tv News and Public Affairs CSPAN June 24, 2012 1:35am-5:29am EDT
been with "u.s. news and world report" for many years. guest: i started covering the white house in 1986. five presidents now. i am one of the fortunate people who got to do in his career what he wanted to do. i am still doing it. host: when you travel on air force one, there is, and circumstance. there are now beckons, menus with the logo -- there are napkins, many with the logo. does it make it difficult not to be overly impressed with the office? guest: a lot of people say when you interview the president in the oval office or have a meeting, people raise this notion of how they will argue
their case but then they get in there and milk. it happens to reporters. on air force one, it is a different environment. there are some perks. the aircraft never has to wait. the president always has priority. you mentioned the perks. when i first started covering it, there were more. they had packages of them -- they had packages of m & m candies, napkins, cups. when nixon was president, his chief of staff said they had to do something of their -- about air force one. he thought they should put in plastic cups and forks because
reporters were stealing the good stuff. he said he did not want to lower the standards. now we do not do that. i did not do that, but there were a lot of reporters that to the -- that ook the pads. there is not a lot to take now, frankly. host: the next caller is from maryland. caller: i am 40. the first president i really remember is ronald reagan. i do remember he used to have -- it was on tv once or twice a week. i did not realize he did not like to fly into a few minutes ago. that would explain why he was always on tv. he used to talk about policies
he would want to put in or just to keep the american public informed. if the current president would do that, with that saving a lot of money from him traveling? he was in baltimore, maryland, the week before last. he caused such a headache because of the security issues. it would have been easier to go on tv even if just in the local market. it would have been easy to go on tv and talk about what he wanted to talk about. it does not matter if you are a republican or democrat president. it would save so much money if they would save the important trips for air force one and talk about policies on tv.
guest: those are interesting point. i am aware of the trip to baltimore and the various other trips president obama has made. the caller mentioned president reagan. president reagan did not like to travel. he was a man in his 70's. he liked to be at the white house and at home. with the ever-present, they tend to want to get out and about more. when you say the president needs to do more television and not travel as much, a lot of presidents would quarrel with that. they want to have the personal contact. they do not want to be stuffy in the white house. getting on television, how do you do that? do you require the tv stations to give you time? you cannot do that. there is the first amendment after all. do you rely on them to cover the
president in a speech that would interrupt regular programming? the stations would lose a lot of money. it is more complicated than it might seem. when the president went to baltimore, with the stations have given him half an hour of time? what would you do with his rival, mitt romney? would you have to give him half an hour of time? especially in a campaign context, it gets more complicated. host: he tweets and agrees with the last caller. may in l.a. on the democrats' line. caller: why are the u.s. citizens so upset about the
president using air force one going where he needs to go? we are now in a global economy and world. we cannot just sit in america and not represent america. why is this so upsetting to them? guest: that is the other side of the equation from the callers. we live in a global world. the president is best able to carry his own message personally rather than through embassies. it's more attention and emphasis. other countries value it went our president goes summer. it shows he is interested in them personally and their country. the president has not been somewhere -- if the prison has
not been summer, people get upset in the country -- if the president has not been somewhere important, people get upset in the country. there is the issue of personal diplomacy, getting to know the other leaders personally. personal diplomacy can make a difference if the president has a relationship or partnerships with other people, it is best done in person rather than remotely. that is another reason the president feel they have to get around the world. host: the president is in mexico for the g-20. this will be their first time meeting since putin has retaken the office of the presidency. president obama will be meeting with other world leaders as well. guest: there were personal relationships between our
presidents and other leaders that did matter. sometimes they do not. but the relationship between roosevelt and churchill mattered. it helped them get through world war ii and construct the post- war world. there was report recently about president reagan and margaret thatcher being very important in dealing with the old soviet union. the relationship between president bush, president clinton, and tony blair is very important. the presidents would say the personal side can make a difference in the crisis were getting through a complicated set of policy decisions. host: ken walsh is the author of the book that came out in 2003. he recently offered a "family of freedom." that came up last year.
let's go to ann arbor, barry is a democrat. caller: i saw a program on the history channel about air force one and how it is maintained. the air force mechanics were very highly trained. air force one is a plum assignment. they spin the fast two years waxing the airplane. -- they spent the first tee of years waxing the airplane. it seems a total waste of talent to take a trained mechanic and make them want the airplane. the airplane does not need to be waxed. i am sure it looks shinier, but it is probably symbolic of a lot of other eyewash that goes on around it that is not necessary to have been functioning safely.
are realize they have to hold things to a higher standard -- i realize they have to hold things to a higher standard because of the mission. i will let you comment on that side of things. guest: i have seen that. it is interesting how the people who work on the plane are selected. i was told they work so closely together that they consult with all of the people who work on the plane to decide when a vacancy has to be filled if that person is the right person. when they are traveling, they're working 24 hours a day in close conditions. they take great pride in having a crew that can work together. there are a lot of demands on those folks. being on air force one is a crowning achievement of somebody's career in the air
force whether it is the pilots or the baggage handlers. they feel a lot of pride in working for the presidency. those folks are very professional air force people. i have come to respect them a great deal having dealt with them many times over the years. host: a tweet on the president getting out of d.c. and it being something they need to do more. keith? caller: i am calling to voice my opinion regarding when we put a president in office, i believe we should assume the responsibility of paying for air force one to be utilized. however when we put a president in office, we should also consider the integrity they will use in the judgment in using air force one to keep the cost down at a minimal.
