tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN November 28, 2013 12:00am-2:01am EST
the assumption that if we don't do a deal the sanctions would still be there -- he was this extremely different american president that the iranians could not wrap their heads around because he was speaking well and his middle name was hussein. as a result of back and the fact that the president really tried with diplomacy, it failed, but the narrative that got created was that it fell through because the iranians. the president could tell the
rest of the world to agree to sanctions that they never had agreed to before. the bush administration never even dare to dream about. now they could agree to it he cuts there was the sense that the united states actually tried. rouhani is playing the same trick on the united states. he is tweeting rosh hashanah greetings to the jewish people. his foreign minister is extremely charming. they are serious about diplomacy. in the last rounds of negotiation, a day was spent on just to decide when and where the next meeting will be. the iranians made suggestions like kabul.
everything was a negotiation. now it takes about five minutes to decide. the venue is now set, it will always be geneva. there is no excuse. the iranians -- that has translated into a lot of countries who have agreed to the sanctions and have agreed to them very grudgingly, they do not like to impose sanctions. several of those countries are in europe. they are now putting pressure on the united states. because of your congress, congress is playing politics.
if it fails now, it will not be difficult. it is going to be easy for the iranians to shift the blame away from themselves onto the united states. at that point, the iranians can get far more sanctions released. 20% of the sanctions would drift away with one big difference. 20% of the sanctions would drift away without the iranians giving one concession. many of the sanctions would fall apart. that is the risk of overplaying our hand. when the iranians offered to stop the program at 3000
centrifuges and today they have 19,000, the cost of us overplaying our hand in the past is that they now have 19,000. want to do that again? the leverage will be lost. >> do you want to jump in on this? >> i find many of these critiques, not yours, of course, barbara. i find many of these critiques about as predictable as a clarence thomas supreme court decision. you and i could write these things. the assumption behind them -- you cannot trust them.
they will cheat. i would say only this. if we and the iranians could never agree on anything, what about what we agreed on in afghanistan? 2001, 2002. or what we agreed on back in 1991 with largely the same about the lebanon hostages? if we and the iranians could never agree on anything at all, then i and 51 of my colleagues would still be in tehran. >> i have a theory and you tell me if you think it is crazy. netanyahu has been consistently
negative about these negotiations. he has decried the proposal before it was finished. after it was announced, he said it was an historic mistake. is it possible he is playing his assigned role in this? is it actually helpful for him to be so negative? if netanyahu were jumping up and down for joy, it would be difficult for rouhani to say he had gotten a good deal. it maintains pressure on the united states to get more concessions out of iran in the final deal. >> i like your theory. i have no idea if it is true or not.
it is true that by opposing the deal the way he is, he is helping rouhani and others deal with some of their more difficult constituencies. i do not think he is doing this on purpose. my own sense is that netanyahu really still misses ahmadinejad. he was the gift that kept on giving as far as israel was concerned. at the end of the day, what is interesting about it, there are a lot of currents within israel that are questioning his approach and saying, you are not
serving the interest of israel by isolating it by getting into a public spat, public disagreement with the united states. >> you follow the israeli debate a lot. is it useful that he remains so negative? will that put pressure on the united states? is he isolating himself? will he be less relevant? >> he has become less relevant and that has been very problematic for israel. i wrote in my book that at the end of the day, to serve israel's interest, it is more helpful to be more helpful to the process and to ensure that
you can be part of the process. instead of taking this extremely negative public position. the israelis did not know about the secret channel. they did not know the content of the conversation. if they knew about it, it is difficult to understand why they were spreading data that was completely false. if they do the content, why did they deliberately say something that was not true? i think they did not know. israel is paying the price for having adopted the position of netanyahu.
the u.s. thought they could not include israel. i do not think this is helpful for israel. i do not think it is helpful for the administration to have netanyahu come out and say this is a historic mistake. if anything, it costs the administration more than it has cost the iranians. it does not mean that they will not be strong allies, but on the issue of iran, on the issue of israel-palestine, and what is happening in the arab world, the israeli and the american
perspective have diverged. the american-led order in the region fell apart once the u.s. invaded iraq. the u.s. is trying to adjust to a new reality. there will be rising populations in many different arab worlds. the u.s. will no longer care and see the survival of these autocrats. when there was a coup in egypt, the u.s. was not in favor of the muslim brotherhood, but not in favor of seeing egypt go back to him military dictatorship. the israeli perspective was very different. this has created a lot of tension.
the chemistry between the president and the prime minister does not seem to be the best. the idea that this is some sort of a coordinated that is designed to add pressure on the iranian negotiations, i do not see them able to pull it off that way. >> it was a good theory. we have a microphone and we will pass it. if you could state your name. please ask a question, do not give a speech. ask a legitimate question. >> [inaudible] >> stanley will be the first one.
i am sorry i'm giving netanyahu more credit for psychological scale. >> we are talking about a region that has a history of self- destructive behavior. what appears to be subtle and clever is just incredibly stupid. >> i think there would be some in the audience who take exception to that. question, please. >> we have heard about these bilateral talks. i was looking at a story, the islamic republic news agency.
denying that there were any bilateral talks. they dismissed speculation by the associated press about bilateral talks with the united states. they rejected the ap report. why would the foreign ministry project this report? is there some internal dissension? his letter seemed very bland, and his letter of endorsement in response to rouhani. >> he has embraced the deal. rouhani gave a very happy speech, which he counts as his 100th day of his presidency. i would disagree and say the supreme leader has given a lot of support.
the iranians still have a kind of allergy to admitting that they are doing what they are doing, which is negotiating with the americans. >> i am shocked to learn there is deception going on in the islamic republic news agency. [laughter] that is just terrible. >> it is a very good question. political peculiarities. peculiarities on the american side.
