tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN November 23, 2010 10:00am-1:00pm EST
created by the nation's cable companies and but it's frigid presented as a public service. thank you for joining us today. -- you are watching c-span, created by the nation's cable companies and presented as a public service. a little bit later the focus of social security. the national academy of social insurance is hosting the event. that will start at 2:00 live on c-span. looking at the u.s. capitol, house and senate are out for the thanksgiving break. when they return, the house will turn the focus to the ethics inquiry of charles rangel of new york. the committee panel early recommended censure for the new york democrat. the full house will meet to approve that. the senate is also out for the
we will hear from at several former national security advisers. >> thank you all very much for coming. it is a great honor to have the stephen hadley, a national security adviser for president george w. bush. we have sandy berger, but he is a little bit under the weather. on the theory that all former national security advisers are fungible and look alike, we have a general jim jones. actually, i'll think anyone has
confused you on the street for sandy -- i don't think anyone has confused you on the street for its sandy berger. [laughter] that we have a backup at our meetings. brent scowcroft, george h.w. bush's national security adviser. a constellation of former national security advisers. i wanted to start with you, general jones, and leap right into it. do you think in the middle east that prime minister netanyahu and president mahmoud abbas can get to peace, or should we take more aggressive action? >> well, i think the administration has worked diligently for quite a while. it has been not quite two years, but we certainly have spent a lot of time with both trying to bring them to the table and trying to get them to understand
how important it is strategically, globally, that we find a solution to the middle east problem with large -- writ large. i don't know when the time comes when you go to another solution, but it is clear that we are having a difficult time figuring out exactly what it is that gets them to be substantive part of the discussion. the lines have been drawn at a pretty tactical level, so the strategic discussion and the global ramifications of failure to find a solution to this long standing problem, around which, i might add, it seems to me there is a convergence of views between the europeans, the arab
world, united states, that this is a moment, even though we have not reached success yet, but this is a moment that has enormous potential if only we can figure out the right of actors to get the two parties -- >> but the convergence of views in the arab and european world is that it is time for the u.s. to manage a peace plan. i know you cannot speak for the administration, but -- >> that has been advocated, certainly, by some of the leaders of the arab world and the europeans. it is certainly something that the administration at some point might have to consider. a whatever is, we have to find a solution. failure is not an option here. one of the reasons we have this synergy that i think represents some hope for the future is that the shadow of iran really works
ominously -- lurks ominously on the horizon as a potentially bigger problem for the arab world, and one that date seem to want to address, but before they can do that, they want to get this middle east situation figured out. there is enormous opportunity internationally to figure out the way to bring the two parties together. the question is, what is the best way to do it, and at what time you shift to another strategy? >> what would be the outlines -- do we know what the outlines of a plan is? >> it has been said that most everybody knows what is going to look like, what the end dutch state is. -- end-state is. the question is, how you get there? all at once? sequentially? it gradually?
on that issue, gradualism, i find -- i found that the palestinians are reasonably receptive to a certain timeframe by which things will happen rather than to say nothing is agreed until everything is agreed to. that part i don't think is a major stumbling block. what it looks like it is, at the end up, fairly well known right now. >> do you think netanyahu is willing to give up land? >> well, i don't know. he has a difficult position to deal with -- he has a difficult coalition to deal with. as a result of its nature, it is difficult to get a clear picture of exactly what is that it takes to move forward, because many times we thought we were going to make progress only to find that we could not get there. it is a little bit, to use an analogy -- "peanuts" analogy --
like lucy and the football. >> is it frustrating to be the guy who keeps coming up to the football and it gets pulled away? >> it has its moments. [laughter] >> dr. hadley, to you have more cause for optimism? if so, how do we get there? >> as general jones said, everybody knows what the mission is -- two democratic states, israel and palestine, living side by side in peace and security. palestine as a homeland for the palestinian people and their citizens, israel as a homeland for the jewish people and israeli citizens. because of the negotiations under president clinton, president bush, a lot of the contours of what the deal will look like are out there. second, i think there are a lot of incentives to do this. president abbas made history
five years ago when he campaigned for president on the notion that you need to get to a palestinian state through negotiation, not violence. but, you know, that is five years ago. at some point, he needs to show that this will position he has made is going to work. netanyahu has the historic opportunity to end israel's isolation and the de legitimization campaign against israel and established israel as a homeland for the jewish people. the arab leaders clearly want peace. salaam fayad and abbas are building the institutions by now, which is very important, because it shows palestinians that the state israel, and joe's israelis that it will not be a safe haven -- that the state is real, and it shows is really that it will not be a safe haven for terrorists. we have got to get the debate off the issue of settlements and
construction freezes and on to the issue of the terms of peace. the settlements issue, politically, is a winner for netanyahu, a loser for us. if we get on the issue of peace, that is one that polls show palestinians and israelis want peace. >> would tabling the plan help? >> timing is everything. we're running out of arrows in our quiver. this is the biggest, best one we have left, and it has to be done at a time where it will catalyze progress. i think it is an element of an end game. the question is when? now it is premature. what i would hope we would get, and secretary clinton has been signaling this -- we need to get a negotiation going, we need to start on the issue of borders
and security, when need to try to get a preliminary agreement on borders and security, move the issue of settlements -- >> can it be done in 90 days? >> i think it can be done in fairly short order. it is the issue of settlements. then the issue becomes, and it is an interesting debate, do you actually stand up that state, a stay with provisional borders, while you work on issues -- >> and that gets to the issue of whether the united states should agree to veto any u.n. resolution that recognizes that palestinian state as an agreement with israel that it will exercise its veto. should the u.s. give that guarantee to israel? >> it depends. i think the administration has to be careful that it does not come in trying to convince bodies to get beyond the settlement issue, made some commitments that get in the wake of what may be a path to resolution.
i think you have to be careful. >> how do you see that? >> well, i think steve lays it out pretty well. i personally believe that state could -- statehood, however that is defined, is an immediate benefit for the palestinians, because it gives them international legitimacy, all kinds of things. >> international recognition of palestinian state. >> and if they are willing to, as i think they are, agree to a reasonable gradualism as to how you get to the final status, and that is somehow guaranteed, that something that is going to take 30 years or 20 years or even maybe even 10 years, whatever that number is, i have a feeling no more than 10, but summer between 0 and 10, i think the
cause would be dramatically enhanced by being atate. >> can you imagine that being recognized as a state without there being an israeli- palestinian agreement? >> you know, i think that would mean a major shift in how we have to approaching this in terms of trying to stimulate and both parties to see that this is in their interest ultimately. frankly, i think both parties genuinely want to achieve this solution, but they are inhibited by local politics, if you will, for taking that dramatic step. >> you are very close to japan if it -- close to tzipi livni -- i'm sorry, dr. hadley. >> if you could get agreement on
security and get israelis and palestinians to agree with that is, would be in their interest if we went ahead and stood up at state with the provisional orders, security and orders having been dissolved -- resolved -- that would be the proposition. >> frankly, i think this is the one thing that a country like iran does not want to see, because that immediately changes the equation with regard to hamas and some of these other organizations, and dramatically enhances president at this c- p -- enhances president abbas. in a geopolitical sense, this would be a good thing. >> i will take a quick break for what we call sponsors. i want to thank you for sponsoring this.
and i see jean casey, in general jones, 04 we even went into the administration -- and general john, before we even went into the administration, you tried to build up the economy in the palestinian territories, particularly the west bank, worked with dr. fayad to read it as how much money in loan guarantees? $70 million in loan guarantees. you just stood up a venture fund to go with it. do you want to say what that is? >> we are coming to our first close on a $50 million venture fund. we have just been excited about the amount of the attraction we have seen from the u.s. private- sector putting investment into the west bank. >> that leads to the question,
is this good for the peace process, or is it in some ways, as some people fear, a way of helping netanyahu placate the palestinians and not get to a peace process? >> my view has not changed from when i was working with steve and secretary rice, i should publicly thank them for the opportunity, because it was one of the most interesting things i've ever done-certainly -- ever done at certainly add a short period of time. tony blair has also been very helpful in all of this. the idea was basically to help the palestinian authority assert its governance over the west bank, and in so doing, show that it would succeed not just in -- if that model works, to expand it. it was a bottom-up economic
approach that would stimulate the whole of everyday life of the palestinians on the west bank, and would also had a dramatic effect, hopefully, on gaza, to show that there is a bett way, a way to live in peace and security. i was pleased to see the israeli reaction to this as well. under general ashkenazi, they changed the strategy from counter-terrorism to counterinsurgency, and that was not an easy thing for them to do. under the rubric of if we do more, they will do less, we have built up a healthy relationship with the security forces. i think it is still a very good model, and it is not the way for
the israelis to placate them to keep the status ", but it is what has to happen we are going to be successful in the future. the top-down issue is important, because that is the international level, but the bottom-up approach also has a on energy and forest -- has its own energy and force. >> i completely agree with that. it is one of the most hopeful things that is going on now. there's a lot of cynicism about whether there is ever going to be a palestinian state, and what kind of state is going to be paid even under occupation, it reassures the palestinians that they can see a state began to emerge that is real, and reassure is the israelis that is going to be the right kind of state, one that is already cooperating with the israeli
security forces. a lot of people say, well, let's just the door negotiations for a while and focus on the bottom- up. i think the better argument is that salam fayyad and institution-building can only go so far without the political cover of a credible negotiation. that is why i think the administration included both the top-down and bottom-up. >> how much time as dr. fayyad have? >> he has said he has a two-year program, and that is to be completed in the fall of 2011. it will be very interesting what happens at that point, what decisions the palestinians would make, what decisions the israelis make, and what position the states make it depends a lot on where we are, whether it is making progress. >> when salam fayyad, the prime
minister of the palestinian authority, announced the plan, he keep the two-year horizon, and his argument was that with the help of the partnership, we will build a state, build it from the ground up, economic, social society, civic institutions, and once we build it, they cannot deny it to us. the world community cannot say that you cannot have at the state if we have shown we have a state. does that mean that at the end of 2011, a matter what the status is of the peace talks, the world should think about recognizing a palestinian state? >> i would say that no matter what -- >> modify my question -- >> the issue at that point will be on the table. it will be decided on the basis of where we are at that time. >> general john? >> i agree with that.