host: how should that be done? should congress over see that? should there be a committee? caller: i believe there has to be oversight. we have had presidents that have abused it. i do not blame president bush for going home to his ranch in texas. i would not blame president obama going home to chicago. however, there has to be some oversight in the use of air force one. host: let's get a response from ken walsh. guest: there is oversight. the oversight committees look into this. they find it gets to be a matter of judgment, very subjective, on the president using the aircraft. when republicans are in the white house, the democrats jumped on it. when the opposite is true, the other party jumps on it. it happens all the time. in the political season, obama
will take more criticism for using the plane. mitt romney, the republican presumptive nominee, has criticized president obama for traveling around on air force one already. he said he is isolated in this fancy environment and should be out more with the public. even when the president gets out on air force one ostensibly to be in more contact with people, they get criticized for the fact that they are on the plane which is such an amazing and burn it. when presidents leave office, the almost always say one of the things they miss the most is air force one. every president i have covered have said that. it is a wonderful way to travel. they deeply appreciate it. they appreciate the attention and smoothness of the
transportation. it is one of the perks of office president's really value. host: ken walsh has been our guest. his the chief white house correspondent for "u.s. news and world report." he has a number of books he has written >> coming up sunday, the role of the hispanic vote in campaign 2012. response to the latest campaign ads and polls showing how hispanics are leaning politically. then at the philip will discuss the most recent fund-raising numbers from the presidential campaign. in the final hour, williams mary
with the foreign policy council on russia's role in syria. washington journal, live at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. in his weekly radio address, president obama called on republicans to cooperate with his administration and passed the provisions in his jobs bill. he emphasized that he believes these steps will lead to long- term economic growth. the republican response is delivered by louisiana congressman bill cassidy. he criticized the health care law and said provisions in the long are too expensive and not enough to encourage job creation. >> over the past three years, we've been clawing our way back from the worst economic crisis of our lifetimes. and we know it will take longer than any of us would like to fully recover all the jobs and savings that have been lost. but there are things we can do -- right now -- to help put people back to work and make
life a little easier for middle-class families. for months, i've been pushing congress to help us along by passing common-sense policies that would make a difference. democrats and republicans have already done some important work together -- like passing a tax cut that's allowing working americans to keep more of their paycheck every week. but congress has refused to act on most of the other ideas in my jobs plan that economists say could put a million more americans back to work. there's no excuse for inaction. right now, we are seven days away from thousands of american workers having to walk off the job because congress hasn't passed a transportation bill. we are eight days away from nearly seven and a half million students seeing their loan rates double because congress hasn't acted to stop it. this makes no sense. we know that one of the most important things we can do for our economy is to make sure that all americans get the best education possible. right now, the unemployment rate for americans with a college degree or more is about half the national average. their incomes are twice as high as those who don't have a high school diploma. so, if we know that a higher education is the clearest path
to the middle class, why would we make it harder to achieve? so much of america needs to be repaired right now. bridges are deteriorating after years of neglect. highways are choked with congestion. transportation delays cost billions of dollars every year. and there are hundreds of thousands of construction workers who have never been more eager to get back on the job. so why would we let our transportation funding run out? this is a time when we should be doing everything in our power -- democrats and republicans -- to keep this recovery moving forward. my administration is doing its part. on friday, secretary of transportation ray lahood announced $500 million in competitive grants for states and communities that will create construction jobs on projects like road repair and port renovation. and that's an important step, but we can't do it all on our own. the senate did their part. they passed a bipartisan transportation bill back in march. it had the support of 52 democrats and 22 republicans.
now, it's up to the house to follow suit -- to put aside partisan posturing, end the gridlock, and do what's right for the american people. it's not lost on any of us that this is an election year. but we've got responsibilities that are bigger than an election. we answer to the american people, and they are demanding action. let's make it easier for students to stay in college. let's keep construction workers rebuilding our roads and bridges. and let's tell congress to do their job. tell them it's time to take steps that we know will create jobs now and help sustain our economy for years to come. >> hello, i am bill cassidy, a doctor and united states congressman from the state of louisiana. the supreme court will soon rule on the constitutionality of the president's health care law, along which continues to her job creation and damage our economy. not only is president obama's health care law not working, it makes things worse by driving up
health care costs, making it harder for small businesses to hire workers. the only way to change this is by repealing obamacare entirely. we should repeal what is left and implement common sense, step-by-step reforms that protect americans' access to the care they need from the doctor they choose at the lowest cost. in this tough economy, the top health care concern of families with small businesses is out of control costs. health care coverage has become too expensive for too many people. two years ago, washington democrats pushed through obamacare with promises that it would fix all of this. it did not have popular support. it did not have bipartisan support. but the authors insisted that it would make health care more affordable. of course, americans hoped that would be true. instead, obamacare turned out to be the wrong medicine for out of
control health care costs. the lot is going to cost nearly twice as much as we were told. people are already paying more for their health care than they were before, and employers are canceling plans to expand their businesses, which is to say they will not be hiring new workers. this two trillion dollar takeover will result in more than 2 million more people being pushed out of the plan than they are today. obama is issuing hundreds of waivers to selective businesses and issuing millions of taxpayer dollars. none of this has worked and now the vast majority of americans want the supreme court to overturn all or part of obamacare. if that happens, it is important to know the republicans will not repeat democratic mistakes.
we will not pass through a bill that most people do not even have time to read. i have practiced medicine for three decades, primarily treating the uninsured. i serve all patients equally. good health care starts and a doctor's office, not a washington back room. it is now clear if it was not already that taking care of the step-by-step, not in one fell swoop, is the right approach. families should be able to make their own choices, visit the doctor of their choosing and get the health care they and their physician feel is best. that would result in patient- centered solutions that lower costs and restore americans' freedom so their own decisions. and again, republicans continue as promised to focus on helping small businesses create jobs.
the most recent jobs report pegged unemployment at 8.2%. that is much higher than white house officials said it would be by now with the stimulus in effect. obamacare with its fees, a tax hike and costly mandate makes this work -- makes the stores. we should do a step-by-step reform that will do what obamacare did not do, which is lower the cost of health care for families and small businesses. this is what republicans hope to achieve and we hope we have your support. thank you for listening and god bless the united states of america. >> coming up on c-span, a discussion with women leaders of the conservative movement followed by an obama campaign event in florida. >> how do you approach book interviews differently than news reporting interviews?
>> i think of the book interviews as gathering history. i think of interviewing one i'm working through the news side as gathering contemporary information. >> had difficult is it to remain bipartisan in your reporting and not get caught up in one side or the other? >> i try as best i can to give people as full an understanding of what is happening in this campaign. it is not that difficult to put your biases to the side. >> how does social media changed your line of work? >> twitter in particular is now a primary new source for anybody who covers politics and pays attention to politics. twitter did not exist four years ago for all practical purposes. >> sunday night, purdue univ. students interview in washington post reporter and the changes in the news business.
