different states of health, and it is much better to avoid a one people, all of whom are size fits all policy. those have actually harmed the white and male. housing market recovery so far. can we conclude that >> climate change. can we expect to see anything "national journal" does not from either candidate on that? value the views and >> i don't see that as either a expertise -- these guys -- top priority in an era when we >> listen, the last panel i need economic growth or did was all woman. something that's politically going to get across the line. so while i appreciate, while i appreciate the question, i so if you rank the policies you want to push, it can't be at the certainly disagree with your top. >> well, i actually, i think the characterization. but i think you bring up an president is reelected, i think important question you're this is going to be a kind of not asking, how will either of these candidates -- sleeper issue. not speaking for him or the >> i didn't get a chance -- white house, but the fact is epa >> no. is on a regulatory schedule, and i think you asked a question and i'm answering it for you. next year, um, the regulations which is the "national journal" certainly values these woman and i would be require significant restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions. curious from the panel how they think the presidential and i think that will create a candidates would govern on domestic social issues that new debate of what's the seem to have been so important in the discussion alternative to epa regulation. of a quote, war on women perhaps we'll get a, finally get over the last few months. a good discussion of a >> i have --

carbon-based tax. >> sir, thank you. .. >> i'm going to say, i don't know how many of the audience was at your last panel. that we actually had some females on it, is it, why didn't the national urn journal give us a more diverse panel that could talk on issues significant knowledge who are other than 12 white males? >> sir, we appreciate your question, thank you very much. >> thank you very much. >> gentlemen, can we answer the question of how the candidates would govern on social issues? particularly the issues of say, abortion and contraception that have dominated sort of headlines last few months? >> certainly i think what you see from governor romney is a real emphasis on things >> guest: a lot of them we actually share in terms seeing their jobs permanent of aspirations for economic menly leaving america. success. the cbo at the end of last women have been harmed in a big way in this recession year noted half a percentage

point of employment above and tremendous respect for the national rate is due to the skills gap. traditional freedoms, it is clear the skills force religious freedoms, i think needs an up grade. there is overstep by the president and i think he which candidate offers the would avoid that. >> well, i think the best vision for this kind of president would continue to things? >> i would have answered your question, would have govern, based on the been life-time learning job principle that we respect retraining. it is clear that this relynn just organizations recession has harmed the but we also respect the rights of women to have careers of young workers access to contraception in dramatically. the wage losses in this their insurance policies and recession exceed the that employers do not have cumulative losses in the right to tell women that previous recessions post-war. they can not get that large hit to young workers and there is not anywhere in through their insurance policies, unless they are a the debate a strategy getting them back with the skills they need to succeed. church and, you know, i think it is a, i think it is the research evidence is a very clear distinction some careers are harmed and may never return to the between the governor and the labor force. it is a series issue. president, and one that i, i >> i agree it is a very serious issue. suspect both sides seem as senator the president quite comfortable with. supported a initiative that >> let me say very briefly on the subject, one of the would provide grants to things about the

community colleges to keep unsustainability of the their computer labs open and current situation in the staffed in the evenings and dynamic of the budget that on weekends for anyone, any programs that get squeezed american adult to walk in and get free instruction in are the domestic discretionary programs and you can just look what's i.t. skills, which i think happening now. that is what the fight is is a very good place to about. those are the easy targets. begin. he hasn't pushed that as if you look at the projections that part of the president. i would love to see that. budget gets squeezed to i think this is a nothing. to the extent the federal increasingly important issue government makes investments and i think whoever is in the workforce, in children, in basic science president will see a real discussion of it in 2013 and and research, things that will help grow the economy that is the part of the 14. >> let me add quickly, i budget that is just under the gun and is getting killed right now. think it is important to so more to talk about when talk about deficit reduction. we focus on deficit reduction, that is the way it is important to talk about economic growth. to help -- not that you wan grow your >> and this is another area of contrast. way out of structural the president has proposed problems. you can't have just cuts, increases in these areas in raise taxes and cuts things. the context of larger deficit reduction. we have to talk about growth the ryan budget would cut agenda. >> this is part of the education 20%. targeted investments to help would cut job worker training 20%. people grow. would cut research and i think we have time for one development 20%. more. now the governor has not so over here. committed himself to those >> you said to stand up, so details but that is the, the i will stand up.

>> thank you. >> i'm charlie ericson with position at least of the congressional republicans. >> that is nonsequitor. hispanic link news service here in washington, d.c. and the key here is -- the presidential race >> ryan budget. >> there has been no includes an incumbent who is leadership on entitlement programs so you have the black and possibly a budgetary room to do the presidential race, might kinds of things rob is have a vice president who is talking about. unless we get serious hispanic. white house leadership that is what it takes to goat it includes a comment by the social security, medicare under control, won't matter cover story on the "time" who is president. those programs will be magazine, the hispanics will squeezed. >> thank you so much for elect the next president of your time. thank you all for your attention. the united states. like to turn it over to adam -- and certainly a key issue adam kushner, national deals with the war on women deputy editor of "national as it is described. journal" magazine and we have on the panels 12, 12 foreign policy editor. thank you so much.

>> good morning, everyone. thank you for a good panel. [inaudible] so i will briefly introduce our panel and get into it. on the far end is jim -- who is on the national security council and senior vice president of the studies council of foreign relations. next is rich stanzig, who was an advisor sore to the president in his campaign in 2008. now the center forenew american security. to my right is eliot cohen who is, who, excuse me, in the state department. >> [inaudible]. >> is now a special advisor to governor romney and is

the director of the strategic studies program at the school of advanced international studies at hopkins. so -- >> i will stipulate we should describe elliot as an affiliated wise men. >> and former affiliated wise man. so, jim, i will start with you, politics and the election, do you think there is any cause for hope that politics can or should or ever has stopped at the waters edge? >> well americans love to believe politics stops at the waters edge but that has been more the exception than the rule. if you look at over history of the united states, going back to one of the first contested elections, 1796, foreign policy has been something that americans have fought over. if you were to ask harry truman and dean atchison, henry kissinger or ronald reagan and george shultz, whether politics get nasty on foreign policy they would say it certainly does.

>> let me start with you, rich. you were one the lead foreign advisors in '08. what do you think has been the most surprising thing the president implemented in his foreign policy you wouldn't have expected during the campaign? >> i think the most striking thing is one that i would have expected but that has gone further than i anticipated and that is the evident skill with which the president has used force on, it is an administration i think is striking for use of all tools of national security and foreign policy but the tendency for any given leader is to err in one direction or another and this president i think has been striking in his pursuit of peace and his use of diplomatic and collisional and other strategies and his willingness in key situations where american interests demand it to commit to military force. the bin laden raid is the most dramatic example of

this but there are many others. >> you want to talk about how, that is traditionally thought to be a democratic weakness and how do you think that will play politically? >> this election is interesting in one important respect and traditionally democrats running for president are running as seen as weak on foreign policy. it's the issue in which they're pure seized to have a to have a lot of work to do with the american public. if you look at public opinion polls and issue that, president obama does the best on happens to be foreign policy particularly on counterterrorism. so in that sense he operated from a position of strength the bad news of the white house of course is foreign policy not very high priority for most americans today. if you look at the, standard question, asked by gallop, what is the most important problem facing the united states the answer that americans give overwhelmingly are domestic issues, jobs, the economy, social security, health care and issues like that. so the president may be

operating from a stronger position than most previous democratic or incumbent presidents but may not help him all that much. >> i want to comment, elliot. i don't want to monopolize here. but i think it is a very interesting phenomenon when i joined the obama campaign in 2007 it was very obvious to everybody that presidential election was about security. iraq was the dominant issue. it was a primary position for president obama in his platform and turned out to be about the economy. what jim says is absolutely right but i do think it's striking now that everybody thinks this is about the economy it may turn out to be about security in the end because so many things could happen between now and the fall. >> want to respond to that? >> well, actually there are a bunch things i want to respond to. i agree with my friend rich danzig that a lot of things can happen between now and the fall, probably starting with an economic issue which what will happen in europe and how that spills over.

largely although not entirely with economic consequences here. you know, foreign policy played some sort of role in the last election but i don't really think that was determinative. in any case i think iraq was already well on trajectory to where it has more or lessened up. i think there will be, not surprised we have a lower opinion of the obama's administration foreign policy record than richard does but i think a lot of real difficult issues basically have been pushed out. things like iran where despite sanctions and all that sort of stuff, the fact is iranians have in place as many centrifuges. they have enormous amount more nuclear material than they had. enriching to higher level. there are hard decisions that will have to be faced there. there will be big things that are going to happen in europe. our unsettled relations with china. all these are there. i would also include by the

way, the terrorism issue. again i would disagree with richard. i think this administration has focused very much on one tool, which is killing individuals. including american citizens in some cases. and although that is a reasonable tool to use i think it runs the risk of narrowing the nature of the problem that we face. and i also think that the administration has made a quite substantial mistake by insisting as the president's counterterrorism advisor did at speech in my school there has been no collateral damage. this is a costless counterterrorism policy. it's not. again, let me make it very clear. i'm in favor of people who really need killing but we should not fool ourselves this has been a complete success. >> so who would you governor romney do you think as president take off those constraints and narrow the

problem? >> it's, there is no question in my mind that governor romney, if he were president romney would be using force but i think president romney would also be, i think rather more focused on what we call the war of ideas. you can call it a lot of other things as well, in terms of, trying to counter radicalization. the administration has done it but i have to say in a fairly halfhearted way. there have been some improvements recently standing up various activities at state but most of the emphasis has just been on killing individuals and hoping that you can destroy the al qaeda that existed on september 10th. first i don't think you can do that. but in any case the problem in some ways metastasized. you can see that in yemen, somalia, in other parts of the middle east. so i think these problems, they're extremely difficult. they're going to loom ahead

