one of the pictures in there, the baby going to the barbed wire was probably generated almost more reaction from readers. .. looking for the rest of their family members they didn't know if the had died or killed and

when they came was a scene of joy and they're passing people back and forth and was a cheerful wonderful reunion and it's all this. c-span: where was it? >> guest: it was an albanian and the had camps set up right there. c-span: what was on the oversight of that? >> guest: they were coming from kosovo fleeing of the aggression. c-span: have you had a situation where someone has seen you to get a picture and they say i don't want that? >> guest: all the time. it happens frequently and i believe we need to respect people's wishes. the have the right not to be photographed. usually not. we try to be sensitive. it depends what the situation is but we try to be sensitive and get names if we can. someone doesn't want the picture used we don't use it. what kind of bothers me

sometimes are people that come up who have nothing to do with the story, they already have the trust of the subject and you're doing a story and it may be a sensitive issue but they want to be photographed but someone else decided you shouldn't be taking a picture and that it's disconcerting because it is hard to explain to someone else that, you know, that's their right also to be photographed so it should be their decision. c-span: 1986 was your first pulitzer at the miami herald for the mud slide in colombia. 1995 with "the washington post," u.s. intervention in haiti first time. 2,000 the washington post photographs refugees and then came out of that with what we just saw in 2011 photography in he we saw the washington post. here is some photos about katrina and animals. explain this. >> guest: i was sent to cover

the hurricane initially come and i did -- a few weeks after the fact i started a story on the animal, the abandoned animals the mentally not even abandoned, people were forced to leave their animals have that time but i have also been stored on people who shoulders wouldn't allow people to take their pets so they were forced to make this horrible decision like you're welcome to the shelter would basically leave your child -- for folks that leave their animals that much. so the same thing happened in katrina only mog etch and grander scale and we did a story in the post and i then took a leave of absence to do the kind of larger project on this issue and i was hoping to do a book those that didn't come about but it was about six months of people from all over the country donated their time to come down to to find these people's pets and was quite emotional like most of the stories but for some reason the animals seemed -- if i show a slide show just to photographers, this is the one

they cry about always i guess because they're so innocent and lost. c-span: have any pets do you have? >> guest: i have three dogs, a cat and a crazy cockatoo, a bird. c-span: what's the picture? >> guest: that is paul print in the muck that was left after the hurricane. c-span: i noticed a lot of your shots are from above looking down on things. >> guest: i think we try to look for different ingalls no matter what it is and provide visual variety in the package, especially when you do long photo stories like i do. the animals also, it wasn't a story just on animals. a lot of these people have lost not only their homes and sometimes loved ones and their community and their jobs, the last thing they had left to hold onto was their pet, so it was really important for the residents as well to be reunited with their animals. c-span: how often do these folks that you took pictures of want to copy?

>> guest: a lot of times. and i really bad it giving people pictures. these pictures i took on my own but mostly i work for the post so they have copyrights' and have to go through the "washington post" to get the pictures. c-span: did you have a favorite among all of these? >> guest: it's always hard to say what his favorite picture is because you're so close to the images. i have memories of taking all of these. this is a picture that generated a lot of feedback from people just so touched by this dog that looks, sitting there almost dignity kind of stock just waiting for someone to save him. i went back afterwards trying to find out if someone did eventually get this doggett because they were rescuing people coming all-around where we were in the boat, and i had to continue on with the rescue group i was with but they have radios for the animal people to

come get him so i'm hoping he was rescued. it's hard to look at something and photograph and leave it and not know -- you know, not be able to jump in the water and just grab him myself. c-span: how much training did you get on how to take a photo? >> guest: i went to school with the art institute of fort lauderdale. it was the to hear photography program. it wasn't photojournalism, but i had one photojournalism class of it's all the other kinds of photography that they taught. and then i did an internship at the miami herald. and that's how i got the job. c-span: and when did you give up the idea of being under squawks >> guest: immediately as i entered nursing school like realized it was almost too hands on for me. i was afraid i would make mistakes and hurt someone. i just i didn't see like it was the right niche. this is a far better image and i think nursing school teaches you

a certain level of compassion and it carries over into this kind of work. c-span: when i went through a lot of your photographs before we talked, i noticed in one copy somewhere where you said you had a melt down in 2002 or something like that. is that something you can tell us more about and does it have anything to do with seeing all this tragedy? >> guest: absolutely. i mean, it was triggered by a battle man to break up with a boyfriend was probably the catalyst. but -- and i had been covering kosovo at that time and i was at a point of complete exhaustion. but once the floodgates opened, it was post-traumatic stress, no question, depression, but a lot of -- a lot of the images come a lot of the wailing women in the dead children, but terse -- it's like everything came back to me, like, so vividly. and if it's because i just went so frenetically going from one story to another and working and working and working for so many

years and it just bouncing to all these hot spots that i never process to the emotional toll. and i am pretty sensitive in general. but like i said, the camera can be a shield, and i feed it can hold back your own emotions for awhile. but you're human, and you can see all these horrible things without feeling it on some level. and i got a pretty good meltdown. c-span: so what do you do now? if you're going from story to story, you know that you're sensitive, do you build in any down time, or some way to get away from it? >> guest: yes, i'm trying. i mean, i learned a little more about coping mechanisms and, you know, did some therapy. and i don't cover the same stories are used to then. a was a lot of international disasters, conflict some situations that i don't -- haven't covered that particularly -- except eda, now, recently. but it's been a more long-term feature project said home. but they can be pretty emotional

two agana different level. i don't know. i'm obviously coping better than i was at that moment in time years ago. but it's still -- it still affects me, but now i realize that i have to deal with it at the moment, and not let it build up. c-span: so, your editor comes to you and says, one of two jobs. i want you to go to the 1996 democratic convention, or one you to go down to d-tn deduce the aftermath of the earthquake. what happens to you when you hear me throw one of those? >> guest: i don't usually get the choice like that for one thing. but i think, you know, the great thing about being a journalist is the variety, and that we get to experience so many parts of the human condition on so many different levels. i mean, haiti has been part of my heart for so long, that i could never ignore haiti. in fact, i hadn't been traveling for a long time, because my mother's been really ill with alzheimer's. so, with your eqecat and in haiti, it was anywhere else i

probably wouldn't have gone at that point in time. c-span: will come here is that 96 shoot of the democratic convention. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> black and white? >> guest: we were probably the

last people to go color, so black-and-white was what i shot for most of my career. c-span: would you rather shoot? >> guest: probably black-and-white. i'm so used to doing digital in color that that's just what we did. but whenever i converted picture to black-and-white i think it has a different kind of power. it's hard to explain. it affects people i think i'm more visceral level in many ways and there's no distractions, no different colors, different lighting situations the destructive from the harmony of the story and the photo. c-span: when you look at a photo and say that's just what i wanted? >> guest: probably never. if you ask any of my editors, i'm pretty hard on myself and that we. i always miss -- i miss more than i get, moment-why is. and i feel like it's such a responsibility to tell these stories that i kind of take a pretty hard missing it. but like i said, once in awhile there are wow moments when you

step back and just because you were there and you saw it and you just hope its sharp. c-span: forget the well for a moment. but when you look to the photograph, what do you say that's what i was trying to do not that was the greatest for the russian history, that the composition included what? >> guest: i think composition, you know, the artistic expression of photography almost becomes second nature when you're working this long. i think as a journalist, which to do is tell a story with visuals instead of words. basically writing paragraphs that happen to be with images. so, for me it's hard to get it in one photograph because i'm such a storyteller. so i try to get a lot of different pieces, whether it's little details, you know, whatever the emotion is. i try to do a complete package almost with everything even if it's just a daily assignment. c-span: before we look at the sierra leone photos, said it up. where is it, what year was it, why did you do this? >> guest: ziara lenone linus

-- it was 2000 -- and so bad with years. it was right after katrina -- c-span: sue 2006? >> guest: 2006 -- it must have been 2006, yes. i had just been to sierra leone. i had done a story on war amputees who came to d.c. for prosthetic limbs and was like a four years of god i followed this group of mostly children, and then actually and godmother to one of the children now who lives in d.c.. and they invited me to go with him on her first pack the qtr to sere early on. so i had been there on a personal trip with her, came back in a week later they asked me to do this story on maternal mortality which is a really important issue and i think it is under reported. i think in sierra leone it's like one and eight women died in childbirth. it's horrendous. and for a lot of avoidable reasons, you know. c-span: what's that? >> guest: that's jamella.

she arrived in a taxi at the hospital, maternity hospital in freetown. i think that was her aunt brought her in. and she was just screaming in pain. and she eventually died. i followed her through a c-section. they did an emergency c-section of the hospital but she didn't make it. she bled to death right in front of me. c-span: this pogo? >> guest: again it's the same hospital. we spent some time in the rural areas trying to do the story with kevin solomon who decided better to go to the hospital when the women are seeking help and this is the biggest hospital in freetown, and they were losing so many women right and left. this is her, too. the final look at her baby the was born before she died. c-span: why did they let you in

the room? >> guest: we had obviously talked to the director of the hospital, and they knew that we were there to the story and they definitely wanted the world attention to be brought on this issue that's kind of hidden in the shadows of other global health issues. c-span: what's that contruction? >> guest: they had nothing in order to elevate the bid because she was hemorrhaging. they needed to elevate the bed and they couldn't do it like we would, crank it up. the head tip o'neill chairs and stools and whenever they could find. c-span: and this is one of the best hospitals in sierra leone? >> guest: probably in general but for maternity it's the maternity hospital. c-span: what kind of conditions, cleanliness and all that? >> guest: it was horrible. i mean it was miskito region. this is adama. she also died and i am still in contact with her family

actually. the nurses were so -- they were so grateful for the mosquito spray if i brought because even the nurses had to sleep under tents because the miskitos were so bad. and it was just -- the water didn't -- the toilets didn't flush. i mean, there were bodies of babies that had died, just piled up in the next room, right next to the women that were screaming in labor. c-span: those are dead babies. >> guest: child mortality is just horrendous. c-span: all of this was published? with the vultures up top. did you see that right away? >> guest: is obviously symbolic. c-span, often does the audience that sees your work get this, the subtleties that you have in some of the photographs? do you get any sense of that? >> guest: i get a lot of readers response especially now with email but it's so easily people used to actually take

time to write letters about pictures that affected them. now i get e-mail and messages from readers saying how touched or moved they were with what pingree, what of the situation may be that they were so affected by an image and, you know, it can't hold them to do this, that or the ever and a lot of times for the bitter good. c-span: a look at a video from sierra leone war victims. explain what are we going to see? >> guest: this is a probably what we was talking about in my little mamuna and the group that can for prosthetics. there was a poster just come. with the war was raging in sierra leone, one of the forms of intimidation i suppose that the rebels used as amputation of civilians. so even young children as young as mamuna was 4-years-old when she came to get her limb. her grandmother was carrying her and they shot through her and that's how she lost her limb but others were and pitied so it was

a pretty terrific war but they were going to bring them here, new york doctor was going to donate to the limb and send them back and rotate kids in and out but they realized they couldn't send them back because they had been given so much media attention for one thing and they had these brand new limb would bring attention to them and they were afraid that the rebels would target them again and everyone fell in love with them so they became almost an extended family that lived in s.i. for years until we all were eventually adopted. c-span: and the war was over what and sierra leone? >> guest: blood diamonds basically. well, the war is always over power in one form or another. but, you know, there was a lot of control of the diamond mines and in that way, you know, the rebels were seeking to gain power. c-span: and was the point of cutting off the limbs of little kids? >> guest: as far as i can tell, just to intimidate the civilian population to -- i don't know. i think people go crazy in war

situations sometimes. and he would use drugs to take kids also and indoctrinate them into, you know, become child soldiers, you know, to fight for the cause. and they would tell them to go ask the president to get a new arm, you know. c-span: let's watch. ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

c-span: what happens to these young kids when they come to the united states and a robot id? due to go back and check then leader? do you know them and do you talk about your friend here? but are they -- how do they get along in our society? >> guest: they obviously have to assimilate into american society but they were so grateful. they lived in refugee camps, and you can see in sierra leone so they were thrilled just to be able -- remember they would eat really fast when they first got here because they couldn't believe it would be able to have this whole meal to themselves and they were afraid it wouldn't come again. a lot of them didn't speak english when they first came. and i started hanging around and they named me yemma because carroll was hard to remember. yemma is an african name and still to this day they call me yemma. i'm not carroll. they wouldn't know if you sit carol who that is. but i try to keep in touch. one girl she is a beautiful

dancer. she lives in michigan with her mother. and i talked to them all the time. and my god child, mamuna lives with the family in d.c., whose amazing. so ultimately their lives became much better, you know. c-span: tells her english? >> guest: fabulous now. i mean, they are just -- they are little americans now. at the time i remember them chongging to learn english was really difficult for them. c-span: there's a high school in washington that's had a rough history, ballou high school. and you did a feature on a young man named john thomas. who is he, where the coca was he and where is the? >> guest: he was a student there who was trying to, you know, better himself. a friend had been shot at the school. and was a big news story. happened just after we had started falling john, because he was trying to pull himself up out of, you know, the situation that a lot of people -- his

friends have found themselves in coming you know, with drugs and the st. issues, violence. and i just got an e-mail actually a couple of weeks ago from one of his mentor saying how wonderful he is doing. and he's trying to get back now to kids and teach them, you know, there are to fred avenues to take them what a lot of kids get caught up in in the inner cities -- c-span: where is he now? >> guest: he went to school -- and i can't remember which school that was that ended up going to. he was the first and his family to go to college. and he was a great basketball player, and i'm not sure if he's back here in d.c. now. i haven't been able -- i haven't had time yet to contact him because they wanted -- the thought we should do a follow-up story which i don't think we do enough of. i think we present a lot of issues or let people get to know someone and then we never follow up and say this is what happened to them. c-span: what year did you do this, do you remember? >> guest: there you go with the years again. [laughter] i can't even remember the year i

was born. c-span: i can find it here. let's watch the video of john thomas voice is it over. >> john thomas, i grew up in washington. when i was younger i didn't have any kind since. and i was like a threat to society. i wanted to get what i see in other kids had, i did whatever it took to get. i seen a lot of my friends got killed and a lot of friends locked up and i seen i didn't want to go that way but i felt like i he didn't have no choice. i stole cars, stealing from stores, going to jail twice. i wasn't focused on school, and i wasn't going to school every day. i was seeing a lot of friends dropping out and not current rating. and i was walking the same road they was walking. when i was young, used to always play basketball outside. then i started coming out playing every day, and it became part of life. every day i woke up and wanted

to play. i didn't want to be in jail. i didn't want to get killed all on these streets. i wanted to be successful in life which means i had to work hard to get want. my dream was to make it to the nba or to start my own business, got out of college. when i came to ballou, i went to my teachers. and i did extra work to get the grades and play basketball because i wanted to play ball, and when i got on the team i was still kind of missing up, making bad decisions, and the coach stayed on my back making me go study and make sure i had my homework and stuff done. and i seem that the only way to meet my dreams was to finish high school and keep going with the education. c-span: how did you find john thomas? >> guest: the reporter did. it was an assignment from the post. and like i tend to do many times, you know, it was not supposed to be as involved as it became. but i literally would go to school with him every day.

and he amazingly accepted me into his life and, you know, allow me to document this. the school was pretty trouble that time, because, like i said, they had just had a shooting there and a lot of things going on. so i think he recognized what an important message his story would be to you know, offer some hope and inspiration to me of your kids to write on the edge. c-span: have you ever tried to adopt any of these people that you've -- >> guest: i have. i kind of have an extended family in haiti. there's kids that used to hang out with us all the time when we would photograph. and he was so heartbreaking, because the need was so great. and i got to the point where if a, you know, i can take as many pictures as i possibly can, but our people really going to see it? and is it really going to change? but still believe that you can make a difference with photos. but the only way i could stay sane and still continue to cover haiti was to pick one family and say okay, i can't make a difference for this whole country, but i can make a

difference to one family. so, i have a couple of kids are now grown, the right sort of helped through their whole lives, danny and cystella. at one point about adopting them but my life was so -- single and running all over the place and was interested and environment. they have a grandmother who shockingly is still alive. there's a lot of people don't live to be old in haiti often but she's taking great care of them. c-span: you were married for ten years. did you have children? >> guest: seven years, never had kids except for my furry once. dogs. c-span: and married to the upi photographer the unit years ago? >> guest: upi and afp. c-span: what impact did your father million and a young age have on you? >> guest: tremendous impact. its color my whole world. i was six when he died and the leading i really remember is my

mom telling me he was gone and i shut down from that for years and years and wouldn't even talk about him. no one could talk about him to read in fact a first visit his grave when i was in my 20s and i just think that being such a fragile and vulnerable young child to have that kind of intense loss it just ripped my heart out. and i would probably be a different person, whether or better or worse by don't know, if he would have lived. c-span: how did he die? >> guest: he had cirrhosis of the liver. he used to work in a textile factory, and they think he used to blow his nose and the guys would come out of his nose and they think it may have been related to that because he wasn't a drinker but he died at a young age, i think it was 51. c-span: brothers and sisters? >> guest: i have a sister, half-sister really come she's my sister she was 14 years older than me, had a different father. and she was kind of a grown and out of the house by the time i was old enough to remember. and we got closer as i got older and stopped traveling a little

bit. the my mom got sick with alzheimer's and i spent a lot more time over the past ten years in pennsylvania. so we became much closer now in our adult life. c-span: and your mom did what in her life? >> guest: she was a -- she worked in a sewing machine factory. she had a really hard life. my dad died, and she didn't we marry again until i was 18. and all that time she was pretty much my mother and father and she worked in a sewing machine factory and a restaurant, you know, multiple jobs. we didn't have a car when i was a kid. she used to just trudge up the hill with all her groceries, and you know, she did the best she could. and it's rough, then she gets alzheimer's on top of it. c-span: what year did she get alzheimer's? >> guest: it's been over ten years now. it's a long sort of slow withering that horrible cruel disease does. it's really been tough. c-span: how will this she? >> guest: she's 94. but i am -- when this pulitzer

happened -- i don't know if i can talk about it, but i went in the bathroom and i called the nursing home and i said can you just yell in her ear because we can't even weaker and more she's so bad she's in the end stage place of the wanted her to be the first person i told so i said can you yell in her ear and told her i won a pulitzer today because she would have been proud. c-span: before pulitzers that you have one, are they all -- to they have the same impact on you? >> guest: well it's so unprofessional -- essey i can't deal with loss now peter. the pulitzers are amazing because it's such an honor to be recognized by your peers but i think even more importantly it shines a light on these stories that as i said after the headlines are gone people, the world attention move somewhere else and people are living in their realities long after the headlines or over. so i think just to have this award happen and people say pt, yes.

there's still a great need there. there is still suffering. i think that kind of gives the pictures a second life, the story a second life and people are remembered. c-span: to go back to 1986 the mudslide in colombia. can you give the background on that? >> guest: that was when i was very young and working at the miami herald, pretty much just starting out, and they asked michael ducille to cover it. they wanted the second photographer because was such a massive, tragic event. but then they had asked a different photographer who was -- i guess it was hunting season and he didn't want to miss hunting season so he turned it down and then they asked me to go. and i was pretty inexperienced of the time comes i was surprised the even asked me to do it but michael and i flew down on a learjet because it was -- we didn't know how we were going to get income and kind of truce trawls letter was going to go overland to try to get to the site and who was when to take the plea in and we eventually met up there and tried to cover the story and there was the days

you have to actually build a darkroom and transmit pictures and was one of the dhaka, again, hard story, emotionally and physically to cover. c-span: cheers columbia, 1986. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

c-span: how many people died in that mud slide? >> guest: over 25,000. a cut through the whole town. that's what i said i was when to allow one moment of joy because life can change so fast and we are forever altered. the earth in trumbull and mud can come and you know, ne -- out of nowhere your life is over. your loved ones are lost. so as hard as it is to look at those tragedies i think it makes us all realize how fleeting these moments are. c-span: where were you on 9/11? >> guest: i was at my home in arlington. and directly -- my friend, karen dollar, she's a photographer as well, she was living in d.c..

she called me and she said carol qtr on the television. my god. which it was already on and i saw what had happened in new york. and about a minute afterwards, the post called me and said pact, you know, we are sending multiple photographers to try to get into new york. we all knew the magnitude of it, pretty much immediately. but as i was packing i heard the plane hit the pentagon. i lived that close to the pentagon my house shook and i actually thought we were being bombed. and i call them and i said you want me to hit to the pentagon instead? and they still kept me going to new york. c-span: here's some of your work ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ c-span: you know, we are about done but i can hear some of the viewers those that stuck with it saying all right, why did you do that to me meaning me, why did i bring all this in one hour? what do you say to yourself? why do you do this? there's not much joy in the last hour. >> guest: yes, but i think we all have to remember that there are other people suffering and there are those in need that we can't forget.

i mean, i think images and stories, you know, put an exclamation on their existence and their reality. and some of us are much more fortunate than others. and we can't possibly forget that, because i think a social conscience is imperative and not only our society in america, but just a world community needs to remember that we're all interconnected, and what affects one affects us all. c-span: in the last 30 years of your professional career, what's happened to the photographer? are there more of them? less of them? what kind of resources are there -- a place like the "washington post" putting into photography? >> guest: well, fortunately, the post still has resources that we are, you know, we are still covering stories. but we lost half our photography stuff to buy-outs. and it's been a hard time for journalism in general. and i think there's a lot of images the nexrad people, but they're not all fitted. you know, they come over

facebook or from people on the scene, which in one way i think it's a good, because there's more is out there viewing events in our world. but the same time, i think it's a -- you know, it's kind of a great loss to society in a democracy to have professional photojournalist and journalists losing their jobs who tell the stories in a different way, perhaps from a different perspective. c-span: wonder of the most recent photography pulitzer. and we've got to get your two colleagues and again that were with you on this one. who are the two? >> guest: it's nikki kahn and ricky carioti and i wish to return because it is a team effort and the editors and everyone works together in an organization pulls together to create this work. c-span: but somehow, someway you have won four of those pulitzers with others over the last many years. carol -- and by the way, what is the name cuzy?

>> guest: guzy, russian origin. it's probably shortened from some long russian name way back when. c-span: carol guzy, thank you very much for joining us. >> guest: thank you so much. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪

has not stopped the case challenging the presidents citizenship status. the ninth circuit court of appeals in pasadena california heard oral argument monday in drake versus obama case ? barack obama's eligibility to serve as

president. why leverage a former vice presidential candidate in 2008 and former presidential candidate alan keyes are two of the lead plaintiff's. this is 50 minutes. >> i am an attorney with the united states justice foundation here to represent mr. drake and mr. robinson and those clients alone. it is the purpose for the one of two appeals combined for the hearing today to seek a cream and back so that we can separate the pursue a resolution of this issue so we can have the case ruled on the merits and various technical issues raised or issues the relate to plaintiffs. as far as my presentation, i will only be dealing with the

parts of the ruling by the judge and then deal with my assignment as a variety issues raised by the other plaintiffs which i have no stake in. >> can make it clear what relief you are seeking? >> we are seeking to demand back to trial court. estimate ultimately. >> we are seeking the second amended complaint that the court reached a determination as to whether mr. obama is eligible to serve as president of the united states that is the ultimate what we are seeking. >> what remedy flows from that that you are seeking? >> we are seeking a declaration and is so. what would you expect or what are you asking the federal district court to do to issue

that declaration? what would be the next thing though it had been? [inaudible] >> let's just talk about where we are. >> if the court were to go back to the procedures and had a trial on the merits and the court found mr. obama was ineligible to serve it would be our expectation the office will ultimately not necessarily by the court the office would be vacant and take over as president of the united states for the 20 amendment. >> your clients are former candidates? >> he was the candidate of the american independent party on the california.

my other clients who was at the time the chairman of the american intention california and person mant to the decision both individuals mr. robinson on behalf of his party and mr. jury was a standing to challenge -- >> but after the election was over. >> yes i am aware of that. >> one of the different than anybody else? >> pecos firstly can't speak to why. >> i'm not saying why. i am saying because of what is brought after the election they don't have an interest. so, what is it that distinguishes them from anybody else? >> first this is a matter -- >> they aren't declaring that they want the next election so what is their role? >> we are not asking it to be rerun. we are asking the government be

shut down. >> and you're not alleging -- you're not seeing you on this release because you're planning to run next time clocks >> it's to speculate whether mr. drake will run next time. we're you different from anybody else? >> first of all because there is a ruling that is challenging from the federal court. number two -- >> i'm sorry -- was in that somebody challenging -- to make it wasn't a candidate, it was a general citizen this matter could come up again. we could never again in 2012 the issue of mr. obama who's already been cleared for the reelection for the commission running for president and we have the same issue is the eligible --

>> but the other half is incapable of review. it's likely to repeat incapable of review. that wouldn't be incapable of review then somebody with standing could in the course of that election raise the issue if they wanted to. islamic if we want to run this again >> that's been done so far you filed a complaint and the district court challenge standing. that's all we are kuran today. so running it through doesn't seem to be a consideration. the question is on standing. you can't argue that it is in incapable review. that's the only point i'm trying to address. >> i have other requests, your honor.

your honor, i entered this case september 8th after the government filed the motion to dismiss. in the short amount of time i had to prepare and when the motion was dismissed we filed a demotion to be allowed for the proposed second amendment complaint. it is our request if the court is willing to grant remaned we go back and proceed on those issues separate and apart from the other issues. now the issue that was -- one of the main issues was the issue of the political pressure. estimate isn't standing large ackley prior? >> i can deal with that first report is -- >> notwithstanding we don't have a standing. >> it's involved in several issues. one of the most the redress and

the permanent justice -- >> the first is what i need to know. >> it is that my clients, then the independent party and mr. jury who was the vice presidential candidate were not given a level playing field so they could run against a candidate -- >> but didn't file until the election was over, the results were certified and president obama was sworn in. what does that have to do with of the election? >> again, your honor, i will have to defer to the doctor on that. she's the one who filed the complaint and i was brought in for a variety of reasons leader in the process. i came in at the request of dr. gereed and mr. robinson to try to salvage the situation and we wound up with this appeal laughter argument

>> but we don't understand. i mean it still doesn't see why you have a standing. >> and as judge carper pointed out, the ruling and the arguments made the department of justice have great ramifications for the minor parties. i represent a candidate and then chairman of the party and judge carter talked at length and in the transcript stevan further and i argued that some of linked about how a ruling such as this where for whatever reason a minor party cannot challenge simply because they are a minor party. the ability of a major party to perform a candidate that isn't eligible can in fact deprived relevancy and status. >> he was sympathetic to the bristol had the same concern the judge was raising the we are not

in the posture of a campaign. that is not the posture of this case. there is a campaign in which the minor parties feel that they are being unfairly disadvantaged for any number of reasons have in the past and there's no reason they couldn't in the future raise the challenge you're trying to make. you keep saying you are brought in that league and have to deal the hand you're dealt. we have to deal with the hand that exists, you didn't file a claim at the time when the kind of relief the you would be talking about might be plausible but it doesn't do anything for your candidate now. we don't know whether they would run again and 2012, and if they do, and they have the concern that they are expressed now there's nothing to prevent them

from filing a lawsuit at that time when a the circumstances would be accountable to some kind of evidence as to injury and we wouldn't have to speculate but that's what i'm having trouble with. >> i would direct your attention, your honor, to the case from north dakota in which the states and of north dakota after the election, after inauguration, after the governor of north dakota had taken office and was acting as a governor signing legislation, the supreme court would move to office because he didn't qualify, didn't satisfy the recall humans for the state of north dakota. it's the most analogous situation i can come up with. >> but the result of that would be the vice president biden would become president.

>> constitutionally -- >> the clients have no more, quote come a level playing field and they did before because this isn't about an election. >> it's not the constitution -- >> when you are really saying is anybody ought to be able to bring the case and unfortunately that is and the law. i am trying to see how your different than anybody else. it begins on the premise somebody walking down the street doesn't have a standing. estimate they disagree, your honor. they have a fundamental right. >> under the case many years of presidents in the supreme court can anybody bring the case. >> we have had cases on this issue. you're talking about the case that i understanding. we have a situation right now which is unprecedented. we have a man who whether it is true or not arguably is not a

naturally born citizen of the united states and isn't eligible to serve. if we said the election is over basically the people of the united states by a general vote of the majority can amend the constitution without falling the requirements in congress and the three-quarters of the states to do so. >> it isn't quite true. i think the argument, and this gets to the political question, it's not that the people don't have a way to force the constitution, and i don't recall what the north dakota constitution provided by dalia understand the argument this being made is that the constitution of dresses the issue, it has various stages at which the kind of challenge you're making could have been raised or could be raised at the college at that point and under

the 25th or 26 the amendment there are procedures. the question is what is the role of the federal courts? because that's why i asked you just to be clear why i asked you at the beginning what your ultimate relief is because when you want to do is to take an action through the federal court to remove the sitting president and the constitution has provisions that address how a sitting president can be removed from office and that is the difficulty as federal judges of limited jurisdiction we have to abide by. >> first of mr. obama isn't a naturally born citizen, then he never was elected president because he couldn't qualify. some of that is an issue that would be identified or don't with by the congress or arguably perhaps the attorney general.

>> my point is once you have a sitting president you can't impeach. number to call it was the argument in the department of justice that was up to the electoral college or the congress to deal with the issue. number one, 26 states in the district of columbia have laws which have criminal or civil penalties for the electors that do not vote in accordance with the majority of the plurality wishes in that state or district so they have no discretion to challenge. and under which they argue that provides for the challenges by congress to the electors whether they were properly selected. whether the paperwork is submitted by the court. there is no provision for any dealing with eligibility, no provision for anybody with of

the electoral college. so the only recourse is the court otherwise in the article to the requirement for the president are unenforceable and therefore meaningless and that is the result that to me is the concept of the republican form of government. the people have to have a way to challenge somebody when the majority party of the case the democrats and republicans care about the libertarians are the natural law party or whoever it is only weekend and we are not going to be a will to do anything about it because next time there will be republican who isn't eligible. john kane was a subject of lawsuits under his ability. congress held hearings on whether john mccain was eligible, natural born citizen and the actually made it binding that helps in the case we have because the findings as you have

to have to american-born citizens as parents before you can be a natural born citizen, but i mean, this has all been done in the last couple of years but nobody is willing to take it on. nobody's willing to ask the hard questions of him. john mccain says okay, not mr. obama. >> how did the mccain hearings come about? >> the people on the democratic party initiated hearings in the majority party in the senate and the initiative hearings and held hearings of senator mccain and ted olson if i remember correctly. they submitted briefs and the matter was voted on and was made that he was a natural born citizen. >> i recall that. the question is have you sought

to initiate that kind of process? >> through congress? we don't have the right to do that, your honor. only members of congress. >> you don't have a right to petition congress? >> we can petition them but only a member of congress. >> so you're saying that -- nobody pressed them to do that? >> i don't know, your honor. but the ruling by converse was in essence non-binding. it didn't have the weight of the wall. >> i would like to reserve my time if i may. >> thank you, your honor.

>> to start the clock again. each side gets ten minutes. >> ten minutes? >> each gets ten minutes. >> 20 to push a button? i'm sorry. >> it's right below you there. you have it on your podium haven't you? >> one, two, three, go. >> i am representing ambassador alan keyes who actually has unique spending because he ran against mr. obama twice for the

senate in 2004 there were two finalists and if indeed mr. obama as the evidence shows committed fraud and the evidence that we have shows doesn't have a valid social security number he's using a number that was never signed and it doesn't have the original birth certificate he was provided to the public and i believe greatly influenced the country as a whole and somehow influenced air the court in the future proceedings publishing this computer image is of original birth certificate issued in 1961 and issues that it's not, it isn't it true image of the of original birth certificate. it's a very invented computer

art where pieces were taken from different documents, put together and the damage was created. he created this psychological map. he called us [inaudible] and the start of mass hysteria in the media saying we need to go away, get out of the country and so forth the investor has perfect standing and if fraud was committed and mr. obama doesn't have the proper paper he could never become president or become the senator from the state of illinois and investor keyes and president obama were the finalists in that competition in

2004. additionally members of u.s. military. most recently a fellow member was in present to afghanistan and was after his birth certificate he stated why should i show but i would be willing to go if i have a legitimate commander-in-chief and he was denied his right to fair trial, the presiding judge said he cannot bring the issue of eligibility. this high ranking officer is sitting in prison in fort leavenworth. he lost his pension so my clients, some of them are here and are members of u.s. military are greatly concerned that all the evidence shown mr. obama of of being eligible and of him not

having heuvel with service documents or social security number, not having a valid birth certificate or the with educational records sitting in the white house and they are questioning in prison in fort leavenworth just as the gentleman sitting there. lastly, as you know, your honor, there is a member of issues being heard in different states and among them are the health care reform. the states have balanced budget amendments and the need to know whether indeed when they are trying to implement different measures or executive order coming from the white house they want to know they are legitimate when they are implementing those orders in their states'. additionally this case is different from all together cases and as a matter of fact

doesn't even tell why because i try this case on inauguration day and before mr. obama did anything as u.s. president he never filed an answer and we had a an equal hearing on july 13th 2009. now if mr. obama were to file an answer and state will there's a problem with those plaintiffs we would have been arguing spending, however in spite of the fact that he was there for a time during the hearing i had on the issue of default, mr. obama couldn't be the u.s. attorney on his behalf because then it would have shown he served. so he served assistant u.s. attorney and it was a trait that

said well he's here but he's not representing the president, he's representing the united states of america and pressured the judge and me [inaudible] threw him and they refused to do it and judge carter stated on the record well, if you refuse and going to dismiss and it's going to be sitting in the ninth circuit for a year and to allow it to the country to have this case heard on the merit. we are losing due process. you can either give me the judgment or denying. do not pressure me and meet me serve, mr. obama, for the fifth time for the u.s. attorney's office. and the hearing last i think over two hours and repeatedly

pressuring me and he had the new process and violation right for [inaudible] because i was pressured again and this particular instance was an instance of the court exceeding the judicial discretion to read additionally, there was no spending to be there to begin with. he wasn't her% and the plaintiff, he wasn't representing the defendant so he had no standing to argue anything for the case to begin with and there was a judicial discretion and judge parker to go and demand u.s. attorney's whatever part of the case.

additionally, as that was done, judge carter made a deal and stated if you surf the government -- i stood correctly for the role of ease, and the u.s. attorney provided the reconstruction of the statute. he stated that i had [inaudible] the government officials being served in regards to something in their duty. i was serving he committed before he became the president. it wasn't done as part of his duty. it was done for his own benefit. so, and also stating that the reconstruction of the statute

there was an era when judge carter that needs to be overturned, the decision needs to be overturned. and the influence of a federal judge by the u.s. attorney's office or actually by the white house using the u.s. attorney's office and additionally using his own private attorneys pleased to work as a clerk for the presiding judge. it was an partiality for the attorneys so this judge rating in opinion for the judge. i would expect this in the soviet union during wouldn't expectant here. additionally, judge carper wrote the letter that came to enter his chambers and in his final rulings he called for the plaintiff's attorney for the

consideration and to have access to those letters and have a hearing to provide my part of the story. my livelihood was affected, my provisions of the state bar were affected because the judge included in his order letters sent to him directly to his chamber and had no opportunity to respond to read this of the discussion and for all of those reasons, and i'm running out of time, this has to be the decision has to be overturned and i should get my right for the judgment and the discovery of the documents [inaudible] more information. >> thank you very much.

>> may i please the court? the appearance of my counsel assistant u.s. attorney and of myself representing president obama and the other federal defendant. this is a limit to the matter before the courts -- >> where are you from? the u.s. attorney's office. in los angeles, yes. it is a limit to the matter before the courts and unless the court directs otherwise i wouldn't respond outside of the purview that there was no undue influence addressed to anyone and the court is standing and as this is already suggested by the

question the difficulty of course is that these plaintiffs didn't have standing at the time, and not prior standing in the meantime to read the problem is the need to show and this court knows the utter stability, and the dover of those elements standing in the district court alone found can be shown. >> is there and nobody that brings this case or a case like it, a case challenging the qualifications that the president before or after the election, not before? >> in the obstruct, i think there are certainly if they acquire in the court limited jurisdiction i would hypothetically think of some instance of a person who might be able to bring the case. the first person that comes to mind is as the honor suggested a

candidate and has also suggested we don't have any candidate in this case. by the time this case was brought, but the election had been run, the president certified as the president-elect and the president had been inaugurated and that is when the case was filed. not here. the time for a challenging somebody on the ballot have launched. >> and first of all, i gather that if we accept your standing arguments we don't get to political question. >> i think that is the correct timing, your honor, yes. >> and if a case like this were brought before the election would there be a political question problem? >> there could be. i don't believe a case has been -- >> not sitting president, if you have a challenge to a candidate i assume there wouldn't be a political question at that

point. >> somebody running for office declares 23-years-old or what the president has to be 35 commesso 33-years-old nobody disputes that but nobody acts. would you say somebody would have standing to challenge that? >> depends on the timing. during the campaign i think that a candidate would have standing -- >> and it wouldn't be a political question. >> ready date candidate can challenge the qualification of another candidate assuming of course that that candidate does so in a timely manner that there is enough time and has the case like that and the court can act promptly and swiftly when it is necessary assuming that is the employer to the election in the enough time the court

[inaudible] with the other candidates try this court. >> not like the chicago mayor's race when the residency f. rahm emanuel was much in dispute so there would be the kind of timing that a candidate could challenge the qualifications of the opponent's? >> that's correct. a series of cases in challenging qualifications of the candidates during the course of the election and i would submit others kantrowitz about what and other qualifications that of course didn't happen here and to the other point about vv dress ability, the effect that they would have visit the district court were to ever get that far to the revisory and to say if the district court doesn't have

the power once the president has been declared the winner -- semidey would be nice and difficult question but not decided before the election. estimate and of course the timing as much the longer the you go back in time the crew to the likelihood of the standing might be. >> so there might be is a region which you wouldn't have a decision on the eligibility until after the election and the would be a sort of hard and difficult question but it's not -- >> that's correct on both issues, your honor. it's possible to think for a difficult issues and number two, that is certainly not the issue before the court. >> the limited's jurisdiction curtis -- the plaintiffs have standing and of course they came in this case and charlatan

standing in the district court found lack of injury in fact and the redress of devotee. amid the determination was a political question of termination and doesn't seem necessary. >> i think the court could have reached the issue in fact quite frankly didn't the opinion below never reaches the conclusion that there were candidates involved. is simply stops the analysis and says that according para freezing from the district court opinion that the only one with any potential standing with the political candidates to sort of stop that. i think another step in the logical process would have been to say but of course these were not political candidates of the time the complaint was brought.

the court later time is that the end and then goes on to talk about redress of devotee as a means of establishing what i think it's fair to say even if the court over the fact that there is still no redress ability. >> if we did need to get near the political question, i was a little concerned about you tried to point to the context will of commitments in the constitution to other branches, but there are a little vague are they not and what provisions of the constitution do you think are permitting the eligibility determinations of an officer of a candidate or an officer? a natural official to congress coming electoral college or someone else? >> right. will it isn't that a general,

your honor. it's the sitting president. and it's worth noting because the commitment to the house is that a body as though sold under the constitution to impeach. >> wouldn't it the high crime misdemeanor? we are in the era of no case law but i do know that if the constitution says the the only body that can be moved the sitting president is the congress in both houses -- >> where does it say that? >> you did accurately see impeachment, the house says that the house has the sole responsibility to impeach, the scent believe kucinich has the sole responsibility to convict,

antonakes in case the united states supreme court has cautioned the courts to allow the impeachment proceedings as a quintessential nonjudicial elephant in a way because of this with the senate has the responsibility to do. >> if someone discovers the candidate for president is under age or not a citizen and they discover three days before the election and they don't get to file the suit because there's no time. if it filed in had known earlier , then the judicial branch would be the arbiters of

the qualification and defining what it means to be a natural born or how you measure the age or whatever. is that correct? >> i don't want to speculate, your honor, but i do acknowledge that courts to know how to act quickly and even three days before the election -- >> dalia understand that they might have been able. i'm just saying assuming they couldn't so the fact of the alleged fact, the disqualification was discovered at a time they were not able to bring it to federal court. if the had earlier, the federal court would have been able to put the operative event becomes once the president is sworn in and becomes the president-elect, the ability to deal with the situation, the jurisdiction of

ul and of the constitution shifts to congress and congress not only has the jurisdiction to decide what to do, but also to decide the interpretive issue of what the constitution means by being a natural born or other kind of citizen. that's where the shift occurs from and in the course of deciding whether to impeach or exercising authority under article 25 perhaps or the 25th amendment rather, that interpretive process authority would be in the hands of the congress. >> i will submit that is very accurate of our understanding of the constitution, your honor. but the opportunities and is the election psp mcginn you're saying they're for -- therefore

if the court had -- if they filed as we did hear that after the president was sworn in the court would have no role as a matter of declaratory relief only use it would be in a phrase real opinion. sprigg there would be no need to enforce because the court would after destruction and the suggestion the declare a prejudgment admitted to the congress i don't think that europe reflects how the system works. there is no means by which the courts would enforce, and at that point because the election had already passed it then devolves on to congress to establish how to take appropriate action which as we

point out in the brief both houses of congress have embraced both as standing committee on eligibility and i will also submit the suggestion about the senate resolution. >> eligibility is -- there's a and amendment that seems to deal directly with the qualification question but there's another worker we haven't talked about which is between the election and the inauguration, and that amendment seems to deal with that. islamic and once again, it supports our view that it devolves responsibility to congress. islamic doesn't say who is on the qualifications, it says congress can provide the case where neither the president elect or vice president shall qualify but it doesn't say declaring who should act as

president but it doesn't say who decides that. >> it doesn't say that. it says if there's a difficulty to decide by law what shall happen if either one shall qualify but it doesn't say who decides whether they qualify. >> but congress decides by law. they would pass the mall determining who the correct president was in that even it was determined the president-elect was unfit or ineligible or not qualified. >> these are interesting questions and i don't mean in any way to discourage them, but i don't will of the answers other than to say that i do know that is not the case before the court. that these individuals were not candidates and these individuals accordingly didn't have standing

>> if there is no other question from the support i would submit and i thank the court. >> thank you. >> [inaudible conversations] >> you're out of order right now. we have a gentleman appear ready to speak. he's got two minutes and 41 seconds. you can share a minute or so if you want. >> i listened with great interest part of the comments is

acting as a judicial body making determinations as to who is eligible and who is not whereas in the argument of the court he also talked about the idea of richard to the deciding who is eligible and that is how we get back into the problem of the minor parties. we have the republicans and democrats. we have independence in congress and they are powerless except in a close vote to make any difference whatsoever. so the courts need to be involved in this and need to take a stand to enforce constitutions. regarding the political question, it is our argument that when eligibility isn't a judgment and policy decision as is required to the political question. it is a yes or no answer to a question. if someone is eligible to the system or is that person not

eligible. so little respect it isn't a political question. with regard to the court involvement in the cases such as this it's very limited, but we submitted the case that went away to the united states supreme court which refused to hear the averment of the california rulings which stated that the secretary of state had the right to move someone from the ballot read by the time this got to be done it was post election nights understand that they formed the right in the state of california in the case -- >> just because the inherent the case doesn't mean anything. >> [inaudible] >> plenty of work. >> your honor, and the work they

do. sitting and thinking while he was making his presentation it occurs to me, and i don't have the experience that you do but if in the constitutional law for 35 years that another reason as lived among other instances premature because we can't reach out to these elections if you reach out to them speak to one of the questions of what the change point is where the key changes and it's that. i would respectfully suggest my time is up and i apologize that, the case resubmitted where there is a discussion of the problem with of the elected bodies making a determination as to who is allowed to run for what in the sense of on going and political campaigns and i thank your honor for your time. >> thank you very much.

>> [inaudible] >> you use your time. >> know why didn't -- [inaudible conversations] >> okay, go ahead. >> just to add -- >> i've got my timekeeper over here. >> [inaudible] >> well, you have 20 minutes to divide between the two of you. >> he didn't speak for 18 minutes. when he started speaking he spoke for ten minutes. anyway, what is important here is my client investor keyes, was the presidential candidate running against mr. obama.

additionally, we will tell congress and during the hearings in the district court letters from a number of senators specifically i recall the letter from senator sessions stating that the senate cannot decide the issue of fraud whether it was committed for the forces to decide and specifically stated that they want to abstain because they are not a court of law. they can hold these issues and -- >> when did you submit those? is it after the election or before? >> well, before -- >> when were dosimeters the firming to the court? was it before or after the election? ..

>> part of the military. so we did go and we -- we tried each and every avenue. we exhausted each and every avenue, reaching chairman, we went to congress, we went to senate, and after it's the courts to decide. the senate cannot value as evidence. we cannot say if the birth

certificate or valid or forgery. that's up to the judge to decide. that's why i'm asking to over turn this decision and give me an opportunity to try to escape on merit and obtain proper evidence. and then submit is to congress. >> listen, we have or argument well in hand. okay. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> and we will now adjourn until tomorrow morning at 9:00. thank you for your testimony. >> all rise. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> tonight on c-span2, former new york mayor rudy giuliani

talks about u.s. foreign policy. greg crawford -- >> now remarks by rudy giuliani, and republican national chairman

reince priebus. this is an hour and 20 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, this is my pressure to introduce as often a person that needs no introduction, but perhaps a little information anyway. many of you may not realize that he is born not in manhattan, but born in brooklyn. and somewhere during his formative years, he became a serious yankee fan. [laughter] >> which i suspect growing up in brooklyn might be the cause for some other kind of award. but this isn't the day for that. born in brooklyn, went to nyu school. less you think the new york bona fide are not real. when ronald reagan became

president, rudy became an associate attorney general. and much to the surprise of some folks, went back to new york city to become u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york. and while it may have been a surprise to some people, and rudy and i did not know each other at that time as i look back on the career, i realize that my guess is what he was doing was going home to do something -- some things for his city that seriously needed doing. he was -- he tried the mafia commission trials, which began to get new york out of the clutches of some people who certainly were doing it no favors. he ran for mayor the first time in 1989. he took -- he said at that time that if david dinkins won, it was going to be more of the same. well, he was 100% right. it was more in the same.

perhaps even worse than before. rudy not being a quitter became back four years later. that time in a landslide, lost the first time by 47,000 votes, i think, or something like that out of two million casts. came back the next time and won it by better than 50,000. 53 my numbers tell me. he then became the first mayor of new york, i believe, ever to reduce taxes. [laughter] >> and then seeing that worked pretty well, he did it 22 more times. and put new york on the road to recovery. i've spent over the course of a life thyme, quite a bit of time in new york. i will tell you, mayor, that in the early days in the 60s and 70s when i went to new york, it was my intention to leave as

soon as i could get out. i noticed after rudy was mayor for a short period of time, he made a big difference. it has never looked back. much thanks to him. there is more to the law than being an academic, being an good intellectual. part of the important thing about the law is how you use it. and the reason that new york became as good as it is is because rudy knew how to use the law. the squeege men come to mind. there used to be people that came out of lincoln square and wiped your wind shield.

you didn't tell them not to because god only knew. he said arrest them. that's using the law within the confines of the law. he's good at that. so we have today a meese award winner who is deserving of the award which mr. mayor is the highest that we give. it is our pleasure to present it to you. i want to read the precise description of the meese award. it's something that cannot improved by ad libbing or shoty memories like my. the rnc ed meese award is presented to a republican leader in accomplishment or leadership for our country. this award recognizes those leaders who protect freedom and the rule of law while upholding republican ideals in the face of

adverse political challenges. mayor, it is my honor to present you with this award. it's my pleasure to be here. [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] >> thank you, thank you very much, david, for that award. it means a great deal to me. i had tremendous admiration for david and the the contributions to the republican party and got health and correct direction of our country, our enormous and

it's a great honor to receive the award from you and to be with all of these republican lawyers. there are more republicans in this room than in all of new york city. i was the first republican elected mayor of new york city in 25 years. i was the first one to remain a republican in 50. [laughter] >> that gives you a sense of how tough it is to be a republican in new york. my predecessor republican changed parties while he was mayor and my successor republican changes parties about two years ago. so i don't know who i go back to. for example, this is a city that didn't vote for abraham lincoln. you get an idea of how democratic -- how democratic it is. but i love being a republican mayor of new york city.

because i got accused once of appointing too many republicans. well, i appointed all six republicans in new york city. [laughter] >> i couldn't possibility have appointmented too many republicans. i couldn't find any. but i used a republican approach to governing. you are commemorating and we should reduce government and get government spending under control. i learned that and the president appointed me as associate attorney general. before i was appointed, after i was designated and went through the completed, i had breakfast with 19 other people and president reagan and got to know

him. he was the day that he was almost assassinated. i have a picture of my shaking hands with ronald reagan that morning and of course a few hours later he was shot. i spent the rest of the day trying to get hinkley out of the hands of the washington metropolitan and turned over to the fbi. because we were very worried that maybe something would happen to him. the idea of lee harvey oswald and what happened to him was very fresh in the attorney's memory. and the idea decided he believed that hinkley had to be arraigned in open court before the end of the day. and along with judge webster, who was the head of the fbi at the time. we had to clear out the courthouse, check it out, make sure there was nobody there, then reestablish the number of people that went in. and about 11 at night, we had the arraignment in court in the

federal courthouse here. and it was a very strange day having had breakfast early in the morning with president reagan and their being in court with his attempted assassin. and i always wondered if god forbid he has been successful, what would have happened to the future of the country. i'm bias of president reagan having worked for him, and associate general and united states attorney, and i do believe he was the most controversial president since reagan. he had the impact of changing the united states and changes the world. liberation of millions of people. most presidents don't get to liberate millions of people. ronald reagan did because he had such a firm strong view on how to deal with communism which a lot clearer and easier to

understand than his predecessors. he had the conviction that communism was evil, which he wasn't afraid to say, and huh to confront it rather than negotiate with it. and the prior thinking about communism was we should live with it, we could work with it. let's coexist. we found the idea of coexistence with an ideology and a practice that enslaved millions and millions of people, and that also, by the way, had them in possession of nuclear weapons which could be used to destroy the world but that was just an unacceptable condition for the world. found the idea of nuclear destroyed construction insane. you keep the peace based on the theory that either one of you can destroy the world. therefor, neither one of you will, unless either one of you can controlled by a maniac. in which, you might destroy the

world. ronald reagan every day had the desire to defeat. if you look at the decision that is he made, some of the courageous unpopular decisions that he made, i believe that is the thing that finally ended the soviet union, brought down the berlin wall, and creates freedom and the possibility of freedom that millions didn't have before. most presidents don't get to do that. that would not have happened with somebody else e lekked president in 1980. whether it was the reelection of jimmy carter, or even if some other republican, because there were very few republicans at that point that had that kind of determined view of how to deal with communism. and his view on the economy was equally strong. and he reordered our economy. we're still reacting to the ideas that ronald reagan first promulgated when he ran for governor, when he ran for president in '76, and '80.

we are still debating them. how large should government be. should the approach be a government directed or private sector approach. ronald reagan found the size of government ridiculously large. he was a new deal democratic who converted to republicanism because he thought the new deal and then finally the great society went so far that it had become counterproductive. people were being locked into poverty. as opposed to given -- giving a road out of poverty. and he did everything that he could to change that. which he did during his administration by lowering taxes, beginning all of the ideas that eventually led to welfare reform, changing the way in which government reacted with the economy, moving us much closer to a free market economy, and he did something else that we badly need today in

remembering ronald reagan. all of that led to a resurgence of american exceptionalism. of american pride, of the idea that we weren't at the end of the american empire. and the late 1970s, you can go back and look, a lot of books were written, a lot of articles, and a lot of speeches were given about how america was kind of out of gas. it had run the idea. we were a country of limited possibilities. sound familiar; right? some people believe that today. in fact, some of them are running america today. the gas that we're either no better than anyone else, we're just another country with our

set of problems and our set of assets, or maybe we're not even as good as others. and ronald reagan found that to be totally wrong. not a correct view of this country. and he changed in a very short period of time how we felt about ourselves. and do you knowing? -- do you know something, that's the most important thing a leader does. the thing i'm proud of being mayor of new york city is not reducing crime, which i'm proud of, or changing welfare, moved 6,000 people off of welfare, most of them to work. changing the tax system or surpluses, all of those were building blocks in something much bigger than that. when i became mayor, "the new york times" took a poll. the poll said something like 68% of the people in new york city don't want to live in new york

city. they want to live somewhere else. about 65% of the people in new york city thought new york city was going in the wrong direction. that is the most disturbing thing that can possibly happen. because it means that people have started to lose hope. when people start to lose hope, they don't create great things. i felt what i wanted to do was to change that. and by the time i left office, we had a new york city in which roughly the opposite of that. 70% wanted to be there, and liked being there, and 70% thought new york city was going in the right direction. and not the wrong direction. and i often think that in new york city, the depressed attitude that we had in the early '90s would have had a much harder time over coming as quickly the tremendous damage done to us by the attacks of september 11. and it helped new york city that when we were attacked, we were a strong city, confident city,

optimistic city, city that believes that our best days for ahead of us. so the attack was a temporary interruption of that feeling and the city was able to get back on track very, very quickly. most important thing that a mayor or governor or president can do is to reestablish people's belief in themselves. because ultimately, they -- they are the ones who create things, they are the ones who do things, they are the ones who produce jobs, they are the ones who invent great medicines or tremendous technologies or the government either hinders that, or it steps aside and encourages it. and ronald reagan understood that. this country needs that right now. we need to be reminded that america's best days are not behind us, they are ahead of us. there's every reason to believe that and prediction that. that's not at all in the rational prediction. we're still the strongest

economy on earth, we're still the country that produces the most ideas and the most processes and the most new ways of dealing with information. we're still the country that has the most altruistic attitude of any country in the world. just think of the wars that we fought over the last century. it has to be the first time in the history of the world that a big country like ours sent hundreds of thousands of its young people to die not to create an empire. not to expand their control of the world. and there were great empires before. roman, british empire. but those empires were created for the benefit of rome and for the benefit of england. what was america doing in the first world war? trying to make the world safe for democracy. what was america doing in the second world war? trying to save the world from

nazism and fascism. what was network doing in vietnam. whether people agree or disagree, what was the motivation for vietnam? to save people from the spread of communism? what is america now doing in the middle east? and specifically, as we speak, right now in the libya. we're not conducting the thing that is we're doing the things we're doing in iraq and afghanistan and libya in order to spread the american empire. the only one that i can think of who has any thoughts like that is donald trump. who wants to -- [laughter] >> not that i totally disagree. wants us to take some of the oil to pay the bills for the trillion dollars that we've spent. there's a certain logic to that; right? that hadn't been the way in our country.

that's a very unusual, exceptional thing for a country to do. i can't think of another country that's ever done that before. country that actually worries about the condition of other people. and gives up lives in order to help other people and make the world a safer place for them because we recognize ultimately here's how it benefits us. it makes a safer world for us. and if you look at what's happened in the last six months, whether it's in tunisia or egypt, or libya, or syria, or i'm sure within iran. the whole set of values that america stands for are now the set of values that these people are demonstrating for. our protesting about. are demanding, are revolting for, and in some cases, they don't completely understand it, in some cases, it's not the full version of what we mean by

democracy. but the reality is somewhere deep in their hearts, they've seen other people live in freedom. they've seen the benefits of what other people get living in freedom, and they are saying why not us? why can't we have the freedom. why can't we have that kind of control over our own lives? why can't we have the ability to have something to say about the way we spend our money. why can't we own property? couldn't possibly be a better time for the ascendants of american ideas and ideals. a couple of years ago when president bush said this, this was a great deep of skepticism about this. supporting freedom throughout the world. how can america do that and participate in that? freedom and democracy are insist with the muslim world, middle east, other parts of the world.

president bush understood that isn't the case. freedom and democracy aren't limited to religion and regions of the world. they are desires that exist within the human heart and within the human soul and within the human brain. the human design -- desire is to have more control. in order to release that, you have to see examples. you have to see it's possible. of course the internet and information revolution that we live through now makes that information available to everyone. make no mistake about it, everyone in the middle east, it is creating in them the same questions that it created in egypt. why do we live in oppression, why do we live without a system of law that protects us, why don't we determine how many

children we have? rather than the government decide that for us? what do these things pretend? they show for us a future in which more and more countries in the world, more and more places in the world are going to see the american model as the model they want for themselves. it doesn't mean it'll be a straight line in that instruction. in many of these cases, there will be detours along the way. it is quite possible that in these revolutions that we have going on, we're going to have situations like we saw in iran. it's not going to happen anywhere. long term improvement. but the general thrust of the whole process is in our direction. and instead of worrying about

whether america -- america is going to be the preeminent power in the world, the question that we should ask ourselves is if america doesn't lead the world, who will? who will do it as well as america? there is nothing arrogant about that. there is nothing to be embarrassed about saying that. that's just a simple reality. would the world be better with china leading the world? would america be better with some of these country that is are still struggling with the idea of rule of law, freedom, democracy leading the world? that has the altruistic motivation that is we have. doesn't mean we are perfect or doesn't make terrible mistakes. in the world of human affairs, this is about as good as it

gets. first we have to believe it, we have to present it to the world in the right way, not arrogantly, not in a superior way. almost with a sense of humility. none of us deserve what we have in america. we are lucky to have it. most of the people that have lived on this earth have not had what we have. the opportunity that is we have, the help that we have, the rights that we have, the possibilities that we have. it's our obligation, it seems to me, to try to share that with the rest of the world. it's our obligation to ourselves and our children to do that because it is quite correct that if this world were made up of countries that were all democracies, a rule of law, that's the way we would end war. democracies don't go to war with each other. full fledge democracies don't go to war with each other. they debate each other.

they argue with each other. they have treaty negotiations with each other, and sometimes they get real angry with each other, like when we ban french fries from the united states congress. [laughter] >> remember? but we didn't go to war with france. we banned french fries. okay. we can deal with banning french fries, or if they want to ban pizza. no, can't ban pizza. my grandmother would turn over in her grave if they banned pizza. [laughter] >> the reality is that is a correct view of what an american can contribute. and it is absolutely correct thing for america to offer that to the world. it doesn't mean we can intervene all the time. it doesn't mean that we have the resources to intervene all the time. it does mean we can always help. you can help the spread of freedom and democracy without intervening militarily.

sometimes you have to. that would be the rare occasion. we didn't have to intervene militarily in poland. but poland is now free. how do we do that? we did it by supporting their movement. by giving them moral support, other forms of support, by giving them information, ideas, by being on their side. that's what we should be doing in iran today. it is inconsistent to me that we would call for the ouster of gadhafi, who surely has to go, and not call for the ouster of ahmadinejad. gadhafi is a bad dictator. he's horrible. he doesn't pose the threat to the united states of america that iran poses. gadhafi is basically a neutered foreign leader. he does terrible things to his

own people. all of which are unacceptable. but the risk that he presents to the united states is not like assad, or ahmadinejad present. and if we are going toking calling for regime changes around the world and in certain places, why not remove some of the most unfriendly dictators while we're trying to do that and not just see the ones that are partially friendly, or somewhat neutered get removed without taking advantage of that movement to drive out a power, some of those that are truly dangerous to us. [applause] [applause] it could seem to me one the things missing for america is a clear vision of what our foreign policy would be with regard to all of the movements. it would be very simple to state what the foreign policies should be.

we should support freedom all over the country. with everything that we can possibly think of with military intervention. then we should intervene with horrible things are happening in the country and that also presents a danger to the united states of america. that second element has to be present. otherwise we'll be intervening, you know, in 1/3 of the world, or 1/4 of the world. and the confusion that this administration has shown over the last four or five months about egypt and about libya comes about because they don't have a clear vision like ronald reagan had, of what they want to achieve and why. when they get into the situations, they don't have a clear philosophy or vision to turn back on that helps them through failuring it out, and how to do it. you can see it with mubarak; right? demonstrations start in egypt. the first thing we announce is

mubarak is stable. the vice president says to mubarak is not a dictator. that was all announced, i think in the first two or three days. and our policies at that point was we're going to keep mubarak there. because we're afraid of what might replace them. then things got worse. pressure grew. and the policy change from mubarak is stable, mubarak is not a dictator to mubarak must go. without thinking out what might replace mubarak, and without knowing what might replace mubarak. it seems as if the policy was being made on the fly, rather than some kind of a superimposed policy that everyone can understand being used to try to guide us through that situation. then we come to libya. and that starts off very much the same way. demonstrations start in libya. the rebellion begins, and the

first reaction was we're not going to intervene. we're not going to intervene, because although gadhafi is terrible and does terrible thing, there is no clear and present danger to the united states posed by a gadhafi. by libya. then as tensions mount, as the arab league decides that gadhafi must go, the president announces that gadhafi must go. but the president hasn't thought out what the implications of that are. and a couple weeks go by as the president is trying to decide whether to join no fly zone that france, england, arab league, and the united nations alln't. finally we join the no-fly zone. we still with all of that don't have a policy that makes any sense. actually we have a policy that contradicts itself. which is why it's hard for the

nato allies to follow us. we're not leading. here's our policy. we have intervened with libya with a no fly zone to protect the people of libya, particularly the civilian population in libya. but we're not in favor of regime change. we're not going to remove gadhafi. that may happen. but we're not going to do that. now what are we protecting the people of libya from? if it isn't from gadhafi? we're not protecting them from tornadoes. or storms. or some foreign almosts that might come to libya. we're protecting them from gadhafi. so how can you possibly resolve this? how can you possiblely end it? follow it and make decisions about it. if we are there to protect the

people of libya, we can only succeed by doing what we say we're not going to do, which is remove gadhafi. the only possible way to protect the people of libya is remove the gadhafi. he's the danger. our policy is to protect them and not remove. nobody can understand this. i think there are two -- there would have been two acceptable decisions about libya. decision number one would have been not to intervene on the theory that although it was horrible and terrible and awful what he was doing to his people, this is not directly endangering the united states of america. the way assad and ahmadinejad directly endangerrered the united states and have participated in helping to get americans killed in iraq. the second decision could have been that because of the location of libya, being in the middle east, because the middle east is such a tinker box, and because gadhafi was engaging in

such brutal action that could end up encouraging others to do the same thing, it was necessary for the united states to intervene. then we should intervene for the purpose of removing him. and not intervene with this totally contradictory policy that make it is hard to figure out what are we going to do next? this is the failure of lack of vision. lack of being willing to set forth a goal that people can understand, and that you are going to have to follow. and this was the greatness really of ronald reagan. because his vision was clear, he could articulate it. sometimes you can't always achieve every goal that you want. when you state it, people know what to rally around. they know how to agree and disagree with you. and we're going to face many of these questions in the next five or six or ten years. because this movement is not stopping.

it is not under our control. it shouldn't be. this is happening in the hearts and minds and souls of individual people. and with the information revolution we're going through, this is going to spread throughout the world. what you see in libya, you will see in china. there are six or 700 million people in china living in poverty. and exactly why we're so afraid of china, i can't figure out. i mean the idea that china will have the preeminent economy by 2016 can only come about if we do everything wrong. right now we're doing a pretty good job of that. [laughter] >> but if we do everything wrong, then china will somehow become the preeminent economy. but china has to answer a question that nobody in the history of humanity has ever answered yet. somehow between now and 2016, they are going to have to move 6 or 700 million people out of blinding, horrible poverty which is unknown to anyone in the

united states. and they are going to have continue to have their economy grow at 8 and 10% to solve the problem. china's economy is built on a false foundation. it's build on a foundation of hundreds of millions of people living in poverty. if we wanted to take half of this country or for -- or 2/3 of the country and allow them to live in the poverty, we would have a gdp that would be three times the size, expect concentrated on the hands of a few people. china is going to have to over come that. going to have to deal with the contradiction of being a free market and political system. they don't know the answer to it yet. that answer maybe superimposed on them. that's a tremendous challenge to have to go through. so america should deal with

china, america should have relations with china, america should try to help guide china in the right direction. but we shouldn't sit here being frightening of them. because there's no reason for that. so i really think this next election in 2014 is going to be about whether we can give ourselves the chance of another renaissance for america. a chance of reawakening america, inspires us to lead, rather than follow, being proud of ourselves for the things that with good about us, and do what we always do, we correct ourselves. there's another way in which america has been exceptional. america has the society in the history of the world at self-correcting. we recognize sometimes a little late but always the injustices and the bad things that we're doing and straighten them out. we haven't had to have somebody else come here and straighten us out in all of the years that

we've been a republic. because we have a system that's self-corrects. and there's no reason why we can't do that again and we do that in the best way human beings ever figured out how to do it. we do it by conducting elections and by conducting elections that are as fair as you can possibly make them. and you help us do that. that's why i love the work that republican lawyers do. you hope us make sure the elections are fair and honest, and i will conclude with one story about the election that i lost in 1989. about four or five days before the election. when i knew it would be very close. i asked one of my political mentors in a very experienced new york city political figure. i said to him, how many votes do we have to win by to over come the cheating? [laughter] >> of course, there used to be a

lot of cheating in new york city. it wasn't quite like chicago. but it was pretty bad. he said about 50,000 votes. we're probably going to have to win by 50,000 votes to win and make up for all of the precincts in which we don't have poll watches. they won't let poll watchers to make up for all of the dead people that vote. that's something i never -- always felt very inadequate. every time i ran my democratic opponent had a much greater ability to appeal to dead people than i did. we had an entire cemetery vote in queens. it was amazing. they said 50,000 votes. i lost by 47,000 as david said. and i mean -- that was the era before the 2000 election when you followed the rule of richard nixon, which is you don't contest elections. they get -- however they get decided at the ballot box, you

leave them alone. i was a catcher in baseball. i got thrown out of too many games when the umpire didn't change his mind to contest the election. but the react -- the reality is the second time we ran, we organized 3,000 lawyers who went to every polling site in the city along with about 3,000 firefighters and correction officers who volunteered. sometimes the lawyers were afraid to go. look, lawyers are very smart. but firefighters and correction officers have a much bigger impact when a big bus of illegal voters show up who are now voting for the first time that day and because they are in contact with each other, they remember seeing them at one precinct and then another. when the firefighters and the

correction officers go up and say, aren't you the same people that voted two hours ago in another precinct? somehow the bus turns around and goes the other way. because of that, you know, at least we felt we got an honest result the second time around. that reality goes on, you know, in america. it's not correct. it's not right. it's awful. i'm sure there are times in which republicans cheat too. republicans aren't free of advise. it's pretty much equal amount of virtual and vice that goes around. republicans don't control big cities. that's where you can get away with it much more than in rural areas and where it makes a bigger difference because the gross vote is higher. we need you. we need in the next election that's coming up. because i believe the next election will really set the direction of america for a very, very long time if we don't get it right. i thank you very, very much for

all that you do. i'd be happy to take any questions that you had. [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] >> host: speaking of -- want to wait for the mike please? get a microphone. >> excuse me. >> speaking of presidential elections and the necessity of beating obama, and as a giuliani support in the last election, is there any possibility that you would consider a run? [laughter] [laughter] >> well, sure. but not right now. i enjoy the debate last night so much -- i'm kidding.

i will sure think about it. but not yet. it's too early. i want to see how it all develops. and my major goal is to elect a republican in 2012. and if it turns out i'm the best one to do that, then i could probably be talked into doing it, or convince myself. if i thought somebody else had a better chance, i would be an enthusiastic supporter of somebody else. let's see how it all develops. and luckily, this is developing much later than last time. so we'll be able to make a decision about that closer in time to when the election takes place. i believe in 2007, by this time we had 12 republican candidates, i had lunch today with john mccain. he and i ran against each other last time. we were very good friends. we came out of it very good friends. and i once announced during one debates if i wasn't running i'd be supporting him.

my staff got very angry when i said that. but the reality is that in 2007 we were debating issues that ultimately had no relevance to the election in 2008. it was so -- our debates were about immigration, they were about stem cell research, they were about just a whole host of issues, very little about the economy. i went through, i think, 11 debates. i may have been asked five questions about the economy. a lot of questions about iraq. as you would imagine. that's the time that the president first decided on the surge and the democrats were in favor. republicans were mostly in favor of the surge, but not everyone. the election turned out to be decided on the economy and we hadn't debate that had at all. we had been asked very few questions about it. certainly we didn't conduct our

primary around who would be the best candidate to guide our economy? that wasn't even a thought on our minds. i think this year, it's developing later probably will help. and we'll get a better idea of who can be the best candidate in the general election. and we're going to have to do that. you have to win general elections. you can't just win primaries. >> mayor? >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> we are now fortunate, the icing on the cake as it were, we have with us to my right i see the current chairman of the republican national committee. a man who i've come to know over the last couple of years very well. a man who made a very hard decision, frankly, when we decided to run for chairman this

time. fortunately for all of us, he made the right decision. he man a vigorous forthright campaign led for every ballot. the day that he took office, he began to repair what needed to be repaired. certainly not the donors, reince priebus did that. i know he has already accomplished much that. and i know giving -- given his tireless effort and his abilities, i should say that when he ran for the chairmanship, he was chairman of

the state party of wisconsin. and i think all of us can be rightly proud of wisconsin in its most recent supreme court election, the election of a freshman senator, and the election of a very vigorous governor who's doing the things that we very much need to have done. all of that happened on the watch of chairman reince priebus. i would be appreciative, mr. chairman, if you could join me and tell us how you are going to do it next. [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] >> well, good afternoon. i hope to try to keep remashes brief. but i did want to thank colitta,

and the mayor, jc, l.a. for having me this afternoon. but i do have to say to david, a person who i think is really led the rnc through many years, obviously, four years as general council, and really just a life council really to the rnc and to me, i appreciate him. he checks in often, finds out what's going on, gives me advice. i appreciate people like that that take you under the wing and are the statesman to our party. thank you, david. >> [applause] [applause] [applause] >> well, it's true. my name is reince priebus. i know it's bizarre. i can promise you i'm about as normal as i come. my son's name is jack, my

daughter is grace, and i got reinec. that's what happens when a greek and german get married. it's a cultural disaster. in fact, this is how bad -- i had -- around i had a lapel pin once. i was at a fundraiser in orlando. you might have known i have to do a lot of stuff right now. someone pulled my lapel sticker off, look at this, if you take the vowels out of the name, first name you get rnc, and last name, it gets better, prbs. obviously, the cheeseheads have had a good run. and we won't talk about the packers. certainly later on i'm going to mention a few of those cheese

heads as i walk through some short remarks for you today. it's obviously great to be back with you. i was here in grand rapids when you had your meeting a year ago. today you are celebrating ronald reagan's 100th birthday. it's obviously an attorney to be here alongside of america's mayor, mayor giuliani. renowned lawyer himself. he had one the favorite lines in the 2008 campaign when he said i like fred thompson. he plays me on tv. [laughter] >> well, i know how dedicated the group is to voter integrity. [laughter] >> i know how important you are ensuring voter integrity and that our elections are fair. all of you are familiar with the election laws in wisconsin because they are the test case of how bad elections can be run. but with our new governor, scott

walker, i think we're ready to change that. [laughter] [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] >> i can tell you as chairman of the party, you've always done a great job of sending us the best and the brightest into our state, assisting efforts in wisconsin, making sure that we can do everything that we possibly could do to help run our elections fairly and as accurately as possible. ronald reagan obviously is your honoree today for your meeting. he charmed us with his humor and blessed us with his leadership. my task as chairman of that party is to help elect a republican president who shares ronald reagan's vision, his vision of an america that removes the government's intrusive obstacles to community, and america build on principal and purpose and an american that is strong, safe, and free.

that is the america ronald reagan created. and i fear that is the america that we are losing with each passing day under our president barack obama. [applause] >> that's what i want to talk to you a little bit about today. there's no doubt about it, the president is a gifted politician. but good politics do not inherently yield good policies. good speeches does not create jobs. and winning debates does not mean you are winning the future. the president says that he wants an america to live within its means. the president says we need to produce the deficit and address the debt ceiling. the president says that we need to reduce wasteful washington spending. i agree.

we all agree. in this debate in washington, the president has said a lot of things. but here's the problem. the results don't match the rhetoric. the president says and he says and he says but this is what we've seen. every day washington borrows roughly $4.5 million just to pay it's bills. 43 cents on every dollar spent in america is borrowed. when my children are my age, get this, when my son jack who is 6 is my age, we will spent 43 cents on every dollar made in america to run the federal government. and the past two years, nondefense discretionary spending has increased almost 25%. now how many families in america

have had their own personal budgets increased 25%? total federal spending as a percentage to gdp will rise from roughly 25% of where it is today to 40% 30 years from now in 2040. and if we do nothing, we stay on the current trajectory, give peaches, ignore reality, in 2040, our national debt will equal twice, twice the size of our entire economy. and that is the economic definition of bankruptcy. and on top of it all, medicare itself will be bankrupt in nine years. this is america. this is the greatest nation the world has ever known and it is a nation that is going broke. as a matter of principal, a governor that loses it's

sovereignty to it's bondholders cannot possibly guarantee prosperity or freedom. a government that buries the next generation under an avalanche of debt cannot claim any vestage of the moral high ground. and a government that's stifles economic growth with accessive taxation, litigation, and regulation cannot create a competitive climate for economic expansion. : is controlled by china cannot possibly compete with china. [applause] the facts are as staggering as they are unsustainable, and they constitute more than just a political case against president obama. they tews --

constitute an economic case against president obama. make no mistake, the battle we are in is more than just financial. the battle that we're in is the fundamental battle about freedom, opportunity, and self-determination. ask yourself, do you think that we're winning the future? for the first time in many years, more americans believe that the next generation, your kids and my kids will be worse off than this generation. on the day after the government had this scare that we were going to shut down the government, the president made a special trip, do you remember? to the lincoln the. >> the lincoln memorial will stay open. d

who is this is not about keeping of the lincoln memorial opened or the washington monument open buten. about keeping america openimat and creating the economic climate that will facilitate demonstrable growth and encourage american business owners to keep doing business in america, not overseas. this is a debate about making an america that creates opportunity. and then took us second shot at proposing a budget. a budget that the speech was a budget the perilous economic climate that we're facing. it turns out to do over budget was little more thanearl

just that. a political speech. clearly, our president barack obama is willing to sacrifice the f future for short-term political gain.rica we all know he can talk all he wants but who is not hiring in america. the president's economic advisers have lowered the book -- outlook from stable to negative status and the argument is that the s&p was underestimating thein ability of politicians in washington to fashion a compromise to curb thee deficit this and acaus change in ratings was not needed at this time because the debt was manageable and the administration had a

viable plan in the works. the s&p ignore them. i am no economist or an expert but i do know thee importance of having a good credit. we'll do..elt and america's credit just went from stable to negative. americans have natalee seen but felt the consequences of barack obama's america as ronald reagan said, don't be afraide to see what you see. i believe that we are in a battle for freedom in america thed same battle thatme founded our country thismadi same that james madison reaffirmed with the bill of rights and the same battle that founded our party 1854.

wisconsin of course, but we're in a battle forunit freedom for opportunity and in america and children and their children. do we have a country that leads? or follows. to have a country of makers were takers 211 people writing the wagon lowered driving the by gannett? this stakes are high and the consequences are very real. that brings me to the rnc. i can promise on my life that like all of you here, i did not run for chairman because i was rated the future of the republican party and you are not here because you are concerned about the future of the rnc

iran for chairman of this party because i am concerned about the future of thisi country i know we have the battle to fight we have to save america that is whyer o iran for chairman of this party the reorganization to coordinate our ground operation, election day operation, a phone to phone calls, a door-to-door, absentee ballot, the only entity in america to take our operation and coordinated with the presidential candidate. i believe all of us have been blessede but you are with me with the battle to fight? in order to win to save the country we need to work cou together that is why i am

here think you but also to a gauge due to invite you into the heart and see family to work with us.ntr save our country but in the process to save our party. thank you and god bless. >> caller:. >> we have a saying that if we amateurs do it over and over, and tell they get write and professionals to over and over and tell they don't get it wrong. he will discuss the life and trading of today's navy

seals are doing. >> crawford, what did we >> god what did we learn last night at this g.o.p. debate? lot of new candidates introduced to the public last night. that was good for them the great thing about the early debates was the big names don't participate, you get to meet some new people and i think some more interesting like herman cain.the he surprised me. the focused group called

called, almost overwhelmingly supported herman cain the godfather of peat cellpro i think he is probably a long shot obviously been very articulate and plain speaking and will probably get a following the. >> did he bring anything new? >>guest: a businessman perspective, no political background. straight talk and reminds me of ross perot or donald trump l without the crazy here. >>host:mp there is a poll cnn released today saying that ron paul comes thest closest to president obama that he beats all republicans. >> i know drudge did a screaming headline on that. that does not surprise me but he has been around a long time, he has a feverish

following and raised $1 million in one day yesterday and he will be ai factor. if you say anything critical you get a lot of the males but that voice question is the role of government is a word the debate tof have and a lot of things said last night may not work well but it is good to have that debate they talk about things that to that they are afraid to talk about them and it is great for the debate. >>host: we're talking about 2012 presidential politics, in particular the

republican field to see how fie it plays out. / political affiliation. craig crawford is here as our guest for crow mr. crawford what did tim pawlenty bring to the table last night? >>guest: he was the most careful because he has the best of that group to get the nomination but he used his time to introduceointr himself, personal stories and i think a lot of republicans will flock to him the biggest of those who were not there like romney and newt gingrich this was not a real debate those who d

see a different dynamic. >> if you rate day betting man would you bet on mitch daniels? >> he doesn't act like he has much fire in the belly. although i do find every time i talk to insider republicans i throw in a question and niche daniel's name comes up with the conventional crowd and the governor seems to have a following and it may not translate into votes with iowa or new hampshire but to but based on what i have

seen a mussy is playing a game. >> were insider surprised by the haley barbour position? >>guest: i think so. he indicated he was interested. but this is starting to remind me of 1992 when clinton got in because the big names did not. he ran for president only because out court chose not to. he did not feel that he could beat out glor. a andrew cuomo did and again in the race. they thought w george bush was almost in for reelection w although clinton proved them wrong. this race stars to look like that on the republican sid with the big names worried they cannot beat obama hof. >>host: craig crawford isif our guest our first witter

comment for you done is that risk by g.o.p. candidate being elected this cycle? >>guest: i think it is the other way. it would help obama. >>host: i think that is what they meant. >> and that would be a big boost for obama's but i don't see them doing that. they have enough in the race to stay in thest party. >> clearwater florida. >> caller: i have two particular issues i would like to discuss with you and will be as short and concise as i can.ng this thing with the assassination is the old democratic trick ofhe l

diversion and the president leans on his military strategist who he has onough staff or the fact that we saw our country to try and we owe substantial amounts of money the interest repay of that money each day is astronomical. so maybe mr. obama in his infinitel. wisdom maybe they press the panic button and and what could we do that would be considered monumentally enough for the american negative with the financial situation that we find ourselves. >>host: we got the point*. >> i think she say that i the diversion but that is a

long term obsession and the president has spent many, manya months studying the compound and planning for this it was hardly the panic button i know they this was a case for diversion but it does not last that long. they will pay attention to what they want too. >>host: george h. w. bush 90 percent approval rating after the iraq war. a lot of big names dropped out of the 1992 campaign. obama has seemed to have gotten a bounce from the killing of bin laden. does it last? >>guest: it is a little early but "the washington post" did a poll right after and it showed about the samee high single digits, i think

9% for the approval rating that is roughly the same george w. bush got a after capturing sadam hussain. if that number holds a it is a little surprising because it is nowhere near the consensus for capturing hussain abbas from killing bin laden with the iraq war fairly unpopular by that time. thinking he would get more of a bump but in the long run that has helped in the short run in the dealings with congress. maybe with the budget debate maybe having some more above and also will be hard for the republicans to say he is weak on foreign policy that

a lot of them had said. >>host: we will get your reaction to this tweaked. >> anybody that does not kiss said grover norquist g ring with no tax pledge cannot win the nomination to what i don't know if he has that much power but none of these republicans who are serious or seriously taken, ofsi our on the wrong side of the tax issue for republican voters. that is for sure. gary johnson from new mexico, by the way i thought was a loser in the debatei last night. i thought he was very weak. i thought his record should we veryn appealing other than

1/8 to legalize marijuana i thought he was little unsteady and a bad introduction. >>host: what is this purpose of running being back on the scene? >>guest: he has been out for a while. self-made millionaire construction business and has a great track record of cutting spending and beat out half of the bills he got to the governor's desk. he has a good track record you just have to explain to the republican voters his desire to legalize marijuana. and i think he brings to a combination of the businessman background that ought to be fairly appealingt

but we just thought his delivery last night wasdy halting and unsteady and tentative. he complained about not getting enough questions which she didn't. but that always looks bad. >>host: democrat from balky dennis. >> caller: as an african-american born in green bellsouth carolina and my memory was so horrible i do not go back for family reunions. butme going back to the t debate, it was good to see the republicans have an african-american and standing there. i wish donald trump would have came so why is he would continue. >>guest: that is interesting i am glad you brought that up because as i

watched herman cain i thought that would be interesting if republicans responded to the first black president with their own black nominee. he is such a long shot with no political background although he tries to make the j asset out of that noting that everybody in washington has experience and how was that working out for you? and he has the strong side. talking about gary johnson being unsteady but herman cain even after two terms as governor, herman came seemed like the veteran politician an the room. he has been a talk-show host. >>host: also andrew bright part who will be on the books -- show later alan west and herman cain be the g.o.p nomination. any did anybody ask the

candidates if they approved g.o.p. governor tax of privatization of government? >>guest: they got into that a little bit.in that was asked. was there was no memorable responses most of the focus was on unions whether this was union bashing and the candidates seem to back away. and then most notably succeeded byot appealing not your new shoes but to get theng votes going out of their ways to bass finance it might not be too productive four republicans. >> we have the republican on

the line. >> caller: it is interesting that ron paul iste sont consistent with the audience is that the debates and got applause on almost every answer. >>guest: even for her when rep speefourtspeefourt een it seems to me that they're determined to make him out to be a caricature. almost like he is a pariah. i don't get it. i think if he got on stage to debate the democratiche w nominee he would hold his p own and the peopleri could see thes primary cause is the way we conduct our monetary means to the printing of our money and regulating our currency to private bankers we don't know who they are

or where they come from. if we don't cut the head off of this make it will never change. sell my question is why don'tak they take ron paul seriously? >>guest: because he is so radical and conventional thinking in washington. he is taken seriously by a lot of voters but the media establishment when he says things about abolishing the federal reserve, that just seems sto radical to washington thinking. i think he is threatening to them. he has a lot of threateningshme talk to go up against the conventional establishmentsm. other is the effort to marginalize but i take him seriously and i always have. the financial meltdown plays into his hands.

that is an example of the sort of thing he has been talking about four years. >>host: craig crawford do you think he has aon chance to get the nomination? could be the year where republican voters figure like the goldwater where they figure obama will win the so we will make a statement. we will send somebody who scares the hell out of everybody because we know that we can win. that may not be a conscious lot but when goldwater was nominated against lyndon johnson. that was the birth of the conservative movement.new many republicans knew they could not win that election but decided we will not winat any way we will make a statement and goldwater said of violence in the name of

liberty or something like that i don't have that right. >>host: do think it is inevitable at this point* obama is reelected? >>guest: not inevitable but as i look at the republican field, it feels like that. obama is a great politician when he is on the stump he can turn it up. here is my theory why he gets reelected there are ethnic voters now inam drovesape in 2008 to elect him they disappeared in the midtermidn' election they did not show up with a midterm election which is why democrats did so poorly. my theory is when he is on the ballot, they come back.

they are all about obama's. a end of less they are disillusioned w but there is a wave of voters that come back the we have not seen. >>host: to ralph nader do damage? >> they have become savvy to where ralph nader did them harm. i have talked to a lot of voters who regret voting for him because they realize they elected republicans becauseca of it. >> it would be a good idea to be used to getting all, for president he isor incredible. we have the independent line 2012 presidential politics. >> caller: long time was an art. first-time caller. more of a statement of

marginal lays same candidates such as ron paul. when he polls above with the cnn poll shows him with the best chances against a bomb but yet raising almost a million dollars yesterday alone so why isn't he a serious contender? >>guest: he may take can seriously this time. the media in the past marginalized and but those factorsou are planning to see. he has been around long enough. what comes with that maybe not marginalized and taken seriously is a lot more scrutiny and things in the pastof i don't want to delve into that controversial stuff some of the racist

things that were said way back when on his behalf. but there is a lot of things that were touched nine. but from what i have seen he can survive scrutiny i guess. unless there is something i don't know but that is everything you need to know. >>host: i was disappointed in the south carolina tea party four infighting judge bork was is sponsored by the tea party? >>ca h he is the 12 took the 10 commandments out of the state building. he i thought he was there last time because he was better known. but i think the tea party is that a point* where they need to reach out to people who are more credible and can get elected a and

broaden their support.n >> ron paul cheapens himself by getting on the stage with these clowns. it is a new world baltimore. you're on with craig crawford talking politics. >> caller: hello? you mentioned this briefly earlier, somebody asked about grover norquist? the new house republicans had to sign a pledge where they wouldn't raise taxes and also the new senators. i my question to you, i did not watch the debate that i want to verify whoever runs on the republican side come i cannot imagine they have been running on not