>> also on sunday, "newsmakers," with education and work force committee chairman john kline. the minnesota congressman talks about student loans and key education and job-training issues. both democrats and republicans say they want to take action before student loan interest rates doubled but they cannot agree on how to do so. join us for newsmakers this sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. this weekend, a look at president obama's reelection campaign. we will talk with chief strategist david axelrod and the press secretary about operation vote, targeting key voters in battleground states. we will also take you inside the chicago headquarters. that is sunday evening at 6:30 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. here on c- span. on friday, women leaders discussed the conservative movement and how women are
portrayed in media and perceived in business. panelists included political commentator bay buchanan. other topics, the contemporary feminist movement, women's rights in cuba and the 2012 presidential campaign. this is just under two hours. >> in the lecture director of the clare boothe luce policy institute. i want to welcome you all here this afternoon to hear from our great panelists about the real war against women. as the nation's premier organization for conservative women, the loose policy institute 6 to promote leading conservative -- luce policy institute seeks to promote leading conservative women and promote the idea of women in leadership.
greatrogram includes eigh conservative women who will be hearing from this afternoon. if any of you are interested in bringing a speaker to your campus or learning about other ways to combat the left of your college or university, please call us at 888? -- 888-891-4218. our first panelist is a resident scholar at the american enterprise institute in washington, d.c. before joining aei, she was a professor of philosophy at clark university where she specialized in moral theory. she is the author of, "who stole feminism," and "the war against
boys." her latest book is called "one nation under therapy." she has appeared on numerous television programs including "60 minutes," and "the oprah winfrey show." she is also appeared on "the daily show" on comedy central. she is also lectured on more than 100 college campuses and we're glad she is here to join us today. our second palace is the executive director of the national federation of independent -- panelist is the executive director of the national federation of independent businesses. nfib joined the lawsuit at the supreme court against the health care legislation. she is argued passionately on behalf of small business owners. as an associate at olson frank and weda she specialized in food
and drug laws and represent ited several small businesses. she also worked as an assistant press secretary for senator don nickels of oklahoma. she received her b.a. from the university of oklahoma in 1989 and her j.d. from the george washington law school in 1995. our next speaker is an outspoken activist against the oppression of the cuban government. she and her family were put into prison immediately following the bay of pigs invasion. the family was able to escape after two months, made their way to the united states and eventually settled in the d.c. area. she now travels to cuba on a yearly basis to visit her relatives and friends and takes clothing and medicine to the local churches there. she has appeared on bbc and
univision, and has also been covered in publications like the "frederick news post to attack and other -- "frederick news post." she is now retired and divides her time between her 13 grandchildren and her dedication to cuba. she earned a master's in psychology and community counseling from hood college in maryland. our last panelist, who will be joining us shortly, is former u.s. treasurer and author bay buchanan, whose extensive career in policy analysis, and her outspoken defense of the right to life makes her one of our most inspirational campus speakers. she began her political career as the national treasurer for ronald reagan's presidential campaign in 1980 and 1984.
this position catapulted her into a distinguished career when she was appointed the youngest u.s. treasurer in american history in 1981. until recently, she was a political analyst for inside politics on cnn. she has also appeared on numerous television programs and talk radio shows. a published author, her most recent book is called "bayh and unexpected lessons i learned as a political mom." she has studied at several universities including the university of new south wales in australia. in 1981, she received an honorary doctorate of law from stanford university. she lives in virginia and is the proud mother of three sons. at this time i will invite our panelists each to speak. after the last panelist, we will
have a q&a session with all of them. please join me in welcoming them. [applause] >> good afternoon. i'm from the american enterprise institute and it is an honor to be here with the clear but lose institute. it is one of my -- claire boothe luce institute. it is one of my favorite organizations. today, i am going to argue that feminism is dysfunctional. in my view, the noble cause of women's emancipation is being damaged by the contemporary women's movement and in the you, notime i have with hi
more than 50 minutes, i will -- 15 minutes, i will explain why i think it is doing more harm than good, but first i want to say a bit about my background. in the early 1990's, i was a feminist academic in good standing. by philosophy courses were crafted by women's studies. i was invited to review papers for feminist journals. all that changed in the mid- 1990's when i wrote a book called "who stole feminism?" the book was strongly feminist, but i rejected the idea that american women were oppressed. i said for the most part american women had succeeded. there were among the freest and most liberated in the world. it no longer made sense to speak of women as an oppressed class. yes, there were still problems, but men had problems too. there was a mix of burdens and
benefits. it was not easy to say that women were doing worse than men. it was a complicated mix. well, in the book i tried to show that the women's movement, that feminism, had been hijacked by gender war eccentrics and i do mean eccentric. at the time i was writing, one feminist colleague had changed the name of her seminars to ovulars. she did not like the word seminar because the root word is associated with the very essence of male power. do not even think about it. i was intrigued by the word ovular. then i realized she made it up. i also realize she was not kidding. she was serious. when i was first published, and received some fan mail from feminist colleagues, not much.