and they have not been resolved by the obama administration. >> rich seems to be describing in the abstract a kind of series of decisions that have been made about afghanistan where they turned from counterinsurgency which might not be so successful to counterterrorism. do you think, rich, that is the prudent, most practical course or do those pose a problem? >> what is so striking about afghanistan it is precisely an example of on set what -- opposite, he will i don't think was saying than the previous administration. afghanistan was widely ignored in the main by the bush administration. when we came in and central programs like training of the afghan national police, training billets were understaffed by 50%. the president far from defering the decision came to grips with it. with great clarity he made a campaign promise. he moved combat brigades to

afghanistan began. he did that. he established a very clear policy with some definitive guidelines. the opposite of phenomenon of defering decisions. >> what about broader intellectual and social -- >> it is very dramatic investment in that. i think there is room for disagreement and i think eliot make as reasonable point in arguing for more counterradicalization programs, a point as far as i know governor romney has not begun to reflect on but it is, basically a program, if you look at the work that ambassador hole brock -- holbrooke opened up before he died and dan benjamin in the state department is carrying on, it is substantial activities associated with building institutions influencing populationing et cetera. then you add the credibility of the president himself in the vast reaches of the world, the vast credibility

that was very low under the second president bush, you i think see a powerful program. >> a couple of responses to that. first on popularity. if you look at the "pew research poll"s, it really is not the case that we've gotten this tremendous bump up in popularity particularly in the muslim world from president obama. that is partly because of things like ground strikes on afghanistan. i have to say i have got a very different take. i spend a lot of time in afghanistan and i think there are a couple of points that need to be made. one of which is that the good that was done by the increase in resources, including troops, by the way all which have been put in plan by this administration's predecessors. i was -- >> word planned. >> by planned, when the military talks plans, as you know, it's troops to task and a lot of the logistical infrastructure, the preparing of units, the train of utes, this was all underway.

i was part of that so i know that. i give the president credit for having continued it but the thing that the president did, which ended up being tremendously destructive in terms of our afghan policy was in his west point speech making it clear we were getting out. that, you know, the afghan people are many ways much more sophisticated than we think. that message got through to everybody there including the goat hearders outside kandahar. it incentivized bad behavior by everybody, by our friends, by our enemies, by neutrals, by the pakistanis. the basic understanding is, yes, the americans surged by to buy themselves some time but they are out of here i don't think you can plan for example, pakistani behavior including this latest throwing the doctor that helped get bin laden into jail for 33 years without understanding they know we're leaving. >> in terms of casting position of strength let me

ask you a provocative question. what is the difference between governor, president romney's foreign policy and president bush's? >> you know what i think the biggest difference is? this take as little bit away from the discussion of counterterrorism in afghanistan but the big difference which is why i was quite happy to sign up as one his advisors, i believe president obama came in with the belief that the way you begin in foreign policy by reaching out to your enemies. i think that explains the reset with russia which failed. i believe that explains the silence during the iranian riots in summer of 2009. i believe that explains why we sent an ambassador to syria in return for absolutely nothing. of course we know what syria has turned into. i believe governor romney's fundamental point of departure, and you can see this in his book and see it in his speeches, you start with your friends. you start by consolidating relationships that you have with allies, whether it's

britain or israel or a colombia. developing new kinds of relationships with countries like india and then you proceed to deal weather your opponents. i think that is, it is a fundamental, philosophical difference in how the two men approach foreign policy. >> adam could i comment on couple of things? first of all, observed what happened here, eliot, who is a very clear thinking started by observing in his view the obama administration failed to come to grips with things, constantly deferred them to the future of the as the discussion proceeded and we focused on some concrete examples they involved afghanistan where the bush administration was seven years into afghanistan, planning to do some things in the future and the obama machine station actually did them. you look at the example of, that eliot criticizes. the president says we are going to leave afghanistan. here's a timetable,

et cetera. that is an example not of pushing something off in the future but coming to grips with it. the whole tenor of the discussion runs counter to the proposition that was advanced. in terms of desireability of a timeline in afghanistan, realisticly if you want to get from a war costly to america to a position where the afghanies carry it you need to establish deadlines. you need to catalyze action. failing to do that leaves it open-ended. the president did the same thing with respect to iraq. it was heavily criticized then by many. it was rather a successful policy. it has got risks with regard to it. we need that kind of closure. finally on issue of "friends and enemies", president has been remarkably successful rallying our friends. the israeli prime minister commented on how it has never been closer in u.s.-israeli relations. we worked very closely with regard to the iran issue and

issue of sanction is remarkable example of rallying our allies and our friend to put a choke hold in effect on the iranians that is strangely their program. will it be successful? there are no guaranties in this world. but is it better than the alternatives? it is by far the best thing we have got. >> every president has to make affirmative decisions and make plans but maybe talk in the for the sake of election, reactive component of policy making and how that can affect a president's policy and a candidate's policy. >> interesting when you think about campaigns, campaigns are about promises about goals, about aspiration. governing is about choosing and facing up to reality. when you're on the campaign trail one of the things you are allowed to get to wish away all the constraints that make it difficult to get policy and enact it. you're engaged in position-taking than policy making. you're in office you can no

longer assume away all of the things that make it very difficult. which is sort of interesting in listening to. as i listen to rich and eliot they're both sort of emphasizing discretionary element that the president or the president's team brings to any situation. from my vantage point i'm more struck by the structural constraints that limit your ability to get things done. the reason you have problems in afghanistan, you have problems with pakistan, with north korea, with iran, the reason these issues don't get solved because a, they're incredibly complex, b, very difficult, c, your leverage is not unlimited. in many cases what you discover is that even though other powers are weaker than you are they still have the ability to inflict unacceptable costs or challenges on you. i think the big question we talked about it yet as we think about china and the question is, what is the u.s. policy going to be toward china going forward? that will depend upon your assessment where china is going, where china is vulnerable to pressure or

inducements and also real questions as to, the extent which you can mobilize the united states. those are big questions. it is not clear to me that either candidate has really answered that. >> if i could just, i take jim's point and i think it's right and i think there is another asymmetry you will have in this campaign which you always have when you have an incumbent. on one hand you have an organization of a couple of hundred people plus some part-timers. on the other hand you have resources of the federal government including department of state, pentagon, intelligence community and all that. so the question is when you're making a choice what do you look at? i think what you look at first, somebody's fundamental predispositions about how they view the world, how they approach things and their leadership styles. because agree with jim. a lot of foreign policy is the stuff that comes in over the transom. that you have to react to. on the matter of predispositions not surprisingly i'm much more in favor of governor romney.

you get these revealing little moments like, when the president asks mr. medvedev to pass the word to president putin, don't worry. in the next term i will be more flexible. just a terrible kind of message to send, particularly to vladmir putin. i think it is a revealing moment. for the rest i agree with jim. there are structural constraints and there will be all kinds of surprises. >> if you like the message the governor is sending if we can talk about specific places and problems for a minute, how do you think a president romney is going to be able to prevent iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon in a way the president hasn't? >> i think, look, again, first we just have to start with the facts on the ground. again, maybe i'm disagreeing a little bit with jim. i think there are these long elements of continuity. sanctions against iran have been building up over a period of time. there has been a coalition

in place. the fact of the matter is it is not working. it is not working or at least it is not working fast enough. i mentioned they have doubled the number of centrifuges spinning. >> so? >> there is all that. i think a lot it is going to come down whether you are credible about the threats of the use of force. because that is the only thing i believe that would cause the irina was -- iranians to stop. and you know, in fact you can see this in a recent speech by the supreme leader. i don't think they take our threats of force seriously. >> do you believe, eliot, the administration should have used force before this? >> i don't know. i don't know. all i know is, we are, i believe, getting to the point where that decision, where either the iranians will be so convinced this is going to come hit them, that they will give up, or we're going to have to face a very difficult choice and, you

know, look we've had, at least, according to the public prints, administration sources, an attempt to assassinate the saudi ambassador in the united states. >> wouldn't hesitate to make that difficult choice if he felt he had to? >> no. i think, i think president romney could make very difficult choices, if he had to. but my point is my point is, if we have a chance of doing this without force, which is absolutely the preference, absolutely a preference, the iranians have to believe there is an alternative which will come their way. we just had again, according to the public prints, an iranian attempt to assassinate an american ambassador in azerbaijan. i haven't detected any reaction on the part of the administration which i were an iranian would make me worry. >> in terms of administration trying to

seem serious if i could change to syria a little bit, the president delivered a very moving holocaust museum speech which he said, quote, preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national security interest. houla and obviously murder of women and children, 100 people there, poses a problem. does that represent a national security failure that saying this is priority and not being able to do anything about it? >> let me make a comment about iran. four rounds of sanctions, wreaking havoc on the iranian economy, clearly pushing the iranians to negotiating table is absolutely critical set of steps and i don't hear eliot disagreeing with it. it is remarkable achievement. it runs counter to the romney instinct about the world consisting of a lot of enemies. talk about revealing moments, what about russia as our number one geopolitical enemy. as colin powell said, think

a minute, mitt, before you say these kinds of things. this is revealing indication of that black and white view of the world we used to have. when you come to syria, just as with iran you needed to have cooperation of russia and china and other major nations in order to make sanctions work, so it is with respect to syria, that to move forward you have got to achieve a measure of international coalition and with russian resistance in this context, and to a lesser extent chinese resistance it is a pull and tug at that takes time the administration is wise to recognize that. force is an appropriate thing to use. the administration is very skillful at doing it. american vital interests have to be involved and you have to be reasonably sure you can be effective before resorting something like. if the effect to pump up russian supplies to assad and create a world which you've got iranian surrogates working and the region gone devolves into

civil war, that is not a good use of our activities. >> this is it actually, i do think this is pretty revealing of the difference between the two administrations, an administration and potential administration. so the obama administration starts off with a reset, right? a misspelled reset button as it turns out that the secretary gave to mr. lavrov. and what have we gotten in return for that? the russians have been obstructive on iran. the russians have been obstructive and continue to be obstructive on syria. the russian chief of the general staff threatens a preemptive attack on missile defense sites in europe which by the way woe don't react. russian military doctrine identifies us as their chief opponent and in return president obama's instinct is to say, please tell vladimir i will be more flexible in my second term. >> do you agree with romney's remark, russia is our number one geopolitical --

