tv Washington Journal CSPAN October 18, 2015 9:15am-10:01am EDT
range of debate and hillary is being forced more to the left by bernie sanders, which is fabulous, and trump is redbaiting. this is the dynamic have been talking about and what it is so great that bernie sanders says, yes, i am a democratic socialist and part of it. we love him for that. host: i have been looking at that but for the last 45 minutes and cannot figure out what it says. guest: it says democratic socialism for america and this is our symbol. it took the international symbol of social democracy from many of our parties around the world and it made it uniquely american. hand a white and black together because he really believe that without racial justice we can never have economic justice and it says -- we all deserve roses. we need bread to eight but we also need roses for the leisure time and the time to create art. all of these things you cannot happen to capitalism where you
are always on the treadmill, struggling to survive. .hat is our single -- our symbol. host: thank you. dsausa.org. we will take a break and when we come back, who will be the next speaker of the house and what lessons are there for past -- for thence 1986 speakers? since 1986, every speaker has either resign or step down, so what is next as they gather to decide the next speaker? matt greene knows a thing or two, the author of the book "the speaker of the house." you are watching " washington journal." back in a moment. ♪ >> the signature feature of
booktv's coverage of book fares from across the country, with cap nonfiction authors. here is our schedule this weekend. we are live from austin for the texas book festival. the following weekend, we have life the nation's heartland for the wisconsin book festival. at the end of the month, we will be in nashville for the seven festival of books. at the start of november, on the east coast for the boston book festival. in the middle of the month, the festival.book at the end of november, we are live for the 18th year in a row from florida, for the miami book fair international. and the national book awards from new york city, just some of the fairs and festivals this fall on c-span2's booktv. >> is far more than a matter of cosmetics. to me, it describes the whole effort to bring natural world
and man-made world into harmony, to bring order, usefulness, the light to our home environment. that only begins with trees, flowers, and landscaping. >> lady bird was about beautifying the nation. her signature issue as first lady. she was a natural campaigner, successful business woman, and clinical partner to her husband lbj. lady bird johnson tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's "first ladies." and privatee public lives of the women who filled the position of first lady and their influence on the presidency, from martha washington to michelle obama. tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on american history to be on c-span3. "washington journal" continues. host: matthew green is a
professor of politics here in .c.hington, bd let's have about the job of the speaker. he or she does not have to be a member of congress. and has become more political, explain. guest: the speaker, when it was first created, it was primarily a parliamentary position, so the speaker's primary responsibility was to may show the rules were being followed on the house floor. every member's rights are respected and gradually, as parties became more powerful, the position of speaker became more partisan. what we have today is a speaker that is still a parliamentary position but very much a part as well. back to tip go o'neill when he step down voluntarily in 1986 as speaker of the house, a democrat, he left during the sixth year of the reagan presidency, since then, every speaker, beginning
with jim wright and going to john boehner's decision to step down, has left on his or her own terms. guest: that is right. the houseeither lost speaker or the parties lost the majority so they would know longer speaker like with nancy pelosi. or the have self compelled to resign. it is no longer a position that you can expect to hold for a long time. host: why did john boehner decide to step down? [laughter] guest: great question. i think it would require, by reading skills, to know what was going on in his mind, but the conventional wisdom is that it has been a difficult speakership or him because there is a number of care conservative republicans in his party who have been unhappy with his leadership and the direction the party has gone and the decisions he has made, and that has made it harder for him to govern. host: this is the headline from "politico," "the republicans
lacking a fallback and paul ryan decides not to become the next speaker." he is already facing some opposition among some conservatives, even ted cruz in an interview that airs today on "meet the press" and the interview with check todd, so what happens if paul ryan decides not to run? guest: there has to be a speaker at some point, and there has been speculation, one possibility is that john boehner remains until there is a viable successor and another possibility is that we have a group of republicans, we are ready have two who declared for the office, maybe more, and we will have some discussion or debate in the party or an open race for the speakership. host: to remind you past speakers, jim wright, who passed away earlier this year, the texas democrats became the speaker after tip o'neill resigned in 1987 and he served his ownn two years amid ethics investigation.
