tv Charlie Rose PBS November 5, 2013 12:00am-1:00am EST
>> rose: welcome too the program. we begin this evening with nancy pelosi, the minority leader of the house of representatives. >> this again it is a bad, about the product and the good we started three months in advance of the implementation coming in january, so there is time to work all of this out. >> rose: all your republican colleagues is just want to delay it, let's delay it until we are ready. of course, they want to delay it until it is gone and again if any of them had even any positive idea about what this means for their constituents, but they don't want it to succeed mainly because it is anish if the of president obama. >> rose: we conclude this evening with james toback, he is the director of a new films called "seduced and abandoned". >> and seduce is, what "seduced
and abandoned" is about more than movies and money and glamor is about death and as sam jewel johnson said at the beginning of the graphic of the movie nobody is willing to live until he accepts his own mortality. and i ask everybody in the movie, i am not going to ruin it by saying what they say, american the movie i spring it on in the last ten minutes are you ready to die? >> rose: nancy pelosi and james toback when we continue. funding for charlie rose was provided by the following. >>
captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. > we did not work very hard, and many of us dedicate our public service to a red site, it was to, to a web site it was anish if the for affordable healthcare for all americans as a right not a privilege and that is what this initiative is about. >> rose: nancy pelosi is here. she is the minority leader of the house of representatives. she has represented her san francisco district for 26 years. she was instrumental in passing the affordable care act in 2010,
she was inducted last month into the national women's hall of fame. she is the only woman to have served as a speaker of the house. she is also the only national political leader whose approval rating rose during the political shutdown last month i am pleased to have her back at this table. welcome and congratulations. >> thank you very much. >> now here is what i want to tell you and want to start with this. this is what they wrote in politico about you last week. one thing for sure, pelosi's power and influence among her colleagues has returned to levels not seen since she served as speaker. her position in the democratic caucus already strong was further bolstered during the recent government shutdown and debt ceiling crisis. as the republicans fought each other, pelosi adeptly managed to hold her colleagues together and democrats ultimately gave speaker john boehner the lawn, lion's share of the votes to end the chaos. so how do you explain that? >> i explain it by saying that my colleagues very much knew
that a shutdown of government was the wrong thing to do. >> rose: yes. >> and this is a reflection of their determination to open up government and to end the threat of default on the full faith and credit of the united states. >> rose: and you were ready to deliver. >> well we had promised before the shutdown, we said to the speaker, you don't need to shut the government down. we have 100 percent of votes that will go to keep government open. it is not that i was delivering them, it is that is what our members believe and it was a refrek shun, reflection of their determination and they didn't accept the offer and when they shut down the government almost every day we went to the steps and signed letters, went to the, lined up in the congress to say 100 percent of the democrats are there to open up government, and to end the threat of default. finally, 16 days later, they accepted the vote. >> rose: but he kept saying i don't have the votes, i don't know that i have the votes. >> well, here is the thing.
you have to remember the context of this. the speaker offered harry reid the numbers, leader reid in the senator, $188 billion figure, it is a terrible figure for the budget, as the chairman of the republican appropriations committee, the republican chairman said, this does not enable us to meet our needs for the american people. nonetheless, that was the number, the republican number that they offered senator reid. he received the number. the president accepted the number. the house democrats accepted the number, even though we didn't like the number, but in order not to shut down government. the only people who are not accepting, the republican budget number were the republican house members, and that is what led to this. now, i said to them, you -- if we have 200 all you need are 17 votes. >> rose: right, right, right. >> you don't need to be beholden. >> rose: to those 17. >> or to the 30 or 40 as they say. but as it turns out it was more like 100 -- well it was exactly