>> the deputy foreign minister or some other negotiator in an awkward position, they have to go in front of parliament. >> there was an interesting comment. the anthropologist made an interesting comment this morning on npr and he talked about the dualities within iranian political culture, the ability to believe contradictory things at the same time. the fact that twitter and facebook are banned and blocked while the leaders all have their own facebook pages and twitter accounts. they are addicted to them. the fact that the negotiations are happening while they are not happening should not be very
surprising. >> the people who lost the election are not happy at all. they are looking for ways to snipe, to bring down the government, to show this is not such a big deal. they are still there. they're temporarily contained, but they are still very much there. we have to be aware of it. they have their hardliners just as we have ours. we will see who has more discipline in which administration is able to keep its opponents in check better. >> my name is stephen.
is netanyahu playing to his own house of representatives, not to the knesset? >> the idea that he is playing to his political base is true because of having used a language in his internal conversations in israel and playing up iran as an existential threat, and a country like israel is so strong that could be faced as a threat like iran. aaron miller told me on the radio that he would never have evoked a holocaust in the way
that netanyahu is. after having done that and personified the idea that in 1938 and rouhani is hitler in sheep's clothing that he could not turn around and say, that is a great deal. he will have to oppose it until the very last moment. his political constituency will say, you told us this is a threat. why did you not oppose it and to the last possible second? that is highly unhelpful for israel. quickly shifting strategic environment, you need leaders that have the ability to quickly adjust to a shifting reality.
netanyahu has locked himself in. >> let me ask about the saudis. they have put out statements that are more neutral. are they adjusting to this? are they quietly fuming? >> i do not know the answer to that question. the saudis have made a statement which was much more moderate and much more measured. i am sure they are not happy about this. on the other hand, for a lot of reasons, they are not going to want to identify with what netanyahu is saying. it does not look good in their domestic political agenda for these two to be lining up
together. >> i am not an expert on saudi arabia, but it is quite clear that there has been some interesting contradicting behavior. companion for u.s. security council seat. it indicates there are some significant divisions within the saudi elite right now, within the government. as a result, the contradictory messages may continue and may not signal much more than that they are not sure what to do. >> the gentleman back there. >> larry feinberg. how does this agreement differ from the agreement they
negotiated with north korea? >> i have covered north korea. there are two analogies that come up all the time. 1938, munich, the nazis. the other one is iran is north korea. >> [inaudible] >> the nature of the regimes are different and the agreements are different. in some sense, north koreans cheated and therefore, the iranians will cheat. this was the 1994 agreement that clinton reached with kim jong-il in north korea. the north koreans agreed for 10 years the agreement worked. the north koreans kept their plutonium reactor.
the united states delivered heavy fuel oil. the u.s. deliveries were often late because congress would not appropriate the money on time. this was a perpetual problem that north koreans talked about. the reactors were never completed. negotiations continued with the north koreans. madeleine albright went to north korea in 2000. they were talking about negotiating a deal on north korea's missiles as well. the negotiations went well. bill clinton had to decide and flip a coin at the end of his presidency whether he was going to go to earth korea or try to
finalize an arab -- israeli peace agreement. wrong choice. george w. bush came in, colin powell wanted to continue and wanted to pick up where clinton left off. he was publicly humiliated for making that statement. bolton went about leaking information that the north koreans might have a secret program to enrich uranium. then there was a confrontation in 2002. the whole deal fell apart. the north koreans started up the reactor again. there were other agreements that were reached with the north koreans. in 2005, there was an agreement that was reached. the north koreans broke it.
the nature of that agreement was that they would stop the plutonium reactor. in return, they would get various concessions. yes, the regimes are different, but north korea is a bizarre dictatorship that relies entirely on support from one country, china. the food aid that it has been able to cage out of the united states over the years. the deal that we are discussing now with iran is quite different. the nature of the sanctions is quite different. i do not see that they are
comparable. at some point, yes, we made promises to build reactors. i do not see that situations being the same and i do not think it is appropriate to make that comparison. we have to take each case on its own merit. we have to make sure we have verification and this is something that is built into this. the north koreans kicked out the iaea. to this day, they have not permitted the kind of inspection that iran has routinely. we have a better sense of what
the iranians are up to. the iranians are not as far along in terms of their ability to build weapons. the north koreans have than working on their plutonium program starting in the 1980s. they already had enough plutonium for at least one and possibly two nuclear weapons. i do not see them as the same. >> [inaudible] i used to work on nonproliferation at the state department. the key thing here is congress. members of the republican party are determined not to give president obama a victory at any cost. i am worried this agreement will get caught up in that politics. what is the role that congress has to play on this agreement? at some point, it will be a treaty. [inaudible] >> i do not envision their having to be a treaty. congress is nevertheless key.
the european past their sanctions to their executive branches. they have a foreign ministry meeting. not of the national legislators are involved in the process. it is created to take time in order to make sure there are not any fast changes. the american sanctions are a spider's web. it is very difficult to move one without moving all. the key sanction, the biggest sanctions go through congress. only congress can lift sanctions.
if it is a congressional act, only congress can undo them. this creates a significant difficulty. we are in an unprecedented partisan atmosphere. congress brought us to a government shutdown, which at first, people think it would not happen. it almost brought us to a default. stopping a nuclear deal with iran is nothing for these guys. for 34 years, there has not been a conversation on capitol hill about lifting sanctions. it is going to be a completely different paradigm.
this cannot come until the very end of the process, it also, the iranian concession, which is to ratify will have to go through their parliament. the sad thing is their parliament is picking up bad ideas from our congress and how to create more difficulties. >> not all the sanctions will have to be lifted. these are only the nuclear related sanctions that are specified in the agreement. the u.s. and iran are still going to have sanctions between them for a very long time. the question is whether they
would be sufficient to seal the deal. >> the reality and you can correct me on this, i understand that there were sanctions against the former soviet union that remain for 20 years after the soviet union disappeared. the political act of getting congress to reverse them is very cumbersome. the other thing i experienced when i was working for the state department back in 2009 and 2010 on iranian affairs was when one spoke individually too many members of congress on both sides, people were very reasonable and sensible on this issue. but when it came to a vote and a
a goodwill gesture, something the iranians said they wanted, a sign of american goodwill. while that ambassador was submitted to tehran, congress passed a nonbinding resolution condemning the excesses of the revolutionary courts. in tehran, people went wild. the media, everyone, just went on a frenzy and sank the nomination. this is a nonbinding resolution. we got nowhere. the possibility of something like this repeating and derailing the process is still very much out there. >> we still have time for a couple more. wait for the microphone, please. >> my name is stuart.
