Skip to main content

tv   Washington Journal  CSPAN  August 26, 2014 7:00am-9:31am EDT

7:00 am
the digital age is changing communications and strategies for campaigns. our guests are brian donahue and joe fuld. here are your morning headlines. obama laying the groundwork for airstrikes in syria after a decision to approve air surveillance of isis in that country. usa today reported that the president stopped short of saying the president would seek congressional approval for those airstrikes. the washington times front page, the president may appoint congress to strike isis militants. we begin there this morning with the threat of isis and whether or not you think the president should seek congressional approval for airstrikes.
7:01 am
(202) 585-3881..c-span.or democrats, (202) 585-3880. .ndependents, (202) 628-0184 you can tweet us or join the conversation on facebook. we will begin with usa today and their headline, obama now weighing airstrikes in syria to combat aiisis. at the white house, during the
7:02 am
daily briefing, reporters repeatedly questioned him about this option of airstrikes. if the president is considering them and would he go to congress for congressional approval. [video clip] >> i'm not going to speculate about what would be required if a president -- if the president were to make a decision one way or the other. the president has not made a decision to order additional military action in syria the assident remains committed he had throughout the advance of isis, remain committed to a -- to consulting regularly with congressional leaders. he invited members, democrats and republicans from the house and the senate, to talk through these issues. there is consultation that can
7:03 am
be done and has been done at the staff level. those kinds of consultations and conversations continue. in terms of what may be required if the president were to take specific action, i'm not at the position to speculate from here. from thean be done consent of congress or by attaching it to a bill that has to be passed. with the president want some kind of congressional approval? >> i'm not going to speculate about what kind of congressional approval will be requested or required based on a military action. the administration remains committed to consulting with members of congress. as you will recall come over the course of the last several weeks, there have been a number of torrent powers notifications that are transmitted to congress -- foreign powers.
7:04 am
the president remains committed to this process, but i'm not going to speculate at this point about what may or may not be aquested or required based on decision that has not been made. host: the pentagon is coming up with military options for the president. some that include possible airstrikes in syria. the white house weighing that. usa today says your thoughts. should the president go to to combator approval the threat of isis? william in ohio.
7:05 am
democratic caller. caller: i think the president should get approval from congress. give them anything to be the president across the head with. this --e usa today says what are your thoughts on that? does the president need to go to congress for congressional approval? that is the front page of many
7:06 am
of the papers this morning, including the washington times with the headline "going it : obama may bypass congress on syria airstrikes." this is from jack reed of rhode island. the democrat who was on cnn's state of the union on sunday. when he was asked about this threat from isis, take a look at what he had to say. [video clip] >> we have to begin with the presumption that there could be such a threat and then we have lived out with what they are capable of. we can't simply dismiss them. to jump from what they've done, which is horrific, to the assumption that they are going threat to usdiate here on our homeland, you don't jump to assumptions, but you don't dismiss it. to disrupt interest
7:07 am
and ultimately destroy isis because of the threat it poses to our interests in the region. 's stateck reed on cnn of the union on sunday, talking about this threat of isis. the papers this morning, the president is considering possible airstrikes in syria to go after isis. should he get congressional approval? michigan. democratic caller. good morning. caller: to get involved in this war, they put their own reputations on the line. we want to go to war not. they're asking to provide the money in the budget, so we can up for that. we went into the war originally in iraq without any way of paying for it. congresso have provide the funds and the budget to pay for the expenses for the war.
7:08 am
what -- the question, can obama and congress unite against the islamic state? --s is what he writes on your point of paying for this at the president were to go in, would you support the surtax? caller: i absolutely would.
7:09 am
don't have the draft anymore, so we don't have to have broad support. but with a surtax, people wouldn't know that war costs money. that war would know costs money. , payght to put the money the money out of our taxes. if it takes a special surtax to do that, we need to get the deficit under control. host: cal in new york. republican. , what you'veieve been saying right now about meetings between the president and congressional leaders -- if we keep telling syria what we are going to do all the time, there will never be shock and awe. if you don't take the time to
7:10 am
get congressional approval and you have these cells of isis in the area of syria, we know those camps are there and how they got started, if you took out the root of the problem, it will slow them down some. host: so don't broadcast what they're going to do. the president should just do this operation? caller: go in and get it. host: without notifying the american people? caller: look at world war ii. and all these guys. were they broadcasting to the germans when they went in? that's not the way you do with our military. it is shock and all. awe.ock and host: what do you make of this politically? i head of the midterm elections for the president to make that kind of move ?
7:11 am
the president doesn't seem concerned about what's going on in the world around him and what we see on the news today about him being out on the golf course. one not go ahead and do what we need to do? he's not concerned about what let's go to be. host: let me go back to this piece. he says this on this issue of the threat of was alsog mike rogers
7:12 am
on the sunday talk shows, on meet the press. here is what he had to say. [video clip] in the number of 2000 -- intelligence has a different number . the fight between al qaeda that allowed isis two separate in syria was the fact that they wanted to conduct western-style operations. the leader of al qaeda said no, we want you to focus on syria. they were tooat barbaric is almost laughable given that al qaeda slaughtered 3000 people on 9/11. it was all about direction, control of those individuals. what they were saying at the time was, we have a lot of people who have passports that could go to europe and then to the united states without a visa waiver. if they would not have to apply for a visa. the only way we would know would who is writing
7:13 am
those airplanes and that may not be enough. they could be aggressive in that and they still talk about that. we are going to conduct western-style attacks. some on wants to put the board because they want to be the jihadist organization that attracts people and money. qaeda --s to be the al the terrorist organization. host: the intelligence chairman in the house on meet the press, laying out the threat of isis to the united states. the president supposedly considering airstrikes against isis in syria. the washington post has the headline this morning a new york times front-page, as
7:14 am
obama proves air surveillance of stepin syria, this it's a toward strikes and the west coal is to hurt the militants without goal. assad -- the u.s. darrell in alaska. republican caller. go ahead. caller: the president is the commander in chief. congresse say in saying ok or not. get rid of these people once and for all. host: you are in support of that? do you agree with the last caller? he should do it without a letting the american people or congress now? host: he's thcaller: he's the commander-in-chief. host: james in halifax, virginia. independent caller. caller: i agree that he should
7:15 am
seek congressional approval. this president has no desire to eliminate isil. host: jesse in michigan. democratic caller. we are always at war. i'm not for. -- i'm not for it. we need to stop these wars. [indiscernible] host: i will keep it on-topic. we go to randy in pennsylvania. caller: the president needs to
7:16 am
seek congressional approval. a presidential power. if there is nothing that constitutionally gives the president power to go to war. being the commander-in-chief come all that does is let him decide the direction of war once war is declared. that is congressional power. going to war. he gets to decide the direction of war. host: linda in california. democratic caller. i also feel he should not have to publicize his moves. as the commander-in-chief, he can make the moves that is needed. whatever happened to top-secret? in world war i, they did not publicize everything. and we won. toon't know what to expect
7:17 am
accomplished by announcing everything. congress has not passed anything. the congress has been against him from the beginning. if he thinks they will pass this, they will not. why waste anymore time and why publicize it? to your point and the others who have said the president does not need congressional approval, take a look at what the president had to say one year ago. peopleessed the american in the east room in primetime and he talked about the chemical weapons syria was using on its that he would seek congressional approval if a deal with russia to destroy those chemical weapons did not happen. listen to his argument. [video clip] the liberation, i determined it is in the national security interest of the united states to respond to
7:18 am
assad regime's use of chemical weapons to a targeted military strike. purpose of this strike would be to deter assad from using chemical weapons, to degrade his regime's ability to use them and to make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use. that is my judgment as commander-in-chief. i'm also the president of the world's oldest constitutional democracy. even though i possessed the authority to order a military strike, i believe it was right in the absence of a director imminent threat to our security to take this debate to congress. i believe our democracy is stronger when the president asked with the support of congress. i believe america acts more effectively abroad when we stand together. this is especially true after a making power being put on the president heard while
7:19 am
sidelining the peoples representatives the critical decisions of when we use force. host: president obama from one year ago, talking about why he would go to congress then to seek congressional approval against any sort of action in syria because of a chemical weapon. this is the headline after the speech, the next day in the new york times. obama delays syria strike to focus on russian plan. russia helped negotiate a deal where syria would give up its chemical weapons. that mission has been accomplished. the chemical weapons that were on the list have been destroyed, but the president, one year ago, laying out the reasons why he thought he should go to congress. if the president were to do airstrikes in syria now because of the threat of the islamic state, should he go to congress for approval? paul, what do you think? caller: they are a do-nothing
7:20 am
congress anyways. they doo congress when nothing? , is aar is worth fighting draft worth instituting? ron in california. republican caller. good morning to you. caller: good morning. isis has styled itself as a state. a government. has stated they are at war with us. at's get congress to pass declaration of war. it's the only way the president can then close the doors on all the public interest to what's going on over there. like world war i or world war ii. everything can be kept secret in a state of war.
