lot of voters who regretted voting for him because they realize they elected republicans because of that. host: we have this tweet. woodbine, maryland, jordan on the independent line. we are talking 2012 presidential politics. caller: i'm a serioustifirst-ti. my statement is more about marginalizing candidates such as
ron paul when he polled above paul leand cnn showed him the bt against obama and he raised almost a million dollars yesterday alone so why isn't he a serious contender? guest: i think he might be taken more serious this time. i think the media in the past marginalized him but those factors that you mentioned are plain to see. he has been around long enough. what comes with that, though, when you are not marginalized and taken seriously is more scrutiny. and there are things in his past i don't want to delve into some of that controversial stuff abo about some of the racist things that were said way back when on his behalf mostly, it seemed.
but there are a lot of things that were touched on. but from what i have seen he can mostly survive scrutiny, i gu s guess. unless there is something we don't know. he has been around long enough i think we know mostly everything there is to know. host: i have this tweet. was this sponsored by the south carolina tea party? guest: he was taking the 10 commandments out of alabama. i thought he would run last time. that is when he was better known. i think the tea party is at a point where they need to reach out to some people that are more credible who actually get their and broad en support. host: 3400 tweets in --
baltimore, democrat on with craig crawford talking politics. caller: hello. you mentioned this briefly earlier. i think someone tweeted about grover norquest i think the new house republicans had to sign a pledge where they would not raise taxes and new senators. my question to you -- i didn't watch that debate -- i wanted to verify whoever runs on the republican side, i can't imagine the republicans not touching the tax taxes, period. i want to verify if you think that whoever is the nominee for the republican party would have
to sign a pledge not to raise taxes if they are going to be representing the republican party for 2012. guest: well, the trouble with that is, you know, george w. bush sr. famously said no new tax taxes, didn't say he wouldn't raise the old ones but everyone took that to mean he would never raise taxes. and when he did that is one of the biggest factors in his losing re-election. and circumstances change, so any candidate who has a real shot at winning who doesn't feel like he doesn't have to sign that pledge is not going to sign it because they don't want to bind themselves if circumstances chan change. cost them some votes, but i think a strong candidate of the republican party can win without signing
that pledge. host: i have this tweet. from ohio, republican line. caller: good morning. i have a statement more than a question. first of all, i was waiting as a republican american voter and i said let's see if we can stand president i la like obama because i won't vote for him because when i call the white house comment line and his secretary laughs, i call and compliment him like hit and strike and 21st century warfare in libya and what he did with osama but he is still a democrat and i believe sarah palin can beat him. we did great last night. like i told president obama on the comment line if i had my
way, it would be sarah palin and mitch daniels and that is who he would face in 2012. look like sarah palin is going to run though. host: you don't see it at all? guest: the best sign to me was i don't think she went to new hampshire on the become tour that. would have been a no-brainer when she was touring for her new book. she didn't schedule a stop in new hampshire. that suggests to me she is not serious about running for president. in the polling, for such a big name in the republican party, she does surprisingly poor numbers in the polls of republican voters given her attention. it suggests to me the media is more interested in lower as a candidate. host: this is diane from new
hampshire with her e-mail. guest: the problem that candidates face, the better known candidates, the well known candidates, face in the early debates is if they go to them -- i'm saying this is their thinking, i don't necessarily agree -- if they go to them they draw more attention to the lesser known candidates. there is more coverage. so a tim pawlenty gives more attention if they go and their name recognition is already so high they don't need the debate for the exposure. that is the calculus that goes in it. i happen to think mitt romney made a big mistake by not going because this was in south carolina and south carolinians,
the republican party is very strong and tightknit and i'm guessing they took offense of him not coming and that is a critical state in the republican primary process. even though it is not in the first tier of iowa and new hampshi hampshire, south carolina is the ratifier of whoever the nominee will become. that was a about -- that was a bad state to skip. host: what else have you heard about money raising among the republicans? guest: the congressional and senate committees haven't done as well as democrats, i believe, in the last i saw. i think republicans in the last midterm did pretty well. but what really plays into the republican hands is this supreme court decision allowing
corporations to basically just spend all they want. that money really flowed to republicans in the midterm election. host: what about the presidential, the potential presidential candidate? guest: when you look at who has the track record, mitt romney can raise a lot of money. i don't know about mitch daniels but i get the impression a lot of big money folks are interested in him, the indiana governor. and ron paul just has this phenomenal ability to push a button on the internet and raise a million dollars. of course, that is the big change in fund-raising in politics is how, if somebody catches fire, they can scoop up a lot of cash on the web. host: joan in randolph, vermont, e-mails in -- guest: yes, i wouldn't disagree
with that. i don't know, watching him last night i thought maybe his time has come. he got some laughs, too. i have never heard applause for legalizing heroin, which he kind of made a joke about it, but it was a pretty funny moment. he is getting more comfortable on the stage in these things. host: next call is rutland, vermont. caller: thank you for taking my call. good morning, mr. crawford. i think you referred to paul as a radical when it comes to the fed. i remind you that president kennedy started to print u.s. not notes. he printed i think the $5 bill and another denomination and
there's been a lot of conspiracy theory and that he was killed. but when you buck the most powerful people in the world that might be the real reason he was assassinated because he started to print u.s. notes and said we didn't need the fed. so i consider ron paul to be currently o currently -- courageous in fact committing suicide. guest: i'm very interested in some of his ideas. he makes me think. that is the thing about ron paul, every time he listen he has such a different world view compared to most conventional politicia politicians. most conventional world politicians don't make me think and he does. host: we have this tweet. early.well, it is
'm just not going to write anybody off. from herman cain and ron paul down. politics can take some wild turns. people wrote off barack obama and bill clinton early on because they were not known and barack had that funny name and so on. that is the beauty of our primary system. you have these little states -- io iowa, new hampshire and south carolina -- little states where unknown people can get known real fast. and if they are strong and appealing and if they win in those early states, then in this world you can become famous overnight. host: we have a recent piece annualizing the state breakdown talking about fact that some of the states, battle ground states that president obama won in
