american history tv, saturdays on c-span2, exploring the people and events that tell the american story. bob richards talks about the history of the park and the tories that were there for 40 years. a memoir of life with dwight d. eisenhower 1961-1969, he talks about his leadership in the military and the forces that shaped him, exploring the american story. watch american history tv saturdays on c-span2 and find the full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org/history. >> next, journalists covering the upcoming midterm elections analyzed former president trump

's influence on the republican party and have it might impact results on election day. >> i would like to welcome to c. >> the trajectory of the republican party ahead of november, especially former president trump's influence over the gop. we'll start with a moderated conversation for about 15-20 for questions and comments. a -- question or a comment, there is a box on your screen.

before we start, i would like to introduce our moderator. he's a journalist and author and a fellow at gms. he's reported periodically for the u.s., working for the site. he recently served as head of strategic communications at the office of the federal president of germany. martin, thank you for moderating the conversation. martin: it is a pleasure. i welcome our two panelists. jessica taylor is the senate and governor's editor for the co-political report with eddie walter. previously, jessica was a political reporter for a national public radio for five years, where she covered elections and breaking news ranging from the white house to both chambers of commerce, and

also covered statewide elections. she was a contributing author to the 2020 edition of the almanac of american politics. and was promoted senior author for the 2022 e edition. the first woman ever to hold that position in the book's 50 years history. her analysis regularly appears in the wall street journal, new york times and numerous other publications. then there's andrew to sit area. he's a very accomplished reporter for politico, covering the senate, national security and foreign policy. he previously covered house investigations into the trump administration and joined politico from the daily beast, where he covered congress with a focus on national security, foreign affairs and senate campaigns. he previously worked at bbc news. so, welcome to both of you.

we are going to talk about the church during of the republican party ahead of the midterms and the 2024 presidential election. please feel free to jump into the discussion whenever you feel like it, so that we start with the first question, without further ado -- it seems ahead of the midterms, jessica, and the 2024 race that the more the judiciary comes down on donald trump, the more firmly his supporters stand by him. and the more his chances increased to run and win again. is that right? is donald trump and vulnerable? -- invulnerable? jessica: um, after the raid at mar-a-lago, we have seen a

consolidation of his supporters, but what i am looking for this year is let there is\ to the candidates that donald trump supported in critical senate races. because he has gotten behind some weak candidates that are jeopardizing a very bearable climate to win back the senate. he has supported weaker candidates in arizona. in pennsylvania, especially, backing dr. oz. who is now in a -- who's trailing the democrat. we just moved our reading -- rating from tossup to leaning democrat for that race. herschel walker in florida, who has a history of domestic violence. and is not very articulate himself. and, so these key races really

are ones that i needed to win back the senate, really. it is not just trump has gotten behind weaker candidates, he has also kept out stronger candidates from running, simply because he is grudges against them because they do not believe his big liar that the election was stolen. governor doug ducey in arizona is term limited. if he had been running i think this would've been a competitive race and doug ducey would've had the edge of our mike kelly there. and a very popular republican in new hampshire, the only primary where we do not have a nominee for. the primary will be next month, but there is a possibility a weaker candidate could emerge there. so he could consolidate support in the primaries, but these are primaries where you only have to get about 30% of the vote because it is very crowded.

it is not a consensus behind these candidates by any means. the president's first midterm election is supposed to be about the president. one strategist said last week that we have never seen it about a former president. that is the danger that it is becoming, are voters going to be turned off so much by these trump style candidates that are running for governor as well in arizona, michigan and wisconsin, that they remember why they did not like trump. and that sort of trumps, no pun intended, where joe biden's numbers are. we have seen an uptick in the democratic numbers. they have had legislative successes with the inflation bill and other climate provisions in there with that bill. but i think particularly, the decision that sent roe back to states on the question of abortion has energized the

democratic base. when i talked to republicans, republican strategists, they kno w that they are frittering away a good opportunity. i spoke with republican senators and they know that trump is influencing the party, but they still cannot say anything because they risk a backlash. so, it is really confounding for them how they try to still win, because donald trump has cost them the house in 2018, he got them the senate in 2020, and i think the house is likely to flip based on redistricting. but he could cost them a senate majority, too. martin: andrew, do you think that the system favors the more extreme positions? does trump harm the republican party more than he helps them? andrew: i think we will get a pretty certain verdict in