my question is regarding what implications do you think this deal has for the other sticking points between the united states and the iranian government? what does this signal for going forward? >> this was a necessary first step. we were never going to be able to have the discussion about syria or hezbollah. it would've been difficult to have those conversations without a nuclear agreement. it is my hope that we can broaden the conversation now that we have a nuclear agreement. i would love to see a restoration of diplomatic negotiations. if we have routine conversations between john kerry and others on a lower level, that opens up a lot of prospects. in january, there is going to be
a conference in geneva on syria and most likely, the iranians will be there. >> i have always advocated a broader agenda with iran. the nuclear issue -- there were issues that were so idle to each side, issues of nonproliferation, national pride, this was going to be very difficult to resolve. what had happened, if you'll pardon the expression, you were holding the whole relationship hostage to the nuclear issue. some people within the administration agreed with me,
that line of argument got nowhere. it is very clear that at least within the p5+1, it is all nuclear, all the time. until that issue -- until there are signs of progress to move beyond it. when the president spoke after this deal was reached, i did not hear him say anything about a new beginning. what he said in 2009 -- i suppose at this time, that would be a bridge too far in terms of this administration. look, this is the major issue
and this is what we are going for. >> i think john is absolutely right. they managed to get the first deal. those sites were only focusing on the nuclear issue. to build maximum trust, confidence in order to insulate and make sure the nuclear track is as protected and solid as possible. the inevitable difficulties it will run into will not derail it i'm making sure they are hedging it with a couple of issues.
there appears to have been something in regards to syria. i think all of that is positive because at the end of the day the fact that the united states and iran could not deal with each other in spite of the disagreements, the fact that they could not even talk to each other exasperated all of their own problems, but almost every other problem. now that it has been normalized, there will no longer be a headline in a paper when john kerry picks up a phone. the possibilities will be quite great. it does not mean that they will become friends. it does not mean -- they are
walking away from the brink of disaster. >> that seems like a really great moment to stop. so i think we are going to. thank you for your questions and thank you for coming tonight. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> wednesday, the state department briefed reporters on a nuclear agreement reached with iran. the talked about the construction at the nuclear facility. here is a portion. irani and foreign foreign -- iranian minister says construction is continuing at the facility. >> we have seen his comments and he has said -- just in case
folks have not seen him, -- what he said specifically was that the capacity of iran will not increase and no new installations will be installed. we are not sure what he means in the comments that he makes. there will be no work on the reactor itself and no work to prepare fuel or additional testing. iranians need fuel to make operational. without sufficient fuel, they cannot start up the iraq -- the reactor. that andore clarity on there are specific requirements and agreements made with that. we will outline them, if that is helpful. we have the expectation that
they will abide by and if they do not, they will be violating the agreement. i would have to check if there has been more specific follow-up in the last couple of hours. i'm happy to check. >> he said that yesterday. was that if she is referring to a road and a building, that is something different. there are specific requirements and he repeated many of them in his public comments. no nuclear fuel will be produced and no installations installed. we put specific requirements in place because we wanted to ensure that iraq would be operational. that yoube fair to say are not convinced that anything he said necessarily implies that they are or are planning to
violate the agreement? >> correct. >> you draw a distinction between construction, which includes building buildings and the specific things that they said that they would not do, such as installing components. isjust to add more, it commissioning the reactor, transferring fuel, transferring heavy water to the reactor, not testing any fuel, producing more fuel for the reactor, installing insulation controls list -- systems. not undertaking the processing. the specific requirements are in their and our expectations that they will meet. >> a conversation on the u.s. economy, unemployment, and the
minimum wage. joseph is with the committee for economic development. from the airfield in afghanistan, general james mcconville on the afghan army and securing the country. washington journal is live every day on c-span. span, the up on c- november 1963 speech to congress by president johnson after the assassination of president kennedy. republican governors discussed the future of their party. a strategist talks about the way that gop representatives can reach out to minorities. >> on many campuses, young women are talking. goals are shortchanged in school. they are robbed of self-esteem
in adolescence. once in the workplace, they are cheated out of 25% of their salary and face invisible barriers. all sorts of things hold them down, give them back, keep them out a higher echelons of power. this is not fit reality and it is distorted. the false claims that supported and have been repeated so may times have taken on an aura of truth. >> her critiques of feminism and contemporary american culture have let her to be led -- .abeled as anti-feminist hear from christina hoff sommers. 5 >>mark levine on january five days after the assassination of president
>> mr. speaker, mr. president, members of the house, members of the senate, my fellow americans. all i have i would have given gladly not to be standing here today. the greatest leader of our time has been struck down by the foulest deed of our time. today john fitzgerald kennedy lives on in the immortal words and works that he left behind.
he lives on in the mind and memories of mankind. he lives on in the hearts of his countrymen. no words are sad enough to express our sense of loss. no words are strong enough to express our determination to continue the forward thrust of america that he began. the dream of conquering the vastness of space -- the dream of partnership across the atlantic -- and across the pacific as well -- the dream of
a peace corps in less developed nations -- the dream of education for all of our children -- the dream of jobs for all who seek them and need them -- the dream of care for our elderly -- the dream of an all-out attack on mental illnesss -- and above all, the dream of equal rights for all americans, whatever their race or color -- these and other american dreams have been vitalized by his drive and by his dedication. and now the ideas and the ideals which he so nobly represented must and will be translated into
effective action. under john kennedy's leadership, this nation has demonstrated that it has the courage to seek peace, and it has the fortitude to risk war. we have proved that we are a good and reliable friend to those who seek peace and freedom. we have shown that we can also be a formidable foe to those who reject the path of peace and those who seek to impose upon us or our allies the yoke of tyranny.
this nation will keep its commitments from south viet-nam to west berlin. we will be unceasing in the search for peace; resourceful in our pursuit of areas of agreement even with those with whom we differ; and generous and loyal to those who join with us in common cause. in this age when there can be no losers in peace and no victors in war, we must recognize the obligation to match national strength with national restraint.