144 republicans who voted to not to end the shutdown, to keep the government shut down, and to default on the full faith and credit. so this 30 or 40 that are tail wagging the dog are more like a big tail wagging the dog or a big dog. >> rose: so there is this question. yes and they made a mistake, but some people will argue republicans made a big mistake in the shutdown and even tying it to obamacare or affordable care act of 2010, because if they had not shut down the government and had the focus on the shutdown of the government they would not be reaping the benefits of what seems to be a very strong and growing impression that the affordable care act was not ready for prime time. >> well -- >> rose: not just the web site, but the whole thing. and what the president promised and couldn't deliver. >> well, two points here. first of all, they did what they believed. they do not -- they are anti-government idea logs so
shutting down government is not a big idea for them, as the horrible thing for the country .. but they have a comfort level with it. why else would they have shut it down when they knew they had the vote to keep it open? secondly, when you talk about the affordable healthcare and let's not go too far. what we are talking about now is the technology behind it. >> no we are not, we are not talking about the technology. we are talking about content, we are talking what the president promised. >> okay. >> rose: and the technology part is not working but they have not had a whole range of things that are crucial for the development of this legislation. >> thank you for posing it that way, because let me say this. first of all, it is a big heavy lift to pass it. presidents and speakers for over 100 years had tried to pass affordable care for all americans. we passed it. it was challenged over and over again in court, it stood the test of the court, the supreme court declared it constitutional, in the first year of its implementation before the full implementation kids 18 to 26, on their parents,
their children are subjected to previous condition as an obstacle to their getting insurance. seniors, medicare, stability stretched out for years, lower cost of prescription drugs, free checkups, no copay, no deductible, and so that implementation of it went very smoothly. then we come to the distribution piece, the technology piece. it didn't work well. not unlike medicare part d when it opened up,. >> rose: plenty of warning. we now know we had one person after another come along and say we are not ready, don't do it. >> no, no, no. >> rose: it is wrong or -- no is that wrong? >> i don't know what went on behind the scenes. >> rose: you don't want -- you don't, what went on at the white house? a. i know what people write buts a great one. >> rose: i didn't know that. >> i do know it. >> rose: how do you know that? >> because it is. >> rose: you don't know that
because we haven't seen it and so far what we have seen -- >> no, no, no, we do know. let's talk about -- >> rose: how about those people say i like my policy and then they say well i'm sorry you can't keep your policy and they say but the president promised me i could keep my policy. >> let's talk about and quantify what that is. 95 percent of the people who get healthcare -- who have health insurance now can keep their -- they get it through businesses, their employment. >> rose: right. >> medicare, medicaid, veterans administration. >> rose: right. >> they are not affected. >> rose: government is government. >> no, no. it is their employer, largely employer based. >> rose: veterans and -- >> veterans -- >> rose: that is government. medicare, medicaid and government. >> let us not ignore the important part which is employer based healthcare -- health insurance. five percent had individual, individual policies, those people will only end up better because they will have a better
policy because of the patient's bill of rights that is built into the affordable care act, so let's not underestimate what the challenge is but let's not over estimate it either. so most of these people will be able to, through their insurer or, or going to their broker or through the insurance company to get a policy that is better for them, no preexisting medical conditions. >> rose: right. >> no lifetime caps, no lifetime limits on the insurance that they get, so it will only improve for them. so 95 percent of what the president said, yeah, that worked out fine, five percent, many of them will get an approved policy, but the issue is, okay, now we go to the distribution. they have to fix the technology and when medicare part d came out which was a smaller program, they had a big, they had big challenges and i can show you 23 headlines right now that say it
gets an f, not ready for prime time. >> rose: right. >> glitch, glitch, glitch, and that went on for six months. and what did the republicans say? oh that is what happens with a big program. >> rose: well he they do say that. and it is just too big of a program, the federal government can't do can't do this. >> believe me as one who was ververy involved with this, this a great thing for our country. the healthier life, the liberty to pursue your happiness whether you wanted to be a writer, a photographer, be self-employed flew speaker of the house. >> start your own business you are not job locked by your policy. you are free to follow your passion. it really is a great thing, you can -- >> rose: you say it is a great thing, as the great thing. >> it is. it is fabulous, it is social security, medicare, affordable care for all americans as a right and not a privilege. >> rose: i know you believe all of that. i know you do. and you should. you know why you should? because you created it.