caucus on the democratic side for next tuesday to choose a successor. i do not want to be a party that tears of institution. host: that was in 1989, jim wright stepping down and succeeded by tom foley who lost his own reelection in 1990 or when newt gingrich became speaker. what about commerce jim wright? guest: he is an interesting case of the speaker trying to expand the power of the office beyond his predecessor took o'neill. pushed ways, he boundaries beyond what his party was willing to accept. he made strategic mistakes which he lost a lot of support in his party and they were ethical issues as well. i remember that speech, really remarkable that a speaker would resign that way or resign at all. now we are seeing a speaker feeling the need to leave before the two-year term is up. host: our phone lines are open as we talk about the risk for
the speaker of the house. (202)-784-8000, the line for republicans. -- for democrats. (202)-784-8001, the line for republicans. jan has this point -- paul ryan would be nuts to take that job. probably the smartest thing he has decided, not to take it. people have been saying that, including allies in congress who are remaining anonymous. i think that that shows a number of things. one that it is a difficult job because of responsibilities, but there are also particular circumstances where you have this group of republicans who are not happy with leadership and they are willing to withhold their votes for speaker unless they get a candidate willing to change some of the ways the party works. host: there is a phrase i want to share with you, to become speaker today is almost like excepting a poisoned
chalice. someone who teaches at catholic university. [laughter] guest: that is a little harsh, not poison but it could get you sick. newt gingrich, who announced back in 1998, that he was stepping down, serving only two terms, part of the republican revolution in 1990 or. --e's what he had to tell 1994. newt gingrich: i think it is a practical matter for me to stay in the house to make it impossible for a new leader to have a chance to grow, to learn, and to do with the need to do. i think there comes a time when you have to step out and let the new team try to do the best they can. keeping the majority and winning the presidency in 2000 will take every ounce of effort that the house republicans and senate republicans can put together, and i do not think anybody should be a distraction. the country is bigger than all of us, our party, and the party
should be bigger than an individual. host: from november, 1998, when the democrats were able to pick up some seats in the house of representatives. he was succeeded by bob livingston but he never got to that point because he step down because of his own ethics investigation, his admission that he had an extra marital affair. and then then this becomes speaker of the house. now facing his own criminal investigation and pleading guilty to wire fraud issues. guest: the 1998 period was a remarkable period and i never thought we would see something like that with a speaker resigning again and turmoil in the leadership. you mentioned about the loss of seats by republicans was the cause for gingrich to resign -- host: it has been brewing for a while. guest: that is correct. there was an attempted coup with a number of republicans unhappy with his leadership. he and maybe john boehner showed
the importance of really knowing what your members are and the .otential and the content in this case, his leadership style was as much a problem as specific policy decisions or legislative decisions he made. host: the viewers saying, what we need is a speaker without regard. guest: that would be interesting, i would be fascinated to see if speakers elected would say a lot of republicans and some democrats. that hasn't really happened in our history. last time we can close to that was in 1917 where the democrats did not have as many seats as republicans but you had prohibitionist and progresses willing to vote for speaker. happenry, that can because the whole house votes on the speaker, but it would be an extranet event if it did. host: robert, good morning. independent line. caller: good morning. ask thisike to
gentleman and have them comment on the reason it is so difficult to select a speaker of the house. actually, i believe that he knows that it is the silent majority of the united states now speaking up. guest: very good question. the reason it is this a difficult right now to pick a speaker is i think related to the comment that others have made that it is a difficult job. there are two sides. part of it is that you have this group of conservatives organizing what is called freedom caucus who has complained about the way that john boehner has led the house and have argued that for them to vote for another candidate for speaker in that party, that candidate needs to make some changes to the rules of procedures. they are not very many people who would like to run for speaker who is then possibly give up some of their power, so i think that is part of it.
more generally, the speaker's are so vast,ies residing over the house when the housemates, to raising money, campaigning, spokesperson for the chamber and the party, so it takes a very wide range of skills that not many members have the ability to do well. host: frank is next, democrat line. frank, you there? caller: i was wondering why the republicans always have to use the hassett role. a lot of bills can be passed if they go way with the majority and quit using the hassett rule. i did they have to use that all the time? host: dennis hastert said there rule. wasn't has ta guest: it is not a rule per se but the next rotation first related by dennis hastert in the early 2000's.
the ideas that bills should not come to the fourth that do not have the support of the majority party. that has always been an unofficial rule in the house, at least in the early 20th century, that hasnot a rule to be followed. one of the things i talk about in the book is speakers have violated the so-called dennis hastert ruele. what is interesting about john boehner is he has done just that. whether it is raising the debt limit ceiling, he has brought to the floor where the majority of republicans voted against but they passed the democratic foe, so john boehner has been excellent the so-called has tert rule than predecessors. host: terry is next on the republican mind. caller: i went european on newt gingrich. he worked with bill clinton and did some good things that when he runs for president, he was vilified. i wanted to get your comment.