we must be prepared at one and the same time for both the confrontation of power and the limitation of power. we must be ready to defend the national interest and to negotiate the common interest. this is the path that we shall continue to pursue. those who test our courage will find it strong, and those who seek our friendship will find it honorable. we will demonstrate anew that the strong can be just in the use of strength; and the just can be strong in the defense of justice.
and let all know we will extend no special privilege and impose no persecution. we will carry on the fight against poverty and misery, and disease and ignorance, in other lands and in our own. we will serve all the nation, not one section or one sector, or one group, but all americans. these are the united states -- a
united people with a united purpose. our american unity does not depend upon unanimity. we have differences; but now, as in the past, we can derive from those differences strength, not weakness, wisdom, not despair. both as a people and a government, we can unite upon a program, a program which is wise and just, enlightened and constructive. for 32 years capitol hill has been my home. i have shared many moments of pride with you, pride in the
ability of the congress of the united states to act, to meet any crisis, to distill from our strong programs of national action. an assassin's bullet has thrust upon me the awesome burden of i am here today to say i need your help. i cannot bear this burden alone. i need the help of all americans, and all america.
this nation has experienced a profound shock, and in this critical moment, it is our duty, yours and mine, as the government of the united states, to do away with uncertainty and doubt and delay, and to show that we are capable of decisive action; that from the brutal loss of our leader we will derive not weakness, but strength; that we can and will act and act now.
from this chamber of representative government, let all the world know and none misunderstand that i rededicate this government to the unswerving support of the united nations, to the honorable and determined execution of our commitments to our allies, to the maintenance of military strength second to none, to the defense of the strength and the
stability of the dollar, to the expansion of our foreign trade, to the reinforcement of our programs of mutual assistance and cooperation in asia and africa, and to our alliance for progress in this hemisphere. on the 20th day of january, in 1961, john f. kennedy told his countrymen that our national work would not be finished "in the first thousand days, nor in
the life of this administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. but," he said, "let us begin." today, in this moment of new resolve, i would say to all my fellow americans, let us continue. this is our challenge--not to hesitate, not twofold, not -- not to fold, not to linger over this evil moment, but to continue on our of course so
that we may fulfill the destiny that history has set for us. our most immediate task are here on this hill. first, no memorial oration or eulogy could more eloquently honor president kennedy's memory then nearly as possible passage of the civil rights bill for which he fought so long. [applause] we have talked long enough in this country about equal rights.
we have talked for a hundred years or more. it is time now to write the next and to write it in the books of law. [applause] i urge you again as i did in 1957 and again in 1960 two an act a civil rights law so that we can move forward to eliminate from this nation every trace of discrimination and oppression that is based upon race or
color. [applause] there could be no greater source of strength to this nation, both at home and abroad. and second, no act of ours could more fittingly continue the work of president kennedy then nearly passage of the tax bill for which he fought all this long year. [applause] this is a bill designed to increase our national income and federal revenue and to provide insurance against recession. that bill, if passed without
delay, means more security for those now working. more jobs for those now without them. and more incentive for our economy. in short, this is no time for delay. it is a time for action. [applause] strong forward-looking action on the pending education bill to help bring the light of learning to every home and family in america, strong forward-looking
action on youth with opportunities, strong forward- looking action on the foreign aid bill, making clear that we are not forfeiting our responsibilities to this hemisphere or to the world nor executive flexibility in the conduct of our foreign affairs. and strong, prompt and forward- looking action on the remaining appropriation bills. [applause] in this new spirit of action, the congress can expect the full cooperation and support of the executive branch. and in particular, i pledge that the expenditure of your
government will be administered with the utmost thrift and for gallery. -- frugality. [applause] i will insist that the government get a dollars value for a dollar spent. the government will set an example of prudence and economy. [applause] this does not mean that we will not meet our unfilled needs or not honor our commitment. we will do both. as one who has long served in
both houses of the congress, i firmly believe in the independence and the integrity of the legislative branch. [applause] and i promise you that i shall always respect this. [applause] it is the in the marrow of my bones. with equal firmness, i believe in the capacity and i believe in the ability of the congress, despite the divisions of
opinions which characterize our nation, to act. the need is here. the need is now. i asked your help. we meet and greet, but let's also made and renewed dedication and bigger. let us meet in action, in tolerance, and in mutual understanding. john kennedy's death commands what his life conveys, that america must move forward. [applause] the time has come for americans
far right. from the apostles of bitterness and bigotry, from those deprived of laws and those who pour venom into our nation's bloodstream. [applause] i profoundly hope that the tragedy and the torment of these terrible days will bind us together in new fellowship, making us one people in our hour of sorrow. so let us here highly resolve that john fitzgerald kennedy did
lined the route from the u.s. capitol to arlington national cemetery. millions warrant watched the live coverage. beginning at 1:00 p.m., watch nbc's coverage of president kennedy's state funeral. on the next washington journal, a conversation of the u.s. economy, unemployment, in the minimum wage. our guests are university of maryland professor peter morici and joseph minarik. on the james mcconville ability to secure the country. it is live every morning on c- span at 7:00 a.m. eastern. coming up on c-span tonight, republican governors discussed the future of their party. then, a strategist talks about out to the gop can reach
unrepresented communities. later, president obama pardons the national turkey. >> next, from this year's republican governors association meeting, a panel on the future of the republican party. governors rick perry of texas, john kasich of ohio, and mary fallin of oklahoma lead the discussion. >> if you could come in and take your seats, we will start right away. we will talk about messaging in 2014 and what we have to do to actually have a more successful 2014 and 2016 than we had last year. i have to tell you it is so great to have governors appear that are actually getting things
done in their own state -- governors up here that are actually getting things done in their own state of life, unfortunately, too many washington republicans. i am looking at john kasich right now and i am so glad he is here. he is the reason i got into politics. so you can blame john. i was 28 years old and i was watching john on the house floor. and instead of john just saying we don't like bill clinton's budget, john kasich made his own budget. he worked with tim penny and they went on the floor in the middle of this debate and they talked for about 30 minutes, 45 minutes about their vision of how to balance the budget and how to move this country forward. so when i went out on the campaign trail, instead of just criticizing bill clinton, when people asked me what would you do? what would you vote for when you got to washington, d.c., i said that i would do what dante sick
was talking about doing. we didn't like hillary's health plan so we had two or three different republican ideas for health-care plans. newt helped put together the contract with america so we went out and we had a positive on the construct it approach in the campaign. and it made a big difference. you remember earl hutto? you served with him. i ran against a 16-year incumbent, a democrat named earl hutto came from a district that hadn't elected a republican since 1873. and they hung the last republican they sent up to washington, d.c. we had ideas. you are laughing because you agree with my dad. but how important is it that, in
