tv Today in Washington CSPAN November 24, 2009 2:00am-6:00am EST
the stakes in the u.s. are high as well as around the world. millions of lives are at stake. it seems like forever but a few weeks ago, i returned from a tour that took me
from vienna to jerusalem before ending up in zurich. it was my first extended travel as u.s. ambassador for cancer control. it was encouraging and discouraging. great progress is being made in the fight against cancer. there is enthusiasm for leaders everywhere. they know they have something to do. they know that cancer a of -- cancer is universal and our response must be universal. we cannot get distracted with battling this disease. the number of cancer cases among
the world is exploding. people are aging. governments do not use the words cancer a lout who do not have cancer registries. at the un, a cancer is not mentioned. it has forgotten -- what would you expect countries to be talking
about it? my plight began 30 years ago with a promise i made to my sister to do everything i could to find a cure for breast cancer. i remember the days see was diagnosed without the benefit of a mammogram. the world was very different. there were no young groups of people surrounded an organized around this disease. people crossed the street in our hometown when they saw her because they were afraid the disease was contagious. as i said earlier last summer, i met a breast cancer survivor in
california with stage for a disease who was a living testament as to what we could accomplish. i was happy in believing that we will get to the end of this race. with more early detection and better screening, more hope and research and more survivors show what is possible. today we are talking about breast cancer in the u.s.. i hope to be back to discuss the global cancer crisis we have been facing. we need to create a lot of awareness. cancer now kills more people than tb and malaria and possibly
aids. something is wrong when one of the most lethal diseases on earth is not mentioned by name in public health reports in many countries. something is wrong when it is put in another category of disease. it consumes almost 8 million lives a year. those are the ones that are counted. it would be like the state of virginia being wiped out every year. we need your help. cancer cases are projected to arrive nearly 27 million by 2030. cancer could easily consume 17- 20 million lives every year. whether reported accurately or not, they're and many people in the u.s. who are dying from cancer of all kinds. i know we can do this. i know we can do this because we know enough and have enough
resources to make it happen. not just in america but around the world. we can always use more, but let us recommit ourselves to what we have now. more of our energy and resources need to be spent on this crisis which could save more lives. the other day, someone asked me why i keep doing this work and why we worked so hard every day. it is to complete our mission. we are more confidence and more determined for victory. victims were hidden away in shadows and hopelessness for a cure for treatment was never to be found. many have raised money and funded new institutions, people exhibit did extraordinary amounts of leadership in collaborating with a sense of emergency.
i am not talking about cancer but polio. on the day in 1955 when i was a little girl and the polio vaccine was announced in my home town, the factories stopped, schools closed, and parents and teachers wept in a moment of silence as if a war had ended. indeed it had. years later, some understood and said if we are too soft and eradicate disease, we must cooperate in lead. the diseases are different but the lessons are the same. we believe if we forge an approach that is prevention oriented and evidence-based oriented, we can imagine a day when and other scientific breakthrough changes the world. when public health works as an
outreach of scientific operation. when a mastectomy is a and relic of history. thank you for being here today in participating in the aftermath of this report. we are answering those bible questions you are asking. we will continue to do so. [applause] >> can you talk a little bit about this task force and if you think there is anything bible they put out and what you think of their credentials and who they are? >> i think they are very valuable. this is made up of very accomplished people. our only concern is it is a two-
year task force and we have a surprise about the way it was announced. my personal feeling is we have people who have been active participants in their health care. my worry is that so much of where we are as individuals who are frightened and the ability to show up and take a mammogram is fragile. i feel like the behavioral science piece of this was not as much as it should have been. there are ways to convene and deliver these kinds of messages. this is not a personal attack about the panel. >> do you think the task force could have handled the guidelines differently? >> it is not the distribution.
it would have been helpful for them to convene those that treat cancer in deal with every day. this would have converted a lot of people to hear it sooner and hear it in a way that could help shape this so people can understand. science is important. will the recommendations changeup private health insurance and providers cover mammograms? >> what we are concerned about our house cleaning science will turnout in 10 years which is a subject we will be looking at very carefully at. . with that very carefully at every piece of research that comes out including screening
issues. anything we can find, we steady in the that very carefully with a fine group of scientific advisory committees. world-class scientists. we look at this very carefully. we want to make sure we get good opinions. it took several years for the panel to come to their conclusions. we want to do the same a look at it. >> is the timing of this announcement suspect that >> panels -- i choose not to be suspect about it. people release date all the time. i would choose to not think that way. >> are you just being nice? >> no.
>> what is your position on health care reform? >> we are focusing on making sure our priorities are included in the final legislation and a bag weighs them down the line. we are very focused on issues as they affect cancer patients, survivors, the public, and our organization finds the entire spectrum of breast cancer issues from early screening to end of life issues. we will be watching very carefully. we are watching to ensure our priorities are ensuring coverage screening, banning insurance discrimination and people with pre-existing conditions, lowering out of pocket expenses and providing patient navigation services. this is a very important part -- making sure we have lower-cost strategies. people need to edit --
navigating their way through treatment. it is a very important part on the behavioral side and very important to commit people to accept their therapy and walk through a very complex system. across the board, we have had recent recommendations for various cancers. are you concerned that this will discourage people who benefit from such screenings will seek it? >> yes. what do these guidelines mean for real women? >> we want to encourage every person in america to continue to do what they are doing, to be interactive and proactive with health care professionals, reid,
steady, go to exploratory websites cancer centers and institutes that are credible to learn as much as you can and be as educated as you can. to question your provider. what we are doing is working. screening mammography saves lives. we want people to continue to do what they are doing. >> you seem to have some allies on capitol hill. how are you working with these people and what would be your number one priority legislation. that >> have reported legislation would be -- you cannot wait one against the other. lisa the four critical issues we believe for breast cancer patients.
we have a very large bipartisan group of people that have supported us over the years in many ways. staying in the politics of cancer and the partisan politics are very different. >> who is working on your group on getting more funds for technology? >> ge is going to. >> can you explain that further? >> we need to have in this technology summit to have industry come to the table. we need government to come to the table. we need at this the grooves and private insurers will get it that as technology has benefited almost every possible part of our lives, when you see cell phones that we generate themselves, screening areas in
airports -- and convinced that there is a better way for screening. we need market incentives. many companies are interested in detecting all of these. we will be urging them as much as we can to participate in the solution to close technology gaps. >> how much money is going into new detection technology is now? >> i will s list to correct me if i am wrong.
every person we have made significant contribution from screen to end of life. >> if your questions, please pass them up to me. what about advice regarding a mammography every two years instead of annually? other patients where breast cancer can spread more quickly before the next mammogram? quickly before that next mammogram. >> when i was talking about better, efficient, cheaper screening, that's what we are talking about. when we when we started -- we know when we started screening, we need better technology. which tumor in which person has very aggressive features? and will likely grow more quickly. and which are not.
that's really the issue. and so that's exactly. it's going to year or two years to be decided in hopefully in the conversation with one health care's providers. therefore, we can watch it in two years. we don't know. but one thing we do know, is we have to close the technology gap. >> would you acknowledge that there are instances in which mammography or self-examine has a downside? >> sure. i can do that personally. once with you're a breast cancer survivor, and i think we all are always a little nervous talking about how many disease free years. mine is well over 20 years. you still have anxious moments. you are a survivor. and most educated women and who have access to health care, choose to have more than less screenings. they want to feel the security. there's always high anxiety when you go for the cancer screening. and if you have a false
positive, we're not arguing with that. i think -- largely the women and men that we've heard from last week are very much on the side that they are grownups. they can face the anxiety. they'd rather know than not know. again, i'm sorry the rather boring about that. but again it's closing the technology gap. with more information, people can make better decisions, and it will create a whole lot less anxiety. >> how can we stop economics from blocking patient care like breast cancer screening? >> well, that's -- i'm not sure i understand the question other than to say that -- you mean the cost of screening? i don't know or just be careful to save our economy today? >> i think the idea of health care rationally. >> well, our world, susan g. komen is to continue to ensure
access. you know, to get the cost of screening so that we can -- it can be afforded in a very public health setting. so very much public health setting. this is the to lower cost. again more efficient, quicker, easier were low power source tools. go try to do a mammogram in africa in some the places that we work. it wouldn't be effective. you couldn't do it. we need better tools. >> what roll, if any, do you think the ongoing health care debate had on the newly released guidelines? >> i don't know that it did. the panel two years ago were trying to look at the science-based evidence and the primary care setting. these were not cancer positions. they were trying to react to a set of circumstances. i will say that apparently, i
was told by the director of nih that some the things based on mammography is still mammography. which is an older version than digital. so that we don't yet have the data for digital. and if it's more effective, less effective. i think we do have some questions and want to find out more about that. >> as secretary se peel yows done enough? what should do next? >> i think secretary sebeilus has been responsible. we've spoken to her more than a few times. there was a difficult issue to have to deal with. she understands, she's been a governor, she understands if it impacts people's lives and how important communication is. what was the second part?