dayt: i could talk all about it gingrich, a fascinating character. host: did you interview him for the book? you did talk to jim wright, correct? guest: yes. i did not speak to newt gingrich for the book. very effective as a speaker, particularly in the first year of speakership in the first 100 days, as contra promised of legislation. it was quite remarkable what he could get through the house of representatives. that did not mean that he was not disliked by democrats. was in the republican minority in the 1980's, 1970's, 1990's and he helped bring down jim wright, the speaker in the 1980's. a lot of democrats really disliked him intensely. you can still be an effective speaker but also be one that the other party does not care for.
i think the other issue is a takes a different set of skills to be a good speaker versus a good president and a set of skills to be elected speaker versus elected president. to be elected speaker, you need 218 members of the house to agree should be speaker but to be president, you have to campaign, raise money, get support, when primaries and caucuses, and it is a difficult thing to do well. i think there are two separate sets of skills. host: who was the first speaker of the house? guest: now you're going to -- i remember -- host: i will give you a moment. has there ever been a nonmember of congress? guest: no, every speaker has been a member of the house of representatives. but a lot of people are pointing out, which is to come you do not have to be a member of congress in order to be speaker of the house. you can elect anybody. they could elect whoever they like as long as there are 218
votes in favor. host: the longest-serving speaker? 20st: sam rayborn who served years, two breaks, went republicans want controlled the house but first let's figure in 1941 and died in 1961. host: frederick possesses conrad, the first speaker of the house. sound right? guest: no, but they may know better. host: i did not mean to put a trick question. guest: it's ok, the book is about speakers from the 1940's on, so for that, my knowledge is rusty. host: let's go to ohio. caller: good morning. i find congressional politics to be interesting. a lot of gamesmanship involved. i was wondering, do you discuss parliamentary procedure, considering resolutions to charge and petitions, and if not, for students, is there a book you could recommend for us to read about the kind of thing because what the media reports
is confusing? guest: good point. the book refers to it at times when it is relevant to speakers, so the book talks about instances when they have exercised legislative leadership. there are times and they had done so using these procedures to work around them. the book does not go into great detail on legislative process. there are a variety of sources out there available, textbooks, that have been written -- i am trying to think. usually, the first thing i do is do a search on the internet to see what is out there, and he reports that have been written. you are right, a frustration for many of us who study or watch congress is that when it gets to the nitty-gritty, the stories about congress can skip the important procedural elements that are key to how congress works. host: the question that all america once answered --
frederick wallenberg of pennsylvania. guest: yes, thank you. hlenberg. there you go. dawn, good morning, independent line. , the institute scholar who has written worse than it looks, commented when john boehner said down and he said they had defunded tribalism. on one hand, you have radical crazies, and on the other hand, the right wing legalist. i find this really wrenching for someone who has watched politics . my comment to you is, i think the term conservative is -- to be a conservative has been maligned. how are these people, who are
now in congress, conservative? because of conservative means to maintain the conservative order, not to blow things up. host: thank you. guest: you are right, these terms are used loosely, and i think there is a problem in doing that. conservatives, as you point out, can mean those who are conservative. they hesitate before doing radical things. used to describe where folks sit on the ideological spectrum, toward the left versus toward the right. maybe a better term for those who are ideologically conservative are more to the right, but it does not necessarily translate into what they see it needs to be done as far as congress or the federal government. host: certainly a different time in terms of media, news, and information because there is so much out there that politicians have to deal with. table meal served under jimmy carter and ronald reagan, from
1977 until 1987 -- tip o'neill served under jimmy carter and ronald reagan from 1977 until 1987. why did he succeed? first, the speaker does not always get everything they want and there were times when people o'neill did not win votes. i think tip o'neill served in a time when it was a partisan time but less partisan than now, so it was still -- it was not unacceptable for the speaker to necessarily work with or be open to a member of the opposite party. changed,hat has becoming increasingly the case that speakers are almost vilified by members of their party. if they are even seen as being willing to cooperate with a person of the opposite party and that makes it harder to do one of the jobs to negotiate with the white house. host: roger saying, what is the
remedy if no one wants the job? guest: [laughter] to be fair, there are people want the job. to folks have declared candidacy if the position, but question first to paul ryan, people who do not want the job, that is a serious issue. i am not sure what the solution is. for congress to function, you need someone in that position who is affected, who can speak to members of both parties, and negotiate with the senator whitehouse. that is a lot of skills are not many members necessarily have. "timejimmy wrote about in ," l.a. will get to that in a moment, but first, maryland, democrat line. stunned at how you glossed over the ethical behavior of this list of speakers and especially about newt gingrich, because newt a cloud offt under