>> here is what i agree with. i agree russia is on the whole opposed to american interests. that this, that the putin regime, which is an ugly regime, an ugly regime and we don't talk much about its ugliness and it is getting uglier, is not our friend and in many ways hostile to us. and i think it is important to identify to people who are hostile to you. >> very short time. i do want to be able to talk about governing so i want to ask jim, first and second terms very different with presidents. nixon escalates the vietnam war and goes to china and reagan tears down this wall and reykjavik and bush engaged in all of them. what do you think a second term for obama might mean in terms of a med course correction? >> let me note nixon removed troops from china. he escalated it the war off the books. just be careful there. the lesson there unaffiliated wise men or

people labeled as such at public events be very careful predicting second terms because presidents can surprise you. but i think the clearly the set of issues that obama 2.0 if he wins is going to face, will talk about iran, it is going to be north korea. what is the -- in asia means. let me offer theoretical threat where this is a panel focused on comparing the candidates. i actually think they are more alike than they are different. for me while they may not be in the same zip code on foreign policy they're largely in the same area code. on many issues while the rhetoric has been different and campaign is to criticize the other guy and shortcomings, traditionally democrats rail that republicans are reckless. republicans accuse democrats of being feckless. i think there will be more continuity not just of the structural demands of the situation but because the

underlying ideology is not that different. this is not, we're not talking about republican nominee like ron paul who would have offered a very difficult world view. but i do want to go back and emphasizing something eliot said and is quite right. they have the same general orientation, they have different characteristics, different histories doesn't mean they would have the same outcomes. because in politics as in poker not just the quality of the cards you're dealt, it is how well you play those cards and obviously, what i really hear the governor saying is that he can play those cards better. >> we have to turn to audience questions but i want to do rapid fire very quickly from the three of you. what do you think is the most important foreign policy decision the next president will face? >> always use of force. always sending men and women into harm's way. always taking risks that are associated with force and what it means. >> i agree with that, in the near term i think the

presenting issue perhaps before the new president is inaugurated is iran and particularly also the involvement of our israeli ally and its own convictions with respect to what to do. >> iran is the most important near-term challenge. >> if we can open it up for questions. could we -- do we have questions? over here. >> i don't need a mic. >> if you mind standing up. we have a mic for you. >> this is more paternal circumstance. we'll tell you what you need. >> doctor, you said important for romney would be countering radicalization of the war of ideas yet republicans have been, or romney especially has been calling on obama to be even more supportive of israel. can those be reconciled those two? >> yeah. i think, and again it is an interesting between the two presidents. if you look where president obama came in i think he moved off this by the way,

he came in with the tired view that a lot of people had which is of the heart of the middle east problem is the arab-israeli conflict and therefore i have to solve it. it may well will be an unsolveable problem. that is not the heart of what is going on in the arab spring or tumult or upheaval or storm. i don't think we know quite what it is and i think governor romney has been much better, let's take those extraordinary developments on their own terms and wrestle with them which is what we're going to have to do. i agree with one of the points, actually i agree with many of the points jim made, one of which we have to recognize the limits of our control and our influence. but you know, i don't think that standing back on syria that we really helped ourselves in this area. and i think it is why the governor is right to be a little more forward leaning that on the administration has been. >> if i could ask a follow-up there. with all the stipulations that israel is a lone

democracy in a hostile region and besieged by revengists in gaza, don't you think a final status agreement has to involve curtail of settlements? don't you think the president has to use influence to stop that. >> i will not lay out my personal plan for arab-israeli peace. there are a lot of people have done that and lot of people that will do that. what i will say what have been the circumstances which the israelis pulled back? like withdrawal from gaza which was done by a right-wing government. when they had personal trust and confidence in the president of the united states. and although, yes this administration has delivered military aid and so forth to the israelis it is simply not true that the israelis, senior israeli leadership, political and military leadership has a lot of trust in president obama. that is just a fact. >> could i just comment on first this it idea of control and limitations and how personality matters.

i agree with jim and eliot that much is constrained by personality clearly matters. the decision about afghanistan, the president talked about, the decision about iraq emanyonemations of his own judgment and represent indication of a personal involvement that matters. when you look at the decision on the raid on bin laden in pakistan the recommendations coming from your advisors are divided in many respects and a tough decision is made which is a real chance of failure and the president made that tough decision and he made a correct one. 30% nalt really does matter in these contexts. i'm not sure governor romney begins to understand this. eliot talks about revealing moments. i mentions the russia geostrategic number one threat. here is another one. if i'm president i would listen to my generals. among other things eliot cohen written a wonderful back how presidents have to

make decisions between generals. it doesn't work that way. really individual personality matter. >> we have to keep taking questions. >> well, first what is the alternative? i'm not going to listen to my generals? he didn't say i will do what my generals tell me to do. it is pretty clear and look at david sanger's recent stories in "the new york times" to some extent senior military leaders were not particularly heard in the most recent decision-making i know general officer of the united states military who likes to see troops withdrawn from afghanistan in the middle of the fighting season there. it makes no sense. >> eliot, classic romney. i would listen to my generals. what does that mean? if i means i hear them, of course president obama does that. he implying something else without committing himself to it and what he is implying will follow military advice and mislivedding view of the world. >> i'm sorry, that is not how he thinks about -- president romney is a, governor romney is a -- no, no.

well, this is somebody who has spent his entire career listening to experts about all kinds of things. >> absolutely true. >> and than making decisions about whether they are right or wrong. somebody who very much has his own very clear views which you can find in the book he wrote himself and that is i think where he would go. the idea that this guy would be a pawn of anybody, of any adviser, military or civilian, it is just not true. >> take one more question. right here on the end. yeah my -- [inaudible] >> we have mic for you right here. >> hi. i'm with boxy. i want to know if you guys can expand on relationship with latin america and how both candidates will tackle free-trade agreements? >> if i could, governor romney has talked a lot about it, again this is actually a case where we

know of a concrete issue. governor romney from the very beginning in favor of getting that free-trade agreement with colombia through congress. it had already been cooked in the previous administration. he was pushing it and pushing, you know, similar arrangements with other latin american countries. this administration delayed three years and finally approving a free-trade agreement with an extremely important ally of ours. makes no sense. >> first of all the administration has been very energetic and forthright on trade in the latin american context. the trans-pacific partnership, an initiative developed by the administration which involves the west coast of latin america and the eastern part of asia is i think a remarkable initiative that will lead to expansion of free trade throughout the area. the colombia free trade pact and the other two free trade pacts had all kinds of difficulties in congress the

administration persevered in getting them passed. the president invested in personal relationship with the president of brazil which is exemplary which personality in these conflicts matter and you can't just listen to your experts, et cetera. it has had real rewards. the colombia relationship is stronger than it every has been. it has been successful of cooperation on security as well as trade. >> maybe we have time for one more question. all the way in the back there. sorry. did i see a hand? >> [inaudible]. >> for the audience at home. >> thank you. embassy of south africa. i like to ask the panel their comments on the respective candidates africa policies, policies and how you might see an obama administration's policy towards africa changing in the second term and also the

romney campaigns policy towards africa which the campaign hasn't been too vociferious on that. thanks. >> i'm afraid you got me. you know, i have not paid attention to the romney campaign's africa policy pronouncements. again, there has been state ad number of times. a campaign is not a parallel administration. we're not like great britain where you have a shadow of the go. i think you know the kinds of prince millions that governor romney would be in favor of, which would be, openness in free trade, human rights and strengthening relationships. i don't know that that, to be perfectly honest is there a stark divide between he views africa, and how president obama views africa, i would tend to doubt it. >> one comment on general principles and prince pills on africa. in romney campaign to divide

the world between enemies and friends and lots of bluster is a very good thing. my view this administration has shown you don't proceed successfully that way. you proceed successfully by engaging in people across the whole framework but acting with force when required or with compulsion and in means like the sanctions in iran that don't involve physical force but involve other means of compelling. with regard to africa there is an example of this in the way we have rallied the organization of african unity to try and police and be active in the sudan. very imperfect and bad results in many dimensions but better results than if we directly intervened. the administration is also moved towards ago cultural policy in africa in terms of enriching agricultural investments that i think is at the very core of our modern understanding of development.

development is led by agricultural things first and foremost. eliot questions the degree to which the president is popular in the world at large and how that translates to the u.s., you see the adulation in among other places in south africa for president obama. i think it is powerful and effective force for america. >> gentlemen, before i pitch to my colleague ron brown, editorial director of the nj. give a round of applause for rich, john and eliot. [applause]