>> but can i bring you into what american policy should be to the middle east right now? >> well, i guess i think that the parties by themselves have demonstrated that they are unlikely ever to be able to come to agreement by themselves. the circumstances are so different -- one it is strong, one is weak, they both opposition groups -- they both have opposition groups -- it seems that do have a chance to get together, they have to do something like -- to their own public, "we did not want to do this, the united states made us." they have to do what they have to do but are unwilling to do it, so there has to be an
impetus. >> from the president, or does the secretary of state have more credibility in the region? >> oh, i think it has to come from the president did the united states has never done anything -- oh, i think it has to come from the president. the united states is never done anythingike -- in 2000, but it was -- the timing was good, but they laid out -- it was the end of administration, a variety of things. 1967 borders, with rectifications, no automatic right of return for palestinians, jerusalem as the capital of both countries, a non-militarized palestinian state. the problem if you go and deal with borders is that you cannot without taking up all the other issues. >> why?
>> because what happens to the people on the opposite sides were the wrong side of the borders? -- or the wrong side of the borders? you have to do the population thing. i don't think it helps. it moves us ahead. i certainly agree that settlements is going after part of it that cannot be solved separately. but to me, a comprehensive offer, because all the issues are interrelated. >> by the united states, pushed by the president. do you think the president ought to take the offer, a proposal, and go to bethlehem and ramallah -- >> it seems to me -- i think the europeans would.
to me, the worst outcome for the israelis is the palestinians give up in two states solution -- give up on the two-state solution. that presents the israelis with three fundamentally disastrous options. i think we need to get them to realize that they need this as much as the palestinians. >> general jones, i saw you nodding. >> i agree with general scowcroft that we are at a point where something has to happen. i just don't think it is likely that we will have this convergence between external entities and the arab world, that have and thuus, this historic sense that this is the moment, this is the time,
and we have got to figure out whatever the solution is to force this to its logical conclusion. unfortunately, logic does not play a big role in this. if you talk to both sides, they both logically said we want to do this. but they will let us. -- they won't let us. we have to find a way -- >> meaning our populations? >> no, the other side. it is always about the other guy. we simply have to find the right formula to take that step. once you take it, then you might be into a whole new world and it might be somewhat irascible. -- somewhat irreversible. >> i think the administration has set that up. i agree with what brent said. i worry that if you wait until
you close all the final status issues, and you'll never get there. it is just too hard. what the administration has set up is that you have a framework agreement that sets up basic principles on all these issues, but you don't stop there. within that agreement, give reassurance and let's start and focus on border security. it is the area that is most oregon, where i think there is the most convergence. let's see -- it is the area that is most worked on, where i think there is the most and vir convergence. up a see if we can stand palestinian state. that would be transformative, and i think it will buy you some time to turn to the issues of the final terms of the right of return, refugee issues, jerusalem issues. then you can put it all together in final status agreement. but you have to eat this is a
little bit in a couple of bites. waiting for the grant agreement, nothing until everything is agreed, i thi that is just too hard. the administration has set up the potential for a different kind of approach. >> i think so. waiting until everything is agreed to is something we have tried for some time. >> i don't know if the ambassador will let me do this, but, you know, the next question logically is whether there is a syirria track. the ambassador from syria, it to you have any questions on that, any thoughts? do you want to say anything about whether there is time for a syrian track?
>> i would like to hear some comments about -- the obama administration has been telling us as of day one that they believe, and this is a major difference as compared to previous administrations, that peace in our region cannot be achieved unless it is comprehensive and on all tracks. they do not believe this can happen on one track. they do not believe in the game played previously of playing one track against the other. i would like to hear comments on this if this is possible. >> thank you. also, if you would, talk about whether it would be good, in parallel, or in sequence, with syria. >> president bush had a conversation with prime minister and urged him in the
context of annapolis to go after comprehensive peace, including syria, and then hopefully also lebanon. as everybody knows, there were negotiations, quiet to negotiations, between israel and syria a brokered by the turks. uigwe were privately supportive of that authorized the turks and israelis to tell the syrians that improved relationships with the united states went through a syrian-israeli agreement. we tried to be supportive as we could of that track. it made some progress, and then at the end out, 2008, it got overwhelmed by a whole series of things that everybody knows about. i think general jones will speak -- my sense is that the administration has tried in good
faith to get eight syrian track going. >> i think that is correct. obviously, it would be to everyone's advantage of the piece that we have in mind extends to a broader area that includes syria and lebanon. i think that the administration -- i know the administration has been working quietly to see what the potential is to do that, on several fronts. we continue -- they continue, since i am no longer part of the administration -- to work on the comprehensive nature of it in an open and hopefully very productive way. there is reason for some optimism there, i think, on the part of all players who we have talked to on this issue. it is certainly something that would be in everybody's interest. >> how would this help on iran?
>> well, i think, obviously, if you are able to achieve consensus and results, in obtaining a piece that -- pce that is foundational for the region, and that you build upon, it serves to isolate iran into but more than perhaps it is right now -- isolate iran at a little bit more than perhaps it is right now. the combination of peaceful negotiations plus the sanctions that we know will have a major sent a, it certainly will stan strong message to iran that perhaps it is time to return to the table and negotiate seriously. >> how do you see if syria and lebanon are more stable and at peace with israel and not --
does that isolate iran? >> i think it dies. it is a good thing in itself, and it also sends a message to iran about the direction of middle east peace and the middle east is going to be. but there are more fundamental issues with iran. one is the nuclear program, and one is the nature of that regime, the unhappiness many people within iran are showing -- >> do you think sanctions are helping iran? >> it is interesting, and there may be comments from people here. i have been surprised and pleased by how well the administration did in tens of getting people around the table -- did in getting people on the table to support sanctions. one of the things that occurred to me the other day, and i need to talk to people to get a better feel for it, but the theory of sanctions is you are
putting a lot of pressure particularly on business classes and middle-class is to in turn put pressure on the regime. but it is not in the machine is also putting pressure on the medical -- but ahmadinejad and the regime is also putting pressure on the middle class. i wonder if we have a perverse alliance between section activities and the regime policy, everybody squeezing the middle-class. i worry about that. but i think sanctions are right. i worry that they are not going to be enough. you need to marry sanctions with major support that does not discredit them for forces of change in iran, because it is domestic pressure for change that is more likely to convince the regime that they don't want a domestic confrontation an international confrontation at the same time, and may be more
willing to deal. finally, we have to start thinking very seriously about what happens if it does not work. we have a lot of false debates, i think, in iran. this debate we have heard about iran -- i think it is a false debate. can iran be deterred from using nuclear weapons against the united states? of course. but can we deter the adverse effects that come once it is clear that iran has a clear path to a nuclear weapon? i don't think so. an empowered iran, more willing to support terror and interfere with its neighbors, its neighbors propitiating iran and then going after their own nuclear programs, egypt, and jordan, turkey having the same options that iran does. i think we need to think seriously about the problem of iran with a clear path to a nuclear weapon. secondly, i think you have another false argument about
this issue of do you go to war against iran. it is easy to demonstrate that that would be a leap into the dark and very difficult thing, but that is not the right question. the question is is there some way we can easily set aside and sent back, for example, the activity on the time, can be visibly set that back in a way? >> by a military strike? >> diplomatically, to some other means. the president says not only that a nuclear iran is unacceptable, he says that we will prevent iran from getting nuclear weapons. >> how do you stop it other than striking it if sanctions don't work? >> one is diplomatically. second, i think what the administration needs to do is think of other options --
>> like whatever that -- >> stuxnet -- is that and all the option? and with syria has done with taking out the reactor. i think we have had a public debate about whether to go to war with iran or not, and i think we need more so as to get a public debate -- we need a more sophisticated public debate about what do we do if we are faced with at the start towards of either going to war, which nobody wants to do, or accepting iran with a clear path to a nuclear weapon, which also, i think, is unacceptable. >> steve, i think that is a great summation. i would simply add a couple of things. i think the president's thinking
on this has been consistent all along. the idea was to come from the outset -- the idea was, up from the outset, to see if iran was willing to negotiate reasonably, to leave the door open even as we move toward sanctions. the sanctions a result, at least in process, the un, eu, individual countries, was really, i think, a foreign policy achievement that has not received its just due simply because of how hard it was, and the fact that at the end of the day, even russia and china came into the sanctions protocol. the close relationship with the eu that followed on the heels of the u.n. sanctions was also very, very welcome and that's the thing that just happened automatically. -- and not something that just
happen automatically. it is something the united states participated in assiduously, rigorously. we are still six to eight months away from having the full effect of the sanctions. >> and so what happens if they don't work? >> as steve pointed out, obviously, we're not just betting on that and nothing else. there is an awful lot of dialogue with other countries. the israelis in particular. i think this has had a calming effect in terms of the hype about you have got to do something now. i think steve is white. -- there arest -- i think steve is right. there are three reasons a nuclear iran is a bad idea. first, he would have another nuclear-capable state. secondly, the fact that would probably trigger a nuclear arms
race in the middle east is something that is pretty well foregone conclusion. that would be very bad. thirdly, the one that is really the nightmare scenario, because without trying to overstate things, it might change the world we live in -- a country like iran exporting that kind of technology to a terrorist organization. >> would it be far more likely or just more likely if we had in palestinian-israeli peace? not likely, but doable? does it solve iran if we get a palestinian-israeli peace? >> the peace process is ongoing and people can see moving in the right direction is one of the besthings we can do to show iran at its path is the wrong path. i think is extremely important to leave the door open, as we
have on the official channels and unofficial channels, with iran. they have shown indication of a certain willingness to come back at least to the conference table. we will wait and see exactly what happens -- exactly whether that happens or not. i will not say whether sections will not work or they are, or go too far into prognosticating of what we will do if sanctions don't work, because one of the things that happened between, say, thus, the russians, israelis, and others, is that we have our live that kind of sense of what the timing is. -- we have arrived at 8 kind of a sense of what the timing is. we generally have a more common in view, as opposed to 18 months ago, we had three different dispara -- where we had three different views
>> whether to set back -- >> i am not going to -- >> i think we ought to let the sanctions go forward. i'm just saying that we need to look forward about or we might be a year from now and be giving some careful planning. second of all, i think that one of the impact of the election is that there will probably be a more -- be more support for president obama in whatever decisions to make, should we get to that point. i have noted a particularly the comments that senator lindsey graham and senator john mccain made at the security conference here couple weeks ago, where they were very tough about regime change and use of force. >> but if he does something strong -- >> if we get to that point, and the sanctions don't work.