7:21 am
that's the only way to do it. any other way, leaks will get out. baltimore, maryland. democratic caller. caller: i'm a vietnam veteran. i'm tired of our soldiers losing their minds and moore's -- in wars. i'm glad we have a president that takes his time and doesn't go into war willy-nilly. someone else's country and do what we want to. what about the casualties in libya? we can go into somewhere else -- syria has already said, we have to let them know if we are going into their. -- into there. there were a sovereign state. -- they are a sovereign state. hitting militias in
7:22 am
libya. that happening, reported in the washington post.
7:23 am
none announcing the decision to the white house. let's go to paul in new york. independent caller. the president of united states has 90 days before he has to go to congress. the president is doing a job. i have to say, to go to congress would be a waste of time. they have proven they want to go to the president -- against the president. they have no intention but to make the man look bad whenever they get the chance. host: alan in washington. independent caller. caller: this whole conversation is frankly disgusting. it exposes how ignorant the american people are. we did not even know about isis, it was nothing to us one month ago . now, we are expected to believe it's worse than al qaeda. why didn't they attacked us or other western interests years ago?
7:24 am
i don't buy it. we need more proof. this is another neocon rollover of the american people by virtue of media. host: jerry in north carolina. republican caller. i believe president obama should go to congress because he's such a weak leader. if you went to congress, it would guarantee everything the nation does. host: why do you say he is a week later? -- weak leader? caller: the world views him as a weak leader. he makes threats, the red line in syria -- say, yeah,upporters he said he redline but he was able to negotiate a peaceful resolution to the issue of chemical weapons.
7:25 am
the president worked with russia and they agreed to destroy the chemical weapons. look at ukraine -- i don't think the world is afraid of president obama. host: bill says this on twitter. why doesn't obama issue a redline to isis? obama wanted to intervene a year ago i. he should have bypassed congress been. -- bypassed congress then. here is what members of congress are saying on twitter --
7:26 am
that coming from bernie sanders,
7:27 am
independent from vermont. boehner.s from john paul from new york. independent caller. caller: good morning. he should go to congress because there are still things the gop will not say no to. tax credits and wars. this is what they are all about. this is what they are always willing to do, fight wars. he should go to them and let's see if they say no this time. j in clearwater, ford appeared independent caller. caller: the president should get in touch with speaker banner and call an emergency session of
7:28 am
congress. we have stuck our nose into a hornets nest over there. it is just a mess. if we are, isis -- going to bomb syria, we do need outside help. the british, french, whoever else wants to go in there. east is part of european problems. they drew those boundaries and put people together who do not get along. we have to have help from the europeans. host: we will keep taking your phone calls some thoughts on this about whether or not president obama should go to congress for their approval for any support of an expanded effort against the islamic state. president obama is going to be
7:29 am
in north carolina today before the american legion for their national convention. he will be talking about veterans issues at their in charlotte, north carolina. we will have coverage of that at 12:00 p.m. eastern time. usa today has this headline about the veterans administration. bowing sweeping changes -- vowing sweeping changes. head of the inspector general report, the v.a. under their new secretary is preparing for the
7:30 am
inspector general report. the secretary will be speaking today in north carolina with the president. we will have those remarks. from north carolina up for reelection in 2014, the headline in the washington times. speaking of the 2014 midterm
7:31 am
elections for the senate, here is the wall street journal u.s. news section. migrant plan irks some democrats. skeptical of the president making decisions on immigration by executive order. elections. midterm we will get your thoughts on whether or not the president should go to congress for congressional approval for airstrikes in syria. then in mississippi. that then in mississippi. -- ben in mississippi. degrade themould as much as possible and then go to congress and go to our allies and the international community and form a coalition. host: nick in new york.
7:32 am
independent caller. caller: good morning. this is contingent on the situation you are discussing. this is the best regime that syrians can hope for at this time. collaboratet should with the syrians and the iranians and the russians to some military action against isis. host: jerry in north carolina. republican caller. caller: good morning. i think the president should go to congress to say exactly what
7:33 am
he wants do and why. countries would go along with us if we did that. i believe a tax should be imposed to pay for the war. every taxpayer contributes. reinstatedhould be so that everybody does their duty for their country. host: on this issue of the powerent cost persuasion -- president's persuasion power. "too cool for these times." he writes
7:34 am
michael goes on to say a few , he facess down the issue of his presidency.
7:35 am
tom in michigan. independent caller. . caller: i don't believe the president needs to get congress approval.- congress's i do think he ought to sit down in the oval office and have a conversation with the american people and explain what the threat is. --h the threat is with isis explain what he has in mind of doing. congress, he tried getting their approval last time and that didn't work out too good for him.
7:36 am
congress can't even agree with whether it's day or night anymore. we showed a bit earlier, president obama's speech where he lays out the argument of why getould go to congress to their congressional approval for any sort of action in syria was using chemical weapons against their own people. you can go to our website, there it is. able toident later was negotiate a deal with russia and syria to have them give up their chemical weapons. the new york times and others felt the president -- the resolution was not going to get past. in congress. if he is considering airstrikes against syria, should he go to congress now for that approval?
7:37 am
kevin in maryland. independent caller. caller: good morning. i agree that he should go to congress and i also believe that he should be working more with the leaders in the middle east to defeat the problem altogether. host: bob in kansas. democratic caller. caller: good morning. i believe that the president should go to congress. i believe he ought to bring the to instate a war tax to pay for it ahead of time. if we are going to go at this with both parties agreeing with that, we might need to read and consider --
7:38 am
reconsider reinstating the draft . so people vote for going to the war, they have the money up to pay for it and the lives of their families and children in line to pay for this. host: have you changed your mind in recent months or since last in thisut syria or iraq thread of the islamic state? have you come to this decision -- caller: i was against the fact of going into syria for the fear governmentsthat the in the middle east are there for and our involvement in
7:39 am
trying to change and make them democratic is questionable in a way. according to their beliefs and so forth -- and the president took the right choice in backing off on syria originally. , it wouldldn't have have been worse than it is right now. in other news this morning , the front page of usa today. whites, blacks doubt police.
7:40 am
that on the front page of usa today. on the funeral of michael brown quote.ay, a heard.ur voices be go front page of usa today has --s headline below
7:41 am
that in the wall street journal this morning, reporting on this latest issue of tax and versions. it is also primary day in a number of states today. take a look at the map. primaries in arizona am a florida him oklahoma and vermont in arizona, florida, oklahoma and vermont today. you guys let people say
7:42 am
orthing regardless of why ask where you get that information. said republicans only approve of war and higher taxes. , world war ii, democrat. franklin roosevelt, democrat. vietnam, democrat. bosniainton, went into -- it's republicans that are warmongers? keep feeding the propaganda. the beauty of this show is
7:43 am
that you get to call us and go through everything you just went through. you can respond to what other s say. said -- caller john, independent caller. caller: the president should seek congressional approval. it smells of the beginning of the iraq war all over again. tv same warmongers on beating war drums. should go to congress and get the boat on record. -- get the votes on record. host: michelle. democratic caller. like the feel president should not go to congress because this is what they do. this is how they live. and try go over there
7:44 am
to clear things up. it would do no good because that's all they know here and they would continue doing the same thing. we will keep talking about this threat of isis and possible jamesikes in syria with carafano. we are taking a look at the mechanics of modern-day political campaigns. nater, we focus o campaign ads. we will be right back. ♪ , specialeekend programming on the c-span networks. friday night, native american history. saturday, a debate on scottish independence. sunday, q and a with the chief
7:45 am
justice of the second circuit court of appeals. book tv in prime time on c-span two. in-depth with ron paul. , afterwards with william burroughs, talking about his book, "the asteroid threat." , friday,an history tv a nasa documentary about the 1969 apollo 11 moon landing. on saturday, lyndon b. johnson's nomination acceptance speech from the 1964 democratic convention. sunday night, a look at election laws and bush versus gore. find our television schedule on 11 us know what you think about programs you are watching.
7:46 am
-- and let us know what you think about programs you are watching. conversation.n like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. this month, c-span presents debates on what makes america great. evolution and genetically modified foods, issues spotlight s andin-depth look se student loan debt and campus sexual assault. global warming, voting rights, fighting infectious disease and food safety. and our history tour showing sights and sounds from america's historic places. find our tv schedule one week in advance on and let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. .oin the conversation like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> "washington journal"
7:47 am
continues. host: we are back with james carafano, the vice president of foreign defense studies at the heritage foundation. let me show you the front page of the washington journal this morning -- wall street journal this morning. the president's approval of air surveillance over syria is the first step towards airstrikes. guest: that would make sense. if you are going to conduct airstrikes, you have to know what you are attacking. you have to have intelligence to do that. what is the purpose? if the purpose of the operation is to move isis back, you could say that might contribute or make sense. in vietnam, we essentially treated north vietnam as no go territory. we did bomb vietnam, but we
7:48 am
never followed the enemy there. when we pushed the enemy back, they reset and came back again. they don't recognize the border between syria and iraq. if your goal is to push them out of iraq, there are supply lines and pipelines of fighters. that extends into syria. it would make sense the military would want to possibly do some operations in syria. aroundwhat we just saw bombing from the air has a temporary effect. when you follow them on the ground, it's a bit of a game changer. we were able to take ground back. in syria, we don't have anybody to do that. there are just bombing,
7:49 am
is a question about how much utility you are going to get. it only makes sense as part of an integrated military campaign push isis out of iraq. host: let's look at the map again. you were talking about urbil. if you go after isis in syria, you have the other countries around there as well. turkey?penes to guest: i don't know if that is necessary. you may have to push them back across the border. the responsible strategy is to have iraqis security forces -- forces keepty isis from coming back.
7:50 am
it's an incredibly sectarian conflict. it's in a really tiny place. it's almost impossible for an outside force to go in there and clean that up. i'm not sure it's really in america's interest to have to do that. what is really key is the stability of iraq. you can do that without broadening the war into syria. host: you think you could just do airstrikes in syria? guest: it depends. if the problem of sitting here, we are not looking at intelligence or targets. target and that affects your capacity to push these guys out of iraq, then yeah.
7:51 am
but that can only be really answered by a guy in the command post. the problem is, bombing has become a metaphor for policy. stupidlve into these arguments about bomb or not bomb. i was in the army for 25 years. you do things on the battlefield for a purpose. you are putting lives at stake and people could get killed. nothing is done for the heck of it. you see movies where the first thing they do is a brush on enemy lines. what is that going to accomplish? lines.rrage on enemy every step has a purpose. the people say bombing or not bombing is no relevant question question.rrelevant
7:52 am
it has to contribute a realistic objective. if the answer is yes, that makes sense. the question of should we bomb or not is not an answerable question. host: assess the threat of the islamic state. guest: we have to base our analysis of the threat on what we see in past decades from islamic history mist groups -- islamic extremist groups. isis is a significant concern. we have seen isis poll and adapt -- poll and adapt all terrorist integrate those and improve upon them and synchronize them, which is really troubling. part of this has been to launch attacks against the west. clearly, the potential for that is there.
7:53 am
the second factor that is concerning as we know these foreign fighter pipelines, bringing foreign fighters into iraq is a tactic we have seen over and over again since afghanistan in the 1980's. in every case, those foreign trainrs can go back and others and inspire others and do propaganda and conduct operations and organize operations. you look at the scale of what is already over 10,000 foreign fighters in iraq today. probably 3000 from the west. that is a number that will be hard to track. concern, may be the -- iraq is aern is large state that is very key and integral to the stability and geopolitics of the middle east region. a war in iraq -- we saw this in
7:54 am
wariraq-iranian war, a in iraq can become a sectarian conflict. a wider regional conflict is a significant threat to the u.s. haveose two counts, you do plenty of history to say that we should take isis as a threat. the surrender seven has got a lot of folks in congress talking, but it doesn't give us license to it nor the lessons of .eorge w. bush in iraq going into a country without clearly laying out and having evidence of a threat. guest: isis owns one third of iraq. i don't know what other evidence you need. we know there are thousands of
7:55 am
foreign fighters there. these are not subject to much debate. tragedy andreat -- fullyrrific murder y. a great tragedy -- fole the atrocities are terrible and horrible. where does the west vital u.s. at come from? -- vital interest come from? i don't think those are up for dispute. host: this is the washington post front page. egypt and uae hit militias and libya. withwent into libya
7:56 am
airstrikes and bond these militias. guest: i was opposed to the u.s. intervention in libya. i did not see those as threats to the national interest. i never thought we had that level of concern in libya. if you look at it from the egyptian perspective, they clearly do. is right along the fault line of countries that have an interest in not seen a transnational islamic threat spread for north africa. to tunisia to morocco and egypt, that is clearly an alliance or group of states that see this as a threat to their vital interests. in their perspective, they are right.
7:57 am
it makes absolute sense for them to be deeply concerned about a terrorist state taking hold. host: our first phone call for james carafano. all of her in baghdad -- oliver in baghdad, iraq. are you a u.s. soldier there? i am in baghdad currently. ago.led four weeks back then, i said the best thing to do was confront them before they expand. now, i am in baghdad for educational purposes.
7:58 am
to complete my studying geology. when i talk to iraq you people people, there has been a 180 degree turnaround. everybody is saying we need the in the north and the south. againste best guarantee iran and otherf regional countries. in, there is a turnaround the iraqi people opinion. around,on of turning there is a dark
7:59 am
future for them. thousands of people are applying for passports, trying to leave the country as soon as possible because they don't know what's going to happen. people are selling their houses and cars. critical.ion is still host: i will leave it there. guest: that raised a lot of interesting and important points. there is a future for iraq. i think isis can be defeated. i can certainly understand the concern of the iraqi people. if you look at the levels of post-conflict violence in iraq after the invasion, they bump up a little bit because you have this regime fighting back. an effort by al qaeda to reignite an insurgency. that will steadily increase until you have this -- then they
8:00 am
taper off dramatically. forcestime the u.s. left, the level of violence was down significantly. the levels of violence today, even before isis invaded were far higher than they were six, seven years ago. so clearly, the absence of the u.s. forces there created -- -- help create a security vacuum that has allowed this to omewhat metastasize. i think with foreign support, they have the capability litarily to push isis out of
8:01 am
iraq. the second they were going to see and we're already starting to see that is another wave of terrorism and we've already seen that in place where is isis haven't gone yet like in baghdad. already seen increased terrorist ctivities. we haven't seen a lot of terrorism in kurdistan. you're going to see a wave of terrorist attacks but let's say we push them out of iraq and we get through this wave of terrorist attacks, you still have the problem of an iraqi military and a political system which is shaky. and the one thing that u.s. forces did provide until they left was an element of stability in a couple of ways. it deters iraq from messing into other people's business. but also a notion that no
8:02 am
sectarian site could take advantage of the situation because you have a balancing thing. and what we need is a government that works for all of the iraqi people and a security force to rebuild its credibility and status. that's going to take time even f you push isis out of iraq. and i do think there is going to be a logical argument for a supporting security force in iraq to stand by with the iraqi people while the government and the iraqi security forces re-establish themselves. does that have to be u.s. troops if does it have to be all u.s. troops? i don't know. but i think what is obviously achievable is we could get back to where we were in 2008. we could get back to where we were when iraq was at peace and
8:03 am
is of very little threat to the foreign forces that were there to assist them. we did it once after a really horrible, horrible urgency. i don't see why that could be accomplished again. host: democratic caller from pennsylvania. caller: good morning. i find it -- it has its foundation in your building. forget that. are these insurgents -- now, the same people we paid for two years and after we left the iraqi government was supposed to keep paying them. but maliki or whoever the prime minister was decided not to do that. host: ok. guest: that's a great question. so isis is not very insurgent in iraq. isis is a small group and they
8:04 am
did come from outside of iraq into iraq. so are there other groups that are alive with them? yes. are there sunni groups in the side that may have sided with them? yes. and some of them former folks that are paid by the u.s. and the government, maybe. there is the coalition that they're in. isis is the top of that holding it together. host: who's their leader? what do you make of them? guest: the core leadership of isis is al qaeda trained, al qaeda experienced and it's much in the character of what we've seen in other transnational groups that we saw in afghanistan is what we saw in syria. it's the same here. host: so is isis more of a threat in al qaeda? the more of the same? guest: it's an unanswerable question. you get that all the time. the answer is how do you no? -- know and this gets to the problem of our counter-terrorism
8:05 am
strategy is because we very narrowly define the definition of the threat. so we said we're going to core al qaeda and any group that is affiliated with al qaeda which is a threat directed to the united states, well, the problem with that is it doesn't take a lot of capacity to back transnational threat to the united states or western allies. it's a question of will and resources. and the problem is if you wait until people start attacking you before you take them seriously, then you can wind up in a situation where we are now, with we have a group that holds a lot of ground, that holds a third of the country. they have conventional military uipment in many ways, they constitute an actual state terrific threat. host: where are they getting their money from? guest: some are smuggling. it is a time honored tradition in the middle east. that's been a source of revenue.
8:06 am
they seize a lot of money. in the past, they've gotten foreign assistance. we know from certain wealthy individuals in the middle east, potentially from governments. host: we'll go to david in maine, an independent caller. hi, david. caller: good morning. first, i would like to talk about a programming that you had on sunday about race in america. and i was wondering why you didn't have open phones so everybody could call in, not block off some people. what i would like to ask james about. as we've known in the past, that our military has been hashed down by the political ambitions of some people in this country. and we can't win the wars anymore. we don't give our military the objectives to get it done. i would like to ask you if it was feasible to hire 100,000
8:07 am
mercenaries and keep them on staff to go out across the world that would be all volunteers and go out and exterminate these people because our military leaders are being hamstrung by our political leaders. host: all right. david. guest: mercenaries are illegal and the disks pretty precise. a mercenary is an armed person who is not a party -- working for a party to the conflict. so by definition, if you employ mercenaries, that's against u.s. law. we couldn't do that. so the question is could you have, you know, lawful military contractors? the answer is the country would have to allow them to be there. and b, we would have to pay for it. what's the difference between having that and u.s. forces? in terms of u.s. commitment, really, really not much. i think the caller makes a
8:08 am
really key point. you hear the thing that u.s. should be the world's policemen. we decent police the country, let alone our world. and later, you say we shouldn't be policing, we should be the sheriff. well, there's a structure of laws and you have sovereignty and you can go in and order people around. and we can't do that either. what we really do have to focus on is what makes sense in our vital interest and to the caller's point is if you're going to something with military force, it should be important enough that is vital to your country to do that. and when you do that, you have to ask is the level of force and the missions you give them appropriate to their task you've assign them? and -- assigned them? and will accomplishing those tasks lead to achieving the objectives? if the answer is yes, then -- e using militarily military force for that.
8:09 am
host: should it be a move that president obama makes without announcing it, without broadcasting it? guest: well, concerning the news, i don't think there's a lot of operational secrecy you're going to gain there by doing that. i'm not a lawyer, so i can't speak to the legalities of it but i can speak about the policies of it. it's always appropriate if we're going to put u.s. military in harm's way and that includes ilots flying in the sky. if there's time, it's very appropriate for the president to consult with congress. congress is a representative of the american people. if we go to war, we ought to go to war as a nation. it makes sense to have a conversation about that. on this situation, i think
8:10 am
congress is going support them. i don't think there would be -- people say we tried to bomb syria last time and everybody was against it. well, that was a different set of circumstances and a different mission and a different goal. i think depending again on what he wants to do, we just have this notion of bomb or no bomb. so if the president explains it, this is our purpose. this is how it's linked to our goal in iraq and he makes the case the rational way, congress will be supportive. host: independent caller. caller: thank you for taking my call. host: good morning. caller: i follow twitter a lot and i saw a picture with john mccain standing with isis. you know, i kind of see -- i personally feel that it's wrong. it's wrong to stand on any side. it doesn't matter. we shouldn't take sides.
8:11 am
we shouldn't be involved in -- they're calling it a -- it's to its core. host: was it senator mccain in syria standing with the opposition folks who are fighting assad? i guess we won't know. james carafano. guest: so he makes a really good point. it's not about taking sides. it's not like going to the school ground and picking up which gang you're going to line up with. and i go back to if you look at what country is such a vital interest to the state? what is going to keep america safe, free and prosperous? and if that is your measure by which you make your decisions, they're pretty defensible. if it's about whose side we should be on? that's not how foreign policy gets made.
8:12 am
host: democratic caller. caller: the photojournalist made some comments that i found interesting. when he escaped from his captors, he said that there were several factions fighting in syria. some were pro-western and against assad. but somewhere very anti-western and they were the ones who are doing the captivating of people. so i'm wondering if we go in, are we just going to bomb rebels and not distinguish between the ones who might actually help stabilize the country? host: ok. guest: that's a great question. military operations only make sense if they make sense. one of the weird things about this syria conflict is i'm not a big fan of either side. yes, it is true, there are some lib ya'll groups in syria that will fighting against the government that would institute the kind of nation that we would hink would be appropriate.
8:13 am
those people unfortunately are a very small group and have very little capacity to win the future of syria right now. but just bombing for the sake of bombing makes no sense either because people forget. assad is a bad guy. i hear this all the time. now we can work with assad. we can work with a iranians. why would we do that? assad is a general dictator. you might bomb isis and that might strengthen assad's hands. you may have to do that to get sis out of screak, i get that. -- iraq, i get that. host: michael, an independent caller. your question or comment. caller: hey, good morning. i've been listening lately to your friend tell a lot of people
8:14 am
obama, u.s. government is bias, bias, bias. assad killed hundreds of housands of people, uprooted 300 million syrians. obama hides behind putin's -- i am a syrian. i'm a retired professional. everybody laughing about united states jumping into -- the hypocrisy and all the things you talk about vital interest, they ould not jump into syria and the next few days and be picked up by a pimp or a cabby, prostituted and there is iranian islamic republic. the united states handed obama not bush, handed iraq to iran. they've been murdering and prosecuting with civilians ahead.
8:15 am
a lot of educated sunnis. now, isis was clear to buy asset is speaking up like hurricane winds. i talk to people all the time. i'm just telling you if obama want to bomb isis syria, he has to get rid of asset. and that's it and iranian, they think like thousand of years ago. i live in united states. i'm a muslim. you know who's my prophet? not muhammad or jesus. george washington. he give me right like everybody else. host: ok. all right. michael. guest: one of the things you hear is we should be working with the iranians because the iranians are going to help us with isis. because the iranians are sunni shia sect. the isis is a sunni. so there's a conflict we have there.
8:16 am
there's a large sunni majority population in iraq. so you say this is a natural thing that the iranians would work with us to push back on isis. that's a really, really bad idea. people forget, for example, that during the height of the sunni triangle urgency, the iranian government was allowing a pipeline that was bringing the most deadly i.e.d.'s that have ever been built into iraq to kill americans so the iranians are helping fuel the urgency to defeat the americans in iraq so this notion that they are state-sponsored terrorism, lableed by the united states government. they're one of the most atrocious human rights record in the planet. that would be trading one evil for another. in iraq, the enemy of my enemy also happens to be my enemy. the iranians and the u.s. have common interests in iraq like a
8:17 am
bank robber and a bank teller have common interests in a bank. the iranians are in many ways, i think the greatest destabilizing factor in the region as if not a greater danger in isis. and so i think u.s. policy has to make iraq free for the iraqi people. it's in our interest because that will kill off a serious terrorist threat. it will bring stability to the region and significantly reduce the potential of regional war. that's in u.s. interest. and the strategy that's going to accomplish that is when it marginalizes iranian influence in iraq. host: frank in new york. independent caller. caller: hi. i appreciate your comments about the fact that we seem to forget what's happening in the bush administration when we went into iraq to begin with, when there was no realistic objective and e reality is success is very
8:18 am
low considering the religious factions that are at war over there. and we're talking sunni and shia . host: frank, are you still there? caller: yes. there's some background conversations going on. i can't hear too well. host: all right. we'll just leave it there. what about his comments? guest: two things are very important. we could have a big conversation about how we got here from there. i don't think that's the most important thing. it would be the day after pearl harbomplet what's the most important thing to debate? how we got to pearl harbor or what we do now? where el of -- rises politics do end at the water's edge and we ought to be looking at bipartisan sensible practical solutions on the way forward. i think that's the primary -- that's really key moving forward. but the other thing i will say
8:19 am
is we've got to a place despite all the horror and violence and sectarian decisiveness and problems and everything we -- devisiveness and problems and everything we screwed up. we got to a place where a country was a future. there was going to be a place for growth and the notion that that can't happen, i disagree with that. the notions that kurds and shias and sunnis can't live together, i disagree with that. i think it can. this country does have a future. we proved that through some of the most horrific times. it would be like if on the eve of world war ii, you say we have this big mess in world war i, if we go through it, we will have that war again. but you have one of the most peaceful prosperous regions on the planet earth of the notion that these people are condemned to violence, and they're condemned to religious conflict,
8:20 am
i don't believe that because i think history has shown even in recent times that the people of the middle east can win their own future if they're given half a chance. host: what is the goal of the islamic state? how is it different from al qaeda? guest: it doesn't. if you look at the islamic , if you read ps the ideology, the instate is always the same. it's the reestablishment of their rule on their terms, which really kind of i think no many westerners say that kinds like modern totally rayner like we what heard from the nazis and what we heard from fascist japan. it kind of actually is. there's no human rights. there's no civil rights. there's a political order which is established by an elite at
8:21 am
the top who ruled according to how they think the world should be one. host: the u.s. carried out nearly 100 airstrikes in iraq since this operation began in august 8. hat is the strategy there? guest: the ends are what are you trying to trish? the ways are how are you going to accomplish that and what are you going to apply to that? the president talks about we're there for humanitarian purpose which doesn't make sense. we have seen bombings, we've seen different ways. but nobody's ever sat down and put it together in a coherent way and say this is what we're going to do. president roosevelt defeat germany first. but in that one little sentence, it combined together everything.
8:22 am
we're going to defeat these guys and the way we're going to do it is march on berlin first and then march on tokyo. in that one simple expression, you had this kind of crystal san were - crystalization applied to achieve a military end. we don't have anything -- if you went to the average american and say what's our strategy in iraq, they would look at you and blink. if i walked down in broadway in 1943 and i grabbed the newsboy on the street and he's going to tell us what the american strategy was. host: kathleen, democratic florida. good morning, kathleen. you're on the air. caller: good morning. i have an a question. you just thains question? what i bias?
8:23 am
what is a vine? guest: i'm not an expert on israeli issue. host: we'll move on. jim, sparts burg, carolina. ndependent caller. caller: i would like to ask if obama 2k -- host: go ahead. caller: if this is sort of like a rope a dope. isis is not going anywhere. they are pretty much spent as far as their increase. nobody thinks they are -- they're just a bunch of murderous thugs and at the end of the day, aren't they going to be seen as that by these people right there?
8:24 am
guest: they're not 10 feet tall. so, for example, we say politically, it's pretty frazzled. it's a coalition of groups. they're sitting over an occupied land. many of these people have been isolated and brutal liesed. so the political orders may be not the most stable in the world. so it's sustaining that military capabilities going to be difficult. and they're holding a lot of ground. and the more ground you hold, more you have to thin yourself out to defend that. so they do have a vulnerability. on the other hand, they've been pretty smart. so when isis first moved to iraq they didn't march on baghdad which you would say why not? you're on the move. well the closer and closer they've got to baghdad, they think the harder the government -- the more the military would have stood. the shia militias would have came forward.
8:25 am
so that was probably a bridge too far for them but they were smart enough not to try that. and they took a strategic because and tried to consolidate their gains, increased their political order and then they started to move on kurdistan because they think there was a gap that they could exploit politically since the u.s. were not giving them military air support. and you actually saw they started to make some gains until we came in and supported the kurds. so they've been fairly savvy about kind of working within the limitations and force that they ave. has a urdistan is -- paurl tridemocracy. what does that tell you about what they solve by going to kurdistan? guest: they're not really respected as co-equal.
8:26 am
kurdistan has their own oil. oil's out 11% of the capability. it's been peaceful and stable. and if they could topple kurdistan, -- their kurdish population is spread look out the region and not just in iraq ut also in turkey and syria. this is very key. in this part of the world, honor is power. you're an honorable power, you have power. if you are winning, you are respected. if you are losing, you are in a sense, disrespected. so having take an big chunk of iraq, isis was always looking for a way to show that they're on the offensive. they're winning. they're powerful. they're honorable. so the declaration was a way to go on the offensive without taking more ground. we've set up the dream of the
8:27 am
ice lambic state. going after the curds were a was a twi-shea they're on the offensive. and part of it is also raises concerns for me about another round of trance national terrorism because if isis is losing on one front, one way for them skeptically to get back to the fighters is to find another way. if you could powerful the attack in western europe, it would show that you are powerful. and from their perspective is what do they have to lose? if the americans are already bombing them. the americans are already pushing them out, how are they going to make america any angrier? host: go ahead, chuck. chuck, good morning.
8:28 am
you're on the air. caller: good morning. i would like to know if isis is really experienced about what they're doing? and go ahead, because they have four building refineries that elp fund their progress. guest: so the question is is isis serious? serious s a really question. if you look at their history, in this case, we have to take isis at its word. you go back and read bin laden's thato. he was the head of al qaeda before its retirement, one of the things that they did was he would issue a religious statement of doctrine.
8:29 am
and in those statements, he laid out the case to bring the war against the west. and he would state things like america's really a paper tiger. we killed them. in somalia, they ran away. we killed them in 11 -- if we strike them, they can pull away. and at the time, those documents were publicly available to western experts. and a lot of people said this is just prop began that. this is not serious stuff. and we all said that until 9/11. and then we said oh, this is actually the plan. we hear similar statements from isis now. are they really serious? and they're not really going to come after us. that may be true but it also may not be true. host: chris is our last here in illinois. good morning, chris. caller: yes, good morning. thanks for taking my call. the thing i'm wanting to ask is about interest.
8:30 am
i think when you say what are the iraqi interests, you've got the kurds. you've got sunnis and shiites. so that by itself is not one country. and you also have to talk about the mistakes that the west has made. they fail to pay the different groups that they created after this war. -- maybe they serve one side of the interests, when you talk about the interest of the iraqis. i think there is a sense of iraqi nationalism. active theyou look iranian war, they fought as a
8:31 am
people including against the iraq -- including the iraqi she shiites. that makesnswer sense for them. if you had a kurdish state, a shiite state, and a sunni state, ok like three raw pieces of meat to the rest of the middle east. the future of the iraqi people is sticking together because independently those three portions of the country will basically be called targets. together they represent a ,ountry that has did geography the potential, and the demographics to be what the crossing of the rivers
8:32 am
in the triangle was with the paradise. future that spread outwards. i think they can be that source of economic stability, peace, and growth that spread out wards. i do not think that is a lost vision. thank you for your time. election day 2014. and so all week on the just and to journal -- on the washing ton journal we are looking at campaigning. half saysirman of the
8:33 am
he thinks meetings with outlets in the region are starting to set the conditions for some kind of coalition to form in opposition to the islamic's hate group which holds large swaths of iraq in syria -- and syria. meanwhile, as surveillance flights began over syria, politico reports that an years of growth, starting with september 11 and continue with the wars in afghanistan and iraq, defense companies have been making massive cuts. the number of employees of the five largest defense firms has dropped 14% from a peak in 2008 decade.from the past lockheed martin, the world's largest defense company has shown close to a quarter of its employees since 2008.
8:34 am
as they try to maintain profits even as defense spending contracts, and further cuts or expect to. -- are expected. burger king confirms that has reached a deal to buy tim hortons with financial assistance from warren buffett. --is committed committing $3 billion. world'sates the third-largest fast food company bring the world headquarters will be in canada, inc. that may help burger king low-risk u.s. taxes. -- a move that may help burger king lower its u.s. taxes.
8:35 am
c-span is covering the event and you can hear it later in our programming schedule. >> this weekend, special programming on the c-span networks. night, native american history, and then on saturday a debate on scottish independence. sunday, q&a with judge robert katzmann. on c-span two, on friday, in depth with ron paul. and then on saturday, after words with william rhodes -- burrows.err on c-span three, on friday, a documentary about the apollo 11 moon landing.
8:36 am
saturday, lyndon b. johnson's acceptance speech from the 1964 democratic convention. find our television schedule at and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. join the c-span conversation, like us on facebook will follow us on twitter. washington journal continues. it is election season and campaigns are in full suite swi. all week we are breaking down campaigning in this modern age. today we talk about campaign ads. we have two campaign consultant on the set. and ryan donahue --
8:37 am
brian donahue. with a number. be spent on could this campaign cycle. how much is that for ads? what costs so much? >> when you are trying to reach voters in specific districts, or in a state, it costs a lot of money to reach them. that is a combination of whether , all airtime, direct mail of those things, digital costs money. voters have a lot of things on their mind, a lot of things they are dealing with. and the majority of it has nothing to do with the campaign. so the campaigns have to spend a
8:38 am
lot of time and money to reach them and to get into their lives. forher that is paying television ads, all of those things cost money and that is where the $2 billion goes. >> that is for just as. what costs so much? there has been more spending this year than we have ever seen, just astronomical. you are seeing a lot more advertisers this year. and the majority of the spending goes into the actual ads themselves. to place them in all of the markets around the country, that is the most expensive art of any campaign effort. your production and creation of putting those ads together is just a minimum compared to
8:39 am
placing those even get your ad showed to all of the voters you can. host: why is it expensive in one part of the country versus another? might be in sioux city, iowa, and the cost running an ad on primetime television is withinwer in that place the new york city media market. the cost very that way, but now you have everything from the campaign themselves to third-party groups that are theng to be a part of discussion and be a part of the issues that are going on in the campaign. that increases the spending that is going on as well. host: what separates a good ad from a bad ad? is about what ad truly motivates people to move the numbers, to gain support for your candidate or to deteriorate
8:40 am
support for your opposition. that is really the true test. who cares if it is creative, does that sell? effect, does is in the move opinion, does the move emotionally? host: what do you do before you even put a band together to see what is going to move? it is really working to figure out what the message of the campaign is going to be. what is the opposition going to say, what are you going to say, how do you create a contrast with your opponent? making sure that any advertising you put on television falls within the context of what the voter is thinking about. and a lot of times what happens is you have a very creative ad budget does not connect to the voters. he could have the most
8:41 am
creative ad in the world but it will not move voters to vote for you or against the opponent. candidate, a new client, do you put a road met together -- a roadmap together of a strategy? portion of it you attempt to plan. you put these memos and progression plans together, saying that we can reasonably predict these will be the issues that we will discuss and will be important during the election cycle. how were opponent voted, what they think. you have to be flexible. in recent election cycles, the issues that have come up have been unbelievable. no longer are the campaigns saying that this is a domestic cycle or the oh a war on iraq cycle. every two weeks something new is
8:42 am
coming up and you have to be adaptable and flexible in order to put the right ads as "her's on the issues they care about the most. guest: i would equate running ca campaigns more to flying a glider than flying a plane . flying a glider goes with the wind. are trying to stay on message and on the trajectory you want. host: traditional commercial ads versus digital ads. here is a story in politico. the 2014 digital ad juggernaut. elections are three months away, but there is already a clear winner, digital advertising. agency in particular does a a lot of digital advertising, more than we ever have. it is interest in, in many markets where you television
8:43 am
advertising, getting very ads inlt to put inventory. seeing first time we're that in the digital space. medicine thinking about this level of spending. -- that is indicative of this level of spending. different type of voter experience, and is much more active, inferences of story if it -- o ry ievent.o said that thee worst thing to happen to digital advertising was banner ads because the all say i do not pay
8:44 am
attention to them. there is an array of advertising plant forms that were not available when those started. reroll, social media facebook, all of the various things you can do to get attention. you can provide a larger media mix of digital. on the targeting is there. that is something that joe and i talked about, the ability to uarget becomes much more -- yo have the greater ability to do that. guest: you are building ads for interaction. you can get feeds directly from voters. they can send comments, connect with you, get involved in a more direct way than they ever could with a television ad. the other piece is the different types of targeting.
8:45 am
to narrowally able and add down to the individual. whether that is reaching them on their computer or their mobile phone good whether they are their voting place and you can tell them when to go vote. we interact with our lives in digital is so much more than in the past. host: cheaper than commercials? much more direct than commercials, much more scalable. there is still a cost. it allows you to focus your dollars a lot more because you're reaching a very specific audience versus tv where you are spending a lot more money to reach a smaller deductible. host: we're talking campaign ads ahead of the midterm elections. we are breaking down what goes into the campaign and today our focus his campaign ads.
8:46 am
we want to get your questions and comments. republicans (202) 585-3881, democrats (202) 585-3880, independence (202) 585-3882, and all others. caller: iem so tired of all of these attack ads. it is really constant, and it is really tiring to the people will not want to vote. where gotten to the point it is more like children in the schoolyard and actually giving down to how to resolve these problems. i really don't care a lot about some of these personal things about the individual, as long as
8:47 am
they can produce what they say. host: is there a specific race in new hampshire you are referring to? all of them. i just watched the one on the governor's race, and all i see are attack ads. it is childish. host: is it too much? guest: i was hoping he was not speaking about one of my ads. we do some work in new hampshire. it is a great point. traditionally, you saw a lot contrast, negative, or attack ads. they frame exactly what they are. will always say that they do not work, we do not like them.
8:48 am
but our numbers show that they do work. that thatant thing is is changing. we seeing the negative ads are not work as well or his effect is the use to be. i think there is something to say in the fact that people are looking for positive solutions. people are looking for change. in the advertisers political space are listening. they are reading the results in the data, and we follow the data. it comes down to the voters and how they react. is a: what you will see good campaign not only defines the opposition but defines themselves. the say not only what problem is, but here's what our solution is. you have to do both. it is not enough just to say the y haveent is wrong, the am made mistakes, you have to say
8:49 am
this is what i will do about it. it is really trying to your year out how we reach voters and how we communicate with them. venice time. -- that is tough. headline out the of new hampshire. robert, on an independent line. yourr: i enjoy programming. i just wanted to ask a question. what happens to all of the campaign money than is donated by people once the candidate loses, once the candidate wins, once the candidate drops out? host: i know that is not your ar expertise. guest: usually that money has been spent great it is spent communicating with voters. there is no pool of money that
8:50 am
is left over. guest: you would rarely find a losing candidate ever having money left over. if they do, they offer it to send it back to the voters. caller.mocratic caller: why do they always play the negative ads of who is more evil? nobody wants to hear that anymore. people are tired. valid i think it is a point. you really have to make the contrast and say here is the difference between us and our opponent. but it is not only about a what is wrong and what the opponent has done badly, but show what
8:51 am
you're going to do about it. host: when should a candidate running negative at? d? guest: it really depends. , people like to say it is anything that says disparaging about the other. there are different types. personal attacks, that muck raking in that kind of stuff, people are definitely fed up with a do not want to see it. i think that comes down to the , of thef the campaign candidates, and they should be held accountable in terms of what they are telling in terms of voting, record, and the decisions they are making versus her to do is attack ads about their family or personal life. host: peter on our republican line. about: i wanted to talk
8:52 am
these groundbreaking new ads that have been getting a lot of publicity online. anything toan election day? if that isr sense of predictive of how the race is going to go? guest: in some of those ads that are released online, they are meant to do different things. meant tohe ads are gauge the vase early, and you can put an ad out of line to get your base voters focused in. or you can do something that will set the tone for a future campaign. what you're seeing on a lot of these earlier digital ads is playing the groundwork for what they are going to talk about later, but being able to use the summer to get early
8:53 am
communication out there. i think it is very smart of these campaigns to figure out how to get something there that we do not haved to spend a lot of money but we might get some attention. it is drawing back the curtain a little bit. what the consultants and teams are looking for favorables and unfavorables. and unfavorables. they are trying to move those numbers. successful oneing election day really depends on how your favorables are versus your opponents. the is interesting over past few election cycles is that the movement of the electorate has been shifting. it used to be that you can shoot your your veins and you would go after independent or voters that you do not have that might be swing voters or split ticket voters. we are seeing movements and shifts where we have a large amount of support, and it might
8:54 am
dissipate or increase. about what you believe are secure voters. more fluid inch recent election cycles. all ads matter, they all help, , thehese digital ads president put out several web videos in 2012 that were extremely effective. part of the battle of an off year election is turnout. it is not just about what the message is, it is about turning out voters and making sure that you are putting out the people you need to get out. some of these ads are about moving the voter. you need them to go to the polls .
8:55 am
finding the issue they care about and getting them to vote is critical. host: we are talking about campaign ads with joe fuld and brian donahue. we want to get your thoughts. democratic caller. caller: good morning. i have a question that is a little bit off-topic am a feel it is relevant. you willing to express an opinion on the citizen united decision by the supreme court? guest: i think that is an important decision, because as a result we're seeing different types of campaigns and advertisers. it seems like that is a personal question and i will answer it personally. i tend to be a libertarian. i believe in less influence
8:56 am
unless government and opening up even further to allow real citizen interaction. i believe this has allowed that. not a big fan of citizens united, i do not think that corporations are people that i would all more on this side of really being able to have a true understanding of what money is being spent in elections. we will keep talking about idern-day election ads, but want to go back a little bit to show our viewers a couple of historical ads. ad forst is a 1952 produced by in the second is for very goldwater -- the second is for barry goldwater.
8:57 am
♪ president, i for president. ike,ike ike, i like everybody likes ike. cai, i like ike, everybody likes ike for president. we will take ike to washington. ♪ now is the time for all good americans to come to the aid of their country. seven, six, five,
8:58 am
eight -- 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. zero. to make athe stakes world in which all of god's children can live, or to go into the dark. we must either love each other, or we must die. >> vote for president johnson. the stakes are too high for you to stay home. host: campaign ads from the past.
8:59 am
were they effective? guest: they were both effective in very different ways. ad does aeisenhower great job of being light, but also says now is the time for us to be patriotic and do are citizen duty by voting for ike. setsecond was an ads that that tone of euro becomes winces if you do not vote -- here are the consequences if you do not vote. it shows what is at stake. of political ads are an important cultural commentary on society's mood. forms of political
9:00 am
advertising in campaigning, we saw some amazing, ugly, and unbelievable political ads that candidates used to have. these ads are important. they both evoke emotion. is this happy to behind the flag, and i is wonderful and we are going to carry that positiveness all the way through. and then we have later and emotional ad-based in fear. these are really deep words that invoke emotion. daisy ad is more effective in terms of motivating people because of that emotion that it evokes. host: republican caller in fort wayne, indiana. caller: my question is really more about the business. do you haveto know
9:01 am
salespeople who go out to the party committees or to the individuals? host: how does your business work? the kind ofation, work that you do, and you work with a lot of different types of campaigns and operatives and people who work with candidates. it is a lot of work. you are out there meeting with a lot of candidates across the country. you are working with a lot of organizations inside the beltway. as i not as glamorous think many people make it out to be. i think it is developing relationships over time. both of us work with different groups and organizations and we work with different campaign managers. it is really trying to get back
9:02 am
to different causes and show that we care about the work we do. host: lisa in baltimore, democratic caller. caller: i would like to hear what evidence there is that digital ads actual work -- actually work. experience, they invoke antipathy. ing them aside while you get to your content. i do not know why anyone would take them seriously when it is next to an ad belly fat. we have seen a lot of metrics that provide this information in terms of seeing how effective they are. , what theant thing need to do is not necessarily
9:03 am
different in terms of evoking emotion. breaking through the barrier to get peoples attention and get them to take notice and get a feeling afterward. year inn example last virginia where we will running in digital for a few races. we've all tested versus people who saw or digital ad and people who did not. and we saw anywhere from a or person-7% increase in their support for our candidates. that is just basic metrics. and then we had a number of variables where we see types of audiences timothy models of the segments that we have, and how we are moving numbers among them as well. with such a crowded marketplace, you're never going to reach a voter in one place. what you're doing is using television, direct mail, digital, door to door, and all --the things in carbonation
9:04 am
and all of these things in combination. it used to be we could reach the voter in just one way, but that is not possible anymore. a piece of mail, and little bit by the television , we have done our job. let's break down some ads from this election cycle. i want to show our viewers and democratic senate race that has been described as one of the best of 2014. my ob doctor told me there is something wrong with the baby's spine, we needed to look at terminating the pregnancy. the world stopped.
9:05 am
dr. levy was the first person to give us hope. she was the first person to say congratulations, you are having a daughter. she was going to reconstruct the entire lower spine. it was my friend, she said it will be ok. i trusted her. we have a 12-year-old today because of dr. webby. she would make an incredible senator, she will always do the right thing, she will act with integrity. host: why does it work? guest: it is a very good ad. a wonderful ad because it does exactly what i described earlier. it evokes emotion.
9:06 am
it really helps you to understand the candidate outside of the context of a politician. you really get to know them, their work, their service, what they are passionate about. being a doctor, how she cared for patients, how she cared for people and families, and the willingness to validate that in a testimonial breaks that mold. the earlier callers were saying they were tired of the negative, so here is one that tells you about the candidate and does it in an emotional way. we are seeing a lot more of these testimonial ads, and they are very strong validator's. working with real people, telling real stories. it is a nice development in political advertising. host: what about the candidate talking to the cameras themselves? we have another ad to show.
9:07 am
ashamed to say that i believe in god, and i believe his word. the bible teaches us no one has all of answers, only god does. and neither political party is always right. northstar compass, my , it gives me comfort and guidance to do what is best for arkansas. this is who i am, and what i believe. what i think that does well is it sets the tone for prior, saying here is how i make decisions, here is what i am doing to fight for the people in arkansas, and it is a warm, connective and of him talking to talk to therying to voters who might be hearing negativity. tois speaking to them direct
9:08 am
, saying here is why am and what i believe. host: democratic caller, go ahead. was calling to ask the guest about any interesting trends they have seen with recent clinical ads, especially in other nations. any cultural differences between countries, chief differences in strategies? as i mentioned earlier, in terms of historical ads, you can see the c commentary. , themportant difference united states is somewhat unique in the fact that we have such an open forum for political advertising. we do not have in most of the world, it is very controlled and
9:09 am
moderated, you have limited airtime, limited spending. that is why you see a lot of political advertising here, it is wide open. can see those cultures, live in some of their political commentary. and digitalobile space has really taken off. they do not have broadcast television or mail like we do, but most have a phone. whether it is showing ads on just phones, they are able to connect with people that way. i think we are seeing great cutting edge technology coming from abroad. host: a couple of tweets --
9:10 am
what about these sentiments of i just want to get around it because i am tired of seeing this? when i meet people i'd tell them i produce many of the as you do not like. it is rude to talk about religion and politics at the dinner table, but those ads are delivered to you over and over ofin with the amount advertisers we see in modern political campaigns. i do not blame people for saying it is too much. and audience for your ship is becoming segmented. we are starting to the moving into digital spaces and places where you will not see so much concentration and broadcast advertising. guest: you have to remember that
9:11 am
although we say there are $2 billion in ads, it is small compared to what promotional advertisers are spending. we are competing to break through the marketplace worming donalds and coca-cola and large brands are spending lots of money to communicate with voters every day. we have to do everything we can to get a message to break through. the truth is letting folks know about a voting record, the only way folks are going to find out about their congressional candidate is if we tell them. host: the headline from the hollywood reporter. down nearly 10%.
9:12 am
having on presidential year versus a presidential year -- have a nonpresidential year versus a presidential year. we go to philip in california, independent caller. you are on the air. one of the things you are concerned about is the negative. it seems to be working over and over again. why can we not get to the point where we talk about issues, and would talk about the things that are really important to the american people rather than tearing each other apart? it seems to serve no purpose. we have talked about the
9:13 am
reason campaigns do it, they have to break through and they want to let voters know about the difference between them and their opponent. at some point campaigns have two gauge and make a decision about the tone of the campaign, and when to not only define their opponent, but the find themselves. themselves. has rolled out this television series called questions for mitch. >> this is don disom lake, and a question. >> i wanted to know how you could have voted to raise my medicare cost. tom i supposed to afford that? think is going
9:14 am
to answer that. this is a great ad. i think what it does is two things. hedefines mcconnell because is not answering questions that we want him to an writing for us the way we want to -- want him fighting for us the way we want him to. it also defines the candidate and connects with her in a personal way. guest: it is speaking to the question and thinking about that we provide communication that voters.o the polls of -- pulse of voters.
9:15 am
it is up to them to decide if they wanted certain type of advertising or do not. if they do not want a certain type of ads, it is really a to our democracy and people to determine that they are not going to react that way. populist anger a among voters that you see a lot of ads speaking to which is received as oftentimes negative advertising. i think it is a little kitschy, but i enjoyed it. is headline from the washington times yesterday. campaign adsls tickling voters. former saturday night live
9:16 am
writer and comedian. two.ady, on go, go. running. is the one >> he is tough. omebody.mebody -- hit s why does it work? auest: he is not sitting at desk and shaking hands. he can be an average person. and that is what people want in
9:17 am
politicians. it really works to portray him as a guy who has a sense of humor. host: why can't he be funny? guest: i think he is, but i think he is doing a lot to fight for the people of minnesota. ,ou will see in his advertising warm, connecting, showing what he can do. although i think that it is a cute ad, they do not necessarily win elections. democratic caller from wisconsin. caller: good morning. i have a question and a comment. not particularly about campaign ads, but i noticed on a national car ad yesterday that even with
9:18 am
in theial tensions united states, there is a major car company that is advertising a new car and it has a black man get awaya white man to from his car. i find this very probably, but not to reveal status because i'm not seeing the about it -- but not everyone else does because i do not see anything about it. if you asked the average person outside of the beltway, they will tell you that these people do not care what kind of shock and they put on television as long as there is a paycheck connected. host: could they be politically tone deaf? it is the responsibility of all of us to run as that connect to voters and talk about the issues they care about.
9:19 am
working on issues or working for political campaigns, it makes a difference and the right change. payt: you do have to important attention to cultural sensitivity. if you do make a mistake in that regard, and you are insensitive to any group of people or there is a news event or something that is shocking and you want to try to play into that, that could fail miserably and backfire. we have seen that time and time again. those are things that advertising truly has to pay attention to. you have to wonder who in the room made that decision? i am surprised that people have not spoken out about an ad like that. observers point to an ran against debbie.
9:20 am
we will take a look. she spent so much american money to buy up more and more from us. your country gets very week, we get very good. we get jobs. debbie spendtween it now, and pete spend it not. host: you are talking about mistakes made, people point to that ad. there are obvious consult your considerations -- cultural considerations. , but it complex ad
9:21 am
seems to lack sensitivity because it just does not provide context. there have been ads done where other countries like china and their influence in the united states and that being an important issue. this one did not do it. itdid not let off -- opull off. guest: i just think that ad completely missed the mark. i think the thing that she is is define the campaign. i think that money was wasted on that ad. host: independent caller from georgia. caller: i like your necklace. concern is who is paying for all of these ads? claimed the other
9:22 am
side had spent more money than they had. outside money, money that was spent for ads but was not raised by the campaign themselves. what percent would you estimate of the campaign ads this year will be paid for by outside spending as a pose to the campaign themselves? in many places there will be a lot more money spent in the actual campaigns by outside groups. these outside groups are spending money, part of which, due to citizens united, are spending money and really and it's not clear who is spending .t guest: when i got into this business, it was usually the two campaigns and a couple of outside groups. you may have four advertisers in
9:23 am
a market or a raise in particular. , predating the united -- decision, youd are seeing anything like heaven-eight advertisers and groups and organizations and .usinesses associated question, you're going to see a lot more of it, and that percentage is increasing much larger than the candidate spending. host: richmond, virginia, ellen, democratic caller. keep hearing that people do not like negative ads, and how terrible they are. i wish people would focus on the real important thing about the ads, and that is are the
9:24 am
truthful? it is honest ads that everybody dishonest ads that everyone out to be complaining about. guest: that is a great point. it is really up to all of us, the media, the voters, though who can take action by doing their homework if something is true or false. if it does not pass the sniff test and we have to call these campaigns out. that will keep them in check. we are a democracy where people can participate in the system, and we have to exercise that. guest: at the end of the day it is the voters decision on whether they will turn out and which campaign they will vote for. you have a choice to believe the
9:25 am
ad or not or to know and looking for further information. are these folks telling the truth? seere able to research and who may really voting for and what are the issues that really matter? made the point earlier that just because you get attention for an ad does not that shouldnly mean does not necessarily mean you will win an election. >> this is how i look. abouts what i think it. the federal government is too big and too powerful.
9:26 am
spying on our citizens, that is just wrong. i am ready to stand tall for freedom and get washington out of our lives. he broke through the clutter. he got people's attention. in little bit more kitschy, but it works. people watch that command his message was articulated clear and spoke to a segment of voters were really fed up and a populist way and that part of the country. make a splash with thank you dad, but then the question becomes what do you do with a? how do you then galvanized voters and get support for them to turn out? primary he was not able to do that. part of it is that the ad can be great and even on message, but
9:27 am
if you do not have enough money behind the ad or you are not able to have a campaign ground game or other piece to really turn out the vote, you will not win the election. host: what ads for you are the most memorable? morning in america really spoke to the times and was a testament to reagan and how is communication style was. the famous health care ad during the clinton years where you had --do people around the table where you had two people around the table in the 90's. got played again a decade later because of its significance.
9:28 am
guest: for me it is having the ads that connect the most humanity historically. they connectedw with voters was just great, as clinton had some great as that connected with voters in an emotional way. i think long-term, what we're looking or is canada's can have a relationship with voters -- f or is candidates who have a relationship with voters. outside adas?ut what about knocking on doors? guest: that is the point i made
9:29 am
earlier. that is critical. trying to find the right voters, and now with technology we have an even better way of honing and on the voters that we need to cap to as campaigns. we are going to see more and more old-fashioned go to door -- going door to door. guest: in early polls we're leaving in many races, but in the last three days many of these republic ends are losing. the recruits were really doing a lot more grassroots activity which prompted the republicans to really work on what they .alled the 72 hour campaign that illustrated that you have to have a mix of communication styles and approaches in a campaign. audiences are so segmented that
9:30 am
you cannot rely on the fact that they may be watching it in all places. you have to have a broad mix of communication. host: brian donahue is a partner with craft media and digital and joe fold is president of the campaign workshop. i want to thank you both for being there for this conversation. next, we are going to turn our attention to scotland's independence on september 18. they will go to the polls to vote on whether or not to leave or not to leave the united kingdom. we will get your thoughts on that coming up next right after this news update from c-span radio. >> an update on burger king's purchaser of canada's tim hortons chain. the wall street journal tweets that warren buffett berkshire taxes onwill pay u.s. its burger king preferred stake. i heard of it and is expected to cover


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on