sorry. >> what should nns do next? >> well, i think hhs is as focused as we are. we are going to encourage them to do some things that we can't do. on the technology and research. bringing it up sooner. i know we are focused on that. getting answers faster. making people aware of where we need to go. and again focusing on the small amount of money this kind of research requires versus what we are spending on health care overall. >> so there has been so much controversy and most of the outrage falling on your side of the argument. is there a possibility that this report will just go away. is that it will be ignored? >> i think there will be a distinctive. no, i don't think things get ignored. i think will have to be
translated into a public health understanding. i think you can't take recommendation like this, and just assume they sit by themselves and the world changes. you have to look at things as to how they can be translated into a care. and how not to break a fragile system. and people's trust. and so no, i don't think so. i think there will be more reports from panels. i think you can look to more scientists, releasing more data. every 10 years we have the screening debate. this year we'll have another one. that will be interesting. i hope this one will produce a lot more progress than the last one. >> is there any possibility that the task force might reverse it's opinion on their recommendation. >> i don't think so. i think they've made the recommendation. i don't know. i haven't spoken to the chairman. i would assume they will keep the recommendation. they will engage perhaps in communicating. i think the rage has been
furious. and i'm glad i'm not a member of the panel. >> can you give us an estimate of how many outraged people have contacted you? >> thousands. thousands. we have 25 maybe 30,000 people who signed up to join our actions on advocacy alliance. and we are -- our lines are going off hook, and the e-mails we expect a giant respond. >> what are they telling you? >> nay are tells us that they want to, the same things. there's fear, there's lack of trust, there's concern, they feel gad in the habits they've already established. many of them are comfortable with the health care provider and what they are doing. there are sometimes fragile people, fragile because they've have diagnosis, and they want to keep up with care that will give
them some sense of peace of mind. it maybe the perfect world. but it's one the only tools we have. also it's a real understanding of just the rage that people feel. because it's so personal. breast cancer is very personal. all disease is personal. that breast cancer is very personal to women, and very sense i. and people aren't yet comfortable saying words out loud. that's the kind -- those are the -- that's the kind of level of sensitivity we deal with. >> if the medical experts and a government officials can't agree on what is right, how can women decide what to do themselves when they work with their own doctor? >> i believe some of the -- i believe that some of the great advances of science has been made with dispute, with discussion, with advocacy, i'm going to remain optimistic that the same thing will happen. i'm going to remain optimistic that when we convene technology,
that real forward process will come out. we will able be able to turn around in a few years and say, there's a good thing that happened. >> what treatments are showing the most promise? >> you know, we have such a number of different strategies now. i think the anti-bodies, i think the inhibitors that you just heard about. i think all the great advances that you've heard about, by the way, i'm proud to tell you that we have funded every single one of them. they are exciting. and they are leading to an era of personalized diagnosis in care. in one way good, one way a little scary. they are expensive. and they are first generation. so it's going to take a while. what we are praying for the in the short term is seeing breast cancer become a chronic disease. so that the lady i met in california is sort of standard, rather than someone who's highly
unusual. and i think to keep the focus going and people going. i have to go back to the number of years i've served in this effort. i can remember very well, it's a young women when they signed the national cancer act, it seems like light years away. we've made progress. we've had lots of right turns and left turns. but i do believe now that we are in the most exciting time of cancer therapy that we have ever known. >> can you talk about the difference between detection and prevention? >> yeah. big difference. protection is looking at the disease before it's spread and grown. prevention is what we are looking at is some day being able to extract am knee yachtic fluid to see what the baby may have.
can we do something in prenatal stages that women and children don't develop these diseases. it's going to be years until that happens. we're also hoping to find some blood marker in the short term. that's going to be difficult. yeah, it's difficult right now. we need some kind of blood work to determine whether the women might develop and be able to intervene in the growth as soon as we can. that would be the most cost effective way to deal with it. >> if women are denied mammography, what would be your advice to them by the insurance company. >> get in touch with jenni at the susan g. komen, komen advocacy.org. we have ways to explain, and make sure we protect people. this is why we are focused on access, and why we want to make it a piece of whatever reform goes forward. we understand it's taken years
and years and years to top the access programs that work and banning insurance from denying women care because of a preexisting condition. and lowering out-of-pocket expenses. again, being a breast cancer survivor. i can tell you what it feels like when you are denied care or coverage. it's scary. it just can't happen. so call us. >> do you agree with berndine that this is a precursor for health care rationing? >> she's a fine physician. that is her opinion. we focus our efforts at looking at reform and what we can do for the cancer patient. you know, we're not going to characterize what anybody else says, or get into partisan politics, we're going to say where we are in the politics of what we are dealing with, advancing the interest and the
protection of breast cancer and cancer patients. >> what can we expect to see during the next couple of weeks as this discussion continues? >> well, a lot more e-mails to our office. what i think you'll see is the beginnings much a very healthy engagement in we will be working on convening our tax summit. a lot of -- technology summit. a lot of added his seat going forward -- advocacy going forward. the single most important get. it is hard to say. it is a package of what we are asking for. among ourselves, we do not do things -- we look very closely at what we are doing.
the most important get is the four areas we have taken on to advocate for this year because we believe nl at the end of the day, it is going to be the most important things for breast cancer issues. >> that doesn't for our questions unless there are reporters that have something that has not been answered. everybody okay? let me remind cover members of our future speakers. november 30, prince albert the second of monaco. december 4, and artistic director and co-founder of a studio theater. december 8, president and ceo of the sesame street workshop. he will be bringing characters. i would like to present our guest with a npc mug.
[applause] you've been mugged. i would like to thank you all for coming here today. i'd also like to thank national press club staff members ma lend da and pat. special thanks to melissa for organizing today's speaker. the video archive is provided by national press club operation center. our events are available for free down load on itunes as well as on ours,. nonmembers may purchase transcripts, audio and video tapes by e-mails us as archive firstname.lastname@example.org. for more information go to our web site at www.press.org.
thank you very much. we are adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] coming this thursday, thanksgiving, on c-span. the white house, inside of america's most famous,. beyond the popes of tours --
beyond the velvet ropes of public tours. and the architecture of one of america's most symbolic structures. america's icons, thursday, friday, and saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. get your own copy of the american icons, a three disklinw the cough and improve the quality of coverage that americans are getting. the primary focus of our discussion today deals with americans across kitchen tables have been discussing which is jobs and the economy. if you look back at where we have been, in the first several months of my administration, because of the steps taken from the treasury secretary and the rest of our economic team, we were able to stabilize financial systems.
we take some things for granted, members of the cabinet that this bit are extremely proud of this. we passed a recovery act did put a tax cut in the pockets of people and invested in infrastructure across the country. something that is not noted enough, it has helped stabilize state budgets at a time when we could've seen hundreds of thousands of layoffs and police officers and fire officers laid off. our economy has grown for the first time in a year. that is essential for job growth. having said that, we cannot sit back and be satisfied given the extraordinarily high
unemployment levels we have seen. we have only taken the first steps in curing our economy and making sure that it is moving on the right track. i will not rest until businesses are investing again and they start hiring again. this is going to be a challenging task. it is challenging because of the extraordinary blow that the financial crisis delivered to the economy as a whole. it is particularly difficult because both the financial and housing sector were the biggest drivers of economic growth prior to the financial crisis. it means things are moving slower than we would like them to move. one of the ironies that we have right now is the businesses across sectors are making
profits again. unfortunately, the huge right -- rise in productivity which is normally a thing, means they have learned to produce the same amount of goods with fewer people. these present significant challenges of us creating more jobs in this economy. having said that, our economic team emphasizes there are core strengths to the american economy that will put us in a better position over the long term. we continue to have the best universities in the world, innovations and technologies in the world. we continue to have some of the best workers and productive workers in the world. we have the kind of dynamic --
the key is to bridge where we are now to the more prosperous future. a lot of the discussion and a whole range of different sectors on how we move forward -- in the export area, one of my highest priorities was discussing how we can increase exports into that region. if we can increase its 55%, that means hundreds of thousands of well-paid jobs. but we can do it. we can focus on infrastructure.