for the most part, they were unhappy with my plea for moderation and i was quickly subjected to a colorful array of insults for my heresies. many feminist leaders and academics at the time believed that american women were living under patriarchy. they did not appreciate my denial of that oppressive fact. i was called back lacher, traitor to my gender, anti- woman. at one point i was referred to as a female impersonator. when i am is a philosophy professor with the respect for logic, clear thinking, rules of evidence and, i hope, a strong sense of fairness. i believe it is my bias toward logic and reason and fairness that put me at odds with the feminist establishment. i realize that is a harsh
assertion, but i am going to try to back it up. if you have had a feminist speaker at your school or you go to one of the web sites for one of the leading women's organizations, the national organization for women, the national women's law center, the american association for university women, it is unlikely that you're going to see a celebration of the quality feminism, a celebration of anything. for the most part, they're very negative. they have a long litany of factoids about how women are still held down and held back in american society. i consider myself an equity feminist or and equality of opportunity feminists. i want for women when i want for everyone, fair treatment, no discrimination. on the other hand, i can accept the fact that the sexes are different but people. i do not want the equality of
outcome. want equality of opportunity. most feminists are what i call gender feminists. most of them believe that women are -- and this was developed in sex-gender the system, the idea that we are -- every institution in society bears the impress of patriarchy. churches, schools, even language has to be liberated from the suppressive system. one person said the sec's tender system is that system by which -- she said we are all born bisexual and then transformed into male and female gender human beings, one destined to command, the other destined to
obey. i read this to my husband and he asked which was which. we are all gender neutral human beings and then the system, a social conditioning turned some into little boys, some into little girls and they create gender which is imposed from the outside. i reject this year. i do not argue that gender is entirely -- of course there are cultural influences. it is obvious a complicated mix of biology and environment. but to say that on some campuses is to commit an act of heresy. i hasten to add that there are some serious scholars in women's studies. most apartments include their fair share of non-ideological academics who just offer a straightforward courses, sometimes wonderful courses in women's psychology, women's history, women's literature, but
ideologically fervent, statistically challenge hard- liners set the tone in most women's studies departments, and all that i have ever seen, and if there is a department that defies this stereotypes, i would love to know. conservative women, moderate women, a libertarian women, traditionally religious women, left out, no room at the table. only women from the hard left have the right to set the agenda. it is a very narrow range of opinions and views. on many campuses women are taught that they live in a patriarchal, oppressive society where girls are shortchanged in school and then channeled into low-paying fields. once in the workplace they are cheated out of 25% of their salary. they face visible barriers and all sorts of forces that hold
them down, keep them back, keep them out of the higher echelons of power. this picture does not fit reality. it is distorted. the false claims that supported have been repeated so many times they have taken on an aura of truth. i was -- well, many times i will be lecturing on the campus and a young woman will come up who has had one too many courses in women's studies and it is as if they have deeply drunk the kool- aid. they're generally intelligent, sensitive, socially concerned young women, but they have come to take on this grim feminist worldview as absolute truth and most of them seem to be unaware that there could be reasoned, empirically based argument contrary to what they have been taught in their glasses. i recall speaking at haverford college and while i was talking to a whole group of young women,
they were knitting nervously. someone called them weakens from bryn mawr. maybe -- she is a leading quicken. i do not want her to cast any spells. anyways. there was a hectic discussion with wiccans and feminists after words. one women defended her major and said it taught her to love her body. i suggested that was a rather weird goal for a college class. but it is nice to live your body. what was the pnt of that class? another young woman was appalled i suggested the free market
supported -- created the conditions that made women's emancipation possible. one young lady was horrified. how can you say capitalism has helped anybody? afterwards i thought, maybe they enjoyed having a lively debate. they went to the young woman who i didn't -- invited me and said she had provided a forum for hate speech. over the years i have let that feminist standards, feminist claims. choose any subject you like. in most cases the statistics are
distorted. the are e egregiously wrong. i do not have the time to go through the wrong can sari and the twisted tale of misinformation. everything you read, a ticket with a grain of salt. here is the thing. just as i think young women are harmed if they take too many of these courses and become better and angry at the world, that is ridiculous to take young women enchants them in this way. this cannot be a legitimate role. there are gender feminists from the 1970's and the 1980's who are eager to transfer the state of mind to their students. i think it is very bad that to have some much false affirmation. i will be an example of false of permission.
there is a professor who has written a book about bullying and schools. she writes of from a hard-line feminist perspective. she had a number of statistics. i recognize as almost all of them as standard distortions. she says, violence is another step of the behavior is by which a boy is demonstrate their power over girls. i looked at the rates of dating violence. i looked at the cdc, their 2009 study grades 9 through 12. what i found was distressing. 9% of gross and 10% of boys report being hit, slapped by their boyfriend or girlfriend. it is a problem but now what she describes it. by reporting it that way she gives people -- first of all, it
is denigrating to men. they create bigotry. i became a feminist because it did not like misogyny. i still did not like it. i do not tolerate these struggles. on the other hand there are now those who are just as full of prejudiced. we need a both words. the missing information is everywhere. is routinely passed along the to unsuspecting young women. it leads to a policy. i do want to take, probably the most durable false topic. just to show you how poorly we
are served. they are in love with a statistic and it will never let it go. when i paid 23 cents for every dollar a man is paid for this and juppe. the 23 cents, what does that figure? it is true. it depends on how you calculate it. it is the difference. the book at all which is a man working full-time and women, it turns out there is a 20 percent gap. you have nancy pelosi and vast members -- the leaders of our a women's group up in arms. did try to pass the and to paycheck act. when any have competent economist looks said the pay gap they immediately see that you have to take into -- men and women are somewhat different. women have a different relationship with the workforce.
women may have different majors in college. they entered different fields. they have different -- the work different hours per week. just one second here. 2012 -- this is last week. it was about doctors. the amount doctors are more likely to be pediatrician's than cardiologists. they're more likely to work part-time. even working part time they -- the work 7% fewer hours per week. there are more likely to take extended leave. there is a big difference between men and women. he will have a feminist group who are paid significantly less for the same work. it did not do the control. and did not see how a man are well served by misinformation.
i will end by mentioning a game that i think captures maybe everything that has gone wrong with feminism called gender bias may go. it is actually fun. with the help of a large government grant from the science foundation this lawyer and her team at hastings school of law developed it website called the gender bias learning project. is supposedcaller to seven harrowing tales about how some male colleague stereotyped her or misperceived her in some way. in the site includes animated videos demonstrating by is. one episode there are three obnoxious male scientists who
are conspiring to bribe their superior female colleagues. they're referring them to as hobbies, famine not seized, according to professor williams, our side this fund. it is based on science. well, it is based on 19th century ideology trumped up by statistics. she says this is of the animated video. it is better to be a bitch than adioormat. who wants to be either. how did they men met -- minister one of feminism? my message today is to take a back feminism. conservative women be given a voice. set about writing the next great chapter in the quest for freedom. this section is over.