many people think this is your piece of legislation. >> well, if it were mine it would be single pay. if it was mine it would be single pay or public option. >> rose: would we better off if -- >> we would say more money. >> rose: but would we have been off single pay which would have been straightforward -- in canada and we come down here -- >> canada has beyond single pay. they have -- they can provide health, we are not providing health for anybody, we are providing health insurance. >> rose: right. >> the affordability, the accessibility, the quality but we are not -- >> rose: you don't deny you wrote this? this is nancy's bill. >> it is not nancy's bill, as the bill that was the, shall we say, a compromise. >> rose: yes. >> because i would have had a public option. there is no use going there. there is plenty of things -- >> rose: i am just saying you have pride of authorship here, thus you see it as -- >> for those who worked very hard on it. >> has the perfect thing. >> no, i don't see it as a perfect thing. >> rose: what is wrong with
it? >> nothing has -- >> rose: what is it about this would you acknowledge that your critics have a point is the critics not of you but the bill. >> the implementation and the technology -- >> rose: no not the web site that is clear to everybody. >> well i would add of course every bill when you see its implementation you will see where it could be strengthened or changed, one thing i would do is give every insurance commissioner the country the right to judge whether insurance companies can raise their rates. >> rose: that is one thing in the bill i would not do. >> it would be tougher on insurance companies? >> yes. >> rose: but you needed them to get the bill passed? >> one of the things -- no, not really but one of the things that insurance companies, one of the reasons that people have some reluctance to sign up, believe it or not is their bad experience they had for signing one insurance before, so, you know, again, the technology is wrong, they can get there by telephone or community health service, that is not good enough. but it does not have an impact
on the product, which is a great thing. >> rose: here is what -- >> liberation. >> rose: i understand your passion. but sit where i do at two anchor, to an ay anchor desk and see article after article. >> what are they talking about? >> rose: they are talking about people and their experience. >> well i have -- >> rose: people and their experience. >> and i have tw 200 members who bring back stories of people who say, i'm sorry about the technology, i just want to know how i can sign up, because i need healthcare. >> rose: well, you can make a phone call and do all of this stuff. explain this to me. the. >> okay. >> this depends on young people signing up, does it not? >> rose: and if you lose that, this thing is in a bad, bad place, correct? >> well, it is not as good as it would be. >> rose: it is more than that. sustainability depends on young people signing up. >> healthier younger people. >> rose: doesn't it? >> right. >> rose: and they are not signing up? >> well, they will, they will. >> rose: is that blind faith you have? >> no i can, i believe in
technology, i believe in technology, they will. >> rose: so you believe they want to? >> oh, yes. >> rose: there is no question amount that? >> well, they have, they are an important part of the passage of the bill, the invincibles, the young people, and they will have -- >> rose: without them you don't have a bill. >> it is not that we don't have any bill it is just that you have for them, let's not worry about what we have, let's worry about what they get. >> rose: yes. >> for a very low, below $100 a month they will have health insurance. they are invincible, except they could get in an accident or they could get a diagnosis that they could become sick in a way that is chickcally, economically challenging too them .. so for under $100 a month add some of them almost for free with the subsidies that they would receive, so it is not about what this means to us. it is what it means to individual families in our country. and they have an opportunity now, the stories zero are overwhelming what it means to families with a child with preexisting conditions. with young people say to me, i never -- i couldn't get a policy
because i thought i rode a skateboard and might break a leg and i got cancer and that has put me in a different place but we have will, we will have an app and it will work and young people will catch up. as i said with medicare part d, eight years ago,. >> rose: right. >> that was problematic, we should do better now with the technology, we are trying to do more with the technology, we will get it right. >> rose: people like medicare? >> they like, they love medicare, that is single bear. >> rose: i understand. >> no, people do love medicare, the three most important fishes the next election will be medicare, medicare and medicare. >> rose: well, explain that. you obviously know politics. explain to me why that is true. >> well, medicare is -- >> rose: not that they like it but they like it because it delivers for them? >> it delivers for them, everybody wants finish if the that affects them to be better. >> rose: exactly. >> but the fact is this is a central pillar for families, because .. some pa families of middle age are sandwiched between the needs of their children or helping their
parents if they should need help or get again a diagnosis, so without medicare families are greatly at risk. >> rose: would you, are you prepared to say this? you desperately, not desperately you have had a wonderful life in many way, a great family, great political career, speaker of the house. >> grandmother. >> rose: grandmother, everything and you are a very happy person. >> i am. >> and so would you be perfectly happy if, in fact, the chance you have to serve as speaker, the third most powerful position in the u.s. government, third in line to the white house, would you be prepared to have that be a referendum on that, on the affordable act as a determinative of whether democrats control the house of representatives in the 2006, 2014 election would you? >> i believe that when this is