as investing now in our infrastructure in laying the foundation for high speed rail could make all the difference in the world. in terms of green technology, we are seeing some terrific ideas that could immediately put people back to work and save money and help with the climate crisis we have in place. we will have a job summit on december 1. we want to generate good ideas in anticipation of the jobs summit. we will bring together people from all across the country, business, labour, academics, not for profits, small and large businesses to explore how we can jump-start hiring.
i am confident we can do it. let me close by saying this is a week to give thanks. i advise this hard-working cabinet to get some work -- rest this week especially those that have been traveling around the world they in and day out. it is a time to remember that this has been a very difficult year and a lot of people out there are having a very tough time. as i indicated in my cabinet, as hard as they are working and as difficult as the environment can be sometimes, we are extraordinarily blessed to be
in a position where we can make a potential difference in the lives of millions of people. we need to take advantage of that opportunity and redouble our efforts in the years to come. thank you very much. >> up next on c-span, remarks from the prime minister of india at the council of foreign nations. after that, a conversation on diplomatic relations with iran. republican and democratic strategists talk about the 2012 and two dozen 10 elections. the 2010 elections. >> bill clinton is on hand to present steven spielberg with
the liberty medal on thanksgiving dinner -- day. and terrorism and nuclear weapons later. and youth mentoring. and later, the economy and capitalism. thanksgiving day on c-span. >> the prime minister is in the nation's capital this week. it discussed issues on his agenda earlier including climate change, the global economy, afghanistan, and nuclear technology. this is about one hour. the council on foreign relations. i would like to welcome you all to today's event. i apologize for one or two
pieces of housekeeping. if people would please completely turned off your soul phones and wireless devices so that it does not interfere with our sound system. it just a friendly warning to the prime minister. at today's meeting is on the record. -- today's meeting is on the record. there will be council on foreign relations members around the world that will be listening and we have some cameras here today. let me say a few things in a way of introduction. i believe it was july 24th, 1991 that the finance minister presented a budget to india's parliament. when he concluded his remarks, he quoted victor hugo. no power on earth can stop an idea whose time has come. he went on to say, "i suggest
that the emergence of india as a major economic power in the world happens to be such an idea." 18 years later, it is obvious manmohan singh was correct. thanks in no small part to his leadership. those of us associated with the council along with woodrow wilson international center could not be more pleased than to welcome him here as he visits and attends the first state dinner of the obama administration. relations between the united states and india have not always been one. during the cold war, many saw india as unfriendly, which it might have been. during -- at the end of the cold war, there were opportunities
there is a need for wide ranging consultation to in grain habits of consultation -- to ingrain minister for being here. i want to welcome his entire delegation, including his most able ambassador and want to thank the gentleman standing here, lee hamilton, who is president and director of the woodrow wilson international center. i could not be more pleased to introduce the prime minister. lee hamilton resented the ninth district in the u.s. house of representatives and he is a model of what a legislator of to be. -- ought to be. congressman hamilton? [applause]
>> good evening to you all and thank you for coming. i told the prime minister a moment ago that he was appearing before an extraordinary washington audience. we are delighted that you are here. i am delighted to work with richard haas, the president of the council. i expect every person in this room is indebted to the excellent work done by the council on foreign relations under richard haas' ship. -- leadership. may i say hello to our ambassador to india from the united states. he served in congress with great distinction and i have not the slightest doubt that he will serve with great distinction in new delhi. just over one year ago, manmohan singh, the 14th prime minister
of india visited washington and spoke the following words these last four and a half years, there has been a massive transformation of india/united states relations. we now have a strategic partnership with the united states. then president bush said, "it is a relationship that is based on our common values that every person matters, and that everybody belongs and that everybody should worship as freely as they want to. the common values of the right of people to express themselves in a peaceful way of." -- in a peaceful way." there will be a dinner in honor of manmohan singh tomorrow evening. the broad support that the relationship in george's in the
united states in india, we are honored to have the prime minister here this evening. he was born in a village, completed his matriculation upon at a university. he received his doctorate of philosophy in 1962. he spent several years on the faculties of the delhi school of economics. he was economic adviser in the commerce ministry. in 1972, he became chief economic advisor in the ministry of finance. he became finance minister in 1991, during a time of crisis and in part on an economic reform program that put india on the path to record growth and
unleashed the entrepreneurial and economic potential of the indian nation. today, the united states is the largest investor in india. and the strong economic ties that our countries shared together would simply be unimaginable. that would be without his leadership. appointed prime minister in 2004, he became the first prime minister to be reelected after serving a complete turerm. he is the recipient of countless awards, the second highest civilian honor, the indian science congress, the asian money award for finance minister of the year and many, many
others. dr. manmohan singh and his wife have three daughters. it is my distinct pleasure to introduce to you, prime minister singh, without doubt, one of the world's most accomplished leaders. [applause] dr richard haas, congressman hamilton, distinguished ladies and gentleman, i am truly honored by the invitation to address such a distinguished
gathering and to be able to meet many friends in the season of things giving. i am barre -- of thanksgiving. many of you have spent long years in the study of india. you have provided intellectual sustenance to the idea of a strong india/u.s. partnership. and what it means for our to democracies and the world at large. ladies and gentleman, i see the future of india/u.s.
partnership with confidence and optimism. there is a growing convergence in our national interests, both in the bilateral framework and regional and global issues. the changes in the global economic and political structures and the growing interdependence among nations today offer us a unique opportunity to look beyond bilateral engagement to establish a strategic partnership of a global dimension. if we are to take the challenge, in indian and the united states
must work together. -- india and the united states must work together. the challenge before us is to bring the world to full recovery from the global economic and financial crisis. i have no doubt that the creative entrepreneurial genius of the american people will ensure that the u.s. economy emerges from this crisis stronger and well-placed contribute to global economic growth. india is playing its own part in global recovery. despite the slowdown, our economy grew by 6.7% last year and is expected to grow by 6.5%
in the current fiscal year. india and the united states have strong compulsions to work towards an open and liberal regime for the transfer of goods, services, investment and technology. this will stimulate the country and create jobs and spur growth in our own economies. ladies and gentleman, our generation has an opportunity given to few. to create a new global equilibrium after irreversible changes brought about by the rapid geopolitical and economic shifts of the recent past.
no where are the changes more visible -- no where are the changes more visible than in asia. -- know wher>>the india/u.s. pan contribute to an orderly transition to the new order and be an important factor for global peace and stability. both india and the united states have common values of respect for cultural diversity, democracy, freedom of expression, ruled law.
-- rule of law. our two nations have been shaped by the ideals of two apostles of peace of the 20th century, mahatma gandhi and the rev. martin luther king jr.. we should advance of these ideas as fundamental rights of all human beings. we have made some progress in moving towards a more representative mechanism to manage global economic and financial issues. the same cannot be said about governance and security. there is a need to reform the united nations and its security council. ladies and gentlemen, i have
found shared thinking on the moral imperative of putting the poor at the forefront of the global agenda. in africa, asia and elsewhere, they must have access to education and give them bankable skills and access to health care. this partnership can promote global cooperation in dealing with issues that the world has to face together, whether it is hunter, global security, terrorism, nuclear disarmament, climate change or pandemic.
ladies and gentleman, history has taught us that peace, security and prosperity are indivisible. that is why the evolution of afghanistan as a stable and afghanistan as a stable and moderate nation states the road to peace in afghanistan will be long and hard. given the high stakes involved, the commitment of the international community must be sustained with unity of purpose. india has in during links with afghanistan. we do not see afghanistan as a trader of influence. we want a legion of peace and
stability. india will assist afghanistan in building the institution. democracy is an ancient land like afghanistan and will take time to come to terms with the country's history and it tribal leadership. it is why the important that all major, regional and international players put their weight behind the government of afghanistan. this is the only way they can meet the challenges it faces. .
we have invested heavily over the past few years in normalizing relations with our neighbor, pakistan. we made considerable progress on the road to a durable and permanent settlement of all outstanding issues. i have said that we are ready to pick up the dialogue, including on issues relating to kashmir. i see a south asia of peace, friendship and prosperity. where its borders will see the flow of people, goods and ideas. for this to happen, pakistan must make a break with the past.