thank you. [applause] >> it is a great being with you here today. i just think it is wonderful the gather. i did not recall this when i was on the hill. i would have enjoyed it. yes, i run the national federation of independent businesses, small business legal center. i am going to talk to you about the health-care challenge today. i will be a little light in my discussion on our actual legal arguments. i was there that for question and answer. a lot to discuss the since we are abiding aide -- awaiting a decision. i will get more into what is
going on at the moment. the right to be left alone is the beginning of of freedom. this quote from william of justice could have been written by one of the 7.8 million women small-business owners of this country today. according to the u.s. census, women owned firms accounted for 28% of all non-farm businesses and the u.s.. women's employs about 26 million people and it generated 1.2 trillion dollars -- $1.20 trillion in sales. these firms employ it apart 1 million persons and it generated 1.3 trillion dollars in sales. like all small business owners, women started business to have freedom. they wanted freedom to do the
kind of work they enjoy, their way, and on their time schedule. according to a recent survey the recession was heart of women owned businesses. a about one half of those that are still in business have lowered their real volume sales today. as the country works to get back better time, it is the small business owner who holds the key. small business has led our nation to recovery. as you can imagine over the past several years, people like you, and your bosses have asked small-business owners what can the government do to help you create more jobs? their answer has been almost universal, get out of our way. here we are on the cusp of one of the most historic decisions in the supreme court's history
that deals with a very fundamental principle of how big we want our government to be and how much we want our government to control our personal choices, business choices, how we use our dollars. our founders secured these freedoms and upon securing independence they thought to protect liberties by enacting the constitution with the purpose of limiting the powers of government. the believe limiting power there were preserving our right and ensuring our prosperity. in the past century we have seen that those freedoms are constitution gives us of being chipped away bit by bit. at the end of the day because of that, because we view the health care law as a great crossroads
for what our federal systems, what powers congress will have over all of us going forward will ultimately be, that is why it will challenge to the health- care lot two years ago. at the time it was viewed as very frivolous. we just saw the court go over six and a half hours of time to argument. at the end of march that was the most the have heard an oral arguments since the landmark cases of miranda versus arizona and brown versus education. we really think our challenge -- if we win the only law impacted is the affordable care act. however if the government winds, if you are going to have a new world an america where there will be a essentially no limit to what congress can require all of us to buy or view moving
forward. that really has been something that i have seen the as i talked to reporters and a lead it to the decision. it has been increasingly validated if you will, throughout the two year process. at every corner whether it was a district court, one of the three courts of appeals, or the supreme court, listen to the arguments. the government cannot answer the question where it will and it. they can answer, what can congress not require us to buy a if the health insurance individual mandate is up held? that i think is what was so fascinating to me watching the arguments first hand it. i said that because, you know, we were really dismissed by some
money that i sent congress can do this. the government could require us to do these things and it to see so early on the government be challenged by all of the justices. some that are more sympathetic helping to bolster them. the best the come up with was, the whole argument that, everything will the health care at some point. it is different from everything else. we are going to give congress this one chance. i think you have some good writing on the past couple of weeks, while we keep going back to the broccoli example, congress can require everyone to by abruptly if they can buy insurance is because of the health insurance argument is unique. how we eat. whether or not we exercise. whether we take by timmons, all sorts of things affect our
health. if he say in the health-care market, everything has done that so everybody has to buy health insurance, really you can get to the next peak. d.c. this in new york looking to limit the size of your fountain drink. that sort of thing. it is not a reach to see it develop on the next congressional agenda of what they limit we do because of the cost of the health-care market, medicare, medicaid, you name it. at the end of the day as much as the small business owners are represent care about the oncoming taxes and everything riddled the route this law, that is what gets them the most energized. for them like a said before, they want government out of the
way. they do not want it meddling into their business. this is the most intrusive they have seen the government be today. it scares them because they do not know what is next. employers are regulated heavily enough. our top trade issues have not changed and i do not know, decades. taxes, regulations, and the cost of health care. this helps -- hurts all of those. that gets to the freedom. they have seen regulations go into effect because congress as it can regulate employers. the mandate, they think -- on the i would say, since i am speaking to women about women, what my experience has been in the 10 years and have been is that if you are a business owner, you are a business owner. your business is not defined by
your gender at all. the problems that every business owner faces again are, taxes, regulation, and health care cost. it does not matter if you are a man or woman because those are issues that impact your bottom line. your ability to makeayroll and stay in the business. for that reason, too, this is a timely topic for you all because i do think there are -- there is no difference for the business owners. they all shared concerns equally. as far as the health-care decision itself, we do expect obviously the decision will be next week. there were four issues the court was asked to consider in three separate cases so it may be a situation where the release one opinion that is read in the next opinion that is red, and does would be the individual mandates coupled with the injunction act.
it was the first day, that is an old tax law that prevents all of us from suing the government cover tax penalties we think are unjust until we have paid them. was the penalty attached to the mandates health insurance attacks for a penalty? i am sure use of the coverage when toledo challenge the government that did because they did say, the diriment argued that they do not bar this lawsuit at this time. judge shelley does it, tomorrow you will be back to sitting it is. that was an awkward moment for the government. that is a threshold question of whether we could bring the lawsuit at this time and i am hopeful that the answer will be yes.
on the individual mandate, you have seen the coverage as much as me. it was very -- i have gone back and listen to the arguments. they did get a sound a grilling from the justices on where the limits were. at the end of the day, however the data opinion goes, the limiting principal question of what congress can or cannot do going forward will be the center of the opinion. we hope the individual mandate false and congress cannot have the by any project. i like to think they will articulate limits to congress's power that are easy for people to understand and go by going forward. finally, the last, we have the whole question rigid and think this will be interesting to see how the courts flip on this, what happens if the mandate falls? if we are fortunate and demanded
does fall, will it be a clean decision on what comes next? but that you will have a majority opinion and it has some concurrences. yes it should fall or no way should not. you have five votes here and you have them for the reasoning. if you have a plurality of opinions. if you have three or god help us for opinions that, altogether you get to the five votes. who did they need to get that vote so we know this is the opinion we care about going forward. there was a case a few years ago when it was a property rights case. it was a plurality opinion. with kennedy's but they were
able to get the five votes but he did not sign onto the reasoning on how to get there. it was kennedy's opinion that control. that will be interesting to see whether it is plurality or a straight up or down majority minority opinion. they have the medicaid issue they will be considering whether or not congress can given a ticket or leave it to the states. he do everything we say will make come to medicaid or lose all your funding. at the end of the day, the small-business owners are represent very much about to their opinion. this is about freedom for them. we are very hopeful we will ultimately prevail on this lawsuit. we will know the answer of this next week. thank you very much. [applause]
>> hello. it is an honor to come and speak to you as a guest. i have been trying to find a microphone that takes care of my accent. >> there is an apt for that. >> i appreciate your and your standing whenever i mispronounce. i can tell on year faces because generally when i make a miss pronouncement to see your faces smile. i was in prison in cuba. my whole family was in prison in cuba. when the bay of pigs invasion
took place. what is not often known is the trail. everyone in america knows it fails. they did not tell you that he rounded 100,000 prisoners all over the country. they picked up people. they came to my house and said everybody goes to prison. that already gives you a flavor of what i would tell you today of a system -- i am sure you have already heard or this or you imprisoned for anything. what i want to cover today is three issues important to women -- prostitution, abortion, and it suicides. i want to start with the real- life story. a young man who was a student went to cuba. as he was walking down a
seashore where people meet, a woman approached him and said " would you like to have sex with my daughter?" she pointed to her daughter that was only 15. the man was horrified because he did not have that in mind it. he said, no, of and the woman insisted. then she said "would you like to have sex with my younger daughter who is only 11?" my friend says -- he cannot believe. he was horrified. he said the zero and walked away. this is the picture you find today in cuba. it breaks your heart. you said, prostitution -- it is
the mother and father and the family is into the business. it shows you how hard and the thinking is in cuba and how they have a lack of morality. to make it even worse, and public speech -- fidel castro brag about cuba prostitutes. he said, they are the best educated and the healthiest ones in the world. he bragged. a friend of mine that travels to cuba constantly, he said "that is what makes a difference, too. prostitution generally is done by women who are very poor the have no other means. inky but the prostitutes are the engineers, architects, and medical doctors." why did they do it?