implemented and it will be in a matter of months. >> rose: yes. >> -- >> rose: by november 30, they say. >> well, for the technology, but you have until the end of march. >> rose: you will say to -- and listen, we have got to run on the affordable care act, that is our ticket to the majority, are you prepared to -- >> well, i think the majority is about jobs, the issue, it is a variant issue. >> rose: job reports -- jobs are more important than the healthcare debate? >> it is a very important issue in our country and near is the thing. everybody talks about the deficit but we have a growth deficit. we have a jobs deficit. >> rose: right. >> and that is why the debate on the budget is so important, before we leave the affordable care act remember that all of that investment into medicare was part of the affordable care act so i put that together affordable care act and what it maintains to medicare, going over here, i think the debate that the public will be interested in is the one on jobs, even though i said
medicare, that is dispositive because people will see where they are on that, on jobs, everybody looks for jobs and how do we convince people that our initiative is better than the other. >> rose: i have to leave, go back to medicaid just one second and then talk about the budget and what neri and paul rand are doing. the medicare and affordable care act we hear one-story after another of people on the democratic side telling people in the white house, it is not going to be ready, i it is not going to be -- both the technology and more, we have got a problem that we now know there is a debate within the white house about what to tell people. >> these are paper reports. i don't know that. i don't know that but it isn't ready, regardless of who told what when to whom. >> rose: ho should they have waited and not got until they got it. >> right is that the smart thing to do? >> they will get it right. >> rose: but they were told it was not right. >> well, i don't know that. i don't know that. >> rose: yes, you know. >> i d i don't know, i do not k,
i know what i am reading in the paper now about it, first we heard that there was -- that crash because there were so many visitors, now others tell me and i think it is probably so that there was -- the problems that were there were exacerbated by the people that showed, if it had been so many maybe they would have ridden it out, but whatever it is here is what i do know. the people who were responsible for it ought not to be the ones making the decision as to how to go forward, when i say that i mean the technicians. they need fresh eyes with no skin in the game of their product being judged. >> rose: right. >> and to say, how do we make this work. now let's just do it. >> rose: they hired the geniuses from the sill son valley haven't they. >> in northern california, this is like a day's work, i mean, i believe that they will -- i believe they will get it right. >> rose: but. >> but you know what? this, again, is about the product and good that we started three-month in advance of the implementation coming in january, so there is
time to work all of this out. >> all your republican colleagues what want to do is just delay it, delay it until we are ready. >> of course they don't want to delay it until it is ready, they want to delay it until it is gone and if any of them had even any positive requested about what this means for their constituents, but they don't want it to success main he because it is anish if the of president obama. also true to their a nature they don't believe in a public role, they think that medicare should wither on the vine that social security had no place in a free society. >> rose: well, tha that was not the position of their candidate in 2012. >> oh, plea. well,. >> rose: not that medicare should wither on the vine. >> what do you think having a voucher, the ryan budget, the ryan budget vowper rises medicare .. >> voucher rises and make seniors pay more while gives tax breaks to millionaires, they criticized the president for cutting medicare. >> they didn't cut medicare. >> rose: yes, they did. >> they did not cut benefits.
he cut excessive profits for certain provider,. >> rose: that is -- >> i know but it wasn't true, it wasn't true but the fact is is that the excessive profits for certain providers were taken to extend the life of medicare, to reduce the cost of prescription drugs for seniors and to provide more services, for example, a, the free, no copay, no deductible checkup which makes our seniors healthier and that they use. okay, that is that. so when we go into the budget debate, the two budgets that are on the table, one is the budget, the senate democratic budget which is similar to our house budget and the president's budget but that is their bargaining point and the republican ryan budget, the ryan budget take that same money that we took in the affordable care act for prolonging the life of medicare and gives tax cuts to the wealthy while voucher rising medicare and making seniors pay more .. let's have that debate. let's have that debate. so there, so when you say no, they don't want to wither on the vine, no, they want to voucher
rise it and make seniors pay more with the idea that it will be diminished and wither on the vine is not my language. that is the republican language they also had as their top campaign person last time, the person to carry the bill to privatize social security, so bless their hearts they don't believe in a public role and they act upon their beliefs, they don't want the president to succeed, and they act upon that. >> rose: let me ask you about something you really know a lot about. >> before we go, as we go to the budget, though jerks to go with, when our members go to that table it is with an open mind to find common ground to find common ground to get a budget to show, will go to any length to make sure people see we can get something done as we did to open up government and stop the default and that we should have something by thanksgiving. so that the confidence of the consumer over christmas and the confidential -- >> rose: do what by thanksgiving? >> we should have a budget agreement by then. >> rose: you think we will?