november on that question, but to piggyback off of what jessica mentioned, mitch mcconnell has had an east coast, that in the primary you have to send the most delectable republican to the general election, right? mitch mcconnell has talked for years and years about how republicans have been ill-served by candidates like christine o'donnell and todd akin and others, who might be favored among the republican base, and in this case might be favored among the donald trump supporting crowd within the base, and with the former himself, of course, but the problem is that those are not always the most electable candidates. doug ducey is a prime example. chris sununu in new hampshire. i can tell you that senator haskins was relieved when governor sununu announced he was not going to run for that seat. in doing so, he had some

interesting comments about the way the senate works today that was really, it really rang true for those that cover the senate every day, talking about how the institution is not really built for getting things done. how being governor is a much more, you know, suitable position for him. so, i think that all of those factors combined make the terrain for republicans right now very, very difficult. and i think the former president's influence will continue to be, you know, a very problematic thing for people like mitch mcconnell, who even acknowledged yesterday or two days ago at an event, where he said the house is winnable for republicans, but the senate less so. and people in donald trump's crowd saw that as mitch mcconnell throwing in the towel and giving up. i saw it as an acknowledgment of

reality on his part, seeing that many of these candidates are, as jessica mentioned, are weak candidates. they are people running in states that republicans have historically been successful in, like arizona and georgia, for example, where they might lose. and pennsylvania is another example because donald trump decided to get into that primary early on and endorsed dr. oz. now, suddenly the seat held by a very reliable fiscal conservative republican in the past could flip to the democrat. and i think that mitch mcconnell sees that and acknowledges at that reality. and that's an acknowledgment on his part that something must change between now and november. martin: let's turn to the republican party. do you think that moderates still have a chance? jessica: they have a chance when there's election reforms.

in the house, we have seen the 10 republican members of congress at that voted to impeach trummp, many have -- donald trump, many have retired or have been beaten in primaries. ones who have won, they have been inoculated. and the only senator up for reelection this year that voted to convict trump his lisa murkowski in alaska. she's facing a republican challenger who has been endorsed by donald trump, to her far right, chile -- kelly chewbacca. but alaska implemented this top four runoff system. so, the top four, everyone runs in the same primary regardless of party and at the top four candidates, which was held last week, advance to the general election. from there, you have a ranked voting system, which maine also

employees, so you have to get 50%. it is arguably more democratic because you have to get a majority of votes. you have an instant runoff system. and markowski is in a position for reelection because of that. we saw that in washington as well with jamie her butler, who was not as lucky, but another congressman was. and when it has been places where primaries have runoffs, we have seen them -- you have to get more, but again some of these trump candidates have a ceiling.when you are not required to get a majority of the vote you can win with that much. when you have more moderate candidates or more electable candidates in that vote. at that is what we have seen in arizona and pennsylvania. i think the answer is we need some different types of election

reforms in this case because it sends more moderate people to congress. where the partisanship has come from is we have lost that middle, the crossover votes. it's striking to me, and i have looked back to elections going back after 1980, and there were 45 senators that represented a state that voted differently from their party in the most recent presidential election. today, there are only six members of congress that that is true for. so that means little incentive to reach across the aisle because you will be forced into a primary unless you have one of these runoff systems or a primary where they requira runoff and a 50% majority. martin: what are the chances for reform? si there enough support -- is there enough support? andrew: i am skeptical. i'm the covering the debate in the senate lately. there does not seem to be

interest because, they are working in a system that rewards you if you are not working across the aisle. if you are not sort of one of those, one of the traditional dealmakers in the senate. i think of people who are retiring, like rob portman in ohio, pat toomey in pennsylvania, and who they could be replaced with, assuming the republican ends up winning the races. look at rob portman and you see somebody who is moderate, very much has worked across the aisle. could be replaced by j.d. vance, who is a very outspoken supporter of donald trump. he came out against, for example, the ukraine aid package where as a senator portman is among the most, one of the strongest supporters of ukraine in all of congress. in pennsylvania, senator toomey was someone who voted to convict former president trump in his second impeachment trial.