what did they have a need to go that way? it has gotten even worse. now it is not only women. now prostitution with children, homosexuality, and all kinds of avenues. the government looks the other way and must happen or even supports it. it is to the point that after fidel castro's express's his support, the group of women in the youth group made a declaration that being a prostitute was being patriotic. it was bringing foreign call-up -- currency to your country. this is the official stand of the youth groups in cuba. the second thing now, i tried to bring it.
why do some of the women did this? where is the situation with food in cuba? how much does honker have to do with it. i will distribute now -- they already have it? i hear the previous speakers about statistics. miscommunication and handling. in queue but the problems are a little different. it is their lack of knowledge. after talking to a lot of people. their assumption is they will have enough food. one day i finally make a drawing. this is the famous cuban ration card it.
this is what is supposed to maintain you for a whole month. as you can see the sun and lasts a two or three days. after that you are back to haunt her. people cannot understand how the government controls you through honker. through control of food. there are no small businesses trying to sell you anything. everything is in the hands of the government. at worth a try to give you their lunch. that is how the contrary. there are kinds of laws about things you cannot do. since this is done enough, 80% of the cruise the uv is to the black market.
of the cubans did of, how many will i eat today? this brings to an interesting concept. the person broken the law is constantly scared of the police. people carry the police incited their heart. there are so many when some big explained to me, i understood. they do that grab the reality of ford is going on. maybe the secret service would
like to go to cuba. laughte[laughter] there are two issues that go with the desperation. we talking about women rejigger lot of people tell the about how well women are doing and how many rights that have and how many good things they have. they do not see this part. actually when i was invited to talk about the war on women, i said, or is a little bit of a hard word. the cuban -- the woman is the center of the family. the woman is the one who has to fight. i made research about abortion.
i had heard -- that had somebody stay at my house. at age 22 she had for abortions. when they go to cuba you hear constantly, some people said, every single woman in cuba had an abortion. i went to the statistics on the studies. sure enough and the whole world there are two countries that are highest in abortion. vietnam and cuba. misses from statistics provided in 2002. then i went to ask about -- i have met some people whose children has committed the -- sure enough they were -- studies show cuba had the highest rate for women in the world.
also, not only that, the highest rate of completion of suicide. you heard suicide generally -- more men carry the women but marked women carry through. women have the highest completion of suicide. i ask you, are the cuban woman better off? is the system helping them? what i really beg you, i you know, and understanding this, and understanding cuba, is the lack of knowledge. and then also the newspaper people go there. they see what they want to see. that it's complicated by the fact the cubans to nine know what they do not know. the cubans who have a basis for comparison. they also cannot speak. they do not have the freedom.
this is the last thing i will tell you. there is a lot in cuba that is called the lot of things ferocity. if anyone tamara thinks might be dangerous to a revolution there were three you in jail. they do not have to throw -- they do not have to prove it. thank you so much for listening. the conclusion is, prostitution in cuba is rampant. is explosive. it is scandalous. please feel for the cuban women that while, yes, they have had all their benefits, they are the center of the family and are in
a desperate situation. thank you. [applause] >> good afternoon. i tell you, these ladies here, they have an advantage over me. i am in the world of politics. a deal with facts. that is an advantage. i deal with what the press thursday. the war on women is right to the point. this is the key to politics. you may have heard -- i was taken back when i found out i was dealing with departed the past 30 years. we have a war against woman this time. it was a shock to me. but i felt like the first question went to mitt romney
during the debates where george asked him about whether he would outlaw of contraception, i had the exact same reaction he did -- what? where are you asking this? assembly trying to outlaw contraception? it did not matter. he kept hammering it three or four times and never tried to get the governor to say something that can be used against him later. clearly this is not an issue i have heard anything about until george -- 30 years in politics. i have had a lot of debates with the left. nobody suggested we will take away contraception. this year we're going to do it. it is nice to know these things. it does not matter and politics if it is real, true.
all that matters if there is a perception it is true. that is what we deal with, a perception. the voter perceives this particular party is against women and wants to undermine and take their freedoms and rights. it will not vote for the person. if they want to throw them back to it. of time where women did not have these rights. it does not matter to them -- what matters is they can sell to enough women. that is where we are today. i will give you a little example of what is happened over the years say you get a taste of what happens in the next few months. when the supreme court ruled -- when we had the big debates, we were pro-life if you're against abortion. in the early days there were four abortion. after a few years they were
making a lot of ground way here because, who was for abortion? they changed the words to be pro-choice. choice is an honorable thing to before. choice. they managed a higher rate than they were on. when they went and started talking about their movement does pro-choice, they picked up enormously. people started saying that that was something that would be for, too. they were able to sell it that way. there were a vera -- there were very successful. words are very key. there is no mistake the words were on woman was thrown out there deliberately. they had decided. i think theiristake was the ticket to far. democrats took a little too far. that is the second. when dealing with perceptions. a you take a kernel of truth for
a fact and the spin enough so you make a case. the case comes up at the end as completely invalid. you have the colonel you keep going back to that is true. take for instance, if you go too far you fail. the argument there and you have seen it -- james carville made the point earlier but the obama campaign ignored it. they said, you guys are out there. you are saying the economy is turned around and is going well. that will not work. do not go well. they ignored it. we heard last week the private sector is just fine. even democrats were bailing out that shipp. why did he say that?