>> that's what -- why wouldn't we? everybody knows what the variables -- everybody knows what the variables are. >> rose: you have so much power there you know exactly where it is at this moment. you know what the conversation -- >> i have knowledge but i don't have the power. >> rose: you have both. you know exactly where the conversation is, nancy, so tell me -- >> i know it can be done by thanksgiving. yes. >> rose: what would be the, what would the deal look like by thanksgiving? >> it would be small, it would be shall but it would be something that would take us forward. >> rose: for how long? >> i would like to see it big. until we go to the table and have a separate debate no, it would have to be for a longer period of time. i don't mean shall in length of time i mean small in scope, but then to have a debate on the tax code, what is fair, what is fairness, what tax expenditures or loopholes can we close? what -- >> how can we lower the corporate -- >> rose: you can close some of the corporate tax loopholes, as you say, deductions, would you
be prepared to see the rate reduced? >> for the corporations? yes, definitely. >> rose: that is done. i mean that is sort of -- >> it is not done -- >> rose: but if nancy pelosi believes in that, i would assume a lot of democrats would go along. >> well the republicans say it is done, the republicans are not willing to close loopholes or to stop the tax expenditures, when they talk about cutting penning, put in perspective this. $2.4 trillion have been -- have gone forward in terms of deficit reduction, 2.4 trillion. 60600 billion of that has been e expiration of the bush tax cuts at the high end, 600 billion, 2.8 -- i mean, $1.8 trillion have been in cuts. the many cuts that have been made, and should we find some more? yes, but we cannot deter growth, because again we have a demand deficit, we have to create jobs, to inject demand into the economy, to bro the economy. >> rose: larry summers who you
know well said that, look, all of this talk about the debt is really misplaced and all of this talk about reforming entitlements is misplaced. the only question right now at this moment in november 2013 is creating growth, because growth will enable us to reduce the unemployment and that is the most important. >> agreed. >> rose: because he points out that the deficit is small and reducing itself and if, in fact, you can have -- he says .20 percent growth in the economy, that that will produce a significant reduction in the debt and the deficit. so, therefore. >> agreed. >> we should talk about entitlement reform, but on the other hand, there are people who say, with we have to talk about entitlement reform because it is a structural issue that unless we deal with it we will never be able to create an economy that is prepared to agree at three or four percent a year. >> well, i believe -- first of all i agree with larry, i like
three, i like three percent growth in gdp myself, but the fact is, what he is saying is what we hear over and over again. >> rose: well, over and over -- >> i do, for the business community. >> rose: so how do we create growth? everybody knows it is a good thing. how do you do it? >> one of the way that you create growth is to have a budget that is a blueprint for growth. >> rose: what would that be? >> what that would be is to subject whatever you are doing, whether it is on the revenue side or on the investment side or on the cutting an spending side to make sure you are not deterring growth. for example, nothing brings more money to the treasury of the united states than investments in education. >> rose: huh do you measure that? what is the metric for that? nothing brings more jobs to the -- >> no. money. >> rose: creates more revenue than fixing the educational system. >> than educating the american people. >> rose: right. >> k through 12, i mean early
childhood, k through 12, higher education, post grad, lifetime learn learning for our workers, a trained work force. a competitive work force. you can't be number one -- >> rose: if that is true i assume you would support doubling the education budget. >> well, if it is a question of -- we have many shortfalls in our budget, but the investment that we would make in early childhood education is huge, the head start that we give kids, not just head start but as the real estate wants to do with universal preschool and even younger. >> rose: because if you get behind early on it can lead to -- >> >> rose: to the -- >> it is not just about the aspirations of the individuals, it is about the competitiveness of our nation, and we do budget -- >> rose: it is declining. >> we do -- well, we have to further invest in educating the american people. we do ten and 20 year budgets, so when people say well that is long-term, well so is our budget long-term. so when -- who so one thing you
would to is spend on money on education. >> invest in education. >> rose: invest in education. >> >> and that will create growth. >> and invest in science. >> what does that mean, science. >> the national inl institute of health, the health sciences as well as the physical sciences, because we wouldn't have some of the discoveries we have in health sciences without the improved instrumentation, we have the, wouldn't have the genome project unless we -- so the investments in science that we have. some of the things might apply to holding jobs here, rather than giving a tax break to companies that send jobs overseas, we would instead give incentives for keeping jobs here in america. i think it would be very important, and people don't fully see it as closely as i do, but the immigration bill should be part of this, because that is a growth creator. >> rose: the president obviously has said that he wants to turn his attention to immigration reform. >> yes. >> rose: that is the next thing, as soon as he gets past all the budgetary issues he wants to turn to immigration --
>> hopefully he will do them simultaneously. >> rose: what is the likelihood of getting -- >> good, i would say in one year we would have a savings of $150 billion, deficit reduction $150 billion, over ten years nearly a trillion-dollar reduction in the deficit, so this is -- it is not only stimulating in terms of job creation and injecting demand into the economy, but it has a fiscal impact as well. and so you have to think entrepreneurially about the budget. you can't think and say well we are going to cut, therefore we are going to reduce the deficit, you cut education in our country you will increase the deficit. you cut investments in veins in our country, you will increase the deficit and lower our competitiveness internationally. >> rose: let me ask you one simple question that, with respect to the budget negotiations. you know, would you rule out any deal you would support that would not include an increase in revenue?