they must forgive terrorism and it is my salemme hope that india and pakistan come together -- can move forward together to write a new chapter in the history of our subcontinent. we are three days away from the first anniversary of the barbaric terrorist attacks on bombay. the trauma of the attack continues to haunt us. terrorism poses an existential threat to the civilized world and it must be defeated. we should not harbor any illusions tackling terrorism in
one place while ignoring it in others will work. we welcome the fact that president obama has committed the united states to the goal of the world free of nuclear weapons. india has been committed to this goal since their independence. we believe that india's security will be enhanced, not diminished by the complete elimination of nuclear weapons the world over. there is much that india and the united states can do together to reduce the global risks of nuclear proliferation,
including building a global consensus on the way ahead. the association of a verifiable material in the conference on disarmament will be a significant contribution in this regard. we welcome president obama's initiative to host a summit on nuclear security in april next year. our countries can play a vital role in strengthening global resolve to prevent terrorists from getting materials and technologies related to weapons of mass destruction. ladies and gentleman, the negotiations heading towards copenhagen are proving more
difficult than we would have liked. there is a segment among industrialized countries and between the industrialized and developing countries. it is important for all countries to make every effort to contribute to a successful outcome at copenhagen. india was a late comer to industrialization, and as such, hdiscourse, both in india and e united states. this was the verdict of our general election held in may 2009, and i believed it was also a force. the time is now opportune for us to substantially enhance our cooperation in critical areas of
education, health, energy, science, and technology, and agriculture. collaboration between our software industries has powered the global knowledge economy. we can and we must look at new frontiers of collaborat and technology can help india ussher and a second green revolution. india's competitive advantages and the pharmaceutical and medical services industries can support health care reforms in the united states. india has embarked on its largest education expansion program since independence.
there are plans to set up more than 40 new universities and institutions. we would like to benefit from the great american university system which attracts a large number of indian students every year. we can cooperate in the development, production, and deployment of green technologies. in this context, we should fully harness our cooperation to shape the nuclear renaissance. ladies and gentlemen, we deeply appreciate the cooperation that we have received from the united states. in the area of counter-terrorism and the recent past.
i am convinced that we can do much more to gather on a sustained basis to combat increasingly sophisticated terror network's, transnational criminal groups, and cyber terrorism. our defense and strategic dialogues have it added important dimensions to our relationship. many times security, including countering piracy and protecting sea lanes of communication in the indian ocean and beyond, is another important area where we should expand our cooperation. ladies and gentlemen, the edifice of the india-u.s. partnership is bounded on many
pillars. it is the relationship based on pragmatism and principle, and strengthen by shared values and common interests. our ties draw heavily on the strength and vitality of the indian and the american people. the 2.7 million strong indian- american community has made good the enormous opportunities provided to them in your adopted home. they are a powerful factor in drawing our two countries together. president obama's inclusive approach to problem-solving and dialogue as an instrument of policy creates many more opportunities for our two
democracies to work together in realizing our shared destiny for all humankind. collaboration and cooperation between our two countries may be indispensable for shaping a global society that is responsive to the deeds and aspirations of the 21st century , and where countries can pursue their interests in a secure and just environment. ladies and gentleman, i thank you for listening to me. god bless you. [applause]
>> i want to thank the prime minister for presenting such a comprehensive tall. i would just ask a few questions and then we will open up. i do the easy ones, they do the hard ones. that is the division of labor here. several times he talked about the united states and india, using the phrase "strategic partnership," of phrase that resonates very well here. but the question i would ask is whether there is sufficient overlap of viewpoints in order to allow one to go all ward, and some of the pressing issues coming before us are iran and afghanistan. let me begin with iran. the united states believes that it would be unacceptable for iran to develop or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons. is that a view shared by india, and with india be prepared to
weapon part. there is no ambiguity in our position. we're quite clear in our thinking that iran should not go to the nuclear weapon part. that is inconsistent with its obligation as a member of the npt. now with regards to the sanctions question, let me say that if the security council in its wisdom passes any resolution, we have in the past abided by the decisions of the security council. and as i see president obama this approach opening up a new pathway of engagement without
preconditions, our hope is it will yield results. a few days ago i left new delhi and had the privilege of meeting the iranian foreign minister, who is an old student who studied in our country for many years. he was there. while talking, he mentioned explicitly to me that iran is encouraged by the messages it is receiving from the new obama administration. he was hopeful that they would lead to constructive, productive results. ÷i hope that part, s yield productive results, that would be for the good of humanity at large.
>> another question about afghanistan. he said that the world should put its weight behind a country and government of afghanistan. you bought leslie r. arrive in washington in the midst of a public debate as well as the internal deliberations of the obama administration which is trying to define what putting its weight or putting our way into afghanistan might mean. do you believe that a large increase or significant increase in troop levels or international troop levels should be an element of the policy? >> i am not an expert on military affairs. it would be much too presumptuous on my part to claim that i know what is the right size of troops that ought to be deployed into afghanistan. but i am quite clear in my mind that pakistan requires the sustained support of the global community it is to return to the
path of peace, freedom, and an environment in which terrorist elements do not have the sway of the type that they had some years ago before 9/11. >> to follow up, do you believe that what happens in afghanistan will be decisive for pakistan's future? >> there is no doubt in my mind that if the taliban and the al qaeda group of people succeed in afghanistan, that group will have a bad results for the stability and security, not just for pakistan, but for all of south asia. please do not forget we are talking of nearly 1.8 billion people living in south asia.
also, i believe it will also affect the course of evolution in the middle east and central asia, and may be beyond these regions as well. >> to build what you just said, when you look at your neighbor, pakistan, and elected its difficulties with maintaining order and governance and economically, to you harbor concerns that pakistan could fail? if that were to happen -- if pakistan were to fail in certain ways, could india succeed? >> we do not want pakistan the face -- to fail. the emergence of democracy in pakistan is something we look for. at the same time, we have to recognize that there are forces in dealing with terrorist elements, using their energies to target our
country. nor has pakistan used all this machinery to bring all of those murderous gangs who perpetrated the horrible crime and mumbai -- in mumbai. innocent citizens lost their life. several nationals of foreign countries, including six from the united states, and two from canada, that lost their lives. pakistan should be pressured by the international community could do much more to bring all of those people who are responsible for this horrible crime. there is now impeccable evidence that the conspiracy was planned in pakistan. it was executed with the active
connivance of peoples who are still roaming around freely in pakistan. and therefore i respectfully request the world community to use all of its influence on the powers that be in pakistan to desist from that sort of behavior. >> two last questions. china -- anthony -- at the recent meeting between president obama and president hu, there was a reference to the chinese role in your part of the world. is that something that india would welcome? >> let me tell you what happens between president obama and president hu, it is not our direct concern. what the world to prepare -- we want the world to prepare for the peaceful rights of china as a major power.