>> thank you. all of you have sat through a incredibly nutritious course. two panels on difference between domestic and foreign policy between president obama and mitt romney. now comes the dessert. >> a bunch of twinkies? >> exactly before either man can implement policies in 2013 they have to win election in november. for the final panel we'll, more how the issue debate will affect the election campaign. to do so we have a joel, who is the president of the benniso in strategy group. -- president obama and advised a array of governors, and mayors. [inaudible] -- most unexpected result. kevin is advisor to the mitt romney campaign in 2008. as a campaign's national press secretary and communication strategists, -- former press secretary john

boehner and vice president of jda front line, -- he had quartered in charleston, south carolina. >> you're all invited down. >> we'll meet at hank's. peter brown is assistant director of the quinnepiac university polling institute and of their ubiquitous battleground states and national polls which make quinnipiac most unlikely household words in the political world. has experience covering white house and presidential campaigns for upi and scripps howard. welcome all. as we heard over the last hour there are very substantial differences between president obama and mitt romney on a range of issues. of those differences, which do you think will be the most important in shaping the general election campaign? kevin? >> i think it will come down to, first of all, let me thank everybody for being here. i really want to thank skbrol and peter. it has been a pleasure to be with joel, one of the best

in the business and so is peter. i'm very grateful to be up here with them. and ron as we know is one of the best journalists in the business. bothers me with phone calls and best to do this in public. usually i cover the phone and roll my eyes but now i can't. it really comes down to the view of the role in government. if you look at economic debate. if you look at the health care debate we've had in 2010 and i expect we'll continue to have in 2012, i think also with the recent arguments about free enterprise and the governor's, the governor's background and comparing it and contrasting it with the president's experiences before he became president, i think the role of government is going to be one of the big differences. fundamentally republicans believe and governor romney believes that the role of, the role of the government is to encourage and incentivize the private sector and individuals in the spirit of american entrepreneurism to help grow the economy and america to prosper where as we see the obama world view as being

one where the government has a central role in the deciding the winners and losers in the economy and the central role in the american individual's life. and i think if you look at all the debates, economy, health care, even sometimes issues like, obviously other issues that will be important, related to the economy like energy i think it is a dissimilar contrast we have. >> what is the difference to voters? >> i think the most important difference and it is proving itself more stark every day, what are the values that form the vision each of these men bring to the case and because of that, it's going to come down to who is going to basically fight on behalf of the people who have been struggling the most, who have been fighting hardest to get back to where they were before this economic crash happened and who is going to create an economy that is built to last, that will restore middle class security and do that through smart invests in entrepreneurship, in small business, manufacturing, education, research and development so that the

folks who used to be able to climb up from the working class to the middle class can do so again. i think those values, that contrast is pretty stark. i think they take two approaches. president obama very clearly believes we need to have economy that gives everyone a fair shot and everyone does a fair share. mitt romney through his life and his career in business and governor and policies is very clearly beliefs if we take care of those at the top, that is what we have to do and everything else will take care of itself and it hasn't worked. >> peter you heard incredibly different summary of idealogical frame. there are other frames. but idealogical frame each side wants to put on the election. whose side are you on? is government the problem or the solution? which is the, are either one of those frames inherently more relevant to voters especially swing voters? >> i think firstly there are two sides of the same coin frankly. let me do one thing first. to thank "national journal" for giving me a ph.d in this

area of resume' enhancement i will be very clear. i don't have one. actually to protect myself. two sides to the same coin. you've got the notion the way kevin expressed it, this is about the role of government that joel says, this is about who is on your side. same thing. this is about the economy. the economy, my, one of my stock lines is the economy issue 1 to 1129. everything else is after that. the economy is a lot of stuff. it is unemployment. it is the debt. it is health care. it is a whole host of things and, what kevin and joel did is just give you, as ron said, the idealogical spin for both sides on how you argue the economy but it's the economy. you don't have to be stupid to think that. >> inherently more persuasive, does either one inherently matter more especially to swing voters? the idealogical role of government or, are either

one of those inherently a more persuasive argument? >> no. i think what is more persuasive what voters think will work. often, elections in swing states are about who is closer to the idealogical center. some elections are like that. others are not. this is one where swing voters will be moved not by ideology but by who they think can solve their problems. >> good point. let me follow up on that. one thing i've enjoyed in the quinnepiac polling is the question you've been asking all the way through in the swing states especially, regardless who you intend to vote for who would do better job on economy? you've been asking that comparing romney and obama. generally speaking romney runs even or sometimes ahead. frequently ahead in the swing-state polling. what is the basis of that advantage at this point do you think? >> well, first of all, you're right, we asked another question to them, which is, is president obama likeable or not. is mitt romney likeable or

not. very simply put the president think president is more likeable. the romney is the better on economy. the question which wins out? if i knew i would be in vegas. >> what do you think is the basis of his advantage currently on the economy? is it kind of a shadow of dissatisfaction with obama? is it kind of derivative of dissat action with obama? inherent credibility of business background? why do you think he polls well? >> if unemployment was 7% this wouldn't be issue. obviously a derive of where the economy is in the eyes of people. that drives it. >> joel, can romney sustain the advantage that poll, and a number of others generally have him even or slightly ahead in many polls today at least who can do a better job on the economy? i understand there are other dimensions who stand up for the middle class, obama is ahead. broad question of who can get the economy moving, romney is even or ahead. can he sustain that advantage? >> i don't want to take your question. you glossed over the other questions that are relevant.

just as peter said, take peter construct, questions 1 through 120 are the economy. there are components how people contextalize on the economy. not just who they think has good ideas on the economy. who understands problems people like me facing. who will put middle class people's interests first. who will make sure there are not two sets of rules, once for those at to and for everybody else. those are variables that go into the ecase. not just whether people like president obama or not, although they do, it is why his job approval ratings have been higher. it is why people's economic confidence ratings over the past few months are also higher. going up, the michigan consumer confidence index is higher than it has been in years. the biggest percentage increase since, since election day of any president in recent times. there is a confluence of factors people bring to the discussion of the as neatly we would like to answer them

all with one poll question or another, that is not howl people make their decision. >> if you look at poll numbers, it gives you divergeant assessments where obama will have significant advantages standing up for the middle class. carrying, promoting policies, that hel all americans. on this underlying issue who might get the economy moving faster, romney has an advantage where, as you kind of look at that, as you say there are many factors go into people's decisions. how do you kind of assess that kind of landscape at this point? >> i agree with a lot of what peter and joel said. i think it comes down to the question of, i think we have this attributes versus issues question. i think fundamentally this is going to be, and agree that the president we've seen it in a lot of polling, the president does score very well but people judge him harshly on his performance. i believe this election will not be eharmony.com election but a monster.com election.

it will be judgment on the president's, is this somebody i really like or somebody who can get the job done? ultimately elections are still job applications. and the president has a hard time selling an argument of economic optimism when he is, when at the same time, people aren't feeling it. the numbers on whether or not people feel that we're in recession, whether you, let's not let economists ruin that argument in here, whether or not they feel that the economy is in recession it is very high. even though it may technically not be the so i think if a president at the same time who has a giant canyon between his message and the way people feel. that is one. reasons why governor romney is, is doing well on the issue of the economy, which is the central issue of this campaign because he is talking exactly what he would do to address the enormous anxieties that people have about everything from rising costs to stagnant growth. we saw numbers come out today, that revise down the gdp under 2%. and we have job numbers come out tomorrow that aren't

going to meet the growth of population as it relates to job growth. those are i think the big, those are the big dynamics that are driving these numbers. >> joel, go ahead. >> look, let's take a step back. i agree let's not debate whether people think it is a recession or economists think it is a recession. the fact of the matter, what american people know and way they approach this election right now they understand we didn't get into this crisis overnight and we're not going to get out of it overnight. they have understood that since 2008. the reason that is real intangible for them, if you go back and look at polling done after the 2004 election, working in middle class americans already knew then that things were out of whack in the economy. things had fallen out of balance. places like massachusetts where governor romney was governor, during that time period their incomes went down under his governorship. so if he is running as mr. fix-it and you have a governor that took the state from 36th in job creation to 47th and saw their state

lose 40,000 manufacturing jobs while he was governor, twice the rate of the national average, you got a pretty tough argument to make that you're mr. fix-it. >> peter, let me ask you, as you hear here, as you see starting to with bain moving to the massachusetts record the obama campaign is trying to challenge romney's credentials a job creator or someone on your side. basically make the case through his private career and career as governor looked out for the few at the expense of the many. give you said that romney's strength on the economy is largely a factor of dissatisfaction with obama, how effective will this line of argument, how effective can it be to raise questions about romney's credentials who are also dissatisfied with obama? >> look everything matters at the margins, on the economy, the question isn't what the unemployment rate, or gdp rate number is, it is what the people in

quinnipiac land, ohio, florida, virginia, what they think, what they think about their lives, is it getting better, is it getting worse, who is responsible? . . >> there is a large increase in, you know, the november to early march period in economic optimism. that's plateaued. it hasn't gone down, but it's not growing like it was. so that's why we're seeing national polls that are essentially a dead heat, swing state polls are a dead heat, a

dead heat. >> i think we all agree on that, it's real close. [laughter] >> joel, do you -- how significant is that forward-looking assessment in terms of whether people are going to be willing to give the president a second term? >> yeah. i think people are very forward looking. i think they know we've gone through an unprecedented time in the lives of most americans who are going to be voting, a small sliver who were alive during the depression in the '30s. but they are making a forward-looking choice. they've gone through tough things, they feel a lot of the things that happened undermined their security, their ability to, you know, pay for college for their kids, dealing with credit card companies who, you know, suckered them into credit card rates with rate changes in the dead of night. i think they're going to look at both what president obama did to fix some of those things, rescuing the auto industry which governor romney said let 'em go bankrupt. there was no private money for them. the only way it could have been saved was the way president obama did it, and he did it by

getting concessions from the companies and the unions to go forward. and i think people understand that we are going forward. everybody knows the progress hasn't been as rapid as everyone would like, but they want to be on a path that's going to take us forward, and i think the last thing they want to do is go back to the same kind of policies that didn't work when governor romney was in massachusetts based on his record and that he's proposing to do all over again. >> kevin, in the primaries health care was an issue between romney and other republicans. as we've moved into more of a general election mode, it hasn't come front and center yet. if supreme court strikes the law in the next few weeks, how do you think that changes -- >> it's interesting you say that because i remember i had lots of coffees, lunches, dinners with so many reporters, and they said, look, the tea party's never going to nominate a guy who with romneycare in massachusetts. and i remember saying over and over and over all through those meals that health care will be

an issue, it will not be the issue. and i think that was largely proven through the primary, through the primary contest. >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> it's no longer meals, just drinks. [laughter] >> anyway -- >> so, i'm sorry, i was just trying to segway to my other point which is i think the public opinion on obamacare has calcified. i don't think there are many people out there who have a persuadable opinion on this. they either like it or hate it. in many ways it's become swim symbolic of how many voters view the lens of, how they view the obama administration through the lens of that particular bill. it was very expensive. it was a chaotic, partisan process. it was too big. it's not -- it hasn't done what it had promised to do. so i think any relitigation of it is bad for the obama administration. >> joel, if it is raising more