>> yes. now, revenue could be closing loopholes, that is revenue. >> rose: right. >> you know, people talk about cuttiúo÷ spending, but one of te biggest expenditures we make are tax expenditures, and our budget, over one point, what, $3 trillion are tax expenditures, some of them are good and worthy and create jobs or they are about your interest on your mortgage or something like that, and we consider that positive. >> rose: some of these deaddictions they are not talking about the mortgage deduction, are they? >> no, no, you said take that away, so 1.4, say half of that, 1.3, half of them are ones that are not good for deficit reduction, growth of the economy or keeping america number one. for example, for example, when we had this debate and we are looking for savings we could stop giving $38 billion to big oil companies, not all oil companies, just big oil
companies, 38 billion. >> why do we give them $38 billion. >> because in theory it is an incentive for them to drill, drill over a period of time, in which they will make a profit, not an income, a profit of a trillion-dollar. the biggest profit in the history of the world. they will make a profit of a trillion-dollar. they don't need an incentive to drill. >> why do they need an incentive? >> because that's the way it is. now when i say to my republican colleagues, we can say $38 billion right there, put that on the side of the ledger of reduction of the deficit, they say,, and i quote, why would we do that when we can save $38 billion by cutting pelle grants? >> rose: that is education. >> that is education. with what? what kind of thinking is that? we are going to cut education for those who are aspiring to be in the middle class, to get a higher education, to contribute to the competitiveness of america and we think that is a better cut
than to cut subsidies to big oil to make a trillion-dollar? come on. >> rose: so in other words, do you believe that these oil companies would be drilling regardless of what kind of incentives they got from the federal government. >> they are still going to make a trillion-dollar, yeah. >> rose: they would? >> they do. i do. you ask them. they will. >> rose: you are a huge fan of president obama. >> yes, i am. i think he is a visionary leader. thank god he is the president. >> rose: you cleary have made -- you clearly have made -- you make it clear you very much hope hillary clinton runs for president and you will support her enthusiastically. >> i don't offer support until somebody says they are running but i think she would be one of the best prepared people to enter the white house should she decide to run, i believe she would win, and she just happens to be a woman but he is enormously qualified. >> is there anything to the argument that perhaps when she ran in 2008 that president obama then senator obama, you know,
somehow his narrative of being the first african-american was such a strong narrative that history and breaking history, he captured that narrative which was an important one, and this time she will be able to run that she is capturing history? >> i don't know that the president ever had a narrative about himself being the first african-american president, what i do know is that he opposed the iraq war. >> rose: yes. >> and senator clinton supervisor forked the iraq war, and that caused a big division and people -- >> rose: the vote -- >> the senator clinton did and i think that was the most dispositive issue in the primaries in my view because the senator clinton certainly was magnificently qualified to be president but that iraq war, supporting that and kept on supporting it, i think that was dispositive. thousand we are getting ready for 2014, 2016,. >> rose: that is out there. >> that is a long way out there
so we are please idea we are a year out. >> rose: and i ask people -- if you ask people before the government shutdown and the democrats with the house, no, all the political people, you obviously believe something i am sure because -- >> some people didn't think we would win as many seats as we did last time but the he is okay what do they say now? >> rose: do you disagree with me that a month ago or six weeks ago money believed that the democrats could win, not many political people believed the democrats could win the majority in the house in 2014? >> i would agree with you that those who were not familiar with our candidates and our field operation, they have thought that. >> but that has changed primarily because of the shutdown because the democrats who were unprepared to run, didn't want to run are now prepared to run, a? >> exactly. in other words, people who of the highest caliber were running. we had great candidates, we were very pleased. we only need 1 17 seats w had or
50, 50 that were in play. we just needed to win a third of those, i wanted to win half of them. along comes the shutdown, i wish it never happened this way, the shutdown is a bad thing, $25 billion to our economy, added to our gdp growth it is a bad thing. >> rose: reduction -- >> but -- reduction, thank you. but they insisted upon it, certainly hurt their prospects and increased ours. so -- >> rose: how much? >> maybe ten candidates. >> rose: really? >> ten candidates. steve israel our chairman is masterful in all of this, and some of the people who said maybe next year, two years from now, next election. >> rose: then came back and said i think that now. and. >> and that makes a big difference because which want to own the ground and mobilize around our message and have all the money to win and have all the proper management of campaigns that steve is a master at but uh if you don't have the candidate it is hard to do and now we do.
>> rose: you think it is greater than 50-50 you could win control of the house in 2014? >> i think we can win. let me -- >> rose: let than 50-50? >> oh i think it is probably even money now. >> rose: even money that you will win? >> that we can win, yes, but let me say this. let's say you are off but i say let you know where you are a year in advance because that tells you who the candidates are. it is really important, we won in '06, we knew in '05 we had the team, now the question is, what were the events that would occur and how could we get our message out on all of that. but we feel very good about where we are, and the recruitment has soared, the raising of resources and interest, our grass root folks are very enthusiastic and we are out -- and we have no power, which have no gavel, all we have are urgency and the republicans. >> rose: thank you for coming. >> my pleasure. nice to see you, thank you. >> rose: nancy pelosi from san francisco, back in a moment.