and hash shown streaks of moderation, being independent you little bit. he could be replaced by somebody like dr. oz. so, i think you are seeing these folks in the party, particularly on foreign policy issues, being influenced by donald trump and being rewarded when they take these positions that are more in line with the base, but very turn off the leadership of the party, like mitch mcconnell. i remember sitting down with mitch mcconnell for an interview after the $40 billion ukrainian aid package passed and he was very much touting it as a victory, even though 11 members of his own conference voted against that package. and at the same time, people like j.d. vance were slamming it as a waste of money and in the u.s. should not be helping ukraine. mitch mcconnell has worked hard to stamp out that neo-isolation streak in the republican party

right now and it is getting harder for him to do that, especially when that group of republicans, led by people like josh hawley in the senate right now, grow louder and gets more influence because of the fact that this is a position and that is more supported by members of the republican base. in this case, this year, the candidates are reflecting that, like j.d. vance. so, i think that this is a really difficult issue for republican leadership to try to navigate. and we have seen mitch mcconnell really tried to stamp it out but he has not been successful. martin: when you look at j.d. vance, who in my view has done a complete turnaround since he had written his book, which is well known. why donald trump got elected -- you sometimes have the feeling that there are two americans.

obama once talked about that there is no red or blue america, there is only the united states of america. but from my perspective as an observer from the outside, it seems that there are two parts that do not have any bridges. how do you view that, jessica? jessica: i remember covering john edwards on the campaign trail and he talked about that. it was the americans that have and the americans that do not have. there is a split because there is so little incentive to work together. if you, the moderate democrats, like joe manchin and kyrsten sinema, they just beat hillery every single time and it there are poles about how unpopular joe manchin is, that he votes with his state. if you want a democrat from west virginia, joe manchin is the best you will get. but you have democrats wanting to primary him, and i am light,

good for you, you will lose the sea in west virginia. it's hard, because it does not just happen on the right. we have seen it happen on the left, certainly, with far left members trying to hold this purity or wanting the party to move further left, and some of that stuff has damaged their party last cycle, certainly.t h d find -- the defund the police movement really hurt democrats in the house. they were expected to pick up seats and they ended up losing seats that now have a slim majority, which they could lose in 2022. something like that. ok, you can go into the details. we do not really want to defund the police. we just want to move around money. if you are explaining and politics, you are losing -- in politics, you are losing. there will be a big loss in the senate when you lose people like

senator toomey and senator portman. i'm from tennessee and we had bipartisan senators working across the aisle, james baker, lamar alexander, who retired, and bob corker. these were people that were beloved in the senate because they worked across the aisle. there should be collegiality among colleagues. even if mitch mcconnell, if they win back the senate, andrew is right on this, he is staring at more republicans like john hawley and ted cruz, and how does he keep them in line because he already has these rabble-rousers and he could get more. that is his frustration, too. he knows that these are not the best candidates. but even if they managed to get dragged across because there is a wave, which i expect things to tie post a labor day when the campaign really kicks in, they will not work across the aisle.

they will want to investigate joe biden. they will want to -- everything. it is driven by how much cable-tv time can i get. rather than who can i work together with. martin: is there any chance to overcome the divisiveness? when you look at the republican party, i remember the wave of 2010, due to the tea party movement. nowadays, it seems that some of the tea party people are actually more in the middle of the republican party than on the right. so does the revolution, the trump revolution, eat his children? -- its children? andrew: you thick about pat toomey, -- think about pat toomey, i think he came up in the tea party movement. and look at -- , wash basically forced out ofe the senate because he acknowledged the reality that he would not be

able to win the republican primary in arizona in order to keep his seat. in congress today, there are no incentives to work across the aisle, right? and when you think of what the republican conference code it look like next year if mitch mcconnell charge, that means he will have to deal with people who are just like people like josh hawley, for example, right? herschel walker in georgia. j.d. vance, ohio. dr. oz in pennsylvania. people who are going to make life difficult for mitch mcconnell. and, you know, there is an interesting question of how a republican congress is going to interact with president biden, right? we know with the house will do, the house will launch investigations into hunter biden and try to dig deeper into these issues that they believe can hurt president biden ahead of a potential reelection bid.