visibility, would that compel the president or other democrats to defend i more visibly than they've done in. >> i think a lot of how the discussion takes place is going to depend on the court and what they say. the fact is it's an issue, it's not the only issue. to the extent it becomes part of the campaign, again, it's going to be an issue through which voters are going to be able to assess very clearly the values of each candidate. do you believe insurance companies ought to be able to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions or not? do you think they ought to put lifetime caps on you when you've worked your whole life, but now you're in your 50s or 60s, and you're sick, and they're going to cut off that coverage. >> same decision we started with, big government, who's on your side. peter, one of the things that benefited republicans in recent years is a steady movement in their direction among older whites, especially white

seniors. 58% of whites 65 and older voted for mccain in '08, 63% of white seniors voted republican in the 2010 house elections. on the other hand, we are seeing consistent resistance in polls to the idea of converting medicare into a premium support or a voucher system which governor romney has embraced, even when the option of allowing people to stay in conventional medicare is described. so let me ask you this, how big a threat to the republican gains among white seniors do you think, if at all, governor romney's embrace of the ryan-esque medicare proposal will be? >> well, on the assumption that the court does something to stop implementation, then both candidates will have to say what they're for. now, i assume that the governor will be for allowing or making sure that people with pre-existing conditions can get health care. you can be pretty sure the governor will be for not having

lifetime caps, and if they are, they're going to be astronomical, so that if court throws out part or all of the law, the two candidates are going to have to say then what they're for. not what happened in the past, what they're for. and, you know, one assumes on the goody stuff, the stuff that everybody's for which is not lifetime caps or, certainly -- >> but it's not clear you can do those things without an individual mandate. >> but it's certainly clear you can say it in the campaign. [laughter] >> well -- >> that'd be hard to do when you knew why you put it in in massachusetts. >> i go back to medicare, about converting medicare to a premium support program. joel, in the movement among democrats with older whites, it's been intense under obama. how big an opening does the medicare debate allow you to begin to talk to some of those voters who have been moving away from you? >> look, i think, you know, the difference here is the

president's approach on medicare as it has been on most budgetary issues is we have to take a balanced approach. i find it ironic that when we find savings through fraud and all the things republicans have talked about on medicare in revising payment systems for providers, the republicans ran a campaign against obama cutting medicare. so the president has always taken a very balanced approach to how we take programs like medicare and make sure that they're stronger for future generations than not. i think an issue around vouchers and changing what has been a guaranteed benefit for seniors is going to be a prime discussion during the course of the campaign. and i think it's going to play into it because it's going to reflect an approach that extends beyond that to other issues. >> kevin, as republicans are doing better with these older whites and it's possible even with this -- or romney could win 60% of white seniors, that would not be inconceivable there the poll being, would that make it more or less likely that a

president romney and a republican congress would pursue a ryan-type vision which is still heavily resisted by -- even though they would be exempt -- all polling shows they're very cube crouse -- dubious -- >> i disagree with the notion that you have proxy debates over legislation that is named by somebody else. i really do believe oftentimes you have the opportunity to talk directly to voters about your framework of principles and the reforms that you would support. i think the governor has talked about a lot of the principles that he agrees with, whether it was, um, ryan or some of the other debt commission recommendations as framework reforms he would like to pursue. and i think that's where we go back to a value-driven debate. you can win a lot of these seniors and the larger swath of the electorate based on what you would do to change the way that the status duo is operating right now -- status quo is operating in washington. and i used to get that all the time early on when the ryan bill was being proposed or there were

debt limit different proposals up on capitol hill, we tended to resist the idea that you had to come in and have an up or down, yes or no on any of these discussions that were having place in washington, d.c. and instead talk about what it is you fundamentally believe as far as government reform, deficit reform to people outside of washington. because they're not stuck in this motion to recommit mentality up on capitol hill. >> can i add one point to that about your question to kevin? >> yeah. >> i think you want to focus, again, on the medicare issue and how that relates to seniors and the whole ryan budget. there is a related issue to the ryan budget and governor romney's embrace of it, if you will, which is that it's going to blow a massive hole in the deficit, and for a lot of those older white voters, they're also going to be concerned about a plan that gives away more tax cuts to millionaires and billion be theirs that aren't paid for, that's going to add $5 trillion to the deficit. that's going to be a problem for

them to defend. whatever argument you want to have, that piece is going to be impossible for them to do. >> if we're having a debt and deficit debate from here until november, we're going to be in an extremely good position to win. >> before we go to the audience for questions, let me kind of sum up this part of our discussion. when we think of that last 8 or 10 or 12%, whatever the number is that are truly out there and persuadable voters, how important are these issue differences in, ultimately, driving their decision? especially as you compare them against other factors like performance, like assessment of these individuals? how important are how closely the candidates line up to what voters want on issues is the ultimate choice they make? maybe, joel, swing voters that are left. if you could start us on that. >> i think every voter who is still undecided and who is still soft on who they're going to go in and support are going to be critical to the efforts that are

going to be made by both campaigns. you have to have a clear sense of who they are, what kinds of things are important to them, what's going to persuade them. we think we have a pretty good handle on that. we feel pretty confident about where we head towards november with those folks and that the contrasts that we're talking about in terms of our economic vision and our economic values and going forward is going to be pretty favorable for us. >> and tissue con -- the issue contrasts the key? >> again, i think the issues illustrate who you are, what you stand for, what you believe in. and i think those issues become great contrast points for us whether we're talking about giving $60 billion in tax subsidies to oil companies again which president obama doesn't want to do, governor romney does. whether we're talking about undoing wall street reform which governor romney wallets to do and president obama doesn't, i think those issues become a framework for where you're going to take the cup. >> peter, how do you assess performance, personality issues?

are they separate? >> they're not separate, joel's right. but they have different, in different years they make up different, you know, percentages. i think this is a year where personality is not as big a deal. the president does have an advantage. but here's the other thing that's important, the 8 or 10 or 12% are different people in different states. in colorado they're a lot different that ohio. in virginia they're a lot different than florida. and i think that -- so there's just a different way of going after these people in different key states. >> okay. so personality's less important, but performance and issues. the backward-looking referendum, how do you see the relevant -- >> i'm not sure i understand. >> you said personality's less important, but i want to ask about the forward-looking debate about what each of them would do over the next four years versus the more backward-looking assessment of obama's performance and romney's record. >> i think the backward-looking

assessment sets the question in voters' minds about who do i give more stock to their ideas. so you can't do it separately. they're part of a -- >> i see it as sort of big versus small. i think, um, amazing to me having watched the 2008 campaign that barack obama ran, which he ran as a centrist about doing very big things and bringing transformational change to washington, and what we've seen in the 2012 campaign is it's sort of been driven by a lot of micro trends. let's say this about student debt, to this to women about contraception. and i think that's been quite a difference for me. and i think the campaign that's going to win, that's going to persuade those last 8%, it's going to be the campaign that is forward looking and the campaign that's talking about big things. that's why i feel like we're at an advantage right now because for all of the scrutiny that we

sort of expect on the governor's record whether as governor or whether he was in his business sector, they're talking about things that happened in 1994 when voters are very and acutely focused on what's happening in 2012. they want to know what is my life, my economic situation going to be like, my prospects for the future going to look like on november 6, 2012, and that's what we're tremendously focused on, and we're going to try to keep it a big discussion about the direction of the country. >> quick point to the audience? >> i would reject kevin's promise that we're focused on small things. president obama went out as early as november and said this is a make or break moment for america's middle class and those people working to get there. and this is going to be a challenge over and a fight over who's going to create an economy that's built to last which means it's durable, it's long term, it's got real jobs, it's not about making a quick buck, having a bubble economy. it's about the kind of american economy that working people, middle class people in america expect and deserve.

that's -- >> and just, you know, i just see that a lot of folks were saying, well, let's get this persuadable voter by tweeting this or making a big deal about this gaffe or this youtube, and i think a lot of that -- i don't think those persuadable voters are -- >> presidential elections are about big things, i agree with that. let's go over here for the first question. and i'm going to reserve the right to ask one final question after the audience. >> i'm a reporter with catholic news service. how does either the voter or either campaign take into account what any president can do looking backward or looking forward with congress in gridlock? does that enter into people's thoughts about how they're going to vote for a president? how does that enter into the way you campaign based on you might have the most wonderful ideas in the world, but if you can't get it through congress and may not be able to get it through congress if congress remains as intransgent? >> there is no question that -- >> i'm sorry, did you want to go

first? >> no, no. >> there's no question that voters come to the process today with heightened cynicism for a host of reasons. the 24/7 news cycle, they get enpublish meshed and immersed in it. it's viral, it's vibrant, it's arguing nonstop on television in their faces. they bring a lot of cynicism. they also recognize that, um, congress has put impediment up after president obama. i'm not saying that becomes determinative in how they decide, but they know it. it's why the ratings of the republicans in congress went down by about 20 points from the month they took over the majority in the house to where they stand today, and it's never moved. so you have got an electorate out there that's very mindful because of the last three years that what a president says doesn't just get done whether you have democrats in congress or republicans. it's very interesting, i will tell you, i don't know if you've seen any polling data on this,

but i've seen some. two-thirds of americans think the republicans control congress even though we have a split house because, effectively, they do. the filly buster in the senate has enabled the republicans to control the agenda in either house for a couple years. >> we haven't asked this question in this cycle, but i will tell you in previous cycles americans think they like divided government. whether they believe it or not, whether they vote that way or not, that's what they say. >> right. we've had results to that effect as well. unclear what it means. >> good morning. my name's dave, and my question's regarding small business and most job generation coming from small business. could the panel, please, differentiate the difference between the candidates relative to the policies supporting small businesses? >> yeah, sure. well, i think governor romney believes that if you look at the way he's talked about the tax regimes that we have, the regulatory regimes that we have and, um, just the overall world view of what government's role is in helping spur and