2008, now have republican governors and republican legislato legislators. why does it matter that new hampshire elected republicans in 2010 to replace their democrats and other states elected republicans for governor? does -- how does this help the republican field? guest: i think it enthuses and we will have big turn i couldn't tells. host: john kasick being governor makes a difference? guest: yes. governors have networks. when your party has the governorship, you have a ready-made organization that has been successful and the thing about political organizations, it is like your body, it needs
exercise. so, they need to exercise them between their own elections and presidential campaigns can catch on to that. host: amy a republican in bethesda, maryland. caller: i really think obama is going to be there the next give years. we will have a republican run house and maybe a republican run senate. the reason i say that is watching the debate yesterday, just like oh gosh going that you another 18 months of political spe speak. tim pawlenty was the typical politician and rick santorum is a little crazy to me. i actually think gary johnson, even though his delivery was halting, he actually would appeal to moderate republicans and democrats. and ron paul, i think, is really
exciting. he could never win. and herman cain can't. so, even though you raise the governor issue, i feel that now that medicare is off the table, a lot of the issue about the budget and a lot of seniors who came out to vote for republicans in 2010 are going to take a look at this cutting of medicare and swing back to democrats. so i really don't think i want to go through the same looking at politicians just speaking out of two sides of their mouth with the other big names that were not there. host: we got the point. guest: i like her point. i think that is possible that we could see obama re-elected and a republican run senate. i put some money on that happening. because there is a market for these republican ideas. i don't think they can sell them in the presidential election
necessarily. i think the medicare, wanting to privatize medicare and the budget that is half passed on republican votes could have been a huge mistake for the because those y senior voters are not going to forget that. as this caller suggested, it is going to be on their minds when they consider voting for republicans. host: with the house g.o.p. seeming to back down from paul medicare changing budget, is he -- he had been talked about as a potential veep candidate. is he political ly in-fighting still today? gues guest: i think he gets points for courage as the caller said about ron paul on the federal
reserve. when you take on these sacred cows you get points for courage. but the trouble for him is it is all he's known for. i think he is a very strong future star and maybe now star for the republican party. i have known him for many years. but this being all you are known for is privatizing medicare and then kathleen sebelius said you are going to kill the seniors, they will die if ryan's bill becomes law, this is the sort of thing that can hang on to you for a long time. i think that he needs to get better known about other things real fast. host: we have this tweet.
guest: well, he cut a lot of budgets in that state and he was popular for it. that is something on the republican side they just can't change is this abortion issue. you just cannot get the republican nomination without being pro-life it seems. host: call from tennessee, republican. caller: there is a candidate who is not in the race and i think think he might have a chance and that is general bush. he was a successful governor in florida. i know the bush name seems to be a down trend but of what happened to obama and other things i think the bush name is pretty good. i think that general bush is more of a moderate. his wife is hispanic. i wish they would find some way to talk him into doing that because i think he would be a formidable candidate. >> you will have to talk him
into that because he is not convinced. i'm from florida and grew up there and started my career there and i have talked to a few republicans who know him well and he's dead set against it. host: no chance? guest: i agree, i think he would be a very strong candidate and was a strong governor. was controversial on some things. but he is not an insanely ambitious person. i think that he is enjoying himself and doing what he is doing and doesn't believe this would be his year. the bush family, i don't think, is completely convinced that their name is fully restored enough to elect another president. host: the g.o.p. shot themselves in the foot by voting to kill medicare. the campaign ads write themselves. mark, independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call.
eason mitt romney didn't appear in south carolina is because that is the bible belt and he is a moral and that is what is -- mormon and that will kill him. guest: he can't avoid that forever. that is a big part of the republican primary process. i thought he got over that issue in 2008. he cracked a couple of jokes and said that he believed in marriage between a man and a woman and a woman and a woman and i think he dealt with that well enough that i don't think it is as much of a factor. his bigger issue is having passed what was essentially obama care in massachusetts. i think that is another thing he didn't want to get faced with in the debate. he new if he went to that debate been a target. you notice none of the candidates attacked each other
because there was nobody -- there were no targets. there was nobody in the room who was a big enough threat to anyone else that they needed to. had romney been there he probably would have gotten hammered on that issue. host: how do you see john hunts pha huntsman playing into this? guest: i don't. i really don't. i looked at the filings. there a there are like almost 20 official candidates. one of them, i forget his name right now, is a self-declared vampire in florida. i would like to see him get in the debate. host: but you are not seeing john huntsman even though he left his ambassadorship in china? guest: i think i saw him on c-span.
i thought hee seemed more like a bureaucrat to me who is not going to break through. i wish it were not true. we only talk about charisma. a lot of these candidates -- i mean, mitch daniels is in the boring. i hate to say that because i do not think you have to be a song and dance man to be a good president. at that leads to candidates like people like donald trump getting all of the focus. there is no denying -- host: do you think he is going to run? guest: i don't think so. that one story about the older woman that he tried to throw her
out of her house because he wanted to build a parking lot for limousines. how many stores like that does he want out? host: you are the last call for craig crawford. caller: hi. i think the nation is split. what the party stands for is what can look at. if all of the republicans want to be on the top shelf, we are going back to the bush administration with karl rove a and sarah palin, going clear back to the cuckoo clocks klan. -- ku klux klan. look at it all. they are not for the people. host: thank you. guest: i think the republican party -- this could be a real ground-building campaign for
them. they are less afraid to talk about some of their beliefs like the medicare thing. what i like about the republican party in this race is i think they have m little courage and their lack of confidence about beating obama that it is going to be like a laboratory year for them to talk about a lot of ideas. even though they got hammered in 1964, that was the beginning of what really a revolution in the republican party that led to ronald reagan and everything else. at that race was hugely important to them. >> this tweet coming in -- guest: no.
