tv Washington This Week CSPAN December 8, 2013 7:00pm-8:01pm EST
people of gaza are going to want. and the pressure that will be placed for the residents of gaza to experience that same future is something that is going to be i think overwhelmingly appealing. but that is probably going to but that is probably going to take place during the course of some sort of transition period. and the security requirements that israel requires will have to be met. and i think that is able -- that we can accomplish that, but ultimately it's going to be something that requires everybody to stretch out of their comfort zones. and the one thing i will say to the people of israel is that you can be assured whoever is in the office i currently occupy,
democrat or republican, that your security will be uppermost on our minds. that will not change. and that should not mean you let up on your vigilance in terms of wanting to look out for your own country. it does -- it should give you some comfort, though, that you have the most powerful nation on earth as your closest friend and ally. and that commitment is going to be undiminished. >> that was my last question. >> i promised -- we worked something backstage where as long as haim's questions weren't too long, i'd take a couple of questions from the audience. and he was very disciplined -- [laughter] so let me take one or two. this gentleman right here. why don't you get a microphone so everybody can hear you?
>> mr. president, i used to be a general in the israeli air force, in intelligence, and now running a think tank in tel aviv. looking into the future agreement with iran -- i put behind me the initial agreement, and what is really important is the final agreement. two questions. what is the parameters that you see as a red line to ensure that iran will be moving forward -- moving backward, rolling back from the bomb as much as possible? and what is your plan b if an agreement cannot be reached? >> well, with respect to the end state, i want to be very clear there's nothing in this
agreement or document that grants iran a right to enrich. we've been very clear that given its past behavior, and given existing u.n. resolutions and previous violations by iran of its international obligations, that we don't recognize such a right, and if, by the way, negotiations break down, there will be no additional international recognition that's been obtained. so this deal goes away and we're back to where we were before the geneva agreement, subject -- and iran will continue to be subject to all the sanctions that we put in place in the past and we may seek additional ones. but i think what we have said is we can envision a comprehensive agreement that involves extraordinary constraints and verification mechanisms and
intrusive inspections, but that permits iran to have a peaceful nuclear program. now, in terms of specifics, we know that they don't need to have an underground, fortified facility like fordor in order to have a peaceful nuclear program. they certainly don't need a heavy-water reactor at arak in order to have a peaceful nuclear program. -- iraq in order to have a peaceful nuclear program. they don't need some of the advanced centrifuges that they currently possess in order to have a limited, peaceful nuclear program. and so the question ultimately is going to be, are they prepared to roll back some of the advancements that they've made that would not justify -- or could not be justified by simply wanting some modest, peaceful nuclear power, but,
frankly, hint at a desire to have breakout capacity and go right to the edge of breakout capacity. and if we can move that significantly back, then that is, i think, a net win. now, you'll hear arguments, including potentially from the prime minister, that say we can't accept any enrichment on iranian soil. period. full stop. end of conversation. and this takes me back to the point i made earlier. one can envision an ideal world in which iran said, we'll destroy every element and facility and you name it, it's all gone. i can envision a world in which congress passed every one of my bills that i put forward.