lastly, i would say that there is a difficult work that needs to be done, and i think it needs to be done by the united states, not israel. >> in military or covert -- >> something needs to be done at the end up today and it is not something we should -- end of the day and is not funding should -- >> 45 times you have mentioned how poppel russia has been -- four or five times you have mentioned how helpful russia has been. how harmful would it be to this process if the start treaty is not ratified by the senate? >> i did it would be extremely harmful -- i think it would be extremely harmful, and a blow to the prestige of the united states. it would certainly be a blow to the president, which is not a good thing in terms of his clout around the world, his influence.
especially at the time when i think the united states has re asserted its leadership with regard to nuclear issues, at all the things that have been done working towards this start treaty, which i think was done in consultation with both sides of the hill on a regular basis, there was a clear understanding of what the red lines were from some of the would-be opponents. i think we have really worked hard to meet those deadlines -- red lines. i think there are all kinds of reasons for passage for this start treaty. i shudder to think what happened if we did not get rid -- what would happen if we did not get it. >> i am a little in the middle.
one, i think russia has been quite cooperative for the bush administration and obama administration, and in terms of how they handled bashir and negotiations. two, i don't think russia will stop the cooperation if we don't have the start treaty, but it is an unnecessary argument there are problems that can be and should be addressed in the ratification. we need to get agreement on the modernization programs so that as long as we have nuclear weapons, which will be for a considerable period of time, they are monitored. i think there is a way forward that early on, in the new congress -- >> not in the lame-duck. >> early in the new congress, we can look at a good number of republicans joining the
democrats and ratifying -- >> you think sen. kyl would agree to modernization -- >> there is a modernization program that he and a lot of people -- a lot of people -- brent scowcroft and i were up testifying and the book talked about the need for the modernization -- and we both talked about the need for a modernization program. i would rather see it done that way rather than ramming it through lame duck, because it would be a good start for the new congress working with the president to show that they can get the nation's business on a on a bipartisan basis. that is what republicans and democrats ought to achieve in the near-term, after they have addressed these concerns that have been raised, which i think should be addressed but i think can be addressed. >> general scowcroft? >> well, i very much agree with jim, and with steve partly,
because i don't see the objections to the treaty. none of them are really advanced by rejecting the treaty. that is my problem. some of them need to be fixed, but they need to be fixed by following negotiations with the russians, which can only happen if we ratify the treaty. i think that psychologically, it will hurt the recet c-span.org - rest. -- reset. the whole progress we have had with russians, not only on iran, supply lines to afghanistan -- there is a gradual thawing here and we ought to encourage it and strengthen it. therefore, i think it would be negative. >> did you have a question?
>> thank you. the league of arab states at is the official name of it. >> we thank you for sponsoring this meeting. it is a great idea. i have comments to make it first of all, i think are really urgent need for the united states to present this framework to the palestinians and israelis. the arab league has initiatives which in a way is a comprehensive crime work to deal with all the issues -- comprehensive framework to deal with all the issues. when i was involved in egyptian- israeli peace negotiations, had the president not presented his own ideas to both sides, we
would not have reached an agreement. it is the proposal but on the table, and it is the basis for negotiations. my second comment is about what israel is trying now to get from the united states, a pledge to veto any attempts by the palestinians to work at the security council and obtained endorsements of a palestinian state. i think this is a very unhelpful development if this happens, because the united states should be perceived throughout as the honest broker that takes no sides. if you go against the resolution, it will attack this image of the honest broker. thirdly, on iran and nuclear
weapons, why shouldn't a solution be establishing and the middle east a zone free of all nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction? we think everyone should apply to everyone, including the iranians, arabs, israel, and we should have a zone that is free of all threat. thank you. >> any comments on that, or do you want to take it under advice? >> i think some bridging proposals would be part of how you get to peace, and at some point you may want to lay down a comprehensive proposal, particularly if you are talking about from mark. but timing is -- particularly if you are talking about a framework. but timing is everything. second, a u.n. resolution -- it is a complicated question. i think the best thing to do is to get these negotiations back
on track. a lot of discussion about nuclear-free zone in the middle east, and generally people feel that once you have middle east peace, because there are the threats of the bluntest nuclear- weapons -- other than just nuclear-weapons -- once you get a comprehensive peace, with a talk about how to build on that piece -- we can talk about how to build on that piece. >> questions? glenn kessler? >> one subject that has not come up is gaza, where 1.5 million palestinians live. a lot of the focus of the administration has been making some sort of peace agreement with mahmoud abbas, who is in charge of the west bank. what should be done with gaza?
how'd you incorporate that part of palestinian territory to palestinian state -- into a palestinian state? is there a point at which you begin to reach out to pass? -- out to hamas? >> gen. jones, you take that one. >> why my answering the question? [laughter] i will just venture to say that i believe that if we begin to make progress on palestinian peace, hamas cannot afford to be left out, and we would take away some of the leverage to say no by beginning to move. they will feel compelled to participate. >> that's right. we talked about the top-down or bottom-up approach being complementary. if we can get those two things
working, the whole situation with hamas is different, and the whole situation with iran is different. i really think that the west bank is where we start. we recognize that ultimately, what the state will look like at some point -- that does not mean you cannot make progress now. trying to fix this now means you will only delay the process of getting the key -- a state solution in the future. >> if you get a peace deal, president abbas is in a position to go to hamas and say are you in or out? it can -- if hamas says no, we are out, he can go to the people of gaza and say it is
your choice. i think jim is right. and brent is right. if you can get that piece and show that a palestinian state is coming in the west bank, it will reshuffle the deck in terms of the gaza question. but it is the only way to get gaza resolved. >> i will move around this way. arnaud. >> when president obama extends the $3 billion inducement to israel in terms -- in return of simply 90 days of a settlement freeze, nothing else. >> well, this is a matter on the table as to how -- what makes it worthwhile to do this in
exchange for a 90-day settlement freeze. the israelis, to my knowledge, responded to that yet. --have not responded to that yet. the discussions between the u.s. and israel on israel's security happened on going with a tremendous detail at specificity for the last year. i think that the united states and the administration has been extremely generous, even right up to this point, for getting the current negotiations, in providing assurances to israel that their security is something we pay a lot of attention to. i also want to come back to the point that i think is extremely important that the united states also be perceived as being an honest broker in the region. you have to be careful that be
scales don't tilt ttoo far one way or the other. >> i don't know all the ins and outs of it, and it is impossible from the outside. the settlement freeze thing, the construction freeze, has not worked, has not done what the administration hoped it would do. at some point, if you are in a whol -- a hole, you stop digging. i am not sure going another 90 days is the best outcome. but again, i am not party to the discussions. there may be a lot more there. >> stop digging by allowing settlements to continue or -- >> are going the other way, saying that the freeze is a problem, and we need to get some other understanding that addresses palestinian concerns but also addresses israeli politics, and get off the settlement issue and get on to
the issue of negotiating the peace, because that is where we ought to be. and we got to get there before we go into another u.s. presidential election cycle, before leaders of the arab world start retiring or dying. we got to get on with it. >> we will let you jump the queue. appreciate the donor maintenance call. >> i have been privileged to work closely with the aspen institute and tony, and aspen institute has done a phenomenal work for many years in support of the palestinian people on the ground. they have made a difference numerous visits i've made to the region, where i've seen it firsthand. furthermore, i would like to draw attention to what general scowcroft said, the two-state
solution is in fact perhaps jeopardize at this point and continues as a result of pessimism on the ground to be further jeopardized. at what stage to reach the point where it becomes not an option anymore? are we close to that or not? >> what is the alternative? >> i don't think we're close to that. it is because of the synergy that exists between the arab world, the europeans, and the u.s. the outside world is working -- is dependent on the ability to be successful that perhaps any time in my memory. i think the price is still on the table, it is still achievable -- prize is still at on the table, it is still
achievable. we've not figured out the right combination yet, but i have been impressed by everybody who has played in this game really passionately believes that there has to be a solution. it is not just a regional problem. it is a problem of global dimensions, and solving this will help the world we live in in many different ways. >> i think that most of my concerns have been addressed, but i am a very much concerned with -- i presume it is true -- that the offer has been made by the united states in terms that have already been discussed. the question that really is a concern is that -- has not really been discussed -- is a fragile palestinian authority. while security has improved, it is nonetheless an occupied area which has its own unique problems. what concerns me is you talk
about our having to be an honest broker, and you talk about the timing problem as being crucial. i accept all ofhat. but if you in the palestinian west bank right now, and i don't want to get into the hamas issue, how uncomfortable would you be if he knew that there was kind of a proposal where the israelis, as an occupied power, would receive more ordinance, more strike fighters, that kind of thing, and exactly why would that bring the palestinians to the table? i would think that it would drive them away. that is what concerns me greatly. and then you look at the end of the 90-day period, and while there is some optimism expressed in the long run as a matter of necessity, what is going to happen? you know, let's assume that it doesn't work, and for various
reasons of politics, the palestinians don't go what happens then? >> i would simply say that really want to make things conditional on progress. if, in fact, we did x, then why would be the result. and if y fails, x is off the table. you have to tie some of these things to good faith. to take -- makes some of these decisions so we can move in the right location -- direction. the $3 billion in security
>> the $3 billion in security ordinance -- >> the president would expect that there would be some momentum that would lead to follow along progress. i do not know that for a fact. i left the administration before they made this proposal. i think you cannot simply keep putting down payments on things that do not work out. >> i see many hands. i am trying to keep them in order. >> just to get back to the issue of sanctions, if i were the adviser to the iranian government, i would see something like, a steady as you go. it is working pretty good. it has not hurt that much. -- kurt not much. the government
the government -- the u.s. and pressing the same group. i cannot allow imagine that sanctions are going to work. all right, in business you deal with a lot of probabilities and there must be a plan b and a plan c. sanctions. i know you have to try. but when it becomes accepted, not obvious, that they are not going to work, something is going to happen. it has to. divested the wrong -- did i say the wrong?n open forum. i think that one this is an open forum. responsible people are thinking about these things as well.