so engagement is the right strategy, both for india as well as the united states. we've tried very hard to engage china and the last five years. and today, china is one of our major trading partners. but we also recognize that we have a longstanding border problem with china. we're trying to resolve it through dialogue. in the meanwhile, both of our countries have agreed that pending the resolution of the border problem, peace and tranquillity should be maintained in the borderlands. having said that, i would like to say that i have received these assurances from the chinese leadership at the highest level. but there is a certain amount of reserve on the part of the chinese. i do not fully understand the
reasons for it. that has to be taken note of. >> last question about china. there has been a lot of talk in the literature about the comparison of the indian and chinese approaches to development. a question -- widely believed india's is preferable? given that china has grown at a higher rate for more years? >> the chinese growths of -- the chinese growth performance is superior, but there are other values which are important than the growth of the gross domestic product. i think the respect for fundamental human rights, the respect for the rules of law, the respect for multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, those rights --
they had values also. there are values of human freedom which are not always helpful for the gross national product. the gnp -- the gdp might not be as good as the chinese, but certainly i would not like to choose the chinese part. i would prefer to stick with the indian path. also, i believe that india may appear as an indecisive democracy at times. many democracies are not able to take a long-term view. but i am also in believe that once a democracy decides on the basis of a consensus, any
problems that are undertaken will be par more durable and effective than the forms introduced by a ruling group and a non-democratic country. >> ladies and gentlemen, you've just been treated to an economist saying there is more to life in the gdp. this is an important moment. -- there's more to life than the gdp. this is an important moment. [laughter] [applause] that was an important moment. speak directly and let us know who you are and whom you are affiliated -- the shorter, the better. >> beverly lindsay, penn state university. my question in terms of your being a fo>> mr. prime minister
>> i do not think i will be held answer your question. >> the things i will convert into the economist mode. in his speech, at the else that you talk about the economics being the foundation of relations between countries. your government has negotiated free-trade agreements with a number of your trading partners. you are now talking with the european union, japan, canada, and others. my question is, what about the united states? would you be interested in a free trade negotiation with the united states, but to kill lee cents, in the absence thereof, if you complete trade agreements with all your major partners, you will be discriminating against the united states and it might make it more difficult to
carry out the type of relationship we all want? >> there is no easy answer to your question. i do recognize the great affects of free trade agreements. to your question, would we like to have a free trade agreement with the united states? let me say, my first preference is that the multilateral trading system itself should evolve in the direction where there is a reduced role portrayed distortion represented by terra barriers. is it jerez -- tariff barriers. we cannot have arrangements like
the european union has. for historic reasons we are not able to have a union of the type that exists in some other parts of the world. our first preference would be that the multilateral trading system should evolve in the direction in which there is reduced amounts of tariff distortion, which distorts the flow of trade in goods and services. i also have to recognize more than 50% of world trade takes place behind these walls and agreements. i have not studied this question, but they were telling me this morning that the united states is talking about a free trade agreement. i don't mind exploring a free-
trade agreement with united states. >> prime minister singh, i'm with georgetown law school. in 20 years, almost 20 years since you introduced some very significant reforms we've seen a dramatic change in the relationship between the indian government and the indian economy. as you look down the road, do you think in the next 20 years we will say has dramatic a set of changes in that room additions to -- in the relationship? >> when i looked out on that, i said in my speech that our ambition is to ensure that the indian economy grows at the average annual rate of about 9%
per annum. that was the growth rates proceeding the current year's and in the previous years, the last five years. and if our economy grows at the rate of 9% -- 72/9 -- eight years, of we will double the national wealth of our country. by 2020, we shouldn't match at the american economy if we succeed a growing at the rate of 9% per annum. -- we should match the american economy for succeed at growing at the rate of 9% per annum. our growth is largely fuelled by domestic demand. our savings rate is as high as
35% per annum. our investment rate in recent years has been as high as 37% per annum. if you save 35% of your gdp, you should be able to reach a growth rate of 9% per annum. that is our ambition and i am confident that we can get an economy where we move in that direction and then next two or three decades. >> what is the biggest impediment? >> the concern that i have is the quality of our physical infrastructure. we need a lot more investment in infrastructure. we need a lot more investment in human resource development, and education, and skill formation -- these are the critical constraints which we are trying
to address. i am confidant overtime that we will be able to address them. and i would like the united states investors and the members of the academic communities and university systems to work with us so that we overcome these disabilities. >> is it ok if we run a few minutes over? yes, sir. >>minister and i raise this isse with him. he said, no, as far as it is concerned, we want to maintain it because we want to discuss political issues. >> canada has a special reason to keep the g-8 going.
it is one eighth of it. >> i'm with the energy policy center. it is an honor to address this question to you. mr. prime minister, when i think about the tensions and pakistan, india, afghanistan, bangladesh, i see the common industry -- a common enemy of these countries being water. i have a feeling that the south asian association for regional cooperation could be a focal point for bringing all the himalayan nation's together to talk about their common enemy, that is, melting glaciers. i am wondering there might be a way to expand the portfolio to include some very aggressive
adaptation. south asian nations are victims. they are not perpetrators of climate change. >> i entirely agree with you that water is going to be probably the most critical problem for growth in the 21st century. therefore a common himalayan system which provides water resources both for india, bangladesh, and pakistan, i think we have to take a holistic view. politics is the art of the possible. the way these regions have doubled, it has not grown to the extent to which one can say that we are ready to take on this additional burden of water management. but i sincerely hope that in due course of time that water is one
area where our nations in southeast asia will have to think collectively to find effective but practical solutions to the problem of water management in our region. >> i'm getting the proverbial signals. we have time for one last question. after the prime minister answers, please remain seated while the prime minister and his delegation to part. you have a question there. let me apologize for having alienated so many of you who i was unable to call upon. >> i am privileged to have the last question. thank you for your remarks. i worked as an independent consultant for gender equality. it was encouraging indeed to hear your emphasis on factors other than hard-core economy and finance. in this regard, you talk about human-rights.
one sees any of playing a leadership role in that region on so many fronts, and i just wondered if you could tell us a little bit of the kind of role that you envision for india in terms of promotion of human rights, in particular women's rights, minority rights, and some bold steps for property alleviation -- poverty alleviation. >> human rights are enshrined in the constitution of india, and we're very proud of the fact that our courts are very generous in protecting the human rights of our citizens. with regard to women's rights, i think our constitution gives men and women equal rights at the age of 18. all men and women can vote in all elections in our country. it is our ambition as a party to
bring about constitutional changes where at least 33% of all seats in our parliament would be reserved for women. we have not been able to evolve a broad base consensus, but that is the commitment that we made an art election manifesto. we will make every effort to fulfill that. today we have a situation where the president of our ruling coalition is a woman of extraordinary qualities. the president of india is a woman. the speaker of the lower house of our parliament is a woman. so when men are playing an increasingly important role -- so women are playing an increasingly important role, but i agree with you that more can
be done, should be done, will be done and that will be our commitment. we owe it to our women to improve their lot a lot more than we have done in the past. >> all wise comment from the gentleman. mr. prime minister, on behalf of both the council on foreign relations as well as the wardrobe wilson international center for scholars, we want to both thank you all are on resent -- honoring us with your presence, we appreciate your candor, and we wish you every success both in this state visit to the united states and perhaps even more importantly, and the work tha
an insight into what is going on here. i give credit to julia reed who deck of this quote for book she wrote which is an excellent book. she is quoting from 1877. "the city has been buried under taxes and fraud and mal administration. when i write about it as i intend to do soon, no one will believe i am telling the truth. it is better to live here in sackcloth and ashes than to own the entire state of ohio."
[laughter] my apologies to ohio. he sums up the way -- we are not going anywhere. i will turn it over to the panel but i have to say a few words about charlie. charlie is a native of shreveport, louisiana. one of the real treasures that louisiana has. it sounds redundant to the people from washington. people here or who may be listening on c-span, he is the authority in the world on elections and congressional elections. he has been doing it longer than anyone. he is not only respected in the political community, his integrity is unquestioned and he is one of the best people that
we have in our community. we're proud that charlie is a proud son of our state. we relish in his successes. i hope his prediction that we get wiped out in 2010 proves wrong. he has a history of being right over a long time. i will turn this over to my dear friend, charlie, and ask him to introduce what is going to be difficult because we have a distinguished panel here. are you coming up? i am going to introduce -- this is always a good thing. 4 get your boss. -- forget your boss. the provost, who is a really big deal, is going to come up and say a few words. i apologize and please do not cut my pay.
>> thank you and good morning. let me welcome all of you to this second day of discussion and sessions on bipartisanship. it has been a pleasure working with the bipartisan policy center. why and facilitating your visit with us here. we have been looking forward to having you and we're excited you were here. let me take a moment to see a few words about students. we do not see a lot of students in the room this morning. before noon, students are not around very much. they come out as the sun gets higher in the sky. we will see more of them later.
i want to say a word about our students. they speak -- their actions speak directly to the themes of this gathering. we used to hear a lot when we look at college generations a few years ago. we heard about the me generation. there were a lot of analysis and critique of the selfishness of young adults in american society. what we're witnessing here and universities and colleges, it is the lead generation. these are a remarkable group of young people who are committed and interested in public service, community engagement, and social progress. i do not care what ever labels you use for a period is about being present and engaged with others for social betterment. some of you know, the president of the universe they spoke with you yesterday. tulane has been a key part of the recovery but it is
students who left in the muscle of the recovery. they are engaged with the community. they support a variety of activities. we are proud of them. we also think that their actions speak to the principles and ideas that this gathering is about. one final comments. just to press the point home about our students. last year, we had 40,000 undergraduate applications here at tulane. out of that 40,000, we put out 90009500 offers of admission. from those offers, we generated a first-year class of 1500 students. we have never had anything close to 40,000. before katrina. before was 15,000 applications.
this says something about this generation. i like to think they are drawn to us because -- to to clean because of me. it is what we're doing here there interested in being part of this recovery and community. we are proud of them. i think they in their pursuit of wheatwe, they uphold the principles you are exploring. welcome and enjoy the conference. [applause] >> it is my job to introduce charlie cook. the bipartisan center was founded by four leaders on the
theory that people of good will can work through issues and , with solutions to pressing challenges. they did it as leaders of the senate. they're helping us do it now at the bipartisan policy center where we run projects on energy, climate, health care, transportation, national and homeland security c'mon the principle that we bring people from a diverse array of viewpoints together and provide them with the best research and analysis, a forum to discuss the pros and cons of issues and achieve principled bipartisan compromise, that we can help congress and the administration do their job better. in order to get those partisans to sit down, we need to let them. that is what this panel is about. i was talking to charlie cook last night. like a lot of folks my age, i
owe my career to them. as a young manager in the late 1980's and early 1990's, there were not a lot of resources to help us make decisions about races around the country. the political report was the best decision making tool we had available. waiting for that booklet with the three hole punched in it every couple weeks was frankly and pathetically the highlight of my career. if charlie was a book, he would have some blurbs on his back from people like "the new york times." bob schieffer from cbs news, the bible of a political community. "the washington post", perhaps the best record of political races.