[laughter] i mean, there are a lot of things that i can envision that would be wonderful. but precisely because we don't trust the nature of the iranian regime, i think that we have to be more realistic and ask ourselves, what puts us in a strong position to assure ourselves that iran is not having a nuclear weapon and that we are protected? what is required to accomplish that, and how does that compare to other options that we might take? and it is my strong belief that we can envision a end state that gives us an assurance that even if they have some modest enrichment capability, it is so constrained and the inspections are so intrusive that they, as a practical matter, do not have breakout capacity. theoretically, they might still have some. but, frankly, theoretically, they will always have some,
because, as i said, the technology here is available to any good physics student at pretty much any university around the world. and they have already gone through the cycle to the point where the knowledge, we're not going to be able to eliminate. but what we can do is eliminate the incentive for them to want to do this. and with respect to what happens if this breaks down, i won't go into details. i will say that if we cannot get the kind of comprehensive end state that satisfies us and the world community and the p5-plus- 1, then the pressure that we've been applying on them and the options that i've made clear i can avail myself of, including a military option, is one that we
would consider and prepare for. and we've always said that. so that does not change. but the last point i'll make on this. when i hear people who criticize the geneva deal say it's got to be all or nothing, i would just remind them if it's nothing, if we did not even try for this next six months to do this, all the breakout capacity we're concerned about would accelerate during that six months. arak would be further along. the advanced centrifuges would have been put in place. they'd be that much closer to breakout capacity six months from now. and that's why i think it's important for us to try to test this proposition. i'll take a couple more. yes, sir. right over here. >> mr. president, israeli journalist from isreal hayom daily newspaper. mr. president, i covered the
negotiations with iran, nuclear negotiations -- geneva 2009, istanbul 2010. and i came back now from geneva again, where you could see the big change was not only on iran's side, but also on the p5- plus-1 side, meaning they were very eager to reach an agreement. coming back from geneva, we learned, and some of us had known before, the secret talks america had with iran. and we know the concern you have on the israeli security -- e're very grateful. -- we're very grateful. but how does it coincide with your secret negotiations washington had with tehran? thank you. >> the truth is, is that, without going into the details, there weren't a lot of secret negotiations. essentially what happened -- and we were very clear and transparent about this -- is that from the time i took office, i said we would reach out to iran and we would let them know we're prepared to open
up a diplomatic channel. after rouhani was elected, there was some acceleration leading up to the u.n. general assembly. you'll recall that rouhani was engaging in what was termed a charm offensive, right, and he was going around talking to folks. and at that point, it made sense for us to see, all right, how serious are you potentially about having these conversations. they did not get highly substantive in the first several meetings but were much more exploring how much room, in fact, did they have to get something done. and then as soon as they began to get more technical, at that point, they converged with the p5-plus-1 discussions. i will say this -- the fact of rhouhani's election -- it's been said that there's no difference between him and ahmadinejad except that he's more charming. i think that understates the shift in politics that took
place in this election. obviously, rouhani is part of the iranian establishment and i think we have to assume that his ideology is one that is hostile to the united states and to israel. but what he also represents is the desire on the part of the iranian people for a change of direction. and we should not underestimate or entirely dismiss a shift in how the iranian people want to interact with the world. there's a lot of change that's going to be taking place in the middle east over the next decade. and wherever we see the impulses of a people to move away from conflict, violence, and towards
diplomatic resolution of conflicts, we should be ready and prepared to engage them -- understanding, though, that, ultimately it's not what you say, it's what you do. and we have to be vigilant about maintaining our security postures, not be naïve about the dangers that an iranian regime pose, fight them wherever they're engaging in terrorism or actions that are hostile to us or our allies. but we have to not constantly assume that it's not possible for iran, like any country, to change over time. it may not be likely.
if you asked me what is the likelihood that we're able to arrive at the end state that i was just describing earlier, i wouldn't say that it's more than 50/50. but we have to try. last question. and i think it's -- the young lady right there. >> mr. president, i'm a reporter for israeli channel two. i have been listening to your analysis of the iranian deal, and i can only imagine a different -- a slightly different analysis given by our prime minister netanyahu. >> i think that's probably a good bet. that's more than 50/50. [laughter.] >> israelis are known for their understatement. [laughter] and i try to imagine a conversation between you two. and he would ask you, mr. president, i see this deal as a historic mistake -- which he has already stated -- and i think
it's the worst deal the west could have gotten. and you would have told him, bibi, that's where you go wrong. what would you have told him? that's one thing. and then, perhaps to understand the essence of your conversation, he would ask you, mr. president, is there one set of circumstances under which you will order your b-52s to strike in iran? what would you tell him? [laughter] is there any set of circumstances in which you will order your fighter pilots to strike in iran? what would you tell the prime minister? >> let me make a couple of points. number one, obviously, the conversations between me and the prime minister are for me and the prime minister, not for an audience like this.
and i will say that bibi and i have very candid conversations, and there are occasionally significant tactical disagreements, but there is a constancy in trying to reach the same goal. and in this case, that goal is to make sure that iran does not have a nuclear weapon. as president of the united states, i don't go around advertising the circumstances in which i order pilots to launch attacks. that i think would be bad practice. [laughter] i also would say, though, that when the president of the united states says that he doesn't take any options off the table, that should be taken seriously. and i think i have a track record over the last five years that indicates that that should be taken seriously. it's interesting -- in the region, there was this interesting interpretation of
what happened with respect to syria. i said it's a problem for syria to have chemical weapons that it uses on its own citizens. and when we had definitive proof that it had, i indicated my willingness potentially to take military action. the fact that we ultimately did not take military action in some quarters was interpreted as, ah, you see, the president is not willing to take military action despite the fact that i think mr. qaddafi would have a different view of that, or mr. bin laden. be that as it may, that was yesterday, what have you done for me lately? [laughter] but the point is that my preference was always to resolve the issue diplomatically. and it turns out, lo and behold, that syria now is actually removing its chemical weapons that a few months ago it denied it even possessed, and has
provided a comprehensive list, and they have already begun taking these weapons out of syria. and although that does not solve the tragic situation inside of syria, it turns out that removing those chemical weapons will make us safer and it will make israel safer, and it will make the syrian people safer, and it will make the region safer. and so i do not see military action as an end unto itself. military action is one tool that we have in a tool kit that includes diplomacy in achieving our goals, which is ultimately our security. and i think if you want to summarize the difference, in some ways, between myself and the prime minister on the geneva issue, i think what this comes down to is the perception, potentially, that if we just kept on turning up the pressure new sanctions, more sanctions, more military threats, et cetera that eventually iran would cave.
and what i've tried to explain is two points: one is that the reason the sanctions have been so effective -- because we set them up in a painstaking fashion the reason they've been effective is because other countries had confidence that we were not imposing sanctions just for the sake of sanctions, but we were imposing sanctions for the sake of trying to actually get iran to the table and resolve the issue. and if the perception internationally was that we were not in good faith trying to resolve the issue diplomatically, that, more than anything, would actually begin to fray the edges of the sanctions regime. point number one.
and point number two -- i've already said this before -- you have to compare the approach that we're taking now with the alternatives. the idea that iran, given everything we know about their history, would just continue to get more and more nervous about more sanctions and military threats, and ultimately just say, okay, we give in -- i think does not reflect an honest understanding of the iranian people or the iranian regime. and i say that -- by the way, i'm not just talking about the hardliners inside of iran. i think even the so-called moderates or reformers inside of iran would not be able to simply
say, we will cave and do exactly what the u.s. and the israelis say. they are going to have to have a path in which they feel that there is a dignified resolution to this issue. that's a political requirement of theirs, and that, i suspect, runs across the political spectrum. and so for us to present a door that serves our goals and our purposes but also gives them the opportunity to, in a dignified fashion, reenter the international community and change the approach that they've taken -- at least on this narrow issue, but one that is of extraordinary importance to all of us -- is an opportunity that we should grant them. all right? well, thank you very much. i enjoyed this. [applause.]
greater backing to the terrorist elements in the region. it would undermine the chances of arriving at negotiated peace. it would undermine peace agreements that we have reached with two neighbors. iran'says ago, representative to the u.n. reiterated that regime's refusal to even recognize israel dared this came after the role of iran refused to israel as a rabid dog and i were the of being called human -- and they called is not worthy of being called him and. -- human. israel anhey called illegitimate and regime. remarks arek these a simple matter of sticks and it is justy said,
talk, but talk has consequences. we have learned that in history, especially when the regime that makes these statements is building the capability to carry it out. the same regime that supplies terrorist groups with thousands of rockets, rockets that are citizens thatli are increasingly lethal and deadly. this is a vision committed to our destruction. i believe there must be an unequivocal demand alongside the negotiations with geneva for change in iranian policy. this must be part of the negotiations. what is required is not merely a , the's capability
element nation of the capability -- and the elimination of the capability. as you now, it is not just a israel. every continues to trample the rights of its own people and participate in the mass slaughterings and destabilizing the regime brought the middle east. overstate,ink i can i do not think any of us can overstate the iranian danger. for the peace and security of the world, iran must not be allowed to maintain the capability to produce nuclear weapons. not today and not tomorrow. the world must not allow iran to be a weapon state with the option to cross that threshold. deal, a fine until the spring about determination --iran's military capable
military capabilities. i have expressed my concerns since before geneva that the sanctions would begin to unravel. i heard today that iran's president said the economy has markedly improved. they have not even put in place -- steps must be taken to repent for the erosion of the sanction. ultimately, the sanctions remain an essential element of the international effort to compel iran to dispel its nuclear the terror infrastructure and take apart all of the centrifuges and tear down the heavy water reactors and eliminate the current stockpile of enriched on weapond working radiation -- weapons that geneva does not address.
none of it is necessary for a peaceful nuclear program. while israel is prepared to do what is necessary to defend itself, we share president obama's preface to see iran's endlear weapons program through diplomacy. for diplomacy to succeed, it must be coupled with powerful sanctions and a credible military threat. -- ae repeat that diplomatic solution is better than a military option, but a military option is necessary for diplomacy to succeed, as are powerful sanctions. we agree after a cup will of tough years, iran finally -- a couple of tough years, iran finally -- what seemed impossible yesterday became possible today. we should not assume that more sanctions will lead to a better deal. was seemed impossible -- what
seemed if possible today could be possible tomorrow. >> c-span, we bring you public affairs directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings, conferences, and complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house all as a public service of private industry. a c-span, created by they cable tv industry years ago and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. you can watch us in hd. next is a discussion of the obama administration efforts to reintroduce the health care law and other issues leading up to the 2014 midterm election. run this morning's "washington journal." host: paul singer is the politics editor of "usa today." thank you for being with us. rick to see you.
great to to see you -- see you. host: let's talk about the legislative week because it is a busy week for washington. the only time the house and senate are in session, what can you expect? guest: the first thing we can hope for is a budget deal, particularly between paul ryan and patty murray in the senate. there is every signal that we could get a two-year budget he'll that would allow all of us to no longer worry about shutdowns in january. host: there have been some talk that some of the big-ticket items, medicare, medicaid, social security, would be part of this agreement. guest: there will be a little bit more -- basically trying to get rid of the sequester funding cuts. there will be a little bit more order in the spending levels. i think the major victory here is buying two years of stability
and sanity. that is what the real victory for both sides will be. host: we'll patty murray have senate democrats on board? guest: he doesn't need them all. as usual, you need enough republicans to join with a lot of democrats in the house and move this while still allowing 40 or 50 of the most conservative tea party republicans to say they are not going to support it because it raises spending levels above what they want. you look at the senate votes and the houseboats. i think everybody realizes it will be more useful to buy two
years worth of argument without having to face crisis. host: how angry are senate republicans about the infection of the nuclear option and what impact will that have not only in the short term but in the next two weeks and also the year ahead? guest: it is basically going to start up tomorrow or monday night when they get back. we will see how willing they are to throw up barricades to any sort of legislation. once you pull the plug, every other party is going to protest the way that the other parties going to protest every way it
can. we don't know how angry they are about the appointees. are they going to try to find some way to object the procedure, any kind of procedure? we will see. they're very upset about it. democrat to upset about it to. the whole concern was when you limit the rights of minorities you limit the rights of future minorities. host: two stories from your website and usa today, chris christie holding onto the records -- the story points out that in advance of the expected 2016 for the campaign for presidency, chris christie's administration is stepping up efforts to control the governor's image at all costs, including burning the sunshine laws that permit access to these records. guest: it is not only because it is a disclosure problem.
part of it is keeping track. error so many different government agencies involved at the state, the federal, and the local level. it can be very difficult to figure out where all this money has gone and what has been done with it. i am frankly surprised to see any administration attempting to withhold that information. it is not entirely clear people understand what they have. sooner or later they will hand over as much information as they got. you cannot run your campaign with a slogan of, i want to be your president but not give you any information. host: rand paul appeared at the economic club. we covered his speech. he told a reporter that his wife is so far not on board with a potential run for the white house. guest: the fact of the matter is, is he going to run for the president of united states?
you are going to have to give up your entire private life, the family will give up their private life, you have to go around the country for two years or more, taking people for money and their votes. -- begging people for money and their votes. the president is an indication the president is an indication that being president is an indication you are not right for the job. -- being president is an indication you are not right for the job. host: we talk about the week ahead for congress. susan is joining us from decatur, illinois, democrat line. good morning. caller: i wanted to talk to about president obama when he build out all the costs in detroit. if he agreed to bail them out, his agreement should have been
that they bring every not, old, and higher back to america so america's workers can make an american car. that would have been my terms on that. i think the president went wrong on that one. i think he should have had a few more issues with the car people. american car part should be made here. host: let me direct your attention to the front page story of the detroit free press the the newspaper asking detroit residents about their concerns or frustrations, fears, promise, hope. guest: the caller has a point. this was part of the president's reelection campaign, general motors is live -- is alive. that does not mean detroit is
alive and -- is alive. a lot of the automobile jobs in the united states has moved to some of them -- has moved. some of them are in tennessee. they are american name -- american cars with japanese plates. it is an industry -- an interesting question what you call an american made car. is the toyota made in tennessee an american car? it is a difficult one to legislate. host: randles on the line for independents. caller: i wanted to address the entitlement issues being used
for the budget. this administration is trying to get social security into the fray. that means they probably would have lost money on the bailout. earlier, before mr. singer came on, you are discussing the decline of america. a number of people commented it was the middle class being destroyed. they are fooling people by cutting down what the poor people -- [indiscernible] i think the women are really wising up. just give it a fair shot and put her in there.
host: thank you for the call. let me ask you about elizabeth warren. guest: i don't take any promises seriously for 2016 until late 2014. the fact of the matter is, if you have a window of opportunity and see your window of opportunity, you take it. it comes around once in a lifetime. while i do not doubt elizabeth warren, her intention, it is entirely possible that she changes her mind and says, the situation has changed and i change my mind. host: the caller brought up the issue of funding programs like medicare and medicaid. i want to put unemployment
benefits on the table because that is going to be a part of the debate this week. nancy pelosi said, "no budget yield unless there is an extension on the budget deal." she seemed to backtrack a little bit on that. house democrats seem to be firm they want to see the extension which could impact 1.3 million americans at the end of this month. what is the latest? guest: house republicans have not said no to that. boehner said he is open to some of this. you get a problem every time you do this. can you spend the spending while at the same time finding a way to not blow the budget? is there something to offset it with to produce cost savings that would prevent it? we will see.
this tends to be extending benefits for both sides. it is difficult to say that they will cut off a million people. we will see if they have time to get something done over the next week or so. host: let's turn back to 2014 politics. in the latest red state of appreciation for appropriations, the senator writes his decision to set up a unique test for groups that have targeted incumbents. he is a six term republican, but loved in mississippi, facing a tea party challenge, and we should point out he has not have that had a tough contest. guest: i do not know if he has raised money yet either. people are waiting for the senator to announce his retirement because he had raised very little money, had not done much to build up a campaign, six terms now, folks thought was -- this was the time the senator
would step away. he chose to step up and he was going to run. it is an interesting race to watch because it is a republican seat. i do not think there is any doubt. it is a strong republican state. you now get into warfare if you have a tea party challenger accusing the senator of having fostered giant deficits through the role in the appropriations committee. that becomes a really ugly conversation within the party. >> let me also share with you one of the latest as in louisiana. health care and the use of a familiar scene in louisiana, the theme of the said, let's watch the -- let's watch. >> there is a danger. many have warned that is coming.
now they are in a hunt and headed for you. >> at least 80,000 people statewide would not be able to keep their current insurance because of the guttural health care overhaul. >> louisianians are struggling because of obamacare. she recently told reporters, "i am not concerned for anything." she cast the deciding vote for obama care in the first place. it is the brave new world of government incompetence that we will live in. guest: the last line for that is interesting because that is new. the brave new world of government incompetence. that is something the launch of the obamacare website has over republicans. up to it is no longer it is better for you. -- the government is better for you. these guys are incompetent
buffoons. it is a attack that could have some resonance. obama had problems with the nsa, spying, leaks, the problem of the health-care website that does not work, he looks like the government is having difficulty operating. in -- and now he says the democratic senators are wrong on governing. that is intriguing to me. i'm a government junkie, so maybe it is less intriguing to other people. host: let me share this. president obama is making a big comeback if only he could get the news out to millions of homeless. guest: every time we have a conversation about on employment numbers, it is the same. it is a question of whether you are in power or out of power. out of power, unemployment goes
up, proving america is in trouble. if you're out of power, unemployment going down also proves there is trouble because people have gotten frustrated. both of those facts are true. it is also true, if the economy continues to improve, particularly if the improvement picks up over time, the democrats will have a much more comfortable ground to run on because you begin to have a situation where we are no longer at war, a major issue in the prior campaigns. the economy is getting better and that is another issue off the table. then the democrats have the opportunity to say, by the time they are actually at the polls in a year, there will be a bunch of people enrolled in the health care, whether or not we thought was a good idea now in december,
a year from now, there will be millions of people enrolled in it and it may be less turmoil and may take an issue off the table for democrats and may be easier for them to run that way. i worry less about month-to- month employment statistics. but i care about is, do do people feel the economy is getting better? that works well for democrats. host: a tweet -- yep, they will run on bumbling bureaucrats. guest: they have been given on a silver platter the opportunity to make that case. the health care rollout was such a message gives republicans the opportunity to say, this was their policy. this was their law. and they could not make it work and it is costing you millions. i do not know what the final tally will be on the cost of this website, but it will be hundreds of millions of dollars and people can say, fairly, and it has not worked.
host: darrell said it is close to $1 billion. guest: it is hard to know exactly what number applies to which. last number i saw, i do not know if it is just for the website or the website and some things underneath it. it will be hundreds of millions of dollars. >> on the issue of jobless numbers, we saw the same thing from the speaker of the house, who said the drop is an indication we do not need more government stimulus. guest: that is another way to look at this. if you will say people are getting jobs in the private sector, it proves we could stop the government spending and government stimulus. i think the report indicated government employment is still down. the unemployment rate is dropping and people are getting
jobs, even with government employment declining. a nice opportunity for republicans to make the point it is the private sector that will lift you out of economic hard times, not the public-sector. the democratic response is absolutely true, but when the private sector was week, it needed government spending to bolster it. that is what obama's 2009 stimulus did in particular, bridge the gap while the private sector came back. host: our guest is paul singer, politics editor for usa today. we welcome our listeners on c- span radio, here in the baltimore-washington area, and speaking of jobs and the economy, this is the headline, another election getting a lot of attention is chris christie as charlie crist tries to take his old job back in florida, challenging rick scott, the republican governor. many promises and few jobs.
rick scott as the republican governor ran in 2010 with a promise to make more than 700,000 new jobs in florida and he has not kept that. guest: he has been very unpopular in the state. he has had great difficulty in this state. florida is always interesting holidays. the fact that charlie crist is back is wacky. here is a guy who was a republican governor, considered too moderate to be the governor in the state, and he then came back as an independent and lost than a democrat and embraces obama. his popularity is somehow rivaling that of an input -- incumbent republican governor. the whole state is entertaining. there is a congressional seat down there that will be fun to watch. congressman bill young, who passed away, there will be a very interesting race to replace
him. i would become a political reporter because it is just so much fun. >> joe has been waiting on the phone so we will go to him next in south carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm happy to wait. i wanted to talk about the 2016 elections. since you talked about obamacare and how it may affect future elections, the midterms, i think, republicans will benefit from the mess with her -- with obamacare. you have to dial back the clock to 2010. in march of that year, the affordable care act became law. and the republicans benefited and took the house in november 2010. moving forward, i want to ask you about the viability of the third-party 2016. frankly, i am a supporter of the
constitution party. kudos to steve and c-span. you mentioned politicians will be on the road for two years trying to get money from supporters and as you also probably note, the constitution party will accept no more than $200 for many individual and no money from corporations so that they will not be indebted to anyone. no lobbyists. they are free to do whatever they want. they won't not owe anybody anything ever is. my problem is they are not accepted on the national level on any major network and debates. you see the mood even on the show. all we are talking about republicans and democrats. something has got to go. there has got to be a move to get at least a third party on the national debate level. c-span had them responding to debate questions. what do you think? class i have -- what do you think?