but i think that you will see mitch mcconnell less interested in something like that. and it will be harder for him to manage when he has people like the candidates and potential future senators i mentioned, sort of breathing down his neck all the time. martin: before we turn to the auditors and viewers, one final question. it's the million-dollar question. do you think donald trump is going to run again? will that help or hurt his party for the possibility to win an election in 2024? jessica: republicans are hoping that given everything at mar-a-lago means it will not announce -- it means he will not announce before. it is the biggest gift he can give the democrats right now. that may have delayed that. he is sending everything a sign he is going to run, but i also cautioned that nobody knows what donald trump is going to do until he does it that minute.

he can change whatever, let's see what happens with mar-a-lago and the documents and in the investigations on different things, but i assume -- i was one of the people that did not think he was going to run in 2016 and he announced for president on my 30th birthday. -- my 38th birthday. this is a man who you cannot, even his closest advisors do not know what he is going to do from minute to minute. and, republicans have a lot of better, fresh faces, but they have doubled down -- trump has remade the party in his own image and he demands loyalty or he is going to come after you. the only people who have survived of this is like brian kemp in georgia. it's his kryptonite where he was not successful there. but when i am talking with candidates, i have to ask real questions like do you think the election was stolen? and it is not an actual question

i should be having to ask candidates, but that is the reality of where we are now. and you are only going to get trump's endorsement if you pledge loyalty to him, and that includes the preposterous lies that the 2020 election was stolen when it was not. i would also watch key races on the edge that republicans are trying to make into races, like colorado. we moved it to leaning democrat. there is a moderate businessman he was a candidate there, blue-collar, pro-choice to an extent. no exception for rape and incessant. but most important he said joe biden won the election. that is the standard where we are. so you have moderate candidates in some difficult states. if they had candidates like jho low day in arizona and pennsylvania, we would be talking about different races. what the republican party, the

biggest thing damaging them is not looking ahead. trump continuously wants to look backwards. he wants to look at 2020. they are still talking about audits in different places. if that does not give voters a reason why devote for you other than the election was stolen, we should not certify. martin: andrew, how do you think about that? do you think that trumpism can survive trump? andrew: i think it can. you are seeing it carry on in people at ron desantis, mike pompeo, who are trying to piggyback off of donald trump in some way without sort of getting ahead of themselves and -- they are trying to wait to see what and when or whether donald trump announces. republicans in congress want a donald trump to not announce a presidential run before the midterm elections because that would suck all of the energy out of their efforts to take back

the house and potentially the senate. and what the mayor lago investigation does for donald trump is it really emboldens him. he can use this as another example to say, i am the victim of a witchhunt, the democrats, and the fbi and doj have been going after me for years. and he is using it to his advantage already, that is why he was the one to make public the fbi search in the first place because he believed, and i think correctly, that this helps him with his voters. but i think that republicans, the elected officials and people running for office this year, are very wary of the possibility that donald trump could announce something before the midterm elections. and, it seems like, to jessica's point, all indications are he will try to run for president again in 2024, but in trump world nothing is done until it

is actually done. martin: here is a question from one of our viewers. if donald trump's election deniers do battle in november in the six swing states, what impact do you think it might have on republican politicians and voters going forward? say trump declares for 2024 ahead of them in terms, and republicans failed to take the house, what impact would that have? jessica: i have heard this before that there is a fear that if donald trump announces before republicans do badly, but the blame would be on him. he still remains teflon and it is hard to pin anything to him. he's going to have a view of it wasn't him when it really was. i believe the republicans would still be in power in the senate,

they would have won the georgia runoff elections in 2021, had donald trump accepted the election results, moved on. it would've been a race about we are the one chamber that must be a check on a democratic led house. at least one of them would have been won by republicans and mitch mcconnell would still be senate majority leader. and that did not happen. and everybody in georgia knows it was donald trump's fault. it's a difference between knowing it is donald trump's fault, which we can look at it and say that, but i think that it's a death wish if you politically, if you are a republican candidate, and say that. it is hard to say that out loud. and even though, again i have written, as i mentioned before, if weak candidates win it is on donald trump. if these things that have moved