things are on the right track. do not throw anything off because things are moving at the right track. things are going to improve. more people have lost jobs and falling into poverty. it is hard to convince people things are ok. gas prices are shooting up. everyone is having issues coming home. that is not a right direction when kids are moving, especially when they have children. he sends a message up there, and it back that up with the facts. i am hearing from their server -- server gets 4 million new jobs.
they overplayed their hand when i came to the economy. there are backtracking. you cannot convince people of something they know every single day is not the case. they are worried about their job or the fact a loved one has the job and they are looking for 60 months and there is little hope. you cannot tell people everything is fine. you can relax. a third thing, let me spend a minute on that. the need somebody to help you carry the ball. republicans will say, obama did this and nobody says anything. as the end of the story. you have a couple of us on television. if the media picks up and runs
with it. if they get excited about this. have enormous momentum. within a few days you can get the country to start considering your proposition. to take a look and see if you cannot selah. as with the media has done for the democrats. they do it continually. the would be more against to than ever before you. at times when i get a fair opportunity to make your case. you always did that. ting said changed. we have lots of radio shows. we are well aware of the disadvantaged or we have been. we have turned a lot of a corner. we have a lot of advantages now.
the media by their definition is supposed to be the kind of honesty with elected officials and candidates and movements to make sure there are honest about what they're presenting. that is where they have gone way overboard. it is ridiculous. this is what happened. basically, there was a federal assault on religious freedom. this is anything -- there were adamant that they were going to do this. of course, the feminists would love it. we made it the case, several
strong leaders in the party and other constitutional scholars -- we said this is an absolute power rages assault on the freedom. within a few days without this is terrific. within a few days the next thing i know we had a war on women. we are going after the contraception. this said, this is our ages. he will not take contraception away from women. how did i get from here to here in a matter of days? there was no longer any discussion. others talk about religious freedom. let's talk about the war on women. that was the proposition. he had an interview with john mccain. he said, do you think there is something of a war on women
across republicans. as the some democrats on them and ask how to commit this case over border not, just a deep recession and have the republicans defend themselves. we are all saying, we're not trying to make it contraception go away. but a ridiculous debate. not talkinge we're about the most important thing to women. and that is the key. that is the key. this is the politics. they need the women to win in november. not only do they need to when -- women tend to vote more for democrats.
>> if obama care is declared unconstitutional, of will move to repel -- repeal every single word. it is an unconstitutional bill. it will break the back of every state. we do a better outcomes and focus on wellness to keep people out of hospitals. we also need to pass throughout the country in medical malpractice reform. we saw our medical malpractice
rates decline by 60%. >> we are with a voter who has a question for the lieutenant governor. >> would you do to develop more energy for being environmentally sensitive and limiting the powers of the epa? >> there are completely out of control. if we can win the white house with governor romney, we can pick up four more republican senators and be on the way to
turning the country around. we feel we have a bull's eye on our back because of the epa. we have the opportunity for energy independence from foreign oil. we need to expand drilling. we need to use it in electric generation to produce the missions. -- reduce emissions. >> we need to be exploring and
developing our natural resources. we have the potential for energy independence for the first time because of the incredible the technological advances. every canid it says they support oil and gas. the heart of my campaign has been a proven record. i represented the chamber of commerce challenging that in court. obama is using the epa to try to go after drilling in west texas.
i argued that the endangered species act was unconstitutional. weened a fighter who doesn't just talk but has walked the walk. >> my question goes to mr. cruse. >> they oppose using eminent domain to forcefully route a pipeline through their private property. should they be able to override landowners by using it? >> that is ultimately a question for state law to determine. i think private property rights are fundamental to we are as americans and texans. the problem is the obama
domain for private purposes. they went all the way to the supreme court and they said that the government could do it to help of private interests. the lid to the governor thinks that we should be favoring the national gas industry. we should let the market decide rather than letting them pick what energy sources to like.
i think you are probably aware that there are a land owners that do not want emend domain the use. what would you do to them or do you support eminent domain in this case. >> i worked for six years trying to approve that. it can only be used when there is a public purpose that provides compensation. otherwise it is a taking if someone does not provide fair market value.
how would you address this situation? >> this is important for the pipeline to sit down with the land owners and negotiate in good faith where the route is going to go. we need to make sure that the compensation that is paid is fair market value. that was the problem with the decision in the past. >> which do you side with? >> you have to look at the alternative routes. if the route goes through someone's property, i know for a fact that when people have had complaints, they have moved pipelines.
there is a lot of opportunity. i have never favored one over the other. i am in the oil and gas business so i see a wonderful opportunity. >> another question for the lead thunen governor. >> violence in mexico is spilling over the borders into texas. how will you keep the gate open for commerce and trade and closed for criminal activity? >> that is an excellent question because they are our no. 1 trading partner. we have to keep trade going back and forth.
this new phenomenon with gangs coming into our cities. i would push for closing our borders by tripling the size of the border control and adding 40,000 more border patrol. at the same time, adding in the federal government in the customs and protection side so we can move trade back and forth. we want to move a legitimate trade into taxes. >> i support free trade. over 2 million taxes make their business in exporting. we are the largest in the country.
many are tragically women brought in for sex trafficking. we have to get serious about securing the border. >> we have a question for mr. cruz. >> my view on military intervention is very simple. we should use military might only to protect the vital national security interest of the united states of america. we should go in with overwhelming force and have a clearly stated objective and we should get out when we are done. i do not believe and nation- building. i think the job of the band and women in the military is to hunt down and kill our enemies, but not build democratic utopias across the world. unfortunately, a lot of politicians in washington want to stay rather than solving the national security threat and coming back home.