2014 and beyond that we, instead of being the party of no, we have a positive path forward like all of you have. >> the story is in 1993, we put this alternative together. the republican conference was very nervous about this. so we had this big conference meeting. i think that they there were 35 speakers here in and 33 of them said there is no way we are presenting an alternative to clinton. this is crazy. we will get attacked. so i went to the back of the room and newt was there. i tell them that there were 33 no and two yes. and he said we thought we were doing better than we were. ideas give you energy. if you don't have any ideas to the positive, you don't have any energy. and if you don't have any energy, you are not appealing. there is a tendency to rely on negative and anger and all that stuff. that doesn't create any imagination, any vision, any excitement for anybody if you do things that way. you are having to deal with the crazies like me in 1995 and
1996. >> thank god you were there. >> well, yeah, we blew ourselves up because we were so negative and we so focused on being against the bill clinton. once we got up there, it took us a while to figure it out. >> one thing that people never understood about the shutdown was that the clinton administration was trying to cook the books. they had phony economic numbers. they were projecting the economy would grow by 4% or number five percent -- i don't remember the numbers. they were unrealistic. you didn't have to reform the government to get to a balanced budget. that was a fight with having. after having gone through that, i ask a had members of the administration come to see me and say, ok, we want to really engage in this again. in that case, the shutdown resulted in something positive
and something that could be attained. we ended up doing negotiations, the 97 agreement, balanced budget, paid down the largest amount of debt in american history, had a growing economy. in that case, you have to stand and fight but you have to have an achievable objective long haul. >> and a positive message for it. let me ask you, governor perry, about a moment during a debate we are talking about being positive. immigration. it is a positive moment for you i think. it is a positive moment for you. >> that is a pretty short list. >> this was really positive. you talk about being positive on something like immigration reform. i am not saying that pathway to citizenship or pathway to legalization, but you just talked about the need for our party to be compassionate.
we needed to be compassionate and you got absolutely killed for saying that. i will even go a step further. mitt romney decided that he needed to lurch his for-one extremist possible and it ended up killing us. how do we win that hardware, not win that hard glare? only at the governor's mansion but also in debate like that? how do we as a party do more of a positive message? >> i think you are right, joe and mary will agree with this as well. historically, republicans have talked with their mind. we like to dump all the statistics out there. we are the number one state for job creation or the number one this for that. we pitch all of these cold and sterile facts out. what may be a better way to message this is that being the number one job creating state in the nation is about a family that is being able to take care of themselves better.
it is about the young hispanic who five years ago didn't have a job or may have had a minimum- wage job that best and today they are driving a truck in south texas because of the energy bill that has occurred in that sector, making over $100,000 a year. and how that young man and his wife and the home they are living in, they are talking about their children being able to go to an institution of higher learning, the first in their family who has ever done that. that is occurring because of the policies that have been put in place by republican governors in most cases. i want to really get us to focus on talking about how we transition the conversation away
from washington as the place where all of the decisions will be made and the solutions -- they will not be found in washington, d.c. nine they will be found in capitals where governors like john and mary and myself and paul lapage -- i mean, that is where the solutions that are going to face americans. we don't need to talk negative about the president of the united states. he has taken care of that pretty much on his own with his health care program. but what are the alternatives? i happen to think that the alternatives are not one-size- fits-all, that washington all too often wants to impose upon us mama but allow the innovators in ohio, allowed the innovators in oklahoma -- i believe that a blue state governor has got to feel that they can put health care plans in their state
together better than some bureaucrat in washington, d.c. talking to people's hearts is that messaging part of it, whether it is dealing with immigration, which i will suggest to you a just as an aside that the immigration debate will change substantially in the next 18 to 24 months especially if mexico is successful in liberalizing their oil and gas exploration policies and allow the private sector to come in and probably contract and then look at the concessions later on -- completely change the immigration discussion. and i would recommend that the discussion will be where will we find enough people to fill all the jobs that will be created in this country because all those people that came over here illegally will be back home. because of what i hope occurs in the north american region,
canada, the united states, and mexico, to collectively become this very powerful energy- producing region that is independent of other areas of the globe for energy. the messages about the heart rather than the head. and nothing wrong with the head. >> nothing wrong with the head. alice, that really has been our problem. byron was talking about this before. it used to be that we were great at explaining how less government and less regulation actually mattered in people's lives. we have forgotten how to connect all the leaves and make them relevant like margaret thatcher did. shopkeepers daughter. she knew that what she believed
was a just good for a multimillionaire. it was good for working class citizens who wanted to rise. there is a lot of that story in this great new book i just read by joe scarborough. i highly recommend it. >> go, speak, preach. >> the head and heart informed with reason and persuade with emotion. that has always been our dictum. but we have moved beyond marketing. marketing is for selling things that don't work. when you have something that works, you serve. and then you tell people about it. and even in telling them, you are doing a good thing. i think one of the things we ought to remember is our ideas are not old and dusty things on a shelf that are irrelevant to the world we are in today. as a matter of fact, the world we are in today, a highly connected world where we are not
cogs and gears and some industrial factory in washington. we make decisions. we have information. our and suppose that we have always -- that we have always had, they are actually the best way to tackle problems and help people live better lives. if we are going to talk to a new generation of voters and we will be an inviting party, we speak to them about their world. when we say things like free enterprise, it is hard for them to connect. but when we talk about an open economy, a bottom-up economy, those are our principles. and the world they live in, open things is better than closed things. bottom-up is better than top- down. to connect in their world -- obamacare didn't fail because, hey, they just didn't happen to
do this right. it failed because of the same reason that other stuff fail. it is old. it is top-down. it is factory. our principles are always fresh and new ideas if we just become out them in ways that say, hey, our principles are good for more than just saying no. we have a way to better organize society, solve problems, open school system, where parents get to actually choose the best school for their kids and you go get trapped in a failing school. an open health care system. unopened economy where you don't have political top-down decisions. those are the kind of things that will work better for you. >> i want you to join in with what we are talking about here and the positive message and the constructive way forward to but also, if you can -- forward. but also come if you can't, was stuck about the energy revolution. so many people who are responsible for it are from your state good talk about the energy revolution and what that will mean, not only for working class and the class people in oklahoma but, if we do it right, or millions in loans of americans.