we hope the sanctions work. we hope the sanctions create a sense of logic and reason in the iranian leadership to bring them back to the table -- the iranian the leadership. acquiring nuclear weapons capability. >> were you raising your hand way back there? >> i was not. i just got back -- i saw of this people. i was more optimistic that even with this are rumored package that they will come to the table and the key is what happens when they get there.
steve knows that i very much share his view of borders. the convergences are possible. it was striking to me was the opposition that this id is hitting because they feel they are territorial. that leads them to believe they have to move forward on all these issues. that is what we all want her it would be unanimous in this room. we want progress. i'm skeptical that they have conditioned the landscape on jerusalem refugees. once you say borders and security look like a dirty word over there. i think it is a mistake. that is my personal view. i think that is the one way. i don't think you can solve
these in 90 days. you are coming up with some of the more moderate elements in the coalition against this approach. i think there's still some work to be done here. >> one of the founders of the palestinian partnership. >> thank you, walter. thanks for the commitment to peace in and out of government. i was in cairo in 1995 negotiating the final details of the creation of the palestinian authority. that was to be a one this year temporary status. it was 15 years ago. we're in the same legal limbo where they do not have sovereignty or borders or control over water or air of a rest of it. everybody thinks we have about six months to negotiate and make
real progress on negotiations if the united states lead to those negotiations because of our political process here. a concern that a number of bust have is that the condition that are being set by the israelis for the extension of the moratorium are going to be so great that the ultimate achievement of the two-state solution will be potentially nullified. or certainly diminished. three months is not a very long time to negotiate something as important as borders. if you have a border agreement the does not encompass jerusalem, it is a non-starter in terms of all the members of the arab league. so the best mechanism other than a negotiation for an independent palestinian state is the u.n. part, which the prime minister is working diligently on the
leadership and that will be presented potentially in 2011. if there is the u.s. veto threatened or committed, that will undercut that option. then you're going to be led to a one-state solution, which i think the majority of the people in palestine to that are leading towards. particularly the young october nor's because they don't have much faith in the -- particularly the young entrepreneur os. they do not want to give up the land have been occupying since 1967. all of this is a way of asking, if we don't get it done in three months -- >> you have the wrong witness is up here. i have indicated my skepticism of this approach but said i
don't know the details. general jones was more circumspect than that. the questions you raised are serious questions. but they have to go to the administration. they are not for us, to be honest. it sounds like a dodge. i share a lot of those concerns. but these are questions that need to be put to the administration. they are going to have to explain why this approach is anything other than continuing to dig in the whole we have been and. >> do you think it was a useful -- if this approach does not go very far at some point we will have to recognize the palestinian state if there is indeed a viable state on the west bank? >> well, these are hypothetical.
this may come our way. >> not all that hypothetical. >> i will pass on that one. >> i want to get to the point after two years were the only thing wrong with the palestinian state is occupation. he wants to put that strategy predict maximum pressure to get this issue resolved. from his standpoint -- >> that is a good strategy. >> we will see what happens. >> we will leave open that option, expecting a veto? >> i do not know. >> david? >> the least attractive way out of that, for a lot of reasons. everybody in agreement -- it just is. >> i just want to sound a
cautionary note about the idea of this new approach, which will be a framework agreement and then focus in on borders and the security. first of all, i just do not see the palestinian -- the israelis being willing to now endorse a jerusalem as the capital of the state. this government simply will not do that. if you set that aside and simply start to negotiate on borders, again, you run into the question of jerusalem. even if you carved it out as something to be worked on later, then you get the question of settlements. then we're right back where we are today. that is a caution. >> what i would like to do, if i may -- i will let a few people make comments and then allow you to enter the ones you want and
ignore the ones you want to duck. >> mind dovetails on his commentary was the president a bbbas say? i will come back to the table if we all know what the endgame looks like. the palestinians want east jerusalem after capital. we're giving the nod to build your settlements. what if he said, fine, i'll come back if the u.s. promises me to pay for dismantling every single someone in east jerusalem that netanyahu is building and to relocate all those people who are sitting in those settlements? >> thank you. having three national security witnesses with us, i would like to ask the question -- since
1979, the u.s. has been very busy the process. we have not achieved very much. the big things were done by the parties themselves. everybody, the most hard lined people of this town in the west bank and the mountains of afghanistan know what the final solution looks like. why is it so hard for a president -- what is the impediment for president who really wants to get this done? because every american who understands something about israel knows the support for israel runs through the blood of the body politick of america. it is not a jewish issue in the u.s. the fulfillment of the zionist dream will not be done until the
israelis draw a line with the palestinians. it is only the palestinians that can legitimize the israeli state. why can't we get this done? >> let me see if there any people who did not get a seat at the table. i do not want to discriminate. final thoughts? >> general scowcroft, do you mind giving us your final comment on the last questions that were asked? how can we tell? >> all right. general jones. >> the second question is the why is it hard for the president to do this? because it is hard. it is hard because of the history, the motion. it is hard because it is so
important to everything that we do. it is the one thing -- i told the president this 2009, shortly after he took office. i said if you could pick one think you could fix, with all of the problems out there, i think it should be the middle east. and i think that remains at the top of our work. the question is, how do you do it? governments change. our government changed. the israeli government changed. there was a point of adjustment that took most of 2009. we all know each other a little bit better now. there have been face-to-face meetings and dialogue with the palestinians and the israelis. i am still -- i remain
optimistic that there is a way for this to happen. i'm optimistic not because i think the principal participants will somehow were up one morning and say we have it. it is because of the passion which the rest of the country and the world feels toward the necessity of getting this done, not just for the two parties concerned. but from the fact that it touches on so many other global issues that we think is extremely important. so it is hard. i think that the president's showed great courage in taking this on from day one, as opposed to waiting awhile. this gives them more time, obviously. he has two more years in this
term, so there is time. it is done something that he is ducking away from. he is trying very hard and the whole team is trying to make sure that the right path is found. it is a found that is -- is a path that is as comprehensive as possible. i don't think at the end of the the you'll see president obama say, this is a tivo heart, i have other things to do -- this is a too hard. >> is there some other approach, an international conference, an arab-european-american -- we do out of government? >> there have been a lot of potholes. president sarkozy has tried to put something together and bar slot following the nato summit.
-- in barcelona. people look to the united states. the europeans, the arabs do. all the elite, it will -- there could be a day -- all to become out there could be a day when the president has to confront the hard choices and make the decision that we might not get their using the tactics or the strategies that work on going. we may have to shift to something else. that is something i cannot speculate on. it might come, it might not. i think he wants to give it as much time as he can and as much energy as he can with his team to see if there's a way to get the principal parties for their own good to do what needs to be done. but there are other options that the president can consider. like a more direct involvement
in terms of bringing the outside world into -- with proposals that would have more of it forcing function on the two principles for instead of having them be the articulators, there is -- and might come a time when we have to look at another option. but that is set for the president to decide. >> when you work on for over there, do you think someone is a key to this and wants to make a peace summit? >> i was very impressed with the former minister when she was in office. secretary rice and steve and their team -- our team worked very well with her pureed in my
-- with her. i think she is committed to finding the past to the two- state solution. >> do you think met yahoo! is committed to that? >> -- do you think netanyahu is committed to that? >> i think so. >> does he say that here but feel different there? >> local politics makes an impact on people. what is going to be required is and thesident obaabbas prime minister to rise above politics and to do what is right for their people and the region. both will benefit from this. i think both understand this. both are struggling to find the right path to make this happen.
the president of the united states, leaders of europe and the arab world are also weighing in to get these sides to do the right thing. there could come a time when the have to come to their own conclusion about whether this will happen or not. for now, i think we should let it play out. >> it is ironic that is the creation of the palestinian state that can't legitimate israel as the jewish state in the middle east. we should be saying that over and over again to the israelis. israel is a democracy. palestinians are building a democracy and they have to be willing to have a deal they can sell to their people. that is a difficult thing. sometimes you start with the hardest issue. if you can break it up,
everything else is easy. i think that is why under a framework agreement, which still should do borders and security. we need agreement on the jerusalem issue up front, then we're going nowhere. third, agreeing to pull down settlements and pay to relocate sellers, we're going to be doing at the time, i am sure, as part of the peace agreement. that is in everybody's future. i tried to be very positive in my statements about president obama'abbas. there is a question out there. we talk about questions and prime minister netanyahu. there is a question about any palestinian leader can accept any concessions short of 100% of their declared position. a lot was offered to arafat by
president clinton toured a lot was offered to president obaabbas. it is a question that will have to be decided. lastly, it may be at some point, and i would have smart people think about this. it may be that the formality and the bright lights of the negotiation is itself the problem. it is just too hard to do an informal negotiations. maybe the party should agree on a coordinated parallel steps that over time actually resolved issues and lead to peace. but sitting down with the great formal peace negotiations may just be too hard. somebody smart film needs to think through. if we cannot make progress. >> dr. hadley, the general jones, the group, thank you and
p.m. here run c-span. there will be -- looking at the u.s. capitol, the house and senate are now out for the thanksgiving break. in january, will see the start of the one under 12 congress. chris coons, bested by christine oldonnell for joe biden's senate seat. another new face, marco rubio. he won his race against charlie crist. here are some programs c-span is hearing on thursday beginning at 10:00 a.m. on thursday.
>> every weekend on c-span3, experienced american history tv. 48 hours of people and events telling the american story. hear eyewitness accounts of events that shaped our nation. visit museums and college campuses as top history professors delve into america's past. american history tv, all weekend, every weekend and c- span3. -- on c-span3. there was a conference in new orleans recently. republican strategist dan barr joined with journalists
and trying to catch their breath from recent events. they are all here for free. thank you all for doing this. [applause] this panel and journalism -- if you want to see by partisanship, talk to any democrat or republican and you will find agreement about their views on the press. one of the things we talked about this morning is how much this campaign compares to this election cycle and to previous ones. there was 1994. the media today is really completely different from the media environment in 1994. the media is a player. we can all have our views about them. we could not have a democracy without the media. for those of us and many of our panelists have, as we travel
around the world, we talk to young people -- would to the want to do? they want to be a journalist. they want to tell the truth. the want to get the truth out there. those of you who have kids know -- my girls both want to be journalists. it is an incredible profession and one that is undergoing a transition. we have all lived through that transition. the title of this panel is "is it journalism or entertainment?" will speak to the journal's part of it. david corn is an editor for " mother jones." he is on tv and he writes all the time. a very thoughtful person. we used to spar "crossfire."
i want to publicly apologize for something. i used to refer to his brother as the looney left. he said he does not consider that a term of interment. we had a civil conversation. it can happen. at some point, we're all just going to place ourselves out with some of this rhetoric that has been passing as a political dialogue. david will introduce all of these fabulous panelists. thank you all very much for coming. [applause] >> i am happy to be here. i'm a bipartisan kind of guy. [laughter] as are many people on this
panel. the discussion and then get to questions. i will start with dan bartlett, who is not the person in the dress. he had several positions in the bush white house. he was instrumental in george bush winning the white house. he's now the president and ceo of public strategies in washington, d.c. to his left is betsy fisher, the executive producer of the number one-rated sunday morning show, "me to press -- "meet the press ." joe lochearn was press secretary for brooklyn, a very easy job at the time. [laughter]
he is now in managing director at the clover park group in washington, d.c. next to him as mark mckinnon, a communications strategist who was work for senator john mccain, lance armstrong, and bono. i would like to see them all in a room sunday. next to him is the partner and managing director of global -- global public we fares, a big firm in d.c. she worked for the obama campaign and also worked for the john carey campaign and has done other consulting over the years. -- the john carey campaign - john kerry campaign next we have the senior political writer for "politico and has written for "the national review" and "the
washington post." we will talk about blowing the line. is it into a tent next is a journalism? -- we will talk about bo lurring the line. let me start by setting out a few promises. when i think about the media -- it is a tough term to use recovers a lot of things that are not the same. it is convenient, alleys. there are three sort of views of the media. one is the laconic ideal, that says the media it exists to inform the citizenry. that is the ideal. then we have the corporate view. the media largely are for-profit corporations that have to make
money and what they do pass to justify the bottom line. that might be different than educating the public so we have better conversation occurred then for the political class, to me it is something to use. it is a vehicle. it is not their job to make the media do a good job. they use the media to advance their agenda. it could be promoted presidential policy. all of those things are happening at once. as people approached the media, become at it from different perspectives. we have seen -- we don't have to go into detail about the ever- changing media landscape. let me start with betsy. the frame of the discussion is a journalism or entertainment. my friend harry shearer told me
he was at the school a couple of years ago. brian williams was talking. it was about katrina. harry asked a question about what the networks were not covering more -- what went wrong with the engineering of the levees in new orleans during the flooding? and brian said, it is the emotional stores that are the most compelling. to his credit, he then had harry around the next day to talk about that issue. but the notion that is the emotional stories that are the most compelling. in terms of network news, is that a fair way of looking at at framing it? >> to use the katrina example, the emotion that went into covering that, people at the superdome and the convention
center, pleading, crying for help. that was the emotional story. that was the first week or two of the story. to look back into more investigating. at that point, the emotions of the story is what generated the huge outcry across america. if she did not see this people on television crying for help, the next step would not happen. i think that was an important starting point. >> do you think there is a default position from the media to go with the personal, the dramatic narrative? to some of thet som deeper issues. >> you star with the narrative and let people know why they're connecting. on television, normally the start a story relating it to something and then move on from there. that is how you draw the viewer
in. >> marc, as a person who does media and you try to use the media more than sort of create media, do you care about whether it's a good job? i'm looking at dan. i want to direct this to dan. do you care about whether the media gets things correct? as a person who sees it -- is it an important vehicle for you guys these days as other forms of communication -- >> absolutely. people think it has to be like in either or proposition. there is a decline in network news since when ronald reagan ran for read-election. 70% got the news from abc, nbc, and cbs. now with cable news and the
blogosphere, you can't forget about that and focus on the new socialhe media. you still have to focus on traditional media. talk about a crisis, whether 9/11, the wars in afghanistan and iraq, and with katrina, the network news will still shape the narrative and still have the reach and the context to provide the most amount of americans during a crisis. so it was important for us. we understand the old adages of leads it leads -- if it bleeds, it leads. there is an evolutionary process during a crisis. it starts with the raw emotion. each day you get further from that event and the
dispassionate views come in. that is worthy this section placys. >> if you're in the white house or in a presidential campaign, isn't it in some way your job to manipulate the media as much as you can to work for what you're working for? >> i do not -- i will do the manipulation. look, obviously in a campaign, the more you control the narrative of your candid and candidacy come the more successful you will be. the reason why we spend millions and millions of dollars on political advertising is a direct recognition that you cannot control the free journalism or media. having a strategy to recognize that reality, understanding the tendencies of journalism and the competitive juices between
print, network and all those things, there is some things that you can do to try to shape the news. all those types of things is our effort to try to steer the beasts. some weeks you are successful. of the lease, you can never get out. when you see them coming come you try to write it as much as you can. if you see it coming at you, you try to get out of the way. there are limitations on how much you can "manipulate" or control. >> was ever a conversation in which somebody said, we need to have a good public debate on this. let's get out some great information on this particular issue? >> then we have the real meeting. [laughter]
to pick up on something betsy said and dan. what the media is doing now -- i buy into your second argument is a business. there is such operations competition now to keep viewers are keep readers. the traditional mainstream media is losing that fight to a host of other things which we can talk about another time. what is missing, then, is while everyone is saying we have to get people to watch us or we have to get people to read us is the basic element of, we have to inform peoon, and it has become- you get a product in just what you think they want. there is nothing that has come in underneath it yet to give you the broader textured reasoned analysis of what really happened.
it is just not good business right now. there may be as to move forward with the wonder of the internet, something that will either merge. it is not there right now. that is why you see some of the debate you see on cable tv. >> which brings me to "politico ." some people -- is the next great big thing that is already here. for others, is everything that is wrong with internet journalism. it is all about winning in the morning and getting links to matt drudge to squeeze o competitors and make money. it does do a lot of analysis and it does cover a lot of legislative details. those stories are not the ones
that get tweeted and the links. do think "politico" represents a step forward or a step to the side? >> we don't control what readers are interested in. we put it out there. it is up to the reader to decide if he is going to tweet or put it on facebook. that is their decision. a lot of people who are serious about politics. to say a person like david rogers qwest covered capitol hill for 35 years is not fair. i have spent a lot of this year on the road. i hit 15 states covering the midterms. there's no question that we are guilty as part of a more
collective shift in the media towards what often tends to get bogged down about process and personalities. >> a horserace. >> you have to guard against that. this past cycle come look at slump -- the most covered senate candidates was a person who lost a race by 17 points. that should not happen. that is a problem for us that we need to reconcile. .> christine o'donnell >> i was not going to mention her name. we have to examine that and figure it out what to do about it. i'm concerned that all these incentives are building in towards -- what is more outlandish and provocative?
joe wilson. he stood up on the floor of the house. what happened to him after he said that and what does every politician wants? the want publicity and the want money for their campaigns. he got publicity and he got money for this campaign. he was a back bench congressman that nobody would have heard of before stood up and did something that was on a gentlemanly -- something that was ungentlemanly. was that a mistake? he helped himself and he got a lot of buzz and raised a lot of money. we reward the kind of behavior. >> it does seem with the explosion and expsion of ordia, whether it is blockgs
professional websites, there are fewer gatekeepers. and so in days past or maybe decades past, people would say, a small number of people could control somebody's access to a large number of you. if you offended them or did not play by the rules, you did not get access. nowadays, through proliferation of media and loggers -- bloggers, people can break through easily. kiki, sarah palin, entertainment or journalism? [laughter] >> how about a made-for-tv movie? [laughter] probably not be popular for this, but it is all entertainment. when i say this, i don't mean to demean serious journalists like
david rogers. at a certain point, we're competing with a lot of people's attentions. whether it is me as a press secretary on a campaign or betsy as the executive producer of a network show, we're competing a lot with your attention -- for your attention. you are taking care of aging parents come going to work, cleaning the house, trying to make sure you fill your andgations at wchurch, somehow in the middle of all that, you need to stop and understand the deficit and trade and jobs and what the health care reform package means and all of that. we're using the term media. are we talking but the news media? where are we conveying information? jon stewartnd "meet the press." the president is going to both.
and is certain point, as many nights as i have spent hollering a member of the news media. there is a lot of rubbernecking that goes on. to write really need to know what is happening to lindsay lohan -- do i really need to know what is happening to lindsay lohan? >> let's take a break. >> we want to watch highbrow levels of conversation. the reality is, to get your attention and for you to take the 10 minutes to pay attention, there has to be something in gauging about it, and that is what everybody on this panel has been struggling with. i think the front page of "usa today" is a dramatic example. what you see with president bush and his memoirs is dramatic.
if it had the publication date, chances are you would not stopped for 15 of valuable minutes to take a look at the >> watching the interview with matt lauer, he asked a lot of questions about how the former president felt about things. how do you feel about not being wmd's? do you think you should apologize to the american public? those questions may be important or engaging. they are half the story. they don't give you anything to use to improve the situation are maybe get a better the next time. mark, your politicians and celebrities. -- you work with politicians and celebrities. from your perspective, in the last 10 or 20 years, how have
things shifted? >> radically, but it is a market and the market is responding. a must want to be a soviet-style culture. the news and varmint will respond to what people want. -- the news environment will respond to what people want. john for was the number 4 respected news source. i was on a cable news show with a very well-known cable host, ne of joe lochearn'art's colleagues. we went to break. the hosta, which cut the bipartisan crap and give us some red meat? the market is responding. there are out what's like the texas tribune, a nonprofit organization that are beginning to pop up with serious
journalism where people can get the news that they want. i think we should quit this charade about this notion that some of the networks that are doing this is really news 3 why don't we just brand some of the stuff of unfair and unbalanced and tell like this? i am saying this -- i'm not relating this to one side or the other. >> you are not just talking about fox. >> they are breaking up their coverage. cnn is not but it is withering on the vines. they're calling it all news. this should break up a call news news -- and metro perspective or whatever you want to call it. quit calling it news. >> newspapers have divided
opinion from news. thethat is not necessarily tradition of news. often a false dichotomy between opinion and news. have journalism with values that is still accurate. to me, that is the standard that is the hardest to maintain. nobody would care about the bias at fox or at msnbc if the stories were accurate. you could say this is what happened and this is what it means. people understand when you say what it means. it is a value judgment. represent thew corporations and clients who are
sort of i guess trying to get messages out in times of crisis. do you have more immediate choices now? how did you -- is it harder to get the message out? -- do you have more media choices now? >> for those who have to have relied on the filter, now have much more opportunities. i talk to companies now. degrees spokesperson our press secretary for your company or your employees. they now have access to facebook and twitter and other things to discuss the value of their company. if they do like, they will be an advocate. i think there are more opportunities now for "corporate america." from a political standpoint, we
talk about -- how the consumer, what they choose to use their time with -- this proliferation has been great. we don't have to tune in at 10:00 a.m. on sunday morning. we can consume it when it wants. those who are politically client -- inclined are going to places that only -- not to question their views. if i wake up in the morning and have to go to the drudge report, somebody on the left has to go to huffpost, and you have to run there and get the talking points. you have those points because you had access to all these people who think just like you and who can articulate much better than you and then you parrot what they tell you. i agree. >> they are going to msnbc and
fox. >> i think it contributes to some of the systemic partisanship we're seeing the >> i got that today. i had senator to mentor -- demint on. i got a twitter st. don't like senator demint. that is not a reason not to watch a show, because you disagree. >> 10 years ago, somebody would throw something at the tv. it would not have reached you. >> i want to disabuse the notion that this is all new. that is just not true. >> the media has always been problematic the correct do think people went on because they wanted to understand the difference between two presidential candidates? they want on because of the, wow, what's going to happen next
factor. it is rubberneck and they are waiting for the crash. the other piece come back to 1992. the president -- bill clinton went on "arsenio hall." i hate for people to walk away thinking this is all just some new crisis. it is not in a crisis. is it about a relationship between citizens and information and how they will get it. >> let me ask joe. i could -- i get e-mails from joe all the time about global warming. that is one issue he works on. to my mind, is serious. we're not doing anything about it. there are more climate deniers
into congress after the last election. looking at the media and takg that as an example of the serious issue, one that president obama -- one that president bush agreed upon, i don't think he did what he should have. looking at the media landscape when people focus on, whether it is the horse race or lindsay lohan, what do you do for your office to work on that issue? >> part of the problem is that we have to redefine our terms. news used to being controlled by a few people for the public good. news -- you could only turn on four channels. remember, if you drop -- unless you were born within the last 20 years come you don't have access to papers outside your home town paper. you might be able to get "the
new york times" or "the wall street journal." news is just like any other content. it is just content. politicians are creating contact the same when the dew on "the real housewives of beverly hills." you sit at home and you can program your own information. i want a little of this and some of that. take a look at global warming. global warming was an issue that nobody paid attention to until somebody figured a way to make it interesting content, which was the movie by al gore. change is hard. you go through these times when it is not working 3 is not working now. the wake you will do it is have a successful politicians and
activists are going to people to create content that will give the impetus and political support for change. global warming is a great example. we have not built something on that that has been able to push it through. until we do, we're not going to get anywhere. >> been at "politico -- being at "politico," and you have been there for a while. do you see anything changing in terms of political media in the last two years or months ahead? >> i think it is -- it has changed in the past couple of years. is a political news captured in real time. the notion of watching the news at 6:30 p.m. at night is gone. i don't think this is necessarily something that is
unique to political news. fragmentation is happening across me it and across everything in american society. we are now in a culture where you decide what is that you will consume will listen to when you want if. -- when you want it. they have gardening or whether or sports. espn was ahead of their time when they created an all-sports niche. it is across the board. the consumers want to power to get whatever niche they want. it is taking place beyond politics. >> the me ask you about the issue of speed. one thing that impresses me is that information comes and goes rather quickly these days. stories break at 10:00 a.m. on cable within two hours and are
regurgitated in the nighttime. the next day, that was weeks ago. how many people here have eight twittered feet? the thing is, every time you add someone -- a twitter feed? the thing is, every time you have someone, twitter goes faster. we are beyond the days where you used to be able to think about something for maybe a day or two before writing about it and then people would respond in a way that was considerate. now, everything is so compacted --
>> breaking news happens in real time. we consume it. we chew over it an hour later. i think there is still a space on line for print and longer form. i just do not think that because there is now a platform where you can get something in real- time that quality, in debt journalism is necessarily a thing of the past -- in depth journalism is necessarily a thing of the past. take the baker piece about the obama white house. he is probably the best white house correspondent in washington, one of the best ever, i think. he reported in 15,000 words about the obama white house, the challenges, what they got wrong.
that peace had stay in power and was referred to again, and again, and again. it was not just a puff in the wind. it was there for some time. >> i agree. i think there are breaks through pieces, i just think there may be fewer than there used to be. and i think the transmission belt is getting faster and faster. >> this has been an ongoing debate with my wife in the last 24 hours. i am a a big consumer and i happen to think that this proliferation of new media ultimately, while it may be bad for democracy, gives us more information. people can get information on policy. if you are irresponsible
campaign and you want to get elected, you have to provide that. my wife, on the other hand, feels pretty strongly that we do not need information 30 times a day. that these things do not have any kind of deep meaning unless you stand back and reflect on them. our family is a good reflection of this debate. >> it is interesting. i think it takes two to tango here. we have a role to play in this whent comes to consumers. do we treat them like a vendor. we want to flip a switch and get coverage when we want, or do we treat them like a stakeholder in that the conversation? are we taking time to talk to them when there is no coverage, when it is about making sure that they have all of the facts that we have, the context, so
that when we do have to write quickly, they do it right. they cannot do it by themselves. >> let me refer the question that, if i may. -- back, if i may. i remember you sitting down in new york city in the middle of the campaign trail. you are compelled now to do multiple times a day. do you have the time to do longer format? >> absolutely. i blog 8-10 hours per day. i still do longer form pieces. it is not an either or.
it is possible to also step back and do a cut more comprehensive peace about some -- to a more comprehensive piece about some demographic trend. >> we have a bimonthly magazine and a 24/7 website, so we can do both at the same time. i have some concern about the diversion of resources to the fierce urgency of now. but the other thing is, again, the company that the fierce urgency of now creates, and this is not necessarily a problem for the media to solve, but whether it is people involved in policy
debates or the public at large, how they absorb the information, and whether they take the time to ponder it in an effective way. i think the proliferation of hyper-speed communication is making that more difficult. let me just check on the time because there is no plot here. i want to get to questions. who can tell me the time? 10 minutes to? ok, time for questions. [laughter] we are trying to get through a lot, so no speeches, questions. but you can preface your question with a short remark. >> how can we restore some accountability to what is out
there? >> i think it is going to take time, but i think what we are experiencing now -- so many outlets the are uncovered, that increasingly were getting bad information, and there were consequences of that. it is amazing to see these stories come out that seem to have a legitimate byline when they are completely fabricated. i think what will happen over time is that people will get inoculated to that sort of thing and begin to demand accountability. they will look for sources where they can go to get into a nation that they know is true, and overtime multiple sources will congregate into fewer that are more legitimate. >> i think right now people just go to where they hear and see what they won.
>> that is the danger of the mentality right now. there is the sense that anyone can be a journalist and there is no editor. there are two or three people looking at a script making sure it is correct before it goes on the nightly news. that does not happen in the blogosphere. >> but the nightly news does have some misinformation. if you were locked in a room and had to alternately watched msnbc or fox every other hour, you would go crazy. [laughter] they cannot all be using correct, credible, verifiable information. they are telling a story that they know will appeal to people
to make money, but on the left and the right. you mentioned espn being ahead of its time. they now have 05 channels. they have everything you could want to watch. there are going to have to be things that come up. there will be a smaller audience for people that one of the news story, for people that won it 10% right -- people that want the news straight, for people that want it 10% right, for people that want it to verify. >> i think that is part of the reason we have been a success is because we are giving you something real that is news. new information is a precious asset and a commodity. >> we are best served if we stop using the word news. you are giving us content and
information. we are going to have to figure out a process, because the people who used to process this for us are not around anymore. >> this is for another day, but i would have to say that when it comes to -- it is easy to make equivalent argument between fox and msnbc. but i would challenge any one to say that people what glenn back does as anything remotely similar bond -- glenn beck does has anything remotely similar on msnbc. >> i wanted to just offer an alternative view of what could happen with all of this. this is my own personal experience and also as a professor here what i am seeing in my glasses with my students, is that one of the options --
classes with my students, is that one of the options and alternatives is to shut it off. i do not know if that is more dangerous or less dangerous than choosing your news based on your political preferences, but that is what i think younger people are choosing to do is just to say, look, i cannot trust any of these outlets. nobody is accountable so i am not going to watch, i am not going to read, i am not going to vote, i am not going to participate in this process. what to do say to people who feel they cannot trust anything they read or see? >> i think it is a a an interesting point. a lot of the takeoff in social media expenses not just people who want to gossip with their friends. it is that some of the traditional institutions and that you used to go to to verify it decisions, whether they be
financial, political, religious, all of those pillars that we relied upon are now under assault. they are under reputation assault. new media is one of those platforms where they are not just going to go for their friends, but where they will say, i have people i trust, i follow people i trust on facebook board atwitter, and so i am going to do what they do. -- facebook or twitter, so i am going to do what they do. whether it is the church i go to or the financial adviser i use, i am going to go to people i trust to decide how to do that.
>> before we get terribly depressed, in politics, the attention span is pretty short. all of those things came together in 2008. the youths were engaged in this country in a way they have not been since the civil rights movement and the vietnam war. we need a combination. we need people who are willing to tune in, but we need leaders who canid inspire them to engage. for better or worse, the obama presidency has not engaged them the way the candidacy did. and they have got to figure that out. >> let's take two more questions. please keep it brief. >> my favorite anger man growing up was a walter cronkite. -- anchor man growing up was
walter cronkite. my favorite one as an adult was timothy russert. i miss them dearly. he was not afraid to challenge ord to ask pertinent questions, to put people on the spot, to make them uncomfortable. today i find that instead of watching news, but i am watching and hearing are talk shows and sound bites. one of the things i wanted to ask you is, because of a limited number of owners of media, you know, at one time you could only own newspapers if you own the newspapers or television if you owned television, now, all of these companies, big guys, i am wondering how is that affecting a investigating --
affecting investigative journalism? >> thank you. let's take a new quest -- let's take the next question. >> do you think that turning public policy conversation into a spectacle more than a real discussion for the public to engage within is going to change the way that emerging countries like india, china, russia and brazil in particular approach allowing freedom of speech? >> thank you. do you want to talk about nbc news? i know they just hired the co author of my book as an investigative reporter. the truth is, investigative reporting costs a lot of money. newspapers are under pressure.
networks are under pressure. cable is under pressure and they do not want to spend that kind of money because they do not think there will be big ratings or big returns. >> that is the culture you were talking about earlier. twen-four's seven new is gets turned around quicker and quicker -- 24/7 the news gets turned around quicker and quicker, so you are not going to be churning out story after story. we see that increasingly that the investigative department are no longer. >> that is true. that is why you have places though like propublica and other nonprofit organizations that are doing investigative journalism. but it is very hard in the for- profit world out to justify the cost and expense. >> i think the center for public integrity actually collects information and will work with
reporters from different networks and newspapers and partner with them, and help them along the way. they're like a research partner for news organizations as a cost-effective way of getting out investigative pieces. >> does anybody have any thoughts on the global question? how well we do here might impact the emerging democracies? >> just in my time, between 2000-2007, they are just as sensational, if not more, in other parts of the world. if you think about it, just the difference between how gulf war i was covered and what it was like in 2003, and how that debate ensued both in the region
and around the world, i think it has already taken off. whether it is able to be used, whether you're in certain countries like you said russia and china, fascinating story. we were in a meeting with president britain and president bush. there was a lot of criticism -- president putin and president bush. president putin had taken a lot of criticism, and president bush told him he had to just let them do it. and putin said, do not lecture me about the news. you fired that anchormen. you fired dan rather.
you called corporate headquarters and had him fired. that horse is already out of the barn. >> it seems lately that many young people have become, obviously, very disillusioned. we are familiar with the rallies that happened in washington not long ago. it seems that comedians have become the new source of news for young people. and satire seems to have taken on a new-found credibility that did not exist before. >> i had a similar question. thank you for coming here. it is a wonderful class. where do see the line being drawn between being an entertainer and a journalist?
glenn beck thinks of himself as a journalist, but it is more of an entertainer. stephen colbert or john stewart, entertainers,'re but they have a rally trying to bring back discourse in the country. where do you see the line being drawn, or is it just going to be blurred and up to us to decide where we draw that line? >> what a lot of those rallies captured is the rise of media figures as public personalities. the referees have started playing in the game.
in the past, it was martin luther king giving the speech. it was not jack paar. these people are becoming, i do not want to say leaders, but they are public figures of influence in their own mind. the lines have blurred. they're not just observers, their actual players in the game. i do not know a politician that could draw as many folks as those two did to the mall. look at sarah palin. this is someone who crosses the line between being a politician and a media figure. do you covered her as a potential candidate for president or as an entertainer? >> or do you cover her as a soap
opera? >> with all due sympathy to the young people, because i was one once -- it is not that funny. young people getting their news or political guidance from the entertainment world is not new. there was a show called "laugh and in," -- "laugh-in." which was the first real criticism of the vietnam war. then there was a "saturday night live." when they turned it upside down in 2008, that was the exception. but that concept is not new. one of the differences is, today when you look at the journalist
, we haveadvocate not talked about specialty media or minority media. we have a huge rise of minority media. in a lot of cities it outranks traditional networks. major news outlets. traditionally, in communities of color, news has been brought to bear by advocacy leaders, and that is still happening today. >> why you think that comedy central has managed to corner the market on accountability? >> my question was also about john stewart and the rally.
i was wondering what your take was on his blatant attack of the media. >> one thing that was interesting aut that rally, and the glen beck rally was the but, at the end of the day, had no political rally. -- both, at the end of the day, had no political rally. we thought that beck would, but it was really a religious rally. with stewart, it was an entertainment rally with a 10 minute lecture tacked on at the end. we have some real, significant
policy differences, and we have always had trouble resolving these issues. i think stewart and colbert are geniuses. they have a mark twain level of satire. but it is not their job. it is their job to engage, but not to talk about how we deal with these conflicts. at the end of the day, i thought it was kind of an easy out for john to make that sort of broadside against the media, because there are people on this panel and others who work hard and who do care about issues and who do try to have honest debates. there is npr. there is pbs. there is c-span. there is a lot of stuff out there that do not get the ratings he gets. why is that? that is my sermon. >> again, we mix up our
definitions here. we are having a conversation, smart people, referring to him as a journalist, and he is not. stephen colbert makes a fortune pretending to be someone else. maybe there is a future for that in politics. >> i think that has happened already. >> i think it has. >> the point is, you can say you get information from watching " the daily show," but it is not a news show. maybe news is now a definition that has to be redefined or drawn out, but the people to sit around -- who sit around in new york and but that shared together are very bright, very funny, a very well informed, but they are not journalists. they are trying to make you laugh.
>> how'd you feel as the person who produces the number one sunday show, the longest running news show in the history of the world, you feel when your guests say they will not come to you, they go to jon stewart? or they watch him instead and feel they get some news value and are informed by applthat? >> i should point out the we have two newspapers on campus and they are sold out every day. we have a combination of old school style newspaper as well as comedians you can filter out all of the garbage that the 24- give us.s network's
>> but you watch his show to be entertained. you do not necessarily what betsy's showed to be entertained. >> i do. >> i think as long as you are watching what is happening, maybe you do not what "meet the press and" now, but maybe 10 years from now you will. as long as you're engaged in some aspect, it does not matter. i think it is a positive thing. >> what is interesting to me is watching jon stewart and where he is going back and forth across that line between irony and direct engagement. he is blurring the line a little bit himself. at what point does he adopt the
mantle of a guy do is just an entertainer or really trying to change this civic discourse? he has 1 million viewers per night. he is not controlling the debate. what is important about what you said about newspapers is, if that is the only place you are going to get information, that is a real problem. if you are then using stewart to synthesize what is entertainment, to sort through things, as long as that is not your only new stores, that is a kit. -- news source, that is okay. >> i actually had a chance to go to the rally, and i could not hear a single thing. [laughter]
but it was a really incredible opportunity because -- did any of you attend, by the way? were you able to get into the main area? >> by a member of the washington the lead to use every one of my connections to get a good -- washington eat to get every oneused of my connections to get a good spot. >> why did you go, by the way? >> i went because it seemed like a good thing to do. [laughter] even going down, i had no idea
what to expect. i was with a bunch of other students here. i met up with a national organization to hand out stickers. from what i was able to gauge from being there, it was more an opportunity to discuss issues that in so many other ways are kind of mottled, clouded, and really not thoroughly discussed. for example, washington does not have a representation. it was dusk before halloween weekend, said the amount of creativity -- it was just before halloween weekend, so the amount of creativity that people put into it --
>> and a fun time was had by all. >> of what i wanted to ask you was that, you made the assumption that jon stewart and stephen colbert are not news anchors. they are entertainers. you said they do not do journalistic pieces. they actually do a lot of journalistic pieces where they go and interview people and it is very thrust of. it is interesting and has a different take on what we have been saying. the point is, i don't know what your opinion is about this.
with ending the prohibition on ibus, how do think individuals could get members of congress to deal with that issue? >> let's get the question behind you. >> i think back to a controversy of pseudo-journalist using nontraditional means. coup d'etat about the potential benefits- could you talk about the potential benefits for that sort of journalism?
>> let's talk about marijuana, quickly. to what degree can the media opposed -- impose a policy agenda on politicians? the hardest thing i have ever found is to get them off their talking point. they have only gotten better and better. you can see that on "meet the press," every week. what are you telling them in the locker room? >> this is the free market on it. when your issue is important enough to a majority of americans that it should take up time in their day, that is when politicians will answer a question about it. so right now, it is a matter of how many people are worried
about that affecting their quality of life versus getting a job or health insurance. >> sharon engel decided that her approach to answering questions would be to not answer questions. she said she would answer them when she was senator. so, at the market worked. >> just for the record, what we're telling them in the locker room is not to inhale. [laughter] this is the promise of the great new media. every politician in washington, almost to a person, does not understand the new media but is deathly afraid of it, because there is no quicker way to get run out of office than by missing the next big thing. if this is the issue and you can get 15,000 people on facebook to
send an e-mail to a congressional office, let me tell you something. the next morning, that office will be devoted to figuring out their position on marijuana. there is great promise here, but it is a mess right now trying to figure out how people are going to use this and where everything is going to settle. we had four-five people come up in a row and say, i do not watch any of you people, i just watch comedy central. i think that is a recognition that we have not figured out what the next thing is. i do not think it will be pure entertainment and comedy, but i do not know what it is. >> had on that note, that we do not know, we have to finish. sorry we did not last -- get to the last question. >> coming up, we will start our
live program at 1:30 p.m. eastern when president obama and vice-president biden of is that a plant in indiana. -- a visit a plant in indiana. a little later, a discussion of the future of social security. that will be live on c-span as well. a look at the u.s. capitol here where both the house and senate are out now for the thanksgiving break. this january, we will see the start of the 112th congress, with many new faces. among them, a republican mo brooks, representing alabama's fifth district. another new member from alabama is democrat terri sewell.
a reminder, we have information on all new representatives, senators and governors available for you at c-span.org. >> here are some programs c-span is airing thursday starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern. academy award winning actor jeff bridges talks about his work to reduce and you thunder. jane goodall talks about her work with debt -- to reduce y outh hunger. jane goodall talks about her work with animals, and former president clinton presents a medal to tony blair. >> from today the soap "washington journal." malpass joins us from new york to talk about the role of the federal reserve. he is a former deputy assistant
treasury secretary and former deputy assistant secretary of state. welcome to the program. caller: good to be there. -- guest: good to be here. host: the fed has started quantitative easing to lower interest rates through treasury purchases. for those who barely got through economics 101, what does it mean? guest: it is complicated. normally what the fed does is borrow from banks and buys treasury bills, very safe assets. then the banks go and lend the money. the feds in a fact provide the banking for bank loans, the reserves, so that banks are protected in the event of problems. this time they are doing it differently. they borrow fr the banks but they are buying long-term assets -- treasury bonds. in fact the fed, as it expands
right now if, it will have a balance sheet, more assets than the combination of general electric, goldman sachs, an exxon combined. so, if you add up all the assets of goldman sachs, exxon, and general electric, the fed has more money than they do have long-tm assets. host: the new york times saying the fed adopts washington tacts to combat credits. do you get a sense the fed i making this decision to get people off of their backs that are criticizing their policies and their program, or that they actually believe that this is what needs to be done in order to rectify the economic of tuition in the u.s.? -- economic situation in the u.s.? guest: i think the fed believes this is a good approach to helping -- jobs.
the question is do you want a bigger role for the fed or the federal government in general. some argue the federal government should simply borrow money and spend it and it would somehow help the economy. now what the fed is doing is saying they will borrowoney and buy treasury debt. i don't think that is useful in creating jobs. the fed argues it will somehow lower interest rates on corporate bonds. so, you have big corporations doing better. but history shows that big corporations don't really hire ma workers on net. they are all about productivity. so, what we really need is job growthn small businesses. and e fed s not really made the connection how will this help small businesses and new businesses get started and get their first bank loan. that is the challenge and this does not really help at all. host: you signed an open letter to chairman ben bernanke that
was dated november 15. in it u say, we subscribe to your statement in "the washington post" article on november 4 that the federal reserve cannot solve all of the economy's problems on its own. in this case with big improvements aren't taxed, spending, and regulatory policy must take precedence and not further monetary stimulus. it acts of the fed can't solve the u.s. economy -- if the actions of the fed can't solve the u.s. economy crisis, what can? guest: this is the core of the issue. can having the fed buy bonds actually help the economy? that group thanks, no, that is not a useful tool. the things that can help the economy, having the federal government spend less so people have confidence that they will be able to hold on to their money and create a new business, create a new job.
so, i think the solution is pretty clear. shington doesn't want to do it. you've got to spend less money out of washington and then have some confidence that taxes are not going up, and in fact, might go down at some point in the future. then the regulatory paralys going on in the banking system and every area of government. puget legislation comes out of ngress. they should be passing short bills. instead, 1000, 2000-page bills and a tangled up the country in and knocked. that is what is going on. host: on october 19 you wrote an article in "the wall street journal" online on how the fed is holding back recovery by promising to print more money. it is giving congress an excuse to avoid critical tax and spending cuts. do you think this is going to change with the new congress coming in regardless of how much money the fed prints out?
guest: you know, i would like to think there would be a major response in washington to the november 2 boat, but the reality is, as you well know sitting there, there is a lot of inertia in washington and i think it is going to be very hard to get them to start -- stop spending as much as they do. the whole system is designed to spend more money. as we come back to the fed, e same and their ship is there. the fed is used to playing the big role itse. i set up an organization called growpac where we are getting people to sign a petition -- petition that says they do not want the fed to get bigger and bigger, which is what is going on right now. host: we are talking to david malpass about the role of the federal reserve. if you want to get involved in the conversation, give us a call.
if you have called in the last 30 days, sends an e-mail or tortured message instead of giving us a call today. -- ortwitter message. you also said mr. bernanke argued that most of today's high unemployment is cyclical and therefore susceptible to monetary stimulus. we see little evidence that the reallocation of workers across instries and regions is particularly pronounced look into other periods of recession. suggesting that the pace of the structural change is not greater than normal. can you go into a little more depth on that? guest: yes. chairman bernanke had argued that the fed doesn't see that people are having to move
because of the things going on structurally within the economy. that was a quote that you read from him. my article in "the wall street journal" in october was challenging or questioning that and saying, look, what i observed across the country is a huge structural change going on where people are having to move out of the northern states, they are also moving out of the industries that worked in the 1990's and t 2000's and having to find new were lower paying jobs. so a huge structural change, i think to the negative, going across the economy because, in my view, high tax rates, high regulatory burdens that make it very hard for people to create new jobs, new businesses. so, that is a structural change. and you can't fix that with the fed. you have to go back to the executive branch and ask them to propose changes that will fix this, and then congress begins
its role as well. host: david malpass is among a group of prominent republican economists campaigning against that barrel reserve's latest move to boost the economy, calling on fed chairman ben bernanke to drop his plan to buy $600 billion in additional u.s. treasury bonds. our first call comes from new jersey. maggie on our line for democrats. caller: good morning, gentlemen. my concern is with this action th the fed is planning, that it will overvalue wall street once again and create a situation that could cause a double dip in our economy, the same kind of meltdown we saw in 2008. i think a more effective approach would be a stimulus package like the one we had, except about three times larger.
i do believe that the e economists had suggested that, and he was deterred by some advisers. i am looking forward to your response. guest: thank you, maggie. with regard to the bigger stimulus package, i don't think that would have worked. but i want to come to your first point, the expansion of wall street itself. i agree with you on that. what the fed is doing is causing a huge extra activity on wall street. the fed buys the bonds from the normal wall street system. they pay some kind of commission on that. also, when they borrow from the banks, they are paying slightly above market rate interest for the borrowing so the banks and wall street are getting money on both sides of the trade. in addition, because of the huge expansion of the fed the dollar
is made less stable, meaning it goes up and down in value. you know who makes money on that. that again comes to wall street. in the current -- currency traders make a huge amount from the volatility that comes out of currencies. the better solution would be for the fed to seek a relatively stable dollar. that would hurt wall street but it would help the people of the country. they are paying is like a little amount on every currency trade. it is almost like a tax on the instability of the u.s. dollar. countries around the world are seeking to have more stable currencies and the u.s. is kind of alone in thinking it is useful to havan unstable currency. i agree with your point there.
caller: i am concerned. i only make like $660 a month. i learned a long time ago since i and the first of the baby boomers, i cannot have any think if i don't sacrifice. i am very disappointed that is my congressmen and senators vote for this situation and that they are going to have to vote on before long, i am really going to put signs out. i use my own money advertising the tea party because i have a lot of cars going by my house. i spend my own money any time there is something going on here in florida. if no one gives me a dime for what i say since i go to the drugstore and buy boards and
markers myself, i don't know where the people get the idea of how we don't have the right to do this, to show our opinions. when we stand up for what we think is too much government, his then we are all wrong. thank you, c-span. host: david malpass? guest: there is this issue of the spending enough. isn't that enough? every year, going forward even with a new republicans in the house, that number is likely to go higher and higher. i share the concern of the caller. as the fed contributes to it by buying federal debt, it facilitates the process of government spending, but that
comes out of a cost to the private sector of the economy. elrly across the country right now are feeling the inflation. they feel food costs and medical costs going up. the government keeps the numbers on inflation, and the numbers keep shong the government they do not have to pay out for the social security benefits, so elderly are often getting caught on both sides of this cost squeeze. the fed, by making the dollar weaker, it has not protected the dollar. that is one of my complaints. it leaves the dollar weak. grains and costs -- grain costs have gone up. sugar costs have gone up pretty people feel it in their pocketbook. i think the fed should be more
focused on dollar stability, and they should say it. the fed tries to ignore the dollar and they say it is not their job. it is really their job. that is the core of the complaint. they do not protect the dollar in the long run. i have a web site wher we have a petition that people can sign asking the fed to stop expanding and to better protect the dollar. host: david malpass and others wrote an open letter to fed chairman ben bernanke. they wrote "we do not believe such a quantitative easing plan is necessary or advisable under current circumstances -- sal is on our line for
inpendents. caller: the system is a replacement for the foreign banking system that was thrown out of this country by andrew jackson right after he was elected president. the fed was reestablished by permission of the u.s. congress with only three people on the fold just before christmas. 20 years later, the congress went to the fed in redemption of the notes issued was forced to declare bankruptcy, and we have been in bankruptcy since june 5, 1933. this is a documented call from the house resolution enacted. the fed has gone and made us bankrupt. it is not federal.
the u.s. constitution -- the question of a conspiracy -- the question of why we borrowed notes from the federal reserve interest win at all times they had the power to issue notes on their own without any interest is a question that needs to be asked. host: you have asked it guest: the constitution does talk about the dollar, and it clearly comprehends that the dollar is supposed to be a stable value over the centuries. i agree with the concern that we have lost that somehow that we have to get that back. i am not one who is right now criticizing the independence of the fed. i think we would be at grave risk if we had the fed responding to politicians, to appropriations bills, to authorization bills out of
congress, so i am not in the camp suggesting that. my goal is to have the fed change the policy in this is decrease stop buying treasury bonds and articulate better -- not better, articulate their concerns, their long-term concern, that the dollar be a store of value that will last for hundreds of years. the fed does not want to do that. they should force that issue. the treasury department has been a partf that. some of the people have said this is a partisan criticism of the fed. ben bernanke was a senior republican appointee and the bush administration. i criticize the fed policy in that administration as well because it was not strong enough on the value of the dollar and the constitutional principles of stability. i think we have to have a lot of introspection.
a change in the policies that the fed pursues that will give us more stability in the long run. host: cash confusion is the opposite in the "washington *." -- in the washington times." we are talking about this with david malpass this morning. our next call comes from richmond, va.. caller: good morning. i see you ran for the senate for the republican party. i have a couple of questions. one is a statement. the federal reserve is a private institution. i don't really know what it does. what i am asking about his
[unintelligible] it was talking about the employment act of 1978, giving the fed a new mandate. i am wondering what that institution should have the ultimate purpose of fostering economic prosperity and social welfare. i fail to see why a central bank has that role. the legislative branch will not another stimulus. i would be interested in your comments on that. guest: of those raised a very good points. george went back and questioned the core of this. why should the fed have responsibility for employment
within the economy. that came out of a particular time of high unemployment, so i think congress was trying to shift the responsibility to someone else so they could keep their offices and see to it. i think it is legitimate for people twonder about what the proper role of the fed is. the federal reserve system has 20,000 employees ands right now making $100 billion per year. and i mentioned earlier the size of its assets are bigger than exxon, goldman sachs, and general electric combined. this is a giant organization that has now been given by congress the role of protecting the consumer from the financial system, so they have added this giant regulatory mandate on the fed and has not given the fed itself control over