anyone see any democrat, serious, certainly, talking about running against obama. that could be a bad thing. he needs a sparring partner because he will walk through those primaries getting very little attention. all of the attention will be on the republicans if he has no one to run against. i do not even know if kucinich is going to. he is talking about changing states. without anybody out there for deep dates, how are you going to have a presidential debate on the democratic side if there is only one candidate? i do not see anyone serious even toying
mix the look of this week's elections in canada. monday canadian voters handed the conservative party and a majority of seats in parliament and gave the new democratic party its best results ever with 30% of the vote. both liberal leader michael and bloc leader lost their seats and leaders to down as the party leaders. this program comes from cpac, canada's public affairs channel. ♪
>> also on the show tonight we will talk to the old when president now an mp about the democrats as the new official opposition. our panel will look into what to expect from stevan harpers majority government in the weeks to come and we will talk to a specialist on pakistan and afghanistan about the killing of osama bin laden and what it might mean in the war against terrorism. but we start tonight with prime minister steven harper new today paid a visit to the governor david johnston to notify him of his intention of forming the next government. they met for about a half an hour and the prime minister reportedly told the governor general he wouldn't be ready to swear in a new cabinet by the mid month. >> can you tell us what the parliament is coming back and with a pretty might be? >> we haven't set a date yet.
>> what is the purpose today? >> we are here to form a government and will be getting back shortly. >> there is the prime minister steven harper and you heard him he was the residence earlier today. if steven harper has a majority government to the it is partly due to the efforts of jason kenney who was the man responsible for the conservative party so-called of reach strategy to the ethnic community. that strategy drew a lot of attention just before the election when an internal party document surfaced outlining the approach to targeting the so-called ethnic and very ethnic rioting. monday in many of the writings especially the greater toronto area get them the majority government. i'm joined now by jason in calgary. thanks very much for taking the time. i want to start without the smoke is clear i want to ask you and get your appraisal, your
evaluation of how your ethnic outreach efforts in this election specifically how successful do you think they were? >> based on all the evidence they were very successful. this isn't just about me. it's been a team effort led by the prime minister. he identified that as a central priority for the government the need to reflect the diversity of the country and the sort of electoral coalition and ended the policies and the caucus and i think we succeeded in that. to back up a step in the canada elections survey which is a huge survey done in tens of thousands of exit polls by a group of academics in 2004 the liberals had a 50-point lead over the conservatives among the minority voters. that's not mrs. raleigh all the immigrants and it excludes some people who aren't new canadians but at least the visible minority canadians the and
50-point advantage. the 2006 campaign went down to about a 20-point advantage. in the 08 campaign it was a dead heat, and i am certain that both among the visible minority and canadians and those born abroad that we have a significantly on election day this year. >> can you give us a break on? you have been actively in all of these, which one do you think you'll want? because in terms of the success of the policy would stick the greater toronto area contributing to the ridings they made in the greater toronto area. >> i think that's fair to say. i think you can just basically look of the demography of the ridings that we won and you will see that most of them are very diverse. to give you one example, richmond british columbia now was reelected but her margin windber yep, from 49% to 58% bid is worth 70% of the constituents of asian origin which means she
clearly won a strong majority of the votes. we one in vancouver south i think 45, 46% of the vote and about over two-thirds of the asian origin. similarly, you can look in -- half the population was born abroad. huge south asian communities and we want some of those with large margins like to 10,000 vote margin. these are right and as we were losing by 20,000 votes in 2006. >> we follow the candidates use it several days there one of the candidates said this will outreach program to the court of with ethnic canadians you described breaking the liberal monopoly if you will over the new canadian voters and their votes. if that's the case to you still need this program for the next election? do you still need to be targeting and having a concerted effort and documents leaked to the media about targeting ethnic
voters? because a lot of people see treat us like canadians and to achieve the success you've had and level the playing field do you still need this? >> let me say a word about this notion of targeting. i find that's liberals criticism of our efforts to reach out more than hypocritical, actually pretty distasteful because they are the party that for so long monopolized and in the of taking for granted the cultural communities. when you talk about -- when conservatives did the liberals refer to it as a nefarious targeting. wendi with its nation-building. what it is is simply marketing. political party like anyone needs to communicate the message in a way that is relevant to the target audience is and in some cases there are many canadians who consume most of their information and mom offical languages. so we go to the media outlets and talk to them about issues that matter to them and we reach out to the events and i don't
think there's anything nefarious about that is just a natural part of the democratic politics and one of the reasons we need this breakthrough is because the liberals took for granted new canadians and cultural communities for so long and that is why we are not going to give up. that is why we will probably go even harder in working toward the present and the values of new canadians. let me make one core point. our approach hasn't been based on the kind of what some people call pandering or community specific appeals. it's been based on a fundamentally honest pitch which is vote your value. if you believe in that hard work should be rewarded for lower taxes you are probably conservative. if you believe in the importance of the family as an institution respect for tradition and religious freedom, more and order your probably conservative that's where we find the obvious alignment between most new canadians and the conservative party and that's why we saw this breakthrough in this campaign.
>> looking ahead to what to ask specific questions you are in immigration ministry and we may be having the shuffle soon but let's look at the new vintage of the majority government will to be introducing the bill to crack down on human smuggling this is the one posed by the opposition parties the city created the categories of refugees and violated the charter right. will you be reintroducing that to describe the nasa rifles and prevent them from getting immigrant status? >> it's in our platform, primm mr., committed to introducing it is a pretty piece of legislation and i think it's important to back on that sooner rather than later given the possibility of the summer travel season for the smuggling syndicates. estimate what we ask another question we mentioned in their ridings and springdale with your candidate who's now 40 lacked. he would seem to be publicly he employed three people, he was employed in three people to help people in the constituency with their visa application.