>> i think that is where the white house is missing the point, how we can grow america's economy and treat not only a better national security -- and create not only a better national security for our nation but a better economic security for our nation. oklahoma, texas, pennsylvania, ohio, other states -- certainly alaska and north dakota who have tremendous natural resources where there is oil, gas, wind in oklahoma, certainly a big feature, we are creating economic opportunity, raising our standards of living, creating jobs and there's a chuckle down effect throughout our state and other businesses even unrelated to the intersect the energy sector because of the growth of the energy industry so. but you also have to have the right regulatory environment which is where washington technik we -- washington typically gets it wrong.
currently, the administration gets it wrong. and our state, we allow private investment. we allow people to take risk. we create the right business climate by keeping our relations fair and being responsive and looking at workers compensation reform or hiving -- or having a highly educated labor sector. people in the past said, well, we really don't have enough fossil fuel supply. but now we know, through technology and innovation, having the good and fair regulations, that we do have energy supply. so my state of oklahoma, since 2011 when i took office emma because of our business-friendly policies emco education, reform we have done, making government smaller and more efficient, we have seen our economy change. the per capita income has grown by 8% for a family of four. >> it is self-defense. you have a guy who will steal
every last job from you if they can. he is glad they are appearing now. while we are up. talking, he had his people on the phone to ohio and oklahoma stealing their jobs. >> we fish where the fish are. and generally speaking, i am's ending a lot more time in california or illinois and new york than i am in oklahoma. >> we just become in football. -- disagree with football. >> boomer sooner. [laughter] >> you know how to hurt a person, mary. >> but listen to talk to you about the pro-business environment and see what governor. that's what governor perry has been doing for over a decade. there was a great moment when mikael gorbachev was talking to the canadian prime mr. mulroney and gorbachev said don't lecture
me on your capitalism and your fan a prize. mulroney said i'm not going to lecture you. do you think i want competition? that sort of competition, you don't care if you -- you don't care of california and jerry brown strained it out. >> i want tell 20 to be successful because they are so important to our country, but you're not going to be better, whether you are an athlete or whether you are a private sector business person or a governor and a government unless somebody is pushing you to be better. she makes me get up every morning because of the policies she puts into place. bobby jindal pushes every day on tax policy and regulatory climate for us to be more competitive. rick scott in florida, i guarantee you that guy is working double overtime to put
policies in place that make me uncomfortable. but we understand, although it is uncomfortable, it will make us better. and at the end of the day, it is better for our citizens. i don't go to california to pimp jerry brown. i really don't. i go to pimp the legislature to do the things that are right for their people. unless we're there and talking about, listen, there is an alternative -- i mean, i am standing in laguna beach talking to 30 individuals who were curious about our little at a campaign and they came to listen to what we were talking about. and the sun is going down, touching the pacific -- laguna beach. we are at the montage hotel. what an incredibly beautiful part of the world. and i said that is exhibit a of how government could screw it up so bad that you would leave that. that is the type of competition that will make this country stronger. it is the governor's putting tax
and really torry and legal policies into place that will make these -- and regulatory and legal policies into place that will make these states. in illinois and new york and even california, at some point in time, their people will say, you know what? you just can't continue to tax us. we will leave here. and they will either go bankrupt or they will change their policies. and at that time, don't you think america will be stronger? >> the ohio house today -- it may be happening right now in -- is passing a resolution calling for a constitutional convention for a federally balanced budget. you want to put some strings on the folks in washington and you want them to get to a position where they will act responsibly and they will start making decisions like we have to make?
we can get to up to 32 states doing this. they will move quickly to do something. serving as the budget committee chairman in d.c. and governor of ohio with the largest deficit in our history now balanced with a surplus, we want to get them to focus on doing their job. we all have to get behind this, republican governors, democratic governors. we have $17 trillion debt. it is sucking a lot of the life out of our country. we have the chinese using american dollars that they take from us to recycle in places around the world with the influence they have. i think it is one of the most important issues the country faces. it will be interesting to see if democrats and if liberals recognize the fact at some point they have to be responsible in that town and meet the challenge of these deficits. >> you have been fighting it
your entire public life. that is exciting. let me ask you. i have been struck since i'm in here by how many people are concerned that the republican party will repeat the same mistake in washington, d.c. that they made over the last several months. you know, the government shutdown idea was a great idea. you have governors were pulling their hair out. ken cuccinelli will tell you that he is still pulling his hair out. have we learned our lesson? will they make the same mistake again in january? >> no, i don't think they will. i was talking with representative michele bachmann it is definitely not going to happen. i was talking with representative michele bachmann. she said, can you believe it, they shut down the government because of the difference between cbo numbers and omb numbers.