we have been looking forward to this throughout the two days of this conference. put your hands together for charlie cook and his panel. >> i am going to go over here in the format -- the format lens itself to being over there. the reason is i can do a better job standing then seated. my wife says standing maximizes the difference -- distance between my head and my ass. thanks for the kind words the center is doing such important work, from the history of mankind for as long as there has been politics, people have felt like things used to be better in the old days and it has been like that. i can say that having come to washington in 1972, having
started working in 1973 as an elevator operator in the senate office buildings and interning in 1973 and -- through 1975 and as a staffer in 1977, things have changed. it is not what the american people deserve. i hope the center -- the center will be doing some great things and hopefully, we can nudge it back to where it ought to be. as opposed to where it has been. this conference, i am very excited about the conference. this panel is awesome. i wish i had a hand in it but i did not. it looks a lot like what i would have done. what i will do it is run through a brief about the folks and i will sit down and start throwing some open-ended questions out. we can bring in the audience. in the world of press and communications, what is better than being a press secretary to
the speaker of the house and a speech writer? what speaks to me more than anything else, as a little kid in the 1960's, my favorite tv show was "sky king". he appeared as a child actor. he was in an episode of "sky king". working for president reagan and newt gingrich, that is good. but "sky king" is not in his bio. alex costellano worked with charlie black in the way back days, he is known as the father of the attack gadd. some of you may think is disparaging. i had one consultant tell me
that i sleep better at night knowing that my clients are going negative. a central part but one of the most talented guys around. a central figure in the campaigns of romney and mccain. he coined the phrase "soccer mom." "nascar dad" -- you had "soccer mom." stan greenberg is not happy with me because i spent three years beating republicans in 2006 through 2008. he is being nice. he is one of the finest pollsters in america today. one of the finest pollsters in
the democratic party. and his democracy corps puts out some of the most terrific survey research. for us in the outside to see the very finest quality survey research and for tax reasons, you have to put it out there pretty much. you are looking over the shoulder of some of the best political lines in the business. if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery there is -- a republican think tank. you have to go around the world and talk to the world leaders that stan has pulled four. he headed up the team that elected bill clinton to the presidency. if you were going to describe on the republican polling side sort of nordstrom's and
bloomingdale's put together. so they are huge but enormously high quality and also, some of the -- when i call any of the partners there, i am getting the straight scoop. they see so much data that they are going to see something before almost anybody else because they are pulling some of places. just fabulous work. and newly married. congratulations. >>i forgot this was on c-span. steve mcmahon. we go back.
he was a central figure in the dipane campaign and the kennedy- gephardt and a political analyst. he is part -- teamed up with alex for purple strategy. working on nonpartisan efforts. steve is an enormously talented guy and worked campaigns in venezuela and nicaragua. all over the place. if you have been around washington, you have known joe for years. he was the central figure leading that phenomenon. just an enormously talented guy. the author of "the revolution
will not be televised." joe is an enormously talented guy. we have a terrific panel. what i thought i would do is throw it out to and one by one and in a nutshell, our topic is supposed to be looking forward to 2010 and 2012. i do not want to interfere in this too much so i will jump in at the tail end. let me -- but go in reverse order. starting with joe. let me spend one minute. let me frame it and we will start with tony. you look at the midterm election, you look at history. the party in the white house almost always gets hammered.
usually awash in the senate, an average of a six seat loss in the governorship. that is normal. and then you say, what about the circumstances? the greater exposure you have, the more seats and more risk you are. you cannot lose something you already got. democrats having picked up 54 seats in the elections, they go into this exposed. overexposed, i should say. with 40 democrats sitting in seats that were carried by john mccain. there are some -- is some exposure. you look at the circumstances and party identification. democrats came off a high of the 2008 election with a 17. advantage in party identification. it is more if you use the gallup figures, it has come down a good bit.
five points for september. higher in october. the party identification badedge -- democrats had double-digit leads in 2006 through to that an aide and now it is down. most of the polls do not do registered voters so it overstates democrats. things have gotten tough. the final thing is the economy. we just saw unemployment went over 10%. this is the first time unemployment has been at that point since 1983. only once in the postwar era has unemployment been at double- digit into a midterm election, that was in -- the numbers came out in october of 1982. it looks like and whether you look at the optimistic or pessimistic projections, it
looks like we will see unemployment of over 10% for 12 consecutive months. this is an enormously challenging and democrats are taking now the question is do the problems republicans have in terms of the damage to their brand over the last eight years, does that damage put a cap or a ceiling on how much they can capitalize on all of these problems democrats have? because there are some brand problems and demographic problems. all of these forces pushing towards democrats having a very tough election but at the same time very clear differences from where it was when tony and newt gingrich and republicans were successfully taking over congress in 1984, the republican brand wasn't damaged back then.
they had a clear leader and a positive message. they didn't have quite the demographic issues that republicans have today. it is sort of two big forces that work over there and the question is which one is more dominant. it is a fascinating election. why don't we go down the line. everyone say real quick what you see happening and how you see it and what you think is important and then we'll sort of bring everybody in. thank you very much. >> look, let's talk about a couple of general observations. i think that isaac newton's law of motion always comes into play in politics. every action is an equal and opposite reaction. agenda of the president and his party have pushed into the american public -- a pretty
radical or bold and we're seeing the reaction to that. i do not know how it plays out. how it breaks into tributaries but we have convulse of forces, great volatility of mood. hope alliance some elements still on the other side. there is room for dramatic election in 2010 and 2012. i have always thought that the best chance of any opposition party is the worst the governing party does. you may tactically be able to get further than you otherwise would. i think comparing this to 1994 when republicans took over the
house and senate, the times were less convulsive but the republican party was better positioned. we were a better fighting machine. we had a clear leader and a doctrine we were working off of. we were coordinated. we knew what we stood for. that does not exist. the republican party is a mess but the forces are strongly and potentially with us. >> i am a structuralist so i look at a structure of an election cycle and the structure is clear. i have looked at the michigan consumer sentiment index. it has been done every month since 1952. there has been three times in american history where we drop below 65 on their scale. this is the fourth time. i went back and said if there
were three other times, how long did it take for consumer confidence to recover to get to the mid-1980s? the answer was two to four yeas. we are -- fou-- fiourour years. this is a difficult cycle in terms of what it means for democrats. this is the point about gravity. the wrong track went up again, over 50% in the poll i do with peter hart. here is an intractable law. wrong track voters do two-thirds of sevesevef the 5%. this is the second structural problem. the third is -- what i say is
[unintelligible] what i mean is the democrats have spent a fortune trying to get to surge voters to the polls. the electorate shifted. it has consequence for democrats. the intensity on the republican side is through the roof. as you look at the consumer confidence and the link the recovery and the wrong track going up, you look for midterms that are balancing the party, all those things point to a very difficult cycle for democrats in 2010.
there is much about the republican party that is broken and needs to be fixed. none of these forces are fixing the party for the 2012 election. 1982 was awful and led to read again's -- to reagan's victory. the president still has a lot of structural advantages. >> i agree. how many were here yesterday for the last panel? we should say something new. never spit straight up. and the obama administration, a campaign that worked hard not to be its predecessor and we know bush administration was characterized. do not listen.
swaggering, a big belt buckle and talking about issues and the american people did not think were central to their lives. one of the ironies of fate is now, a lot of americans look at the obama administration and see what are they doing? the economy is burning down and they are talking about issues that seem important but tangential. whether it is creating a big government health care plan or carbon tax, why are they talking about me? are they listening? they are spending irresponsibly. money that will come back to me. i am going to have to pay for it. never spit straight up. the midterm elections coming up are going to be -- people are going to be empowered not by rubber-stamp in what is going on. a voter can safe stop and
think. a more thoughtful approach. republicans, if we do not fix some of our brand problems will probably pick up under 30 seats in the house. if we fix our brand problems, some of us think there is hope. it could be over 40. one thing we did not talk about yesterday. why did the young voters not show up for last tuesday's election? one of them is barack obama was not on the ballot. it will come out for him but not for democrats without him. i am not sure that is the case. elections are not about candidates. they're about voters. one of the things obama did was
in power a new generation of voters by telling them, you are the change we have been waiting for. this is in your hands. you can change things. change is from the bottom up. this is a campaign where people can participate. he got elected and that narrative has turned on his head. the economy is screwed. there is nothing you can do. thank heavens we are here. we're going to solve your problems. it is not young people and voters as hero. unless that narrative is reversed, the democrats in 2010 or 2012 will not see that big flood. they will see it in 2010. >> let me respond not as a partisan.