suspicion and larry flynt had offered $100 million to anyone who could come up with dirt on republican members of congress, and he suddenly quit. hastert's -- dennis behavior and it is hard to be speaker of the house because you will be looked at. guest: sorry, i don't mean to gloss over it, this is an issue. on the one hand, it is about members of congress being ethical, but you are right that the attention that speakers get, members of congress that, anyone in washington or in opposite gets, far more intense than it used to the. the stories of you here congress, the house and senate in the 1940's,s 1950's, 1960's that never saw the light of day because the press did not want to know, and that world is gone. that may be another reason that some members would not prefer to be speaker because if you are, you can be assured that you will have a great deal of scrutiny
over your private life that you would not have had 30 or 40 years ago. host: the reasonable net job and they sayiece they have the advantage of math. republicans at 247 folds in the house where it takes 218 to pass along, but if the gop loses the support of those 40 members aligned with the freedom caucus, their tally falls below 218 and nothing gets done. that leaves republican leaders with a hobson's choice, either cut a deal with democrats to take action or fight with one another. the leaders have chosen the latter route, with speaker john boehner saying, he could no longer handle the job at his chosen successor, majority leader kevin mccarthy, bowing out of the race. by itself, it cannot do much more. guest: [laughter] comment on that. the house. caucus has gone attention for obvious reasons in recent weeks.
-- the freedom caucus has gotten attention for obvious reasons in recent weeks. or have been times in our history where a groups of members of the majority party have organized to say we are unhappy with our leadership and we wanted to change. this happened in the early 1920's when republicans went to nine ballots to elect a speaker because the group of progressives said, until you change the rules, we will not collect your nominee. going back to 1910, another group of progressives rebelled against canon and sought to have the rules change because they were unhappy with his autocratic methods. in some ways, this is not an unusual situation. what makes it different is that from the right end of the spectrum as opposed to the of the housembers freedom caucus have trouble getting democrats to go along if they have another nominee. it is happening in the party, not on the house floor. this is the battle we are watching from a distance as we try to figure out what the
caucus ones and how they might be put together, if they can get any of it. host: our guest is professor matthew green from catholic university, the book is called "speaker of the house." michael is next from pennsylvania. caller: thank you for taking my call, thank you for c-span. enthralled by the process or problem we are having, although, i think it is a good turn of events for the republican party. i was wondering what he thought of the candidate such as marsha is somewhato thought of as a tea party-kind of a person, but has many years in the house and has dealt with many of the other leaders. she could be the first woman speaker of the house, well, i guess that is not true, nancy pelosi, but what does he think of that kind of a selection? host: the first republican
speaker and others have mentioned kathy morris rogers from washington state and she says she is not interested, so on those two names? those arehink examples of folks would be strong candidates and would have a lot of strength to bring to the position. the first single republican speaker of the house, which it be historic. be historic.d it goes back to do they want the job? good candidate and they do not want it, i suppose 218 members of the house could go ahead and nominate them anyway and say their name and they would get elected, but i doubt they would keep the job and we would end up at square one. host: let's go back to the announcement by john boehner, republican from ohio, who announced after 5.5 years on the job that he was stepping down. john boehner: it has become clear to me that this prolonged leadership turmoil would do irreparable harm to the
institution. this morning, i am for my colleagues that i will resign from the speakership and resign from congress at the end of october. as you have often heard me say, this is not about me. it is about the people, the institution. just yesterday, we witnessed the awesome sight of pope francis addressing the greatest legislative body in the world. i hope that we will all keep his .all to live by the golden rule last night, i started thinking about this and this morning, i woke up and i said my prayers, as i always do, and i decided, today is the day i will do this. as simple as that. host: that was john boehner, the day after pope francis, his historic visit to the u.s. capital, go back to your earlier point that if there is no successor to john boehner right now, is he any -- is he in a
strong position that he was a few weeks ago? guest: a lot of people argued that is the case because he won't stay so he doesn't have to worry about making majority party so he can negotiate more easily. that seems possible, but it does not avoid the possibility of leadership turmoil. if you says he will bring up the bills that the party does not want but have the past and i am sticker and i do not care if i had the job or anyway, that could lead to turmoil, unrest, and they could want to get rid of it now and that hurts the party brent and i don't think any speaker wants to go down in history as someone who was forced out. he may be stronger on the one hand but i am not convinced it allows them to do all kinds of things. export,u have the import bank, the debt ceiling that has to be raised by november the third, the budget deadline on december 11, the transportation bill which has to be finalized before the end of the month. guest: those are big deadlines and they are making a lot of