away from republicans, that this election is more a reference to donald trump, which democrats have tried before. this is the key difference. a year ago in virginia you did have glenn youngkin, the one upset in the virginia governor's race, democrat terry mcauliffe ran on trump. trump was not in the news as much then. he is now. and glenn youngkin did not have to run in a primary where you had to pledge your obedience to trump. but the candidates running now, they sound like donald trump in a primary. in arizona, it's the wife talking about donald trump. they have their wives talking about their families, trying to soften their image. that is a signal to me that there is a weakness there among suburban women voters, those are

the ones that turned up so hard against trump. so, if there is a candidate like trump, they are likely to not vote for them. i think this will be on trump, but will republicans say it? i am doubtful of that. martin: andrew, how is the republican party handling of the split over nato and ukraine, and is the divide larger among the public than it is in congress? andrew: i think it is larger among the public than in congress. i have talked to people like josh hawley about this a lot, who is more in the america first foreign policy vein. his believe is he is more in line with the republican base when it comes to american foreign policy, support for nato, support for ukraine. this was a guy that read before the war started in february said that ukraine should just come out and say we will not join

nato and that would solve everything and putin would not come into ukraine. that was his belief, a belief reflected among the republican base. when you look at the way that the republican conference is structured in the senate in particular, you look at the vote two weeks ago to admit finland and sweden into nato, it was 99-1. the one was josh hawley. he wanted to furnish his and america foreign policy first credentials and put forward the argument that he's the wind that is actually more in line with the republican base than republicans in congress. that is less so the case in the house where you see a lot more anti-ukraine, and nato sentiment bubbling up -- and anti-nato sentiment bubbling up. they had a nonbinding resolution on whether the house, as a

concept, supported it. and you had more republicans voting no. more in the house than the senate opposing the ukraine aid packages, for example, too. this is a house versus senate dichotomy, not just the public versus congress. as i mentioned before, if mitch mcconnell becomes majority leader again, he will have to deal with this in his conference in terms of whether or win another ukraine aid package will be necessary. which at this point that administration has not asked for, but everybody believes as the war gets into the winter months, and at the rate that we are burning through the cash appropriated, that another package will probably be necessary. martin: do you think it will be passed? andrew: it depends when. under the current structure of the senate i think it would be easily passed.

however, if mitch mcconnell becomes majority leader and he has to put something on the floor that divides his conference -- he famously does not like to do anything that divides his conference when he is majority leader, and theses that there will be 25 members who will not vote for the aida bill, that will be tough for him -- aid bill, that will be tough for him. he wants to continue to send weapons and support ukraine. he believes it is the issue of our time right now in a way that is pushing back against china and shows them that we are serious when democracy is threatened around the world. however it will look bad for him and his party if that was the case. so it will really come down to timing. if it needs to get done in the lame-duck period before the new senate is a sworn in, depending on how november turns out, i think it would more likely pass. after january 3, i think that it is much less likely.

martin: so, jessica, another question. are there any reliable insight into the question of how the abortion issue will impact mobilizing voters? jessica: we have seen impact democratic enthusiasm. when you look at the polls, when you apply the likely voter strea m, the republicans have been very much enthused. they were far more likely to turnout, and we see that with biden's approval ratings. it was their own voters frustrated with some action and different things. but this has given them motivation in real-time to say, ok, a right has been taken away. and you have to ask, this is no longer a theoretical question. and i think we have kansas to

show us as actual voters voting in a state that is conservative, that you had high turnout there. and it was a 20 point margin, it was not close. s democrats and independentos are coming out to vote for it, but there are republicans who could cross over as well. i think the question is more, it will have more of an impact in the governor's race is than in the senate because governors represent a -- block and some of these estates, especially states like michigan and wisconsin, that had trigger laws. one of them from the 1800s in the case of wisconsin, that would go into effect and criminalize any doctor that performs the act. the current governor tony evers is up for reelection. he said he would give them clemency. but now his republican opponent,

endorsed by donald trump, says he is not right to do that. you have the candidate and wisconsin making it a focus. especially when she has a republican legislature there. and dixon, the republican nominee, says that she is not for any exceptions, including rape and in test. there's a clip of her saying that a 14-year-old girl is a perfect example of why they should not be given the chance to abort. get that child adopted. abortion is a nuanced thing. it really is. the public is in the middle. they do not want it unlimited up until birth, which is not really happening, and that is usually if it is medical deformities or something is wrong with the child, or the life of the mother or something, but they want it more than six weeks because many women do not even know they are pregnant by that time. so, i see it mattering in the

governor's races. especially with kansas, which gave it an actual focal point, a real time focus group in a way. martin: oklahoma is different, and it is next-door. jessica: yeah. it does look like it will be on the ballot. i would caution that these elections are not up and down, do you want abortion to stay legal or don't you. so you still have to vote for the candidate, so it is not as simple as everyone pro-choice and thinks abortion should be legal will vote for the democrat. it's not as simple as that. in michigan, i do think an up-and-down vote will be on the ballot. but this is sort of energizing. this is what democrats needed to energize voters, in a way.

and so i think that going back, that could really be a pivotal moment that could change the trajectory -- will that enthusiasm persist for november? i think it may even the playing field and has made a neutral environment. i still think republicans have a slight edge because of supply-chain issues, inflation are still top of mind for voters. but abortion is climbing among those issues. martin: what about voters, according to your interviews, andrew, are they most concerned about? inflation, is one of the viewers asked? andrew: yeah. i think that people vote with their pocketbook. there was a poll that came out this week, saying that actually threats to democracy have eclipsed the idea of pocketbook

issues as the most important issue to voters. i hate that that is reflected in a couple things. one, what we have seen with the newest investigation with donald trump. and the second thing is folks did not think they generally six committee hearings would have much of an impact on the elections in november. it was initially thought of as something for the elite d.c. class, and outside the beltway it would not matter much and it would not have an impact on the midterms. but i think that the poll shows that americans are seeing more and more how january 6 unfolded and how certain people in power kind of enabled it and allowed it to happen, even encouraged it, and that is being reflected in candidates we are seeing this year as we talked about before. so i think that, yes, generally people vote with their wallets.

but i think there may be some room to say that some of the more ancillary issues we have seen in washington, and other things that have gotten attention on the cable networks, could be starting to eclipse that. i cover foreign-policy policy and national security on capitol hill, and unless we are in the middle of a hot war, and american troops are somewhere overseas, the house does not -- those issues do not usually impact the midterms. there have only been a handful of elections decided based on a foreign-policy question. but this year, we see a lot of fervor on the right over what we are doing in ukraine, to push back against russia. and i think that that could drive a a lot of these republican candidates. but i still think that as jessica mentioned, inflation and supply chain issues -- everyone

sees it. you go to the supermarket and you see you are being charged more for basic things. and that is certainly helping republicans as they tried to win back the house and potentially the senate. martin: is the ukrainian war of concern to the average american voter or is it played out in congress? andrew: i think it is mainly played out in congress. but i do think it is an animating factor for some, as i mentioned for some on the right, who think that, again in the vein of josh hawley, that we should be involved in this conflict at all. why are we sending $40 billion to ukraine when our country has so many problems at home, right? you could say that about any issue we spend money on overseas. i i think many people would agree with that. what republicans let mitch mcconnell argue -- like mitch

mcconnell argue, that this is an investment with a down payment to make sure that there's no land war throughout europe. because over time that would be much more costly to the united states. and also, another reason why it is important to spend the money now is because, you know, there are some awful chain reactions right now in the energy markets from russia's war in ukraine. obviously we already cut off russian oil, most nations have already done that. and that will open up a of supply chain issues. that is why we saw gas prices so high, and then president biden tried to frame it as putin's price hike, which was partially true but also -- it's an acknowledgment that there are other factors that have led to the higher gas prices for americans, that they have seen over the last year or so. but i think that a lot of it

comes down to how people are feeling economically. and that is what will ultimately determine the outcome. martin: final question, if it turns out that donald trump becomes history, do you see any candidate on either side who would be capable to bridge the gap between red and blue america and overcome divisiveness? is there anyone you see on the horizon? jessica: you have people like harry logan, the governor of maryland, who is certainly making moves. liz cheney, the way she has been framed. you can tell in the last weeks of her ultimately doomed to reelection that she was gaining a larger national audience than she was with wyoming voters. you do not run an ad like she

did with only 70% of the vote. you have democrats cheering them on, but i think that even if donald trump is not there the republican party still gravitating towards trumpism. i think he has permeated that, and you have other candidates aiming to take that on. ron desantis, clearly, would be sort of the heir apparent in a way. he is certainly positioning himself to run. and in a way, he has someone, i have heard this from republicans before, he can get things done, as he has in florida, and it still be in a conservative vein. but you take away the crazy tweeting and the different disasters every few days. he could almost be more productive and get things done because of that, because i think

the trump white house ultimately did not get some of their priorities done because they were continually falling all over each other. i just do not see the republican party, even post a trump, that they have been pulled in this direction for so long that it is in their nature at this point that they want to go for this -- even mike pence, you could not call him a moderate. he is not a moderate in any way, but simply because he did not disobey >> the trump white house didn't ultimately get things lined up they were falling all over each other. i do not see the republican party post drop -- they have been pushing so long that that is the innate nature that they want to boast for. but the republicans are trying to -- even mike pence you cannot call mike pence a moderate he is not a moderate in any way form or shape. in that he did not disobey the

constitution and of try to overturn the election results on january 6 -- he's not going to get any traction because of that. >> any final remarks or observations. >> i will say when it comes to ron desantis he knows how washington works. if he were president and needed to get hit priorities through congress he would know how to do that. under donald trump, the white house staff is focused on containing the boss who are to his various tweets and other broadsides. and donald trump did not really care about how it worked. he wanted to blow off everything and try to get things done his way. and what he ended up realizing is that it was a case study that this idea if you want to change washington you have to operate within the system. and we saw so many examples of whether it was his efforts to build a border law for his efforts to crackdown on illegal

immigration or things like that. he never really understood how it worked in congress with those respects. i remember when chuck schumer and him were negotiating over the government shutdown and chuck schumer put on the table $25 billion and donald trump would just allow dreamers in the u.s. for them to have legal status. and donald trump said no. and i feel like a typical republican politician would actually think about that offer and say maybe there is room for negotiating there. he took it completely off the table even though it would have satisfied his top campaign balances. so i do think ron desantis will be able to effectively work in the system but he has very trampy for lack of a better word in terms of what he believes policy wise and ideologically he will be similar to donald trump. >> thank you for your great analysis you too. thank you for your insight and

thank you our reviewers for your questions and i wish you a good day. and a fine week and hope to talk to you again sometime in the near future. and we maybe have seen the results. goodbye. have a good day. bye-bye, thank you so much. >> thank you. >> over the past few months, the january 6 committee has conducted a series of hearings revealing the findings from its investigation. all week, watch c-span as we look back at the committee's eight hearings featuring previously undisclosed evidence, depositions and witness testimony in the attack on the u.s. capitol. tonight, at eight eastern. cassidy hutchinson aided to white house chief of staff mark meadows appears before the committee she shares her experiences leading up to the days -- the days leading up to and during the attack -- limo.

watch tonight on c-span or anytime on demand at c-span.org. >> and all of us together, can change america. and make america great again. as it was under general ford. and q and god bless you. >> the president who made -- famous. gerald ford as described by minister billy graham -- 1999 the gerald ford museum in grand rapids michigan. wait, you do not remember associated gerald ord with agate. strap on your seatbelt because this episode of the c-span podcasts weekly you are in for a few more surprises. >> i am asking you as i ask all americans, in these months of decision, please join me as we take this new path -- you and

your forbearers built our nation and now, please help us rebuild it. and together, we will make america great again. thank you very much. [applause] >> you can find the weekly on c-span now our free mobile app or where ever get your podcasts. >> live sunday, september 4 on in-depth. you see governmental studies steven hayward will be our guest to talk about leadership, ronald reagan's political career in the american conservative vote he is the author of several books including the age of reagan series greatness and patriotism is not enough. about the scholars that change the course of conservative politics in america. going into conversation with your phone calls, facebook comments, text, and tweet. in-depth with