and agree with most of what has been said even in the setup to the discussion. democrats are going to lose seats. it is impossible to not lose seats in this kind of election. we agree that there are big things going on in respect to the two parties. whatever happens in 2010 is not a prediction of 2012. it could be the opposite. i think i agree with almost all of what has been said. i would accept the point on engagement in the election. when you look at the polls, who is engaged and who is interested has an incredible impact on who
takes an interview. who will go through a 25 minute survey. when you look at the change after conventions, there are more people supporting one of the candidates. it is not because one in 10 have switched their minds. democrats are more interested after their convention and republicans are more interested after their convention. eventually, it settles out. it correlates with what happens in elections. engagement matters. the intensity of opposition -- the unity of conservative republicans against barack obama, the fact that two-thirds or three-quarters of republicans are conservative, they fear that obama is a threat to the republic produces an intensity and high turnout. they will produce high turnout of republican conservatives for
the 2010 elections. it is reflected in the polls. the issue will be will democrats be engaged when they get to the end of this election. there is a lot that happens. as congress passed legislation? is the congress perceive to be making progress on issues that they were elected on? is there progress on the economy? is it moving in the right direction? >you look at some of the past of years. if you look at 1998, when we had the battle over impeachment. it was a surprise election. democrats were expected to lose. for sure they were going to lose. conservatives were upset with president clinton's behavior. it was a reaction against the overreach of the impeachment. democrats became mobilized at the end.
democrats barely lost any seats. when we look at the intensity of the conservative republicans, the nature of that divisive politics, do we get a reaction at the end where democrats defend the change they brought? i do not think we know. polls show 20 seats right now. i will leave the discussion to where we think it goes. when we polled in the battleground district's leading into 2006 and 2008, each time we showed in our polls we have 26 seats and they picked it up in two stages. it was a great surprise to us. picking up 30 seats. it looks like you can get half
back. i do not see anything that says you can do this in one shot. >> i do not know of anyone said be careful what you wish for. i will star there. democrats for a long time have wished for large majorities and the way you get there is by creating a big tent. that is big enough to accommodate different democrats. one of the challenges they face now and the estimates of where the seat count is, if the election were held to their -- today are about right. it is consistent. the big dilemma in my opinion is, do you look at the elections from last tuesday where independents -- in the elections in new jersey and virginia, they went for republicans. as a consultant, that is the canary in the coal mine.
you are looking at that and say, we won independents and it generated a big majority. we have a canary in the coal mine situation if you look at these exit returns. another canary is the base. there were great hopes and great aspirations placed in president obama by people who were voting for somody@@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ m and because -- and the progressive community especially the expectations were so high and because in many respects they remained high throughout this healthcare reform today, you now have problems with the base that you saw last tuesday, african-americans and others not showing up and you have on the healthcare reform bill that was just passed in the houps there was a revolt among progressives
because of the amendment on abortion. they think they are being gained on the public option. that somehow has become a metaphor. i came to washington 25 years ago to work for ted kennedy. he talked about healthcare all the time and expanding insurance and healthcare to every american. talk about the public option but that is the focal point of debate. republicans have let democrats fight among themselves. and the republicans are watching and progressives are s
and progressives are s the administration is filled with political operatives who are aware of this. they're planning for it. what you will see is after health care reform, it will focus on getting those independents in the fold. the interesting thing will be whether the progressive community which has been disappointed continues to be disappointed and there is no one who knows that community better than joe. or if they recognize that progress is better than no progress. democrats and a democratic majority is better than the republican majority. but they may not. i do not know if you want to address that.
>> these next two elections are likely to be the most disruptive for both parties that i've seen since i have been doing this, since the 1970's. looking historically may not matter this time. everyone says that -- this will not be how history has shown it in the past. for a lot of different reasons, the panel has talked about -- you are going to see the intensity on the democratic side and it will show in primaries. the party committees will not have the control that they have had historically. you are -- it is not a special
case where there is a primary opponent to an incumbent. the progressive community is looking for candidates to run against people who voted against health care. you are seeing on the progressive side, you will see primaries against incumbents who they believe voted the wrong way. you will see them fight in the primary and shop and work it. the same thing is happening on the republican side. we saw that in new york 23. some of the ways that played out with hoffman running as a conservative and losing, in some instance because of that fight. had there been a unified canada did on the right.
iowens would not be a member of congress. you will have these massive fights in primaries on both sides. the question is, what emerges? do the republicans -- the bases can to win primaries. if they are contested. what comes out of this is the more progressive liberal candidates on the democratic side win out on these primaries. that coalition is energized because they have gotten out the bad would and the same thing happens on the republican side. we will have general elections that are sitting there and people voting looking at the parties and asking what is going on here? which the other thing we will see is a lot of independent candidacies.
other things will emerge. to many people are connected to have enough power who will get behind -- [unintelligible] and help him take out arlen specter. it will be very disruptive. both parties will be shocked. because of this, stan could be closer to the number. it could be 15. the reason it is 15 is because some republican incumbents go out the window that we did not think for going out. this could be an anti-incumbent year. democrats will be hurt because -- some republicans will go out the door as well and maybe mitigate the number in a way we are not expecting. >> we have heard from three of the brightest minds in the republican party and three of the most brilliant people in the democratic party giving their assessments of 2010. we have seven minutes before we
are supposed to throw out to the audience. let me ask two different questions. for the republicans, if you were standing up in front of house republican conference, or the senate republican conference, the doors close. no press. what advice would you give them? for democrats, if you were upstairs in the family quarters with the president, would you tell him he should do for the next year? >> i wrote a column a couple weeks ago. i will quote myself. the republican party needs to embrace the passion and energy at its heart, standing up
against it is madness. it has a finesse and a style and engagement such that it does not antagonize the senate. the idea that we're not going to be embracing all of the passion and still writing that passion to victory is beyond my 45 years in politics. that is -- do not walk away from that passion because you will not win without that and try to manage how that passion refracts to the more moderate vote. >> >> there is tactical things. we need to have a surge of recruitment to broaden the playing field. the huge difference today is even in the worst cycles, 92% of incumbents of the troubled party still win. we won 20 plus seats.
the thing about doing that tactical stuff is important. the american people are clear. they are concerned about their jobs. i read a federal reserve estimates that we could have five years of this knid of -- of this kind of unemployment. that is unprecedented. we have a coherent view of that. what would it mean to try to create a new generation of jobs? we had better be out there saying that every day. let me be slightly mean. i say obamaism is not going to work. if it did we would be celebrating the economic miracle of europe. i say to republicans, come up with something besides a tax cut in terms of explaining how you
will do it. i would tell them as i did, i was very impressed with bob mcdonald, the republican candidate for governor. president obama was coming to campaign against him. he said the president is always welcome at the commonwealth of virginia. there has to be a personal grace note that the republican caucus has lost. he is the president. he is a figure that has -- demands our respect and he is well-liked and we need to do a better job as a party to separate -- and separate the differences of opinion about policy compared to how we speak to hiabout him as a person. there are people in our caucus who do not -- are not able to bridge that note. >> we spent time thinking about
this but we will try to be concise. i would say to the republican caucus that i know lee atwater said when your opponent is busy destroying himself, do not interfere. do not think that your opponents failures and weaknesses are your success. if everyone took a step back in line you somehow step forward. believing that is a prescription for permanent minority status. people want a society that works. people want solutions and leaders to a better -- and lead us to a better place. i would say to republicans, it is jobs and economic growth, it is all that. you do not have to compromise your principles to win the middle. we just saw that in virginia and other places where a conservative candidate did not
abandon his conservative beliefs. he said, this is how we will create a better world. we talk about it in a different language. we call it to new republican. new democrats, where the new republicans? that is a brand we should developm. we want to grow the economy but we have a better way to do it. how about bottom up instead of top-down? we will have spending not by smart guys, we will let you invest in your hopes and dreams bottom-up. we will have an open education system where parents can choose the best schools for their kids. not top down, these clothes artificial industrial systems that treats your kids like numbers. healthcare, will have a natural health care system.