>guest: i have written a lot about a third party, particularly presidential debates and a third. it is really interesting. they cannot get on the ballot nationwide. they have to go state. i spoke to the vice presidential candidate from the constitutional party. they are spending all their time and money just getting their names on the ballot to run for president. before they could even start a campaign about why they should be voted for. you said the constitutional party limits donors to $200. you have just marched yourself off the stage. in america, money is politics.
i am not saying that is a good or bad thing. i am saying the way the system is currently constructed, if you do not raise a significant amount of money, you cannot pay for advertising, you cannot pay for campaign signs, you cannot pay to travel to your appearances. you will lose. you will not be competitive. does that call for a major reform of our political system or for a change in the way the third-party raises its money? not my issue. i will tell you and the supreme court has said this, money is politics. money is free speech. one of the reasons third parties are not able to make a big splash is they do not have the money.
that was one of the reasons ross perot could do it. he had a billion dollars. he could buy the time on television and he could by the -- buy the attention he needed. that is a fundamental issue for all the third parties. can they get enough money to buy entry into our political system? i hate to put it that way in a democracy, but it is a fundamental question. host: michael says this -- let's go to don from memphis, tennessee. caller: good morning. i mentioned this administration and the little league from behind, i think is probably the most asinine phrase i have ever heard in my life. leaving from behind means that things are going rough, the guy in back gets to retreat first. so, i am totally confused.
we used to be a world power. it amazes me everything he has done has had a negative effect on our economy and our country. host: we will get a response. guest: the lead from behind thing is an interesting thing. how much can you go out front and lead? i will give you iran as an example. the administration, i think, it is fair to say it is leading negotiations with iran. over their nuclear program. is that a good idea depends on which side of the aisle you are on and not only which political side, republican or democrat, depends on whether or not you believe iran is something you can negotiate with, or if you are in israel's camp that this
is ridiculous and we are being duped. for any president, there are issues where you stake your claim and say, we will try this, and you will lead and you will take a lot of flack for it and america is a country that is sometimes very skeptical of people who step out front and try to push the country into things. you can also make the argument that obama led on obamacare. that he led the country and fought for the bill, although i think there are people in the senate who would tell you they are the ones who did all the hard work. it is a very interesting challenge to figure out when you are leading a nation into some sort of a policy, and when you are a nation that does not want to go and it is a fine line. if you are dragging a nation that does not want to go, you will be in trouble.
>> on the next "washington journal" the latest on the budget negotiations between the house and the senate with robert bixby. after that, and jeffrey young talks about the role of medicaid and the health care law. and they look at how personnel cost it into the overall budget at the defense department. is liveton journal" every day at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span. tomorrow the british prime minister david cameron and members of the house of commons the offered tribute to south african president nelson mandela who died on thursday at the age of 95. spanhave live coverage on c- 2 at 9:30 a.m. eastern. the wireline world is about systemtral circulatory of our economy.
it is the veins and the arteries that really connect what is now the information economy in the united states. we are seeing data traffic on our wireline networks at a rate of 40% increase per year. it is that network that connects all forms of communications whether they originate in the wire environment or wireless environment. so yeah, america's future is --eless here and -- wireless communicators"he at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span 2. >> i got upset with the --sident because they never showed up anymore. woman who was one of the press people.
she said, mental health is not a sexy issue here you -- is not a sexy issue. -- itsed a mental health passed through congress. [indiscernible] never implemented it. one of the disappointments of my -- life. and span,ming up tonight on c- .q&a" with david finkel after that, prime minister's questions. that is followed by the editor
of the u.k. guardian newspaper talking about british security and nsa surveillance. bulletsweek on "q&a," are prize-winning journalist david finkel discusses his latest book, titled, "thank you for your service." >> david finkel, at what point did you decide to call this book "thank you for your service"? the gamepened late in after i turned in the manuscript and we were searching for a title. i had another one in mind, which was "the suicide room." when i mention that to the publisher, she said, that is just a traffic title. are you trying to put us out of business?
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on