>> would you cut defense spending to balance the budget? >> know. i do not think it should be used as a purpose of the balance. i think it should be keyed to what i said, the vital national security interest of the united states. one of the things i am most proud of is that i am representing over 3 million veterans. i don't think the defense budget is onion. members of congress have added spending on top of that. this ought to be subject to heightened scrutiny as not being important to national security
>> i think we went into both countries before the right purposes. we were not able to continue what we were doing. we have safe havens in the northwestern pakistan. based on information from democrats and republicans at the time, it looked as if there were weapons of mass destruction we have troops there who were unable to train forces.
it has done that i it unprecedented disaster. they're committing genocide. at the present time, the united states is providing some weapons that are being bought by our allies to be moved to the syrian the freedom fighters. we will need to take a very hard look at the three principles which i laid out. it has to be in the overwhelming of vital national interest of the united states. i do not think we are at that point today. things may change in the future. >> i do not think we should intervene militarily in assyria. -- syria.
president obama has not even attempted to lay out any such argument at the end of the day, but president obama is trying to get us involved because the united nations is leading him. he says he wants to leap from behind. the united nations has no jurisdiction whatsoever. we should be following the constitution of the united states. there is no issue i am better known for than standing up to the world court and the united nations and saying you have no jurisdiction in our country. the only binding law is u.s. constitution.
we should be defending u.s. interests and not the views of the united nations. >> even though york decision is that you should not intervene based on the stated principles, is it difficult to hold to that? >> at the end of the day, the job of the united states is not to be the policeman of the world. but we do not have the resources and it is not our job to intervene all over the globe. it is our job to protect united states interest. none of these questions are hard if you have a firm foundation on the decisions reached over 200 years ago. george washington famously observed that we should be wary of foreign entanglements.
if the violence in a series of began to impair the national security of israel, we should stand with them unapologetically. it would become a national security interest. we should not be intervening and just because obama wants to follow the lead of the united nations. >> we should do what is in the best interest of the united states. even though none of us likes to see what we are seeing on television, children and innocent people slaughtered, our allies are providing arms to the syrian of freedom fighters. this is something we need to monitor very carefully. i have little conference in the foreign policy capabilities of the obama administration. if there was and the administration decision we would need to have more information.
israel is our best friend and only ally in the area and we always have to have their back. if they started firing missiles or attacking israel, we would have an obligation to defend them. >> this question first for mr. cruz. do you support the current psa security system? if not, how would you change them and still provide a high level of safety? >> i strongly oppose the policy of crow -- groping innocent civilians. it is typical of the policy of the left to violate the law abiding rights of innocent
civilians rather than going after the wrongdoers. israel targets terrorists. the united states is too politically correct to do that so instead we look for weapons. that means we do a cavity search of a 90 year olds and none. that we need to defend the liberty of our constitution. in the texas legislature there was a bill to ban the groping. the obama administration threatened the state of texas and the lieutenant governor backed down. he did not want to fight obama. >> the truth is that i am opposed to the grouping of the gsa as much as anyone.
the facts are awful what has happened to passengers. if that happened to my wife or a little girl i would be enraged. that is why i worked with senator patrick, why i asked the governor. to put the bill on the call. that is why i passed a stronger bill than we had before. we passed it out in time for the house to debate it. my recommendation is i would do away with it. let's eliminate the t s f and privatize it. >> we will go to closing arguments.
>> please give us an example of how you might different -- vote differently. >> i believe him to be a conservative. i like solving problems. i try to solve problems within the narrow fairway of my conservative principles. >> with respect to spending and taxes, but the simplest is obama care. there will be an enormous pressure to compromise. the the attack governor is a good and decent man. if you look at his record, you know for sure that is what he would do. i will lead the fight to repeal every word. we are now at the end of o debate.
thank you for this evening and to the panel for being here. think you for watching this evening. you of heard some contrast this evening. over the last four years, but there has been a loss of freedom and opportunity in the jobs in america. i have lived the american dream and i am fortunate. i am a lifetime of businessmen, but i did not inherit anything. my father was killed when i was 3 years old. i inherited service to country and the heart of a fighter.
i have thought all my life. -- i have fought all my life. when this country was at risk, i volunteered and went into the cia. it was a tough situation. i came back to houston and formed a country -- company from nothing. i tried to take my business skills to austin and we created the very best economy and the entire country. we are the fastest growing job creator in the entire company. >> our country is in crisis and we are going broke. our national debt is larger than the gross domestic product.
all over the country americans are standing up and saying they are fed up with the same tired establishment incumbents. they're turning to new leaders. i have spent a lifetime fighting to defend the constitution and conservative principles. we were outspent five to one and we are in this runoff because the party leaders and conservatives came together. just about every major conservative leader nationally has endorsed this campaign. if you think the answer to what is happening in washington is to send another establishment politician, then you have an easy choice in this race. if you think the answer is to send a strong conservative and fighter, then i ask for your support i give you my word that when we win this race, taxes will lead the fight to stop the obama agenda and restore the constitution.
>> thank you for a great debate. we appreciate you coming and to the voters for taking part in the debate. the democratic broadcast will also be available online. thank you for joining us. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]
>> this was something that was swept under the rug and kept not only from the american people, but the mexican people as well. there are hundreds of faceless, innocent mexican victims as the result of this. the only thing we knew is that guns from american gun dealers were going into mexico and causing all of these problems with the cartel when really, the government was sanctioning these sales and sending them into mexico. >> she is interviewed by mr. garrett. tonight at 9:00 on c-span 2. >> charlie cook moderated a preview of the 2012 elections. he spoke with two former congressmen. topics included congressional races. mitt romney and president obama
2012 campaign and the challenges of deficit reduction for both parties in congress. this is about one hour and a half. >> good morning everybody. thank you for joining us this morning. it is my pleasure to welcome you this morning. i think we will have an interesting and stimulating discussion on what we can expect for the remainder of 2012 at the upcoming election. thank you those of you toward joining us on our live video stream and our viewers on c-span this morning. we are grateful to charlie cook for briefing us this morning and tom davis for joining us this morning. they are all willing to take questions. please think about what you would like to ask them. we will have staff and the audience with microphones. please as questions distinctly.
it usually helps to state your name and organization. finally, if you would not mind silencing yourself on so we can have uninterrupted discussions. we are gathered here this morning thanks to the thoughtful leadership of the united technology corp.. it is a diversified company comprised of several well-known brands. it has been a great partner of the national journal. every week that congress is in sight -- in session, they pull people and bring the message back to washington. back to washington.