more organic where doctors and patients make decisions and we put those price control mechanisms down with you. with patients and doctors and not above the top with those people in washington who do not know you. there is a new republican party that will be born from this. if we do that, we will get the 40 seats. we will provide some legitimate opposition. right now, we have a ways to go. >> am i speaking to the caucus or the president? >> one-on-one upstairs, no staff. >> i would start with -- the president gets this. nothing is more important than success. the congress passing things and doing stuff, a sense of
progress. the country will not vote for a dysfunctional democrat. we do not have time for this but our coalition is not so broad. everyone has to understand when bill clinton passed his economic plan which was tax increases and deficit reduction, it was big tax increases, his approval went up. it went up when he passed nafta. they were coming together and passing things, it looked like they were effective in governing. they're not split in the same way that republicans are. unity and success is critical. the president's -- language on the economy, every leader have worked for, when the talks with the economy, they get it wrong. bill clinton in 1994, we look in
1996 when the economy was growing and there was a narrative that talked about growth. when he tried to talk about economic success, voters said he was out of touch. you have been seeing how we saved us from the brink of economic disaster. because people don't want to hear that because in their lives that is not happening. they have got to have focus on jobs. leave it to someone else, the economy. then there has got to be -- the dependents have to show that they take the deficit seriously. that they are concerned about spending. they are doing sustainable things showing they are dealing with the deficits over the medium and long term. >> i would say -- what i said in our meeting yesterday, which i think was closed, mr. president,
i would say listen, you have to remind people that you inherited. they know but you're going to have to continue to remind them but people have gotten the message that we're spending a lot of money. everybody is getting the message that washington is taking a bigger role in the economy. some don't like it and others are saying thank god they did. things. what they're not getting necessarily is, he did the things to bail out wall street because he had to. we spent that money because we had to. we spend the money on health care reform and health care reform should pass the democrats and we need to take credit for it. we spent money on health care reform because we needed to end it is the right thing to do. it will make things better for people who do not have insurance and improve things for people who do. it is the most important thing because 85% of the folks who
have health insurance are happy with what they have. we will focus full-time on improving the economy and getting spending under control and reducing the deficit. health care reform will bring the deficit down $100 billion. the administration needs to say it more because it is a fiscally responsible thing they're doing that is being portrayed in another way. they may have already lost that conversation but they need to engage. the president has to find some areas where he can take a stand that progressives will applaud him for. there have been too many things where that progressive community feels like they have been sold out or ignored or not listen to too. -- or not listened to. most people in this country are pro-choice, most people believe that health insurance plan should be available to a woman that provide abortion services. i think that's the house of
representatives may have made a tactical decision to get health care reform passed. it will be a good idea to stand up on this one or a series of things like it to let them know he is still here and someone cares about them. if they do not show up in 2010, weber democrats will lose will double. -- whatever democrats will lose will double. >> jobs and the deficit. i' would get off this other stuff. it is tony's idea. also do it visibly. you could have some kind of guaranteed investment program for the gulf coast where you
literally guaranteed some kind of -- guarantee investment in ideas down here and creating jobs and rebuilding. it is a public-private thing. everybody in the country sees them doing something. the same kind of thing in michigan. we have big unemployment. what can you do? there are pockets of the country where you can create a public- private partnership. you can invested here and that would be a great place to put it. i would pick to replaces like that and i would make sure the country understands i am serious about the deficit. we did a lot of spending. here are the steps will take because we know we have to go the other way. otherwise, some of this stuff
looks disengage. people are focused on the economy and you are doing something important and energy. it may create jobs but they do not see it that way. it is a big problem. >> we have gone over on our parts. we need to go quickly to q&a from the audience. and ask that your questions be concise and we keep our answers tight. there is a question and a microphone. >> you keep talking jobs and everyone is repeating it. we're all repeating it. the green jobs industry is the fastest-growing industry in the country so why are we not hearing more about that? why are we not hearing subsidies? right now it is the cheapest -- we have the best tax return rebate in louisiana for solar energy. we are on the forefront of this. no one can afford it to begin
with. if we had more of these companies and more competition, we could afford it. there would be more jobs. >> somebody tackle that. >> i think joe's idea is a great one. that is where democrats and republicans can come together. creating jobs is what we want to do. if it is a public-private partnership, there -- is better than creating construction jobs which are project jobs that go way. it would be good for them on a lot of different levels. >> it might be good politics. spain carried out a green jobs subsidy program similar to the one the president has proposed. they have done university studies on them and found the lost jobs. it was more expensive to lose
kilowatts through the alternative subsidized energies then, and energy. it may be great politics and for the people who get the subsidies, it is great. but net to the economy in spain, it proved to be a negative. >> [inaudible] in the nation right now. for every single job in oil, there are 18 in the green industry. >> a question for bill, stan, and charlie. i tear out my hear when air wher someone say independent. independents need to break this way. it drives me nuts. how do you define independent when you use the term? >> we do not come in the country
with letters in our heads. politically we do a seven. scale and with that independents -- a seven point scale. hard independents, they are 20% of the electorate. they tend to be politically down. one segment is downscale and more likely to be women. they did not get a lot of political information. they have no stable ideological moorings. the kind of jump from position to position in ways that would strike as as being inconsistent. they have a high distaste for
both political parties. what they share in common is an anger towards both political parties. they are radically unstable. . . those are, you know, the point is when you look at them as you look at them in large numbers, they are not one independent voter, they have these different characteristics. there is like this down scale independent and this kind of scale independent and overall what they share in my mind are these patterns and again -- we don't really have a logical country. we have a country that realigns based on what works.
>> we use the same scale, which is >> we used the same scale that he does. there are, i mean, there is -- that goes to joe's point earlier. we saw the independent voting that took place in the new york city 23 election. rough -- ross p i don't think perot has gone away. ross perot announced today, if he hadn't accused the president of a conspiracy to disrupt his daughter's wing, he still got 19%, with that. but you know, if ross perot, a credible ross perot were to announce, for going into the presidential elections, i think 20% range is more than possible for an independent candidate. very much part of the -- in that perot tendency, tends to be a little more male, tends to be white and more blue collar. the reason they're in the republicans, they're much more secular and individualistic and
secular and they're -- they're uncomfortable with the more evangelical republican party, but they're libertarian and anti-government and don't like spending much. they pretty easily move. they're still out there. i think that's a good part of the pullback among independents from democrats and from the president. and winning the voters, bill clinton lost them. that's why it was possible for george bush and the republicans to become competitive again. i think those voters are very much in play in part of the history that will play out. >> i think the three words i would say, would be disengaged and mistrustful and distrustful and transient. the disengage, you know, most independents i believe don't follow. they don't love politician. they don't follow it that closely. if they cared deeply, they would be democrats or republicans or liberals or conservatives. if they cared that much, they would have gravitated to one side or the other. there's fundamental things they mistrust about each party, which
keeps them from jumping in bed with one side or the other. and the gravitation pulls the tides. here completely floating around. and with iraq and they shifted over towards democrats. they did the same thing this 2008 and then, now they're starting to sort of kind of switch back the other way. but they're just floating around in a -- it doesn't take much for them to all start moving one way or the other. i watch joe and am lex and tony on this. what is a bigger danger? a third party challenging taking off from the democrats or the more aggressive party, or a bigger danger with a liberal and conservative party, that we saw in new york 23rd, through 2010 and 2012? who should be more nervous about a splitter group taking off in -- in something like this? the democrats or the republicans? joe, let's go this way.
>> i think both parties need to be worried about this. if you look at the republican brand being around 0 now or at its low point because of the damage tone to the brand over eight years, and then -- you kind of fast forward that over the next 18 months. i mean, what we have seen in the past -- what i mean by that is the economy goes to -- to unemployment, 12% or something, and really bad stuff. and so the democratic brand again. we got the whole thing. it is ours. we got both houses. the presidency and -- and the brand is damaged quickly from all of the hope and everything to where it is. and i think there are going to be a whole lot more than 20% thinking i can't stand the parties. it is not like i'm going to go back to those guy that is had the trashy brand 12 months ago or 18 months ago. i think there's a shot here that economic deficit, i mean, just a bunch of. you start to see people, this group that can't stand -- or
questions both parties doesn't think either one of them perform well. that's where we're at. otherwise, i think it is the republicans, because -- in your own words if the economy sort of strengthening up, i think there could be an independent that on the deficit and on some of the -- the bread and butter sort of conservative money issues that emerge because the republicans fail -- have sort of failed on that message, and that can really -- you could almost see the republican party have a problem in terms of just even existing as a stong enough -- sort of what hoffman pulled off up in 23. >> and i think joe -- i think joe is right. both bearts have a lot to worry about in that >> i think joe's i think both parties have something to say. the conservatives as a result in new york 23 had been emboldened