development in the private sector, you know, he believes that we should have, um, more of an incentivize businesses to make better decisions and to grow and to hire more people whereas i think the world view that we believe that the obama campaign has and the democrats have is they off view the business sector as one where they have to take a punitive posture whether it's the tax regime or the regulatory regime as far as success. i think that's one of the main differences we have. you look at obamacare as a vehicle for that discussion. there are taxes and regulations in there that are hurting the ability for small businesses to plan and to grow. and that's the kind of debate that, um, is effecting a lot of these local, regional and even our national economy. >> the reality is that president obama has cut taxes and created tax incentives for small businesses close to two dozen times in his administration, and

they're working. we've had over 24 months of rite sector job growth that are happening -- private sector job growth that are happening with small businesses. we have manufacturing growth greater than it's been at any time in 15 years. these are small businesses. the reason is because we believe, unlike governor romney, that to spark and spur manufacturing and small business entrepreneurship you have to invest money in research and development, you have to take those incentives that allow them to take risks, you have to headache sure there's lending there. we just signed a bill that, fortunately, had bipartisan support, president obama on renewing the export/import bank. we had to fight with republicans over. there's never been a fight over whether or not we want to make money available to small businesses in america who make things that we can sell overseas. so i think when it comes to looking at both our track record and what we would do going forward with small businesses, there is nothing punitive about saving the auto industry. so i think we've got a pretty good record and a pretty good

contrast. by the way, again, when you want to go back and look at the record of what happened, governor romney in massachusetts, i don't know if he thought it was punitive or not when he cut over $400 million in investments for manufacturing, but i'm sure there's a cause and effect between doing that and ending up with manufacturing job losses at twice the rate of the -- >> i want to squeeze one final question. can we get one last one from the audience before i -- yes, hold on. right here. if we can get the microphone to the front, and then i'll ask my last question. >> capital insights group. i have a question about the tom mann/norm ornstein about the book argument that the republicans are really the problem, and i'd to know whether that's made any difference in the political debate since it happened and give you a chance to comment on whether you think romney agrees with that or how you might parse that finding that mann and ornstein said. >> so, you know, i think without phrasing it as the problem or

the -- there's no question that both parties are more ideologically hi among now than they were a generation ago, but the process has advanced much further on the republican side. the democratic side from the electoral base upward is more of a coalition, they rely more on the votes of moderates. the republican electorate is more homogeneous, racially, ideologically, pretty much in every way, and that produces a more uniform kind of et of elected officials -- set of elected officials in washington. and as a result there's greater centrifugal force today, i think, in the republican party. there is greater pressure against kind of, um, concession to democrats as part of building, um, coalitions to get things done. and that is a reality that i think that, um, a president romney would face. i don't think, you know, i don't think norm and tom mann have really had a big impact on --

>> [inaudible] >> the collective thinking of the house republican leadership, but i don't think they're -- if you don't put, like, kind of a pejorative spin on it, they're not telling john boehner anything that he doesn't know. i mean, which is that generally speaking the republican electorate is more homogeneous today than the democratic electorate. while still having different opinions, it's more homogeneous than the democratic caucus, and that's producing a kind of real ideological push that makes, that creates greater resistance, i think, to, you know, deals with the other side. when every republican got off on the no one raised their happened when asked if they would take a 10-1 spending cut to tax increase deal, it was a reflection, i think, of all this from the base up. >> just real quick, i haven't read the piece you're referring to, but the president had both houses of congress democrat for years, and he produced a bill that the public continues to

reject, obamacare, and he had a democratic senate that voted against his bill in unison. so they haven't passed -- i'm sorry, the budget, they haven't passed the budget, in, you know, how many years? >> i think you asked him its effect? in ohio, in florida, in colorado not only have 99.99% not read the book, they haven't heard of the book. i mean, it's one of those inside the beltway things. >> my final question was actually kind of related to that which is for the last hour and a half we have heard that -- and we have seen evidence -- that romney and obama are deeply divergent in the path they offer to the country. i mean, the two parties are at least as far apart on the big domestic issues, on the domestic side as they've been since at least 1980, if not 1964. on the other hand, the other thrust or thread that we've had through this conversation is this could be an election that divides the country almost

exactly in half with whoever wins winning by kind of a tipping point margin at the presidential level, maybe at the senate level. the likelihood is everything will be more closely divided after the election than it is today, so my question to each of you is when the parties are so deeply divided but the country is so closely divided, what -- how does that work? i mean, how are we going to go forward in 2013 regardless of who wins if we have kind of a tipping point congress, a sheriff closely-decided presidential election and yet there's an enormous gulf between what each side wants to do? >> in january 2009 president obama had won an electoral mandate, and you don't get to 70% without some republican support, a big chunk of independent support and having built up your base on the democrat side. i think that was very quickly scwawppedderred because -- squandered because for someone who had promised to gone as a

postpartisan, i'll never forget when the president went down to the democrat retreat in february of 2009 and offered one of the most partisan indictments of republican what was principled, substantive opposition to the stimulus bill, you know, only on the first couple weeks of his administration. i think the failure there was to really -- they had mastered the package gentry of centrism, but it never really mastered the practice of it. but and i think, you know, whoever wins this election has to if they want to tackle the big, enormous challenges we face in the country has to go about building up that credibility not only with republicans, be -- but with a great number of independents and democrats depending on who wins. the president squandered that opportunity very early on. >> would a very narrow result, a 49.9 to 49.1 result in the presidential race, would that be a reason for the winner to adjust their agenda to try to reach out to the other si because the country had been so

closely divided? >> i think you have to adjust all of your goals in order to -- you have to do whatever you can in order to reach your goals because right now we stand on the precipice of extraordinary economic challenges, we have national security challenges that are out there that the public's not paying attention to right now. that may change over the course of this campaign. but, yes, there's going to have to be an ability to really forge both political consensus up on capitol hill as well as public opinion consensus. >> joel, what would a very narrow divide mean for the next election? >> let me first give a little vetting of kevin's context on partisanship. first of all, when president obama was elected his approval rating and his favorable rating and his vote total were all around 53%. the 70% in january was never a concrete approval rate, it was euphoria in this country about the fact that the country had just done something extraordinary. and our numbers came down very quickly because they were going to settle back in along some kind of partisan lines.

and i applaud kevin. he's great, he does a great job at this, but maybe he missed the video clip of mitch mcconnell standing up in front of the country and saying our number one priority is to defeat president obama. so i think, you know, in terms of who worked with whom, when the president gave his jobs speech last september after begin failing to agree on a balanced approach to deficit reduction when the republicans couldn't get a single vote for, as they put it, $1 in 10 out of tax increases. what president obama said in his jobs speech is true. he put forward ideas that were supported by republicans and democrats in the past, and still republicans rejected 8 out of 10 componentsing in the jobs bill -- components in the jobs bill. i think what's going to happen with the next election, i think both sides know what tom mann and norm were talking about on the broad scale. what the woman over there asked about, that there is frustration, a cynicism about the way things work in this

town. both parties in congress are going to have to figure out how to go back to days when they did work together, going to have to get over things like the filibuster and going back to majorities being able to vote for things and getting things done. i think the american people if you get to 2014 and they don't fix that, they're going to punish people again in -- >> peter, what's the lesson the next president should take if the result is razor thin in november? as it looks like it may be. >> i'm quite pessimistic about the ability to produce a leadership structure that will make massive change in the country. and if he does, whoever wins does it by themselves, without the other party, i think that's certainly possible. and i would, something to think about, it's not an exact analogy, but what has happened and is happening now and will culminate next tuesday in wisconsin might well be a

foreshadowing of not necessarily the exact results in terms of what policies, but how difficult it will be in this country to have a civil conversation about anything that matters. >> when you are closely and deeply divided, that is a volatile combination. you have been a great panel. i will correct the historical record only slightly to point out, joel, when mitch mcconnell made that statement, he was quoting a national journal magazine -- >> i'm sorry. [laughter] >> nay major garrett. join me in thanking this terrific panel. thank you for joining us, and we hope to see you again at other national journal events including our next take on the issue at the conventions. victoria? >> thank you, ron, and thank you to all our panelists. we have a number of events we will do throughout the year, and we welcome you to all of them. we'll be continuing these discussions at the republican and democratic national conventions.

if you're interested in joining us, please, give us your contact information, and we'll keep you informed. we do have a couple of events coming up, one on june 7th where we'll be covering the economy, we welcome you there, and we have a wonderful event coming up on july 18th where we will be taking a look at how women continue to reshape the economy, politics and issues around the world. and we welcome you to join us at that. thank you again for joining us and thank you, again, to shrm for the be generous support today. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> we have more live coverage coming up today on the c-span networks. on c-span 3:1:30, the focus will be on the oil and gas-drilling technique known as fracking which has seen a recent boom in pennsylvania and other states east of the mississippi. the environmental protection agency has been conducting studies on the practice to see

its impact on water supplies and possible links to localized earthquakes. that hearing will be live at 1:30 eastern on c-span3. and coming up at 2 p.m. a house homeland security subcommittee looks at tsa inspections of trucking and rail industries. witnesses include the chief of police for amtrak and the chief operating officer for greyhound. that hearing will be live right here on c-span2 starting at 2 p.m. eastern x. with the senate out all this week we're featuring some of booktv's weekend programs in prime time here on c-span2. tonight a look at politics and corporations. and starting at 8 eastern prettier prize-winning author steve coll goes inside one of the largest corporations in the u.s., exxonmobil. at 9 p.m., bryce hoffman examines ford's ceo alan mulally and his bold plan to save the auto manufacturer. at 9:45, harriet washington discusses what she called the modification of the human body by big pharmaceutical companies. her book is called "deadly

monopolies." booktv in prime time all this week here on c-span2. spend the weekend in wichita, kansas, with booktv and american history tv. saturday at noon eastern, literary life with booktv on c-span2. robert weems on american presidents and black entrepreneurs from "business in black and white." and dennis farney on the founding of beach craft in the barn stormer and the lady. and sunday at 5 p.m. eastern on american history tv experience early plains life at the old cowtown museum. the early days of flight at the kansas iowauation museum. -- aviation museum. also two airports from the civil rights movement. in 1958 they sat down for service at the dockham drugstore. once a month c-span's local content vehicles explore the history and literary life of cities across america. this weekend from wichita, kansas, on c-span2 and 3. >> sun on q and a --

