tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN April 22, 2016 6:00pm-8:01pm EDT
ts, were reconveyed the good wishes of the american people. i have to say i have never been driven by a duke of edinburgh before. and i can report that it was very smooth riding. as for her majesty, the clean's queen's been a source of inspiration for me. she is truly one of my favorite people. fortunate enough to reach 90, may we be as five or as she -- may we be as vibrant as she is. she is an astonishing person and a real jewel to the world and not just to the united kingdom. the alliance between the united states and the united kingdom is one of the oldest and one of the strongest the world has ever known. u.k. stands. and the
together, we make our country more secure, are people more prosperous, and we make the world safer and better. of the reasons why my first overseas visit as president more than seven years ago was here to london. at a timne of global crisis. and the one thing i knew as green as i was as a new president was that it was absolutely vital that the united states and the united kingdom together in an international forum, tackle the challenges that lie ahead. our success depended on our ability to coordinate and be be able to leverage our relationship to have an impact on other countries. i met with david on that visit. he was not yet prime minister, but just as our nations share a special edition, david and i
have shared an external partnership. he has proven to be a great friend and is one of my closest and most trusted partners. over the six years or so that our terms have overlapped, we have met or spoken more times than i can count. we have shared our country's beers with each other. he vouches for hi. s. taken him to a basketball game in america. you should recall we were partners in a ping-pong game. we lost to some schoolchildren. i can't remember whether they were 8 or 10, but they were decidedly shorter than we were. and they whooped us. samantha and michelle have become good friends as well. and it is the depth and breadth of that special relationship that has helped us tackle some of the most daunting challenges of our time. around the world, our joint efforts have stopped the
outbreak of ebola, helped iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. forged a climate agreement in paris that hopefully will help to protect our planet for future generations. and today, on earth day, our governments, along with 170 others, are in new york to sign that agreement. the u.s. is committed to formally joining it this year, we should -- which should help it take effect years earlier than anybody expected. we also discussed the full array of challenges to our shared security. we remain resolute in our efforts to prevent terrorist attacks against our people and to continue the progress we've made in rolling back and ultimately defeating isil. our forces are systematically sil's finances as safe havens and removing its leaders from the battlefield to it we have to keep working to
improve security and information sharing across europe and to stem the flow of foreign fighters into and out of syria. we discussed our efforts to resolve critical conflicts in the middle east from yemen to syria to libya. in libya going forward, we have an opportunity to support a new government and help the libyans root out extremist elements. in syria, as challenging as it is, we still need to see more ringress towards an endu cease-fire and we continue to push for greater humanitarian access to the people who need it most. we have to continue to invest in nato so that we can meet our overseas commitments from afghanistan to the edgy and. -- aegean. we have to resolve the conflict in ukraine. allies should aim for the target of spending 2% of gdp on defense, something that david has made sure happens here in that standard.t
we discuss new actions we can take to address the refugee crisis, including with our nato allies. because a strong defense relies on more than just military spending, but on helping to unleash the potential of others to live freer and more prosperous lives, i want to thank the people of the united kingdom for their extraordinary generosity as one of the world for most donors of manager in aid. we talked about -- donors of humanitarian aid. we talked about promoting growth through increased trade -- so our young people can achieve greater opportunity. and yes, the prime mr. and i discussed -- the prime minister and i discussed whether the u.k. should remain part of the european union. let me be clear. ultimately, this is something the british voters have to decide for themselves. but as part of our special relationship part of being friends is to be honest.
and to let you know what i think. and speaking honestly, the outcome of that decision is a matter of deep interest to the united states because it affects our prospects as well. the united states wants a strong united kingdom is a partner. and the united kingdom is at his best when it is helping to lead a strong europe. it leverages u.k. power to be part of the european union. as i wrote, i don't believe the e.u. moderates british influence in the world. it magnifies it. the e.u. has helped to spread british values and practices across the continent. the single market brings extraordinary economic benefits to the united kingdom. and that ends up being good for america, because we are more prosperous when one of our best friends and closest allies has a
strong stable and growing economy. americans want britain's influence to grow, including within europe. world, nos in today's nation is immune to the challenges that david and i just discussed. and i today's world, solving them requiresn collective action. all of us cherish our sovereignty. my country is pretty vocal about that. but the u.s. also recognizes that we strengthen our security through our membership in nato. we strengthen our prosperity through organizations like the g-7a nd the g-20. i believe the u.k. strengthens our prosperity through the e.u. century, the nations that make their presence felt on the world stage are not the nations that go it alone. but the nations that team up to aggregate their power and multiplying their influence. itain'scisely because br
values and institutions are so strong and so sound, we want to make sure that that influence is heard. and it's felt. it influences other countries to think about critical issues. we have confidence that when the is involved in a problem, that they are going to help solve it in the right way. that is why the united states cares about this. for centuries, europe was marked by war and by violence. the architecture that our two countries helped build with the e.u. has provided the foundation for decades of relative peace and prosperity on that continent. the a remarkable legacy, legacy born in part out of what
took place in this building. before he walked out, i happened to see enigma on display. reminder of the incredible innovation and collaboration of the allies in world war ii and the fact that neither of us could have one that alone. in the same way, after world war ii, we built out the international institutions that, us, occasionally constrain but we willingly allowed those constraints because we understood that by doing so, we are able to institutionalize and internationalize the basic values of global law and freedom and democracy. that would benefit our citizens as well as people around the
world. think there is a british poet who was sensaaid "no man's an island." even an island as beautiful as this. we are stronger together. if we continue to tackle our challenges together, in future generations will look back on ours, just as we look back on the previous generation of english and american citizens who worked so hard to make this world safer and more secure and more prosperous and they'll say we did our part, too. that's important. that is important not just here. that is important in the united states as well. thanks. prime minister cameron: we have got some questions. we start with a question from the biriths pres -- british
press. from itv. >> thank you very much. you yourself, acknowledge that controversial timing of your comments on the e.u. referendum in the spirited having and i think you are right in the week before your arrival, leave campaigners i've said you are acting hypocritically. america would not accept the loss of sovereignty and we have to accept as part of the e.u. america would not accept the levels of immigration from mexico that we have to accept from the e.u. and therefore, in various degrees of politeness, they have said to you you should really keep your views to yourself. with that in mind, mr. president, do you still think it was the right decision to intervene in this debate? and what happens if the u.k. does decide in june to leave the european union?
let me repeat.: this is a decision for the people of the united kingdom to make. i'm not coming here to fix any votes. i am not casting a vote myself. i'm offering my opinion. democracies, everybody should want more information not less. you should not be afraid to hear an argument being made. that is not a threat. that should enhance the debate. particular because my understanding of it is that some of the folks on the other side have been striving to the united states -- ascribing to the united states we will take if the u.k. does leave the e.u. they say, for example, we will cut our own trade deals with the united states. so they're voicing an opinion about what the united states is going to do. want to hear might
from the president of the united states what i think the united states is going to do. and on that matter, for example, i think it is fair to say that maybe some point down the line, -u.s. trade be a u.k. agreement but it is not going to happen anytime soon because our focus is in negotiating with a big bloc, the european union to get a trade agreement on. and the u.k. is going to be in the back of became queue. not because we do not have a special relationship but because, given the heavy lift on any trade agreement, us having access to a big market with a lot of countries rather than trying to do piecemeal trade agreements, is hugely inefficient. now, to the subject at hand.
obviously, the united states is in a different hemisphere, different circumstances, has different sets of relationships with its neighbors than the u.k. but i can tell you this. if right now i have got access sell massive market where i 44% of my exports and now i'm thinking about leaving the organization that gives me access to that market, and that is responsible for millions of jobs in my country, and responsible for an enormous amount of commerce and upon which a lot of businesses depend, that is not something i would probably do. and what i'm trying to describe
isa broader principle, which in our own way, we do not have a common market in the americas, but in all sorts of ways, the united states constrained itself in order to bind everyone under a common set of norms and rules that makes everybody more prosperous. what we have built after world war ii. k.e united states and the u. designed a set of institutions, whether it was the united nations or the, britain would structure, imf, world bank, nato , across-the-board. now, that to some degree constrained our freedom to operate.
it meant that occasionally we had to deal with some bureaucracy. it meant that on occasion we have to persuade other countries and we don't get 100% of what we want in each case, but we knew that by doing so everybody was going to be better off, partly because the rules that were put in place were reflective of whwatat we believe. if there were more free markets around the world, and orderly financial system, we knew we could operate. had collective defense treaties through nato, we understood that we could formalize an architecture that would deter aggression rather us having piecemeal to
put together alliances to defeat aggression after it already started. and that principle is what's at stake here. the last point i make on this until i get the next question, i that as david said, he power of thet u.k. it does not diminish it. issue, about every what happened in europe is going to have an impact here. and what happens in europe is going to have an impact in the united states. we just discussed the migration crisis. i've told my team, which is sitting right here, they'll vou ch for me, that we considered a major national security issue that you have uncontrolled migration into europe. not because folks are coming to the united states.
but because it could destabilize europe, our largest trading bloc, trading partner, it's going to be bad for our economy. if you start seeing divisions in europe, that weakens nato. that'll have an impact on our collective security. fact, i want somebody who is smart and common sense, and tough is thinking as i do in the conversations about how migration is going to be handled, somebody who also has a sense of compassion and recognizes that immigration can enhance, when done properly, the assets of a country and not just diminish them, i want david cameron and the conversation -- in the conversation.
just as i want him in the conversation when we are having discussions about information sharing. and counterterrorism activity. because, precisely because i have a confidence in the u.k. we're not that if working effectively with -- paris or brussels, those attacks are going to migrate to the united states and to london. i want one of my strongest partners in that conversation. so it enhances the special relationship. it is not diminish it. prime minister cameron: let me just make one point in response to that. this is our choice, nobody else's. the sovereign choice of the british people. but as we make that choice, it makes sense to listen to what our friends think, to listen to their opinion and their views. is also worth remembering as we make this choice, it is a british choice
about the british membership of the european union. we're not being asked to make a choice about whether we support italian style of membership. britain has a special status in the european union. we're in the single market, we are not part of the single currency. we're able to travel and live and work and work in other european countries but we have maintained our borders because we are not in the no border zone. on this vital issue of trade were barack has made such a clear statement, we should remember why we are currently negotiating this biggest trade deal in the whole world and in the whole world history between the european union and the united states is because britain played an absolutely leading part in pushing for those talks to get going. when britaing-20 was in the chair of that organization. we set the agenda for what could be an absolutely game changing
to radio for jobs and investment because we were part of this organization. those were the important points. think we have u.s. question now. >> following on that, do you think between brexit and the migration issue, european unity is that a crisis point? what you hope the leaders gathering in germany can do about it? do you expect those nations to militarily support, including ground troops, the new government in libya, to keep that situation from further straining europe? i'm also wondering if maybe you can talk about whether you plan to go to hiroshima when you visit japan. president obama: come on, man. prime minister cameron: this one is -- >> the president came to tell the u.k., they should stay with the e.u. as a friend, what would you
advise americans to do about donald trump? that was soama: predictable. i would not describe european a crisis but i would say that it is under strain. that just has to do with the aftermath of the financial crisis and the strains that we're all aware of with respect to the eurozone. it is important to emphasize, as david points out, that the u.k. is not part of the eurozone. britishlowback to the economy has been different than it is on the continent. some divisions and difficulties between the southern and the northern parts of europe. that has created some strains. i think the migration crisis
that iss a debate taking place not just in europe but in the united states as well. of globalization, at a time when a lot of the challenges that we face are transnational as opposed to just focus on one country, there is a temptation to want to just pull up the draw bridge, either literally or figure to play. we see tha played out in some of the debates that are taking place in the u.s. presidential race. think, isebate, i accelerated in europe. that the ties nt that bind europe together are alternately much stronger than
the forces that are trying to pull them apart. europe has undergone an extraordinary stretch of prosperity. maybe unmatched in the history of the world. if you think about the 20th century when you think about the the 21st century europe looks awful lot better. and i think the majority of europeans recognize that. peaceee that unity and sustainedered economic growth, reduced conflict, reduced violence, enhanced the quality of life of people. and i'm confident that can continue, but i do believe that fors important to watch out some of these faultlines that are developing.
in that sense, i do think the brexit vote, which, if i am a citizen of the u.k., i'm thinking about it solely in terms of how this is helping me, how is this helping the u.k. economy, how is it helping create jobs here in the u.k., that is the right way to think about it. i do also think this vote will send a signal that is relevant about whether the kind of prosperity we've built together whether to continue or the forces of division and -- end up being more prominent. and that is part of the reason why it is relevant to the united states and why i have had the temerity to weigh in on it. what were your four other questions?
i got two. with respect to libya, both david and i discussed our commitment to try to assist this nascent government. a challenge, but there are people in this government of national accord that are genuinely committed to building back up a state. that is something we desperately want, because both the united united kingdom, but also a number of our allies, are more than prepared to invest in helping create border security in libya and helping to drive out terrorists inside of libya and trying to make sure that what could be a thriving society, relatively small population, a lot of resources, this is not an issue where we should have to subsidize libya. they're actually much better
positioned than some other countries that we have been helping. if they can just get their act together and we want to help provide that technical assistance to get that done. for ground plans troops in libya. i do not think that is necessary. i don't think it would be welcomed by this new government. it would send the wrong signal. this is a matter of can libyans come together. what we can do is provide them our expertise. what we can do is provide them training, what we can do is provide them a road map for how they can get basic services to their citizens and build a budget with the. -- build up legitimacy. bothnk the one area where david and i are committed is, as this progresses, we can't wait is starting to get a foothold there. not just are working,
with the libyan government but a lot of our international partners, to make sure that we are getting the intelligence we need. and in some cases taking actions to prevent isil from having another stronghold from which to launch attacks against europe or the against the united states. i think you have to wait until i get to asia until you -- to start asking the asia questions. thee minister cameron: question you asked me. this is not a general election. this is a referendum. it is ak has explained, referendum that affects the people of the united kingdom very deeply but it also does affect others in the european union, it affects partners like america or canada or australia and new zealand. as i look around the world, it far i havefind, so not found one, a country that which is britain well that thinks we ought to leave the european union.
i think that's, again, it is our choice. we will make the decision. we will listen to all of the arguments. people want the facts. a want to know the consequences. and i will try and lay those out as clearly as i can. friends, to our listening to the countries that wish us well as part of the process and is a good thing to do. as for the american elections, i have made some comments in recent weeks and months. i don't think now is a moment to add to them or distract -- or subtract from them. just as a prime minister has been through two general elections, leading my party, you look on at the u.s. elections in awe of the scale of the process and the length of the process. at anyone who is left standing at the end of it. president obama: fortunately, we are term limited. i, too, can look in awe at the process.
prime minister cameron: we have another british question. >> thank you. mr. president, you have made your views plane on the fact that british voters should choose to stay in the e.u. but in the saying that the special relationship that has been through so much would be fundamentally damaged and exit? if so, how? i know, do you have any sympathy for people who think this is none of your business? prime minister, some of your colleagues think it is wrong that you have dragged our closest ally into the eu referendum campaign. what you think then, and is it appropriate for the mayor to have brought up president obama's kenyan ancestry in the process of this debate? all, no questions
for me. i don't have some special power over the president of the united states. barack feels strongly about this. it is our decision of sovereign people, the choice we make about european people to listen to and consider the advice of your friends. just to amplify one of the made, we have a shared interest of making sure your takes a robust approach to -- europe takes an robust approach. hand on myan put my heart and say britain continues to play an important role in making sure the sanctions were put in place and kept in place. it would'vee if happened if we weren't there.
it is in our interest for europe to be strong against aggression. in our interest to be at the table and not see the sanctions not take place? it has been there working between britain and the united states over this issue. it has helped to make a big difference. and passionate about this feel it very very deeply, for all of the culture and the future of our country, and the truth is this -- a stronger britain and a stronger america, the stronger the relationship will be. i want britain to be as strong as possible. we draw our strength from all sorts of things we have in the country. fifth-largest economy in the world. you were discussing how well they work together. incredibly talented people. brilliant universities.
the commonwealth. , power, andtrength protect our people and maker country wealthier by being in the european union. i want to pretend to be a strong as possible, and the stronger britain is, the stronger the special relationship is and the more we can get done together to make sure we have a world that promotes democracy and human rights. to me, is a simple, a stronger britain, a stronger, special relationship. that is in the interest of the united states of america as well. obama: let me start with winston churchill. [laughter] i don't know people are aware this, but in the residence on the second floor, my private office is called the treaty room.
right outside the door of the treaty room, so that i can see it every day, including on weekends when i am going into that office to watch a basketball game -- [laughter] see is ary image i bust of winston churchill. it's a there voluntarily because i can do anything on the second floor. [laughter] i love winston churchill. [laughter] i love the guy. [laughter] , when i was elected of -- as president of united states and a predecessor had kept winston churchill bust in the oval office, there is only so
many places you can put it, or it starts to get cluttered. i thought it was appropriate and i suspect that most people here in the united kingdom might agree that as the first african-american president, it might be appropriate to have a bust of dr. martin luther king in my office. of all the hard work of a lot of people. -- a lot of people, who would somehow allow me to the privilege of holding this office. that is just on winston churchill. i think people should know that. my thinking there. with respect to the special relationship, i have a staff member who will not be named because it might embarrass her a little bit who on foreign trips, does not leave the hotel or the
staff room because she is constantly doing work making this happen. she has had one request the entire time that i have been president, and that is, could she accompany me to windsor on the off chance that she might get a peek at her majesty, the queen. , gracious as she is, her majesty actually had this person, along with a couple of up, so as we emerged from lunch, they could say hello. and this that person who is as tough as they, almost fainted [laughter] . i'm glad she did and because it would've cost and incident. [laughter] that is the special
relationship. together thatd nothing is going to impact the andional and cultural intellectual affinities between our two countries. so i don't come here suggesting in any way that it is impacted by a decision that the people in the united kingdom may make it their members of the european union. that is there. that is solid. that will continue hopefully eternally. and the cooperation in all sorts of ways through nato, through the seven, g20, all those things will continue, but as david friends one of our best is in an organization that enhances their influence and
enhances their power and enhances their economy, then i want them to stay in it. or at least, i want to be able to tell them, you know, i think this makes you guys bigger players. i think this helps your economy and helps to create jobs. and ultimately it is your decision precisely because we are bound at the hip. i what you to know that. before you make your decision. .argaret brennan >> thank you very much, sir. mr. president, vladimir putin has not stopped assad as he said he would. the cease-fire in syria appears to be falling apart. will you continue to bet on what looks to be a losing strategy? minister, the u.k. today warned its citizens
traveling to north carolina and mississippi about lost their that affect transgender individuals. as a friend, what do you think of those laws? mr. president, would you let to weigh in on that? as, sir, would you indulge -- in those all of us back in the u.s., sir? prince passed away. you were a fan. can you tell us what made you a fan? obama: i am trying to figure out what order to do this. [laughter] maybe i will start out with north carolina and mississippi. i want everybody in the united people of know that north carolina and mississippi are wonderful people, hospitable people, beautiful states, and you are welcome, and you should come and enjoy yourselves. i think you will be treated with extraordinary hospitality. that the laws that
have been passed there are wrong. and should be overturned there in response to politics, in part, and in part, some strong emotions that are generated by are goodome of whom people, but i just disagree with it. the it comes to respecting equal rights of all people, regardless of sexual orientation. ,hether they are transgendered gay, lesbian, and although i respect their different viewpoints, i think it is very important for us not to send singles -- signals that anyone is treated differently. i think it is fair to say that we are not unique among countries where under a federal system in which powers are
dispersed, there is going to be some local officials that put for laws that aren't necessarily reflective of a national consensus. but, if you guys come to north carolina and mississippi, you will be treated well. second question with respect to syria. i am deeply concerned about the cessation of hostilities and whether it is sustainable. always mind that i have been skeptical about mr. putin's actions and motives inside of syria. he is, along with iran, the preeminent backer of a murderous regime that i do not believe can regain legitimacy. because he has murdered a lot of people. having said that, when i also enieve is that we cannot
the crisis in syriad -- we cannot end the crisis in syria without a plan. there will be some people on one deeply the table, who i disagree with and whose actions i deeply uabhor. -- it is taking an enormous toll on the syrian people. the cessation has held longer , and for seven weeks, we have seen a significant reduction in ,iolence inside that country and that gave some relief to people. i talked to putin on monday to reinforce to him the importance
of us trying to maintain the cessation of hostilities, asking him to put more pressure on assad, indicating to him that we would continue to try to get the moderate opposition to stay at the negotiating table in geneva. but this has always been hard. it is going to keep being hard. what david and i discussed in our meeting is that we will prosecute war against daesh and i sold. -- daesh and isil. we will continue to target them and continue to make progress. we are not going to solve the overall problem unless we can get this political track moving. i assure you that we have looked at all options, none of them are great. and so we are going to play this
theon out, if in fact, cessation falls apart, we will try to put it back together again even as we continue to go after isil. it is my believe that ultimately, russia will this can beust as solved by a military victory on ,he part of those we support russia may be able to keep a lid iran for a wild, but if you do not have a legitimate government, they will be bled as well. -- that is not speculation on my part. the evidence all point to that direction. and finally with respect to prince i've loved
because he put out great music and he was a great performer. i did not know him well, he came to perform at the white house last year and was extraordinary. original and and full of energy. so, it's a remarkable loss. i have think the u.s. ambassador's residence, who just so happens to have a turntable. "purplening we played rain" and "delirious" to get warmed up before we left the house for important bilateral meetings liked this. [laughter] and great music. the ambassador has brought a lot of brilliant talent. i've been to north carolina many years ago.
i have not yet needed it to mississippi, but one day, i hope to. it is with laws and situations as they are addressed to give the advice dispassionately, and partially, but important that it does that. on any of these things is that we believe we should be trying to the use this more to end discrimination. we are comfortable saying to countries and friends anywhere in the world that obviously, the loss people pass is their own legislatures. we make our views on the importance of trying to end discrimination. that, margaret, think you very much. mr. obama: think you very much, everybody. [applause]
>> the tv has authors every weekend. there are programs to watch this weekend. at noon eastern, but tb is live at the folgers shaker library here in washington d.c. to mark what00 anniversary of shakespeare's that. the program includes speakers and your phone calls. bold:00, sue clean leiboldes her -- sue k discusses her son on the columbine massacre. he is interviewed by mary, national alliance on mental illness ceo. >> if we look at a murder-suicide such as the columbine tragedy, murder-suicide is a small subset of suicide.
perhaps, 1% to 2% will result from the killing of someone else. my recommendation is that we focus very much on trying to understand suicide and trying to prevent suicide so that these things don't you run into a terrible >> tragedy. on sunday afternoon at 1:30 eastern, but tb will air back-to-back programs that recently announced winners of this year's elixir prize -- the .heer's pulitzer prize general nonfiction winner joby takes a look at his book. go to our website for the complete schedule. american history tv on c-span three, this weekend, saturday evening at 6:00 eastern on the civil war, a historian discusses his book, why the south of the
civil war and why the north won. argumentss postwar made by former confederates seeking to justify the split from the union and their defeat. myths of theeat come civil war and why it started. >> 25% of southern white men between the ages of 20 and 45 were dead, not just casualties, they were dead as a result of the civil war. >> sunday morning at 10:00 on road to the white house rewind, the 1988 campaign of democratic candidate gary hart. we begin with a former colorado senator announcing his candidacy in denver. and then at a new hampshire news conference. finally, his announcement to withdraw from the race. sunday evening at 6:00, on american artifacts, smithsonian curator on the life of civil
-- the life of a civil rights activist. >> for her to negotiate the contracts, she was at the forefront of those efforts. [indiscernible] -- on8:00, presidency, the presidency -- inviteany of them ever me to play golf at their fancy country clubs? it just goes on and on and on. timest is one of the few in all of those 3.5 plus years i was so close to him.
he was a very well contained, disciplined man. the senate.to keep but he erupted. he hated them for it. assistantnixon deputy and washington reporter bob woodward reflect on the former andident's personality processes from watergate to vietnam. for the complete list, go to www.c-span.org. >> wrote to the white house continues tonight with democratic presidential candidate hillary clinton ahead intuesday's primary pennsylvania. she will talk to voters in did more on the northeast part of the state in scranton. minutes be live in 40 at 7:30 p.m. eastern on our companion network, c-span2. tomorrow, or democratic opponents, senator bernie sanders holds a town hall in
>> do we have everybody here? ok. good morning. democracy project. with a very distinguished group of people who have been thinking about vice presidential selection. i will have a few minutes here to introduce some people and give the lay of the land of the day and then i will turn it over to our route. we are here today with a product of the working group on vice presidential selection. many of you have it in your hands. it is a group that came together over the last six months, people who have seen up close the vice
presidential selection process on both the democratic and republican side, and have advice for the campaigns at it today and for the media who will be covering the selection of the next couple of months. our day today, we will begin with the working group as well as the other members. the chair will say a few words. he will have a couple of panels to delve into the recommendations. so, we begin with some introductions. i will say the chairs for last. panel, marioon the , the president of the 2008 republican national convention and has been involved in other conventions as well as other campaigns heard amy, a partner -- advisor of the 2008 mccain campaign.
director --anaging communications director of 2000 and eight obama campaign. and like everyone else, other campaigns. day.a partner at jones tom, who is not here with us --ay, but a former associate u.s. associate attorney general. scott reed, who is not with us, but a senior strategist at the u.s. chamber of commerce. roads, chairman of american and campaign for the 2012 romney campaign. a distinguished group, let me
introduce the cochairs who will say a few words and give us highlights. all of the other working group members can come up. the chairs of our commission of our working group are bob bauer. he is a professor practice at new york university law school. charlie black who was the chairman of the prime policy group, senior political adviser 8 mccain political campaigns. a wealth of experience. let me invite bob and charlie to come to the podium and the other working group members to assemble, sit, and we will get into the panels after we hear the announcements. thank you.
>> thank you very much for your attendance and for those who are viewing. we hope that you will enjoy this experience. have bipartisan policies and very important projects in order to bring our country together and to promote good government. case, we know each other, the men and women who and and politics presidential campaigns in both the democratic and republican parties know each other. we have a lot in common. we have philosophical differences. sometimes, get into partisan combat. in my experience, everybody who is a professional in either party really wants the government. they want their candidates with their viewpoint to win, but they
really want the government to be effective. that is what this project was about. with all of our experience in toh parties over the last 30 40 years, we have seen buys presidential selections can be theywell, and sometimes are not. sometimes, it is just a matter there is so much going on in the nomination contests, that the process in selecting a vice president has started too late, or not properly planned, and sometimes not properly vetted. we thought it was important and bringing us together to meet and discuss this and try to come up with suggestions of best practices. i think we have some good ones. obviously, consistent between -- a consensus between people in both parties. mentioned, we had a
leading scholar on the vice presidency and in many respects, a very unusual institution, but it has evolved. which someion about skepticism was expressed early. he didn't propose to be buried before he died. .here are other comments the circumstances that changed pragmatically -- dramatically, the vice presidency is an extraordinary example of a high governmental constitutional office that has evolved dramatically into a very substantive and significant role for which the president of the united states is accountable. in the end, a presidential nominee has ordinary authority under our system to direct the selection of the nominee. it is a highly personal choice as well as a political choice as
well as a governmental choice. what this looks at entirely privatized, but highly significant vice presidential selection process need in the way of structure. as you will hear, and i won't go into great detail because the panels will explore it, we talk about the importance of timing. in theesses go later year, it becomes essential that the process is structured in a timely fashion so there is ample time to do what is properly called "abetting." also, for the presidential candidates for an office that require so much trust to be effective to get to know the vice presidential nominees from among whom the choice will be made. we talk about the structure of tehbedding process -- vetting process.
how the role of the vice presidential nominee might be structured and basic questions be addressed that the public will have about the criteria that the presidential candidate ultimately decided the election upon. so, we walk through all of this in these recommendations, and i just want to echo as i close, it is always a pleasure to be in a room of people with whom you might be somewhat regular partisan political combat. , they carethe table about u.s. politics in a non-bipartisan sense. we are deeply appreciative that we received at the bipartisan center. without their ongoing efforts to organize and keep the process running, this exercise would not
have been possible. on behalf of the entire group assembled and on behalf of the cochairs charlie and myself, we want to thank them. >> i think i am here, and we just moved down the road here. we heard a little bit from bob and charlie. with howg to start this exercise came together. i remember sitting with bob bauer and saying i have been thinking about this for a while. what brought you to thinking that more substantive thinking about how selecting a vice president should be done? >> it is an unusual selection process. you have the second highest constitutional office who is
going to step into the role of president, if it becomes necessary, and is expected to a very senior role in the government. the second-most important role in the government as an advisor, a troubleshooter and somebody who is a full partner in the it ministrations -- full partner in the administration. the person who decides who that will be is a nominee of the party. in the past, conventions have made it clear that somebody who is on the might of the -- idential candidate it is a personalized process and a privatized process. everything that is done in the selection of the vice presidential nominee is done behind closed doors. process takes place
closed doors. nonetheless, it raises fundamental questions about preparation and democratic accountability. i have been button holding .eople over time i remember, i wore down a guest at a wedding party. [laughter] in order to escape me, he promised he would write about it. i buttonholed the right person. >> i turned to charlie. --ave two questions -- bob charlie, you thought this may need a bipartisan look. tell us a little bit about what you thought it was necessary -- do thatou think first. i want to get into one thing you said that you said early on about getting to know the vice president. start with the general and i will move to that. >> i have been involved on the
vpnges of bp selection -- selection. i have observed what the democratic party has done. it seemed to me that we want weren't- we etting properly. on most occasions, they are looking at a list of most people they have never met. if you don't know them pretty well, it is not good. also, i live for both parties to perform well and of the issues debated. your sort of forced to cover the issues and not pursue personal
scandals. this, we talked about were involved in another weartisan mission before and started talking about it, and he was right in what he said. thanks to you again for pulling our group together. in order to discuss this and pull this report. i noticed in both parties, sometimes a selection that looked good on paper and might be good politically, at least on , vice president's don't usually decide the election, no matter who you pick. of aast time the choice running mate made a difference was in 1960. ,f kennedy had not picked lbj lbj would not have sent john conley down south to steal enough -- [laughter]
nevertheless, it is very important and has an important role in the government. you want somebody who will not only be in sync with the president's policies, but the president's style and method of operation, and method of doing business. if you put more focus on the process of getting to know people and getting to see how , it isey think alike going to be that much better when you get into the government. around the been administration when they wished they could move the vice president's office over to the new executive office building just to keep them from bu tting in on things. that is not the way it should be. >> i promised i would follow up
on a specific recommendation. it is likely to your favorite child here. like picking your favorite child. nominee has tol really get to know the vice presidential choices, the people in the small circle he might pick. and it is athis up very simple point. why is it so important? sometimes a choice has been made whether is not a lot of knowledge between the two people and not a whole lot of understanding. >> i can give you good examples and bad examples. i prefer to focus on the good and matt continue how mitt romney got to know paul ryan well by campaigning with him. he also had others that were potential running mate campaigning with him.
so that the chemistry was there. hand, you know, a couple of vice president had to sort of get to know the nominee , and thatr selection was in a time when they are campaigning in different directions, and maybe the are together once a week. if you do win, you get to the white house, and there is a shorter time to get acquainted. it is better to have someone you know and trust from the beginning. >> i was going to turn to mad the waysou described in which the mitt romney campaign went out and try to build relationships among top choices. tell us what worked and what you recommend to others. >> first of all, i want to thank bob and charlie of being a part of this panel. it was a real honor. it is probably the first bipartisan thing i have ever done in my life. [laughter]
if you look at the report, i think there are three important things that going to selecting a vice presidential nominee. i have been on both sides were i have been a part of the team defending the pick, and then, i have been a part of the team trying to undermine the pick in 2004, i was the research director on the bush/cheney campaign. [indiscernible] the person us -- the person has to be qualified to be president. i think chemistry is absolutely critical. charlie is right. i was exposed to it -- congressman ryan ended up endorsing governor romney during the long process leading into the wisconsin primary. 2012. march, i think of
the two of them had met randomly at events, but they did not have a real relationship. they had talked a few times. i did not have the chance to be on the road because i was chained to my desk in boston running the campaign. but immediately when they started campaigning together, i started getting reports back from our team, all my god, you have to see these guys together. itt is on stage doing town halls. it was obvious right out of the gate that there was chemistry and a partnership was already forming. id i used to have, because was in boston and not on the road as much, i have 15 minutes at least set aside every day for governor romney and myself to talk and go over things. during the lead up to the wisconsin primary, it was like talking to your buddy in high school who just met a girl he is smitten with.
[laughter] all he was talking about was paul this, paul that. obvious that that chemistry existed any partnership was forming. it is so important because not only is this going to be a political partnership at the top, it is going to be a partnership between teams. in the end, the ultimate goal is to form a partnership that will create a good government. i think chemistry is incredibly important. like you said, there is a lot to pull out of. that is one area i would highlight. ismy question to you implicit in the group. we brought together a group of people who have been political people involved in the political campaigns at a high level. we could have had a bunch of the government people come and say, your vegetables, pick a vice presidential candidate, and maybe it would not have been as believable.
sense of can give us a presidential campaigns and how they are balancing these things and how a good process might bring in more focus on picking someone who actually is ready to govern as a vice president, not just a political type. >> first of all, i want to share -- and thank you for bringing this group together. i was exposed to the early rantings of bob bauer on this process. [laughter] has thisthat he platform to communicate is a very good thing. [laughter] john, it is an interesting question. we all agree across the board somebody who is qualified to be president is now the absolute first thing that needs to be taken into account. it is a political process.
it is a political primary process. considerations that traditionally people thought were important politically, really aren't. i think the group agreed on that. vice president don't bring their states with them. examples --rous lloyd bentsen was reelected as michael to caucus was losing substantially with lloyd benson on the ticket. you can look at many of these examples. they are not going to bring a state except under unusual circumstances. up graham would have made 532 votes. by and large, they do not bring states with them. they can serve to address and balance out some of the concerns that may be present around a presidential candidate.
for example, in 2008, when barack obama was winning the nomination, there were concerns around experience level, but certainly the republicans had been attacking senator obama on. that john mccain was signaling a clear argument against obama that he did not have the experience, but -- particularly in world affairs. -- biden, who was obviously who always a had a huge amount of experience in world affairs and as a chairman of formulations who had dealt with these issues, helped to reassure voters. voters can be reassured about experiences if they feel-like somebody is going to be putting good people around to advise them. one other small thing i want to touch on. i saw a prominent poster in the
audience here. we talked a little bit about napoleon. people want overenthusiastic that he would provide a lot of information. not so much about what the public thought about that in terms of governing. do you want to say more about y we were all skeptical? >> campaigning is a ford leaning exercise. the idea that a poll could predict whether a vice presidential candidate at the end of the day is going to help or hurt you, it is interesting, but it is not just positive. a lot of vice presidential nominees aren't well-known. a lot of the people running for president right now were not well known at the beginning of this campaign. part of the vice presidential process is, is that person getting known in being introduced to the public?
a pole they give you hypothetical argument is simply not going to be a good aedictor, and ken give you false positive -- and can give you a false positive. the recommendations is if you don't know the person you are going to pick, you have to spend time getting to know the group. is theer big one timeline. in fact, we have in the report, a useful graphic which shows, not only does it take time and it is always important, but this year, one of them is we have welier conventions, and don't have mathematically determined nominees, that the time is short. i want to talk about the timeline. bob, can you tell us a little bit about what the core elements of the timeline are? why you can't just wean yet at the last minute?
there was anht absolute minimum that would be very, very difficult to operate on a schedule less than eight weeks. that was high because you're talking about identifying an appropriate candidate and funding opportunities, assuming the presidential nominee does not know all the candidates. the vetting process is not a predictable process. it takes it a while to put it together. privatizedly process. the government does not lay a hand here. there have been times in the past, 1956 was one where the fbi theided information into vetting process. they don't do that anymore.
you have a process that has to be structured to do a complete review, and you don't know in the course of that process if .ssues don't develop i can think of an example a number of years ago where a medical issue arose. it required an adjustment. weighty responsibility and a cannot be rushed. we look at the possibility that the parties might find one or findther in themselves -- one or the other in a position that the nominating procedures would be in doubt all the way through to the convention and a hurried last-minute process for selecting a nominee is fraught with the potential of disaster. charlie, do you want to weigh
in on this, too> ? is an unusual year. all the campaigns need to get going. there needs to be some amendment depending on the circumstances of being several candidates out there and the possibility of a contested convention. it is ideal to start now. if there are problems, just get something going now. >> i have recommended through the media and through this presentation, that all of the candidates in both parties start right now with the creation of a process on how they're going to select a running mate, and begin the process now. what you really have to do, like in our party, where we have a real tough, three-way race which is likely to go to a contested
convention and multiple ballots, they have to pick people they can set aside from the day-to-day campaign activities, who can work full-time on this. the candidate has to devote some time to it. the candidate has to have a long list in mind, and they have to develop it down to a short list. the eight weeks is really after you have developed the short list and gotten permission from people to vet them. i hope everybody will start now and do it the right way. it is fine if we nominate someone at the last minute on wednesday night and they pick the running mate on thursday morning. [laughter] vetted properly. >> a couple of recommended issues relate to the sensitive nature of the information you
are getting from these candidates. you are getting the most personal -- getting the most personal questions. we thought about how to deal with it. about the role of the vice president. did i can start with matt. campaigns have to really think about who gets to see it and how highly this is held, i want to do with the information afterwards. do you want to speak to that? it is a balance. au need to have people with political background, a political antenna to go through the information. there is sensitive information that is included. for example, i was mitt romney's campaign manager and i recused myself from looking at that information. i suggested governor romney
identify any flag that would disqualify someone from the event. the reason why i did it come at the time, i was 38 years old, and i thought that, there was a , and i just didn't think it was proper for me to look through the vetting reports of all these people who may inevitably run for president themselves. as it turns out, many of the people on our list have and will in the future. that is important striking that balance. it is easy to recuse yourself. i did it. i don't think it impacted my ability. it is a very personal choice. it is not about political operatives. it is about the person at the top who makes it. >> anita, you can speak to that. the last focus you on
set of recommendations, which is thinking about the vice president announcement is the beginning of the rollout of the fall campaign. how it relates to the convention? how do you do it? what sort of pitfalls to avoid? anita: thank you, john. we discussed size presidential selection and i think it is the first step of the presidency. it is an incredibly important decision. it is a governing decision much more so than a political campaign decision. it tells you something about what kind of president that nominee is going to be by who they pick and by the process by which they have chosen this person. the rollout, the announcement, of who the choices is the opportunity for that nominee to really communicate with the theican people what were
important things he or she looked for? what is important to me when i think about this from a governing perspective? what was the process that they used to give people a sense of how they are going to approach important decisions of their presidency? this is the first presidential level decision and needs to be communicated to the public in that context. there have been a lot over the years that have changed about presidential rollouts. dual purposeve a of communicating something important about the nominee and introducing the vice presidential nominee in a very different light if they are well known, or if they are not well-known. it is the opportunity to introduce them to the american public. a few pitfalls -- even if they were extraordinarily experienced officials and running for president in that cycle and have the opportunity to participate in debates against the eventual
nominee, they don't know the nominee's position. they go from a principal speaking as a record of themselves, what i believe, what i vote for, to be an effective spokesperson for the nominee. it takes a little time to get up to speed. traditionally, you don't want that person to have to be out -- a answering bazillion n questions right away. they have to get used to the idea that they are not just speaking about their record, their belief, what they have done, but they are speaking on behalf of a ticket. they become high-level spokespeople, which is a different role that most elected officials are used to playing. .> to add to that that is another reason why chemistry is so important. the partnership begins immediately. after that two individuals familiar with each other, have had time to think about each other's ideas.
did ond paul certainly campaign buses and throughout the country. it matters. the element of surprise is important. we were able to pull that off in 2012. i know it was incredibly important that scott reed could not be here. for senator bob dole, senator hee love surprises when picked the secretary, he pulled it off. this was a guy who knew everybody. he could successfully pull that off and have the surprise there because he had built-in chemistry. sometimes it was not always good. >> i want to add to that, in kemp knewe and each other very well and did not particularly like each other. in a series of meetings that scott was able to manage
and talk at length for hours without it getting out to the press, jack was able to say, i know who is in charge if we get elected, and i will below to your agenda. open-mindedill be to consider some of my ideas. dole rejected the goal standard immediately, by the way. [laughter] just kidding. but they not only developed a way to work together. jack was a tremendous asset to the ticket. with the economy being so good and bill clinton being such a great candidate, there was no way dole was going to win. but he was positive for the ticket. he was capable of governing if he got to be president. there is more than one way to get chemistry. thing, they probably
had never gotten together in their history before jack was on the ticket after the election, all the way up until jackpots death. they got together as friends. anita: the next panel will going to the issue of vetting. in addition to the private politicalprocess, the should also not see. vetting a public process that goes on in a parallel track that the campaign can do and that the research and communication offices will undertake, which is to go through that public record. in the case of joe biden, that was a public record that began
when he was elected to the senate in the early 1970's. that is a lot of that is a lot of votes. to look at those issue positions, start thinking about how the campaign is going to answer those questions and identify some common themes. there is a kind of research process that goes on at the same time this intensely personal private vetting process is taking place. >> i'm going to get a warning to the microphone in the room we are going to open up for audience questions shortly. i want to get bob and charlie such as to say something about the report, and we will turn to audience questions. when you take questions, please identify yourself. >> i want to stress what he just said, other than the part about my ranting, about governing decisions. the other points to be made about the partnership between the president and vice president that have governing consequences is the methods --
the message it sends to the staff. it reduces the likelihood that you are going to have friction within the west wing and old executive office vying for visibility and control and for access to policy. the principles have made it clear what the role of the vice president is. and the the vice president and president are unified in their vision. i think it's extraordinarily important. i would underscore that a lot of to theention paid political significance of the pick, the message we are communicating, this is an extraordinarily privatized behind closed doors choice that has massive governmental consequences. in many respects, the process by which those consequences are prepared for in addressed have been outpaced by in evolution in
the office. our hope would be to help campaigns think constructively and thoroughly about how this can be done. last point i would emphasize is the privacy point about information that is gained in the vetting, it's critically important. but also the more private you can keep the process, you and there is good people when they don't get it. everyone has to develop a short list to make a decision. the more private you can be and fewer embarrassments you get, the better. >> i know we have a mic on one side of the room. we will call on you in the audience and you should identify yourself. why don't we start right here? >> don with bpc. i think you all agree it doesn't matter which state the vice president of committed is from
--vice presidential candidate is from. what about other factors, like religion, social economic background, things that maybe will resonate more with voters? does that make any difference in the selection? >> it is not a choice without political dimensions. it indicates not just about the candidate's governing choice, but what they think is politically important. you would think of circumstances like in mondale's choice in 1 984, where there is a statement about what kind of candidate he wants. there is a decision made. that's an example where questions were raised about how the vetting process worked, and whether it yielded the best possible result. that became the controversy. i don't think anyone is suggesting there isn't some
political element to communication, to the choice. you can put your finger on a few. >> yeah-- i'm against putting one on there. [laughter] no, the fact is that there are a lot of appeal to the people that are self-made. joe biden, his blue-collar background, and the fact that he has never been a person who sought wealth for became wealthy. it does allow him to relate very well to a lot of average americans. i think that is been an asset to the president. sure, you take that into consideration, but it's the total sum of the man or woman in that chemistry that matters the most. add that yes, of course it's important. the religion piece, again, if you're trying to make a statement -- what is important
is, what are you saying to people with this joint ticket? for instance, in 1992, bill clinton picked a very unconventional choice in al gore. they were from the same region of the country, for example. they were both pretty much from the same part of the party, the more centrist part of the democratic party. but it was a very generational message that included them together. their chemistry was quite good. gore was quite good and had qualified before, which was a huge asset for anybody entering the process. when john mccain picked sarah palin in 2008, she had a reputation, certainly in alaska of being a reformer. being never a, similar to -- being a maverick, similar to mccain's profile. that was part of that consideration, that she was someone that stood up to special
interests and had taken on tough issues in her state. you think about what are you are communicating. that is as much a part of it, what are we saying that this ticket, about where we want to govern? it is a political process too. >> bob is right. there is a political dimension to every choice you make on a campaign. recent history shows that candidates that look at qualifications and chemistry selected the individuals that were most successful vice presidential running mate. >> okay, why don't we go back here in the blue striped tie? a yeafirst year law student interested in election law. rather than talk about the impact of a person on the process, could you talk a
little about how technology could play a role in the process of selecting a vice president? i know in the 2008 election cycle, the idea was to announce he v.p. candidate via text message. a way of maximizing this through a different process might have an impact on the election. >> in 2008, the obama campaign announced we would let supporters hear who the vice president shall nominate was rather than giving it to the press first, which was consistent with an approach we had in the campaign of communicating directly with supporters, building a basic community of grassroots supporters. it didn't quite work because a network based on a faulty airline reported it. part of this was organizational, we wanted to get people's cell phones so we could communicate with them on an ongoing basis in the campaign.
two thingsere are that campaigns will continue to do. the center's campaign in particular -- sanders campaign in particular has done an extraordinary job, building a strong community using technology to allow them to communicate directly with voters in a way that used to be done by political parties at the grassroots level. very specifically with local leaders communicating things. i think technology will continue to play that role. i also think that technology can be used, as we have seen in congress, to bring pressure on nominees. petitionline effort to to take this online presser. in 1984, there was a lot of public pressure from women's groups that the democratic party needed a woman as vice president nominate, to sifnify that -- to
signify that women had arrived in the political process. that is a most online in a powerful way. >> d1 to say a little bit about some recommendation about social media, not being anything that we have to look at? >> we talked about technology, it is certainly going to impact the vet. right now there is some young man or woman that is leaving his social media footprint as we speak that 20, 30 years from now, they are probably going to regret. [laughter] >> i think we have a frontrunning candidate for president that leaves a social media footprint that is something-- [laughter] >> there will definitely be regrets. people have to be cognizant of that. it will certainly play into the vetting and how the rollout is perceived because of the footprint left behind. >> thinking about the children
of potential candidates, as the vetting process, how can we include them in a much more comprehensive way? anybody under the age of 30 has been living in a social media world that their parents grow up in or inhabit and has a footprint that you don't necessarily want coming out there the poor kid is under lights, having to answer for everything they have ever done on social media. >> a question in the back, the bow tie. the mic is right here. >> i'm with the peace group. following up on this line question and answer, givien the eagleton event, what procedures are in place to avoid having that type of event occur? >> for our younger audience members--
[laughter] >> i will let you take the. -- take that. >> the gist of it was, eagleton was a very rosy vice principal -- very well received vice presidential choice ,a southern senator from missouri. highly articulate and very well-liked in the senate. it turned out that post election, it was discovered that he had undergone shock treatment and other therapy for depression. we are in a different world now, arguably. then this was the trigger for an immediate outcry that he couldn't be a suitable candidate for the vice presidency, and couldn't be one heart beat away from the presidency. eventually eagleton had to resign. he was replaced by sergeant shriver, a cousin by marriage of president john kennedy, selected by the dnc.
what had apparently happened, he had been at the all-inclusive, is there anything else you want to tell us? question. and he chose not to disclose this. >> now you have to get everybody's medical record. questions, they have to be run down. a lot of people don't remember this episode particularly well. it is dyed into the frabic of the vetting process, the candidates will always be asked the ominous question. the open-ended question, is there anything you want to tell us that we haven't thought to ask you? to the extent. -- to the extent that there is a path to trust and verify, and
medical histories-- the political junkies in the room, the 1972 convention in which eagleton was nominated for vice president helps to define catholic convention. -- chaotic convention. it was one in which the nominee did not make his acceptance speech until 2:00 in the morning. this is one of the examples one would use as why you don't want to rush these things. it was a contested nomination on the way into the convention. spentlean up as much time --probably not as much time spent on this in retrospect as they wished. we will hear more from the second panel, but this is the timeframe where the vetting becomes more serious starting in 1976.
in theory, there could be cases where the party has to come back and someone else. in this case, the party leadership. >> once again, the candidate drove the election process. they looked to mcgovern the second time around, who would you like to run with? by the way, you can also imagine that was later in the process. the number of those raising their hands to be grandfathered in the general election had diminished significantly. [laughter] >> the importance of the decision cannot be overstressed. this reflected very badly on the government as leader. -- on mcgovern as a leader. he wasn't going to win anyhow, but he did not need a distraction. you think a good place president rouhani, and you don't want distractions. -- good vice presidential nominee, and you don't want distractions. two days after the rollout of the v.p., if you see the vice
presidential candidate on national news, it's bad news. retired department of labor employee. do you think the electorate would be ready for an all-female ticket? it depends on who it is. i absolutely don't think there are very many voters that would gender of thethe ticket. if you put somebody on their that is otherwise not popular, or doesn't vet well, and become a distraction, it would be a problem. voters, 98% vote for the top of the two. the v.p. does not make much difference. if they become a distraction or a negative, yeah, it makes a difference.
>> any challenges secretary clinton is having in her primary art because she's a woman -- aren't because she's a woman, it's because people find her dishonest and distrust for the. -- unth -- i think on the shortlist, there will be quite a few women. i think senator elizabeth woman will be on secretary clinton's shortlist as she gets cold more and more to the left. -- gets pulled more and more to the left. including senator jeanne shaheen and new hampshire. >> i would say it is actually, from a woman's perspective, a great election-year in which one parties asho in both seen as most qualified and experienced, the one most prepared, who has the best credentials to be the president, is the owoman of the 5. public polling has been very clear.
has theualified and who right experience? it's the woman this time. it would depend if you thought it was a choice that was because it was a qualified person ready to be president. then i think people would be happy to accept that choice. if it was seen as a political plate, people would be, skeptical like anybody else. >> i think we have time for one more question. >> yes, if a vice presidential nominee is not well-known, it is on the campaign to lay the groundwork to introducing this person to the nomination. i am young and only have had six elections. in my life, the person who is the marquee example is sarah palin. how much do you think media
played a role in introducing sarah palin to the country? i ask that because i feel that a lot of people's first impressions of sarah palin was tina fey on saturday night live. if they look at her through the rest of the election as more of a comical unfit, unintelligent person, as was played by tina fey, that could affect people's perceptions of the ticket, and mccain is a whole. how much do you think media plays a role in shaping the view of the vice president? >> they play a huge role, which is why you want to get these things correct. you can look at public polling and coverage. this was a very well received nomination initially. if you look at the coverage for the two weeks after the republican convention, the race was never closer than during that period. as the obama communications
director, i was getting these messages, oh, you are going to lose the women's vote, which we didn't think, because underlying we thought it was a weak choice. tina fey didn't invent those problems, okay? [laughter] [applause] i mean, the vice presidential nominee, sarah palin, her interviews and in her public appearances, said things that gave tina fey the material to create an extraordinary impression of her. i would only refer you to her interview with katie couric. that all came right out of her mouth. what newspapers do you read? it's a gotcha question. the media doesn't invent these things, candidates actually give them the material to do it. it's why the public piece of it, in addition to the private setting, the public piece is so critically important.
you don't want to put someone out there that is not prepared, or this will happen. in 1988, the report touches on this. senator,united states pretty well-liked by his colleagues. had been around for a while, but was totally unprepared. there is a different level of attention you get when you are a candidate for national office. >> if you get people on a shortlist, you spend time with them, not just the candidate, but the staff. you can drill them and debate them, making sure they are willing to take advice. in governor palin's defense, she was picked, and probably had two hours of the kind of briefing before she rolled out. later in the election, she had a very good debate against joe biden, which is not easy to do. her,taff spent a week with
practicing and drilling and training. she had a great debate, but it was too late to recover from the tina fey stuff. 14,unday night, september the mccain campaign tracking had us 3 points ahead. day, lehman brothers went other, the great financial crisis started. we were 12 points down, which had nothing to do with mccain. luck of the draw. >> i know there are more questions, but we are going to wrap up this panel. we won't break the room. we will have a quick change of people on stage. i want to thank all of you here for all the task force people for a great report. thank you. [applause] >> tomorrow on c-span, democratic presidential candidates senator bernie sanders is a rally in wilmington, delaware. our live coverage is scheduled
to get underway in the afternoon at 4:00 eastern. ♪ >> this month we showcase our student cam winners. cspan's annual document or competition from middle and high school students. this year's theme is rude to the white house. -- road to what has. what issues do you want the presence of candidates to address? one our second prize winners is from cherry hill, new jersey. a soft grader at cherry hill high school east wants presenter candidates to discuss congressional term limits. "when the house becomes a home."
♪ >> the presidential campaign 2016. as we approach the election, the polls revealing a trend. many favor political outsiders over the career politicians. many americans are fed up with politics as usual, many now favor unusual politicians. >> americans revile congress, but keep electing the same people over and over. these two factors are directly at all to with one another. -- at odds with one another. >> based on a study, many people in the bottom 90% have no impact on the actions of congress. the opinions of the economic and special interest groups are closely reflected in the actions of congress. >> what looks like response to the public overall is really a response to economic relief. and a right to extinguish
economic relief from other americans, middle-class and the poor have virtually no influence over government policy. >> while the study suggests the government does not reflect the people, it could also suggest that congress is susceptible to corruption. not necessarily corruption by judicial definition. >> it's not the petty corruption. corruption of congress now is centered on that failing to represent their constituents. >> on january, 2010, the citizens united ruling allows special interests and corporations to spend unlimited sums of money on candidates. the court claim is that they do because to corruptions, they are not being spent in court nation with the campaign. while it's legal for corporations to donate direct to corp. -- directly to candidates,
they can donate unlimited sums of money to superpacs, which can have unlimited advertising. go all the way back to the greeks, some of the first supporters of limited terms. according to aristotle, it was a long tenure that was the cause of the astonishment of tyranny. fast-forward to the framers of the constitution. thomas jefferson urged the limitation of tenure to prevent every danger rising and american freedom by continuing too long in office. while term limits were not implement it in the constitution, jefferson limited their own terms. >> the branch members were only serving 1-2 terms. >> the back to the present. >> it's one of few issues where congress and the general
publishing could not be more out of step. that's because of the conflict of interest. >> u.s. term limits initiated a movement to set limits by encouraging states to pass laws that would limit the terms of their federal legislators. an overwhelming amount of states did. but 1995, the supreme court ruled against u.s. term limits, determining that states do not have the right to impose limits on their federal legislation. >> is term limits constitutional? . it affects. -- let's look at the facts. is no real answer to a lot of these questions. >> critics of term limits say they would not prevent corruption and prevent experienced legislators from going to office. >> it's the experience legislators that gave us 2 unending wars in the middle east, and the prospect and more, a government that is spying on every american. i would say that's not a very good argument for experienced in
office. in mike beebe better argument for rotation in argument, which is what the founders wanted. many of these congressmen never go back and live under the laws they've passed. >> an argument against term limits that has particular resonance is the argument that term limits are undemocratic, that the election process give voters the power to put people in and take them out as they choose. >> there already term limits, every two years there is an election held. if the people want change, they have the power to vote. they have to exercise that power. >> right now it seems to me that with 98% reelection rates, that is not real consent of the governed. that's just an incumbent protection racket. >> the organization representing us is champing the anticorruption act, a small piece of legislation that has a three-part plan to stop secret
money and power the voter. >> getting money out of politics is kind of a misleading term. it will always cost money to run for office. our intention is that it's much better for that money to come from a diverse lot of the electorate rather than a tiny handful. the so-called dark money is driven into the election cycle. i think there is dramatic change so far in the way congress has acted. crucial is to get these issues come from bringing new people into the process. thele that aren't bought by political machine. >> while many opponents disagree over what rate would limit corruption, they all agreed the status quo is no longer the option. i want and upward down vote,
and talk about it all of the country and continue to use the pulpit to highlight the issues to have diminished influence. >> a democratic debate in manchester, new hampshire. tensions are running high. >> a lot of important issues the candidates have to address.we respect that , but we respectfully believe that they will not be able to solve any of the problems we are talking about until they address the corruption of big-money in politics. >> in order to have a true diverse legislature, with much about her tradition of the presiding ruling class protected by money. whether that happens with term limits, campaign finance reform, or accommodation of the two, it's important that we ring that conversation onto the presidential stage, and into the national spotlight. ♪ >> to watch all of the prize-winning document trees from this year's winning cam conditions, visit
studentcam.org. tonight on c-span, the supreme court hears a challenge to presidential executive orders on immigration in the case of u.s. versus texas. president obama holds a joint news conference with british prime minister david cameron. in london later an interview with what has economic advisor jason berman. house economic advisor jason berman. >> the supreme court heard oral apartments in the west versus texas, a challenge to president obama's executive actions on immigration. in 2014, the president ordered a policy of deferring deportation of undocumented immigrants with children who are u.s. citizens or legal residents. texas and 25 other states are challenging this action as unconstitutional. here is the audio of monday's supreme court proceedings. this is an hour and a