i'm just wondering, what do you think that the candidate, he's not an mp but a candidate helping people with visa applications? sola people said that is enticing people to vote for him because he's offering a service. what do you make of it? >> what i make of it is first let's be clear. decisions on the visa applications are always and only made by professional members of the canadian public service and officers, they are not made by the minister mp's or candidates, his case look like the brampton area where you have a lot of folks who are new canadians from the have family and friends coming to visit, the number one issue is immigration case work, and as a candidate from any party going door to door is inevitably going to get flooded with requests for information
and help. they can say i'm sorry i'm just here to ask for your vote and not going to provide you with any answers to your question or they can try to be helpful in a legitimate way and people can under our law provide a voluntary advice to focus on immigration related matters as long as they don't take payment and it's perfectly legitimate and legal and i think the candidates from all parties probably do that. candidates are there to try to be helpful to people and i don't think that he should be blamed or criticized for having been helpful. one of the reasons a lot of people are going to him as they are -- the local the incumbent wasn't helpful. i've heard that in that constituency and she lost by 2,000 boat so that appears to be a judgment on her performance. ..
to provide this service to constituents in the middle of an election campaign or made up of an election campaign? is that proper? i heard he is concerned he denied they had three people working on these applications. i mean, you're involved in regulating immigration consultants. is that proper? >> again, it is. entirely permissible under the legislation for individuals to provide voluntary advice to
folks on their immigration matters. if they actually are paid, then they have to be a licensed member of the designated regulatory body and in this case people were not being paid. >> in terms of the candidate in an election, does that also enter the realm of is there a quid pro quo for understanding your getting >> there's going to be about coming up. >> i think we need to be clear about this. these decisions are made in an unfettered way by independent public service. i cannot express an opinion. there's no way that it can do that. people come to the candidate and say look, my brother or sister in law is applied for a visa. there's nothing wrong with someone who has some degree of expertise are. say well, typically you need to include the following kind of
information, make sure you don't hire a cook at consultant inheres the list of the regulated license per immigration practitioners. providing that information is entirely legitimate in our legal framework. >> there isn't that kennedy cannot be helpful to constituents. >> a lot of people talked and you'll have 40 years for majority government. is it going to be hard to do with socially conservative issues, the one we're talking about during the campaign, is that going to be harder for you to resist pressures on your party, to reopen questions like that? >> look, our policy, our platform has been clear that we are not proposing legislation as a government on abortion and not we've had that discussion i think the last three or four election campaign from our
policy platform has been clear about that. you know, from time to time, their private member bills that richard is. what would my generally call moral issues to utilize euthanasia in the last parliament and the tradition has always been in all parties to have free votes on most matters. we expect candidates to declare such issues in front of their constituents. i would vote against such a bill. their night be mps that will be bringing forward dose of that nature and i hope they would be dealt with on a free vote basis. >> will be speaking over them next the month in years. congratulations on your personal but drake and we'll talk to you again. thanks a lot. >> thanks very much, mark. one of the other stories in the election was the orange waves or the orange crush as it's been called and the searching popularity which on monday became the official opposition.
the party gained 66 new seats, up to 102 that shattered all previous records. most of those came from québec. 58 and almost every new mp is a first-time parliamentarian. while an exception to the rule is picking nash. she is no newcomer to politics. she is party president and won her seat back. peggy nash joins me from our studios in toronto appeared first of all, congratulations on winning back hyde park. you're in toronto. you're the writing in 2006 to 2008. you just want it back rod kennedy. are you part of this orange crush as they called it? >> well, thank you for your congratulations and i certainly believe this national campaign helped us locally all across toronto. jack's positive demeanor throughout the campaign, his appeal for people to reach out to change, to believe we can do
better in canada and also our platform that was pragmatic and measured and spoke to the need for greater affordability for canadian families, getting concrete things done. not all played a very big role in our win in hyde park. >> you are also party president. are you going to step down? what comes next? to take up responsibilities of mp. he stay on as president? >> i won't. we have a convention coming up next month in that time will have election for party president and i will not run again. i'll have enough to do with my mp duties. >> as the party president, but also one of the few new mps who is not totally new mp, you have any concerns about level of experience above the 60 these 65 new mps? one as a teenager. several are in 20th.
davol not had any chance to be in parliament yet. any concern about the experience they might come? >> listen, it's a very good thing to bring new energy and creativity in new ideas and imagination to federal politics. we keep talking about how we engage young people were just elected a member of young people. i think that's a terrific thing. not everybody has to have the same experience. we all have a group of mps who represent the diversity of canadians and will bring a variety of goods and of course new people getting a leg up for the first time will have a learning curve. i certainly have a learning curve when i was first delayed tape and that's just part of any new position that anyone would come into. those of us who have more experience will reach out and work within. there are people getting elected for the first time who are
leaders, who are community leaders, aboriginal leaders, and team legal minds, people who have a variety of political experience. so just because someone is being elected for the first time as a member of parliament doesn't mean they don't bring a wealth of other experience with them. >> granted your point about youth come you are hearing the grumblings and some writings in some circles people are saying some of these to themselves expect to be elected and to really get the time to becoming mp. some people say are they going to be there fully engaged in their new functions? people who didn't turn out for candidates to these aren't in the writing. do you think there's going to be a cracking of the weapon a reading of the act with a few of them are your all singing from the same page? >> you know, whenever you have a mood for change, and people
could elect it may be who didn't think they had a chance of being alike did, that can happen. but i have a lot of confidence in the ability of those who are select it to run, people who met the test of getting voters to endorse them and i fully expect that all of the members of parliament will be fully engaged, will turn their attention to the very demanding job of representing their constituencies and will perform to the best of their ability. i'm very excited about it. i think the diversity of experiences that we have come at the age differential i think it's great to have young people engaged in politics and now coming in to our federal parliament will be rested fresh air. i think it does reflect change and that's what canadian voters for her.