isn't obama is much more portable and that? >> that was an oversupply vacation actually. >> but you have a party, the republican party that, with everybody agreeing about obamacare am available read they want to get rid of it, they still managed to spill an enormous amount of each other's blood fighting over this. i think they have learned some lesson about that. certainly the leaders will say it will happen again. but i want to go back to something that alex said
something before about the freshness of republican ideas. i don't think the public hears that. if you listen to the presidential debates of 2012 and 2008, other than barack obama, the name that was her the most was ronald reagan. the couldn't stop talking about ronald reagan. a lot of their ideas were 1980 era reagan ideas. their idea was to cut taxes. if your car breaks down, cut taxes. if you're houses on fire, cut taxes. if your lawn needs mowing, cut taxes. that was the only idea that they presented to voters. americans thought that they had very old ideas. >> daily felt that way because it was true. -- they only felt that way because it was true. >> how many years have you seen the same commercial where a guy stands up and says i am for less taxes, less regulation and more freedom? we've been doing that since 1980
and, yes, we are all for that. but if that is the only message and we don't connect that to working-class voters -- by the way, in 1994 when we took over, we owned as a party working- class voters making like 30,000 dollars to $60,000. we dominated that area. >> your point about ronald reagan speaks to that. reagan was a child the goldwater. that is what inspired me to get into politics. the reagan could have echoed goldwater. anti-big government, anti- communism. not that ideas, right? but he didn't just do that. again, he fit our conservative principles to his day and he
added something to it. economic determinism, american determinism come economic optimism. we can do anything we want. there is a shining city out there. we have a runny view with destiny. -- we have a rendezvous with destiny. what reagan did for his party it is now our time and our job to do for our party. and we have a wonderful argument. and that is that big and dumb and old and slow and top-down government doesn't work if they have served us up the most wonderful example of how dysfunctional -- why? because the information is down at the bottom and they are up at the top get all of the old hollow arguments. what republican governors are doing. governing bottom up. we have the sincerity. we can score points. we will win a survey argument. moses did say, hey, i have a great idea. let's go to the desert. it is really hot there and dry. posterity will suffer a little bit, but it will be good.
moses said let's go to the promise land. it is better over there. we have to go through this desert thing. we have to ball it's -- we have to balance the budget. that is a good thing. we have to tackle social problems to organize society and tackle health care. if we have those things and that alice budget fight, then we can meet people somewhere. >> you know what though, i don't disagree with that, but if you look at the success of republican governors, it is because jobs are being created. if you are not creating -- job created -- job creation is the moral imperative of people
today. if people aren't working, they can lose their dignity. he can lose strengthen in their family, whatever the family light look white -- might look like. commonsense regulation, no income tax -- if you think taxes don't matter, then why are my people moving to florida and texas? because we are taxing them. people respond to that. the fact of the matter is that, throughout the local history, it is jobs. it is jobs that elected roosevelt, the other roosevelt reagan got elected because we were mired in a deep, deep, deep recession and he said we can have a better way. but it all gets back to jobs and
the party that can show people that can get you to work, that they can improve your income, those are the ideas that we need to promote. so how do you do it? you do it with regulation, with tax cuts, with job training and real education that link people to the jobs that exist today. beyond that, you can't ignore people who live in the shadows. that is the heart. some he's mentally ill. -- somebody is mentally ill. you saw that tragedy in west virginia. mental illness, drug addiction, working poor, you can't let people get stuck on the other side of the bridge to prosperity. so we have to build a strong economy with the tools that it takes. my dad carried mail on his back and he would tell you today -- he's not alive today, but he would tell you today that if people in washington can't balance the budget they don't know commonsense.
beyond that, when you create the strong jobs, you can't ignore people who want to get across the bridge to share in the bounty of america. and sometimes in our party, sometimes in both parties, there is a forgetfulness of what those people need to get unstuck so they can be successful and have our dreams. you think about the people who have lost their jobs through globalization. think about the people who have lost their jobs because of sickness in the family. and we may ensure to measure so that we can go from wherever you are stuck over the bridge. and that to me is the message that well -- i think it shows we care. the last thing i will say -- they did a survey. they asked voters about romney and obama. romney won four things. the fifth one was wonder stands our problems better. obama was 81 and romney was 19. why? they never hand of saw his heart. and he is a wonderful man. and i don't know why that happened. if they are stuck in a ditch, you're going to put your shoulder to the car and help them out.
if we can demonstrate that, people will say that is a new brand for republicans. create jobs, compassion and care. i think it works. >> i think that in our nation a lot of people worry about the direction our nation is going. they will tell you. america is concerned. i hear it on the street. i hear it with our families. people stop me in a convenience store and say i am really concerned about where our nation is going. what are we going to do to get it back. i think there are great example with our conservative or governors, a republican governors who are dressing problems in bringing forth solutions to address those problems. there is an old saying this is that people don't care how much you know until they know how much you care. we have to do a better job as a party showing people that we listen. that is the big difference. they have done a better job on
messaging. it making people believe they care. i do not believe that. if you look at individual states, we are focusing on jobs. we are focusing on education. we are focusing on trying to make a healthier system more amenable to the people versus the big government run, cost too much, too complicated. it is about the kitchen table issues. when i sit with my husband, we talk about it at the kitchen table. i husband talks about his business and regulations, we talk about taxes. we talk about our children being able to get a job. are they going to be able to stay oklahoma? it is about paying the bills and making house payments. it is about taking care of our
health. substance abuse, mental illnesses. taking about those things that impact a family and people can relate to. >> to talk about americans being nervous. americans being scared. they are. it seems like for a long time democrats love talking about the bush tax cuts. the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. you can go all the way back to 1973. the average wage for the american male has gone down every single year since 1973. a lot of that has to do with the fact that we are more productive than ever. we had 90 revolution. if you saw some statistic that said american factories are earning the same level
production of they were in 1993, 30 more people would be working today. how do we alleviate the worrying and suffering? some money working class americans feel like they are being left behind. the rich to keep getting richer. the poor do get poorer. in the entire industrialized west. >> the things said are the opposite message than what came from the nominee of the republican party in 2012. there is no doubt about that. there were two problems. the actual substance was wrong. republicans had not been able to get past a lot of this 19 $.80 1980. the election of ronald reagan will be 36 years in the past. they will need to show people they have moved beyond that. in 2012, it was interesting. so many people suffering so much
economic anxiety. they chose to focus on entrepreneurs. on business. if you look, if you look at a word cloud, an analysis of the words spoken from the podiums at the republican convention and the democrat convention, democrats use middle-class 5-6 times more than republicans. democrats said a lot. the user were education more. i use the word fair a million times more. the big words republican use, business, success, freedom. they did not connect with those anxieties. they spent the wrong message. >> how devastating was that 47% remark? >> at this very meeting, that news came out. he said on a donor call. the governors here were appalled. they were distancing themselves
from it. there are been this big defeat for republicans. it ran through this meeting. the news that governor romney and said this. it did send the wrong message. the celebration that governor romney did of entrepreneurs, he said a making sandwiches in his garage, now yes 1500 restaurants. that is very good. but, if you look at any rally in say how many paid -- make a living from a business you started and run, it is not many. most people work for somebody else and they are worried about their job. they have lost it. they know somebody was lost theirs. they are worried about that. the republicans in so many ways
never addressed that. that is the question for republicans in 2016. whether they will have a candidate who can actually address those concerns in a real way. >> governor perry, talking about this, giving hope to americans who are scared, my dad worked a lot. he got laid off in the early 1970's. he was out of work for 18 months. it made him more of a republican. not less of republican. he believed that by voting republican he had a better chance of the economy growing. you sent on the national level that people in my dad's position today may not believe that? >> i think we see it. wall street is doing pretty good. wall street is doing really good.