observers nervous about how the house will proceed. a lot of folks inc. that it will get taken care of -- a lot of folks think it will get taken care of at the last minute because the legislative process takes time. they have said that the stuff is not be moved to the process to the stage where would be ordinarily to build a majority based in the majority party, so unless someone steps up quickly to be speaker and take on these things, it may well be that it falls back into john boehner's lap. host: alice joining us on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you particular call. -- thank you for taking my call. the last speaker of the house that we had that really did anything was tip o'neill and president reagan. aiken that day, they would make deals -- back in that day, they
would make deals and things moved along. there was disagreement, but they could come to some kind of agreement as well. as long as they have people like ted cruz, no wonder nobody wants the job. ted cruz and some of the others are just obstructing everything, shutting down the government, and that kind of stuff, it is stupid. cheney wasd of dick for thed as running job, but that would be a disaster. he cannot bring himself to say president obama, his lips tremble to say that because he is a [indiscernible] that would really be sad. thank you. guest: a couple of things, one, theink you rightly point to fact that as speaker, you have to know how to support your party and negotiate with the president, even if the president
is of the other party. one of the things i talk about in the book is past instances like ones with tip o'neill, or the speaker negotiated with the president of the opposite party. it is notint out that only tip o'neill in recent years who has been able to get things done. speakers have, i argued in the book, then able to enact legislation -- been able to enact legislation. the other thing, too, i also do newentirely agree with some stories that have said tip o'neill and ronald reagan got along well and work together. there was some negotiation but a lot of opposition and tip o'neill and ronald reagan were not the closest of friends. on issues like funding for nicaragua, t-bone would spot reagan on that over and over again. it was not all sunshine and roses between them. 'sst: one point to the caller
comment, using a word many people find offensive and we apologize for that. as go to letif from baltimore. -- let's go to letif from baltimore. caller: good morning. when they want to elect the speaker, the minority and the press make it easier about it and the growing majority was more than the majority as a -- majority. as a result, many people do not care to be the speaker of the house even though they have the majority vote. the person we are talking about in the tea party, talking about view, we felt like the minority of the voice more than the majority, so how do we address that in this modern state of our politics? guest: great question.
i think that probably since newt gingrich, the office speaker has become a high-profile and partisan one as far as the public is concerned. a speaker first becomes speaker, a lot of times, people do not know who the speaker is. over the course of months and years, they end up becoming strongly supported by members of their party and opposed by members of the opposite. we are seeing with john boehner that a lot of conservative republicans aren't happy with boehner and are voicing their opinions about who the next speaker should be. this is unusual in our history since in the past it was dealt with within the house. the closest analogy is the mid-19th century on the issue of slavery. it was so important that members of congress went public and said they did not want this person because of provisions on slavery and that is not a good model to follow because there were serious deadlocks in the house over the balloting for the next
speaker. i do not know how to solve the problem but it adds a layer of complexity to the process of choosing. host: in the post-world war ii era, have they been changes in the way the speaker seven elected? has it always been secret ballot? guest: same process, so each party chooses their nominator secret ballot and the present their nominee to the floor. every member is called in our political order and says their vote is for speaker. host: there is this from james who says -- have they been changes in the speaker's post congressional year careers? guest: great question. we have had speakers who have lived longer and past speakers who often died in house like sam rayburn, but we have had speakers who left office or either stay in the house, so they lost speakership like nancy pelosi, or they leave the house like newt gingrich and pursue other careers. i did not know of that there is a pattern with newt gingrich who remains a public figure and ran
for president, but on the other hand, jim wright, who went into retirement and went to texas, tcu, helped develop his library, so there are different approaches that x speakers take, but this is a relatively new environment and it would be interesting to do a study on that to see where speakers go after they leave the speakership. host: tip o'neill did some television commercials. guest: [laughter] i forgot about that. you can do that, too. host: let's go to peter in kentucky. go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you, c-span. excerpt from a report that was written on adolf hitler by the office of strategic services back in the 1940's and i would like to attach it to the freedom caucus.
