tv Politics Public Policy Today CSPAN December 9, 2011 10:30pm-6:00am EST
actual misdeeds done and then covered up to obviscate what actually happened. >> that is interesting. part of how these things play out is who runs congress, right? for the first two years of barack obama's presidency, the committees that typically look into these things, government oversight committees, they were in the hands of a friendly democrats. you had nobody are to actually doing it. there has been 10 months where issa, upton, and others have had subpoena power. give us time, right? they're beginning to get to the
bottom of things. in fairness, they do not know all of the facts on solyndra. we do not know the full conversation between the white house and some of the people that invested in solyndra. with fast and furious, there is more coming out. could it not be argued that the investigations have only just begun? >> in terms of both, i think one of the issues is how much global of internal correspondence about these matters will be released to the public? attorney-general eric holder testified yesterday on fast and furious and one of the issues was how much his department
would be releasing about the gunrunning operation that went awry. there will be an effort by republicans in the house judiciary committee, chairman issa, and others to continue to stoke this to paint tarnish on administration that has been largely squeaky clean. one other point i want to make about fast and furious as people do not know how it eroded. -- how it arose. one of the important details about how this occurred is that there was a conservative blogger and he was someone who advocates for protecting second amendment rights even if you have to engage in violent
action. he is not necessarily someone you want to affiliate with, but he has been at the forefront of releasing documents and started the controversy of the atf agent that not gone down. -- that got gunned down. he was really at the core of trying to push to republican party in the republican members of congress to seize on this. the nra joined in on this once they saw there was an appetite for it. you have to remember where the origins lie and how they came about and explain why they even are being talked about. >> the other reason that fast and furious is being talked about is because there is a pretty shocking story behind it. there was a border agent killed with guns that were allowed into mexico because the government, through this, they were trying to track down purchases and
allow them to be sold to people who were then going to transfer them to drug traffickers, which is pretty appalling. i do think it fits into the incompetence basket rather than scandal, but it is a big piece of incompetence. >> at according to the attorney general, he is not trying to deny it, he has been very clear in saying that this was a mis calculated terrible effort that went awry, and something they would not want to do. >> the u.s. attorney in arizona has already resigned over this, and there were probably be more resignations by the time we're done with it. they're trying to get the assistant attorney general in the criminal division, trying to get his scalp now. they might. i'm not sure that they would necessarily be wrong in that. this is a legitimate area of inquiry.
i think people who are on the more progressive side of the debate do not want to get into their own politicized corner where they say anything they are looking into on our side is illegitimate. it is a legitimate area, but one always ends up happening is that the people who are prosecuting the case politically overreach so now they're trying to make it seem as if the atf and the justice department were doing this in order to hurt second amendment rights and somehow discredited them. >> the operating theory on the conservative side with that the obama administration intentionally allow these guns to go across the border and create this problem so that they could then, therefore,
regulate the second amendment. >> which is completely preposterous. it is the sort of thing that discredits the more legitimate areas of the inquiry in the gross incompetence that lays behind continuing in this bush era program. >> absolutely right. you mentioned the conservative blogger. this is what has really changed, to me. going back to some of your theories, i was in the clinton administration. i was there all through the lewinsky chapter. it was a presumption on the right that the press was liberal and supports democrats. if you were in the clinton administration coming you did not feel that. you felt the press was going after every possible scandal with hammers and tongs. there were wanting a subpoena for the christmas card records
of the white house. we brought the country to a standstill over an affair. that really shifted, i think. what seems to me that what was driving the pushing and scandals that really were not scandals verses not allowing scandals that really work to be focused on. what was pushing these pseudo- scandals -- and this is just my pet theory, was that you have a polarized conservative big media, big in the sense of millions of followers in talk radio, christian broadcasting, that were sucking of the investigation and reporters and committees on the hill, and they were blasting dad out and creating a drumroll of a
potential scandal that the right-wing media then, at some point, felt compelled to cover, but nothing on left. what changed, to me, was the creation of liberal media, if not as big then certainly as active and potent on the liberal side. what you have now is if read state, news max, drudge, hannity, someone makes the charge that barack obama has misused the czars. that was the main charge that the right have for months and
months against obama, that he was appointing people as policy "czars" and it was unconstitutional because they were not accountable. outlets like thinkprogress, and evening hours of msn b.c., there were looking at the numbers. richard nixon had as many as barack obama at this point in his administration. there was a burst. some of these of bubbles within the blogosphere so that the mainstream media could hang back and say they would let those two battle that out. this was back and at the end of and there were really big questions about ethical abuses
and criminality and then they would jump in with their investigative team to go at it. >> absolutely right. the only time that the white house would get concerned about the right wing charges was a face of the mainstream media would be picking it up and there were questions about van jones or whenever the fox story of the day was. then they would cut their losses, fight back, take a different direction. they did let the new liberal media do some of their defense work. pretty much every night there is some kind of silly new thing going. yesterday, several republican candidates called obama "an appeaser." to which he replied, "ask osama bin laden if i am an appeaser." they will have the rachel maddow's of the world the first
line of defense. the other thing that changed after clinton was that times just got more serious. the reason that bush had the record of going the most months scandal free it is because of 9/11. suddenly, obsessing over scandals seemed beside the point. there were many months when there was not a lot of scrutiny. i think that obama has benefited from that, as well. reporters have had better things to do. >> can i express frustration from the progressive media side of this? people during the bush years worked very hard to focus on the facts and things that were actually wrong that needed more attention and struggled, quite frankly, to get attention for these items that i think deserve
the attention and we are now in an age where the right is winning because they are at least have a conversation about meritless arguments. the fact you have a birth certificate controversy exists in our public debate for as long as it did demonstrates that, first of all, there is no level of accountability that these people continue to push for more and more accountability. fox news is playing a very prominent role, but also burgeoning websites on the right that have been pushing things that are completely meritless so it makes our job it easier to push back on them. they do need it the bonking and -- debunking and it is easy
to do so, but it is exasperated to continue to watch some of these rhetorical bombs continue to get attention and distracting the president from things that he should be doing. >> let me agree with you on that, and maybe disagree in another. i agree in that your right. there have been any number of unbelievable red herrings that have kind of caused a movement of charges that fizzled. for months, fox news and others were charging that the administration was giving waivers on health care to companies, unions, and so forth, insurance companies who were a part of the weak democratic coalition, health care waivers from the affordable care act, obamacare.
>> they tried to call a monstrous scandal. >> was part of obama as gangster government. the republicans managed to convict the accounting office to look into it. the government accountability office, rather, and they did a monthlong investigation coming back saying there was no evidence that these waivers were given for any other reason than those stated by the administration. that was one that did not rise to the level of public consciousness. you watched fox news, you know about it. i bet not one in 1000 of americans who did not read or watch those things did not know. >> by the administration has not had more problems as something that i did not mention. after the stimulus was passed, they put into place a series of devices to monitor the spending
of $787 billion and the implementation of the health- care bill so that it was not corrupt. they have a guy running the oversight of the recovery act who is a very tough inspector general. they got inspector general's across the government to are -- who are very tough. of the amazing thing about that $787 billion is there's no evidence of any of it being stolen. you could say it was spent on the wrong things or not leading in the stimulus as a matter of economic policy. some people will say that it works since we now have evidence that the economy would be in much worse shape if it were not for the stimulus but that is a policy thing. no one can say the money was stolen, as opposed to what happened during the recession when you had these monstrous government programs. there was no oversight and a lot of the money was just
completely wasted or went into someone's pocket. partially because of this recovery.gov website, i found out how much stimulus money was being spent in my town. you could go into that level of detail because of the technology. it has been relatively scandal- free. >> i think that is a great point. there are a number of these things where there have been efforts by the conservative medium to find this. we did a story on this for "washington monthly" where there was some regional conservative journalistic websites that had done very good investigative work, but they
attempted to show from dealings in the spending of the stimulus money. we actually look at one of their charges where they said money was spent, thousands of dollars, in nebraska and on the rehab of a government building that never happened and they hired one person. we actually called the contractors. the contractor, yes, but he subcontracted the work and hired lots of people. that was one phone call it could have made, but they were happy to have that look like a scandal. my friends on the right who do investigative journalism need to hone their skills a little bit more. >> when people were assessing out vice-president biden's record, keeping this claim is something that he did accomplish. >> there may be some regional ones that are doing good, but
it is still a shame that the leading conservative websites that follow very closely continue to play into the manufacturing space. in my mind, one of the first is big government and was responsible for intentionally smearing sherrod at the department of agriculture. it was only after we discovered the full video and explain the content that we saw the damage that was down to one employee and is again showed the power of what i was talking about, the power of the right. i think there should and could be an effort by conservative journalists, by progressives, to actually help uncover incompetency is within government that may ultimately be scandals. if i were picking want to get me into trouble, i think one of
the areas that i thought was particularly relevant was the keystone pipeline controversy that was going to be authorized, for a while. we thought that the state department was. -- was going to authorize it and we knew that there were people who were lobbying the state department who have been high level contributors and members of the hillary clinton campaign and there was a concern there of a conflict of interest. he punted saying they would not make a decision on it and have concerns about the movement. the move the decision on such a thing to after the election. i thought that was a move were people who were looking for a story could have found one, but there was not the kind of digging into policies that there were suggesting they could have uncovered.
milsack threw sherrod over the cliff too quickly. why was he responding so fast before they realized that what she had said in that speech was fine? one explanation was that the naacp had bought what she said was wrong. she was speaking at an naacp event. >> because he had presented that story. >> the deeper reason is because they are so scandal adverse and so interested in not getting a chance to inflate, but they wanted to get it out of the news cycle as quickly as possible. they have been willing to throw people under the bus. >> van jones was clearly another example. the faa director got arrested
for drunk driving. some are merit based and some are merit-less. >> there have been a few others where maybe they would have turned down to do something that was really problematic, but the administration did not want to wait to find out. they shot first and ask questions later. >> think about the difference in presidential styles. you mentioned the army secretary under bill clinton. he had a job in the white house. he was the one you're proved air force one making a flyover of manhattan for a photo op that it was so close to buildings that it scared half of manhattan. was it boneheaded? yes, but was a firing offense? i do not know. >> they asked the white house
counsel's office to look into a. -- look into it. >> was not a spatter stain? >> but it to think about -- a snap thing? >> think about george w. bush and enron. "washington monthly" wrote a profile about tom white and he was surprised he had not been fired. bush was so willing to keep people and hang on to them, very loyal to people who are obviously ones who should have gone. you have quite a range of presidential styles. the thing now is going to ask you and maybe does agree with you on is your right that there has been one manufactured scandal after another, and some of them have not broken into the
public, and others like the birth certificate having go maybe that is frustrating and exasperatingly for those of us in the press to have to cover it and keep showing there's nothing there. is there not also an element of the boy who cried wolf? the president is hit with a scandal. i went through the birther thing, the czar thing, that the public keeps hearing these kinds of scandals that do not pan out, they would be resistant to believing the next one. >> i would hope so. this whole conversation has made thinking about why we love scandals. i put them into two baskets. one is journalists -- mainstream journalists -- have a degree of cynicism about the subjects that they cover,
politicians and government. they have a built-in high degree of cynicism so that when something bad happens they are looking for, potentially, the worst possible outcome or motives behind it. sometimes that may be a useful endeavor and you could uncover some bad motives, but a lot of the times, you see you're just talking about simple incompetence and no motive. the other basket is audience. people do this because it feeds coverage. people do like to watch this kind of thing, and to some degree be to blame ourselves as the audience here in america for the fact that journalists are not chasing the story is that they think people will tune in to come to watch, and read. you sound and that very
optimistic note of people saying that they are sick and tired about hearing the scandals. >> it depends on what the scandal is about. there are definitely scandal fatigue when it comes to things that are complicated and boring and do not really relate your daily life. if they are things that are entertaining, like a sex scandal, there will always be an appetite for that. if there things that really relate to fundamental things, national security of, your paycheck, or something that really hits home, especially in these economic times, then you will have the appetite. the problem for reporters is that, as charlie peters has said, the real scandal is what is legal. it is much harder to get that
story on the air because people who are not paying close attention will say, "where is the crime here?" we have a system of legalized bribery where guys on the hill are owned by the banks and contribute to their campaigns. they do not kill the nomination -- they killed the nomination of richard cordray. why? because they are in the pocket of banks. that is a much bigger scandal than a lot of the ones we have been talking about. why does that happen? what is it not get more coverage? because they are not doing anything illegal. part of it is the vocabulary we have prescribing that what is scandalous is too tied to lawbreaking. >> can i ask a question? do you think one of the reasons president obama has avoided scandal is a personal qualities like discipline in his life and
other things that are personal to him, but what's degree you think ideology, being progressive, or of a left tilt ushers in a government of people who are devoted to a mission of believing that government should work for people nurses a conservative government in which people believe we are only doing bad here, let's pull back the levers and let businesses run free and let people run free and do whatever they want? how much do you think there may be an ideological motives for some of the fact that there is a divergence in scandals? toi think there's something that. if you -- i remember one time i wanted to meet richard nixon and i arranged for him to come to "newsweek."
this was in 1988 and we had a pretty long session with him. i asked him, "how you think ronald reagan will be remembered?" he said, "it depends if you are liberal or conservative. if you are a liberal, you go into journalism, history, government. if you're conservative, you go into business." it was simplistic, but there was some truth to it. governmentoing into basically just so you can make a big score as a lobbyist when you leave government, you know? you're going to be a little more corrupt, if not in a legally narrow definition, but your spirit will be more corrupted than if you're going into government to do some good.
now, there are plenty of progress sense who want to as they say, come to do good, and they state to do well. they become a lobbyist easily come not go through the revolving door, pulled the same shenanigans, so it is not as if -- >> fannie mae and freddie mac being a classic example. ron blagojevich who just got 14 years. >> human nature is human nature. there is something to what your cyan, but i would not push it too far. >> let's open this up to the >> you can watch this program on our homepage at c-span.org. next, our series, the contenders on people who have run for
all of these issues, his legacy really invigorates our current debate. >> for many americans outside of texas, 1992 was perhaps their introduction to ross perot. he had been on the national stage for a while. in the late 1980's, he began speaking out about these issues that he was concerned about. we looked in our video library and our first coverage of ross perot was in 1987. here he is speaking before the american bankers association that year. >> let's look at where we are and take the rose colored glasses off. all of these people saying the fundamentals are sound, i think we have had enough doctor feelgood. i think we are all grown. i think we are tough enough to take bad news. i think it is time to look at the facts. we have a $3 trillion debt by 1988. our debt is being funded by foreign nations at this point.
the greatest nation in the history of man does not have the will to past -- we continue to bridget to pass a national budget. we continue to pass resolutions that put us deeper into debt and we have given up trying to live within our means of the country. there is no correlation between taxes paid in and money spent. we are losing at international business competition. some of our banks have problems, savings and loans as serious problems. wall street is bouncing all over the place. our personal spending habits of our people are as unique as our -- or as a bleak as our federal spending habits. people spend everything they make. all they can borrow and they have no savings. >> 1987, 24 years ago. except for upping the numbers and the fact that americans are saving because of the 2008 crisis, almost every one of these issues could be talked about with the same words today. >> that is correct. remember why he could give that speech, he was a genius at start up operations.
he understood the corporate world. in 1962 he created electronic data systems and ended up selling it a few years before that speech to general motors and became arguably the richest person in texas and was getting on the cover of fortune magazine. he knows what he is talking about as far as how to make a start up business. he was in early on with the internet revolution. the importance of data collection. he had at one point invested in apple with steve jobs. he really wanted the united states in his adult life to be the great country it was of his childhood, a country that fdr brought us through and the great depression. that can do spirit. it fills him up. the fact we were losing in the 1980's to japan a lot, and
today our problems with competing with china. the fact that so many people in congress seem to be bought and paid for. the lobbying in washington, getting rid of lobbyists and corporate corrupt politicians was at the core of the ross perot message. >> this is a call-in program. you make it very interesting. we in a few minutes will put our phone numbers on the screen so you can be involved with the issue that led to see he has -- and hit and his legacy and in politics today. this book was published "disrupting the balance of power." carolyn barta is the author. she is joining us from her home in texas. you knew ross perot as a journalist before many people met hi. -- met him. can you tell us about his roots in texarkana and what shaped the man we knew of a national stage? -- on the national stage?
>> perot was from texarkana. he had an average texas childhood. he lived in a strong, stable middle-class family. as a boy he broke horses and traded horses. he was an eagle scout. even in later tonight i think he -- even in later life, i think he kept all of the traits of the eagle scout. he would set of objectives and goals and try to pursue those goals. he was very much in the texas tradition of the day. as he grew and went to the naval academy and started his own businesses, he was representing as doug said the can-do spirit of texas. his vision was a big, the state was big, there were powerless -- boundless opportunities. the sky was the limit. he really sort of played into what was the texas mythology
with texas politicians who were larger than life, very successful businessman who made a fortune here. they were risk takers, they were not afraid to fail. that was the sort of spirit he had at that i think got him into this thing. >> noting that at the naval academy, he was president of his class the last couple of years. early on he showed leadership traits have the ability to galvanize people under his leadership. that we would see later in his life. just a quick overview of his business career, let's take a look -- he went into business -- he left the navy after four years and went into business and to ibm as a salesman where he became the top salesman for the company. that was in 1957. in 1962 he founded his own company which was electronic data systems. he then sold it to general motors for $2.4 billion and stayed on the board.
in 1988 he founded perot systems. in 2009 he sold that company to dell computers for $3.9 billion. the source of his great wealth. he and his family are known as philanthropists. can you talk about that side of him and his family? >> they have given a fortune to all sorts of charities here in dallas. ross perot himself has made many anonymous contributions in small ways. he has helped individuals without people even knowing about it. there is a hospital here named for margot perot, his wife. he has given a lot of money to the boy scouts. it is amazing their philanthropy. >> you mentioned earlier his involvement with the vietnam pows. can you tell us a little more
what you know about his interest and that issue? how they created a divide between him and later president. >> we mentioned he graduated from the naval academy in annapolis as the president. that is a big deal. he was the sort of person in the navy who believe you are only as good as the guy left behind. he was a great leader. during those years when he was in the navy, he had sometimes had to go and get soldiers that were on leave or got drunk in a foreign town and got them back on the ship. it became sort of a hallmark -- you'd never leave anybody behind. he was very upset during the vietnam war that the united states -- we did not push the pow mia issue in that. -- enough. ross perot stepped into the fray and it did very dramatically went to back channel negotiations with vietnam to say that we want every one of our guys back.
he has become really a hero of the u.s. military veterans for his constant concern about our soldiers and our troops. it recently, i get a top for -- i gave a talk for veterans day in dallas. it was a good group called daughters of world war ii. there were hundreds of world war ii veterans there. i got to talk to ross perot at dinner one night. one of the amazing stories he told me was that recently when our seals team killed osama bin laden, they thought so much of him, our special forces they shipped him a staff. a walking cane of bin laden. he went to fort pierce, florida to the seal museum -- which people should definitely go visit if you are in town on holiday. i think our navy seals should be "time" people of the year.
perot had a stick their with all the seals in attendance, of bin laden. that was just a tribute to how conscientious he is about getting jobs, performance people and his companies, helping veterans whenever he can, particularly the special forces which he thinks represents the best of the best of the american spirit. >> we visited his boyhood home in texarkana. we will show you that. as we are looking at that, we want carolyn barta to talk about his interest with texas governors. >> he was appointed to a couple of task forces, one by former governor bill clements. another one by former governor mark white. clements was a republican, white succeeded him as a democrat. they both asked ross perot to
serve. one was on education reform. i think it just points out how ross perot was always one to speak his mind. he was never afraid to say what he thought. he thought that in the public schools there should be special classes for talented kids. the brightest kids should go to better classes. some of the parents -- texas parents thought that is elitism. maybe we do not want that in our public schools. ross perot very sarcastically said, ok. let's put all the five girls on -- fat girls on the drill team. let's have everybody be the quarterback. it was just sort of an example of how he always spoke his mind. he was never reluctant to take on the top if he was asked to do a job like that for a couple of governors that showed the
democrats and republicans both liked him. for years his name had been mentioned as a potential candidates for something in texas because he was a leader. he was also in the tradition of old-time texas politicians. people like -- going back to sam houston in the republic of texas. that kind of charismatic leader. speaker sam rayburn, lbj, governor john connally, governor clements who was one to speak his mind, governor ann richards who was then a class by herself as well. he was so much like some of these older texans who would just tell it like it is. they did not mind doing the hard work. if he thought it would help the state or the country, he did not
mind doing the hard work to do it. >> let me chime in at that point. one more bit of the perot biography. we want to put this on the screen before we get to his campaign in 1992. a number of eds workers were held hostage. ross perot was personally involved in the rescue of those, something that was later captured in a book. "on wings of eagles." it became a national best seller and later a movie on television. can you talk about how he did this effectively? >> this is an amazing story. in 1979, jimmy carter was president. you had the beginnings of an iranian revolution. two of his workers for his company for electronic data systems had been held captive. he wanted them sprung free. he went and hired former special forces people to go in
and find a way to get that list. -- them loose. he ended up -- they ended up using a rally to spring not just his two employees, but about 10,000 political prisoners got released. they had a rendezvous and they got a very dangerous trip. cloak and dagger type of story. they were eventually able to smuggle out through turkey. this was a highly successful extraction maneuver of getting in there and getting his guys back. he gets back to about the pows and mias. ross perot works and -- he believes in loyalty first and foremost. if you work for him in your loyal to him and his company, whatever he is up to, he will do
anything for you. if you listen to people that know him, that is the number one trade. personal loyalty to people he believes in. >> we have a great photograph. it is of him and richard crenna who played him from the movie. it was shown nationally on network television. it is 1992, set the stage about the reelection of george h. w. bush at how the public was feeling about him. >> remember, he had quite an -- george herbert walker bush had quite of impressive record of foreign affairs. he oversaw the berlin wall coming down, the breakup of the soviet union, the head of the cold war. in 1991, the gulf war which most people thought was a great success of ousting saddam hussein from kuwait. but the economy was stagnant.
by 1992, pat buchanan was going after president bush as having a silver spoon in his mouth and was an elite out of touch -- there was a populist revolt within the republican party. also, you had another resurgence of jerry brown coming in. bill clinton gets the nomination. you have the new democrat bill clinton and george herbert walker bush. suddenly ross perot goes on cnn, larry king, and says i will run as an independent if i can be on the ballot in all 50 states. if i am drafted. i am not going to go out there and run the typical campaign. people want my ideas, the ones we talked debt the outset here, particularly balancing the budget and stopping of outsourcing of jobs. he was opposed to the war in iraq because he thought it was going to be a mistake. special forces should have gone in and killed saddam hussein. he watched his amazing third-
party run and started soaring in the polls and became the darling of the summer of 1992. we will pick up the rest of the story in a little bit. >> let's show that larry king live interview where ross perot announces his willingness to run. >> let's go down to grassroots america were the people are hurting. people are saying, why are we in this mess? first of all, look in the mirror. we are the owners of this country. we do not act like the owners. we act like white rabbits to get programmers from messages coming out of washington. we own this place. >> is there any scenario in which she would run? did you give me a scenario where you would say, ok. i am in. >> if number one, i do not want to. >> i know that. >> if you are that serious, you the people are that serious, you register me in 50 states. if you are not willing to
organize and do that, then this is all just talk. i am saying to ordinary folks, if you are dead serious i want to see some sweat. i want you in the ring. >> let me ask you about how much of a surprise that announcement was by the time it was made in february of 1992. >> i guess it surprised most people. the truth of the matter is, he had been out on the -- making speeches for, you know, several years. in particularly, leading up to the larry king live interview, he had in fact just a couple of weeks before that, he was in tennessee to speak to a business group. he was interviewed from a reporter there. he told him virtually the same
thing. he said if he saw some skin in the game. if people would get in the ring and get him on the ballot, he but think about doing it. nothing much came of that. it was published. nothing much came of it. ross perot was talking to a man in tennessee and another one in florida who were activists in trying to draft him to run. john j. hooker in tennessee, a flamboyant businessman kept calling in and talking to him trying to get him to run. it got to the point where they started talking about, where should i announce? the considered conventional sources like "the new york times," "l.a. times," "wall street journal." he liked larry king live. throughout the campaign, he liked going on talk shows where he could talk and get his message out.
as i was told the story, he had -- john seigenthaler of the tennessean, the editor publisher there formally call larry king live. i am not sure whether he set it up or just told them to ask the question. ross perot said he was going on larry king live to talk about the economy. he made an impulsive statement. he never thought it would go anywhere. the truth of the matter is he had been thinking about this for quite a long time. even three months before, he made a speech in tampa to a group called "throw the hypocritical rascals out." a man down there was trying to do a draft campaign. there were signs "draft perot." 2000 people listening to him speak down there. he was curious about it.
how do you get on 50 ballots? in fact, he asked some of his staff people to do some research to see how you get on the ballot. even mulling it over in his head for a good while, it was a surprise to most of the country. i think he had been doing it for a good while. >> but his challenge to his supporters to get him on the ballot became the subject of carolyn barta's book that she contends is all about the people who followed ross perot and how they were galvanized to move outside of the conventional two party system in support of issues. and this figure leading those issues. we will talk a lot more about that as the program continues. these are back-to-back clips that give you a sense of flavor. we mentioned that ross perot was very critical of the george bush's gulf war. we will hear from that in an
interview he gave to c-span in 1992. immediately after that, also in the spring of 1992, you will hear a clip from a very well- known texas journalist molly ivans who has now passed. -- molly ivins, who is now past. she is very well known in texas politics. she was asked to talk about this texas politician she knew so well. >> they should understand why we are going to war. let's take the example you gave me. it was four months before the white house could figure out why we were doing it. one time it was jobs in the next time it was oil. finally they got it together and it was we had to get rid of nuclear systems and hussain. guess what we have still got? we did not accomplish any objectives. if i knock on your door and say i would like to borrow your son for the middle east so that this guy can have his throne back, you would probably hit me
right in the mouth. >> i was writing about that format they had during the -- that's stupid tax reform idea that they had during the reagan years. i was talking about why it was a bad idea. if you make more than $17,000 a year, you are now in the same tax bracket as h.r. perot. i then added, comma, who makes more than $1 million a year. i made the fatal journalistic error, i did not check. the next day the guys at our business desk in dallas
laughing and saying, ross perot makes $1 million a day. [laughter] then a phone rang and there was an operator saying ross perot calling collect for molly ivans. [laughter] it really is funny. i like the guy. i am sure he is politically incorrect to an extent it would make people's teeth hurt around here. i do like ross perot. he is a hard guy to dislike. there is a lot to like their. the downside is that basically guys who have made a lot of money and business have a hard time working in a system of checks and balances.
the other down side is that the man is slightly paranoid, which is like being slightly pregnant. >> our guest here in washington d.c. is douglas brinkley, presidential historian. and in dallas, carolyn barta. longtime texas journalist who wrote a book about the perot campaign. let's begin your telephone calls starting what ralph watching us in chicago. >> thank you. he missed his chance by not calling for a roadmap to peace on drugs as successful contenders grant used medical cocaine and jfk used speed medically.
washington, jefferson, jackson, and lincoln used medical marijuana. each of our last three successful contenders used both grass and coke medically as well as recreationally. thank you. >> we are really getting at is the so-called war on drugs which became a popular phrase in 1980s in the united states. the problem was all of these urban centers -- whole generations of kids getting addicted to different types of narcotics. his whole life he has been a champion of education. working for public schools in particular, there were public schools where drug gangs were taking over. you could not go into them including in dallas which was a very rough city, people forget, in the 1980's and 1990's. ross perot took a hard line on cracking down on drugs. we had the crack epidemic that starts hitting the united
states after that. it was tough on that issue. if you are somebody who is a libertarian and believes that drugs should be legal in the united states, ross perot would not be on your side. >> matt is watching us in plano, texas. good evening. >> i am very glad you are having this discussion. i want to make a comment and a question. he had a profound impact. here in plano, he ended up moving his headquarters here. because of that, i believe dr. pepper and a few other corporations moved here as well. later on he ended up founding perot systems here as well. he has had a huge impact where i live. i thank him for that. my question is about his choice of stockdale -- p
for vice president. how did that come about? he did not look too good in the v.p. debate. it was a hindrance. i am not sure how many votes that cost him, but it did not make him look good. what was the thinking and a decision behind selecting james stockdale as a candidate? >> in 1992 he chose stockdale. 1996, pate choate, an economist. >> he is one of the greatest americans who ever lived. he is one of the most decorated naval officers in u.s. history. of course, he had been a pow in world war -- in the vietnam war and organized a -- how to have pow resistance. he won something like 26 medals, numerous silver stars, medal of honor winner. he later became president of a naval war college. we are dealing with a very serious person. ross perot admired him.
so lavishly. he thought this was the type of person we needed in government. he chose him as his vice president which is an interesting choice. what people forget in 1992, ross perot did well in the debates. he clearly won the first debate against clinton and bush. some people would say he won all three. that is how he got to 19%. in three debates, he was at 8%. post debates he got up to 19%. stockdale struggled. he only had about one week to prepare. he got out of the gate wrong by making a comment like, who am i? other people had not heard of him before. he actually got a lot of applause when he did the debate but the media want to count on -- went to town on him. he really was not ready for it -- for that media frenzy you have to expect.
it made some people question whether ross perot could be president because some people did not think stockdale had the political skills to be president. on the other hand, they do not come any better than admiral stockdale. i hate that we remember his fumbling of a debate question had not remember what an extraordinary -- the service of the admiral is almost unparalleled. >> spring of 1992 progresses into summer and people who are enthusiastic about ross perot began the work of meeting his challenge in getting his name on the ballot in all 50 states. would you describe to our audience ballot access in this country as it existed in 1992 and how big a task they faced. >> it was a huge task. in order to get on the ballot in any state, you have to meet
the laws of the state. if it is a petition you have to get 100,000 and on a petition or you pay $1,000 -- the range of requirements for getting on a petition is just extraordinarily diverse. in most cases it is very hard because you have to collect all of these petition names. sometimes you have a very narrow window in which to do it in. what happened after larry king live, people started calling the ross perot headquarters in saying they wanted to get in the ring with him. they wanted to do what ever they could do to make him run. they set up a phone bank there at his headquarters in dallas and volunteers came in and manage the phone bank.
they were having people call from all over the country. they set up this sophisticated phone bank where somebody would call in the and if they were from a certain state, would they want to work on the petition drive, did they want to volunteer? did they want to know when ross perot would be next on tv? it would go to -- to answer the person's question. what then the ross perot organization had to do -- perot called an six people from his company and asked them to start figuring out how to do this. how do we get on the ballot in 50 states and start working with people who are volunteering to find out what the law is an estate and to start working to do it. it was an enormous task.
once you get on the ballot and as you reach a certain threshold, you establish a ballot position for the future. ross perot established a ballot access position in 1992, 1996, and even -- he established in 1996 so pat buchanan who ran on the reform party ticket in 2000 had the ballot access and all of the states. initially it is almost impossible. like i said, he never feared doing the impossible. he got his team to work. he got leaders in every state to handle what was needed in that state. >> as the spring moves into summer, ross perot was reaching 39% of public approval ratings.
the two parties were really beginning to take this man quite seriously. bill clinton moving to work his nomination of a new democrat and the incumbent president george bush probably wondering what was happening with this challenge from ross perot. two texans going against each other. can you tell us more about the relationship? >> first off, bush 41 is really a houston figure. it is about international companies at the oil industry. ross perot is working with ibm and with his own data services company. there are different texas industries and a different geography. they got into a terrible feud over the pow and mia issues. he really accused bush and the cia and general of being part of a drug trade and southeast
asia. they were actually doing slush fund monies by selling heroin and other opiates. >> we should interject, george bush was head of the cia. >> exactly. became pretty nasty. there is no love lost between george herbert walker bush and ross perot. that is politics. the bigger question in 1992 as we are talking about this, which just heard about this populist campaign. he put somewhere around $12 million or $30 million of his own money into the game. he was also able to buy tv time. half an hour television commercials. one half an hour infomercial but garnered about 10.5 million viewers. he was following no real rules. george herbert walker bush had been a head of the republican party and clinton was the darling of the democrat party
ross perot was a vital center and trying to champion the middle-class everyday american people purses and special interests. he is the original anti-money in washington guy. that is also an issue we are talking. he saw that was going to be a tumor for us. -- doomo for us. >> let's take our next call from indianapolis. >> how are you doing? >> do you have a question for us. >> on ross perot and bill clinton try to get to neck-to- neck with lyndon johnson and roosevelt, do you think we need to go back and see what we can do about jobs and everything? talking about the republicans and everything. when the republican side with george bush in the white house, you cannot put the problem on
barack obama. we have to come together and make it together for the people. give the people what they want in the country things are going bad. >> jerry reflecting the comments about playing to the middle-class of america. i will move on to darcel from north carolina. >> i was one who signed up for ross perot. i can say i know i was responsible for more than 20 of my friends who i convinced not to vote democratically to vote for ross perot. >> let me ask you, looking back with the hindsight of 20 years, how do you feel about the whole effort for mr. perot? >> first of all, i really appreciate that he went outside of the box. one of his most important speeches was "chicken and
chips." you have to bring that tape out. one knew nothing about chicken and the other was computer chips. i thought that was one of the most laughable moment. both president bush and president clinton had no idea what was going on. they looked sort of an dumfounded. i was very proud that my sorority sister was the head of that. she moderated that debate. i was somewhat concerned about his daughter. i hope you guys mentioned something about his daughter was supposed to be assassinated. they were going to take him off -- he was going to leave the campaign. that was a curiosity as well. i'd was not really quite sure his feelings about race. i felt comfortable. he had a very large turnout in
flint, michigan at the hyatt regency. there were all kinds of uaw people there. they were very excited about this man. he seemed to be very sincere. when he was telling somebody who volunteers you need to put some skin in the game, he will not put all of his money he yard and see it go for naught. i think he was very responsible for any other third candidates party to be involved. >> let me jump at that point. thank you so much. it was interesting. i am sure we will hear from other people involved in the campaign. i want you to answer one aspect of her question, that is ross perot's views on race. >> on race? >> yes, that is what she asked about. >> are you talking about -- oh,
on race. he made a speech at the naacp in the course of the campaign. this was shortly before he got out. things had not been going well in the campaign. the press was determined to put him through a primary because he had not been through one. there had been a lot of negative stories about being conspiratorial. he investigated people. looking into his business and everything. his family. anyway, things were not going well. he did not like the way the campaign was going at that point. he had agreed to go make a speech at the naacp. in the course of the speech, there was a phrase of something
like, "you and your people." he used the phrase "you and your people." for what ever reason after it was over with, people interpreted it to be racist that he was making some kind of racist statement. it really devastated him because he had this image of himself as a great humanitarian who was very tolerant -- racially tolerant and had no animosity or racial prejudices. he came off sounding like a racist. not long after that, he did get out. >> we will pick up the story. we've mentioned by summer he is at 39% in the polls. people working on ballot access had been successful and about half of the states. then july 16, 1992, an announcement from ross perot about his campaign.
then just two and a half months later, a second announcement. we will watch a little bit of both. >> we have set among ourselves publicly that we must win in november. we must win a majority of the electorial votes. if we cannot win in november, the election will be decided in the house of representatives. since the house of representatives is made up primarily of democrats and republicans, our chances of winning would be pretty slim. now that the democratic party has revitalized itself, i have concluded we cannot win in november. the election will be decided in the house of representatives. the house of representatives is not pick the president until january. the new president will be -- will be unable to use the months of november and december to assemble the new government.
i believe it would be disruptive for us to continue our program since this would obviously put it in the house of representatives and be disruptive to the country. therefore, i will not become a candidate. >> the volunteers know that this is a critical time in our nation's history. with their political party has addressed the concerns that affect the american people. they have asked me to run this campaign on the issues and to assure the problems that the american people are concerned with will be dealt with until the election is over. i know i heard many of the volunteers who worked so hard in the spring and summer when i stepped aside in july. i thought it was the right thing to do. i thought that both political parties would address the problems that face the nation. we gave them a chance. they did not do it.
the volunteers on their own forged ahead and put me on the ballot in the final 26 states. the day we were on the ballot in all 50 states, the volunteers requested i come back in because the political parties had not responded to their concerns. my decision in july 30. -- hurt you. i apologize. i thought i've was doing the right thing. i made a mistake and i take full responsibility for it. there is only one issue starting today and that is what is good for our country. looking back will not solve any of our problems. looking forward, we can fix anything. >> he followed this campaign and you understood the disappointment of people working for ross perot. histwhat did you come to learn about the reason for him leaving in july and getting back and in october?
>> i think there were several reasons he decided to get out. the press or doing a lot of investigative stories on him he did not like. another thing was happening in the campaign. they brought some professionals in to help with the campaign. the pros had started taking over. it got really out of hand. he already had ham jordan who was a jimmy carter guy. and he brought and ed rollins. ed rollins wanted to do a slick tv ad. he wanted to do the traditional campaign. ross perot did not want any of that. he wanted a very simple kind of campaign. he wanted to do it differently
than anybody had ever done before. he just wanted to talk to the american people, when he could on tv. he wanted to do his infomercials where he would buy time and get on tv with his charts and explain what he thought was wrong with america and how to fix it. the pros came in and were trying to build up a different kind of campaign. he thought he had lost control of the campaign. it was not fun anymore. i think for a variety of reasons, he decided this was not going anywhere. we are not going to win. is grueling. we might as well cut it off. then there is another part to the story read his volunteers were mostly devastated. they were crying. they were so upset. a lot of these people have put their lives on hold to work for him to get him on the ballot. all of a sudden he is pulling
the plug like this. some of them were smart enough to see through that. he urged volunteers to go ahead and get him on the ballot because that would be their leverage. some of them thought, you know, i think he will probably come back. in fact, he came back and he did the kind of campaign he wanted to do all along. he wanted to do a short campaign. he always thought campaigns should be no longer than five months anyway. he came back and it was a spread to the finish. he had five weeks when he came back in october. he did his infomercials. he went on some talk shows. he finished the campaign like he started it. >> let me jump in there and take a call from mike from minneapolis. >> great program. i have been watching this. ross perot, he used these
demonstrations -- these commercials on tv. i vividly remembered as a young person he was demonstrating on the debt that america has and going through all of these things. i thought those were powerful presentations. i have never seen a candidate use that powerful presentation. and then the thing is i have heard mr. ross perot had accused a former president george bush of disrupting his daughter's wedding. he wanted to take revenge. that is one of the reasons he also ran. in today's elections for 2012, who would mr. ross perot be supporting? >> mike talked about the infomercials and the charts. let's show you a clip of that and we will come back to doug to talk about using charts and infomercials' to talk about policy. >> tonight ross perot plain talked about jobs, debt, and the washington mess.
>> good evening. we have talked a lot about the importance of having the american people fully informed so they can make intelligent decisions in the country. this is our first town hall. i thought it would be a good idea to take the most important problem first. that problem is our economy and jobs. here is the picture on our country's debt. look at how it has grown over the years. we are now up to $4 trillion in debt. that is a staggering load for our country. to help you understand how fast in this debt has grown and one in has group, the green is the debt we had in 1980. the red is the debt that has been incurred in the last 12 years. we had an enormous growth in debt and we do not have anything to show for it. here is another headache.
it is like a guy who came into a hospital and thought he had a sore arm and found out he had been green. -- gangrene. here we are. where tough and we can handle it. look right here at the red. 70% of that $4 trillion debt is payable in the next five years. folks at washington financed long-term problems short-term to keep the interest rates down. that is suicide in business. suicide in your personal life. that is suiciding government. >> did ross perot begin a trend that politicians would follow? >> you guys at c-span follow capitol hill. you see it in congress all the time. this was hitting a large audience. what is amazing is it is still the issue of our time. he is trying to really drive, a point that we were going to go down as a country if we kept racking up debt. he was a business person and a fiscal conservative.
he believed you have to keep your books balanced. he ran to make that point more than anything else. i read he once said, i grew up as a young man wanting to become a pearl and i ended up becoming an irritant to the oyster. he wanted to wake us up to what he saw as a very large problem. the reason may be 10 years ago, we were getting a surplus. in this 2011-2012 environment, this pie chart is freightening. when you put that chart up to today's $15 trillion in debt, ross perot was on to trying to wake us up as a paul revere kind of figure. this could be the doom of the united states if we do not address the problem. >> we have had two callers who asked about mr. perot's accusations concerning dirty tricks with his daughter's wedding.
that was one of the issues he talked about with his departure from the campaign in july. in the interest of time, can you briefly tell that story or what his accusations were? >> i do not think he accused bush of doing it. he thought the republicans were playing dirty tricks. his daughter was getting married. it was one of the reasons he did get out. i should have mentioned it before. i do not know what the story was that they were going to put her head on somebody else's body in a photograph and sell it -- get the tabloids to use it. he was very concerned about his family. his family was really special.
the thought of that happening was too much for him. it was another reason he did get out. >> the last question for both of you is, is there anyone on a national stage today who would be an heir to ross perot? >> there have been other third- party movements. in 1948, strom thurmond and the dixiecrats, 1968 with george wallace and the american party. but he was really trying to create a centrist movement. that is why he hired ed rollins there are republican strategist and burden jordan a democrat to working as campaign.
he was trying to play down the middle. i do not think we have somebody willing to get in the game like that. you hear sometimes mayor bloomberg name has been evoked. donald trump has all these games for his own publicity, but he has not gone into the game and focused on the issue. i think one of the things in thinking about ross perot is he actually did it. it is wanting to talk about it -- it is one thing to talk about it but to get on all 50 and to get to the point where you are getting 19% of the american people -- that 19% is still the middle-class center that both president obama and whoever the republican nominee is fighting for. the working class, blue-collar, patriotic, taxpaying american citizens and rust belt towns or tumbleweed towns in the west that are hurting economically. he is talking about a massive reform. he is most like theodore roosevelt in 1912. couple months party. -- the bull moose party.
they were the two most successful third party votes -- not electorial votes but popular votes of the 20th century. >> one question we did not answer from an earlier caller is whether or not ross perot's strained relationship with george bush was one of the animating factors in his campaign. do you know if that was a factor? >> i think it was a factor because he -- going back to the pow mia days, he thought that when bush was vice president the administration was not doing enough to get the mias and pows out of north vietnam. he went into the persian gulf war without a declaration of war. he also thought that president bush was too focused on foreign affairs and was not a dress and the domestic problems of the day. he thought he did not understand the domestic problems of the day.
the problems were very much like today. there are so many similarities with the economy, recession, loss of jobs, people feeling like it was no longer a government by, of, and for the people, but government for the politically powerful and special interests. so many similarities. i do think that he felt that george w. bush was not up to the job. and that was one of the reasons that he wanted to run. but back to the question of whether anybody could do it today, maybe somebody like bloomberg, mayor bloomberg, somebody who does have their own money, who could do a similar campaign like him. but he was really uniquely positioned to run at that particular time.
a conservative with a populist touch. and i think what happened to the reform party over the years shows the difficulty in maintaining this kind of a third party movement. yes, teddy roosevelt in 1912 got 27% and 88 electoral voters. then comes ross perot in 1992 and he got no electoral votes. he got almost 20 million votes. popular votes, no electoral votes. >> carolyn, with apologies, i got to -- >> they were the most successful. >> we're at the top of the hour with one hour left to go. and doug, a quick comment. >> one important quick comment. i think the viewers really need to understand this. when we showed the pie charts of ross perot, and he's talking
about this deficit and the debt. that could be eric cantor today. but what you also need to know, what makes him a more complex and different centrist figure, how are we going to make up that money? he says, ross perot, let's tax gasoline. let's put 10 cents a gallon for five years, raise billions to pay that off. the petroleum lobby, oil lobby of texas does not like this idea of taxing gasoline. but if we would have done it back then, the so-called clean -- the sustainable, renewable energy revolution, more people paying more for gas may have triggered that new kind of innovation and of corgs the left is very much likes that. so that pie chart on the one hand it seems like a conservative pie chart. on the other hand, how to pay it is something that the democrats like. and makes perot a true centrist. >> halfway through our two-hour look at the contender, ross perot, of 1992 and 1996 elections. next phone call is from granite false, washington. -- granite falls, washington. gloria, you're our next guest. >> i loved ross perot.
i remember the 1920's. and looking -- i would think that what does ross perot think of all through the political spectrum, down through those years, franklin roosevelt, then all of the presidents. and we come to today, a total insanity. i watched the house of representatives. i watch the senate. and everything has been turned around so that only the -- certain people with a great deal of money it appears are able to turn the elections to their good. so i just -- i just wish that the good, solid, rock solid, senseability of ross perot could do anything to help us today. >> thanks very much, gloria. colleen is up next in rutherford, new jersey. hi, colleen, you're on. >> hello.
i have a really good question. but he just want to make a comment and i'm glad i came after the woman who lived -- the phone call prior. her living in the 1920's. because i was in my early 20's in the 1990's. and ross perot was the equivalent of a ron paul. the young people lotched ross perot. i used to run home and couldn't wait to watch his pie charts. i learned so much from him. and it's almost -- i almost forget bill clinton in those debates. because it really was -- ross perot really was the rock star for the people in their 20's. he had a huge following. i went to go see him in monmouth county but my question is he was very good friends with john mccain. and from what i understand, he lost touch with john mccain, i think when john left his first wife. but he recently called a
reporter from "the new york times" when john mccain was running for president. and i believe that reporter wrote an article, because ross perot made a personal phone call to him. that's my question. do you know anything about his falling out with john mccain? >> well, he was for mitt romney, ross perot, for the republican nomination the last presidential election. not mccain. it's part of that just fueds that ross perot has. we've got to really understand, this is -- mr. perot is not somebody playing right-left politics. he's not what we get on our cable talk show fest and even what's happening in washington, d.c. and so anybody who he thinks is abandoning principles on, for example, doing away with p.a.c.'s or super p.a.c.'s and you can see that the mccain was willing to start compromising on a lot of this integrity and principles. and so perot, you know, abandoned him at that point.
and i also want to say, the side of ross perot is about action. it's whatever it takes to fix the problem. he's not really about talk. i think there's a famous quote that's in their family or one of his favorite things is i don't want to hear about people that say the river is dirty. i want people that are going to clean the river. get out there and do things. and he's -- enigmatic in certain ways. you can't pigeonhole him. he's mercurial. he's a texan that wants strict gun control. and is for pro-environmental protection agency. he's pro-choice. yet, he's tough on issues about corporate -- corporate america and outsourcing of jobs, tough on the war on drugs. you can go around. what you get is sort of an old style can-do american who believes in american exceptionalism but feels we're lurings our edge.
that somehow after world war ii, americans got lazy. and not the everyday working people in america, but we've stopped -- everybody is looking for leisure time and perks instead of kind of fixing the country. the country comes before corporation to ross perot. in i think he's diagnosing 1992 and 1996 that americans' politics are broken and the financial system is broken. the military is not broken. and he's questioning how do we fix the other two? and he still feels that way today. >> the caller mentioned as a young person in her 20's watching the debates and cheering on mr. perot, and our next set of clips, we're going to do a montage from two of the three debates, presidential debates that happened that year. >> these young people, when they get out of this wonderful university, will have difficulty finding a job. we've got to clean this mess up. leave this country in good shape and pass on the american dream to them.
we've got to collect the taxes to do it. if there's a fairer way, i'm all ears. \[laughter] but -- but -- see, let me make it very clear. people don't have the stomach to fix these problems. i think it's a good time to fix it in november. if they do, then they will have heard the harsh reality of what we have to do. i'm not playing lawrence welk music tonight. you have to -- the nafta, $1 an hour, no environmental controls, etc., etc., and you're going to hear a giant sucking sound of jobs being pulled out of this country right at the time when we need the tax base to pay the debt and pay down the interest on the debt and get our house back in order. who can give nelves a 23% pay race -- themselves a 23% pay raise anywhere except congress? who would have 200 airplanes worth $2 billion to fly around?
i don't have a free reserve parking place at national airport, why should my servants? i don't have an indoor tennis court and a place where i can make free tv to send to my constituents to elect me the next time. and i'm paying for all that for those guys. >> ross perot in three moments from the debates in the fall of 1992. and for the incumbent, george h.w. bush, there was a tough moment in those debates. you will recall he was captured looking at his watch. during one of the debates. that became emblematic. we got a photograph of it, his campaign. do you remember that moment? >> of course i remember the moment. and look, george her better walker bush, who had a tough year in 1992, everything was going wrong. that's -- remember when james carville said it's the economy, stupid. and he sort of felt this was
getting beneath him. we forget that debates haven't been always there. 1960, we had the kennedy-nixon debates but we didn't have presidential debates all the way until 1976. and there was some feeling particularly where george her better walker bush that debates were a waste of time. that it was all about owning a sound bite and not about building an organization or running the country was about. but it didn't help president bush to be looking -- glancing at his watch in that regard. and i think it cost him in the election. perot and clinton did better in these debates than bush. >> how did ross perot fare in the debates in the eyes of the public? >> well, i thought, you know, i agree with doug that he probably won the debates. and when george bush looked at his watch, it sort of reinforced the idea that people had that he was not really engaged in the campaign. the debates were critical for perot. and when the debates were over, he had risen back up to maybe 21%.
in 1996, he was not in the debates. and it made a big difference. i think he only got maybe 8% in 1996. so i think going back to the question, could anybody else do it today? the problem might be getting on the debates. because now the commission on presidential debates has such stringent requirements. somebody would have to meet a 15% threshold in i think maybe five different polls before they would be allowed to be in the general election deekts. so the debates were very critical for perot, the success that he had. at getting his message out. >> carolyn joining us from dallas who wrote a book about ross perot's 1992 campaign and the people who helped him get on the ballot in all 50 states.
let's take our next call for carolyn and doug. it's from houston, texas. gregory, you're on the air. >> hi. good evening. i had a couple of quick questions. first was besides having the most popular votes since t.r., what similarities do you see with mr. perot and ted yes roosevelt in terms of their views -- teddy roosevelt in terms of their views and outlooks and politics? who were some of the role models for ross perot? he seems to have -- he seems to have followed the mantra of william jennings brian, harry s. truman, the buck stops here. >> douglas brinkley has written a biography about teddy roosevelt. you'll take that question. >> when i got to talk to mr. perot he has two evergreen heroes and it's theodore roosevelt and winston churchill. and he takes a lot from them. we forget now that both of them were considered in t.r.'s case a damn cowboy when roosevelt became president, he was just -- mckinley was assassinated. and the republican party of mark hanna and the old mckinley
machine didn't trust t.r. he was considered an iconoclast and individualist and the cowboy notion. ross perot, his father was a cotton broker. but also was a -- broke horses, went to cattle auctions, considered himself a bit of a texas cowboy. and everything about theodore roosevelt is impressed ross perot. and i think gave him courage, if t.r. can do a bull moose party, why can't i run in 1992? and churchill it gout woes saying, anybody who loves -- it goes without saying, anybody who loves grit, winston churchill is your figure and the two people he admires most. in his office a portrait of george washington and talks about the founding fathers. but which founding father ross perot is like, i thought about in today. patrick henry. we always talk about the other
founding fathers, the ones who become president. but this is about the contenders. and how do you have an american revolution woult that figure like patrick henry, an irritant? those are the type of people that ross perot admires. >> next is a call from ron watching us in everett, washington. we're talking about ross perot. hey, ron. >> good evening. and i would like to challenge dr. brinkley a little bit. i think the comparison was t.r., even though perot may have idolized him, is heavily overdrawn. and you mentioned just a few minutes ago that -- if i understood correctly, that perot favored a flat tax. and of course that's the antithesis of progressism. i think t.r. was way out there to the left. and -- in the liberal, progressive tradition and even of course obama this week was -- speaking on the 100th anniversary of a t.r. speech there. and i don't -- even though he may have supported oil tax, i don't think he really was a wilderness warrior the way -- >> nor is he winston churchill.
one is not suggesting that. those were his heroes and people -- t.r. is known as -- edward morris and myself, many sided americans, a lot of people see in theodore roosevelt what they want to see in theodore roosevelt. but this ability to -- with t.r. and his love of the navy and wrote the two volume war of 1812 and ross perot a naval academy graduate and can't go to the naval academy and not admire theodore roosevelt, and in the navy and also as i mentioned, the cowboy side of t.r. but no, when you're getting with the bull moose party platform versus ross perot in many there's many, many, differences and many decades apart. but it's the boy scout part. theodore -- you mentioned ross perot's eagle scout. theodore roosevelt is the original champion of the boy scouts. so it's harkening back to that kind of view of america. but in politics, great
differences and i wouldn't compare him -- the way you're suggesting to t.r. or winston churchill or anybody. it's just -- those are the people he admires and collects books on and likes to read about and have inspired him in the same way henry ford and thomas edison were people that inspired him in business. >> taylorsville, illinois. this is ed. hello. ed, are you there? >> yes. from taylorville, illinois. >> yes, sir. >> i voted for perot in 1992. and i believe that's how clinton got elected and bush didn't seem like he cared whether he got elected or not. >> thanks very much. do you think that ross perot was responsible for the election of bill clinton, carolyn? >> i do. and i think there were two impacts. one is he -- similar to teddy
roosevelt, he split the republican vote. and in that way, roosevelt denied taft a second term. perot split the conservative vote. and denied bush a second term. but he did another thing, i think, by getting in the race, and beating up on bush all along the way, kind of softened him up for clinton to come in and make the kill. so i think it was sort of a two tiered effect there. and i do -- i'm not sure how the campaign would have played out without him. but i certainly think that part. impact of his being in the race was that clinton was elected. >> next call is from rick in memphis, tennessee. hey, rick, you're on the air. >> glad to be here, folks. i'm going to assert that ross perot last time he ran was exactly what the united states
needed. and now there is no question, much stronger, is exactly what the united states needs. and i would like to ask -- i'm not too well on what's going on, why is he not in the 2012 race? and also, why in the world are neither the republican or democratic candidates making a run in ross perot's image? i don't see how anybody running like that could help but win. >> why haven't we heard from ross perot in this cycle? >> i think the time has passed him and he had all of it he wanted in 1992 suspect 1996 and was really sort of a reluctant candidate in 1996. and i think that he's -- he's older now. i just think he's not interested in getting back in the fray. >> and 81 by our calculation.
born in 1930. kalamazoo, michigan. connor, you're on. >> does ross perot have any opinion on jesse ventura? fellow reform party? >> i don't know his opinion of him personally but did not get behind jesse ventura who was a little surprising because ventura being a naval -- navy seal, and of course the reform governor of minnesota, but ross perot didn't really get behind him and his efforts very much. so there's a little bit of a schism there. i think by 1996, ross perot felt like he did what he wanted to do. again, i stress for people, this notion of being an irritant. he was always trying to just make us pay attention to issues. i know when we talked about running, you're talking about win being the white house -- about winning the white house. but ross perot, more than personally becoming president, and probably wouldn't have picked stockdale if that was his sole intention in 1992 was to
remind people of duty, honor, country, old style american values and to grapple with that debt issue which he as a business person, he found repulsive, a bad road for america to take. >> we have referenced several times that ross perot won 19% of the popular vote and no electoral college votes and let's look opt screen over this next telephone call how the incumbent president george h.w. bush and the victor, bill clinton, governor of arkansas, in the final tally and we will listen to judy from ogden, utah. you're on, judy. >> one guy that got us all interested in politics back then. and with the nafta agreement. we used to go to the meetings he had with his helpers and we tore that nafta agreement apart. and we would all take a chapter home and read it and come back and discuss it. and boy, people ought to read that someday and see the fiasco
they did on it. and what i was wondering is can you see anybody around at all in the future that would be anybody like him? thank you. >> thanks very much. we have a question for -- is there anyone in the wings? >> i think they have to come out of the military today. i mean, there is this -- we used to be -- to be president you had a military background. but ross perot is part of that tradition. so maybe somebody out of -- an admiral or general someday will come in and run a third party movement. but i don't see anybody out there that's ready to get -- put skin in the game right now that's taking seriously. buddy romer, he's no ross perot. you got to have i think the money to raem do a third party. and as previously mentioned, it's hard to get into the debates and -- in the way the system is set up today. but america always produces unusual people at key moments. and i'm sure there will be sometime in the future a serious third party candidate. >> americans seem to have something of a flirtation with business people as presidents. but get so far.
for example, ross perot, there was some talk about herman cain being -- earlier this year, also mayor bloomberg was mentioned as a businessman who might solve america's economic issues. we get so far as an electorate with them. and then not all the way to the finish line. can you talk a little bit about the kinds of people americans seem to want as leaders. >> i think that's a wonderful point. we like the idea of somebody who is not part of washington. somebody who is going to do what's right for the country. and not be beholden to the democratic party or the republican party. we elect people from the military or corporate people and somebody who runs a company and knows how to run the government. and yet, once you have to start going on all the tv shows and traveling, and every aspect of your life gets investigated, i don't know how many people that want to run anymore. it's become pretty brutal for -- you basically have to run for two or three years nonstop. and president obama and i'm
sure republican romney or gingrich or whoever it might be have to raise about $1 billion. and it's very off-putting in america and i think we need to really investigate how we can shorten this nonstop running. because the president has very little time. they get elected and are running another election in this country all the time. i don't see how it's helping us. >> that caller mentioned ross perot's involvement in nafta. the north american free trade agreement. which was hallmark of the clinton administration. ross perot got very involved in the debate about that after his unsuccessful bid for the white house. and our next clip is a very well watched debate about nafta with then vice president al gore. again on the "larry king live" program on cnn. >> i didn't interrupt you. >> guys -- >> we got to have a climate in this country where we can create jobs in the u.s.a.
one way that the president and vice president can do for us and they're not. >> i would like to say something about that. that's a direct political threat against anybody who votes for this. >> colin powell -- >> a great soldier and doesn't know anything about business. >> i don't want to sit here and listen to you just take shots at president clinton. >> if we keep shipping our manufacturing jobs across the border and around the world, and deindustrialized our country, we will not be able to defend this great country. and that is a risk we will never take. >> he started off as head of the united we stand and i'm afraid he's going to end up as head of divided we fall. everything that he is worried about will get worse if nafta is defeated. this is an historic opportunity to do that. >> thank you both for this historic evening. >> carolyn barta, body language in that clip from larry king live is really interesting to watch. we looked at some reporting. and it suggests that support
for nafta before that debate was about -- was only about 34%. and after, i'm not sure directly related but after it went up to 57% among the american public. what was the view of how ross perot fared with this issue? >> you know, i really can't say. i don't recall -- i just remember that he had the debate with gore. and i did not realize that he -- that he lost that debate as decisively as you have just said. i thought a lot of people agreed with his position that, you know, the giant sucking sound or the jobs going away. and in fact, i think he's proved to be pressurient about that. that's what's happened. >> next call is from larry in the florida keys. you're on the air, larry. >> hey, how are you doing? i appreciate the opportunity. i just wanted to ask, this t.r. setup, it's not the first. the national wildlife refuge is
down here in the florida keys to protect birds, who were being poached for their feathers. does that ever come up in any of the debates in that year? old but not that old. >> ok. thanks very much. do you recall that conservation issues were very much at the forefront in 1992? >> no. but ross perot as we -- when you hear about that anti-naest is very worried about -- anti- nafta is very worried about the environmental degradation going on in mexico. he was somebody who wanted corporations regulated. as i mentioned earlier, pro- e.p.a. andd caller is talking about theodore roosevelt in florida had protected pelican island, florida off vera beach created our first wildlife refuge and saved part of the ding darling national wildlife refuge so t.r. was very much in bird protection and protecting of wild florida. i would not put conservation in that way high on ross perot's list. but i put him on the side of
being a conservationist. he was simply in that climate in 1992 to be pro-e.p.a. in the way that he was. and in this election, many republicans don't like the e.p.a. and ross perot did because he did feel that companies needed to be regulated. >> in 1994, the g.o.p. had an historic retaking. house of representatives. newt gingrich who is a candidate for president this year around was looked upon as the architect of that and became speaker. house and set the stage for a huge debate over the size of the debt leading to a government shutdown that very much pitted the two men, president clinton and newt gingrich, against one another. how responsible was ross perot's highlighting of the debate issue for those subsequent events? >> that's a good question. i think it was quite important. i think it started making people worry about the deficit.
but again, remember, ross perot is talking about paying for it with a gasoline tax which you don't hear republicans talking about. but it became a big worry of the people by the time of -- throughout the clinton era. and i might also add when we're looking at that famous gore- perot clip, remember, nafta became popular with both democrats and republicans. it was al gore and bill clinton were pro nafta but also george her better walker bush republicans -- herbert walker bush republicans. it was only labor unions were opposed to it. and here you have ross perot probably more right center than left center. deeply opposed to it for the reasons he said. i think the outsourcing of jobs more than anything else is what perot was focused on in the mid 1990's. >> carolyn barta, you told us about this story before but in 1995 ross perot started to organize the -- what became the reform party.
can you tell us a little bit about that effort. and how the reform party took shape. >> well, the people who had worked on the perot campaign in 1992 wanted to remain involved. and for a while, even, were very active as, you know, shadowing their congressmen and sending letters and so forth. so the reform party was organized to try to create a vehicle that would be a stable political influence of third party. and then there was -- in the convention of 1996, perot and dick lamb who had been the governor of colorado indicated an interest in running on the reform party ticket. and perot re-emerged to lead the ticket.
so that probably was the high point for the reform party. after that came jesse ventura was elected governor of minnesota in 1998, i believe. and then 2000, pat buchanan was the nominee, the presidential nominee for the party. and buchanan was a firebrand conservative but also a populist. but he certainly could not motivate the reform party people like perot did. and the party was sort of found -- it initially was established with the same kind of priorities that perot had set in his first campaign. reducing the deficit. term limits. some of these issues that ended up being in the contract for america.
so i think there was definitely an impact. and you saw the republican party co-opt some of those issues. term limits was never passed. but it was part of the contract. gingrich's contract. so i think that -- with buchanan in 2000, the party was struggling to find its core. what was it all about? and a lot of people thought that perot -- i mean, not perot, buchanan, did not really represent them. did not represent their interests very well. and i think what's happened since then, the party really has sort of fizzled. there's still a few state affiliates that are trying to be active, maybe hatch a dozen or so. but their presidential candidate got a handful of votes
the last time around. so i think it just shows us that it's really very hard -- i thought that it was going to be a stable political influence. and that once established, that it would be a challenging party in years to come. but that's not happened. it certainly has just fizzled. and actually, i think sort of re-emerged in the tea party movement. so i think maybe these movements just have a short-term life. >> let's go to galveston, texas. joe is watching. >> yes, hello. >> yes, sir. >> well, you know, first of all, i would like to really, really and then people call in and say, you're on one side or you're on the other. but by and large, you're
probably the most unbiased media available. and the greatest asset to being able to understand what's going on in our political situation that we have. and i really appreciate the way -- so many people on from both sides. and i think it's a wonderful, wonderful thing to watch. and ask all these questions. >> thanks for your kind words. do you have a comment about mr. perot? >> i do. first of all, i'm from texas. so we got really, really involved when ross perot was running. and he said so many things that made so much sense. and a lot of people got behind him. and first of all, i don't think that the balanceed budget would have happened had not ross perot been up there, having all those charts and graphs to educate people. and i would like to hear david brinkley's comment on that. and one more comment. and that would be that when they talk about teddy roosevelt,
teddy roosevelt was the one that broke up standard oil in new jersey. and i can't imagine ross perot ever being someone that would condone breaking up a large corporation. teddy roosevelt was in a league of his hone but i would like to hear david's comment. >> it's doug brinkley who is our guest tonight and probably happens to you pretty frequently. >> it does. >> teddy roosevelt seems to have struck a chord. >> president obama talked about the new nationalism. and a couple of things i would like to mention. i'm reflecting on what we've been talking about here. one of the big things to keep in mind with ross perot in 1992 is that you had the soviet union collapse. the cold war ended in 1991. when perot is entering in 1992. the question, there was a lot of jubilation with that. we've been fighting the cold war from harry truman on down,
taxpayers had built up this huge deficit to win the cold war. and the fact that perot was being this sort of irritant in the 1990's, worrying about our -- a deficit and everybody was running up deficits. all over the world. he seemed a little more erratic than anybody -- today, we hear these bites. and he seems prescient on a lot of things. but he was a fly in the ointment of 1992-93 when america was looking -- the buzz word was globalization. and also, political correctness became a great term. well, he wasn't keen on globalization. he was about america first. and he was kind of a curmudgeon in many ways on a lot of issues. so i'm not sure we could have even done this sort of retrospect on mr. perot like we're doing tonight, maybe even a decade ago. it would have seemed a little more of a quirky, offbeat character. but there are those sides to him in his biography. points he raised are really -- resonate with people right now. and with theodore roosevelt,
all -- the point about t.r. is only one. and that's about service to country. that's what t.r. was all about. you don't lie. you tell the truth. you stay loyal to your friends. and the service to the country. and that's that -- it's in the american grain. it's americanism. and that's what spoke to ross perot. not every issue that t.r. took on all this, but it was the character of the man. >> in 1996 the economy was getting pretty row bust. the tech bubble was part of our economic fabric. bill clinton was the incumbent president seeking re-election. the republicans had nominated long-time senator from kansas and senate leader bob dole. and the big difference our guest said was during the fall campaign, ross perot was not permitted to take part in the debates. on the screen right now are the results on election night. 1996 with president clinton
achieving 49% of the votes. 379 electoral college votes. bob dole, 169 -- excuse me, 159 electoral college votes so just 40% of the vote. ross perot, zero. and different showing than his four years earlier. just over 8% of the popular vote in 1996 elections. our next clip is ross perot on election night, 1996, talking about the future of the reform party. >> we're going to keep the issues. i think they've gotten the word on campaign finance reform. don't you? [cheers and applause] navy repented and been reborn -- they've repented and been reborn and they will go to heaven and it's done. but that's got to stop. we have got to get that done. and we have got to get campaign reform in terms of the time for
campaign and all that done. we must set the highest ethical and moral standards for the people who serve in our government. and all that has got to be changed from rules to laws in the next four years. and we're going to have to stand at the gate and keep the pressure on. and we will. [cheers] we will not let our children and grandchildren pay an 82% tax rate which he our government forecast they will. we have got to have a balanced budget amendment. we've got to have the plan to balance the budget. and all the things that you have fought so hard and so long for. and we've got to stand at the gate to make sure that happens. if we want to pass on a better, stronger country to our children. we will make the 21st century the best in our country's history. but you and i have to stay on watch. we have to keep the pressure on. and as i've said a thousand times to both parties, when
they say what does it take to make all of you people go away? and that is do all of this, and then we don't have anything to talk about, right? it's done. thank you. you've worked night and day. you've done a tremendous job. take a little break. and then we'll climb back in the ring and keep the pressure on to see that everybody keeps those promises, right? [cheers] >> ross perot on election night in 1996. doug brinkley, he talked about the need for the people to keep the pressure on. but without a galvanizing figure, you often pointed out to us the truth is our national debt is three times what it was when ross perot was talking about it in 1992. what happened to the spirit and the energy of the people in that middle who were the perotites or reform party members? >> they're out there. i think they're called swing voters right now. i think many of them are
independents. we have a lot of people that are independent. and many people that don't really want to be associated with the democratic orand perot's legacy speaks to that. at the outset of the program, you mentioned occupation wall street. people protesting on the left and tea party on the right. and it's about grassroots people getting engaged, getting involved. making themselves heard. so it's just not a group of money people kind of running our democracy. there's a spirit to ross perot. i've never been convinced he was dead serious about winning the white house in 1992 or 1996. i feel what he was trying to do which many of these contenders have tried to do, some of the ones that weren't -- just to stir things up. to get people to talk about issues. and he succeeded in that regard. you didn't have to win the white house to make a difference. it's about getting into the arena. and he took -- got beat up some. but he picked himself back up. and today, he's probably the first citizen of dallas with his business interests.
and he created -- just recently, sold dell, not recently, a few years back, for a fortune. some of his business innovations. and if you can't be in dallas without being touched by his philanthropy. and you can't be a veteran of american wars and not have a debt to ross perot, too. so he's made a difference. and that's why he was sent the walking stick of bin laden or the navy seals. >> robert, you're on. good evening. >> yes. thank you for c-span. i remember the 1992 election well. and ross perot, he was a viable candidate. he was prescient on the deficit. he seemed to speak common sense. he was a patriot. he went to the nflpa academy -- to the naval academy. but he was unelectable because
he was mercurial and started a if company, e.d.s. that benefited from government contracts. he selected james stockdale for his vice president. and that debate was a gunfight and his candidate was not prepared for that. he dropped out. race, claiming dirty tricks by the republicans and re-entered the race. he had previously opposed mya lindh for the vietnam war memorial and did it in a relatively nasty way. you say he wasn't a candidate who wasn't trying to win but i don't think he could have won. what do you think? >> i agree with that. i'm not sure it was possible to win. in 1992 or 1996 against bill clinton and the democrats and an incumbent president who had just won the gulf war and saw the breakup of the soviet union, german reunification and many other policy issues.
so he was as i've said a few times now, somebody trying to raise consciousness level on issues that he thought were important for the country. and the reason he's important to history is some of those issues that he raised in 1992 are still with us today. and only in a more -- more of a fashion than 1992. look at things william jennings bryan said that happened in the new deal or something that charles evan hughes that reflects on the eisenhower era. perot raised some issues we are still grappling with and always a reminder that we have a third party option. that maybe sometime that if these other parties get too arrogant, there will be some voice from the heartland or of america that comes up and strikes a different chord. and i worry that the debates make it very hard for a third party candidate to get into the mix. so perot in that regard may be one of the last to have been able to pull that -- something
like that off. >> carolyn barta mentioned ross perot in the summer of 1992 had hired ed rollins and hamilton jordan to be involved in his campaign. after the 1992 election, ed rollins who continued to -- in his political work, and is still active today, talks a bit about his view of the perot candidacy. we have a clip of that right now. >> the bottom line, it wasn't that perot was difficult to deal with. it was that perot never wanted to run that kind of a campaign. he always wanted to do what he did, run the last 30 days. and i think the -- that's all he thought he had to do. why should i waste all my money early when it really doesn't matter until the end? he never understood getting defined in a negative way during the summer. obviously the guy has a lot of paranoia. they always say about paranoia you only have to be right once to make it all worthwhile. [laughter] but the bottom line is it just -- he dent understand the political system. -- didn't understand the
political system. had a disdain for it. that made it more and more difficult. when we were trying to argue what you had to do to -- deal with the media and lay out your issues and define yourself, he saw that as traditional politics and he was against traditional politics. well, in the end, he ran a very short-lived traditional campaign in which he ended up getting very negative in the end. and won 19% of the vote. if he would have run a real campaign, there was a very serious chance of this man being a very viable candidate for president. drawing an awful lot of support from both george bush and bill clinton. >> carolyn barta, you hear ed rollins' analysis after the fact. anything there that you agree or disagree with in his summation? >> well, yeah. i think that at one point, perot was a very viable candidate. but i think that he was as the
caller said before, he was quirky. he was mercurial. and as people got to know more about him, that they were -- they questioned whether or not he was temperamently suited to be in the white house. and i'm not sure even that perot thought that he was suited to be in the white house. and perhaps the sentiment that's been expressed that he didn't really want to be president, he wanted to stir up the american people, he wanted to be the nation's civics teacher. he wanted to make democracy work again for the people. so i think that he resisted traditional politics in many ways. and for good reason. he thought that the way that
political campaigns are run today are really silly. i mean, flying around from place to place trying to get a sound bite on network tv. a plane of press following you around. essentially in a bubble. listening to the same speech over and over again. what are they going to learn? he thought that the press should be out talking to the people. what are their concerns of the people? and then how are the candidates addressing those concerns? so i think rollins wanted to run a traditional campaign. perot didn't want to run a traditional campaign and for a good reason in his mind. he thought traditional campaigns are out of date and are not working for the american people. and i must say, i think that we've seen in election campaigns since then, that the media has just grown more and
more powerful and dominant. in some of the campaigns. >> doug, as care len is talking, i was just -- carolyn is talking, i was just thinking about perotisms and his catch phrases in the age of twitter. >> gosh, yes. that's true. he would have probably been able to use twitter quite well. get words out there, ideas out there to the people. and we've talked about tonight, is innovating in the format or going on larry king, larry king was free media. and many politicians use that but buying these -- and keep in mind, he's -- it's hard to create another ross perot. he's just a maverick. he's an iconoclastic candidate and a billionaire and had the money to do what he did. and he would have enjoyed being president and would have served the people well but i don't think his heart was in it in 1992 or 1996.
it was really about getting the democracy and the people back -- he -- his core, he disdains lobbyists. and washington is a town filled with lobbyists. >> ross perot not only took advantage of paid media, but benefited from the popular culture coverage of his campaign. next is a series of clips from "saturday night live" whose regular program on saturday nights took great advantage. ross perot candidacy in 1992. let's take a look. >> and because we at abc feel it is important for you to hear his views, and ross perot is with us from houston. mr. perot, do you feel that you have been blackballed by the two major political parties? >> it's like this. the other two candidates, they are not addressing the issues. >> thank you, mr. perot. >> my reform party is going to have a convention and volunteers want me, that's fine. but see, larry, this is not about me. it's about the
american people plain and simple. >> ross, what about this commercial that aired last week? >> vote for me. i'm ross perot. i'm running for president. vote for me, please. would you vote for me? please, please, please, vote for me. [applause] >> this whole thing fascinates me, really. see, you don't have to be a ph.d. at harvard to know that our kids are going to to inherit a $4 trillion deficit. and that's just a crime, see. now, if i'm president, we start cleaning up this mess on day one. it's going to take some sacrifice, no doubt about it. but i know the american people are ready and prepared, this is your country, let's take it
back. >> a clip from saturday night live in 1992 and 1996 and all but the first was dana carvey portraying ross perot. we have about 10 minutes left in our contenders discussion of ross perot and his 1992 and 1996 bids for the white house. let's take our next phone call for our two guests. from pleasantville, new york. tony, you're on the air. >> hi. good evening, susan, how are you? >> great, thanks. >> when ross perot in the spring of 1992, when ross perot was at about 32%, they had -- there were three books written about ross perot before most people even knew him. one was you mentioned wings of eagles. there was an autobiography by a dallas news reporter called ross perot and the best of the three at the time was doron leven's book irreconcilable differences, ross perot versus general motors. in may as i said, in may, after he had announced when he was at
32%, i watched sam donaldson on "this week with david brinkley" make a statement about ross perot, the conversation around the roundtable was basically this guy is at 32%. do you think he can win? and donaldson made a statement something to the effect of what do we know about this guy? he came out of nowhere. now, at that time, the three books were in print already. donaldson noted for being a big mouth covering the white house, making probably $500,000 a year to make a statement like that about ross perot, had not even read the books, probably, to make a statement. mr. brinkley, what do you think about and ms. barta, what do you think about abc news allowing sam donaldson to make a statement like that and not following it up? >> well, there's also -- i believe ken gross on perot, if anybody watching wants to read a real fine book, he was a new york journalist and it's an excellent book on perot. i don't know the moment you're
talking about. sam donaldson i thought was a great and exciting commentator. certainly during the reagan years, he was always sticking the questions to president reagan. and they ended up becoming great friends. he's really a journalistic legend, sam donaldson. so i wouldn't want to say anything negative about him and i can't see the context of what you're talking about. but the spirit of it is i understand, and you're making a good point. sometimes the washington media people think that nobody is accomplished at their -- if they're not part of a kind of new york-washington-boston axis. and here's ross perot, a legend at that time, and in texas, which everybody in texas knew quite a bit about. because he had worked on education reform and most well- known person in the state of texas. so it just seems to be donaldson -- the spirit of it is what
you're saying. just screwed up. >> carry lynn barta, from 19 -- carolyn barta, from 1996 after he lost the second time how involved was ross perot? did he exit from the national stage or did he stay involved? >> pretty much exited, i think. he was not -- not particularly involved in issues or in the reform party after that. i think -- 1992 was really the unique time. because of the -- the sense of alienation that people had with government. the dissatisfaction with government. the economic problems. and then 1996, as you said earlier, when things started to come back, the political climate didn't exist anymore. and he did not -- he wanted the people to stay active. and involved. but the climate didn't exist
for the kind of perot phenomenon to happen again as it did in 1992. and i think that was sort of his swan song. he got out after that. >> sacramento, hello, to jason as we talk about ross perot. you're on. >> yeah. i just want to ask, how do you feel perot would do in the 2013 election currently if he was on the same wavelength that he was on in 1992? and another question, if you don't mind, was i believe it was -- we said 19% of the vote in 1992 or something. >> that's right. >> i recall it being in the millions. i forget the number. but i know it wasn't too far behind for a third party. it was a -- there you go. my question is how is it possible that he didn't win one electoral vote? i know it's how electoral process works. but i find it just amazing that not one vote, not one state, he had the majority in, not even a
small state. just amazing to me with the numbers that he has. just very shocking and shocking in 1992 when i voted for him and it was shocking to look at the numbers again now. >> jason, your first question about how he would do in the 2012 election, mr. perot is in his early 80's. are you seriously interested in bringing him back into the process at this point? >> thank you. of course not now. but if it were 20 years later when he actually was -- if he was the same as 1992. how would he do now? >> if can you take ross perot of that period and drop him into our current time frame, how would he do? >> he came in second in 1992 in utah and maine. did not win a state. and it just tells you that is where his support was. this was -- very hard for a third party candidate to track against a democratic party and the apparatus and when you have -- at any given time, half of congress and half of the senate on your side and analysts there were really ultimately a two- party system. once in a while, a third party
movement comes in there and it's a slap in the face to the other two parties. the seminal question which we can't answer that historians can debate but we'll never have a definitive answer is who did perot help and hurt in 1992? if he had not run, could george herbert walker bush beat bill clinton? did he actually serve as a spoiler for president bush? or as some people suggest his support came from liberals and conservatives and it was a wash. in a way, that 19% wasn't that relevant. because he drew -- he was so center oriented in many ways. radically center if you like but took from both right and left. and we can't really clearly answer that question. but most people would say he hurt george herbert walker bush. that he was more conservative perot, he came from texas and that challenge hurt bush a lot. because he was the incumbent. so bill clinton was helped by perot in 1992.
>> some analysis of the numbers of supporters suggest that 70% of the perot voters had voted for george bush in 1998. >> 1988. 1988. excuse me. we have a couple of minutes left. to the second caller, the caller's second question. i want to pay a clip and this is our last one of the evening. this is one from ross perot's infomercials that he purchased before the 1992 election. and the 30-minute commercial in october, the first one he did, october of 1992, and he looks ahead from 1992 to the year 2020. let's listen. >> let's look at the growth of federal spending and see if there's a trend here. go on to 1950, there's obviously a trend here. we've gone up to 25% of our gross national product. that's excessive. and hold on to your hat. if you and i don't aaction now as owners of this country, the forecast shows that by the year
2020, federal spending will be 41% of the gross national product. we can't take 25%. we certainly can't take 41%. it's like having willie sutton in charge of the bank, folks. he was a famous bank robber and i asked him, why do you rob where the money is. well, our bank is being looted big time and we'll get down to how in a little bit. >> ross perot in his 1992 campaign. we have 30 seconds, doug brinkley, what was the ross perot candidacy all about? >> when i saw that pie chart, remember, preinternet even. preemailing. when clinton became president in 1993 nobody used email by the time he left office three billion emails going around the world and an antiquated moment. ross perot made a difference and reminded people of old fashioned american values and reinvigorated the notion that a third party candidate can get into the mix. rausm nader made a difference
-- ralph nader made a difference in 2000. he's a legend in the third party movement and just i think a person who is part of the contenders. >> carolyn barta, last 30 seconds, did ross perot make a difference? >> oh, absolutely. i think he was a wake-up call. he put issues on the agenda. and the deficit ended up being a surplus. the budget was balanced during the clinton years. so now maybe that tea party people think that we need another wake-up call. yes, he definitely had an impact. >> as we close out the series, two special thank you's to the producer of this series and a guiding light. and to richard norton smith who has been our consultant in this project and really the brainchild behind it when we first got started thank you both
for all your hard work. we close our last program with the look at his theme song, election night, 1992, as he is reading his supporters. >> having just said that, you have to play our campaign theme song, crazy. ok? here we go. crazy. ♪ crazy for feeling so lonely crazy crazy for feeling so blue i knew you'd love me as long as you wanted
♪razy ♪ >> this is the last installment in our c-span series "the contenders." you can see this again on sunday at 10:30 a.m. eastern. friday, we will review this series with historians, including richard norton smith, to see what they learned. for more information, go online to find a schedule of the series, biographies of all the candidates, said and speeches. that is all at c-span.org. tomorrow on "washington journal," a discussion of the european debt crisis with pedro da costa. then i'll look at what a debt collectors can and cannot do with thomas pahl of the federal
trade commission. and then kateri callahan on the tax credit of up to $500 for certain energy improvements. that is all live at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> like that the congress as a matter of its appropriations power fund cameras in the united states supreme court with a mandate that they be installed? >> there's a provision to upon them of whether they can mandate their use in troops into the judicial power of the court able to decide its own proceedings. that is the difference. it is difficult to know where to draw the line but that is why we need to let the court trots online. >> tuesday the senate judiciary committee talked about televising the supreme court. find that hearing on line at the c-span video library. you can also find out more about the issue on our special web
page dedicated to cameras and the court. to c- also find a link span prosecute to play list with the videos of justices and members of congress talking about cameras in the court. >> now martin dempsey on pakistan allegations that a recent u.s. military attack on pakistan border illustrations was intentional. he has said he does not know what happened in the incident. he also comment and on budget plans, strategy toward iran, and the future of nato. this is one hour and 15 minutes. >> good morning. i am the president of the atlantic council, and welcome to what will be a truly mark
advanced for the atlantic council. it is a distinct honor for me to welcome u.s. army general martin dempsey, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. a conversation with my good friend and standout journalists, commentator, david ignatius of the "washington post." this morning's conversation is particularly important, not only because it features general dempsey in one of his first public appearances since taking over this hugely important job, at a historic inflection point, and david, but also because it combines the atlantic council's longstanding commanders speakers series with the word of our new defense austerity task force. the atlantic council wants the commanders series to provide a plan for a in washington for
leading military officials from the united states and important ally and partner countries. we wanted them to come here and help shape the debate on the most important military matters of the day. the series has featured chiefs' offense of crucial allies such as david richards of the u.k., who i believe general dempsey has just met recently, it has included the french chief of defense as well as many others. while the commanders series has a regular featured service chiefs, today is the first that the series has featured the chief of defense of the united states. so this is a great honor for us. the conversation is also important because it will inform the work of this new task force entitled defense in an age of austerity -- toward new
partnerships. the title of the conversation today with david ignatius is security and partnership in an age of austerity, a theme that ties perfectly into substance of this important task force. no shortage of think tanks and individuals take a looking at how the united states is going to have to manage its defense budget in this financial situation, but the atlantic council, we think, is going to make a contribution to the debate that is nevertheless a unique. in looking at the international perspective to this conversation. our task force aims to identify how the united states to better leverage partnerships building partners capacity with allies and friendly countries as well as what defense industries to optimize limited resources. so we also want to thank the
leadership of others who have been back in both the commanders series and the defense austerity task force. finally, today's conversation is a lot of the end of the council's new brent scowcroft center on international security. it is the honor that we have him with us sitting beside general dempsey in the front row. thank you for being here, general scowcroft. tribute nexto pay week, tuesday night, to general scowcroft's longstanding contribution to the united states, its allies, and the atlantic council, having a dinner in honor of general scowcroft to build this
scowcroft center which will vastly increase and enhance the council's capacity to conduct cutting edge policy analysis of the greatest global security challenges facing the atlantic community and our global partners. general jindal jones will serve as the chairman of the scowcroft center which will build on the atlantic council's strong transatlantic heritage of running global partners into the dialogue on current and future challenges. this dinner will bring next tuesday night, december 13, it will bring together seven former national security advisor, current members of the congress, the obama administration, senior leaders of the u.s. military, former secretary of defense robert gates, for a celebration of general scowcroft's life and public service. if any of you wish to attend
this dinner, please contact the atlantic council. you will see that on our site ways to get involved. yesterday, also by coincidence, was the 50th anniversary of the charter that created the atlantic council, with some of the great leaders of those times dean acheson, henry cabot lodge, came together to create our atlantic council. i was at this point going to turn over the floor to my boss, the chairman of the atlantic council, senator chuck paygo, to introduce general dempsey. he sends his progress, in general. he had emergency eye surgery on his threat not just a couple of days ago. he thought it would be well enough to come here this morning, but he has been forced to council this and also meetings at the pentagon that he had to date. he sent his regrets.
he really presents the kind of leadership we have at the atlantic council, bipartisan, principled, he has talked about how he is taken an oath to the constitution, not to a political party. he and his brother tom served side by side is infantry squad leaders in vietnam with the ninth infantry division, twice awarded the purple heart for injuries sustained in battles, so that you see in our leadership we have the marine and james l. jones and we have the air force, general scowcroft, and we have in senator hegel, he describes himself as a buck sergeant. so it is a great multi-services approach to things. so now let 42 introducing you. general martin dempsey is the 18th chairman of joint chiefs of staff chair -- to its staff, and
the national security adviser. he is uniquely well suited to lead u.s. armed forces for a time of transition that follows over a decade of continuous warfare. her is long and varied career, general dempsey has developed a unique understanding of a host of challenges and opportunities facing the u.s. military in today's complex world. from 1974, a graduate of west point, a career army officer, he is supremely educated, holding three in master's degrees, including a master's in english from duke university, a combat hardened veteran deployed with operation desert storm, later commanded the first armored division in baghdad in 2003 for operation iraqi freedom. in addition to this combat duties, he has experience and insights gained through training and developing u.s. and partnered forces which speaks also to today's subject.
training the saudi it national guard and the iraqi security forces during a difficult time in iraq's history for a further develop experienced in the middle east as deputy commander and then acting commander of it would return to the united states and was appointed chief of the army staff. it is a distinct pleasure to have general dempsey here today for this important event. thank you for your service. thank you for taking time out of your schedule to be with us. david ignatius and please, we have no less distinguished of a journalist to moderate today's discussion. this will be more of a discussion than a speech. it will be a discussion. that is the way general dempsey wanted it. i have none david for many years and consider him not only a source of personal inspiration
but also the person who is advising council to me and many others has been quite important. i have been an avid reader of this award winning journalism and best-selling novels. if any of you are watching, please by his newest novel, "blood and money," it is quite fascinating. he did not pay me money to say that. he writes a twice weekly column on foreign affairs, a distinguished 35-year career as a columnist and editor at great newspapers, "washington post," and we worked together at the kit you wall street journal." i am delighted have been here. welcome please general dempsey and david ignatius to the stage. [applause]
>> there they are over there. >> we will take our seats. >> general dempsey unfortunately has to come to a hard close so we will keep that mine. general dempsey it, if you like to open with a brief statement of your thoughts on the topic of budget and partnership and then we will go into questions from the and then we will turn to you in the audience for your questions. >> great, well, i am delighted to be here. i very much appreciate the work that the council does. and when invited to be among -- have this among my initial encounters here in washington, d.c., i very much appreciated the opportunity. i want to add my congratulations to general scowcroft in having the center named, but also for your lifetime of service to the nation. it occurs to me as i look at
what i will be asked to do in my tenure as the chairman, it seems to me i will be a chairman that has to manage three big transitions. a transition from the armed forces of the united states being the generally and predominantly in the conflict to a military that will remain in conflict at some level but also get back into the business of preparing for conflict. that is one big transition for the second one is that -- if this makes news, you have got a real problem -- but the second transition is to manage the armed forces from bigger budgets to smaller budgets. and how much bigger and smaller is yet to be determined but that is the second significant transition that i will owe the country. and the third one is, the transition of a significant number of young men and women who will transition from being in services recently, because we always have turnover, but more
pronounced as we reshape the force, so there's this issue of transitioning and building a different kind of relationship with the veterans administration and so forth. those are the three big transitions i see is occurring over the next three or four years. and i would be happy to talk to you about whatever. >> let's start, general dempsey, with one of those transitions that you mention. that will drive everything else, probably, and that is the budget. as you say, we are in a time when budget pressures and austerity mean that they're going to be some changes in the pentagon budget from little weeks and reporting, we have the sense that secretary panetta and the white house worked with you on the combat commanders to shape that budget. one of them seems to be a reduction in ground forces. on the expectation that large-
scale counterinsurgency is of the time we fought in iraq and afghanistan are not likely. and the president could not have been clearer in asia, we're not going to cut a share. so -- cut asia. so you have been in this process, what is the shape of this budget? are the league's i am describing, do they have the contours' about right? are there issues were still worried about is you put the budget doctrine to bed? >> leaks in washington? well, that is something with which i am not familiar. let me say something about the process, first of all. it is important to understand the context and through my willingness to do so, we can get into greater election bid appeared the prospect has been quite encouraging to me.
at the president's direction and with secretary panetta's leadership, and i really mean that, we have managed to achieve what i thought was unachievable on the timeline available, and that is that we have a process in place to figure out the 2013- 2017 budget through the emerging strategy. we clearly are in a position where even if i had all the money i needed or wanted, if i had a blank check, we would certainly want to take a look at our strategy, take a look at our for scripture, modernization programs, training and later development, through lowlands of what we have learned over the last 10 years, and we have learned an enormous amount of the last 10 years, through the lenses of things we do not have 30 years ago. notably, cyber was not a significant factor in military
operations 10 years ago. cyber is a significant factor today. there is a much better capability in our special operating forces than we had 10 years ago. so the question is, are those added to what we have always done or do we have an opportunity here to build a different at relationship inside of our armed forces and redefine ourselves based on the lessons of the last 10 years? the answer is that we'd darn sure should be if we consider ourselves an organization. and the other factor in this is a look at our strategic risks. what are the strategic risks to our nation? are they exactly where they were before or are they shifting? and of course, you know, as the president has already discussed in his trip to asia, which seat strategic risks as shifting. demographics has shifted, military power has shifted, and
so it is incumbent on us as military leaders to discuss with and inform and advise on how we should adapt ourselves to those shifting strategic risks. importantly, not at the existence of our existing strategic partners, but this is about rebalancing. so in terms of the process, and actually quite encouraged that we have strategies slightly in the lead of our budget decisions, and one final point. secretary of defense has made clear to all of us in frequent meetings with service combat commanders, his group of advisers inside the department, that nothing is decided until everything is decided. and so that is where we are and we are moving along, i think, quite nicely. >> make sure i'm clear on these broad strategic strokes. that the world that you are
preparing for to do the strategic process is one in which you do not think it is likely that large scale 150,000 troop deployments or protracted counterinsurgencies are likely, and that therefore in sizing the ground forces, you're not assuming we are going to do another or iraq or afghanistan cent. is that right? >> this is for the surprise you, david. let me rephrase that for you of it -- and that has never happened. >> yes, i know. i am not prepared, nor should our allies be prepared, to ignore or wish away any kind of conflict in the future. that is just not the way the world works for you cannot say, well i never really -- as far as i'm concerned, we will never do another iraq. i am not prepared to say that our give that advice to the commander in chief for the secretary of defense for the question is, how do we, based
on the answer to the previous question, how do we rebalance that for so that it is capable and is not a niche organization, not a one trick pony? how we rebalance ourselves so that we're capable for full spectrum? but we are in a new fiscal environment. i should mention that right at the start. everything that we do is in the context of understanding the economic condition of our nation and understanding that our national power is the sum of military, economic, and diplomatic power. you cannot ignore that fed. we're looking at what we can afford to do, how do we read a balance ourselves to maintain what we need to provide for the nation across the spectrum, and i had this conversation before, because they are under enormous budgetary pressure over there. frankly, i worry about our allies coming to the conclusion that they can be capable only in
niches of conflict. this is not about giving up any particular capability for that rebalancing. >> talk about the theme of partnerships and burden sharing as one of our themes for this session this morning. i cannot remember a time when i read about defense issues that i did not hear u.s. officials almost completing with europe to do -- competing with europe to do more and be active. we have come forward in libya in which there was some real burden sharing and i think we would be interested in your assessment of how the libyan campaign went and the extent to which shows those nato burden-sharing options are real. and then second, every day newspapers bring out news of how serious the potentially catastrophic europe financial fiscal problems are right now. which has to make someone like
you, as you plan for the future, worry a little bit about the capacity of our european allies to step up. first, libya, how did it go? second, what about this fiscal crisis in europe and the implications? >> a couple of things -- i hope you're not going to ask me this question, well, i'm going answered now. i was over in great britain last week, two weeks ago, and one of the british media and who can be rather confrontational, not like you, rather constitutional said to me, what is a light to be the leader of the military in decline? and i said, look, in case you have none that is, we're doing pretty good, thank you very much. and i'm not going to be the chairman of watches over the decline of the united states armed forces and it will not happen. the second thing that they are -- they do often it is that they talk about the decline in
irrelevance of native. i find that to be surprising, actually. nato is not the same data that i joined in 1974 as a young second lieutenant, to be sure. but it has actually adapted itself, not exactly as we would have, probably, and not with the same resources submitted to it as we have, but it has adapted itself. it has done reasonably well since the cold war when general scowcroft oversaw hour adaptation. if you take each of their countries individually, their contributions to security pale in comparison to ours, but so does the rest of the world. if you aggregate their contributions to security, it is about $300 billion. it seems to me that is not an insignificant amount of money in an environment in which they are also pressed economically. libya, i'm always loath to take a template.
people say is this the template of future work there? it could be, but if we ever decide that we have a template, we will find the square peg and the round hole. there are no templates for conflict, but we have some lessons coming out of their, the opportunity for partners to provide capabilities that we have uniquely to call upon for them to provide capabilities that they do have. we have lessons and they have as well about intelligence sharing, in a way that probably surprise them, but we have been added for about 10 years. i think that libya is actually worthy -- first of all, i considered a success for native, and it is worthy of great steady. we are not far enough removed from it yet to decide that we have got the lessons right, but there are lessons to be learned. economics. when i took this job, some of you may have read about this,
but i went up to west point -- and this is in between jobs, i had about two weeks -- i went to west point as a matter priority. i went to the department of economics, a locked into the head of the department and said, i am really sorry. he said, what are you sorry for? i am sorry i did not pay attention when i was a kid back here, what you're talking about, macro and micro economics. i have just now realize that this is going to be a big factor in my life for the next four years. i spent day up there with the department of economics. i was in new york city three weeks ago and spent about half a date with the fed. i had ben bernanke in my office for about two hours last week. the topic is, with economics not only here and in europe, and the eurozone is at risk.
i know they have taken some measures share with the 17 members of the euro zone to try to better align, and i guess that is the right phrase, monetary and fiscal policy, but it is unclear, to me at least, that they will be the group that holds it together. and you are right that we are extraordinarily concerned about the health and viability of the bureau, because in some ways we're exposed, literally, to contracts and programmatic, but also because of the potential for civil unrest and the breakup of the union that has been forged over there with the euro as bases. so we are concerned, they are concerned, and i know our government has dispatched all of our leading economic advisers to try to assist them through it. but it is something we should all be concerned about. >> another question about the raw numbers. it is my sense that the exercise
you have been through with secretary panetta in preparing the 2013 budget has not taken into account the possibility funds would be sequestered, with the failure of the super committee across the board set of cuts, that by secretary panetta's estimate, would double the total cuts you were facing on the order of $500 billion to $1 trillion. talk about we're now on a wide path towards an additional $500 million in cuts. what would that mean for military for this process that you describe trying to make strategic choices. you might have to make really hard choices. we can't do centcom and asia in the way that we want if we're
going to take another $500 million out. give us your sense of how that world would like? >> i don't know what that world would look like. we got the deficit reduction, $450 billion-plus. we only got that eight or nine weeks ago. it was one of the first gifts that i was given as the chairman. and so our effort has very much exclusively focused on determining what, again, with 10 years of learning behind us what we wanted to be and then what force could with build against that. that $450 billion but we just literally have not had the intellectual band width and to do any of the analytics. but i will say this -- and i say that with great integrity.
we have not done any thinking or any work on what further cuts might mean. and we're not even done with 1317. it doesn't lock until on or about the 5th of february. nothing is decided until everything is decided. that said, the other thing i want to point out here, one of my priority areas when i became chairman is to establish this idea really. it's mostly an idea that would pull us along, that we need to be in 2020. what capacity must -- what options must they provide for the nation in 2020? and i picked 2020 for two reasons that i find noteworthy and i'm the chairman. the two reasons that i chose were, if i'm the chairman for four years, it is absolutely a fact that -- that i am the
service chiefs, the joint chiefs with the secretary and the president. we will build the joint force of 2020 because we'll submit four prongs. so if we don't think now about what we need to be in 2020, then we're going to find ourselves in this kind of annual, you know, revision and an annual effort to try to figure out you, know, what we need provide the nation. that's just not a place we should be. so we're actually working toward 2020. and that means we get four at-bats. we're at-bat figuring out 1317, but i want to make sure that everybody in my sphere understands, that we don't submit the budget. kind of wipe our brows, move on to something else. we've got walk through 2020 in four prongs which means we have
opportunities, decision points each year to get us to 2020, but it's in that context. so that's why i'm not overly concerned to start the work yet on sequestration because i want to make sure we get this particular effort right, whatever right is. and then we'll have time to deal with it if it becomes a reality. >> let me turn to afghanistan or that the thousands of your soldiers, service people are fighting. and i want to ask you for your candid assessment of how that war's going. and i'd like to start by asking you about something that was reported this week in the "wall street journal," a statement by general allen, your commander in kabul who was said to have told visitors including
prominent congressional visitors that as he looks at the campaign plan, he thinks that it would be wise not to plan for additional troop with draws if i read him right in 2013. as we know the president has got the timetable for a withdraw of the surge forces by september of next year. and general allen is saying beyond that given where we are and all the things that we need to do. i would like to see us hold steady through 2013 and then look at our final year to 2014. i'm sure you talk regularly with your commanders. i'd be interested in your own sense. does that -- should we stop the automatic assumption that we're going to have a steady downward path. and listen general, let's look at where we are next year. >> thanks for the chance to put that in context. i find john allen remarkable by
the way. he is -- he's both a great tactician. he kind of lives in three worlds. he's very capable in all three levels. i probably speak with him twice a week, once at least a week to see how he's doing. and then more substantively in the other conversation we have a v.t.c. with them almost every week as well. >> you asked me how afghanistan's going. i'm on the record by saying the military everies of the surge have actually achieved their intended purpose. we have reversed some of the taliban's moment. you know, there are issues over there related to the other lines that are not moving as fast as we like. i was impressed by the
traditional gathering of afghan tribal leaders to seek some kind of con sen active. it's an informative body, not a legislative body. and again, in a very encouraging way they noted that they need and want an aspired to a relationship with us, longer term not one that ends in 14. we haven't determined what longer term means yet or what will be provided. pakistan insists and that is a factor that we have to continue to work -- to work hard to -- to control its influence on our afghan mission. in that context we are reviewing with general allen. but importantly with general matusz and i'll tell you why
that's important to me. basically what i've described in terms of the campaign objectives and being committed firmly to the lisbon objectives as they have been articulated. the question i've been asking myself. that's the department and its military leaders -- what do we need toe do between september 12 when the surge will be offramped and december 14? >> so you know, what is it that's going to pull us along. mile stones, you noit, objectives assessments and then and only then will we ask john allen the troop to tax analysis against those objectives. if you were to ask me as commander -- >> well, i have been asked on occasion. others have been asked, you know, what do you think you need today? >> well, you're going to look
at the answer to that question and what you need literally today. but if mission's change, if we establish traditional stones, then chandler do what they do which is to say, you want me to do that? so asking john today about what he thinks about 2013. he's going get an answer through the lens of today. john and id are in contact about, what do we need to do to get from september 14 to december 14. and if we change that narrative it will change his answer to that question. but we're not there yes. so i found that conversation that he had to be unremarkable. some tried to pit him against the president's stated object -- one of his stated objectives in the west point speech was a steady reduction in our
presents. great, i'm also on the side of those who believe that we sometimes are reluctant to turn over responsibility to those forces that were building. you know, we -- i said this in iraq. we hold on to the bicycle seats too long. are we asking -- and actually our afghan partners to do more sooner. >> if we're asking it, what answers are we finding. >> because that will influence. so we don't have the answer yes. the reason i say jim mat dux's is a key factor. the 21 nations of centcom.
many of which are convinced that there's not so many people in the neighborhood. and then if you ratchet it up one level to me, i've got to look at that globally. we can't look at this through the soda straw of afghanistan or the reck. we've going to give them what -- we're going give them what they need. jim ma dux has to see fruss the original perspective. and we're just not there yes. i was sur pleased by john's answer. we haven't yet done our analytics of how to get from june 12 to december 14th. >> i want to make sure you understand the answer. your battlefield commander is saying that he does not now
want to project further additional cuts after september 2020. and you're saying that you're not -- you're not there. that you may well need to have a continuing wide path down after september 2012. it's just not a desillings you're prepared to make in. again to put it in my words. >> we are reviewing to deliver on the lisbon objectives. what are we going to do to get from september 12 to 2014. once that plan is compete, we will take it to the combatant commander. >> they stage spectacular
attacks that are destabilizing for the population there. certainly affect world opinions. hearing our uniform military you tend to get pretty positive results with how the commain is going. >> the latest is a similar interest because it was an attack on a shiah mosques on a special holy day for shiah. and it reminded me of iraq and the period in which alaska and arke was very deliberately, seeking to create back criterian war. you wonder whime -- why the troops are trying that same tactic. maybe you can speak to those two things. why is it sent to me if it's been degraded. i feel so capable of taking big round house swings in chicago.
what about the secretary card being played against the shiah. let me stewart the ladder. i will say the demographics in eaf. iraq sits on that -- between this shiah and sunni sex of ice lamb. and i think as i understand the statistics 80 to 83% of afghanistan. about 17% or so percent. there's no history of it. i don't know the answer yes. it could be. see if it becomes a pattern right now it's not. right now it appear that because the shiah were assembly in a -- for the holidays.
it could very well be and that again back to our previous question when things like that manifest themselves, we've got to assess the impact on the game. as far as the inability to the insurgence and crifts who calkt the high profile attacks. there is a pattern of high profile attacks. and we tend to talk about the ones that happen. we kind of are asked about the ones that didn't happen. the intel -- leading up to it, it was announced that groups like the hakani network and you would try it in the
relationship with the united states. it did not succeed. the security was run by the afghan national security forces, you know, police and military. so that didn't happen. we have had the attacks that do. i think that's a pattern that has proven luke ra tv in the past. but what we'll turn -- another there's a psychological impact to that clearly. what will turn the afghan campaign is what happens out were our soldiers, airmen are walking point. and that's why you tend to find them a little optimistic. they can actually turn things. whether it will be maintainable, fair question. but i'll tell you that that's why the high profile attacks, we tend to see them as one off rather than the entire mission. >> let's turn to the afghan --
pakistan was a special area of responsibility. sometimes a special headache for your predecessor admiral mullen. give us your assessment in the u.s.-pakistani relationship starting with -- i know this is here today. what can you tell us today about what happened that night up in the mountains long and border, that let to the death of sever pakistani troops. >> you've been up no the mountains. yes, sir. we're kind of the victim of our own success. we've portrayed a picture of the world that we haven't -- >> specifically. >> but the rest of the word sees us as completely. -- all knowing, all seeing completely precise. and it's messy and it's
unpredictable and it's chaotic. and there's fog and there's friction. and i don't know what happened. as i sid here today. because i've been very careful. i want this information to have the freedom to really tell us what happened. so what can i say today. here's what i can absolutely say -- was it something we did intentionalably. regretably the pakistan military belief we do. sop way to either discredit them or encourage them for further action. but they do believe that. and so we're trying to address each other on that basis. but what i can say, absolutely. i can't imagine anyone in this
room wouldn't believe me. we did not attack a boreder post intentionally. if you think you did i would have to ask what in the world do we have something to game on. i've spoken with general kiani who was my levin worth class make, to encourage the investigation. so that we can engage our pakistani counter parts. we're in touch with the defense second active. we're adapting to some of the things they've done. you know, the closures of the ground, lines of communication, and so forth. there is a cost. and, you know, what we're
trying to do is -- show some patience asking them to show some patience and then we'll try to get back in touch with each other. but yeah, it's a mess. >> on the question of our ability to supply low gistically our forces in eafl as you mentioned the two key transit roots. we had them that were backed up. just thinking about fuel alone -- well, let me ask you directly. >> how much longer can we go with those passes closed. >> is there an alternative through the northern distribution group that would at least makeup for it. it's not blocked. >> i mean, the simplest
answers, we can change the percentages of reliance. we have freeways. the northern distribution network and then we fly things in. we can adjust and we can get it done. it will be more expensive. i will be time consuming based on the cost. what's troubling for me is they would close the clip. what it's going do to us, we can mitigate. what it says about the relationship is and what is understood. we don't pay for the fuel until it's delired.
when they toward -- go forward, it's not our fuel that they're tourge torching. >> let me ask one final question of my own and then i do want to turn to the audience, so my question concerns iran the crisis is just over the horizon, if you will. >> secretary pennetta was asked last friday night at a public event what he thought the benefits -- military benefits would be in bombing facilities in iran. he said he thought it would slow down the nuclear program and then listed potential costs and ricks first the united states if that were done by israel. you've said back on november 30, that you think sanctions
and diplomatic pressure are the right path for now as you take a look at the situation. and you were asked about the israeli debate about bombing iran. we think that these are the right options now. i know this is a sensitive area but it's a time for that reason, you know, where you have collartary about what you think is valuable. so let me ask as you look at the situation right now, would you say as you did last month. diplomacy is the right course. for one reason, right now now we have stated policies that we'll pursue an economic track, try to build a coalition of nations that have the same sense of urgency about this that we do. and in the meantime we won't
take any military options off the table because clearly we have to be prepared incase the economic and diplomat's transactions fail. i also said and i want to mention it here. i understand that nare a different place than tpwher this regard. look irks they've got what they see as a genuine existential threat. i appreciate their nogs this. we may not have complete deterrence on how to address that threat. we're in close on the issue. so let me turn to the audience. it's easy glest the first row. yes, please and if you would identify yourself and keep your questions short. >> sure. my name is andre. thank you general for doing
this. thank you to the atlantic council for hosting this great presentation, sir. the subject of the discussion and this partnership on to president's, told us that we are supposed to be partners in military matters. my question sew you, two things -- generally value, in fact, a project that you've been building? >> yes. >> my specific questions on the hotel. today it was missile defense. we are trying to find a common ground. both have been reject. we are willing to look at other approaches. but we are being proposed nothing. the specific question -- is any
proposal from us. first question about partnerships, is that a specific task we've been given to build on or existing programs. but also try to create new one, it's in all of our best interest in doing that. certain organizations have affected that area in a pro find way. that's a very lucrative area. on missile defense, i personally believe that we will find common ground with the russian military on our military.
it is not threatening strategic nuclear performance. it is very oriented as you said. i think you acknowledge against a rogue nation breaking out with some kind of nuclear technology. the question is we're going to find a way to move this thing forward. and that will continue until we figure it out. the proposal, it change -- the approach se constant. so there's constant interaction. and i'd be a little reluctant to tell you what i believe the current proposal is. although, i know that it's an ongoing work. and we'll stick with it. >> general if i could just follow up on that. they're asking that for a real sharing of what is highly classfied information. so this is a giant system if we're going to call it a joint
system. are you comfortable of the sharing of sharing it pretty directly. >> i'm aware of that request. sharing intelligence, to share a common picture of the threat, tracking and so forth. before we get the technological stage werks should work this and it's part of the process. yes. in the third row. steve? >> thank you, general. steve clemones with "the atlantic." leon panetta seemed frustrated. part of his message was that there is an age of austerity
and that particularly nato, he pushed them hard saying you need to do more with less. and there was some grumbling about the notion. he refused to believe between fiscal responsibility and national security. but in the talk it essentially was -- in a sense while he was admitting that there were certain hits, it was disbelief that it was happening as opposed to shifts in strategy. when don rulls feld came in as secretary of the state he talked a lot about small soldier, smart systems. the changing neigh chur of war. we were going to create greater efficiency in this sector. and i i've been surprise that we haven't seen that discussion of that kind of changing world. how can you get that type of
security even if you're going to have less physical resources. we talk a lot about dollars but not about capacity. that was the tone you got from leon panetta. >> tom, thanks. that's the third time he's been quoted to me, to react. let me pick up on one thing and maybe you can take it together. you've been surred at the lack of discussion about what kind of shift it is. we haven't played this out in the media. no offense. but we've had to really go through, i'm talking about multiple tank sessions and you know the hank in. it's where military leaders gather and try to have conversations without note takers. we will wrestle with ourselves,
and then do the same with combatant commanders. i'm encouraged by where we are. i think sometime in the next couple of -- well, before the button is submitted. we've got to consult with congress. i can't put in constitution to remind myself who's responsible for what. it's training, equiping and arming and that's not to say they are not interested in the army. we've got to con sument with them and then we've got to show what sugar does. i think we're going do be -- i think the process we've made, the progress we've made has been encouraging. there are hard decisions that will manifest themselves shortly.
i wouldn't read too much into the silence. it's a process that's best for the country. >> the second row. >> thanks barbara highen. i'm going to ask another iran-related question if i may. there are a number of incidents that have occurred that suggests that there is a kind of war going on with iran. we recently had the downing of the road. various explosions. can you comment at all about your concerns that you're taking that road? any kind of way of opening a channel to the iranian military. that might present a solution
that could lead to something big iser. -- bigger. iran has stated that they intend to become nuclear capable. and we've recently stated that that's not an outcome we can accept. as i mentioned earlier, we've got military options that we have been examining. and we've got an economic track that he's been pursuing. how much of it was the economic track? >> we haven't opened up hot lines to seek to have an option for it, de-escalating improvement. i think it's got to be clear -- i think it's fairly clear in
this country but it might not be as clear around the world but the pressure needs to be in iran in this regard and we are doing everything question to sign awithout referring to military force. yes, sir? >> my name is walter. >> this political unrest is created by social engineering. >> this political unrest created by social -- >> engineering. that all this -- social engineering means economic engineering, political engineer, military english
nair. we've owned this culture, misunderstandsing. is it createy political unrest. yes. social engineering. that doesn't mean i don't want to answer the question. what i mean is -- men are or niced. if you only sigh what's going on then that is the problem. misunderstanding the world cultures. let's go back to joremans. that may be better posed through a republican presidential debate or some higher. >> i'm till not connected to it. i think you've already answered the food in general. i'm alered to the challenge you've posted. the problems we face in this
age in particular because of the proliferation of information and sobe -- and they developed rabidly. but i do agree david that that's as far as i want to go. >> i'm mike consti, recently retired. we haven't given much thought on the decision-making process, particularfully light of the fact that, no, coming out of the navy and i'm asking you that as you in the purple suit position are coming out of the navy. some have made comments to the effects that the carriers might be vulnerable 10 years.
item number two, eafering the -- the fort that we have built for them is $ billion to sustain. how do you anticipate that will be paid for down the line? >> we are committed. there are some fact of life changes that we'll probably have to make based on the ability to procure it on the time lines that we'd like to visit. >> when i mentioned earlier, our exposure to a potential problems in the euro zone. that's what i was alluding to, their ability to try to partner with us. but we were clearly at risk if
a potential collapse might occur. then they would have some obviously, have to make some national decisions about reallocation that could affect the j.s.f. >> as far as my purple seat, you know, tomorrow is the army-navy game, so actually for today and through the weekend i'm not at all neutral in that regard. i do predict a victory. it has nothing to do with my aircraft carrier. when we look at 2020, i think our challenge is what are the naval forces we need and the capabilities they can project. >> i also think that it's important to know that when i turn over this job to my successor, i will also tell he or she that i built the force. that's not the way the world is
in anymore. you cold -- could change. technology changes. the pro live -- i'm struck by. this is one of my passions trying to figure out out. ee so you know, we've been following it pretty steady track to build our systems on the basis of human intelligence and nonbiological intelligence because they know us as article intelligence, is increasing more rapidly not what i'm going to do
our traditional means will the robust in asia. how do you prevent that from simply being more money for what i will call legacy systems? our existing fleet of aircraft, our naval task forces, the shipyards that build them, the assembly plants that assembly them, and all the politicians behind that? give us your insight as to how you would try to drive something, not simply building more legacy systems? >> welcome to my world. you mentioned earlier, while we
have not been more open about the strategies, it is because we do have this legacy, this defense industrial base that is both an in a blur of our capabilities and has what -- and enable our of our capabilities, and reverse ability. if we get the future wrong, if you have to have the defense industrial base to adapt. but it is also part of the forcefully slightly open a change. that is a fact of life that, i am sorry i had to confront you all with, but that is the challenge. let me just pose two different things here. i think the answer as to how to address the challenges we face in terms of security in the future is described as a global network.
what we have learned over the last few years is that when we network capabilities, with that their military capabilities, conventional capabilities with unconventional capabilities, emergence capabilities like cyber, when we successfully network our capabilities, we dominate, we prevail, we succeed, and actually you often can do it with less resources than we did before because you are networking and building a different kind of relationship. i do not know how you take that yet -- that is what we have to figure out -- how do you take that global network approach and apply it to the defense industrial base, which is not organized that way? should builders build ships and plane builders build planes and never the twain shall meet. what you really want going down the assembly line is something that could be a swiss army
knife, not a stiletto. but that is a horrible metaphor, i am sorry to say. anyway, however you choose to describe it, you have identified the real challenge with managing change, is that you can come to conclusions about concepts, but then driving them through the organization, through training, education, leader development, and the industrial base, it is really the art form of all this. >> yes, please. >> general, i like to get back to the strategic debate showing on, because obviously there will be a huge tension, to put it as an understatement, between in criminal change and profound change. -- incremental change and profound change. we had some of work and some did not. it seems to me that the process
would freeze out both thinking. what is your estimate of how you get interesting ideas into the process and to what degree can you share with us, that that is the right answer that you can implement against the forces they really do not want to see much change, even though the budget will get heavily slashed? >> i do not want to sign up for describing the current prices, as either incremental or bowl. it is significant. the adaptation that we are contemplating, they are not decided upon yet, are significant. so they're not in criminal, nor are they something i would describe as bold. i have been very clear with my own circle of friends that we have to look to 2020. it is in looking to 2020 that i can aspire to something that is bold. changes to the unified command plan, what is cyber's role in the future, is socom the global
come back and commander? we have not decided in the of that and we will not in that cycle -- the cycle. if we have not had the time or the inclination to do not forget that we still have forces in iraq and afghanistan that are fighting the way we have wanted them to fight. but even there, when we think about how we get from september 12 to december 14, the talk is normally about what the glide path, how quickly you take over and take these forces out? i'll add their drive that discussion about what you want us to do -- i would rather drive that discussion about what you want to do, in a different way that i might describe as the starbucks approach? t want a tall, a grande, or a
venti? if you want this much, i will tell you what the risk is. small, medium, large. maybe it is better to have a force that it organized differently. i am not there yet but that is exactly where we need to get. >> the gentleman here in the second row, please. and you also have a question for let's get these two question and then general dempsey can answer but. >> final former minister of defense with the atlantic council. general, it has been recognized that many of the relationships and the alliance have been a sound foundation which have helped the alliance lived for political change in europe. and the euro crisis is a fundamental crisis which also
affects the political relationships. what would you say to those in europe and in the united states to go concerned about the future of eucom, and all levels of funding, because we know that without wucom there is no native? -- eucom, there is no nato? did it might also -- my question also relates to native. -- nato. we have the nato summit coming up in may next year. it will -- what you think will be the outcome? >> first of all, in terms of -- i have mentioned that what you're hearing is that we're rebalancing our assessment of strategic risk. even my european colleagues, when i engage them, the
strategic risk is migrating to the pacific. so we have to decide what we're doing about that. but i have also said and i hope you herded, whatever we do, we will build on the strong foundation of our traditional allies. if the united states goes to war tomorrow or five years from now, who are we going to call first? peter going to call our traditional nato allies. we're not going to walk away from a cut. we might very well it changed our -- we are not going to walk away from nato. we might change our position and the pacific. some permanent could become rotational and some rotational could become permanent. we have not gotten there yet. but this is not a strategic fit where we turn from one direction to another. that is just not the way the world is paired as far as the new york summit, we are working and will work in january with a
series of ministerial staff and ministerial consultants to frame the question appeared at a prominent lead -- a recommitment to the lisbon objective, maybe some fresh thinking about how we get there, and in fact is i've been traveling around in discussion with my -- with our closest allies, but what i would ask our european partners is let's not get ahead of ourselves. let's not announced in december that we're going to do something in 2013 before the nato summit. let's work for the nato summit together and have that be the significant moment for all of us. >> gentleman, i wanted to thank you. as i mentioned at the beginning, you have the commitment at the white house, and this is the first chance for a lot of us to hear you think about the issues
facing u.s. german out loud. we want to talk about reports that you have a song "christmas in killarney" at three times and is that true? in it is true, i want you to prove it. [laughter] >> christmas in killarney isn't new brunswick. secondly, if i can ask you all to turn off your cameras back there. [laughter] i will serenade myself out the door. i see the red light, i am not doing it. it is not happening, sorry, fellas. studentcam is out. >> they have to cooperate. we will have to find a way to do remotely. [applause] [laughter]
will address the house and on how good it feels to click your heels and telling you know blarney withchristmas in killarney all the folks at home ♪ [applause] >> see you next time. >> thanks very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> tomorrow on "washington
journal," a discussion of the european debt crisis. then thomas pahl of the federal trade commission. later, kateri callahan with the alliance to save energy on the tax credit of up to $500 for certain energy-saving improvements. that is all live at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. saturday we are showing a senate hearing on cameras in the supreme court remembers of the judiciary subcommittee heard testimony on a proposal by senator dick durbin and charles grassley mandating that the high court televise its open proceedings. that is 2:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> why could the congress as a matter of its appropriations power fund cameras in the united states supreme court with the mandate that they be installed? >> if you have a provision upon
them, but the issue to mandate that they be used intrude into the core power of the court to decide how to conduct its own proceedings. that is the difference. it is all about line drawing and it is difficult to know where to draw the line. that is why we need the let the court to drop its online. >> a senate judiciary committee met to discuss televising the supreme court. find that hearing online at the c-span video library. we also have a special web said page -- web page devoted to cameras and the court. you will find links to c-span youtube playlist with videos of justices and members of congress talking about cameras in the court. and now a discussion on how redistricting may impact the 2012 presidential and collection -- elections. you'll hear remarks from dan burton, aaron blake, and david
wasserman from the cook political report. this is a little over an hour. >> good morning, could afternoon, thank you for joining. i am at senior fellow here at the bipartisan policy center. i want to touch on those of you who have not been here before. it was founded by the four former senate majority leaders. it was to develop and promote bipartisan policy and bipartisan solution to problems. currently we are focusing on housing, health care, energy, and national security, economic policy, and nutrition issues.
i am pleased to be here in my role as a co-chair of the democracy project. unfortunately, my fellow cochairs could not be here but we have an exciting discussion on the less. has the election year approaches, there are a host of political issues we hope to explore, and redistricting as one of them. from the creation of partisan and protected districts to the push for nor -- for more nonpartisan districts, we will explore the current state of play on how to prevent the house, senate, and third present -- in presidential races this year. joining us is aaron blake who covers national politics and is one of the brightest young political reporters we have. he writes regulate for the top political blog, a must read for anyone in washington. next to him is david wasserman, house editor of the cook political report. he is responsible for
handicapping and analyzing u.s. house races. he serves as an analyst for the nbc news election night decision desk in 2008 and 2010 and has appeared on a number of tv news programs over the period of the last several years. david is one of the foremost experts on redistricting in the country. in april 2011, he authored "better know what district," a comprehensive redistricting album. in 2006, he was given the university of virginia's prize for congressional redistricting standards. leading are absurd is the democracy project director here , doc -- john 48. -- 4fortier. he regularly discusses politics on the radio and is known for his knowledge of elections and
government institutions. i might say that as a former house member, i have a passing interest in the subject. we are also fortunate to have another former house member, my colleague of texas, who has probably had more than a passing interest on the subject. i'm sure that he will be commenting as we start the discussion. so let's go to john who is moderating today. john, the floor is yours. >> i am going to say a few things now but i will turn to david and karen for more substantive remarks and i will say some things at the end as well. we're hoping to look at where we are in redistricting. this is a process that we do every 10 years. we're not done yet, we are well along the way, but a number of states are done, some are not quite yet getting ready to release their plans and others are under challenge and there are questions as to what the final plan will look like so we will get how will benefit republicans and democrats were
the seed should move and where there might be competitive seats or not, and a question of creating majority and minority districts. of all so that questions we want to get the landscape on. we have two of the best people in washington to do that. we will have some discussion and we will look for your comments from the audience. >> thank you. thanks to the bipartisan policy center for having us here to cover this often under loved topic which is really undeserved. when you think about what most americans believe about congress, the polarization tends to be blamed on congress and the way members of congress operate these days and cable news. i think more americans can look down the streets.
a couple of things have happened of the last 10 to 15 years that are very significant to redistricting. the first is that we have seen -- that cut political report undertook a look at precinct that back to the 1990's. we found that there was a 50% decline in the number of voters living in precincts within 10 points of the state either way. americans have already redistricted with their feet. it is easier than ever for members and legislators and consultants drawn these maps to them is actually a quarantine and isolate the voters of the opposing party into small sets of districts and make the rest of the district's favorable toward their own party. in 2010, we saw this at work between these two very different sides of the electorate.
in 2010, out of the 66 districts that democrats lost i tell the house, 82% contained a cracker barrel. just 20% contained a whole foods market. this new style to divide the we see it as only it celebrated in the redistricting process as republicans seek to build their districts around cracker barrel's and democrats seek to build their districts around whole foods. but i would argue that in the long term, democrats are at a disadvantage in the house partially as a result of redistricting, and partially as a result of the nature of their coalition today. it is more reliant than ever on minority voters, under voters, college-educated voters, all of whom tend to be clustered in this type geographic area that is easier and easier for republicans to pick up a lot of legislatures and gerstner ships
after 2010 to essentially isolate into a small number of districts across the states. some democrats to have any hope of regaining the house in 2012 or in the upcoming decade, they will have to compete on republican-leaning turfs. in our estimates, it is possible for democrats to win the total popular vote for the house, but simply as a result of how the democratic coalition is made up today, and the way the districts are drawn, it is possible the democrats could win the total popular vote for the house of blues the house by a 2006 -- the popular vote for the house. >> i am clad that david give that overview. i will talk more about where we stand in this current cycle. going into the cycle, the big headline was the republicans had -- and data can tell me if i'm right on this -- something
close to unprecedented control over the drawing of the district's board essentially republicans control the legislatures, the governorships in enough states to drop 200 congressional seats where the democrats controlled the drawing of only 50 seats. wes a four-one advantage, so think that republicans will dominate and solidify their majority. let's see what happens. since then, what we have seen is that essentially republicans were so maxed out and a lot of states that they already had, that they were not able to add seats. indeed, they are having to read democratic seats. it has been a constant balancing act in which they have been trying to create opportunities for themselves but also focus on showing up. in a lot of states, specifically in the midwest, pennsylvania, ohio, wisconsin, shoring up is the name of the game. we were -- they were not able to s seats for themselves. we have a situation where democrats have actually been
able to create more winnable districts to this point. a lot that has to do with what has happened in the courts and what has happened in a limited number of states and redistricting over to a commission for the decisions made by the commissions and the courts have so far been very good for democrats, specifically states like texas, where a continuing court battle is happening. in colorado, after it the course drew the law after the legislature deadlock. republicans are fighting tooth and nail to get their proposal overturned in california, they have a new citizen redistricting commission which essentially through the region threw fall map into disarray and is created as situation where democrats could add up to five seats. in the states alone, i think
democrats are going to be able to win six to eight seats in the 2012 election and that is a way that they need to get in order to -- the majority. the other part of this is that republicans insist that they have done a good job of shoring up their members. often in states like pennsylvania, ohio, this will be by a couple of points. will not be a situation where the district is now applied for democrats. but the members becomes safer. as in many things in politics, you have to decide who is winning and they have a good argument to say why they are winning. but i think david makes a good point in saying that in the and, by now, the map is already drawn. there are more republican- leaning districts and they will only be able to grow that advantage as a result of the districting. >> ok, i will tell a story that a similar to aaron. a lot of us of the advantage for
republicans but quickly came to realize that because republicans had already made significant gains in 2010 and over time, that their gains in their control of state legislatures are in places where they had already large delegations. it was not feasible for them to expand them or their work and majority/minority districts where they could not gain any more seats, so there are a number of states throughout the safe and some in the midwest or republicans will have the advantage but have done the shoring up. and until a few weeks or six weeks ago or so, i think you would have said that maybe it looks like a relatively fair fight for republicans and democrats. before all the changes started happen, i agree with aaron on the court changes and some of the post-match the move is by parties and the courts, pretty much in favor of democrats. there were couple of states where there were some big changes.
hear republicans in north carolina, then the democrats lose anywhere between two-four seats, a good bet. illinois, of course, a state where democrats control the process and are likely to make republicans lose, perhaps up to six seats. so big changes there but a lot of little changes that republicans have eliminated a seat here or a democrat there and added some padding to their own members' districts. but again places like colorado, texas, arizona, florida where we are still waiting, of big state where there is some question as to how these newly passed rules, passed by the voters on the ballots, whether they will be implemented or not an affect what is already a significant republican advantage in a congressional delegation, ohio, where the plan is we do not know what it's going to happen. their plan is on hold,
essentially, or maybe on hold or longer if democrats get enough votes or enough signatures to put this on the ballot in november. so all those things point to some advantage toward democrats in the final analysis. one other thing to note is that there is continuing realignment. if you look especially at the south, where all of the story's over many years of how all the once solidly democratic south has moved to become much more republican territory, you would think that might not continue, but it still is continuing. uc retirements and never places, the map in north carolina pushing republicans to have more seats there, potential in places like georgia and others where republicans to put some of the few remaining blue dots in the region into trouble, you may see republicans losing seats overall, but solidifying their gains in the south.
an increasing polarization and one thought i have had -- it would take several things going right for republicans, but it is not a possible you could imagine not a single light blue dog left in the south. jim cooper, we think he will keep his seat, but a number of them are retiring or in significant trouble. the group was founded by a white conservative blue dogs may not have a membership at the end of the cycle. some continuing realignment competitive districts. it is hard to tell how many competitive districts will be at the end. there are two types of competitive districts. one would be where party is trying to put an incumbent in trouble, he schuler, where republicans have made is in north carolina district much harder to win. if he were to lose that seat, it would be a difficulty for another democrat ever to take over because it is a heavily
republican district. but competitive districts in terms of relatively fair fights, relatively fair electoral distribution of the votes, it is hard to see how many will become of the senses that there will be fewer of them. a few thoughts on the last decades. only 70 seats changed hands at all and the decade was the first elections happened in the 1990's, 319 sees that did not change hands. had 370 that we didn't change his. we have 10 years to go to know this question, but given the many of the changes were due to realigning factors, seats that were conservative seats in the south that eventually move into the republican hands, we not might see as many of those coming out of this set of maps.
a couple of other things to think about. on the competitive front, california. they have a commission for the first time. it was certainly a contention ness. there was a map that was the most uncompetitive map you have ever seen of all of the 53 districts. intended either be republican or democratic, only one seat changed hands out of the plan that was made in advance, so almost 530 years of representation, only six of them of them did not go according to plan to reduce the more competition here you might say that anything would be better than the past map and that is probably true. it is not clear that the commission which technically did not have some competition and it is mandated but ultimately had created a number of seats is certainly a big jumble where
many incumbents are choosing districts and running against each other, figuring out whether they will run or whether they will run. often there is spend a few fair fight districts. we have seen in divided government, not being able to agree on which member of congress to eliminate, but the party sometimes will put a republican and democrat and a district and say make it relatively fair and we will fight it out and see what happens. in iowa, one was greeted by commission -- created by commission but they are not a lot out there. it is something that we have seen in the past and they are not happening where republicans have control and places that are controlled -- were losing seats are controlled. finally a few things i want to say about the commission on nonpolitical places for damage in california. we hear it are doing a report at
the end of the process into a dozen 12, looking at non political processes, and nonpolitical drawing of lines. a few states you might look at is iowa. i'll ask for four decades now -- iowa has for four decades has had a commission dropped its plans for their great constraints on how to draw the lines in keeping communities and counties together, not crossing lines, but they have had relatively little opposition to the process. but we have seen a couple of states, california, arizona with the commission's, especially california and now the second time in arizona, where there has been tremendous partisan fighting off and on in partisan
commissions. you have arguments about what lawyers to hire, and the more extreme case here in arizona, the governor trying to remove the nonpartisan member of the commission and the court reinstating her essentially. so we will see the outcome. a number people are not completely unhappy with the upcoming california, the democrats more happy than the republicans, but in arizona, the process of nonpartisan redistricting is broken down. the point of our report is that they're a lot of ways to do these things, lots of ways to have these types of of political processes. they are not all the same and we might have something to say to states that want to move in that direction. gen something that might be appropriate to terms of the own experience is the light blue dog democrat, who is the founder of this, he is even wearing blue today. how you have observed this
process. >> just a few points. i agree with the overview that have been given here about all the nuances and the what if's and we will see. but i believe very strongly that to those in this town better interested in policy, you better get redistricting fixture you will never get the kind of agreement on policy. the book on the wing nuts, it is very clear, 10% of the american population is very little, 2% are very conservative, and they control the party process. so the only a democrat can be beaten is in the primary and the only way republicans can be beaten in his senate primary. therefore you have the polarization that comes naturally with it. no, i committed the sin in texas of representing a rather
republican district for 26 years. mr. roe and mr. delay and governor perry decided that that was not to be done. and there redrew the lines not in the regular order but after taking control of the legislature, redrew it, and pared me with a republican but not necessarily a fair fight. he got 465,000 votes and i got 200,000. the results were predictable. now texas plan by the same rules had their districts thrown out by the courts. interestingly, texas is a majority, minority stake but the texas legislature chose to make it a little more anglo and that cannot work with the court predictions. we will see how that works out. again, i have zero very strong feeling on this and i will in the way that i started.
have project being involved in college policy in all this, i am as the question coming you complain about the system. everyone is complaining about the system. it is broken. our political system is broken for everyone complains. you talk about it. if there is one thing that you would change, only one thing that you could change, what would be " front and i say, easy, redistricting. you want a change the way washington works, if you change the redistricting process and get more competitive district. i had a competitive district. i was winning in it. but you are exactly right. i am not sure the country is going to be much better off with the polarization but that is for the people to decide. but ultimately you have to let the people in a bipartisan, nonpartisan, computer-driven redistricting process, it would do more to help a lot of the ills of our political system. >> if i can followup with both of you to take one aspect of
that point. are there any places that we might see another districting process like this? where do you see possibilities for that or do you think that we're not going to see that congressman, you're living proof that when you parent, but with an incumbent, it is not always a fair fight for the district. i think texas is one of the places where we could see a mid- decade redistricting, because the interim mac posed by a federal court in san antonio will probably lead to democrats and minorities getting three out of the four new districts in texas. it necessarily provide opportunities for democrats elsewhere in the state outside of the select few minority /majority districts. but we could see that map of returned by republican
legislature and governor in 2014 on the basis of the court having drawn a map for this upcoming cycle. and we will see what the supreme court decides to do. the other question i have about what reforms actually work. from the standpoint of how do you create competitive districts, how do you get incumbents away from the shackles of primaries, california. in california, there is something to decide the non- partisan or bipartisan commission redistricting that is fairly removed from politics. that is the new primary system in california. instead of the candidates running for their own party's nomination in june, it is an all party primary where the top two regardless of party advanced to a general election. theoretically i say because we have not seen the result of this system of primaries yet, it
ought to free incumbents from thinking about june before they think about moving to the metal in november. so will think about -- we will see if we get a more collaborative system out of california where there is an incentive to campaign for the middle and an incentive in government to work toward rigid work with the other party -- if i may districts in california would you say are in a generic year of their fight district between both parties? the electoral underlying numbers are reasonably balanced? >> of great question as well. in california, polarization within the electric means that even if you have created a very geographically compact set of districts, only 10 to 15 of them are really all that competitive. 1990, that number by been greater than it is now. it is still not even a third of
the 53 states that might be in play between the two parties. even that would be a dramatic improvement over the fact that only one seat changed hands and all the last decade, even and 265 separate house races. didn't go ahead. >> i want to go back to what we were talking about the mid decade redistricting. something that does happen very rarely. we talk about taxes, and georgia also did it in what year? 2003, 2005. what this requires is a set of circumstances that do not generally apply to most kids, which is, -- most states, which is, one party control and after they middle of the decade, the other party controls. one party takes over and they have all the leverage and they say we want to make a power play. they want to draw up a new
congressional or state legislative map will allow us to consolidate his power that we have. so a lot of things have to happen in order for that to occur. right now, republicans and most of the states with a feasible it could have the trifecta, they have already got it. so if we were to see it happen that it would probably be on the democratic side after they had a couple of good elections and got some power back of this process. but it is a very politically fraught decision to go through something like that. we saw that in texas of visa because of what happened with the supreme court, throwing out part of the map. >> pennsylvania, michigan minnesota, places like that. >> pa., and nominally blue state in republican control. wisconsin is along the same lines. minnesota splits control right now. if republicans draw a really
aggressive map in pennsylvania and we of artists in the map in wisconsin, not terribly aggressive but it shores up the majority. you could see democrats make a move to roll those back if they regain power. >> on a go back to what charlie was talking about. i had a district not altogether different from his but probably of little less conservative. it was a mixed district, politically. redistricting in kansas is not like in texas. the districts are relatively homogeneous. i recall that and never -- i never worried about the pace of my party. it was not a preoccupation with me. i remember the ratings were you were on the liberal and conservative party, and if i was not near 50% on everything, i
view myself as a failure. one, because i was pretty much their new way, but if they went too far to one side, how we get killed in my district just because of the nature of the democratic mess. so what does that mean? as a matter policy, i was in some sense was liberated and freer and i could make my deal with these republicans and work across the aisle and i was not too afraid of losing my race because i did that. at times i would also work my own base. to echo what you're saying, the nature of the districting process paralyzes people to be unable to make those kinds of coalitions and across the board decisions which benefit the country as a whole. there is anything we can do in this process, to encourage a
freer spirit, to be able to work on the substance of policies for our country, that do not paralyze us, that is a positive. if redistricting moves as more and more in this direction, what are some antidotes to this? open primaries, is that an antidote were smart let everybody vote in the primary? i do not know. i would ask that question. other solutions? what other solutions are there out there? are you just going to accepted? >> in california, depending on what we see over the next couple of years, could be held up by some performers as a model. because unlike other states with redistricting commission, that have partisans of appointed by the state legislature,
california's commission was generally independent from politics altogether. politics as californians know it in sacramento. so this was really one of the first redistricting commissions that operated truly without regard to incumbents and to partisan data and the process. and that is one element of this, certainly. congress can also regulate the election of its own members. one congressman from tennessee advocated a bill that would restrict legislature's ability to split counties and localities to excessively in the redistricting process. as you know, just by looking at some undecipherable districts on maps, the abuse in splitting counties and cities and precincts', placing great burdens on election the administrators to carry out
elections with their counties divided 10 different ways, that is something that congress could address if there was the willpower to do so. >> and i think that california, the with the california looks at the next couple of the elections will be very interesting. the good government folks, because as david says, a lot of the states, we love all of these days and together as commission states appeared to get new jersey, washington, idaho, arizona, hawaii, and california. they are all considered commission states, along with iowa. but in every state except for california and maybe one or two others that are really insignificant, there are politics and the process for them to be bipartisan. then maybe republican appointees working with democratic appointees, but even that, a state like new jersey were essentially the people who are part of this commission are being appointed by the powerful people in each party, and so
those people going to the commission process looking out for certain people political interest. arizona, we've seen how politics becomes part of the commission process. in an obsessively bipartisan commission where it republicans of the independent chairwoman is actually being favoring the democrats, and they removed her briefly. so if this california thing turns up and we see more competitive races, you may see other states start to look at the bipartisan redistricting commission for the problem with that is that the way that it became law is by referendum. honestly each state has their own process for a referendum. if you do not have the process, and you leave it up to your state legislators to pass a bill they will instead to this kind of commission, i think that your chances are probably going to be pretty slim. >> we of obviously seen great
demographic changes in our country over the tent years since the last match came down. what can you tell us about the growth of majority and minority districts? particularly the growth of a hispanic times. where are we seeing the grid? how much are the new districts reflecting the growth? >> this statistic might frighten people but in 2010, the democratic congress met with a record low of white males. it was down to 53% of the democratic caucus. it is virtually certain that in 2013, when congress is sworn in, for the first time ever, minorities and women will be the majority of one party's caucus in the house. as the democrats would celebrate the diversity certainly, and would celebrate the fact that they have a very buried complexion with in their caucus.
there is a trade-off for sure there in that democrats have for a lopsided advantage in those districts where most of them are from at the expense of minority voters having a say in other districts. but i would also argued that this raises questions for the future and a career potential of a lot of minority members of congress from those districts. .
and busy schedule to be here the but i want to provide everyone with a little bit of background. he's a primm stanford alum graduating with a b.a. in political science as well as mouth and sociology. as a consequence he earned himself a scholarship after stamford which she continuedhis education at the queens college of oxford university there he acquired his bachelet said historand he also played varsity football while a
stamford and made academic team. following his education, mayor booker created his degree at yale university involving himself in such programs as big brother and the students' association. after completion of the degree booker spend his remaining year as a newark resident taking an active role in the community he became the program coordinator of the newark youth project. it's a pretty man such as mayor bricker speak about the president has done for us and how we can become changemakers and our own community with the obama 2012 campaign. mayor booker can relate to such issues ascreating jobs, restoring security where he's currently taken on such tasks himself. mayor booker and his team have appealed to several businesses and convinced them to move their national headquarters to newark. this allowed over 50 businesses to start and expand. also he is credited with a nursing educational reform efforts in public schools. these efforts leading to
opportunities for the youth of newark. mayor booker also manages to make time for people of newark as well as people from all over about concerns that arise through the city over social networks like woodring and facebook. he cares a great deal about change by the way he exemplifies his actions and speech so on behalf of the democrats organizing for america it is a great pleasure to welcome cory booker. [applause] >> i had to retweet. she said she tweeted me. how are we doing? are we in the sestak? are we excited? not for me though. i'm thrilled to be here. i'm looking at my time. i want to manage it appropriately. i have to agendas. one to talk about obama and the issues and i open the question and answer we can get into that as much as possible but really
what i am hoping to do is exploit the folks that are here especially the students to get involved in this campaign. i was interviewed by the campus reporter who's actually on the mitt romney campaign, and i actually encourage that. at the end of the day you have to understand democracy cannot be a spectator sport. we can't sit on the sidelines. i always say we as americans are getting caught up in a educational where we are getting so upset about what is going on in the world we are not getting off of our technical anatomy is tookises and getting it in the game doing something about it. the problem today in america we are going to have to reprint for is not the tree all the words and violent actions of the bad people, the appalling silence and inaction of the good people. when i came out of school before i graduated was a great troduction i appreciate that but i'm hoping next time i get introduced in new hampshire will be from a jury out of shape individual who was not an athlete like i used to be.
please close your eyes and imagine me because i used to be chiseled. now i just jiggle. [laughter] i hear the cameras are back there. tmz. arthu tmz? no, not at all? [laughter] if i started dating kim car - iain, tmz would be here. [laughter] when i came out of law school before i came out of school i really wanted to start getting involved in what my parents talked about as being a conspiracy of love. ultimately the united states of america our history can be summed up as a conspiracy of love, ordinary americans willing too extraordinary things. more than was asked of them were required of them to come deutsch,ontinued acts of decency and love to make a difference and i am a product of that. into the town i moved into because of black and white americans who came together in an organization called the fair housing council that allowed my family to be the first black
family to move into an all white town, as my dad called us in a tub of vanla ice cream. allowed my parents coming out of college to find their first job to order the chicago urban league and many were not hiring african-americans. was a conspiracy of love in the small town of south carolina where my dad's mother, a single mom, couldn't to take care of them and the community came together. the conspiracy of love to in power might add not only to be raised but when it came time to go to college, recently over thanksgiving he broke into tears talking about these people whose names he can't even remember who put dollar bills and envelopes to enable him to afford college, and to me this is the beautiful thing about america. i know i stand here now drinking from the bells of freedom and liberty and opportunity that i did not bid. lavishly like wheeled in from the banquet tables prepared to us by our ancestors and what frustrates me now is that so many of us are sinking into the sciences and, surrendering to it
as opposed to realizing we have a choice model how tough times are we can just consume the blessings we were given or we can metabolize them and put them to work so i landed in the ward new jersey from my state going to the biggest city to try to make a difference. i was still a law student. the first person i metas this amazing woman named virginia jones. we named a street after her this year and she passed away in january but she was a president from a high rise low-income housing that eventually towers. i'm cory booker from yale law school and i'm here to help you. she looked at me you want to help me? she almost looked amused by it and she said okay and closed her door. you need to follow me. she walked me down five flights of stairs, through the courtyard into the middle of martin luther king boulevard, cars going back and forth and said if you want
to help me tell me when you see around you? why c? yeah, described the ighborhood. okay, i see graffiti and i just described the more i talked more she shook her head and she said you can't help me she turned around and walked away. i chased after her and stopped her from behind and i said what are you talking about? she looked at the heart and she said the way you need to understand something and problems, that is all there is ever going to be but if you are one of those people that opens your eyes and sees hope and possibility, sees promise, potential, love
d making changes to ensure that women who are doing the same work get paid the same amount of money. it was things we talked about about understanding that fundamentally in order for this economy to lead into the future we cannot have a first rate economy if we have a second rate education system. if college education for example gets more and more out of their reach of other americans and that is what happened and we all understand this america went from being the number one country in the globe and percentage of the population there were college graduates now we are down to eight or nine and so to see obama now as president obama charge liberal on many of these things, greater e. delusion, greater affordability helping young people achieve their dreams for theirives that i had for mine, the dream of contributing, the dream of
country living, giving back, being part of the conspiracy. and so i stand here on a college campus so proud in my city i see what's happened president obama doubled the funding for things like pell grants to enable more of my ctizens and newark to afford to go to college. president obama has helped figure out ways to actually get more funding for kids when it comes to the student loan ogram. in fact he took little people collecting money and he reinvested ito our student loan programs. when i came into yale law school and didn't feel golden handcuffs because they said if you go into public service we will forgive your loans overeaten year period. after ten years of making your yments if you still have money you go to yale forgive it. i thought was the greatest thing in the world. one of the reasons i chose to go to yale law school. i turned around, and president obama that went to a former interiowall school hertford [laughter] has now created a national
program that is the exact same thing. so i stand here pretty proud. i've seen how credit card companies use to set up these things in my campus at staford, and signed kids up offering them all kinds of things and have the time we were like a free t-shirt, for is be? i can get a frisbee. sign up for credit cards the would be all these hidden things and before you know it you'd be leaving college in your university and in debt to credit cards president obama said that shouldn't be the way and he's reformed those programs. i've seen a tough economy this is what makes -- i did use to have this big afro pull out all of my hair and in a tough economy i have seen ideas that are not republican or democrat in fact they come from many republicans. my first fund-raiser was this incredible guy named jack kemp republican back in those days in
the 90's who drew a fund-raiser for a democrat running for the mayor in a place like newark because we shared the same ideas. they were not republican ideas. jack kemp believe if you give the right tax incentives and urban areas, like empowerment zones which were a jack kemp idea to create that opportunity. malae have a president fo dhaka, saying the same kind of thing let's give businesses tax incentives to reinvest in our economy. i love the fact is we of programs to help small businesses i can tell small businesses over the last three plus years in the administration they've cut taxes 17 times he is now proposing things like giving businesses tax incentives to hire people giving business tax incentives to hire people coming home from iraq and afghanistan. ideas to increase buy here this
ridiculousness coming out of congress people are interested in taking partisan fights the in doing what i know can help my community today. but yet we've still succeeded. we've succeeded in getting in my city as well as all across america payroll tax cuts and now i can't believe congress is fighting over it becaus i had a residence in line getting a thousand dollars more on average in their paychecks and people to struggle to provide for their family to make ends meet what do they do? they don't sit on it and hold it to the invest in to oureconomy. president for dhaka, understood we can stimulate jobs says he's taking tremendous criticism but in my city thanks to the stimulus fact, he built roads and affordable housing and provided jobs and thousands of people in my city got opportunities in theoughest economy of our lifetime because of the actions of our president. and so stand here pretty
psyched right now. in my generation, every generation will face great crises and it is unavoidable. my parents' generation faced the big battle of creating a more equal nation of civil-rights for all. my grandparents' generation face the great depression and world war. america is not defined by our challenges. every generation is defined by how we beat post-religious. what will we stand up for? and what will e do? so this election again is about i'm not a partin politican. a large percentage of my supporters and new work new jersey come from republicans who didn't stop at jack kemp because to me i'm not about ideology and about pragmatism will get the job done what will educate more people, what will give businesses moving, what will get banks to ivest? what will provide more security
for families? i'm a pragmatist and i am proud of my country right now. i'm proud that in the deep depths of the crisis despite the cameras on to focus on all those rendered in washington there are leaders standing up and getting things done. i'm the first person to tell you health care legislation was not perfect. it wasn't peect and we have a severe problem. america cannot spend close to over 17%f its gdp on health care costs when our closest competitor nations are spending about 12. we are not going to put one thing right now what he did t me was heroic. you know there are millions of children in america that couldn't get health care? because they had something called pre-existing conditions. do i want to live in a nation where you have a child born with a disease or disability that can't get coerage?
that's not the america that i believe in. i talk to college students all the time and i see kids graduating from llege and they are worriebecause they are being kicked off their health care coverage. to me that is not the america that i want to be the incoming and i see that now we have laws in place kids can stay on their parents coverage until they are 26. so this is a complicated time. there are no easy ways to success. in fact a precondition to triumph is great frustration. it is. i know this from calculus and college. [laughter] the precondition to success is great frustration. but i do believe this ation has a destiny, and i do believe also with the great american leader frederick dougss said you don't get everything you paid for but you have to pay for everything that you get. our nation is not just going to
ease out of the crisis. a politician that tells you that they don't want anything from u but you don't have to sacrifice anything or give anything, do anything, they are selling you something you shouldn't buy. america did not get to where it is on it an easy road. we have to make tough choices. we had to make sacrifice, and that is the only thing possible to get some of the challenge we have now but i have faith. king said change will not relent on the wings of inevitability of must be carried on the backs of people willing to struggle. and frankly when i do stop and college campuses because i see that tradition continues the traditions of my prents to end up in college in the early sixties involved with lots of people who went to the movements and freedom rides and marches the tradition continues from me in my generation when i saw my friends from jail or stanford or the colleges i went to giving up the luxury is wondeul jobs
being offered i'm going to go and served. i'm going to do teach for america in fact my generation like when the cops found the organization. i'm going to go to the united states milita come serve my country. as it empowers me to continue in my life. and now it's your generation of college students, and the wonderful thing about this generation is you are in my opinion the millennials generation. you'll be the defining generation the country pays. and so, as i conclude and begin to open for questions i just want to end with where i started with the young lady who witold you. in 2002i ran for mayor and lost that election and there is a documentary dhaka called street fight and if you see somebody pumping your fist in the back -- it's like now one of the current tv documentary is to watch before you die.
it won the film festival, the canadian film festival, and it was nominated for the academy award but it lost to a film called march of the dam penguin's. [laughter] that was the official title. i'm not making it up. that was the official title. they dropped the damn to be marked acceptable. i thought if morgan freeman was married in me shading in the morning and would win an academy award. [laughter] i make exceptions for pain gwen's. i hate those little flightless rodents. i'm not bitter or anything. it was a painfully election. i hope you go to netflix if you have a chance. esquire magazine comes to me and says we one you to be in our issue of the 40 best and brightest in america and like a what are you talking about? i don't feel like the best test or the brightest on anything i just lost and the election. let mewrite an election about
real american heroes that we don't often see in te tv cameras or newspaper articles. let me write an article for esquire abouone of the best and brightest and they said okay, edor and mark warn said absolutely. i went to interview ms. virginia jones, one of my heroes in the nation. people stand in the trenches and front lines of the american drea and do whatever they can to make this country be real, makes a promise eal, standing there interviewing her and she tells me this story that shocked me. i've known her a long time at that point. served in the american military and was amazing and she it's a knock on her door and it's not anarrogant guy like me saying he wanted to help it was justa woman crying, couldn't spe to her. a greater by the arms and said
follow me and it dragged her down five flights of stairs to the lobby and ms. jones comes to the lobby and sees her son lying on the ground with bullet holes and she's telling me the story. i wheeled into the lobby, fell upon his chest a immediately he was dead. you hear a story like that and it is the most unnatural thing for a parent to have to bury a child and i remember putting down my reporter's hand looking at her and the first thing that came to mind was a stupid thing to say. no one tells you how to deal with situations like that said the first thing that came to mind -- i know where she works, she makes cent money but she chooses to live in what then became public housing. she and i actually paid market rent to live in these buildings. i said ms. jones, i know whe you work. i know the money you must make. i said why do you still live in these buildings and have to walk through the lobby every day your son was murdered and she almost looked at me insulted by the
question and she folded her arms and looks at me and says why do i still live in brick towers? i said yeah. and she goes why do i still live in apartment 58 i said yeah, why? she looked at me harder and said why am i still the tenant president in these buildings and have been since the day they were built in 1969? i'm thinking that's electoral longevity i need to find out what's going on there. laughter career and i said yeah, why? and she stood up st. -- she's a woman that is 5 feet but at that mont i was looking up to her and she said to me because i am in charge of homeland security. and i hugged her. each and eveone of us must understand that we are stronger than we know, more powerful than we believe, more why is the and we will ever understand but especially us that are coming out of school. you really can make a
difference. you really can make change. you can transform this world but it starts with taking action and taking responsibility this election wl determine the stiny of the globe. there will be decisions made in the next four years there will have global impacts. i for one have faith inthe president of the united states of america. i believe he will be a good steward of the nation, and most of all i believe he believes in us and our leadership ability the matter your political beliefs i hope this is a campaign that here's more from the american people thanever before because it is that important and i hope that you here today will choose not just to vote but to leave the vehicle we as we go into next november. thank you. [applause]
>> q&a. will you r around with a microphone? yes, sir. you have a shaved head. it's a good look. i trust a shaved head mn. [laughter] mr. obama said you have any advice to give me? i said shave the head. didn't do it. i think he would have gotten ten mo planes. mitt romney needs to shave his head. that man's here is to perfect it defies gravity. [laughter] all right, in the back. >> were you able o have school choice? >> i will repeat the question because -- anyplace in nw jersey but especially in newark. >> the question just in case tmz didn't get it did we have school choice in the work new jersey,
do we hav abundant options and the answer is no we haven't gotten there yet because there were a lot of forces the resisted in the past but i have a weird alignment. really i think the most and talked about greatest achievement of the administration are because of a guy named arne duncan that the secretary of education and president teamed up to do transformative things and one of them was to create greater accountability in schools because uon accountability that greater access to laws that may in power school choice everything from charter schools to alternative school models and i've talked to the secretary of education a lot. it takes awhile to scale up. yesterday i was at the ribbon cutting for another new school model in the ward new jersey. we've opened up a lot of different types of schools ranging from charter schools to schools you could graduate having to years of college credit by the time you graduate from schools.
schools for disaffected youth who wouldn't otherwise drop out, schools for kids coming out of incarceration. we are trying to create what u said the empowerment so they can get up and look at the world and say i've got five, six, seven schools to choose from all i can figure out what's best for my kid if i can flip a switch and get their overnight but in newark new jersey watch us. we've brought together a combination of local law activists, national philanthropist's some of you might haveeard about market zuckerberg. quit on him and he said you are my millionthfall were you get he said if you inve in phanthropy it can leverage change so this year we opened up five new schools this year in newark we've expanded a large percentage of the schools to longer school days. we just started a literacy
program we watched the kids are not only getting books but they are getting books to yonah, ten books just little kids when the owner books they take pride in reading. we are doing a lot of initiatives get where you want to go and i encourage your buddy interested to go to the foundation for york's future you can seehat we are doing with the philanthropy to get on the competitive guy like we all should be and i want to work to be a national model for reform and amazing in the time of partisanship i've got a republican governor you have probably never heard of him he is very soft-spoken but a republican governor in new jersey who is 100% on board with what we are trying to do. >> president obama could have made the single largest example of freedom of trees and education by declaring washington, d.c. as a starting
point for universal rights such as trice but he did not do that. in fact there was quite a public effort to continue a certain program and he more less denied the continuation of that program and the question goes back who and why is blocking choice in education not only in newark and d.c. and new hampshire here in fact. i submitted the legislation and 92 for choice and education, but i will tell you it was hijacked at the state legislative office services for rewriting legislation and it a rout in such a way that when it came out of the legislative services i could not even recognize the freedom of choice in education.
>> let me say two things, that is a substantive question you obviously know a lot about education in the nation it's very obvious to so for those of you who don't know washington, d.c. had a program that was a three sector strategy the bus started under meir williams which said we are going to try to expand the charter school base and get more federal funding for public education and stirred a scholarship program for kids in the disadvantaged to go to any school you want to and be as a democrat and other democrats put this was great. senators like dianne feinstein came out and endorsed the program. washington, d.c. is however the only place where the federal government has the control and the sense over the funding of the schools so you're right. right now i've talked to the senators and people in the administration about this that took about one of those prongs' which is a scholarship back and you really can agree on that but i will tell you this when it comes to federal policy to the
rest of the united states people say you have a lot in common with barack obama. a lot in common? hewent to a privileged wall school in a nice neighborhood. i went to yale. he started out as a first job as a community organizer. i was a neighborhood coordinator. he was born in the united states of america. i was born in washington, d.c.. d.c. is different. federal policy -- i tell you this again i deal with a lot of people all over the political spectrum when it comes to federal policy of barack obama has done to in power choice is more than any oter president and i will givyou this example the race to the top fund basically says states have to do better in change in their laws to change after the fund that made it easier of listed caps on charter schools, one of things the guilaume administration was able to do and they would move
their caps so when it comes to federal policy it really is a state-by-state battle but this federal government gave a lot of incentives where there was this barrier to the education reform but prove a lot of state houses to clean up their act and allow for more school choice so i agree with you the program for the 40,000 plus kids in washington, d.c. for a fraction of them really but i disagree when it comes to the obama administration doing better than in getting criticized for arne duncan to get booed by the teachers' union when he went to speak their shows you this is why i love obama is a centrist jogging attack on both sides of the trial because what he was doing to liberalize educational chollesaid for the urban communities especially that serve a lot of minorities and to me this is the greatest. i want to think the greatest national security threat is in america? the greatest national security
threat. i asked this once of a republican after he talked up the war in iraq and talked about the nuclear proliferation which concerns me obviously as we know with pakistan's weapons right now it was after hetalked about terrorism. i was in an audience smaller than this and i was one of those guys it's annoying they raise theihands and then the defense speechefore the question. i asked the question at the end of my speech what is the greatest in the next years and he didn't miss a beat he just said the greatest threat is the fact we are not educating our children in this nation. think about this. there's a wonderful mckinsey study if you have a chance to mckinsey 2,009 disparity study. the look of the impact of in such low graduation rates and if you can close to the disparity between minorities in this country in terms of high school graduation rates you can increase the gdp by over trillion dollars but what is even scarier is the work force is getting more diverse.
the majorityf the work force in the decades ahead in our lifetime are going to be minorities and if we continue to fall, failed to heal the gaps of the majority is less and less educated and we continue to fall, not retreating nearly enough people from the science and technology engineering and math, falling on the people they graduate from colleges what's going to happen to the competitive, what's going to happen to the globe so this is what i say when i talk with barack obama i was on the phone yesterday not talking politics talking policy and when i see their conservative agenda to make k-12 education more successful in america and again this is the only area that republicans many who are staunch republicans as opped to ideological who have the ambition say they've done an incredible job, k-12 education moving the country better in the right direction but more importantly the college students because i school is not enough. the unemployment rate for
college graduates is around 5% for people who don't have a college education are not 25% so what we do to make college more affordable? righ now the stark difference between all the republican candidates but i've been watching these debates and the president with a proven record and there is obvious. dewaal -- and this was in the last congressional will come a congressional budget, the pell grants to read the we want to see nation that makes college less and less affordable or do we want a nation that has call which more and more affordable? this is what i say that i see what's happening right now and i will give you tomorrow examples because it is giving me the chance to pick it to something i'm passionate about and i passionately support the president. you cannot during times of fiscal austerity -- and we ned to cut government spending -- what we could repeat that we need to cut government spending to revive a big city mayor.
we need to cut federal spending. we cannot continue to spend at the rate -- you can't balance your budget by saying i'm going to spend more and take less. it won't work. but listen to me right now. when they need to go on a bill yet they could not a pound of flesh and what i mean by that is that in tis of fiscal austerity it cuts education, cut taxes to hire your education. i'm the first mayor to tell you with a high-profile expenditure in my city money is not the answer. it's a necessary but not sufficient. investments in high your education are the answer to see a sstem like one of the greatest public education systems on the globe continue to cut their budget spending more on prisons in california than they arein the university system and the system that was launching more and more gineers, doctors, scientists,
the illusions and artists, inventors to see the system and what is happening to it right now because of budget cuts and budget cuts and more and more out of the reach of regular people that is a crime in this country so we will never be able to fuel our economy unless we have systems to prepare the used to not just compete but lead in the 21st century. the last thing i will see which is something i know obama believes as well and another reason i follow him is another lunacy in the nation we take kids into the country sometimes as early as a few months old we educate them k-12. they get their college education. i was talking to the president of the samford of university just last month in october. educate them, get them graduate degrees and as soon as the fenech will kick them out of the country. you know how many people in the nation graduate from graduate school? their student vis are done and we try to drive them out of the nation? i can point to so many of the
industrialist inventors and the nation that for immigrants. our immigration policy is still forming and that's why obama and others support the gerry. we pay for people's education and support that. if they show they are great citizens of america and want to become job creato as i hear the term all thetime while we kicking them out of the country? i use that to answer to questions. now on the immigration? no problem. other questions? yes, sir. >> [inaudible] >> are you a junior or senior? [laughter] >> you talked about the idea of important issues relative to national security. without dressing and global security? and the issue which barack obama seems to have swept under the
rug he refuses to even acknowledge the terminology in speeches relative to global climate change or global warming better called a global warming because it does sound like the catastrophe that is in progress if nothing is done. the important -- i will be like you and give a little speech before i ask the question. >> i can't criticize you, you can criticize me when i get a stick in my eye. >> like policies like equal rights for citizens or equal pay for women were being able to have any sexual identity you have and not be condemned, all of these important social issues that are driven by your conspiracy of love, which i love the term, they don't have a
timeframe associated with them. we are experiencing a ticking time bomb with cmate change and the fuse is growing shorter down to now about maybe a decade to 15 years before we have to take dramatic action before tipping point scientifically acknowledge and on refuted tipping plants are realized such as the permafrost releasing vast amounts of methane into the atmosphere. our leaders are feeling us. i would contend that they are feeling us is almost too warm of the term. they almost should be subject to crimes against humanity in my mind. every academy of science from
every industrialized nation all agree global climate change is happening and to a large extent it is almost irrefutably e to -- >> what we take your point and let me -- you're point is a very good one, and you talk like my mother does when i would get bad grades. it's a crime against humanity must develop your mind ad serve your country. but look, you are saying that we are a ticking time bomb running out of time. i'm telling you right now the explosions are already starting. i live in a city that has been impacted by our neglect. i've got epidemic asthma rates from air quality that is horrendous. my city is one of the hottest places in the state because of lack of green space and so much
paved roads to buy half epidemic obesity rates for my kids and that is an environmental issue and high unemployment rates. you and i both know that is an environmental issues. why? because as we have taken incredible investments from the federal government, programs the obama administration made to deal with climate issues, what have we done? retired disaffected youth and put them into programs to retrofit city building because i was last night at an awards ceremony where may become a year michael bloomberg got an award and he's given me the best political the vice - forgotten. it's one simple thing and i advise any young people coming into politics to follow, he said if you were going to go into politics if you were going to be a major, fir become a billionaire. it's incredibleadvice. [laughter] so we read the league of conservation ters award
ceremony. i gave the keynote speech and mayor bloomberg received the award because 50% of the world's population lives now in cities and by 2015 it will be 75%. if cities to more like mayor bloomberg has done while my state has pulled down the goals mayor bloomberg has pushed his up. my state got out of the greenhouse grass agreement which includes, mean to jersey my state has pulled out of them and other states like new yk have stayed in. but mayor bloomberg and others have de is incredible things with retrofitting buildings. he has a goal by 2017 to reduce the carbon emissions of all of the city buildings by 30% to would already 12% of the way there and he only started in 2005. when we first started doing it and mayors like him and me had conversations with president obama key found ways to make funding available for cities where theajority, 80% live in
cities directly in thesuburbs to start taking action. so i agree there is a rhetoric problem in the country. democrats get very shy with rhetoric sometimes because we have the other side always trying to twist our words. you are ever to lead to over regulating business and costing jobs. when i sit down with barack obama he gets it right away. so there will be young people coming yes, retrofitting buildings. we've done programs for senior citizens with federal dolars creating union jobs by the way with benefits and pensions and the like, stockholm folks by retrofitting senior citizens, lobar their energy costs 25%, lowering their carbon emissions, creating jobs. so i am guy telling the white house as i mentioned have a lot of conversations back-and-forth and the last conversation we talked about tone and rhetoric because it does matter but i
know that when it comes to the epa standards the head of the conservation voters yesterday was going on about what one side says denying science that human beingshave -- this is an irrefutable evidence now that these things have an impact and you haveanother side that says we accept responsibility. we may not be moving as farand fast but we accept responsibility and a lot of things that don't catch the national attention people don't like talking about regulations but the administration passed a lot controlling emissions from factories and cleaning up kohl not to where we want it to be but taking steps to change standards in the united states of america so we can discuss how we can encourage the obama administration as a lot of us do to partner with us to find ways to lower carbon emissions and a deal with this already xploding bomb but right now there is a stark choice i can have obama who has proven to his actions as he was called last night a
champion for the environment versus somebody from the other side and we have a lot of choices the believe the government should get out of the way and drill and do with the have to do. to me it is clear what the choices for americans and those of us who know as you said i love how you phrase it and i will steal the common good speakers borrow from great speakers, the issues don't have times on them at the environment will return to the point unless we move and the people most affected by this are the poor and vulnerable populations. kids right now to respiratory problems for the rest of their lives driving up health care costs for us all because we've allowed the air quality to get so bad. so we have work to do. federal level work i have work to do in new jersey as we continue to retreat from environmental collisions and lawsuits and the like but ultimately right now the choice is so clear if you are a champion given the choices we
have i would choose barack obama a thousand times before i would choose somebody on the other side of the aisle. one more very quick question. >> the last queson has to move and inspire the room. if somebody doesn't cry i'm coming after you. [laughter] i put you on the no-fly list so there's a lot of questions. [laughter] >> i'm a freshman here. >> i from chester new hampshire about an hour from here but i have a younger brother who has sarah will palsy. you talked earlier about education and seems to me like more and more lately children likeim are sort of falling through the cracks. we don't pay attention to them as much as we should be so my question is what you think this is our obligation is and how should we educate them and treat them and things like that? >> i can try to find out and i'm sure there's obama folks here who can find out.
i know arne ducan from my conversations with him as passionately concerned to make sure every child in america has abundant pathways towards education. and a lot of the hidden learners in our country people with special needs do often fall through the cracks, and so i know from our president of all local level we are doing a lot to make sure that we create real solid educational pathways for every one of our kids coming and i've heard this have more coerences than i care to remember. the special-education as one of the eatest areas we waste money in america. we make investments that don't get a lot of return but they are becoming the best practice models in the country for special needs education so i know that is what the ad fenestraon said. the answers are not going to co from me when it comes to education we will find the best practices and create incentives for people to follow in those best practices.
so again, i am so confident arne duncan as a guide is dealing with these issues and talking about these issues specifically things they are doing but i can't tell you who the city of newark new jersey we try to reinvent our practices to make sure weget returns when we invest taxpayer dollars and prieta environments that are nurturing to the children and at the end the day as i saw already kids from california to work n.j.-based and up and give a call to the conscience of the country that we may one day be a nation with liberty and justice for all for everyone. i want to thank everybody tonight. it's a privilege this is my first visit to new hampshire. you guys need a and a year in this town? >> yes camano? i have to go back. thank you very much. [applause]
>> it's a pleasure having you here, sir. >> where didou grow up? >> wisconsin. >> yeah? >> iowa. >> iowa. >> iowa. [inaudible conversations] >> great state of ohio. >> midwest. >> wisconsin. >> kansas. [inaudible] >> spent 30 years in texas- >> the star telegram. >> covered aviation and energy. >> i tell you. kind of a little off the subject but really not. medical technology and what's happened in texas in the last decade in particular, has been just really fascinating.
when you talk about our state's econy, back in the '80s, '84,ight before we dropped off the cliff and went into a rather substantial and relatively lengthy recession, gas in texas was 14.7% of our goes state product, and today it's less than 7%. about 6.5%. the gross state product, and it's grown, but that gives you an idea of the total diversification of the texas economy over the course of the last 25 years. in the last decade in particular. we announced a new applied cancer science institute at md anderson a week ago last monday. it was basically a pickup and move out of harvard to md anderson.
so, -- we're seeing some just great work. it's really early, but one of our intentions is to try to make texas the adult stem cel center of the country, and maybe even of the world. just fascinating things going on. i actually had -- when i had my surgery done the first of july, they used -- harvested my own stem cells, and used them back, and i healed up very quickly. and we're seeing results with the closest -- just fascinating. that not what we came down here to talk about. whoeveron your staff does science.
all of the above. really fascinating things going on. >> why don't we get started. i am rick greene, editor vice president of the news with the des moines register here in iowa. and we thank you for being with us today. we have texas governor rick perry, purr seeing the republican presidential nomination. this is ore board and we're honored to have you here. we want to give you the floor to ke opening comments about things that are important to you. >> you may not exactly -- our communications director, silting - sitting over there, gives good advice, and -- >> how is the campaign going? >> it's a most interesting process, and having run
statewide in texas, you think you're ready for a national campaign until you actually -- people say, man, running a statewide in texas, that a big state. that's true. but it's sure not as big as america. so, just managing a national campaign is really an interesting process, but the other side of that is that 11 years of chief executive experience, in particular governing experience, pays great dividends as we talk about why i want to be president, and what i bring to the table from the standpoint of the experience standpoint of the argument can be made that the current president, his lack of chief
executive experience, his on the job training, if you will, has one a drawback to him, which i happen to agree with. running the 13th largest economy in the world, if texas were a stand-alone entity -- has a great number of challenges, and we have to deal with particularly bordering a foreign country, and our number one trading partner, and a country we have had a long and most interesting and generally very positive relationship with, but the challenges ofhe border, securing the border, et cetera, which a lot of other governors don't have to deal with, with those types of issues. so the 11 years i've been the governor of texas, i think has epared me to deal with a host of very complex issues, which
it's on the economic side or whether it's on the foreign policy side of dealing with various and sundry countries, and we had a group of -- from -- in the office last monday, and as they are looking to texas to put an office there. obviously they're very oil and gas oriented, and talking about building a pipeline across turkey, into europe, to supply -- give europe another supply of energy rather tn having to rely just solely upon the russian gas. so, the whole foreign affair side of being a texas governor is kind of an interesting aspect of what i deal wh, whether it's traveling to other
countries and almost excsively economic developnt-wise. obviously we're not -- i did through the years sign some memorandums of understandings with other countries and texas. israel is an example of it back in the '90s when i was the agricultural commissioner. so just a little taste of the life experiences of dealing with the foreign affairs, that it's a bit different than what a number of other governors would deal with, and certainly different than most of those that are on the stage with me who are also asking for the people to consider them for the nomination. i want to touch on the three aspects of the policy i've laid out, and then we'll open it up and you can fire away. the first -- we got in the race
the 13th of august, considered to be relatively late to inesque ourselves into -- inject ourselves into the process, and six weeks later we laid out our first policy, and it was on energy and jobs, and i know we'll talk about ethanol. i'm in iowa, so i know we'll touch on that. i'm not going to use this time for that. we'll -- i should say i am a "all of the above" energy individual from the standpoint of, we need to have a very broad portfolio. but what i focused on in the first policy paper was opening up our federal lands and waters for exploration. i think only 8% of our proven reserves on federal lands and waters are being used today, and so there's a substantial amount of energy -- over 300 years worth of energy in this country
that we could use. the saudi arabia of coal, and using that coal and having the innovation to be able to use clean-burning coal -- i'm still a fan of nuclear energy. obviously, sited in the right places, and being able to process the fuel rods after the use of the rods, but our technology in america has allowed us to find resources we had no idea were there. ten years ago the idea that all the shell gas -- so i would suggest to you there are probably still substantial amount of energy that technology and innovation will allow us to be able to discover, produce, and use as a domestic source of energy. so, that i talked about on the
policy -- a million-plus jobs just right off the bat. pulling back the regulations. over the last five year since '08, that have stifled job creation. and then rebuilding epa into an agency that is actually pro-jobs and pushing back a number of these environmental decisimaking processes, regulations, to the states. i trust the people of iowa, your governor, your legislature, to make decisions. one tax fits all -- the clean air act -- and i -- somebody saying they're not for the clean air act. it's done it work. but we have now an agency that is creating so many regulations, and the cost of those regulation
and, frankly, the benefit we're seeing is very minuscule at best. the second thing i laid out was tax policies and how to deal with the budgets, how to deal with the economy, the 20% flat tax, again, mortgage deduction, charitable deducon, local tax deduction, do away with cap gain. put it on a post guard and send it in. that it. 20% of that, and -- did i knock it off? sorry about that. make your job better. excuse me. so, -- then on the spending side, obviously, i've had 25% years of dealing with a state budget, either as an appropriator, state agency hd,
lieutenant governor and now governor of the state of texas. we have a balanced budget amendment in the state of texas, and it's important we worked toward balanced budget amendment for the united states as well. it's the most serious way to deal with long-term budgetary concerns that people have. the reduction of spending, and i laid out some jobs, but i'm the only individual who has laid out a budget that will be balanced by 2020. 18% of the gross domestic product is where we're headed to, and then on the corporate side, just a straight 20% corporate rate, gets us down to -- that's about the -- excuse me -- the global average in other countries is approximately 20%. so we chose that so that we would be competitive.
ours is either the highest or the second highest corporate rate in the world right now. so there's a lot of disincentive for companies to be growing and expanding in the state of texas. and all of that is on the web site. i'm not going to sit here and use that -- i want to end up with the third policy we laid out, and that is to overhaul washington. there is some ideas in there that are -- some would say provocative. when i talk about a parttime congress, and i think it rolled some people back on their heels, what do you mean, a parttime congress? it will work, and it will work because today washington has become so self-centered, so self-important, from my perspective, and the people basically make a living being ited states congressmen. their salaries are at three
times the average of the american family. make it parttime. let them go home and have jobs back in their communities and live with their citizens and come and take care of the business that needs to be taken care of, and i will suggest to you, there are a lot of models for it working across the country. it's called state government. 13th largest economy in the world in texas. we meet for 140 days every other year. we balance our budget. we take care of issues, and then those member of the legislature, that are only paid $600 a month -- go home. do their lawyer work or veterinary work or they're physicians or retired teachers or whatever, we have that make up the microcosm of our state, and it works. we balance our budget. they go home and live under the laws they passed. a parttime congress, i think,
would go a lock -- long way towards not only making it less contentious in washington, dc but also give the american people confidence that the members of congress are really more in tune with what is going on. so, substantially reducin the size and the scope of washington and those agencies. even some that i couldn't remeer the name of. but that's -- again, i want to open it up and all y'all to ask questions. but that' the policy side of the most important issues that face this country, is getting our economy back, getting people to work, getting the confidence back in the entrepreneurs so they feel they can risk their capital and have chance to have
a return on investment. that's how you get the 13 plus million people who are out of work, an opportunity to have a job and the dignity to take care of their family. the way that america, again, can considered a force to deal with. whether at it on foreign policy or militarily. because if we do not first get our economy back on track and growing, then these other issues become even more problematic for us because we lose or role in the world as being the strongest economy, the strongest military, the influence on foreign policy and events around the world. so, with that -- >> well, it's interesng you want to talk about overhauling washington, or the economy, creating jobs, and protecting thehings so many iowans care about. but you just recently did a $1.2 million ad in this state,
and we have seen it and there's half of that focuses on showcasing your faith and what you describe as the president's war on religion. i guess we would want a better explanation, what the message or backdrop? does this really zero in on the issues that are most important to americans and iowans? >> i'm introducing myself to iowans. for 20 year as thegriculture commissioner, and then lieutenant governor and governor, i've had 20 years to introduce myself to the people of the state of texas. obviously having five months to introduce yourself to the people in new hampshire and iowa and south carolina and florida, which are the four -- there's obviously a tactical reason for zeroing in on iowa, and we know what that is. but it's introducing yourself to those people, who is this
individual? what makes that individual texas, if yu wail? and my faith, and this is nothing new. the idea that i have issues that have resonated with me personally, and my faith, is part of who i am. prior to that, obviously, we laid out our economic side of things as well. so, i think americans do want a president who is not afraid to say, here's what i believe in, here's who i am, i am consistent, whether it's consistency on economic issues or consistencies on issues of my personal faith, and values, and that's the message that i'm intending to relay to the people of iowa, is, here's what believe
in. and by and large my christian faith does characterize me. whether it's making decisio about economics, for instance -- i think the dignity of being able to have a job to take care of your family, from my perspective, is part my faith, that relying upon government to make decisions that are best made by you and/or your family -- those are values that i hold very dear, and i think serve not just the people of iowa but the people all across this country well. i do disagree with this administration, that it's the private sector individual who would be better served, whether it's economically, or whether it's issues of social concern,
that they make those decisions, and then there are clear issues of what i believe in that are in conflict with the administration. >> do you believe he is waging a war on religion? what we're doing -- explain that more to us. >> i do. when you see his appointment of two -- from my perspective inarguably activist judges, whether it was -- um -- montemayer. >> sotomayor? >> they're both both activist judges and that's an example of my concern about -- i believe the supreme court should not be
making legislative decisions, and telling americans how to live, whether is about prayer in school, whether it's -- you can celebra christmas. those are decisions that should be left to the states or to the individuals to be making. the justice department who is defending this ministerial exception, i think that is a direct attack on our people of faith and churches and basically saying that you cannot discriminate, if you will, someone who doesn't believe what you believe in hiring and firing
of ministers and their staff. i wrote a book on boy scouts called, "on my honor" and gets into the issue of whether or not scouting should be able to restrict an openly gay scout master. very private sector organizations. thathould be their call. and you have them spending substantial amounts of money defending lawsuits that have said, no, you have to -- and those are my beliefs, and i am consistent about them. i don't try to meander through and make all sides happy. i do think that this president is conducting what i consider to be an attack on traditional
religious organizations under traditional religious values, by >> i'd like to take this one step further. you said in the iowa leader forum -- this is not quite a exact quote, a direct quote, but deep in the soul of every person there's a hole that can only be filled by jesus christ. >> that's correct. >> i am not a christian american but i am an american, and i vote, and i find that to be rather an exclusive notion. i don't have a hole that can only be filled by jesus christ. so you're not speaking for me or to me, and i just wonder if you don't think that you're excluding certain people who are not christian when you say that. >> i tell you what in my faith i believe. one of the great things our
founding fathers did in that first amendment was to say you had freedom of religion, and i defendant -- defend that with my life if requid, and i have sworn to uphold the constitution as a veteran of the united states air force and the governor of the state of texas. your faith belief is your business. ...
when th hole is filled by jesus christ. that's my be believed. you choose another route, you choose another religion. we have very diverse religious groups and different individuals in the state of texas. i respect them as citizens and human beings and that is their decision. i can't -- the way aout me to judge you or to judge anyone else, i'm talking about my faith and of those that have chosen
the christian pathway. >> as president you have to represent all of americans, and by saying this president has declared war on religion, some people in this country who are of those other divers face might read that as he would declare war on their religion but not you're own. >> they would be wrong is simply how i would say that straht up. >> you talk about state rits in terms of defending the constitution. you don't see a role for the federal courts to you know formally interpret the first amendment to defend religious rights in all 50 states? >> here's what i see happening with the first amendment and this goes back to 1962 in that case where you can't have been organized prayer to an almighty god. i'm not a lawyer so idon't study these cases in debt, but
the idea that the court is telling us whether or not we can have prayer in schoo is a bit offensive to me. that should be a decision that is made at the local level. it's one of the reasons the fe called for the doing away with e department of education. i had no idea why te federa government was engaged in telling the states how to educate their children. i think that is a waste of money and a waste of effort for washington to be one-size-fitall or worse yet picking winners and losers in various states when in fact that is a state responsibility to educate the children in their
states', and there will be people who come up with very different ways and governors and legislatures who are thoughtful and want to have that competitive work force and be in the place where businesses move because there is a skilled workforce. they will pick and choose which of those programs will work best for their states, but again, i go back to our founding fathers freedom, not freedom from religion -- >> i think about how we get around excluding folks. as governor of texas you have called for a day of prayer during an economic crisis. for some that don't share your faith or reigion that was the governor of texas was calling for a did.
would you call for this in the country for example? >> my faith is one that lets look at our history and what george washington or thomas jefferson or abraham lincoln which are three rather powerful members of our either founding fathers or president who had a great impact on this country and they all made statements about how uld you do this job without having a strong faith and an almighty creator? so the idea that i wouldn't would be counter to hawaii am. if americans want to elect a president who basically says look, i'm not going to -- i'm not going to let my feet intervene in anything that i do
and from my perspective it would be a bit scary. i want a president who is faithful and believes that there is a greater being who has an impact of free day in this world and is engaged in the activities my faith teaches me this is an all-powerful creator that when a bird falls from the sky, he knows it coming and i believe that and that is part of hawaii and i'm not going to change that. if people decide listen, you know, your religious faith scares me off, my religious faith adn't got in the way in texas making usthe most
economically werful state in the nation. as a matter of fact, i think it brings comfort to folks who i believe that your economic condition in life is a biblical effort to give people the opportunity to take care of themselves to not have to rely upon government, to give the individuals the dignity to have a job and take care of their family. >> just to clarify on this point the day of prayer or permitting prayer in schools are you talking specifically about christian prayer or nondenominational? >> it's not the government's business to be telling folks that at the state level. obviously if a school is a jewish school and in dallas
texas that school should be able to dohat. >> the issue here is with public schools. >> the independent school boards that oversee those decisions are not government. again, the idea that we have to be so politically correct but there's one family that says i don't want my child -- that child ought to have the freedom to sit over there and played tic-tac-toe or what have you, but the issue is that for washington to tell a local school district that you cannot have a prayer and a time of prayern that school i think is offensive to most americans. i trust the people of the states to make those decisions and the school districts to make those decisions better than to take an
elected frankly unaccountable judges and it's one of the reasons i've called for the end of liftime appointments to the federal judgeships in that term. >> can you talk about your ideas on health care anwhite texas ranks number one in the country for the uninsured? >> that is a decision the people in texas have made over the years and there's a difference between -- i know folks like to pitch out the number one and uninsured, but people have access to health care in texas, some of the best health care in the world as a matter of fact when you look m.d.anderson and what we talked about as we started this process here people have access to health care. the people of the state f tes have said this is how we want to
deliver that health care. there are some restrictions in texas of how we would make more insurance available because we have been not allowed to have wafers that we ask for in the federal government which goes to the real key difference in the current administration when it comes to the program of medicaid cut the states come up with the innovative ways to do health inrancprograms, the different selections for the differentenus if you will of the insurance. medicare is th -- and i will give you three examples. i do think what paul ryan and some of his colleagues have offered up for medicare transformation there are some pretty wise move some of the diffrent types of insurance ad
again people can pick copayments, i think it's important for everyone to have some skin in the game if you will so that everyone -- and it can be a skill that moves up and wn and speaking of indexing for medicare we should index the individuals, but there are a number of ways of which we can make health care insurance more available, but in the state of texas no one is -- no one is not covered -- covered is not the right word, no one has access to some of the best health care in the world and the legislature
through the election of the citizens have put into place programs that do not require insurance or make it available in some cases. that is a natural segue over to this whole individual mandate. >> so in texas you don't need health insurance? there's enough infrastructure that 25% of your pele don't have health insurance? you don't need health insurance? >> i think that we would have more health insurance if we didn't have the strings attached ipad having health insurance for those that want it is good public policy but health insurance with the strings attached that we have seen from washington, d.c. is too expensive and the people in the legislature say we are not going to spend those amounts of
dollars and whether it is going to fedeally qualified health clinics or whether it is going to emergency rooms, people have the access to health care. the insurance issue is another issue. we have more people injured in texas if we block granted? i would suggest yes and substantially more so then you've got to hav the freedom to implement that program and we don't have that today. >> on your postcard their it clear how fill out that program say 20% of your income is that what you're saying? would >> i'm saying if you did that to your mortgage insurance and torture of a bowl to the culture -- local taxes, tax goes away, obviously important to audio and
any state that has substantial the agricultural interest the tax would go away and i don't know if i said dividends, talks would go away as well, and then u take 20% of tha number and that would be your personal income. >> what about family that doesn't own a home and does not have capital gains liability? do they pay 0% of their income? >> yes. >> that somebody like you that owns a home -- ka >> rebuilding. there is an act of arson and 05 and 07 so we haven't been living
for four years. >> i did have a converti with my daughter so i had homeownership. someone that has the investments and the income level to have all of that gets those deductions by the family that doesn't with 20% on their totl income, and i am describing a low-income family. is that the system was put in place? and that does not seem unfair to you? >> what seems unfair to me is the system that we have today where between $40,500,000,000,000 it spent on tax collections that could be reinvested in this country to create jobs and better paying jobs than with those individuals
are having today. i think this is all tied together with creating the confidence in this country where entrepreneurs know they can raise their capital and have a good chance to have a return on the investment, and to keep more of what they work for and that is my goal is to create an environment in this country where mor people are at wor andet to keep what they work for so no one is going to make the perfect tax structure but i think i have laid out as the simplicity of the tax plan noble gift tax reductions it is all across almost every sector that i do believe in the fairness of life laid out here because the
goal of that tax system is to create an environment in the state where people have the confidence they can create or have a return on the investment more americans wi be at work is that particular point time and that is my goal. i think that from an economic standpoint is how we pay off the debt. it's how we grow economically. on the corporate side one thing i didn't mention i will put out there is money that is offshore today approximately $1.7 trillion. allowing a period of time that can come back in at 5.25%. let me say from a low-income i believe the old system in place for some piod of time.
i haven't had the conversation with a columnist the other day what is that period of time, and i admit i don't know. but let's talk about what that period of time is. so if he were a low-income family and you wanted to stay in the old system for the earned income tax credit, you could. you could choose that. that's the choice. most and i would suggest a vast number of people will choose t go to a simple 20% flat tax. >> talk about the difference in where people's income comes from, the people who work, punches a time clock. they would pay the 20%. the person ho has the big nest
egg from data or grandpa whose income derives from capital gains or dividend some -- >> with nothing. i'm sure you can find an individual or some small number of individuals that meet the characteristic, but again, i don't think anybody is going to be doubled to create a tax system that does not have somewhere an inequity my goalis to find the simplest most straightforward vacancy of the most money and allow people to keep more of what they work for and that's the reason i leave that plan out.
islamic would be to apply to everybody regardless of the source of the income. >> you could make the argument of would be simpler. i chose this particular -- we look at a lot of different -- i looked at the fair tax at length is is what i found to be the most saleable because the fact is i've been in this business long enough to know i've goto pass it and protection i hope will not get in the way of good. >> we spent an awful lot of time with this editorial board kind of heckling from what we hear and i was saying in general but washington is broken. we've seen such a huge divide
between the left and the right, republicans and democrats, the partisanship is at an all-time high. talk a little bit about if he were elected how could you change that? what have you done to point to success in terms of bipartisan support? >> for 11 years i -- 11 years i was the governor dealing with the bodies that were in some cases almost and equitably divided between democrats and republican and in 2006, i believe 2007, we had substantial numbers of democrats in the texas house, and in 2003 there was a good specific set an example. we passed the sweeping tort reform in the nation in 2003. that was the first time that there was a republican house,
republican senate, republican lieutenant governor, speaker. yet, as we pass that piece of legislation, wanted to put it in a constitutional amendment, the tort reform, so that it wouldn't be litigated for ten years. to clearly say this is what the people in the ste of texas want, and it was dealing with capping noneconomic damages in the turn of $50,000 per event come hospital nursing home so that you wouldn't have these huge judgments and i'm going to put that in the constitution. we had to gather between democrats to d that and i think that's a good example of how i
dealwith both democrats and republicans. texas is probably 55, 45% state when you look at the break down. maybe 5644 democrat republicans. i think we are of a democrat. i never met a republican until i was probably 25, but we are really not about the d.c. bar's in texas as we are philosophically conservatives and liberals, and washingtonis broken, and i don't think washington is broken because of the r&d, i think it is broken because it has lost touc with what is going on in america and we have allowed the
special-interest to the when i opened the newspaper and i read where $7.7 trillion secretly have gone to wall street financiers to bail them ut even on known to congress, that gives me greater consternation about what is going on in this country and whether or not democratsnd republicans are trying to one up each other on such an issue, and that is the reason i think it takes an outsider to come into that environment who is willing to pull out of the veto pen and feet with a piece of legislation that has earmarks that if there is a bill that spends money that we don't have to veto it, and i'm not going to washington,
d.c. to try to -- i understand historically in my life when we work with both political parties i get that 25, 26 years of my life, but that's not the biggest concern to me. the biggest concern to me is we have a system in washington, d.c. that is broken. i mean, what the republicans did with t.a.r.p. and bailing out wall street was just as corrupt from my standpoint what timothy geithner and fannie mae and freddie mac -- what is going on in washington over the last 20 years there are some great books
out there that have gone back and reconstruction. reckless endangerment i think gingrich and morgan san -- there's another book, jimmy stewart is dead, economist -- incredibly corrupt -- and i would suggest to you fraudulent activities tt are going on in washington, d.c. tht are a great more concern to me on the economic side them whether or not i can get nancy pelosi and paul ryan to sit down and agree on a particular piece of legislation. that i think we can do, but the bigger issue for me is someone who will walk into washington,
d.c. and the type of person that is part of the list of wissman or who has been in converse or is in converse and basically stand up and declare that we are going to do construction washington, d.c. because they have put this country in great peril onomically. >> governor bush said the 11 years agoxactly the same thing when he was running for the caucuses that he was a united non-vider, he didn't use those words, but that he could get both sides to work together, he did get both sides t work together. in texas as you have described he called himself an outsider, and promised very sincerely i'm sure that he could solve the same kinds of problems that you are talking about solving. how would you do that under these circumstances?
the senate would say that it's hopeless. >> i'm not a cynic. i don't think it is hopeless. i think george w. was looking at a substantially different time in the country's history. we were balanced budget will. we were in pretty good times economically. i think the american people were not particularly concerned about -- i don't recall what the unemployment rate was in 2000, but i know it wasn't what it is today. so, the american people i think are substantially more attuned and more supportive of someone who truly will walk into washington and overhaul, and a ventricle been governor was talking about overhaul in
washington, d.c.. talking about getting democrats and republicans to work together, and i will leave that for what it is. i'm not particularly interested in to going into washington, d.c. and getting people to sing together. i'm interested in going in and try leedy constructing what is happened over many years, and it is going to be adifficult fight. i don't try to be pollyanna should at all. it will be a very difficult fight. it will require the president who is willing to spend a lot of time travelling across the country using whatever political capital they can put together o pass a balanced budget amendment to the united states constitution and at the same time not to pass the balanced budget that calls fr the part-time congress. it's that particular point in time if you do change washington
forever. schenectady's and ours to make all that happened? you can't do it alone. >> by a understand that he might have some conversations with congressman and women, who have said will you kind of put a cork in it about part-time legislation? [laughter] and i've had others that stand up and say you knowhat, you're right, but it's not them that i'm particularly concerned about, it's their constituents, and i o know what their constituents are in and the vast majority of the time and when they really think about part-time legislation i don't think that there wil be as big a pushback as what initially wh a member can -- members of congress i hope are not any different than the rest of the country. they just go to washington and observed by that culture and the special-interest but then have a
job back home and work to do that would make more money than what they're doing as a united states congress, and i think it is also a way to it is kind of unnatural term-limit affect on congress as well i don't know what the average tenure here in iowa or texas is. i'm probably going to say it's around seven or eight years to go back some one else comes in i frankly don't -- i'm not too concerned about what the congress loves me or not i'm concerned with the lead this country back on track. i think i've laid out a plan that does that, and the american people as they look and see there is very consistent in their lives when it comes to
these issues and at would fit that bill. you're pushing meshaal bachmann now for first place coming off the straw poll when what you think has happened since then -- we had four people out leading there may be one or two changes befo we get from january 3rd and i woud readily admit that our campaign didn't go as smoothly and as positively as i would have liked and the errors i've made whether they were on the debate or what have you and i've asked americans give me a
second look let me look at my policy and those were not laid out until the mid september at that particular point in time when they're falling in the polls again. i think americans are starting to an iowa in particular starting to take a ifferent number, taking another look and they're finding out about me i was the newest and on the block on august 13th and 1 of the reasons i got in the race is because i di't see anyone that the republican voters were really excited about and i became the person they were excited about for a while.
>> i'm curious how you came about making the decision on the hpv vaccine and what does that say about your leadership style? >> we've been in a continuing discussion about what texas state government's roleshould be defeating cancer in 2003 we passed a constitutional amendment that funded at $3 billion, 300 million so cancer research obviously come to anderson and in the tools we can use to conquer these
diseases that are really impacting people's quality-of-life, taking the loss lives, impacting their families. i've been very intrigued with and supported thugh the years. h-p was one of those. and as it was brought to me as an effective tool i made a political error and how i took t forward but i stl believe that parents and our young people should have access obviously to that. when i put that in place with an executive order it had an opt out. i felt comfortable that the opt out did speak to the issue of parental rights and subsequely found out that it didn't speak
to it in a strong enough fashion. two things i would do differently. i still would go forward with every tool we have to defeat these cancers. i was on to the legislative process and how am often. >> we need to wrap this up. we are about three and a half weeks away from january 3rd and have a debate tomorrow night. the editorial board has a lot of things to contemplate the next few days. tell us why should you heard our endorsement and why should i know of voters support? >> i hope you all are looking for a consistent individual, not someone who would be questioned about where are you going to be on this issue? i've been in public long enough
that i've got -- this is a good story and a bad story, you have a record. people know what i believe, people know how i'm going to respond almost any issue. they know that my record on job creation is i will use the word unsurpassed from the standpoint of many of the other candidates on the stage. and when i talk about job creation this is about understanding the private sector is where the job creation is created. a government can even be an impediment or it can low hurdles, taxes, regulations, etc.. that is the key issue for this country. who is it tht has the executive governing experience that can go in on day one and put into place
policies that will get americans working. i've done that with my energy and jobs plan. i've done that with than having to deal with congress on the taxes, on spending. but a great amount of impact can be with the administrators and the staff goes administrators to brg into the government, and i feel very confident that as iowans and hopefully the board makes the decision of that vision, that track record and that consistency is what you as citizens in this state and as members of the editorial board and people in the state of audio are looking for thank you for.
doing my best to keep the weight off. thank you. >> running around the past five years haven't you? >> there's a chance for something i wanted to do in part because of the last campaign you become frustrated the positions you have are not necessarily fully fleshed out. one minute answers don't yield to your description of the countryside with the chance to read a book. i hired a ghost writer. we did all these interviews than he to a draft of the first chapter and i said this will never work. i will write it myself and that turned out to be a great experience. >> hi tony, how are you?
good, good. >> you might want to introduce us. >> andrea is next to david and is my press secretary typically in our headquarters but on with me this weekend she came on a nice warm day. it's not bad when it's sunni like this with no precipitation. it's a nice day. >> we are ready to go? what's get started to remind the editor here a "the des moines register" hearing on your luck and we welcome you joining for our editorial board meeting today with mitt romney who obviously is seeking the republican nomination for the 2012 presidential nomination. it's a pleasure to have you with us. what we would like to do and if i remember correctly we have 45 minutes or so. just kind of give you two or three moments or so to talk
about what you're seeing on the campaign, issues most important to you and kind of frame why you were seeking the nomination and running for president. >> i would not be running again i thought and i wrote a book early on in the president's term describing what i thought the country needed to do and then in the ensuing months it was my wife that said you are going to have to do it again and i said not so sure and she continued relentlessly to say you've got to run again because the president just -- america doesn't understand what it makes =to make america our economic engine. the engine to put people at work and keep america strong and provide a future for our kids and grandkids. she and i both believe having spent my life in the private sector and then taking the experience, my career into the olympics and then in the government gave me the kind of leadership experience the
country needs and so i got into it again and i thought the issue or the choice that americans face is whether as a nation we are going to continue with the president called a fundamental transformation of america which in my view makes us more and more like here or whether we are going to say you are working in europe it's time for us to restore the principle that made america the economic powerhouse of the world and make america more like america if you will with a minute based society where individuals through their education, their hard work, the risk-taking are able to build a better future for themselves and their families and at the same time lift the entire nation. ..
the president's direction is slowed down the recovery company that downturn deeper. he has not put forward a plan to reinvigorate our economy at the same time not only has that hurt us on a near-term basis, i believe his program has made it more difficult for america to remain the economic leader of the world over the coming century. as a consequence of america falling behind economically and a global raise as a defense of freedom is itself could be in jeopardy. so unconcerned short-term and long-term because i don't think the president understands how this country works.