there is this disconnect between the blue-collar. i am pretty blue-collar. you are pretty blue-collar. my dad, you were asking what political party, he would stay democrat. the key is, it goes back to that messaging of who is going to be able to best put policies in place that allow us to make decisions best for family. governors in red states, over the next 12 months as we prepare for those elections, these governors that are creating jobs, their grading and environment where people get to keep more of what they work for. i think we have a great opportunity to reset the mentality in this country about what we really is important. what is really important is how do i best take care of my family?
what are the policies that are going to be implemented that affect me directly? obviously this health care discussion is really important. i do not know how it is going to finally play out. my instinct is that if we thoughtfully have a conversation with the american people of don't you think it is better if you are living in ohio, for john kasich and the democratic and republicans to come up with a way to deliver health care, to put personal responsibility into place, maybe have health savings accounts. a menu of ideas to pick and choose from.
i'll allow for john and his colleagues in the legislature to define the and put into place, and for washington, -- if i am boehner or harry reid, i would love to get away from that issue. maybe that deal isn't such a bad idea. you guys -- >> let me follow up. i'm going to ask you specifically, everyone on the panel, especially you two guys talking about having a blue- collar dad. what does rick perry's father think about hedge funders that makes $1 billion a year? paying 50% tax rates? they are working their tail off. they are paying maybe 35%. why do we continue to allow that
to happen when it disconnects? romney, lois's tax rate? 16%? barack obama's wasn't much better. this seems so unfair whether you one west texas or a milkman. we have missed the boat by blindly defending those types of tax breaks. >> i think we have -- >> -- >> i think rick perry's dad probably things that we have become the great coupon party -- grey poupon party. in our hearts we are the opposite of that.
more you complicate government, the more regulations, the more power you concentrate in one place, what happens? the guys with the money, lobbyists, lawyers, we know who wins. that is not the republican party. your publican party is been everybody gets equal opportunity. we used to advocate policies that were like that. >> we use to nominate presidential candidates that -- i hate to go back to it. they went to a school in a place like eureka. think about this. think about who we have nominated. a guy in 2012 his dad ran a car company in michigan. a guy in 2008 and his dad ran the united states navy during the 1960's.
when i made a guy whose dad was president. we had dole in 1996. in 1998, a guy whose father was the east coast establishment. i love all of them. great respect for all of them. are we wondering why we are not connecting? the farmers on west texas, milkman in a while. >> roosevelt was a rich man. that is -- i do not think that is the issue. the stupid will be conducted presidential debates. that was a double -- dumbest thing in the world. [applause] let me just tell you. [laughter] rick called me up one day and he said, what do you think? i do not know what you are talking about. i haven't heard one thing about texas. the debates that everybody off track. isn't this a much more attractive way to do this? just sort of discuss and stop the back-and-forth, and the
attacking one another? you're going to come through as to whether people like you. when we were picking people was done great hope they will figure something else out. secondly, my father's father was a coal miner. my mother's mother never learned how to speak english. we were never told to present rich people. we were told try to be one of them. blue-collar -- >> i agree with that too. my mom and dad would tell me to work hard and you will be successful one day. they also believed in a system that was fair. none of them think that guys paid 15% tax rates weren't
working their tell offs. >> when you add everything up, for a lot of people, when you're paying 15% of everything you earn to the government, that is not great. let me tell you what i believe is the problem with the wage gap. our education system is not giving people the tools to compete and win in the industries with the jobs that exist. our education system, k-12, is too mechanical. it is not flexible. it does not put kids out to where the jobs are. it is not the there great passions. we need to send vocational education. he worked -- you could become an entrepreneur. our education system is not giving the tools to our students connected to the 21st-century jobs. it is hurting america. new york times had an article about this. education is grading the great
division in our country. our job training programs leave so much to be desired in america today. you to lose your job before basically people will help you get trained. instead of training people while they are working to get the skills in an era of advanced manufacturing and 3-d printing, you have to lose your job to catch the buddha federal government runs these programs. it makes no sense. we are using casino money to train people. we have to train people, educate them, the their passions. you must have a flexible system that goes from pre-k to jobs. it is happening with republican governors. >> i talked with the energy revolution in oklahoma. the great thing, it is going to mean over the next 20-40 years, we are not only going have the most productive workers in the world, we are going to have the lowest energy costs. we are going to see manufacturing jobs coming back.
i know you hear this. you have business owners that say we can build the factories. we may not have americans that are going to be pulled to work the jobs. what are you doing oklahoma so when jobs, we have americans to put in there? >> i appreciate the discussion. there are two things. one is, we can do as republicans to help our state economies and our national economy is to create certainty within our own states. there were so much uncertainty in washington dc. we have shutdowns, sequesters. i had the opportunity to leave congress. we all got smart and came back home to do something else. as governors we are getting things done. unlike those in washington, we have to get things done. they will take us out of office if we do not get things done.