i quote -- "his primary rules would never allow the public to cool off, admit they were wrong, never concede that there may be some good in your enemy, never leave room for alternatives, never except blame, concentrate on one enemy at the time and blame him for everything that goes wrong. people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one, and if you repeatedly greatly enough, people will sooner or later leave it." that is why you have your problem with the freedom caucus. guest: it is interesting that you draw that comparison. i hesitate to attribute motivation to members of the freedom caucus. i think they are relatively diverse. pointed of people have out the preferences or tactics in a negative light. on the other hand, to be fair, many of the members have strong views on issues. viewshem, they feel their
are not being heard in the republican conference and they are unhappy with some of the weight the members had been punished -- some of the way the members have been punished or kicked off for temporarily moved. for them, i think organization is key. organized, they can protect each other and seek out changes. i would also note that their interest in procedural change, which could lead to policy changes, but i think for them it is important, in part, to have a more open process, legislative process. i think that is their perspective. host: a frequent treater on the on the -- tweeter network -- didn't tip o'neill to an american express tv commercial? host: thank you. elizabeth on the republican line. caller: good morning. i was wondering what you think darrell issa's chance would be? guest: [laughter] it is hard to say at this point. i do not know that there is the
strongest, to be honest, if i recall correctly, when he first declared, he said that support for speakership would rise organically. history shows that really do folks get elected to leadership positions in congress without organization and whipping post to get votes. my comment alone, i am not sure he has the support he would need. important ishand, who else is funny. if he is going to be one of the only candidate and other folks are considered front-runners and they do not run, he could have a good chance of getting elected speaker. host: steve from west virginia, good morning. good morning. i think you're guest nailed it when he said it is so hard for republicans to come up with a speaker because they have to work with the democrats and president. the official position of part of that party is to not work with them at all. i have a suggestion for speaker
joe biden in the spirit of partisan, nonpartisanship and discussing the real issues which is what your show is so good that and real solutions. i think it is time for that in our country, badly, badly needed. thank you. host: he would go from a second to third in line for the president. guest: but better than not being in line at all, i suppose. the viewer hits on something about the speaker which is it does not have to be a member of congress. there is no reason not to think creatively. host: when you put together your book, what surprised you the most? guest: they were a lot of things that surprised me. i think one of the things that surprised me was even speakers who have been viewed as laid-back or letting other people viewed the bulk of the work have been very assertive. sam rayburn, for instance, a lot of people argue that he kind of
let them do the work and was not assertive, he let the members work their way, but time and again, as i found in research, he was not unafraid to interfere with the legislative process, go to the floor, lobby members, committees to get the outcome that he thought was good for the party for himself. host: practically and the book is called "the speaker of the house: a study of leadership." thank you. larry david, who is cocreator of seinfeld, among those appearing on "snl" and a parody of the cnn debate that included the five democratic candidates and anderson cooper. [applause] now that we have met those people, let's forget the real candidates. former secretary of state hillary clinton. [applause] thank you for having me. i think you are really going to like the hillary clinton that my team and i have created for this
debate. she is warm, but strong, flawed, yet perfect. relaxed yet racing. he tore the white house like the t 1000 from terminator. and from the state of vermont, senator bernie sanders. [applause] >> hello, hello. enough with hello, let's do this. >> senator sanders. how are you? >> i am good. i am hungry, but i am good. [laughter] and now, if you do not mind, i will [indiscernible] >> go right ahead. >> we are doomed! we need -- millions of people on the street and we have to do something and we have to do it now!
[laughter] yourself. pace before we begin, we at cnn went to say a quick word to vice president joe biden, if you decide to run at any time tonight, we will happily make room on the stage. no presh, but we would love to have you, wouldn't we? >> uh-huh. >> let's get started. host: from "the saturday night live" program and that was the playingr of "seinfetor of "sei" bernie sanders. we will continue the conversation tomorrow morning. iran nuclear deal takes effect tomorrow and michael singh will talk about what is next for the u.s. and the p5+1. former agriculture secretary dan glickman, now with the bipartisan center to talk about trade and agriculture as part of
the tpp debate and stephen ob lemacher focusing on social security benefits. no increase for 2016, but what does this mean for retirees and the program? that is tomorrow morning. "newsmakers" coming up next. reminder to check out bookstv in austin, texas, as day to continues. enjoy the rest of your weekend and have a great week ahead. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >>