that both from large donors as was pointed out earlier this morning in a large number of donors which was unforeseen, but i think we were very successful in what we were able to accomplish there. where were we active? and about 11 senate races around the country paid as you can see from the map in nevada, colorado, kentucky, missouri, florida there was a major senate race this cycle we were there and that was part of our initial mengin to engage early to make sure the we have an impact that the candidates were able to benefit from that intact and we were trying to engage with so at a time mothers may not be able to around two days after the republican primary when chariton did not have any money and harry reid started pounding her and needed some support so we were

there. the salmon color of in other instances around the country. in terms of house races we were involved in over 20 house races. throughout the country and our goal which i will get to in terms of the coordination with other groups is to expand the plea field. dhaka was the goal. obviously, you know, what movie nrcc and other groups were doing was available for the competitive information the tv stations provide its we were able to get a read of where they were and go other places. this was -- i've never seen a cycle like this we were attracting hundred 20 different house race is that we saw as potentially competitive. and that's couldn't french and six months ago that it would ever be that big. in addition we also use our resources for efforts. we did pay phones and mail and the nine states you see here. we did microtarget and identify who was likely to support our

issues, who was likely to turn out to vote and those were the folks who targeted. in addition to doing the paid male and phones we also did door-to-door in washington, colorado and nevada and experimented with online eds, e-mail and taxing which is something our side hasn't done a tough and very successfully i might add. and this is really what i wanted to focus on in terms of what american crossroads and the other outside groups were able to accomplish and that was the coordination. never before had the number of outside groups on the republican side coordinated to this extent. as you can see outside groups were in 55 different districts on tv, with where the nrcc was the was over 80 districts that we had somebody on tv for the

final two weeks with absolutely no overlap and that's amazing and that is i think that is by far the untold story not on hold, you guys mentioned in the that is the highlight of what came out of the cycle was the coordination and whether it was the american action network 50 plus their pour many crops the table we were talking to that showed in set aside all the egos, interests and accommodating for themselves and the goal was and that was what we did. we also accomplished the goal line sure brad will talk about it each will see the spending places they didn't want to in the fact they are talking about succeeding in arizona seven arizona seven shouldn't have been on the table. california 20, we see of the cycle it wasn't the district of wisconsin. that right there in september told you it was going to be a rough cycle for democrats and is set to do with the angry

electorate. we to get advantage of the angry electorate and made things possible. people didn't get angry because they saw our tv ads. it's been growing for two years. people aren't happy. we fit into that unhappiness. we helped to direct it but was there all of the vehicle it wasn't something we were able to generate. wish we had that kind of luck. what did we learn? we learned it's a good model in the works in this cycle that hopefully we can do it as well as the democrats did in 06 and we continue to try to accomplish that goal but we also learned we are not the party committee and we are not a campaign. the impact we could have on the field is limited, but going door-to-door and organizing that ring you can't coordinate with the local or state party or the campaign is hard and in the end the candidates matter.

candidates in arizona or i'm sorry, nevada, colorado, candidates matter and there is only so much, doesn't matter if i spend 10 million, 50 million, 100 million there's a dead candidate they are going to know that. voters are smarter than people give them credit for and so that's one of the lessons we learned. but what is our future? our future is continued to engage in the issues to date. we've made no secret of the fact and you will be hearing from us sooner rather than later from american crossroads we are going to continue to be active and shapely field for 2012 and that's our goal and as some people pointed out it is now an impact on that and what happens legislatively and how the big impact on that and we are going to be flexible enough to taken advantage of it however those opportunities arise and american crossroads gps. thank you.

>> thank you. our next presenter, brad tauter, is the founder of on message, he is a media consultant and adviser to the national republican congressional committee. brad? >> i appreciate you having us here today. i'm going to focus on the changing role of party committees and independent expenditure campaigns in the week of citizens united but i also want to add an amendment in the wake of citizens united bipartisan campaign reform act because if you are not happy about citizens united you need to get rid of. one shackles the other one and if you are upset with the wake of the change campaigns, the

only answer is to bring and how were candidates in the committees but i will get off my soap box and go back to an office before i get to engage. i'm going to focus on the house side of this year independent spending was a very big factor both on the party committee and third party groups to read part tested with the fact the campaigns typically aren't large enough to make their own weather wear as many senate campaigns are. the house campaign's budget or to the smaller and some outside groups tend to play a bigger role. real quickly leading the jogging changing jobs or the party committee especially is to drag out the spotlight. show both the donors and other third party groups. this is where the races are and where it matters. this is the agenda in the race we can win. and keeping with that, we ought to take a minute and look at the scoreboard what happened in money to i would like to puncture if i could this popular message we heard especially this morning from our friends on the left that there was that republican money had so much money will is us we were so

underfunded. the sharks want them to become vegetarians. the democrats have plenty of share. the dcc has $60 million, the nrcc has 40 million from major groups that spent more than half a million dollars and major issue groups on the house side only there was a republican of vantage, slight one but you look at candidate spending democratic candidate had 60 million more than the republican candidates in the top 92 races. drc served to level the playing field this year and give the republican campaign's a chance to get their message out. the party committee spending this year returned to a more republicans for a 43% disadvantage to democrats at the party committee spending on the house side. that is a big change from the last cycle in 2008 when they had a 221% advantage over republicans and perhaps that is why the democratic friends are so exercised this year is because they didn't have the

advantage they did in 2008 they think it is a fair fight when they are 200% ahead of us we think even money is a little bit fair. house many ward shul in each category, and again i sure brooks is going to help me pour over the numbers and fact check then leader. there are estimates with the sec data is reported. you can see basically republicans have essentially 60 million-dollar advantage on the independent side that i could candidates have a $60 million advantage comes of it gives democrats, i'm sorry connecticut had a 60 million advantage of the candidates i become independent spending was relatively even, a couple million for republicans. but to call your attention to the so-called area major democrat groups, $50 million off this year. major democrat issue groups and another $18 million off. what happened this year was democratic donors to the third party groups did not stand up in the way they did in 2008.

yes republican donors increased the activity, democratic donors despite the fact barack obama took the country hard left did not respond and that is an unwritten story and it needs to be focused on this year. 85 million-dollar gap on the left and 39 million-dollar increase on the right. it's not how much you spend its when you spend it. we believe september is the new october and frankly lesson we learned from democrats. the dscc spent its entire budget before october 1st. it worked. i was involved in 2008 north carolina and watched this and democrat, up and put away elizabeth dole before october, isn't one. that was a principal for us this year. it was for many other republican of such groups as well. uzi the nrcc out spent the dccc and many groups were active in september guess what happened?

october 1st if you were a republican campaign ahead or even you were going to win. the democrats who were ahead of these were recently tracked in the irecc. they won about half of them. almost of the other ones. we were ahead by october 1st and we've won. i dwell on this because most democrat money was spent on after october 1st. the simply waiting until too late in the campaigns were already behind. case study for this, florida's said in the district allen boyd the nrcc invested three and $20,000 in the media market and 320 grand goes a long way in north florida. our candidate got ahead by six points in october and you can get an incumbent democrat adel with e3 in front of a solid number in october he's not going to win. despite that the dccc chased bad money after good and finished in the last two weeks didn't win. our theory is if you build it today will come. the reason we did that is to

commit the june 30 if category and the top 75 house races the republican candidate was at a cash disparity against his democratic incumbent of $600,000. we had to get our candidates in the game. that is why such republican activity over the summer. byes of timber 30 if the gap dropped remarkably. what happened next in the two weeks of october is the republican challengers outraced the democratic incumbents. think about that, two weeks in october longtime veteran incumbent like rick boucher chet edwards are getting out raised by the republican challengers first two weeks of october, 72 reasons. the benefits of dollars of timber spending for stuff we got third quarter rates and in a lot of damage freights as anybody watching tv sees the christmas advertising fourth quarter is the next kaput of corydon in advertising circles we saved 13 to 15% by spending in a september as opposed to october when you have less money as we did its party committee level of

30% is important. next we have to set the agenda, the tattoo, the voting percentage for each democratic candidate how much they voted with veazey policy on their forehead in september they had to carry them around all through october. that was important. last as karl talked but expanding the field democrats canceled fields and 37 dhaka different districts. noting that the districts they didn't want to become a paid rates they didn't want to pay. early places we targeted we look for cheap markets and return of orie in georgia, alabama, we go, texas, springfield, missouri, walsall wisconsin, those are the places we targeted we're a little money can go a long way. equally surprising a place of democrats gave with little or no money. here are nine seats on the board for democrats through the dccc spent a $0 on advertising. these were must win seats. steve treehouse, a top recruit for us, steve sires and 16 top

recruits for a summit, in kansas, we would have broken the bank to save the seeds. democrats let us get them for nearly nothing and those three races i mentioned we spent nothing on the air because democrats didn't put any pressure on our resources early. we are original budget and they have $7 million allocated for incumbents. we spent less than half a million. democrats never made us do things we didn't want to do. last, i will start to transition to what we said and kind of put a summary of our messaging. if i had to put it into words, i would say lost independence was the key phrase for how we conduct the house campaigns. we didn't have to convince the voters that john's bread or evans for bad guys. we have to convince them they changed and since nancy pelosi took over there were not as independent as they once were. on the house side we were voting in a lot of red districts, so we had this scenario to deal with of people have been survivors

have tough races before. i will give you a good example of one of those ads. >> for years, congressman john spratt was listening to south carolina but since mazie pelosi took over, he has become a rubber stamp. the energy tax, and he voted yes. the wall street bailout, yes. the wasteful stimulus bill, you betcha. and obama's health care bill? spratt yes, it is, every time. john spratt is not our congressman any more. he works for her to read the national republican congressional committee is responsible for the content of this advertising. spaghettis to be independent know he's not. here's how many times he voted with aids pelosi and a big six votes he voted on. one key thing we had over the democrats as voters were already agitated over things we were saying. democrats have to say things the voters were not educated about. we try to make or can't handle it for watchable. we didn't use personal slurs. we tried to stay away from character hits and attacking motive. it was a big mistakes democrats

made this year. their campaign was he is a bad man. he's an on ethical businessman. she hates you. a very nasty tone. we tried to be more matter-of-fact and benefited from it. >> when nancy pelosi pushed the national energy tax, tom told the line. when president obama pushed the wasteful spending bill, he told the line. kristen national democrat fine, yes. and when congress passed the takeover of health care, tom told the party won every single time. the government got bigger, taxes and higher. your burden got heavier. party-line perriello is making it worse. >> the committee is responsible for the comer content of this effort is in your estimate of the reasons they made that mistake is they learned rall listens. it was a watershed moment. democrats thought it was a watershed moment because of their neighbor told the majority. terms of it was a watershed moment the next day they got together for the post mortem and

drew the wrong conclusions. they concluded the tax on pelosi don't work and we can change the race late if we throw enough advertising the last two weeks and included the way to win this week the republicans on ethical. the lesson that they missed was that mark chris went on tv and said he would be a check and balance on his own party and in the end, god is the only contained no worked. washington is out of control i'm going to be a check and balance. >> in washington one party has absolute power, out of control spending. national energy tax, a government takeover of health care and he voted for it all. opposing party won spending on our economy, on monday 4% of all of the votes he cast too far, too fast and the absolute wrong direction. put the brakes on pelosi, replace mark schauer to the stomach the national republican committees responsible for the advertising. islamic to put the argument on the check and balance we are familiar with about question

asked by both parties and every reason the country and the 75 races we were tracking and degenerate about this policy 11 points republican. however, when you leader in one more component that president obama it goes to 20%. the same survey, seem 75 surveys aggregated do you favor republican candidates who are a check and balance of president obama or who will support president obama's policies? 20-point advantage. that is a little bit about the republicans as it needed to be a also says this entire election is about the gas pedal make clear differential to lead to show how that worked in a race this is a pole in front ike skelton in the fourth district. one of our hardest races to win this year he had been in office since the 70's and had a deep report for a lot of good reasons. we ask that question the check and balance question do you want a check and balance or do you want someone who will support the president's policy? we didn't cost have that with a different question which says he

is independent, he votes for our troops and voted against health care or is not independent because the cap-and-trade, the debt limit, the stimulus, etc. and if you were a voter who said we need to check and balance on obama but i think like skelton is independent it was 17% of the electorate and that is the target. everything we did on advertising is based on those 17% thought. we did it increases of the country. again the check and balance was the only argument for a democrat that allowed them to be reelected is what joe donnelly did which is independent i think we are going to far i'm going to be a check and balance on my own party. that's the only way they can win in a tough race. it could push in the last slide here we talked about since the election what could have been done differently? when did this election change? when did they win the majority? frankly, it wasn't because the republicans have so much more money. it's offensive to hear that out of my colleagues on the left

because it says they were duped. they were not do it. voters knew what they were doing this year. it wasn't advertising that spun the voter. they were angry before the had started and on election day and they did something about it. three days matter. october 1st when the democrats let us expand the field without engaging us was an important day. we always feared in september they would open a lot of new friends and we would spend money where we didn't want to and we knew the opposite was coming to happen. may 19th we mentioned the day after pennsylvania 12 when they took off in the wrong direction with the campaign and march 21st the data health care bill passed the house. the stimulus bill and cap-and-trade in the debt limit made a lot of the appearances in the ad let's not be mistaken they gave up on the democratic governing majority did they pass the health care bill. we ask and 75, 50 district was a hesitation of voting for the candidate blamed on the democratic side we let the

voters get their open-ended answer because they held up there. for the scripps in the ten hardest races and every single one of the raises it was very clear to the voters said they didn't listen. we told them not to pass it and they did it any way. we can't get them under control. bader had it that we march 21st and finished october 21st. >> our next presenter, rob collins, president of american action network.

>> welcome. thank you for having me today actually. these reforms are important and i'm going to stick to the topic which was discussed the thinking behind the ads and the results. i will make one comment which is kind of collaborates with the folks in this panel this year we caught lightning in a bottle on the right but i would say was calling the road map laid out before us and not for all of us the book that i wrote about 04 and 06 shoup ed venture on the left side was really kind of impact will it showed what is possible, so we are glad to be part of an effort to kind of catch-up and balance the plainfield on our side. but i work for the american action network, we are a 501c4.

the goal we are trying to create a center-right policy organization that in tax policy and policy makers. how we do that? has a number of goals and objectives, the first is policy development in conjunction with the american action for on, kim smith over there. they are building the policy and we are working with them to develop not only to aggregate senate right policy but defined revenues and new places where we can only take our principles and apply them to challenges of today but also make it relevant not only to people who support us about as you have heard time and time again those critical independent sr. and swing voters. we build on that with education through methods of the element, advocacy which we are going to dhaka today. we do a host of other things at the american action network about i would say the advocacy in as we gransta we will stick to that as we move forward but i want to highlight we have a policy and messaging are that is

robust and something we are looking forward to developing in the coming year to the gentry 13 did 14 we are adding a national hispanic policy forum cochaired by jeb bush and secretary carlos gutierez as a further dixie belle of our organization that continues to always impact policy and policy makers and last technology the network only to communicate with people that educate. as 2010 and going to talk about the methods how we got to the ads you're going to see. first we looked at the national issue colin we want to find out where the landscape was, some of it was public polling and some we did on our own. really to identify the key issues. one surprise i found a buyer will get to it in the second is how vibrant the house, the health care issue remains months after the vote. if you ask me and june i would have said the offer will be in

the rearview mirror, and health care stayed at the forefront of the american people decision making as they went to the election. after we got to the identification leah benefit candidates and areas where strong issues come advocacy contains could be affected and conduct research in both analysis and try to match up local issues with the national issue pulling measures we identified and then we did a deep dive into the polling. some of you may remember our sister organization did three rounds of polling each on the east coast, the middle of the nation and the west coast those polls were not only helpful in identifying in races where we thought there was an opportunity but also really showed a couple things and i will get to those in the second. like i said, health care, jobs

and government spending were very critical. coventry was effective regionally, and spending issue which i will show you that was regionally very powerful. it was interesting and different places. in wisconsin that was the issue. in washington state it was not the issue. it was an interesting in washington but not as interesting in wisconsin which i think is what all of those races and wisconsin turned on which is the size of government, growth in government and debt and spending in the government. next we move into a creative concept development and that is what we produce ads and scripps and all the stuff that we try to frame issues in a creative way to break through and then we did something which i was new to which was one of the most impact of things. we went to suburbs of a krin ohio, pittsburgh, pennsylvania and showed folks over ads in draft form and what the results and what was interesting to me,

and you will see i broke into will call summer advocacy and fall advocacy is in the fall people didn't want conflict ads or big picture adds, they wanted the facts. they wanted to know what it my representative vote for and am i for or against it. so you will see the two flavors at it and they go for more the broad issue eds to a focused critique of their voting record. after that teamwork we talked to our friends to make sure we knew where they were going, make sure we didn't have overlaps and we had a number of groups. we went into 80 bases and there was no overlap and there was excellent communications we understood what everyone was doing. and then we would go into the efficacy phase. like i said, we want to talk about the tv phase or are going to. we did a number of other things including using the internet, grassroots, phones, all kind of different methods to motivate.

summer efficacy like i said these are big concept. i'm going to show for ads. these are designed to break through in the summertime when people aren't necessarily thinking about elections. there is a tone and you will see the ads are dramatic and designed to get you to see and pause and say whether the talking about here? a little more on the creative side and a little more kind of like i said graf your attention. we start out with a positive ad which i know will make brooks happy and we are talking with local businessmen talking about his local congressman in philadelphia area. next to washington. this is an ad that is trying to grab you. patty murray came to congress in 1992 so we wanted to not only frameup her record but take away the ability for her to recapture her before she had 18 years ago. florida was a very popular to speak for itself and in hampshire is a ed we talk about cap-and-trade.

cap-and-trade is one of those regional issues. pennsylvania talf voters didn't know what cap-and-trade was then you go to west virginia and new what it was and new hampshire even though we were in december were excuse me, in the summer in the midst of a hot time in d.c. and i was afraid we would be criticized my friends at new hampshire said and the late summer when they would buy their heating oil so this ad was powerful and riss agreed with folks so i will run through these quick. we are good? , ♪ >> my work takes me to every part of pennsylvania. it's hard to stay afloat. >> we work hard to keep jobs here. they understand what business need. they stand up for responsibility and keep a sharp of eye on

washington spending and keep my taxes down. call the congressman and thank them for standing up to fiscal responsibility because our days are long enough. ♪ >> i'm patti. we have such high hopes that you were different, one of us. then you were your tennis shoes on our backs. washington families and children. he pushed the largest increase in federal spending ever, vote taxes on small businesses, you cost us jobs. sorry, it's time you bought off our backs. learn more. ♪

♪ >> it's a sure sign the campaign season has begun. they have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on a one week list against murray. it's hard to miss those commercials and now our poll indicates they may have had an effect. >> washington families -- >> if you watch any television at all use of the ad portraying senator murray's shoes walking on the backs of kids. it didn't work? in our poll in june, 49% statewide residents polled trolled a survey of a say they approve of her job performance. 44% disapprove. in the poll this week her approval rating dropped dramatically in to the , 31% approve and now 54% disapprove. the ad came from a conservative group called american action network which claims she has been bad for small business.

♪ >> you better not mark charlie crist's policies and eink. its job killing taxes on the proposed energy tax chris changes as often as the tide. you can't trust charlie crist on jobs either. he's afforded obama's budget busting stimulus bill and said he never did. no wonder. its new with record unemployment which we trust charlie crist to fight for jobs unless it's his own job. ♪ ♪

>> the numbers seven and six respectively plead for by the american action network. this is a third-party group run by former republican senator norm coleman of minnesota. he's targeting a guy that is what to popular in republican circles these days. former republican charlie crist to read in the number in washington state republicans think they have a strong candidate and they are going after senator patty murray in this new ad. those who remember patty murray got to the u.s. senate as the mom in tennis shoes therefore that is why you see the tissues. [laughter] ♪ >> congressman who has never spent nights sleepless unable to pay utility bills. why else would he vote for the cap-and-trade tax? raise electric rates by 90%, increase gas to $4. cost us another 2 million jobs.

kelly would stop the attacks cold. the american action network is responsible for the content of this advertising. ♪ >> you will see the difference between what i can do and what our interns can do, so that is a version of what they can do and they had some grassroots stuff we did on the of pennsylvania 12. all the advocacy ads are different. they -- we are not trying to get someone to stop buying coke and consider another. they are ready for purchase and we want to give them the facts and make sure we are direct and we want to make sure this was critical in what we learned our focus groups. they want sources, they want it cited and want to know why the person did this and they want a very direct access to

information. also, these ads are designed and very busy political season with governors and senators and other elections coming on to the will to break through and the memorable, and the first is the statewide and called [inaudible] it highlights that regional issue on spending in the next is the ad that did the best on our focus groups. we call it secret. it talks about health care and you will see the opening clip with pelosi this is a very powerful statement coming and for them it summarized everything wrong with health care debates. next is a backpack add you will see very strong with women voters, independent women especially if it did a great job with future problems. last is a funny ad designed to

break through the clutter we found very effective and it was able in the closing weeks to be able to grab your attention a listing to will be able to see why. our focus group conductor said one thing you never want to do is show too many negative ads in a room people want to start fermenters if you and i run that risk and apologize but i want to stay true to the topic and show you some of the concepts we use. >> [inaudible] what is russ feingold do with it? $800 billion for the jobless stimulus, 2.5 trillion for health care plan seniors, a budget forces us to borrow $9 trillion when he had a chance of reform he voted against the balanced budget amendment. russ feingold and our money,

what a mess. american action network is responsible for the content of this advertising. >> speenine cui have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it. >> now we know what is a trillion dollar health care debacle with a job killing taxes they had 500 billion for medicare for seniors and spend our money on health insurance for the illegal immigrants. congressman betty sutton, a big spender, a job killer. now we know. american action network is responsible for the content of this advertising. it's been a there's a lot on the backs of our kids today thanks to congressman gerry connolly. he loaded over kids up with

nearly 800 the ligon of wasteful stimulus spending and then added nearly a trillion more for the health care takeover. a debt of 14 trillion. now the congress wants to file more spending. how much more can our children take? call congressman connolly and tell him to cut spending this november. it's just too much to the american action network is responsible for the content of this advertising. >> how can you tell the taxpayers of martin's district? not just a spot. he stripped us of the wasteful stimulus, spent the shirts off our backs heinrich is taking money from our pockets to put in washington's pockets. now i don't have any pockets. now congress wants to strip us bear with more spending. call congressman heinrich and tell him vote to cut spending this november. the american action network is responsible for the content of this advertising.

>> so, i guess we will go to the key findings. based on what we saw we had access to about 240 polls and we watched both public polls that were -- i mean we had a private polling and public polling and things we found to be impact on jobs in the economy was number one across the nation. it popped up in almost every race wherever we were. health care as i said, on a would have guessed that would have been in the rearview mirror but it was front and center and was a deciding factor in a lot of races. cap-and-trade was a symptom that was recently stronger in other places. deficits i've already talked about that as a big issue and factored into every race but it was interesting to see in some states how it was really a major issue and i unbelievable motivator of voters. fact based arguments, as brad

said earlier personal attacks, divorce, lawsuits, we didn't get into that. we didn't have to. this election was about policy and we thought we could win on a policy. speaker pelosi was in tactful and that continues to surprise me. we didn't build ads around it, but he thought she was present in a lot of that what was done. we didn't build up to that. that was what we inherited and what we to get advantage of. i was surprised but our polling really bore that out and if you saw it with other stuff that was done. and it mattered. there's talk about the enthusiasm gaps. some of the reasons we looked at especially in south dakota you would never have gone in there because christine went head-to-head but if you're motivated voters we always felt good about that race. and then last social media online was critical. not only did it magnify and

expand efforts where we would target our ads in every ad you saw there was a site set up so if they were at work they would see a banner that looked similar to the ad they were seeing on tv. we started with zero facebook vince and now we have over to under 20,000 these are folks we can carry forward and as i say we create adorable policy organization and one way we can't continue that is to talk to folks that are interested in what we are talking about and the social media was a powerful, powerful tool the ideological issues too long, this wasn't about our reverses' blue, this was about results and getting things done and as brad said, being a pump on the brakes on the washington, d.c. leadership that had been in for two years. president obama was always

around the election but in particular the house races believe he wasn't as input fall as the anc pelosi. he hadn't acted, i'm not sure, going in that last week a share a media market with virginia five, the robert race and it was in pretty good shape and then it just fell off the table and i will really know why. the only thing i can really point to which doesn't really impact this conversation but if i was at the white house i would be very concerned about north carolina, virginia status in the next election. like i said, corruption and scandal and personal attacks and sometimes the messages are delivered in a tough labor there fact based is with the number did. like i said we felt we didn't need to get into the politics of personal destruction. we focus on building efforts and we felt that was an effective way.

are we going to lose these trees is because we aren't being hard enough or tough enough? you know, speeding tickets issue was known, some of that person, that businessmen, doesn't like america stuff that the left was running was tough stuff and personal and was going through people's private lives and we never went there. we all had a conversation which is are we missing something and going to regret it and i'm glad we stuck with where we are and i thought in the end it made a difference. so i am through and i will take my seat. >> before we go to the audience for questions i want to make one comment. i think brad contador statistics show kind of the shortcomings of the federal election commission data for this sort of thing because what carl told us is his organization's collectively

spent $70 million. i don't think that you saw that much on the entire republican side. house recently, a good point. thank you. but it's true federal election commission sews 38 million, 39 million for the crossroad cbs so there's $30 million there that doesn't have to be reported or wasn't reported in the federal election commission, just a cautionary note. before we go to the audience i want to ask this group is specially what difference did citizens united make? of all the money that you spent and the things you did, what could you not have done had it not been for citizens united? >> i will take the first crack at that and say in my opinion they did little to impact the gps was able to accomplish and what you had this cycle you

didn't have an 08 was a committed group of donors that wanted to get back in the game. they were deflated in the 08. and similar to the message president obama gave his message we heard about since 2010 that he didn't believe and didn't want the owners to participate that was in 08. well, they were all back this time. so i think yes on citizens united help some of them give things personal but a lot of money we raise come over whelming amount we raised was personal and that money is coming anyway. >> were their messages that you ran that you couldn't have run without citizens united? >> the gps was able to direct at to see if an of citizens united hadn't passed, they but have done issue ads which we did in august some yes, we did adopt to the law but that wouldn't prevent us from doing advertising in the fall. >> you think he would have spent the same amount of money with the same affect? think so?

>> i think you are right. law changed which a lot for forced to go into the limited efficacy but i cannot remember our conversation where a dillinger cared about that. they were just scared. >> the earlier panel of course i think told us that the same thing. they did nothing because of citizens united they were doing the same thing had a bad decision not happened on their side, but i -- one of the reasons we asked ilyse to come is to talk about the boycott that happened early on. but i'm curious is target definitely took a lot of heat for making it publicly disclosed administration of the race. the chief executive if i'm recalling it right is a sort of apology to their employees. did you see the effect of that and was that in any way one of the reasons why so much of the money that your groups raised is

not disclosed, was given anonymously? >> i think people are overestimating the amount of money that was involved at all. estimate i be happy to have you tell us exactly how much -- >> you could let the legislators change the wall. groups like target, not only when they became public that all these corporations have to answer to their shareholders. even once they gave the seat for they felt they still had to disclose but they chose not to give so there was all this corporate money from the companies that flew in or came and i think that is a gross misrepresentation of what happened. >> rob? >> do you think corporations were because of the target of boycott and the heat they took were corporations coming to you saying we want it to be a nation

that we don't want to be public? >> because of what -- >> did that sort of thing make any difference? was a motivator for them to give anonymously? >> i think carvel is right about his analysis on corporate money and people do their due diligence and ask a lot of questions and say what if you they are going to get involved in and they felt that the network based on the policy matrix we set of dealing with energy, health care, education, national security and the government growth of taxes felt comfortable with our issues we have three former senators on our board on the house and the board and to ambassadors that felt we were in organizational was credible and willing to intact for the movement the

policy makers and policies and in the way that they are comfortable with >> we are required to report to you think that you would raise any less? >> no, i mean the folks coming to us felt we focus on the house. they felt that this president and the stomach leadership has taken the country in the wrong direction and they were legitimately scared. they felt the things that made them successful or being taken away from them and the people that followed and the number one concern from folks who supported us wasn't about confidentiality. it was about the future of the country and they were anxious about that. >> we are going to take questions from the audience.

we have microphones. please identify yourself before you ask. >> my question is for rob collins. i saw the patty murray tennis shoes act and a solicitation back up that you put up to the source of your claims in that ad for when you have patty murray standing on a child i thought the citation was her vote for schip. as someone who leads in the serious policy think tanks can you explain how stepping on a child is akin to voting for health insurance for children? >> can you summarize the question -- >> the summary is the ad had patty murray stepping on a child and the back up claims for that added in the citation is that she voted for schip. can you explain how a single

child or voting for schip is akin to step in on a child? >> i think that you are trying to make a point and i appreciate that point and we have a different point of view. estimate as a leader of a policy think tank could you explain that to me? >> our point of view is expansion of government decreases the ability for this country to have economic freedom, the ability, this ad was about small business and as you increase the size of the government to decrease opportunity. i mean, you have to forgive me, you are talking about an ad and we did 63 individual ads. spirit you're pretty proud of it but can you explain that at all? >> like i said, i mean, you are trying to make a political plight and i appreciate that. islamic this is not politics, i think it does matter. >> you can't defend this at all? >> i can absolutely defendant. we defended the ad, we defended

it to the four different tv stations and we feel very comfortable. you are trying to make a political point and that is good for you. >> you had a back up but said he voted for schip and that is like stepping on a child. you can't say anything to defend that? >> we can take another question, please >> wait for the mic. we've got three or four of them up here. this gentleman was first actually. >> thank you. politico again. actually, two separate questions. one, just open for anyone, one particularly for carl. you guys talked a lot about how this is an effort to even the playing field with with the left has done prior year the election cycles but by 2004 when they sent the most on the types of efforts outside of spending they were not successful in the main goal with the white house had in wondering what makes you think

that you will be successful as influencing the the presidential if that is even a goal and the second more specific question is for carvel. early on the folks behind crossroads and eventually the same folks behind crossroad gps talked about how they expected the disclosure of transparency to become an issue in the campaign, and as such were committed to transparency and committed independent what they thought it was an issue which wanted to take it off the table as an issue and would be disclosing their donors and i am wondering what change that precipitated formation of a c for doing the same types of things without disclosure. >> weld answer to the second question is disclosure was important is why the 537 was created but some didn't want to be disclosed and thank you was created.

>> so there were donors who wouldn't give of their names were disclosed and want to give them the opportunity. >> whether they're giving alternate or not labeled with a more comfortable giving to the sea for so we created one. >> and did you do that with the c4 was kind of the explanation that was offered when gps was formed that would be focusing on different things, to what extent does that play into the consideration or was it just merely -- >> no commodities if you look at what gps did and continues to do the majority of the works to be a grass-roots lobby or issue work and that is what we spent a majority of the summer doing despite the limited efficacy which we did with you guys and questioned in terms of the disclosure. there's a lot of other work that went on and continues to go on and we will be active in that

space over the next year or two. answering the first question and then i will let rob answer that i think we also pointed out that in 06 it was like 221% the democrats spent more than the republicans, and in terms of the presidential campaign, i mean right now i have no idea what american crossroads will be enacted in 2012 and focus on the presidential campaign or the reason the senate like they were this time. that needs to be determined. >> just a follow-up and i do want to hear the response to the same question and i will get to the other ic anxiously sitting here. when brooks asked if there would be -- if you thought you'd be able to raise the same amount of money were you not to offer anonymity it sounded like the thought process was as you thought you would be able to, but clearly that is not you're thinking. >> i don't know if those people would have given it the 527 as

an option or not. that is impossible to know. >> this keeps pushing back if it were not for the 2400 dollar handcuff these would be up against a candidate. the rather give it to the party. the fact is they can give a limited amount to both of those entities. it's crazy, a complete violation of the first amendment. the donors, the voters seek other ways to play in this process and to engage in political speech because we have this crazy abstract artificial system that changes them down and keeps them from exercising their constitutional rights and we can ask these all day with this donor have given to the organization, they all get to the candidate. that's what they want to do so the answer to this is to repeal those limits and increased disclosure. >> i'm curious about the

longer-term plan of the organizations if you could flat shot a little bit more to this seems to me without arguing the specifics most of the ads were focused on opposition to the administration, the democratic agenda on a range of issues without talking about specific issues republicans would support and where they would want to take the country and i wonder if since the election that has been flushed out in the issues you're going to be lurking about in the policy proposals. >> the future of the network and the american action for lummis we feel very solid. we have an outstanding new group of policy experts and a health care forum where biden came and we had a bunch of health care experts talking about different

ways to redo the health care bill that was passed. we plan to continue that and to engage outside experts in congress and policy makers. i mentioned our national hispanic network where the best and brightest minds of the movement are going to get together and talk about how we can expand access and opportunity from the center-right perspective of the hispanic community and vice versa how can we get them talking. there is a number of things we are going to do along those lines and continue to deliver our message where we take what we find out through polling and focus groups and freeze it in such a way that makes them as i said principles and policies relevant to the average american. i think sometimes when you come from a strictly theoretical kind

of think tanks and arena it's hard for folks making a living working every to understand what you're talking about and why it matters, so that is something we are really focused on and so, yeah, we plan to be a durable organization that's around for a while. ..

>> our ads were not based or telling voters who that care about. they told us what they cared about, and that's what we talked about. >> [inaudible] >> that's a huge part of the agenda, and the voters demanded it. >> one more question from the audience here. >> margaret, thanks for doing this. i had reallimented to does you -- i had reallimented to ask you about 2012. is the issue whether you're going to play in the presidential at all, or is the issue whether you're choosing offsides in the primary weight in general. a quick follow-up, you mentioned north carolina and virginia. if you could take both of those out of play for president obama or maybe even just virginia, that would be it; right? that would be the 2012 election.

is there thoughts about your groups focusing on one or both states alone? thanks. >> it was rob that brought up virginia and north carolina, but to the 2012, i think, we are, you know, in the process of determines what we'll be doing in 2011 and then worry about 2012. we're not looking to the presidential race right now. i would find it -- it's difficult for me to imagine we would be involved in the republican primary. >> with regards to virginia, yeah, i mean, you look at, you look at the obama coalition and there are some problems with what they are trying to do is his map is starting to look a lot like john kerry's map. it doesn't mean, you know, it's a fore gone conclusion, just some of the states like i understand, wisconsin, virginia,

and florida, you see the election results of 2010 showing some real challenges to that coalition and you wonder if obama can recreate what he did in 2008, and you start looking at states where he's strong and it starts to shrink. i guess that's the point i was making is that it was a real question to me how rick was seemingly in pretty good shape, and that race was called before the election night, and it was a shocking turn of developments for us. i thought it would be close, but like i said, i didn't think the race would be decided before perry, but then i guess, you know, conversely, obama had the desired effect with perry that the voter model said 52% of the voters would turn out, and it turned out to be 57%. he elevated his vote, but in boast elections, his side was

unsuccessful. the sides that traditional voted with republican presidents snapped back to where they were historically. it's just a challenge for them. they have to look and say we can't run the same program, and if we have a smaller map, how do we do it? it looks more traditional to me than what obama was able to accomplish in a way. >> well, i'll give the last question to a sub scriewber. -- subscriber. charlotte sent one in, and i'll preface this that we found fault with many of your ads, including the patty murray add you showcased here. aren't you embarrassed by putting out false information in order to win an election? basically the same question we asked of the earlier panel. >> tv stations have no obligations to run the ad they believe are false.

therefore, i think that all of our ads are accurate. >> if it tv station takes your money, the ad is accurate. >> they have a responsibility to prove, but no responsibility to run the ad whatsoever. >> i'd further say by saying two things. one, we deponent have the protections that canada ads have. two, the other side fight you tooth and nail legally. they tried three times through legal counsel, and their message to get the adds pulled, and they were unsuccessful. factually, we were accurate. we were not saying these were bad human beings. we said they voted this way, and we thunderstorm think it's wrong. >> thank you for atepidding.

-- attending. i'll invite my boss to make a few concluding remarks, and then we'll be done. kathleen? >> thank you, everyone. i want to start with one observations is we're talking in terms of dollars, and dollars generally, but a dollar doesn't buy the same amount of access or the same amount of impact in one situationatt does in another. media can target and microtargetting makes a difference in dollars, and with that, a dollar now buys more impact than it once did because that allows you to find a per persuasive voter. different immediate yom matters. what we saw in 2008 with the election survey is that internet use even in the presence of controls which should take all other effects out of the

equation predicted an obama vote. they made a use of the interpret than mccain. it was about as strong as talk radio's exposure was for conservatives. we saw that the obama's campaign started with moderate women in radio produced a disproportional effect of dollars spent of dollars spent elsewhere and with cable. as we talk about money mattering, money may now be far more effective than it once was as the capacity of microtargetting increases. i want to raise two questions. first, what's the relationship between campaigns not in getting someone elected, but in creating climate in which that person can lead or in which can govern? does, for example, the high level of attack in campaigns, a high level increase we presume by increased expenditure by

those in independent advertising increase the likelihood people are not casting the vote for a can date, but casting a vote against the other side, and that the eventual winner has won, but at the cost of weathered a large number of attacks that increased the person's trustworthiness. does the climate of campaigning increase polarization in a way that it makes more difficult once people come into governing that make the decisions collectively that the electorat accepts especially in situations where there's no good choices. last point. everybody's made the point in the last panel in answering questions that stations don't have to accept independent expenditure ads. they don't. he's two questions for the community. one, are the stations actually scrutinizing the ads for

accuracy before the opponent puts their argument in for the lack of accuracy? that is, are the stations performing a policing function on their own, or becoming sunket to the cross pressures of two campaigns on whether something should air. are they applying standards to every ad that comes in place? are all ads created e qualm from the station's perspective or any indpliewns if the station's advertisers are part of a community that is advertising? i think it's an interesting and potentially important question with those questions only table and that observation, thank you for joining us and thank all panelists. they are pleased that you joined us today. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> in a few moments, a forum on relations between the u.s. and israel. in less than an hour and a half, a white house ceremony on a bill that expands the number of children covered by the school lunch program. after that senate debate on a bill to extend tax cuts and unemployment benefit, and later a discussion on campaign

spending in political ads in the midterm elections. we have several live events it tell you about. the drug office releases report on teen drug use surveying students in the 8th, 10th, and 1th grades about drugs. that's on c-span at 10 eastern. at the same time on c-span3, a referendum on sudan. there's representatives from sudan and the government of national unity.

>> next, o forum on u.s.-israel relations hosted by the brookings institution. this is a little less than an hour and a half. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> great, well, welcomement thank you all for coming to this evenings dialogue. i'm tom friedman from the "new york times". i want to welcome you all here, and first of all again thank our terrific hosts for getting this together. it's been one great event after another, so thank you so much.

[applause] it's a great weekend, and to martin and dick and the brookings institution, thank you all as well, so great to be here. [applause] so we have a really great panel, i think, this evening to talk about issues of politics, culture, and society between the united states and israel. to my right is marsha, a philosopher and teaches at the university and nyu. next to him is a columnist extraordinary. to his right is my colleague david brookes from the "new york times". i've been just having a little side conversation with people for the last few minutes and yesterday, age i'm struck at the number of israelis that ask me, what's this tea party? i'm struck at the number of

americans who ask me, tell me about lieberman, and it straiks me as a moment -- it striebs me as a moment for the first time in a long time, there's new elites crashing through the leadership in both countries who not only don't know each other, but are really unknown to their respective allies on the other side of the ocean, and i want to begin the discussion tonight to our israeli and american friends, what does america look like from israel, and what does israel look like from america? what does israel look to you right now sitting here? >> i guess i would say three things. first thing is israel looks to me like is country that needs to be defended. defended not just militarily,

but i think that there are for the first time in a long time there is a real genuine controversy about the legitimacy and of its means of self-defense. i think that, and again, it needs to be defended because it shared two borders with islamists and as far as i can tell they are doing their very best to make sure there's going to be a third border that may be shared in that way. there is iran, i don't have to go through everything we've heard, but i'm talking more about culture and the so-called war of ideas. i think the generation of the two-state solution is one of the most dangerous things to happen for israel. the two-state solution is of israel, not palestine. the one state that comes between the river and the sea will not be greater israel, but a greater palestine. i think many jews, i think, in

this country don't sufficiently appreciate that the defense is defending israel. i think that the legitimacy of israel's means of self-defense needs to be defended. we saw this in the aftermath of the gaza war and the fact is that israel is called upon to defend itself in ways that are complicated and it's a cold way of describing the issue here, and this is something that needs to be -- the realities of israeli self-defense in this new climate. #eu look at -- i look at israel and say it needs to be defended. the second thing is i see a society that swings in a way between extremes of joy and dread in some way. i see a society that swings between an extraordinary openness to the world, and in some ways an increasingly closingness of the world.

there's the bliss of tel-aviv, and you know, the extraordinary vitality of the place. israeli culture and literature, journalism, film, music, scholarship, it's the most extraordinary thing, and on the other hand, i see a phobia. i see loyalty oaths for nonjewish citizens of israel. i see it absolutely, i think insane, never mind immoral expulsions from palestinian homes. i see the religious establishment run amuck with antiarab sentiments, and there is some feeling -- you know, i never can tell -- again we're talking generalities. i'm a humanist and don't look at numbers of. i don't look at things and break things down this way, but i see a society as i say it's paradoxical in this way, and it's volatile in this way, and

the third point i make is that when one surveys the various realms of israeli life, societies, economics, culture, politics, one sees extraordinary exemplary vitality and creativity. i'm not one that thinks entrepreneurs are going to save the world like you do, -- [laughter] even if they do save the world, they do a lot of great things. culture, ect., the one realm of israeli life that seems to me to be in a state of complete decadence and dysfunction is the political realm. that worries me enormously. i'm not referring to the electoral system they suffer from, but there's a kind of steady user pages. every long term historical problem is short about in short

term political ways. you know, the thing about -- the thing about pro dearn cial thinking, people tend to think prudential thinking is a short term way of thinking. pro dearn cial -- prudential thinking is long term thinking. what i see more and more is major his cor call questions that -- historical questions that israel has to face. if it is the case that everybody everyone is serious and everyone in the political spectrum agrees, two people, two states and the democratic clock is taking quickly and it's dissac trass, and all if this is known and if it's the case that i believe and always will that the israeli population would by any small approve a referendum on a peace treaty, i look at the political leadership, and i think, well, go. i mean, last night we heard hillary say a way must be found

and we must show courage. i think, fine, show it. show it. i worry there is a kind of inbred trifle yalizing -- triviaizing problem. this anomalous to me because in the other realms of this life, israel seems to me to be exemplary, exciting, ect. ect.. in the political realm, i don't really have an explanation. >> israeli view of the america, you've just been to peoria, and what does america look like to you? >> i'll start with a joke i told everybody. i serve prime minister, once a head with one of his assistant, and he said to him, mr.

mr. prime minister, i have bad news. we're going to have a drought this year. he said, what do you mean? immediately? he said for a moment i was really worried. i was afraid we were going to have a draught in the midwest. [laughter] there is one in washington and it is chicago. back to what we in israel or at least i can talk about myself sense about america. there is a real worry that america is losing its greatness, maybe temporary, maybe it's not so temporary, but the basic, our life, especially the people who

are older than others here were saved by a basic admiration to the united states, saving the world twice from extinction, and they saved israel from various things, and for us, united states is really, done something about israel's prime ministers. every time they realize how dependent they are on the united states. they forget -- they try to complain about the united states, but when they come back, -- they realize, again, with the lying of israel officials who are waiting in order to ask the prime minister to call the secretary of state, to call the

secretary of defense to do something because we are, we have the operation or something, small thing. we just had a fire and the first from the israel prime minister to the united states. you specialize in fires, so if you ask me how united states or how israel should look at the united states, some of them do. we should look in a kind of concern to the united states because of your economic situation, and we hope today that the spending be cut. i believe it's not the major problem israel should face. what is it they should face or what to be concerned with is the

reasons why you're going to cut foreign aid. so in one word, remember, the joke. can he describe russia in one word? good. can you add two words? no good. [laughter] look at the united states, no good. >> interesting, interesting. >> david, what does -- you were in israel this year, and you've heard all this debate going on. what does israel look like? >> it's conflict and community. u.s. a a nation held together by argument. this was made clear in tel-aviv. i was driving, and a bus honked

at me. i backed up into the car behind me. the israeli guy is furious, runs past me, up to the bus driver, and he's screaming at the bus driver, and he comes to me and gives me a hug because we are brothers against the war against bus drivers, and we do paper work, and another bus drives by, and that guy curses and screams at him. [laughter] this argument is personal because israelis don't understand the difference between the personal and the public. the stories i have about that, i'm sure everybody in the room can tell better stories than i, but i had a friend calling directory assistance, and the operator of course says, no, you don't want to eat there. [laughter] i actually wrote about that.

my friends tell me a version of that story. in those days you have to use an international operator. nixon makes a position and the israeli operator says you're both wrong. [laughter] so, these arguments are ferocious, and those of us who have been there see these arguments and snap as one in one direction, and it's like the people are just hurt all of the sudden, and yet, i guess as an observer, i'm left confident that those invisible filaments that create the herd in the time of crisis are as strong as they used to be, and that's evident. if you point to causes of that, it's the income disperty, the social segmentation, political segmentation, and narcissism. the fact that people are proud of their own opinions and less likely to defer to others. these happen to be the same

question that others face. i'm less confident that there's a strong triable unity behind all of this. >> you go back and forth and teach harvard later in the year. what is new, if any, in your perception of where america is today? >> well, i remember it took me a time to understand the united states coming here, and i thought always almost theologically american religion is the biblical religion before the book of job. by that i mean, it's unrealistic. if you have a heart attack, that means you didn't eat right. if you have a cancer, you didn't jog. you take the world, and you take the american constitution, and

it is the right courthouse be rewarded and the wrong be weakened. this is why failure here is almost a sin. it's something you are responsible for, so, and i think the ultimate scene of this country is cynicism. this is why americans do not tolerate cynicism, and it's great etic is trust. trust that you should thank the constitution and the world that it is. it's a good working world. there's no of what ought to be and what is. this is something israelis think is actually naive, but it's a great source of power. what i saw in this great sense of american seat might give the idea that something went wrong.

it's a sense of concern not so much the connection. i think -- i think i was very confused in the sense of what it ought to do, and that the moment -- i remember that moment where it became the previous administration that the way to fight the problem and changing the political con -- concept of the arab world by lending them. i told them a friend of mine, and i said look, we both don't know, none of us know whether there really is good willing people, but i'm not him, and i know different places in vermont lem. i can assure you, if you lend

fight brigades for two weeks, you're not going to make them vote, so the -- what i sense is there is a big confusion that cost a lot to american power, cost a lot to american power which would be based on that if you just remove the tyrant and this idea of democratization, that i call baptism by ballot and you're dunked and then are a believer by ballot. i dropped something there that weakened deeply the american power by this trend.

it's an idol project. it's like marxist believed it was always there. there is a middle class there, you know, so that, i think also that's shifted. it's a way to respond to this signature, and yet not clear about where it's going, where it's going. it dropped the idea of transforming the arab world, and i think rightfully. it didn't name its enemy in a serious way. i remember when bush said are we going to fight evil? i said, wow, evil is everywhere. in the bedroom.

are you going to engage -- there was -- it was kind of a deep, and i still feel america still dealing well with that moment, then, i mean, i think the other aspect is a wonderful presentation, and i believe -- but i think we are taking it for granted too much, and i think you made the point a few times. i think israelis are taking it for granted that vital support is being taken for granted in a way that it's becoming

dangerous. we have managed in, i would say in the last year to make our major political issue said, now this is something we can't explain to anyone, to americans, europeans, to ourselves, so if our government would say, look, our real interest is, i don't know, having certain security, but the way we were kind of dropped into this, this is extremely harmful, and truly harmful for our standing here and in the world. i have two worries. it is what they call for all of us in the sense that i would say

as a jew that this sense to this place. it's knot a nation state. i have to worries. first of all, for america to regain orientation to the world. these are the 9/11 issue. they are still not yet clear, and second, for us to understand that that type of kind of secured place that is so vital for us, it's something we have to nourish. it's not something that can be taken for granted. it's too precious to play with. we have been a little bit too, too glib about it and thinking

that we can somehow work out the problem. i was talking about the israeli students to tell you everything. in israel, nobody reads and everybody talks. [laughter] in america everybody reads, and nobody talks. [laughter] that's a big, you know, as a teacher, that is something you see as a teacher, the big cultural thing here. we are reasonably the americans as the greatest ally. we count too much on this kind of resourcefulness, that we kind of outsmart the system somehow if we don't get along with the president and go through cock and all of that -- congress and all of that. there is a moment where the basic foundation of the attachment is questioned. if we play with it too much.

>> well, i was just thinking because anne and i drove in by the national christmas tree, but if you were here a week ago, there was a giant my minora in that spot. a great power would have a view of the minor ray in the view of the president. that's an amazing thing that we can sometimes take for granted. to pick up on anything you want, but you alluded to something. what's going on within the orthodox movement in israel with what seems to a lot of people some very disturbing wasted expressions? >> oh, well, that's an ugly subject. i wanted to first to i just wanted to develop on something that was said. when you talk about the

american, about so-called american naive trust and the most perfect example i know of what you're describing is just across the street from here in the supreme court. there is a famous old portrait of john marshall in the meeting room, and it's painted, and as a sloughgan, the motto is half of a famous latin proverb which everyone knows is let justice be done in the world. except what the american painter did was drop some of it. he did a picture of the chief justice of the stream court and said let justice be done. what was a tragic warning about the consequences of grand historical action is transformed into a belief, this can-do, let's fix things and everything will be finement i think you're right.

i have to say i worry about many, about afghanistan, about iraq. i'm not so sure that everything was completely misguided in our response. in other words, i think that it is perfectly clear to me that unless one is prepared to fall back on a clash of civilizations analysis which i think amounts to a kind of bigotry actually, a kind of essentialism and believe that, in fact, if our society just can't do it in which case the jewish state certainly, but also americans and others are condemning themselves to a pessimistic siege mentality. unless they are prepared to fall back on that i think the basic idea, the democratic faith holsaert in the possibility of political reform has to be kept alive both as a moral manner and

a security manner. the irony of 9/11 is the right wing bush administration accepted the denouncing of the left. this was the root cause analysis that in order to get rid of terrorists and in order to do that get rid of terrorism, and in order to do that you develop a society, and in the 70s, people made a career out of this. along came george bush, and i think with some measure of wisdom which i rarely attribute to him. i think that there -- i think there is some merit to that, and in that sense although i have many criticism of obama in the world, in so far as obama representing a continued faith of possibility of the reform in the muslim world, i think that's a very valuable thing. i don't think that's naive. the orthodox. well, i think that's a

complicated manner. i think that there's something new going on there. yes and no, i think that there is a new legitimacy, a new prestige if you will in the any orthodox extreme. i think there's a prestige to openly bigoted antiarab antimuslim arguments i mean, of a very classical kind. you know, religion has its dark side as well as its light side. >> why now? >> a mixture of fear of their surroundings and a feeling of strength internally about their own, i think, i think, -- again, the orthodox in israel can be as misguided and ugly as they wish. what bothers me is the extent of the political system to permit some of this to seep into places

that really matter, that really matter. i mean, i worry more about this -- >> just a second. what's your take own this subject? >> well, i think in some -- we are talking a lot about issues, and i think this is one of the most important, central subjects for the future of israel because it's not -- it's not a struggle about the border of the israeli. it's a struggle of the jews in the world, and what you have if you see those orthodox voices, and by the way, there are many other voices, you know, even the greatest policies of this generation a week ago and the rabbis shouldn't give them pens to write. there is a --

>> interesting. so they fight back? >> yeah, there is a struggle about what are we as jews here for? what you have here, you know, to go forward who always, you know, who talk in the name of jewish law, when you know anybody who knows jewish law know that they have other problems and humane ways. the chief rabbi of the state of israel, and he dealt with this issue and said, you know, we should treat our knowledge as equal. there are two issues for me if i want to pin it down. there -- first of all, it's the way in which you talk the language of the weak from a position of strength. this is a horrible thing. some of this --

some of this hatred comes from a point of prosecution and suffering, ect., ect., but adopting the language of the weak from the position of the strength is lethal. what you have here is what i would call the development of the ugliest part of our tradition. we had seriously other options to deal with. the second issue, and i think this is important for all of our government. the issue is this, what does it mean to be a jewish state? people hear, and you hear in the rhetoric is that this is a jewish state. they are taking our lens, taking our this and that, and i think one of the most important issues is the fighting of it in the

nature of the state of the jewish state with the understanding, seriously, that the jewish state would not be justified as a jewish state unless it treats its minorities with dignity and equality. i'm talking not that your kind of compromising on the jewish nature of the state idealed humane to your fellow citizens. you're compromising on the nature of the jewish state. if you're not, and we have a struggle, the struggle is that we have is about -- is about the future of jew dayism and coming in and us having wounds of state power, having the language of weakness for generations, and the other thing is to stand strong for

what this means for us to be a jewish state, and this is an issue that we'll have to deal with seriously. >> now, you mentioned maybe if we want to talk about lieberman. >> yeah, i want to ask what should americans know, you know, about foreign minister lieberman? we don't know him well here, and david, what should israelis know about sarah palin? >> is she jewish? [laughter] >> you go first. >> should we be afraid of him? weave seen right -- we've seen right wing members -- >> it's very interesting because

it may be lieberman is the sound of the future. >> yeah. >> in many ways. look, it starts with the numbers, and i don't want to bother the numbers or get into it, but the demographically israel is changing rapidly. >> tell us about that. >> now there's 20% of the population is up. a coat between palestine and israel, and it's harder every year, every time it becomes harder to somehow to live peacefully with both. there are pointed out they consistent of 10% and in 2025, they become 20% of the

population. there is a -- the russians were -- they will become 8%, of course, and there will not be families like that, but they share something very important, and it is odd, but it is the legacy of liberals, social democrats. they don't feel at home in this country or in this society. they have their opinion, and they know how to use it political pi. politically. it may be hard to explain. let's talk politics. he made it by a speech where he endorsed two things.

in his speech he kaled -- killed at once the basic left and right. we spoke of territories years ago because everybody knows that if the gurs lem is endorse -- jerusalem is endorsed by the leader on the right, everybody knows what it means. a greater israel doesn't exist anymore, but we feel it, so what is that? it's now between jews and libberman that realize that jews in israel -- say something about what is jew in israel, but jews in israel hate or are open to an argument that israelis are a much more danger to them and deserve more

hatred than palestinians, so the palestinians are out. they are out. israelis are out. they talk jewish, and so, so, you know, in a way, you know, you know, i told you this story. i was in the covering the war in bosnia, and everybody said there are no jewish providences. and believe me, the only people who define themselves as israelians are the children of the im-- immigrant workers who want to join the army. you know this about third of the

immigrants from the soviet union are not jews according to this, but they hate it enough to become jewish, so they are jews in this respect. they don't accept it, but the general population is very, very integral to the family land. >> is lieberman someone to be afraid of or another hard right politician who once he's prime minister will be domesticated and call into the pattern? >> this is a tough question, really. what is different that he has no movement, but he has, but he has a group which votes, i believe, by about 80 or 85% for these parties which i don't think is quite israeli politics, not the

most ethnic parties that die after two terms, and he managed to survive, and young people are attracted to what -- young people are attracted to what he says and what he says. he's not a right winger in the old sense of it. for example ring he's ready to -- for example, he's ready to evacuate territories. he's ready to be very, very generous about regarding the quarrel between the palestinians, but other times he provokes palestinians because he understands there is a big big problem. i interviewed a member of lieberman's party, and i decided to go to his home, and i didn't ubs, and i found it out and proud of the color --

>> i just want to say something following nahum. all of these extremes always fluish in the mainstream of the center. you know, we have members of three parties and our government. we have great people and actually genius, and they belong to three parties. [laughter] well, you ask yourself, you know, the country is in really trouble, its identity. you have the israelis wanting to be a democratic state, not a jewish state.

they want to be a jewish state, and then not a democratic state. they are divided about nothing. rather than getting together, and i say, i'm agreeing with them, because there's great people on both sides, many good people, just get your act together, and before it's going to be too late, and by getting your act together is astounding the nature of the state of the jewish democratic state in a genuine way and not letting the extremes control what we are, and this is what you see is the old rival ris about nothing that can want unit or feel -- unite or feel there is a demographic transformation, and, you know, let's not generalize. they have variations in them,

but if we have a mainstream that can say look, we are facing a completely different situation, let's get together to define who we are as a nation, and then, you know, the public education, other issues that are -- so this just is -- >> david, what should israelis know about her? is she good for the jews? >> i'm imagining her and lieberman on their way there. the first thing you should know about is she's attractive and one of the things a book publisher discovered is it's good to offend liberals and they buy the book. she's really good at that, and therefore she is one to follow especially those with high school education degrees, not so

much with college education degrees. she was in the media, and she's not cared by the government. she herself, is a big media figure, but so many people have come up to her say you should be president. you see the seduction process happening. she's thinking about it. she won't be the republican nominee. most think she's not qualified to be president, but the republicans have changed their primary process to stretch it out. it will be hard for someone who is against the establishment to win. they make it like a political process. she will not be the republican nominee. mike pence is more than likely to be than her. she doesn't have the rigor to understand that process. the movement she's the figure head of is here to stay. the tea party achieves norman

rockwell ends. they start with a radical method, but they want a basic, wholesome america. if you talk a tea party person, the typical guy you run into is he was in high school working hard when nobody else was working hard. he majored in accounting, got a job, doesn't love it, bought a house he could afford when their neighbors bought a house they couldn't afford, and then it blows up. he played by the rules his whole life, and see the people who didn't play by the rules in his neighborhood or in wall street getting rewarded while he's getting screwed. that's the essence of the anger. he wants an america where responsibility is respected and rewarded. i completely sympathize with that. my problem with the tea party movement is the radicalism, that

there is a disconnect between the policies they live by and support, and the ide yolings they surround themselves with. you can define a conservative by which year they want to go back to. i want to go back to 1965 and that's fine with me. they want to go back to the articles of the federation or the constitution. in practice, they don't, but they have an ideology in compromise that avoids the issue. the governing choice has nothing to do with the reasons they give themselves that they are there. >> well, what's going to the happen in the near term is you have a bunch in congress, and i met with enough freshmen there, but what you heard is about representative. they are smarter than people thought they were. a lot of them have served in state legislatures and rarely have so many freshmen be

professional legislatures. these are not yahoos. they care about government being out of control. they don't care about cutting deficits, but spending. they've been in seminars over the last few weeks and experts from the heritage foundation and elsewhere say you care about spending, but do you want to cut medicare? no the defense budget? no. well, if you want that, here's everything else you basically have to wipe out the rest of the government, and the answer in those seminars has been, fine, let's do it. so, people who care about foreign aid just real worried, and so that -- they've been assimilated in the short term into the republican party, and it is a let's cult, let's cut. >> president obama gets 40% in israel, and sometimes you see

less. certainly the least popular president in a long time. why is that? >> oh, before we get to obama's popularity in israel, there's a question of obama's popularity in the states. there i just want to say a few things to amplify what david just said. i think the first thing to be recognized is at this point in the history americans are in no position to give lessons to israelis about the quality of their politics. i think that our politics are in an exceedingly volatile moment. i think the hostility to government you just described is not just an ideological position in the sense that i think it is the kind of fever, and i think that hostility to government is a very dangerous feeling. i mean, we had the debate between the federalists and antifederalists a long time ago

and the antifederalists are now coming to washington. i think there's also a fundamental symmetry between the republicans and the democrats in the following way. i think we're at democrats, obama at the head of them, generally prefer to ignore or insult or squish the radicals. the republican leadership has actually decided to hitch a ride. i don't see any real resistance on the part of the republican establishment to the tea party or argument on the merit of the particular things, but there is ways the republican party decided to let its extremes lead in some way, and that has to be noted. that's a very significant development. i don't know exactly how to understand # the politics of our country right now. ..

2008 was an optical illusion in that for reasons that are possible to understand but not

reproducible, that not reproducible. i think what concerns me now and then we can get to obama and israel and then of course you have this whole gang of prevoyance about who barack obama really is. that is a tiresome game because the president should make it clear to the population who he really is. but is he and lady phyllis or realist or coming to the ambassador from a better future, is he trying to take us to a higher level or does he think he was elected to make the best backroom deal and we are all in the middle of this game of trying to read the mind of this man and so this ads another level of confusion and volatility to our politics right now. plus there is of course the economic situation plus we have our own we still got xenophobia.

we are not in this by any means there is a profoundly xenophobia string and an american life right now. there is a lot of dread in this country and one of the things is the israelis worry about america losing its sense of greatness i think that's right. there are many reasons and then i will conclude i think that one of the reasons we are losing our sense of greatness is we are allowing our obsession with our economy however awful to stand in for our entire sense of ourselves, historical and globally. i think that an economic analysis of life, the mind of the analysis of america and america's tradition in the world is never the whole story.

when an unexpected strategic opening just opened to the united states in east asia for a simple, when the chinese overreached they are set to overreach, just beating the way they behave. when they overreach of a sudden our whole collection of east asian countries basically realized there was a basis for the new relationship or alliance with the united states. all of this happened despite the miserable economy. and so there is a way in which the autonomy is not all we need to know and strategic position and national self-esteem which is subject to be is a very powerful force in history, very powerful force. i mean you can correct it hysterically and so on but the sense of ourselves and our place in the world cannot be allowed to be determined only by our analysis of the troubles of our economy. for all these reasons i think

america shouldn't sleep that well. hismelt i will let you answer the obama question. is that his full, israel, nobody? why has there been this relationship between him and israel? >> that is something mentioned in the conversation. i think it's not really about the proposals he actually freezes. it's about the message he doesn't generate and he made a mistake. you have to pay dues to the israelis. that is a very bad pilgrimage. he should have gone to jerusalem and i think should have stuck to the israelis.

your concerns are my concerns. the president made the bold proposal but i think he has a good chance of being elected and it was about the cents with the people and their concern is real. i think you can compromise a great deal, but don't take lightly the future and the concern of people about the future and its security, and if you didn't do that. there was another thing he tends to do. my mother and myself we don't share the same policy but she said to me i don't mind giving them jerusalem but don't tell me

that i started. people do not like to be blamed. the left is a position of guilt and the farther your guilt goes if you are not guilty at all to moderate less. now, that is a big mistake so i think is a genuine trend that is the very basic human aspect of addressing and not playing this kind of overall ego of the conflict.

those are two things i think will be -- >> in the middle east you can actually say anything to the israelis if you first make it clear you know what neighborhood they are living in and you say anything to arabs if you first make it clear you really want them to succeed, you really want them to succeed. >> we have to take into account that the israelis like to american presidents who knew how to help israelis boost but the outcome -- and in many cases we

didn't deserve it and for the market process this is the fact. now, cairo speech was a mistake and interviewed them after the speech to make the reporters and was the only one who didn't belong [inaudible] there is a kind of sometimes speech and interview and i told them the equation between the hardship which the palestinians

suffer and obama is not a member state, it is a destructive and it will kill obama and israel. people who get them as another job if you want and so i don't have the freedom to say what they say that the big disagreement. the fact is it seems then you find a way to heal this kind of feeling. now, i believe the dimension obama is not playing by the political move which means he

was developed after the elections he didn't -- he has not done you never approach the israeli public in a way which can really -- [inaudible] give an interview to each interview no trauma, nothing. so this guy who knew how to swallow and it will remain like this a long and dangerous path because iran is an issue and the palestinians are the issue and -- would like to have 50% of the

israelis. [inaudible] i grew up in the wing of the jewish community in new york where the phrase was at yiddish, the yiddish, at british, which means we are not -- we don't dillinger other we love each other, we are not touchy-feely, and obama is like that. stick with obama as long as he doesn't touch you. he doesn't touch you. he doesn't believe in shakiness, he doesn't want to do the cheesy jester so get over it. >> the second thing i would say in the middle east is most obama policies come down to his

confidence. they tend to be extremely confident. he said the new standard. i believe in 80 years the word obama will be the unit of measure for self-confidence. 20 obama's, so all these other people didn't solve the middle east but i can. and the people around him so that is the second thing. the fair thing to know about him is that every white house i've covered is more centralized than the last and this one goes a little further so the mistake he made with the parallel and -- he doesn't rely on the whole bunch of people. he did himself so he said it, that is the problem of centralization. it is fundamentally not a problem of alana younce, a fellow feeling toward israel. if the leaks show anything it shows the administration is tough on iran and other issues so was not a substantive

problem. i think the substantive difference between him and push on the big issues is less than it is appeared. >> we have to get past the question of his personality because i think that there are deep strategic realities that have to be addressed that he represents whether or not he recognizes them and there are also certain ideas for example to me whether osama bin laden succeeded in drawing the united states into an unprecedented central engagement with the muslim world that was going to have been. after we invaded afghanistan and iraq with the united states having hundreds of thousands it was inevitable that the american president would turn to some sort of not just focused new relationship to this thing called the muslim world and we know it doesn't exist but we will use the phrase. most american jewish supporters of the war in iraq and

supporters of israel or under the illusion that when bush attacked iraq and overthrew saddam hussein said this was a beautiful harmonic convergence of the interest of israel and the interest of the united states. in fact, what it meant was the israeli-palestinian conflict would become more of a liability to the united states in the region than it ever was before and not only in the region, but around the world. so for example, when obama goes to jakarta and the time supports that from the parliamentarians to people on the street when he asks what is the main problem he's told palestine. analytically we can say we know palestine has no impact upon the price of eggs in jakarta. but again, the fact that in jakarta, so i think that the israelis have to understand that america is now at the beginning has begun a long period of the engagement and immersion in the muslim society and states and

that this is going to complicate the american israeli friendship and it is strategically inevitable. now, having said that the question is how has obama chosen to make this engagement and i think one way to describe this is his foreign policy is the first american foreign policy after multiculturalism, and what i mean by that is obama decided that in order to correct the negative image that bush gave the united states was more grand he would offer a more positive and affirmative and accepting form of engagement to the various muslim societies and states. the problem with that, the problem with that and use all this in the cairo speech is that this kind of acceptance is not received in the various arab society as anything but an affirmation of the societies and as they currently exist. so for a simple, when obama goes out of his way to address muslim

society in the religious terms, to invoke the koran on all of this is fine at some humane moral level, but in touch with the muslim world needs to hear from the american president is a secular message played the muslim world does not need the american president to address them on the religious terrain and the second consequence of obama's kind of engagement as a consequence of these strategic realities is that it turns out that engagement usually means 66 he thinks he's accepting society. but he is accepting our regimes. but he is accepting his regime's and you see this in the dissidents of the human rights policy, you see this in with which he and sycophant clinton, anyway, you see this in the warmth and there is a confusion

being made as a consequence of this warmer -- obama believes that he is the man from the future. he doesn't like to meet century. he's the man from the 21st century. he stands for new thinking, and our political questions now are in frenzies of new thinking. everything is different partly because the internet and partly because of gullible as asian but all kind we know. in fact everything is not different and it is for the real strategic question now not just for obama but for the israelis is what are the continuities and the discontinuities? it cannot be everything is new. what obama discovered in the palestinian conflict is that it is incredibly 20th century conflict and it's incredibly stubborn that there are 20th century in certain ways is going to to go into the 21st century. >> we want to take a few questions from the floor before

we break for dinner so let's keep our answers and questions tight so we can get as many people in. >> you stated that israel needs to treat the minority and by assuming you mean the arab minority with a quality and respect and liking that israel doesn't. so to facts, one, the israeli arabs a vote and have representatives some of them participate in flotillas and the like. every time there's a controversy they raise hamas and palestinian state flags. my question to you is this. if israel were to build more roads and schools, but they raise the israeli flags? >> it is a very important

question. >> it's important to raise. they took seriously the treatment of the other minority as a genuine equal partner. there, ministers have been second. the best, nothing. i don't mean formal recall the which is a great thing actually and very admiral. i don't know what other democracies would do given the situation. but this is not enough. we are talking about equal rights housing, all that stuff. we have established 1 cents 48.

with a great demographic growth. now you ask me if israel would grant visas it doesn't do them a favor. would they change? some of them. this is not one [inaudible] i don't remember, it was like 90, i don't remember the number but the era is really don't for the direct elections. now i see the situation as follows. the leadership of the arab

israelis are playing a dangerous game because they are not representing themselves anymore discriminant minorities but a minority vendor occupation. it is a dangerous game. and they dismantled the nature of israel as a kind of nation state. but, you know, this is not capturing the whole arab-israeli sentiment. you know, many arab israelis want to be israeli citizens, and by the way, it will be difficult to expect them raise a flag. it's fine. if we want to crash we are going to create a cultural war to read the have to abide by the rules. they have to be large citizens of the country first of all, and

i would say the following, the arab leadership is failing by integrating its new rhetoric and political goal if we actually isolate their community from the rest of israel. we are saving by not genuinely and raising them as equal citizens etc., and the one of reading the fruit of that and that is what i would say. i would say the following. this is a very delicate fabric, very delicate, and if you push it then you'd see the policies that then create a reaction that can justify more caution. we have seen that in history. we are strong enough to increase

them as equal citizens and strong enough not to allow, not to allow their political leadership anything that has to do with actually genuine disloyalty on the genuine basis for israel for what it is coming and that is what i see. >> i think the question actually raises a larger issue you are addressing that is relevant to american foreign policy in certain places and that is the question of what is the relationship of standard of living to identity? in other words, if identity -- can you take a national grievance, national sense of injury and by means of economic and social development, can you actually raise eight? now, we are trying to do something similar in afghanistan. when you look at what our counter insurgency is a significant piece of it is basically a material analysis of

political identity to be to improve the group's life and modernize them, etc., and what worries me is first that identity is not only determined by material factors. in fact it is usually determined not by material factors, and the most dramatic example of this actually is the zionist one when ugonda was proposed before you will propose that the affluent jews who live in conditions of material prosperity were prepared to take the deal the russian jews who lived miserable lives in the settlement who need of rescue and relief more urgently than any they prefer to wait for arab-israel. for me that is always symbolizing the problem that you cannot use economic development to be answered fully the

question of who people think it is and what people want. the question is the smart thing is first not to alienate the symbolic matters to respect their own sense of their own, to recognize the incredibly difficult position that the birth of the palestinian nationalism after the 67 war, the difficult position of which it plays arabs because the israeli arab identity is a very enflamed thing now because there is israel to one side and palestine to another. right now i think that as was said that the attempt the cultural war should not be provoked. that is the first thing. >> please, with the beard, i can't see. [inaudible] >> i do have a comment.

>> i just released as you know that a brookings yvette and you have some of the information and part of it is on actually identity and on ever citizens as well as the jewish citizens of israel and there are two things that are clear. one is the onset of economics is right, that it doesn't seem to matter how much money you make or your level of education on your identity. that isn't much of a major factor. it does show on one thing. the vast majority of arabs and israel do not want their town to be included in the palestinian state when there is a palestinian state. and the number one answer is economics actually. when you break of the demographics to figure out what explains their attitudes and the differences christians, muslims,

that is and variable, but by far, the most important. that explains its vision among them is something completely different. whether or not they have relatives who became refuges in 1948. and in that segment, they've broken almost half of them have relatives, half of them don't. and if you differentiate those two groups would be astonished to see the differences of attitudes almost every single issue including identity and that leads me to believe it is impossible to address that before you have a solution that incorporates the state of palestine as a refugee issue. it's impossible to address that matter what you do internally. >> i want to get to the issue of the orthodox society and you touched on it very gently the issue of they're adamant and i

wonder if there is an unholy alliance going on and i would like the opinion of the panelists to read in the old days you have people like the rabbi, when it was run by him in the 70's when he wanted to integrate the russian jews who came hundreds of thousands massed converting them and just did it like a bulldozer and no one seems to remember, he just did it. now the chief seems to be hijacked by the ultra-orthodox and the unholy alliance seems to be between the one side, the secular on the other who don't like him for whatever reasons they don't seem to care, lieberman to play off the orthodox to restore the grievances of his russian constituencies and therefore the metal has been decimated of people who actually saw the chief as a way to integrate its release and be alleviate the hostilities of the past and it seems to be exacerbating them

and also between israel and the diaspora. i wonder if you agree with that analysis and you see any hope of taking it back from the ultra-orthodox to say the diaspora relationship and further exacerbate internal tensions. [inaudible] question of conversion between israel and the jewish community, is there a major problem i believe it is the offense or insults or very important groups in the american jewish community by treating their conversion forces as oster year to the terms of the israeli.

now regarding israel there is one can look at it as a miracle. more than 300,000 jews subject who immigrated to israel and lost return according and you don't have many strangers about the marriages and about the jewishness, you know why? because it doesn't matter it matters only [inaudible] so we can go for a week, get married, and that is a lot who are completely 100% to prefer and they go to the same group and the range marriage in a few hours, so to the surprise of everybody, the former soviet

union are big enough to swallow this kind of difference so we don't have the scandal. at the same time it is crazy because you have people who are considered by themselves and by everybody else has you to go to churches on sundays and other secular there is no difference and still it is written in the card as something that is an insult. >> so, i'm going to let everybody pursue the questions individually with the panelists. thank you very much. [applause]

>> let me thank you, tom, for doing a wonderful job. i know shakespeare would have been proud of all of you. thank you for extremely rich intellectual diet [inaudible] in the shakespeare library. thank you very much for the great session. terrific. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] the obama administration representative to afghanistan and pakistan

expanding the federal school lunch program by more than 100,000 students. the legislation was supported by first lady michelle obama. she's joined a decedent by house speaker nancy pelosi and secretary kathleen sebelius. this is a half-hour. >> sophocles and gentlemen the president of the united states and mrs. michelle obama. >>pplause] >> hello, hello, hello. [applause] h.ank you.thank you ry muc thank you free much. >> thank you so much. please, have a seat. good morning, everybody. >> good morning.d morn

>> i want to thank all the students and faculty said here at tubman elementary for hosting us today at your beautiful school. and we want to thank principal harry hughes for doing outstanding work here. give them all a big round of applause. [applause] we are thrilled to be here with all of you as i sign the healthy, hunger-free kids act -- a bill that is vitally important to the health and welfare of our kids into our country. but before i do this, i just want to acknowledge a few of the folks who are here, as well as a few who are not here but he played and a hugely important role in getting this legislation passed. on the stage we have madam speaker, nancy pelosi.

to the outstanding senators, blanche lincoln and tom harkin, who worked so hard to get this done. members of the house of representatives miller, delauro, and platts who worked so hard to make this happen. we're show grateful to you. and three of my outstanding members of my cabinet who worked tirelessly on this issue, secretary of agriculture tom vilsack -- it happens to be his birthday today. happy birthday. secretary arne duncan, our great secretary of education.

and secretary kathleen sebelius of health and human services. they could not be here today but they played a huge role in making this happen -- senator harry reid, the majority leader in the senate. senator mike mcconnell the ranking republican who helped facilitate the smooth passage of this bill. senator chambliss, the lead republican. republicans hoyer, clyburn, and mccarthy all played important roles, and so we're very grateful to them. give them a big round of applause. it is worth noting that this bill passed with bipartisan support in both houses of congress. that has happened as often as we would like over the last couple of years, but i think it says something about our politics. it reminds us that no matter

what people may hear about how divided things are in washington, we can still come together and agree on issues that matter for our children's future and for our future as a nation. and that is really what today is all about. at a very basic level, this act is about doing what is right for our children. right now all across this country, too many kids do not have access to school meals. often the food that is being offered is not as healthy or as nutritious as it should be. that is part of the reason why one in three children in america today are either overweight or obese. and we're seeing this problem in every part of the country in kids from all different backgrounds and all walks of life. as a result, and doctors are now starting to see conditions like high blood pressure and high cholesterol, and tight ii diabetes in children. these are things that they only used to see in adults.

this bill is about reversing that trend and giving our kids the healthy futures that they deserve. this bill is also about doing what is right for our country, because we feel the strains that tree seen -- that treating obesity-related health conditions puts on our economy. we have seen the connection between what our kids eat and how well they perform in school. and we know that the countries that succeed in the 21st century will be the ones that have the best prepared, best educated workforce around. we need to make sure that our kids have the energy and the capacity to go toe to toe with any of their peers anywhere in the world. we need to make sure that they are all reaching their potential. that is precisely sleep what this bill -- that is precisely what this bill will accomplish. this legislation will help 115,000 children gain access to school meal programs. wherever we can, we're doing away with bureaucracy and red tape so that families do not have to fill out mountains of

paperwork to get kids the nutrition they need. we are improving the quality of those meals by reimbursing schools an additional 6 cents per lunch to help them provide with healthier options -- the first real increase in over 30 years. when our kids walk into the lunchroom, we want to be sure that they're getting balanced, nutritious meals that they need to succeed in the classroom. we are empowering parents by making a commission more available of rigid about the quality of school meals, helping families understand what their kids are eating during the day. -- we are empowering parents by making information more available about the quality of school meals, helping families understand what their kids are eating during the day. to support our schools efforts to serve fresh fruits and vegetables, we connecting them with local farmers. we're improving food safety in school and boosting the quality of commodities like cheese. it is also important to note the

while this bill was fully paid for, it will not add a dime to the deficit, some of the funding coming from rolling back a temporary increase in food stamp benefits, or snap as it is now called, starting in the fall of 2013. i know a number of members of congress have expressed concerns about this offset, and i am committed to working with him to restoring these funds in the future. we know that every day across this country, parents are working as hard as they can to do healthy choices for their kids. schools are doing everything possible to provide the nutritious food they need to thrive. communities are coming together to help our young people lead healthier lives right from the beginning. it's time that we made that work easier. these folks are fulfilling their responsibilities to our kids. this legislation helps ensure we fulfill our responsibilities as well. shortly after signing the first law establishing school lunches, harry truman said that nothing is more important in our national life than the welfare

of our children, and proper nourishment comes first in attaining this welfare. today i am very proud to sign this bill that continues that legacy. not only am i very proud of the bill, but had i not been able to get this passed, i would be sleeping on the couch. [laughter] so now -- [applause] now i am very proud to introduce someone who has done so much to shine a light on these critical issues related to childhood nutrition the end -- childhood nutrition and obesity and exercise -- america's first lady, my first lady, michelle obama. [applause] >> thank you. thank you, everybody.

thank you all, thanks so much, and good morning. >> good morning. >> and thank you, mr. president for that very kind introduction. and all kidding aside, my husband worked very hard to make sure that this bill was a priority in this session. and i am grateful to you. >> because i would been sleeping on the couch. >> but i am thrilled to be here. we will not go into that. [laughter] let's just say it got done, so we do not have to go down the road. [laughter] but i am thrilled to be here with all of you today as my husband signs the healthy, hunger-free kids act into law. we usually hold these bill signings in the white house. we felt it was important did this one right here at tubman elementary because we wanted to share this moment with our

partners -- with the students, the parents, the teachers, the community leaders, like all of you here who have been so instrumental. our white house chefs have worked closely with educators at this school and they have seen your commitment to serving high- quality school meals to all of your students. i have worked side by side with kids from this school, as well as from bancroft elementary school, to harvest our white house garden we could not have done it without all our students helping us. and i saw how hard they worked. i also saw how brave they were to try vegetables that many of had never even heard of. and i also understand that there are students from murch elementary school who are here today as well. we all had just a great time last bring working up a sweat and exercising and playing on the south lawn of the white house.

with everything you are doing to give these children a healthy start in life, you are fulfilling the mission of this legislation every single day. that is why we are here. i want to thank you all, all of our partners, for what you have done, not just in hosting us here today, but in making sure that we are doing the right thing by our kids. i also want to echo my husband's thanks to leaders and members of congress, many of whom are on the stage, many of whom are not and are down here, and you have all done just a tremendous thing in making this day possible. as the said -- as he said, this was truly a bipartisan effort, with passionate supporters from both parties putting in late nights and long weekends, working around the clock to make sure that this bill that passed. while we may sometimes have our differences, we can all agree that in the united states of

america no child should go to school hungry. we can all agree -- [applause] we can all agree that in the wealthiest nation on earth, all children should have the basic nutrition they need to learn and grow and to pursue their dreams, because in the end, nothing is more important than the health and well-being of our children. nothing. and our hopes for their future should drive every single decision that we make. these are the basic values that we all share, regardless of race, party, religion. this is what we share. these are the values that this bill embodies. and that is why we of seen such a groundswell of support for these efforts -- not just from members of congress here in

washington, but from folks in every corner of the country. it has been beautiful to see. from educators working to provide healthier school meals because they know the connection between proper nutrition and academic performance. from doctors and nurses who know that unhealthy kids grow into unhealthy adults, at risk for obesity-related diseases like diabetes, heart disease, cancer. from business and labor leaders who know that we spend nearly $150 billion a year to treat these diseases and who worry about the impact on our economy. from advocates and faith leaders who know that school meals are vital for combating hunger, feeding more than 31 million children a day. and from military leaders who tell us that when more than one in four young people are

unqualified for military service because of their weight, they tell us that childhood obesity is not just a public health issue, they tell us that it is not just an economic threat, it is a national security threat as well. these folks come at this issue from all different angles. but they have come together to support this bill because they know it is the right thing to do for our kids. they know that the long run, it will not just save money, but it will save us lives. let's be clear -- these folks do not to support this bill as leaders and as professionals, but as parents as well. and we know that ensuring kids that kids eat right and stay active is ultimately the responsibility of parents more than anyone else. and everywhere i go, fortunately, i meet parents who are working very hard to make sure that their kids are

healthy. they are doing things like cutting down on desserts and trying to increase fruits and vegetables. they are trying to teach their kids the kind of healthy habits that will stay with them for a lifetime. but when our kids spend so much of their time each day in school, and when many kids get up to half their daily calories from school meals, it is clear that we as a nation have a responsibility to meet as well. we cannot just leave it up to the parents. i think that parents have a right to expect that their efforts at home will not be undone each day in the school cafeteria or and the vending machine in the hallway. i think that our parents have a right to expect that their kids will be served fresh, healthy food that meets high nutritional standards. and particularly in these tough economic times, when so many families are struggling, when

school meals sometimes are the main source of nourishment for so many kids, we have an obligation to make sure that those meals are as nutritious as possible. but by improving the quality of the school meals and making sure that more children have access to them, that is precisely what the healthy, hunger-free kit act is going to do. while it might seem counterintuitive, hunger and obesity are just two sides of the same coin. both rob our children of the energy, the strength, and the stamina that they need to succeed in school and in life. that robs our country of so much of their promise. both can be solved when we come together to provide our children with the nutritious food that they need and deserve. that is why for well over half a century, we have made child nutrition a national priority.

the bill we are signing into law today actually has its roots in the national school lunch program signed into law by president truman after world war ii. it also has roots in the child nutrition act that was passed just two decades after that in 1966. the idea for that act came from a priest named reverend @ c.b. woodrich, who worked with children in denver, colorado. many of these kids were all going hungry because they could not afford to buy lunch. reverend woodrich thought that was unconscionable saland decidd to do something about it. he somehow managed to talk his way into a meeting with president johnson. he arrived at the oval office without any prepared speech. he brought an enormous album filled with the photos of children in need which he promptly spread across the president's desk.

the rev. later explained that the size of the photo album was delivered, because he wanted to be sure that it would be big enough to cover everything else on the president's desk. and that is hard to do. it is a big desk. it is to this day a moving reminder that the most important job of any president is to ensure the well-being of our nation's children, because we know that the success of our nation tomorrow depends on the choices we make for our kids today. it depends on whether they can fulfill every last bit of the potential, and we in turn can benefit from every last bit of their promise. that is our obligation, not just as parents who love our kids but as citizens who love this country. that is the mission of this legislation -- to give all of our children the bright futures that they deserve. that is why i am so proud to be here. i am so proud to have worked on

this bill with all of you, and now i am pleased to stop talking and turn this over to my husband so that he can get to work signing that bill. >> let's go sign that bill. >> let's go do it. [applause] [inaudible]

[laughter] [inaudible conversations] [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satelle corp10]

[applause] [inaudible conversations] ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ [inaudible conversations] ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