>> in your last and the snp, you were the industries credit. you were involved in the effort that brought the foreign takeover. i know you've continued at a big victory. the government decided to block the foreign takeover. would you be interested in the industry portfolio has industry critic again? >> well, that's not my decision obviously an attempt to the leadership of the party now to decide who fits best in which portfolio. i certainly did enjoy the work of industry critic and i am thrilled today but donald detweiler, which at the time people thought could not survive unless it was taken over by a u.s. military company today is thriving to so many high skilled workers and creating some of the cutting-edge best base technology anywhere in the
world, absolutely unique. it's a canadian success story and something i was very proud to play a small part in. but i'm sure whatever i'm called on to do and whatever portfolio, whatever capacity will be exciting as well and there is a lot of work to do. we're all going to blow up our sleeves and try to get as much achieved for canadians as we possibly can in the upcoming parliament. >> of i.t. reflectors obviously been so much celebration in your ranks about the incredible precedent set for your party. 102 members. the factors compared to the last time he sat in parliament, you're now in a majority government in navy official opposition, but she won't have anywhere near the leverage to stop the government on major issues because it is the majority government. is it a bittersweet achievement achieving status but having a majority parliament? >> no, i don't think so.
i'm terrifically proud of the campaign we ran end of what we've achieved. it's absolutely breathtaking to see the number of new democrat mps reelect bid right across this country and having been in a much smaller caucus, i have seen firsthand the role that the democrats can play in the house of commons. the mcdonald's detweiler story is one example and you know, we have committed. it's been very clear we will work with whatever parliament canadians elect to get them done for canadian families and will try to reach out to conservatives. we'll try to reach out to other party members there's always leave to build or just to get things done. we don't write anybody off because of their party strake and i know certainly jack
in particular in ontario sora does needed in order order to win. so in a lot of fire writings, there is a conservative core of about 30% and when the liberal sword of plurality gets eaten from the left as well, we lost a lot of good members of parliament. >> what does that mean? and orange wave in popularity, what does that mean? as you know, all those go down
to defeat. what does that mean about the party's message? how do you differentiate two parties of the opposition won from the other? which you take from that? >> it wasn't as much a message that i think we had a really good platform that appeals to a lot of traditional mvp strategic voters. i think i later performed extremely well, but i think with the excitement around the rise of the nep and supporters decided it would be okay for them to vote ndp this time. i think particularly glenn pearson munden felt that it is that a lot of calls from people saying my word, we thought you'd be okay even if we voted mvp and it's clear after writing that just wasn't the case. >> on this wondering, is that in with the opposite?
people felt clear to vote ndp. do you think they didn't want the ndp? >> they felt free to vote ndp combined a conservative, like in so many of the writings in toronto as well as in london, glenn pearson's writing with the number of people that voted, it allows conservatives to come true. >> are there any other deeper questions being asked for example of people went to the ndp, many people explained deeper questions being asked of yourselves and your leader and the caucus and that is what is the right time for an election? >> well, it's interesting. i was go back to the st. clair avenue because the patty shop owner said to me in the first week we would have lost all of his rights were parliament if you hadn't taken down this government that was in contempt of parliament.
i think it was extraordinarily important that this was an election that was a very necessary election. i think you go? two previous elections were not necessary. the election in 2008 of stephen harper and the opportunistic collection both jack lake in stephen harper in 2005, six. besides if you care about a parliamentary democracy, i don't think people can second guess all they want. i think most of us would've felt very uncomfortable when there's been two speaker rulings on contempt that if we as parliamentarians have to stick a far right and our ability to hold government to account, 35 days, 36 days is not a lot of time in which to teach civic one-to-one. unfortunately. unfortunately too many canadians think they elected president
watch cnn and i think when you actually go on the street and talk to people about government, inserted smashed together and they don't really understand the comments must actually have the ability to hold government to account and obviously this is a very concerning thing for those of us to think on back to a majority of a government who has to play by the rules. so we will now have four years to explain to canadians how it's supposed to work and hopefully we'll get our act together as a little party of canada with the grassroots and back in touch with that kind of civic engagement -- citizen engagement that will allow to really become developed in democracy and how are covering. >> what is it going to take
getting back to the grassroots? i heard the party president pain is still a question as to when you hold the leadership in convention, but ever attacks about rebuilding. what will it take to rebuild historic lows? what is it going to take? >> i think this election has shown a letter very motivated liberals and 398 ridings in the country. governor dean spoke to a couple of conventions ago about the democratic 50 state solution. we need a three-way solution, where liberals are regardless of they live feel comfortable and proud to be liberals, but we also need to be able to engage the people care about things we care about by having a practical sort of prudent approach to the economy as well as being able to look after one another in a better way. they're working in harder and
harder and we need again to engage all of the people who care about things, but the people working in the food banks, the people who care about the environment and affordable housing, we've got two over these next years you will to explain that they should feel very comfortable with us and that we will listen to them and be able to harvest their good ideas and put them into our public policy. bottom-up. >> my point is just hearing you say what you just been saying for 37 days. you had a developed platform. you had a leader who arguably is very articulate and it didn't sell people have turned to the ndp. what is missing? how are you going to reinvent yourselves? you just spent the last election campaign. and this wondering what the new elements going to be. >> the new element is it's pretty tough to do and what we
have to show us the real two-way accountability to citizens between now and the next election and not have to show we're listening and we do think very differently in terms of bottom-up using the whole team is supposed to this sort of -- this campaign in which most of the announcers show 70% of the coverage was about calling. another 10, 20% about writing misadventures in horse races in which you and i asked. when i was rendering against peter kent in 2006. this is no time apparently to discuss policy and we've got to do a much better job killing the bill to make sure people are ready to discuss policy and actually look at what's on offer from each kind of government as opposed to this kind of horserace polling superficial stuff that obviously we ended up
failing in our ability to perceive canadian during that time why what we were putting on offer we felt was a better offer. >> the next nitro question that comes up announced he was stepping down. one of the first orders of business either short-term or longer terms, i don't know what you've heard in how long that might take. any names you'd like to throw forward? even yourself are you considering a? >> i am not considering it, but i think you're quite right about whether it's in the short or long term. i think what we will do next wednesday is to pick an interim leader. i think we as party members want to see as the constitution says for five months from now. the constitution is "the national" executive has to meet within 27 days and then set a date within five months to pick
a new leader. i think there's a lot of a lot of people are thinking now with scott for years but maybe that's too fast and a lot of the rebuilding needs to take place and i think a number of people are trying to figure out if the motion at that time would allow the interim leader to stay longer in order to put off what always ends up a sort of civil war when it comes to leadership races, but also the fact that we've got to get away from this sort of messiah complex that choosing a leader can come in and ride to victory without the foundations in place within the party. >> have you built a foundation? this is the leadership protest has preceded rebuilding because of their turnaround we hear about rebuilding and a leader
comes on and what you're seeing is the site to see rebuilding before leader comes on? >> i think that's what were saying. certainly when we went into the leadership race after the 2008 election, i had dug ferguson cochaired the change commission. there are a lot of really good things. we did cross-country roundtables and there's a lot of things that haven't been implemented to the need to let the party have a look at that and see if there's other things we can do that looks at the health of associations and process and make sure that members of our party don't have some potted plants at a rally, but actually have ideas that will be put into better policy, better ideas in terms of this genuine
relationship thing that membership could have more influence. >> last question briefly. i know you're just down the road nearby average was quoted as discussions should be underway. they shouldn't be taboo. but as discussions about uniting forces left of center or progressive forces. what is your opinion about that? did that also include discussions with people in the mvp party? >> well, i tank bob has articulated that people are talking about it in any way, most of us feel that we have to actually have a real role as a liberal arty and canada with the proper values in terms of prudent economics and compassion after one another. we are right on some things and not ideologies and we have a role to play and being able to
go forward with the mandate we've been given in terms of constitution and the truth liberal value shared across the country. you just have to dodge the liberals in our barda. we are liberals for a reason they are proud to be liberal. we have to look at all kinds of things including electoral reform, alternative votes. there are many, many things that are -- that are sort of the consequence of the system that others are talking about long before we actually end up with any conversation which i think most people feel is a long way off and probably not the optimal outcome for the party. i think on a policy conference or the things professor kennan wants to express his more
interesting and as we see with the u.k. does, there's probably a lot of things to progressive parties have in common is worth discussing, but i don't think that these governments. >> on that note, it's going to be a long process. i look forward to speaking with you again. congratulations on your victory monday night. >> can you make very much. >> we are going to finish now with the landscape of two members of the press gallery. for the winnipeg free press. peter batson and joey tinney, welcome to the show. i have to ask you. we've had maybe two days, so i'm going to ask you some pain which is basically elicited all sorts of answers at the last two days. what stands out in terms of the election, what stands out the most to you? there's so many things you can seize upon. >> i actually think for me it
was about. i knew the ndp were going to do well. i did not expect the black to be reduced to less than official status and we were going to do well. i was actually quite floored by that. and the liberals followed a little more than anticipated. i knew they were also going to get reduced quite significantly, but i don't know how many people predicted they would get 34 seats. >> me too with the same selection was unbelievable and even the leader that can be seen as the most popular is now no more. it's a private citizen now and doesn't want anything to do with the media. and that result will change dramatically the dynamics here in ottawa. we don't have federal dynamics and forces who are backend
callback. >> i get a palpable sense, especially journalists who dealt with how many years now. >> here is a man who was so ideas of the french media and a joke in a pithy line or whatever, no party status, nothing. >> the budget will be reduced considerably because the subsidy they get to the majority. they will have financial troubles, programs along the way, so difficult times. >> and you weigh in on something and after that there's a segue to what are you expecting? >> yeah, i was going to say essentially therefore independent mps. they don't have official party status. but that very few questions at all. for a lot of canadians, from things i hear particularly from the west, they're actually quite happy about it because they see
they've never wanted to separate his voice and a national parliament. they wanted only federalist there. will be interesting than the new dynamic is that they have never been in this none of limelight before. they change away from any separatist talk is going to be huge investment. >> some people have said there are people who describe themselves and some of them have actually voted yes in the referendum so they may actually move things around the caucus. what are you expecting from a harper majority government? you mention political funding. >> yes, most immediate issue will be to have the cabinet obviously that will be formed in the next 10 days and from the throne to start the session which will be very short and then the budget they're covering
the table in march was not voted on but reject it for three opposition parties. i expect to see as much in the come back in full force in september. >> harper has been promising the same budget. they're suggesting he may include in the budget changes to political party financing, removing subsidy to political parties. >> eyeshadow be exactly the same because equipment, says that a lot of people wonder why wasn't this in your budget a week ago? some of that may be like some of the money for health care, 6% said the money was in the budget, but wasn't talked about anywhere. the thing i'm looking for from this government is to see what in the last parliament in minority was so negative and tomas and we're still seeing commanders still struggling to get in the last couple of days since the election, but they have the majority now. they don't have to look over
their shoulder that they're going to be defeated. they are even saying this is going to change how they behave and act. it will be less confrontational and i would love it if that's true. i look a little skeptical because it's very brand and the people that are there. >> yeah, i was going to say 2.2 million for québec because they promised to solve this before september 15. we have it in the budget in the next months. but i also expect the tories to be an adequate manner because i think it would solve -- >> self-preservation? >> i think the fact that it they are not fighting for survival
next week for trying to find an election at the mr. harper will have been a bit more. i would say the tone -- >> how about the question that considers the two of three arrested states that journalists coming to think there's going to be any changes? very parsimonious dealing with giving out information. >> mr. harper's indication will answer more questions. but he did actually answer more questions before that and was far more relaxed, dodoma pass, was and is controlled before the campaign and i think we'll see a little bit more relaxing, but they got here this way. they're controlling the message on the one, how they kept increasing, so i don't expect to see a lot of relaxing. >> obviously the big question in the future of the liberals is to talk about possible discussion with the ndp or the left of center progressive forces. some liberals are amusing that.
karl talking about rebuilding. whatever could be watching for? >> for the past 24 hours, and abusive, which is he wanted to read on an interim basis. >> that's knocking them out of the running. >> he's got interest to promote his pushing for mr. berger to lead the party for about 18 months, 12 to 18 months. that means the liberal party would not have new for 18 months. also the labor party broke and they spend about 21 million. they have less money to pay that. >> i heard the president yesterday they don't want to have a real leadership race.
>> this is a party searching for a leader for how many years now? so they can't have one immediately. if they rush into it, belarusian with earlier problems they've been having any needed time to rebuild a look at what they did wrong, why voters have done this and said no, we don't want them in the opposition anymore. they've a lot of work to do with both searching and they can't do it quickly. >> caroline benefit just raised a point and she said she claims if you do an analysis of media coverage, this election campaign says 70% were concerned the race of 20% i think of leaders or something like that was focused on policy and platforms and i guess their frustration that i sense from her was that was a very elaborate platform that were spelled out in trying to articulate. >> it didn't work.
was it a leader who was crucified before he even started? >> i think that's the case. it was for two years by the tories and did leave some kind of impression to try to find out within 35 days come you can't do it. you can't reverse such an attack for two years and 35 days. i know he would make a new impression,. >> i think that's definitely true. i think you can't undo two years and a month. this is not possible. i think the new reality for campaign, but they release platform on day eight and it got a lot of coverage. in the first week they talked about the learning password and there is a take on twitter friends could do like the idea. once they have the platform that they've talked about, then we moved on and nothing was new and
the seiko you need something news worthy. it's hard to keep that dialogue going. >> i just think that to win a set down, he warned troops about the resources available to a party to crucify and use opponents and maybe this time around it will be the mvp. is this inevitable? >> i always remember the day he took over as later he sat in the press gallery and that was worse. the biggest problem the liberals had and they are running these ads. they never responded here they probably didn't have the money to respond. for two years they were packed with that same they were not even visiting.
he was going to lead us to america more than canada and he never really heard anything from him until the selection. you can't fight that. if the conservatives start to type the next leader, they have to respond right away >> i agree with that. somebody was trying to fight a tank with a slingshot. you have to put their best efforts in fighting this type pics. >> we have to get back into the trenches and sell your connection to people. that's what you seem to be suggesting. >> you have to do that. the liberals have gotten away for a while and they seem to understand the have to get back on the ground and run up those associations. >> if he had done that the first
or he was elected that may have had an issue, a bigger impact, but at the time you what to do that you dirty been defined. >> on that note, obvious way will be watching the new cabinet that comes than two weeks from now. we still don't have a date of return of parliament. >> it will probably be made 30th. >> i don't think he knows that. >> stay tuned. thank you for coming in and sharing your thoughts. >> and that's all the time we have for this edition. thanks for watching.
>> this week on "q&a," carol guzy, four-time pulitzer prize-winning photographer for the "washington post." >> host: carol guzy, can you remember the first time he thought about being a photographer? >> it's like he was yesterday. i got into nursing school and a community college in bethlehem, pennsylvania and nursing didn't feel quite right in an old boyfriend gave me as three-millimeter camera to play with. the first time the black-and-white print came up was one of the most magical moment i've ever experienced and it was clearly my defining moment where he pretty much decided at that point i was going to these take the risk is that a photography. c-span: you've had for pulitzer prizes. how often is that happened in the history of journalism? >> guest: never as far as i've heard.
c-span: you just won one. would you like winning and how is import messages some in your profession? >> guest: is such a prestigious honor, but it's always bittersweet because it tends to be for stories where you can celebrate personally because it's such a horrible disaster that your work is being honored for her. it's kind of a catch-22 situation. c-span: let's look at the video of you getting the award. i mean come you don't get the word at the "washington post" newsroom, but the announcement in your two colleagues. >> so, "washington post" wednesday pulitzer prize or breaking news photography. carol guzy, nikki kahn and ricky carioti. [applause] many of you remember the scene on the news last year in january 12th we had -- we
received word of a massive earthquake in haiti. we'll be at the sketches information, but we have the understanding every time tragedy strikes haiti, the u.s. gets involved as it has for generation upon generation. the newspaper was filled with images, website and photo galleries for millions of parts. >> there is a haitian proverb that says when you visit he will break your heart and when you leave he won't take back all the pieces. i've wept for haiti a thousand times over my years in my first trip to the to value being. nothing to do for sound power of a haitian heart has to endure every day and especially during the latest devastating tragedy. >> i don't have a prepared speech, but i'd like to thank everyone in the newsroom and my six editors that work with me on this. >> this is pretty amazing. two hours of sleep is a lot because carol was always out there working and you felt
guilty for sleeping. so we just kept talking away on their incredible circumstances. that's a privilege to share. c-span: how do you work together when you are on the scene like 80 with the three of you? >> brickey went later and nikki and i were together, but it was no communication basically and my cell phone didn't even work. what kind of cross paths occasionally at the hotel and it was so chaotic we are pretty much off the narrow direction a lot of time trying to collaborate with the reporter, get the pictures back in once in a while say hello. c-span: comedy tent city than tahiti? >> guest: i started when i worked at the "miami herald,"
the first job i had i covered the haiti neighborhood in miami and i became very interested and started when he was still in power and for over a decade it was almost like an obsession remission. i relentlessly covered pd. c-span: 1980 to 1988 to now, "washington post." let's look at photographs. these are the photographs that won this year's pulitzer for her photography and if you can remember, tell us who took what picture and where was this? >> guest: this was mickey's picture actually. a little back story, michael disabled who was an amazing person who manages with dignity and heart inhumanity and we started together at the "miami herald" taking pictures and we shared our first pulitzer for
the slide and now i'm sharing this so i don't know what the odds are for that, but it's quite amazing. c-span: who took this? >> guest: that's mine. it's hard to look at that. it was a sea of bodies. it's kind of indescribable. i shot a few frames and then i moved on because of the unpublishable. it was very telling because of the numbers now for 300,000 people who died in the tragedy but it's hard to imagine. this was mickey's first trip on a porch or from one of the old folks homes down there. the elderly and children tend to disaster country and suffered the most in this picture breaks my heart probably more than anything in the whole package. c-span: did you ask them to take their picture like that? >> guest: in haiti, people --
in my experience in haiti, people are so open to photographs in journalism and there doesn't seem to be the same sort of restrictions or words about the press than many other levels. in a situation like this, presidents are really concerned about getting the word out in the need was so great that i think we realize we had a role that was important to the welfare. c-span: a picture of defeat. this woman dead? >> guest: yeah, anybody can do one little high heel on and off. i can't look at these pictures without crying. c-span: did you take it? >> guest: yeah, it's my picture and it just kind of speaks to the moment time for everyone as people were going about their daily lives and their pretty little high heels, who knows, maybe she was just walking and carrying her child
in the earth trembled and life was altered forever. this is my picture as well. the first day we were there. a school collapsed in gerard and there were school children in uniforms crushed at their desk and this young lady came and started weeping and my translator that i can see the sea but i can pull them out. she do her cell phone the rubble willing and it's hard to imagine -- it's one thing being killed instantly 18, but for the folks left behind, the loss is so tremendous. and this was -- this was a few weeks afterwards, after the earthquake where rescue groups and international groups were trying to help the sick and hungry and injured. c-span: this is two dozen eight? >> guest: no, this is 10. and this is mickey's picture,
another ranting picture, the innocents in that little child, bruised and battered. i don't know that anyone could look at that cannot be moved moved by it. c-span: how do you do this when you're confronted with? would you do with your mind? >> guest: i think for me, every photographer is different but the camera is a shield. help lake anyone who has to confront the situations regularly. you have to do your job and you have to take pictures and be able to transcends that. is a delayed reaction. >> rather shy. >> can't hide behind the camera. this is very uncomfortable. this picture was taken weeks after when they were still pulling bodies out of the rubble
and those bodies were r.d. decomposing. and last night you were still smelling the stench of death everywhere and bodies lying in the street. c-span: the one thing we have not been there and looked at it you just mentioned the smell. is that something you never forget? >> because in your nostrils and never goes away. it's part of this whole tremendous experience, just the ash in the air and the smell of bodies. c-span: have all these pictures been published? cc company pictures to get to one is published? >> guest: everybody hates to admit. that committee recalled that film. but i shoot an awful lot of pictures. i do want to hesitate because i believe the moment is everything in the picture. so i take the pictures.
c-span: what about this one? >> guest: that ran on the front page of the post. that's the same school the little girl crushed at her desk that i was talking about before. these were haitians survivors that were going in trying to reach a teacher that was trapped in the rubble. eventually our driver gave him the car back and that's how they ended up saving the teacher later that day. that's the heartbreaking picture that generated discussion from readers because some people felt it was too -- too harsh perhaps. i'm not sure the words they would use on front of the paper, but i think there's a danger in the sense from the reality sometimes, especially when the tragedy is so devastating like this earthquake was than 300,000 people died. i think it's pretty representative of the disaster. >> with somebody like you goes
into a country like this, where do you stay and how do you get when people there can even get it? >> we had been to haiti so many times, we knew. at first we flew into the dominican republic and drove overland to port-au-prince and were sure was still standing because the whole show in montana is where journalists used to stay in that was flattened. are we had heard from a haitian photographer who lived there. he was there at the time when it was still standing. so i went there and a lot of people were on the streets and they provide the journalists. >> how prepared are you a transmission gear to get something back >> guest: it was technical help. on top of bearing witness to the
emotional toll and the physically demanding work that is, all my equipment crashed. the laptops the blackberry sent me, for something nothing works for me. either colleagues are very selflessly traveled around together and without him they wouldn't have been one picture in the paper because it was pretty amazing that nothing worked. so he really saved me in that way. c-span: it seems that would be a tense moment is the colleague wouldn't give up one of their cameras. just hope my canvas work. that was the only thing that were. he helped me transmit to get pictures back to the paper and that was the most important thing and it was useless to just take them. c-span: have you ever been a situation where nothing worked it on you couldn't get a picture
of? >> guest: ifad cameras crash. we are so dependent on technical pieces of equipment unfortunately. c-span: we will move to haiti and some of your witnesses. we have video here come the shots of the berlin wall and czechoslovakia in 1989. the music you put on this? >> guest: yes, this is music in my collection of cds when i used to do presentations to photo student and i think it adds another dimension and if so what more powerful. c-span: would you have been shooting film at this point? >> guest: yeah. c-span: okay, let's watch. ♪ ♪ ♪
that we had where the wall was coming down. c-span: and then you came back here? >> guest: i came back to d.c. and we immediately went right back for this monumentally historic event, one of those times where you put the camera down and you realize for a second there such amazing history. c-span: is this taken by ricky carioti? >> guest: yeah, i was trying to take pictures. i found it to be a little humorous in that photo, but before or after, not court sure which had been it amazingly crushing crowd of everyone trying to see the wall, the first piece of the wall being lifted up and i couldn't be.
i am pretty sure it and is taller and i looked around and saw a really tall male sturdy tripod with a kind face looking at me. i tapped him on the shoulder and said can you please put me on your shoulder so i can take pictures? i have no idea what his name was. c-span: here are some ideas from kosovo and albania in 1999. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪
c-span: do people notice you taking pictures of them? >> guest: depends on the story. kosovo, when it's such a dramatic and tense situation that people are going through, i think they don't notice you as much, but again in this situation, people were actually begging us to document and report them because the ethnic cleansing was one of those situations where you hear the words never again and you wish never again was really reality and clearly it's not in our world, so they really wanted to document. c-span: were the circumstances that took you to that area of the world in 99? >> guest: they sent lucas williams tonight to cover. others