stay with us. >> i am looking forward next to get to different kinds of equipment, again, to move away -- to move freer. i am sad when i start working on the preparation, on anything it slows and i try to simplify, you know,. >> rose: james toback is back, his new movie, "seduced and abandoned" follows the director and his friend alec baldwin as they try to finance a movie at the canals film festivals, new york holders of "the new york times" writes to anyone interested in film making this provides the vi vicarious thrilf being at the table. sheer a trailer for the film. >> the way you make it in this business, you tell everybody this is my thing, this is who i am. what excites me is we are doing the movie about our journey to cannes to sell celebrate film and the film that honors them. >> it was a valhalla of cinema
at cannes. >> we decided to make a film, assuming we need between 15 and say $18 million -- (laughter.) >> what are you talking about? >> cinema is bigger than all of this other stuff. it is an art form, given to us by the gods. >> >> rose: i want to see them do you really? di did you get it financed. >> actually this was the easiest finance financing i have ever had because a guy named allen helene in real estate was introduced to me and we were sitting at the four seasons and he just had seen three of my movies in one week on show time, hbo, they were on a cable stuff, and alan said i have to be involved, i have to do this. i said, okay, wire $50,000 into my account right now as an act of good faith and i will take you seriously. and we talked for another 20 minutes and i was about to leave i said, and i have written down
the wiring information and i said, so i am assuming that you are going to do what i asked you to do, he said check your balance and already wired it in while we were talking so i knew he was for real. >> rose: yes but i saw you negotiating in this film and you would walk in and say, you know, this is what i need, 15 million and the guy would say to you, this kind of film will only get you so much of an audience, the best you can ever do is five or 6 million. >> right. >> rose: you need to go there. >> that's the grim reality. the way to get these movies made independently, which i have been trying to do now for quite a while is to be realistic about the amount you need, the minimal amount you need for a particular film and don't go too crazy. accept the fact that you are going to have to do it for that number and adjust your concept if you need to. >> rose: okay but how did it come about you make a movie about your effort to find money to make a movie. >> that was, i think, alec baldwin and i together came up with almost everything in such a symbiotic fashion it is hard to
remember who said what. this guy, alec, is the perfect collaborator. he is a communicant, a kindred spirit so as we devised this concept over a period of a year and a half having lunches and dinners at the harvard club and the century club and the grand havana room which is his main hangout we ended up. >> rose: where you smoke, isn't it? >> you know what? they filter it in a way, it is not smoky it is a good place. what happened in the harvard club too is what happened eventually we were ready enough to go with sort of a half cocked notion of what we were going to do we didn't want t to know too much. we had scorsese, coppola, jessica chastain, a group of fascinating people and a lot of money people there, billionaires, and the backdrop of cannes and we said we will shoot for 15 hours a day for 11 days and then worry about what to do when i get in an editing room. >> rose: it is a documentary. >> i refuse to call it a documentary. >> rose: what do you call it?
>> david thompson, the new republic said it is a new genre of film. >> what is that? >> it is a sort of cinematic performance art. >> rose: cinema tick performance art? >> that sound better than a documentary. >> rose: boy -- >> sheila nerves, i said don't call it a documentary, she had a hbo documentary, let's call it a cinematic romp which is what -- >> rose: what you ended up calling it. >> which is actually true and it looks beautiful and it is ravishing and has covirtue's and it is fil philed with joy. >> rose: who picked that out. >> that is my god. milla -- my god and bach, i have to make it a triumvirate, she was used in black and white and now i used the fifth in this movie. >> black and white being your movie. >> yes and i now feel i have maimed bass covirtue for the great joy he has given me over
the years. >> rose: if i was nevin campbell how you threw her over so quickly because of your greed and need for money is embarrassing. >> you know,. >> rose: it is embarrassing. >> i hope that the effect of this movie is hot that people think that campbell is anything less than a beautiful, brilliant, radiant -- >> rose: i'm sad you couldn't sell the financiers on that idea. >> this is lake stock picking, it goes up and down. i mean, learner has a great line in this movie he doesn't it is a great line when he saysed it, he is talkable about who you can get to finance a movie right now and he says why can't you get me what's her name, natalie portman, she is not natalie portman she is what's her name natalie portman because she knows next year it is going to be somebody else. >> rose: natalie portman is not like yesterday, she is not -- he is here, she is real, she is great. >> he is real but in two ars. >> and disappear -- >> it will not be in two years. >> >> how about natalie portman to
this movie you would have raised more money. >> now, yes, we will see about two years. but what is her name is the give away, these names they are interchangeable after a while. i mean, i don't want to embarrass her by saying three years ago this one meant something and now he doesn't or for that matter a director. i am not worth anything on the international market. i should be, i am a greater artist, you know, but. >> rose: if you say so yourself. >> if i say zero so myself, and if one else -- this time i am getting two great movies, the last two minutes. >> rose: seven holden -- >> 95 percent rotten tomatoes. >> rose: really, tyson -- >> >> rose: this movie and tyson, both terrific, but you had a great main character there. >> i did, i did. but in is a different movie. this is actually just as good a film as tyson if not better. >> a moment about mike tyson. >> i love him, we are close, we are like this, we are film mates. >> rose: i am sure you are. but where is he in his life? >> he is now as he will always be not in a day-to-day reality,
not in an hour to hour reality, se in a minute to minute reality. and -- >> rose: life changes from minute to minute? >> yes, and anything is possible, always, i will give you a quick what mickey cohen called -- i told mike when we first met, when he was 717 on the set of the pickup artist he came down and down at this do you know any and i walked in central park at power in the morning. >> rose: robert downey. >> yes, who i invented th the at the time. but what mike said that first night drove me into a discussion of madness. and i told him about my lsd flipout when i was in harvard. loss of identity, loss of self? what is that, unfortunately you will only know when it happens to you. you are far too curious, cut to years later, he is out
excited, i haven't had studio support. studio support is essential. i am not complaining, by the way. i have been -- if i had a choice to have my career, where i have made every movie i wanted to make in the way i wanted to make it with very little marketing support or lavish marketing support doing movies the way other people, i would not hesitate, i would have done it my way 600 times over. i am tremendously grateful that i have been able to do what i have been able to do. of i die today i say i am one of the luckiest people i have ever known. >> we hope that doesn't happen. >> i hope not too soon i have
three movies i want to make in the next two years. >> rose: what are they? >> victoria warhol a great feminist spirit,. >> rose: feminist or free loving wild wonchts all of the above it was originally going to be fun dunn a way, directing in 78, the only unproduced screen may i have done, and faye dunaway too. >> we worked for a year together every day on it. faye dunaway in her autobiography the following quote appears it is one of the great tragedies in the history of the movie business that james toback's warhol's script has not yet been made, carry grant was going to play .. and george barry pulled the plug. >> rose: who? >> he was the owner of faber jay who was going to finance it. >> rose: right. >> and i was so angry i threatened his life and as a deal breaker on vicki, he gave me fingers and that is how my directorial debut took place because i was much less expensive movie. so hbo film, richard plep her
and doing a movie that i can't really talk about in detail, but it is a terrific script that i am doing for hbo film. >> rose: as we speak. >> no, i have a deal. >> i i see. >> it is settled, i it is settld i have been working on that script for the last few months i will be done soon and ther and s another surprise budget, very low-budget which will connect the two guys and a guy, a movie that is down any's best performance by far, wants to go back and see down any when he was really acting an d an do dog original artistic stuff for money he got 500,000 for that instead of 50 million but his best performance. >> rose: why are you down on down any? just because somebody is successful and makes a lot of money don't be down on them? >> no, no, i hope he continues to. >> rose: it is not art. >> i would like, i would like, it is a complicated situation. i would like him to deal straight, which he hasn't been done. >> rose: straight with you or straight with -- >> straight with me, not hide behind his wife, you know. >> rose: what is this about?
>> it is about a prepared ship that was very, very deep and connected and where i loved him and he loved me and he says in the documentary about me that i am shakespeare revisited and that we love each other and that he had his greatest and all of a sudden when the money kept coming in and the wife came in, after i gave our speech at his wedding, i'm sorry, i am unreachable. >> rose: can you blame his wife for this? >> well, i don't know who else would be responsible. >> rose: on, follow me on this meter from low appreciation, moderate appreciation, high appreciation, extraordinary appreciation, out the top appreciation, what would be your judgment of your appreciation for yourself? >> as a film maker? >> yes. >> i think that i have made five great movies, three movies that i would like to do over again, because they failed to deliver
what i hoped they would deliver, and five movies that have some really good stuff that aren't 100 percent but i think five movies i would put right now in my -- on my tombstone and say, i stand by those. so i feel i have had a very successful -- that's why i am happy to go right now. i want to live, i want to make more movies but i feel like i have been given to a chance to do what i want to do. that is something very few people get to do. some of my closest friends at harvard who were really talented, imaginative, ambitious, likable, somehow did hot connect with a career, they did not find a way of taking their creative energy and harnesses harnessing it and using it they didn't get the right breaks at the right time and i don't want to messages their, mention their names they have all been successful in other areas, every one of them is unfulfilled, every one is a frustrated artist. >> rose: they wanted to be in art. >> exactly. and never never got a chance to do it.
it didn't work out and i have had a chance to do it over and over again for 40 years and i feel blessed as a result. >> rose: what makes it interesting is, mr. toback and his own personality, his own cultural references and what he brings beyond directing, his own presence there makes "seduced and abandoned" really an interesting film. thank you for joining us. see you next time. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org