>> i think the problem is with walter cronkite, people see him as only the avung lahr, friendly man, but there was another side of him that wanted to be the best. he was obsessed with ratings, of beating brinkley report every night, and he's probably the fiercest to -- competitor i've r written about. cronkite's desire to be the best was very ro announced. >> best selling author douglas brinkly on his new biography of long time cbs news anchor walter cronkite sunday at 8 eastern here on c-span. coming up next, remarks from anne sweeney, the head of abc and co-chair of disney media networks. she recently sat down for a discussion on the future of television with "wall street journal" deputy managing editor alan murray. this is about an hour. [applause]

>> thank you. advanced digital strategy, sounds like manager we all -- something we all need. [laughter] anne, thanks for coming, especially right on the heels of your up fronts. how did they go? >> well, first of all, good morning, america. [laughter] and i'm sorry -- >> we'll get to that. >> yes, i hope we do. i'm sorry we're missing the second hour because you're here with me. the up fronts went very well. we're looking at a strong marketplace. as bob iger reported in our last earnings call, we were coming out of a strong quarter. we see a lot of new product launches next year, and on the abc front i am very proud and very encouraged by our strong schedule across the board. prime time, news, daytime, late night. >> you had a good line, you said that our bachelors don't stay engaged -- >> but our audience does, yeah. [laughter] >> that works. and jimmy kimmel had a line there that got him in a little

bit of trouble with les moonves, he says that cbs is big with the 18-49 trips to the bathroom demographic? >> that's not true? [laughter] >> well, the numbers i look at says cbs is doing pretty well with the younger demographic these days. >> but cbs does well in total viewers, and i give them great credit for a lot of the shows they've put on. abc's strategy is different, and the makeup of the audience is different. if you look at what we did last year in prime time, we have the number one drama in grey's anatomy, we have the number one new drama in once upon a time, we have the number one scripted and number one comedy on television with modern family. so that is a very strong base for us to build a new schedule for the '12-'13 season. >> any of the new shows you're particularly excited about? >> i'm excited about all of them because we're at that wonderful moment in the year where everything is possible, everything looks great, and everything's going to be a hit.

[laughter] and i just want to stay there for a couple more minutes. [laughter] but i think someover -- not only the news show, but some of the scheduling moves we made were smart. i think revenge, which was the most-buzzed-about drama of the year produced by the abc studios moving to the desperate housewives time slot was a very, very smart move. >> broadcast generates all the excitement, the big shows that the network lines up, but viewership for those as a group is going down, right? we've seen broadcast viewership drop pretty sharply in the last year. >> well, it depends on how you define broadcast viewership. we look at viewership very broadly, and one of the things geri talked about in her presentation was looking at it across all screens. and we've been looking at it with nielsen to make sure we have an accurate measurement. we've moved from one kind of, one way of measuring television into c3, we actually have some

advertisers who are working in c7 with us, but we have to add abc.com numbers to that, we have to add mobile because that's where our app is offered as well. we have settop box, vod. >> so you're not concerned about the fact that traditional broadcast viewership is on the down trend? >> no, because i think we as the walt disney company see television holistically. we have a number of content engines just in our division alone, and we also have espn and, of course, we have the movie studio. but within our division, you know, if you look at the disney channel portfolio, disney jr., if you look at abc and the great work of abc studios, if you look at abc family, we are producing a tremendous amount of scripted and unscripted material that is seen on a variety of screens. so i actually see a very bright future. >> so that was really, i mean, one of the reasons why i was

eager to get you here for this conversation, you have been very aggressive about pushing into other screens and other platforms, pushing on to digital and internet platforms. but it's a bit of a jump into the dark, isn't it? i mean, you're not making a lot of money on -- obviously, cable is making a lot of money, but beyond cable, you're not making a lot of money on any of those platforms? >> you have to remember in the early days of technology, remember when television came out and everyone says who will want it? everyone loved their radios, everyone loved to go to the movie theaters. they didn't think there was any other kind of entertainment that really needed to happen, and then television happened. it didn't kill radio, and it didn't kill movies. everyone figured out who they were in this new world or order. so change has always been part of our industry, you know, just on the technology side moving to color tv, moving to hd, plasma, i mean, look at all of the different ways we're watching just on the set at home and then adding all of the other screens

to it. you know, it's evolve or die. and i think what digital gave us, and for our company it was that phone call from steve jobs to bob iger, and then bob calling me and saying steve wants to talk to you about something. and that was, actually, the video ipod which when you think back, i remember the video ipod, but i'm so addicted to my iphone, and i've got everything there now that it just seems a very natural progression. so -- >> is that a good business for you? >> yes, it is a good business for us. because it connects us to our viewers in a way we never dreamed possible. >> you don't make the kind of profits there with your content that you would make on your cable channels. >> no. they're very different business models. one is 30 years old, and the other is a few years old. so i think they're apples and oranges. >> one thing that happens, once people start consuming video

that they're pulling down digitally over the internet, then all of a sudden you go from a limited group of competitors to an unlimited group of competitors. you've got the jay-z channel, the deepak chopra channel, "the wall street journal" channel, there's infinite competition out there. doesn't that effect the value of what you're doing? >> no, because -- for two reasons. number one, we've always had a lot of competition. we've always competed with people's leisure time activities, we've competed with video games, we have competed with, you know, not just other television channels or television shows. and quite frankly, i love competition. i think it's the healthiest thing for our industry is to have, you know, other people doing great work out there. but i think what you really have to pay attention to in this new digital world, and i think what will set us apart from everyone else are the brands that we have at the walt disney company. and it's disney, it is abc, it

is espn, it is marvel. you know, we have a tremendous amount of strength in those brands. those brands are meaningful. and if you -- whether so they can -- >> so they can withstand limited competition? >> as long as we keep them relevant. because my very simple definition of a brand is the relationship you have with your consumer x. that relationship -- and that relationship has to be as important, as relevant and as current as the relationship you have with your family and your friends. >> because another piece of this new world when you move out onto multiple platform bees, the notion of a channel is very likely to change, right? >> yes. >> and that's okay? >> well, it's already changed. >> yeah. >> but what we've learned, we do a tremendous amount of research in the company. the research isn't do you like this show or that show. anyone can do that. the research is really more along the lines of what's going on in your life, you know, what

kind of entertainment are you experiencing and how. and one of the things that we've learned is that we know disney is a brand. we know and understand that, and we have brand equity studies that we do every year. couple of years ago we threw abc into this mix. and what we discovered was that there were, actually, two television brands that popped for people; unaided recall of abc shows was higher than unaided recall of, you know, some movies to movie studios. people really knew and understood what an abc show was x. if you looked at, if you just heard paul lee's speech at the up front, paul actually started to touch on that. paul actually started to speak to the abc brand and what it meant to people. >> how much of that is disney? >> in abc? >> yeah. >> you know, it's interesting, i think disney and abc share a

true quality. they are defined by quality, i think they are defined by the stories that they tell. they tell extremely good stories, very well written, highly developed characters. i think even, you know, that's talking about entertainment, but when i look at abc news, i see many of the same similarities. i see great journalism which is great storytelling. i see tremendous anchors who deliver this information in a way that is relevant and important to the american people. so i think that that is the distinguishing characteristic, and i think that is what will continue to set us apart. >> so we talked about declining broadcast viewership, but you, you nodded to this, the video viewership overall seems to be going up. >> video viewership is going up. >> we're now talking about people spending an average of five hours a day watching video?

>> uh-huh. >> is that a good thing? >> as long as it's our video, i'm happy. [laughter] >> there's nothing else human beings do other than sleep that much every day. >> but did you also know that the most-tweeted topic last year worldwide was television? people talked about television, they tweeted about television more than they tweeted about any other subject. >> so you're saying it's not completely passive. >> no, it's not completely passive. and i think that is something to think about in the future, and that's actually what a lot of this new technology gives us. you know, whether you're tweeting or blogging or posting or pinning or whatever you're doing, you're talking, you're interacting with your community about our television content. and i think that is something that we were missing when we were just a flat screen at home. >> so much more interactive, much -- can you give us some examples of some interactivity that you're woing into your television? >> well, one of the things that we've been doing last number of

seasons with dancing with the stars is voting. now, it seems like a very simple idea, you're, you know, you can text, you can vote at abc.com, but what actually has happened is communities of people if you go to facebook and look at the "dancing with the stars" community, what we've realized is these very simple first steps that were relatively easy to take have actually spurred larger community involvement in our shows. >> they're also disagreeing with the judges on "dancing with the stars." >> yes, they are. especially len. >> can you tell us who's going to win? >> no, because i don't know. i wish i knew. [laughter] >> talk about the comcast deal because that was a pretty extraordinary agreement. tell us why you did it and what you hope to get out of that and whether you're going to be doing more deals like that. >> well, to answer your last question first, yes. because i believe the comcast deal was to -- it expanded the

scope of our industry, it expanded our opportunities, and i think the most important piece of it was that both comcast and the walt disney company realized how fast, how nimble and how available we needed to be to our viewers, to our customers. and that was baked into the comcast deal in many different ways. now, espn had gone first with time warner with watch e, pn -- >> watch anywhere on any -- as long as you awe they want candidate you are a subscriber to time warner cable. >> that's correct. and that's something espn did with comcast as well, but it was the first time that the disney/abc television group did that. and we will be launching our disney channel suite of services as watch disney xd and watch disney jr. next month. and it's very, very exciting. we did a beta a number of months ago, as you can imagine, this

just created such excitement inside of disney, that we created a beta, and i sat down with brian roberts to show him what it would look like. and you'll see a live streaming disney channel. you'll have video on demand content, and you'll have other things in the mix as well. and it really, i do have bill baker to thank for signing that initial contract for disney channel because i think what you brought to the world was something very big. and when we signed that comcast contract, i realized the great step that we were taking with this great brand of disney channel. it was really bringing it just that much closer. we did research, and we actually videotaped the research so, you know, we would have a chance to really see the way kids and parents were talking about this app. and we had a moment where a mom was sitting next to her daughter, and the researcher said, well, you know, tell me

about you've just been watching disney jr., and tell me about, you know, what you're doing. and she said what i'm doing, i'm watching my show, and i can see myself curled up on the couch with my ipad. and i thought when were we ever going to hear that you were going to curl up on the couch with your ipad. but it was, another bell went off which was people need to be able to take us with them. >> and you're completely indifferent to what screen they watch you on. >> i am pretty imp different. -- indifferent. because i realize that our audience is going to watch on the available screen. there will be properties, my great prediction -- let it shine is a great movie that we have coming out soon on disney channel, and i believe that's going to be one of those big screen experiences like high school music call was or for people. but i also believe no one will

want to miss it, and you'll be able to see it on your ipad or your phone. >> and as people, a lot of that, of course, is on demand. i don't know, do you have statistics on how much of your viewing now is on demand versus live for -- >> low double digits is on demand, but it's, again, this is a business that is continuing to grow, and it's going to be very interesting to look at the difference between kids using on demand and adults using on demand. >> kids seem to be using it more. >> kids continue to use it more, and it was very interesting. i remember doing focus groups a couple of years ago and watching the moderator in the room ask the kids questions about what they were doing, just lifestyle questions. and the kids were talking with their hands, and they were doing a lot of this. and that. and we realized, and when we got the question in the room, what does this mean and what does that mean, it was like, oh, when i'm in carpool, my mom hands

her iphone back to me. and then we started hearing stories about parents who had just gotten their first ipad, and it went missing because their kids had it. so, you know, we're live anything a world now of kids -- living in a world now of kids that's very different than when i started at disney channel. we're living in a world of touch screen. >> there's a video, a youtube video of a 1-year-old baby playing with a magazine and going like this on the pages of a magazine, and the caption says this magazine doesn't work. [laughter] now, nickelodeon said recently that the kids' interests in video on demand was actually hurting them in some ways. they were seeing people migrate to netflix where you have subscription video on demand. are you seeing that at all? i mean, is disney, are the disney channels, for instance, prepared for a big move to the

video on demand? >> well, actually, we've been on netflix, actually, we've seen our ratings go up. in fact, nickelodeon -- or disney channel beatnik load onwith 6-14-year-olds and broke their streak, and it's remained -- >> so you're not threatened by anybody. >> no, no, no. [laughter] >> we're all just friends. [laughter] >> it's the happiest place on earth, what do you want me to do? [laughter] no, actually, netflix was a great opportunity for us. and you have to remember that with our disney channel and our abc series, they do go on at the end of the season. we do have a couple of exceptions, we have fin whereas and fresh and secret life of the american teenager that start -- >> but, so what in this rapidly-changing world scares you? what causes you to wake up in the middle of the night and say, oh, my god, we better be prepared for that one. >> i think it's what we don't know yet.

and i think one of the things that i preach constantly at work and be, sadly, even at home is paying attention to what's going on. and always thinking about, we have an unofficial mantra in our group that we say to each other, we create what's next. so it is being that half step or maybe full step ahead of the audience and having that -- when the ipad came out. we went to the presentation, saw it, went back to the office and in our staff meeting we asked the question, if you could do anything with that device, what would you do? and everyone went away and thought about it and came back, and the first thing that came up -- there were two things that came up. we would do an app for abc news, and we would do abc.com. which we had established as abc.com, but we would create that app. and the goal abc.com went first, abc news followed, but the goal

was to be ready for launch day. and a very interesting thing happened. we were ready, but you never really know how many bugs you have in an app until you're out there. so our very smart digital team decided to monitor people testing out our app on twitter. and we actually established probably our first customer service department. because as people were racing to the apple store, buying their ipad and then seeing what was available, abc.com came up, and we started to monitor the twitter feeds, and we started to hear about the bugs. so we actually started to communicate with people on twitter, and what came back to us was i just heard from abc, and they heard that i had a problem, and they're going to fix it, and at 4:00 they're going to release a new version. and, you know, it was a very, very interesting process for us. and, you know, it's also important to note that that abc.com app is the sixth

most-downloaded free ipad app of all time. >> and how's the relationship overall with apple? i should say i ask that partly because we went through the same sort of experience, you know, had an app out there at the launch, it's been quickly adopted, very popular. but the relationship with apple is far from perfect. >> really? >> yeah. [laughter] you want me -- but i don't want to turn this interview around. >> no, we can talk about that. >> we'll get to that later. but, i mean, how do you feel your relationship with apple has been? >> you know, i think it is strong and productive because we're providing important products. and i think the beginning of that was really supplying our shows to itunes and taking, as you mentioned earlier, that great leap into the unknown. you know, we didn't know that it would work, but we had a very strong feeling that it was a good thing to do because we believed in this device. we saw the device, we saw how

they were going to manage the itunes store. we had a criteria developed of the people that we would want to work with. not companies by name, but, you know, who companies had to be in this new space. they had to have integrity, they had to be very connected to their consumers. they had to be high quality, they had to protect us from piracy, and apple did all of that. >> where does this, where does this go? how much of viewership is going to be on mobile devices five years from now or ten years from now? >> you know, i would say in ten years from now when it's being driven by, you know, the, you know, millennials, you know, i always believe if you need to know something, you should ask a 9-year-old because they are the most proficient at all new technologies. so when they hit that millennial stage of their lives, you know, when they're somewhere in that 18-24 range, i think a lot of video viewing will be on digital devices. but i don't think all of it will leave television.

i think television -- because televisions have become so much better and so much bigger and, you know, are, you know, really a movie experience in a lot of homes. i do believe that they will play a role, but i think what will become critically important for us is that we have absolutely the best measurement of all of these devices so we can monetize our content. >> let's talk about your global business and particularly disney. i mean, disney has become a truly global brand, right? >> it has. we have 103 disney channel in 167 countries. and that has happened -- >> can you name them allsome? >> yes, i can. [laughter] some days. but that's happened in a very short space of time which i think really speaks to the power of the brand. i was in russia in march. we launched a disney channel there in january. and it's also a model that we do

use for disney channel in turkey, in russia and in spain. and very different from the cable business that we have in the u.s. but i -- >> the advertising markets support that -- >> yes, they do. they do. but it was very interesting, i asked our country manager if she would take me into a classroom because i wanted to meet our new, our new disney channel viewers. and i went in. now, we had only been on the air for less than 90 days. and i started out, i was very curious about who they were and what stories were important to them, and i wanted to know what their favorite lull buy was, what were their sleeping songs? be and we eventually got around to stories on television, and 25% of the kids named finneas and ferb as their favorite television show. it's resonating, that's a very important fact for us. >> and those 167 countries,

they're watching the same content? >> yes. well, there is a lot of local production. depending on when the disney channel launched in the country, we do have a lot of original production which makes you feel that this is your disney channel, this is not an american export. >> and so how much of your revenues now come from outside the united states? >> that is a very healthy business for us. we don't split out domestic from international, but -- >> [inaudible] >> really healthy. [laughter] >> very rough. very rough. univision, interesting deal with univision. >> yes. >> to attract domestic hispanic audiences with english-language content. >> exactly. >> so can you give us a little texture how that's going to work? >> first of all, thank you to ben sherwood for bringing this partnership to us. >> you have a lot of reinforcements here. >> i really do. [laughter] ..

>> the beauty of the partnership is that neighboring a deep and embedded knowledge of the audience. they bring tremendous information to our company, and to the news division. and i believe that they will be a great partner in the creation

of programming and the creation of relevant important programming for this audience. >> so you started this discussion by mentioning good morning america, the today show has dominated that top place for a long time. you have said that couple of times. doesn't matter how important is that to your business? >> is really important. [laughter] >> i have to tip my hat to the gma team in all of news, this is bigger than a labor of love. gma is a trip that show. it does belong in the number one spot. i have long believed that good morning america opens the day for the television network. and it's a very dynamic show. the news is strong, and all of the information that great team provides to the american public i think is critical. and i think they have earned

that spot. >> do you think they will keep it? >> ben? yes. yes, they will. >> can you talk about the economics of the morning show? it's important symbolically but also economically. >> it is important economically. there is a good, there are very healthy batches for morning television, and we have certainly enjoyed even if the number two position we have been the beneficiaries of this budget but there is money to be made in the morning. >> are your demographics in the morning different than today show demographics? do get a different kind of person? >> no, i believe our -- more female than nbc does. but i say the demographics are probably comparable in the morning. >> news, you mentioned news on good morning america. you talk about news, the important news earlier. but abc doesn't have a cable news channel like cnn the way

nbc does. doesn't matter? to have a strong presence in news without real-time cable news network? >> actually i believe you can, and i believe that we do. you know, we have had discussion, we do have a small cable network called abc news now that it's been out for a couple years now. every -- i replayed as i watch our digital world if all, as i watch people turn to their ipads and the iphones, i do believe in some ways that it was a step that we missed, but we didn't miss a step. meaning that because of the devices that we now have access to, because of the construct of our news division, and i look at what we've done with our partnership with yahoo!, and the tremendous growth that we have experience with abc.com. when i look at the upcoming

joint venture with univision, i feel that we are very well positioned without having a 20 a 24 hour cable news network. >> so no need to go back and revisit that? >> no. i believe our future is very different, and i'm very happy about it. >> so jerry baker mentions at the beginning the story we had, the highlight, got a picture come he was one of the 10 women likely to become ceos. at disney or someplace else. is that what you, and i should also point out, i think is the first person has been of the stage for a few points of reference, any business position who has been a co. so we're delighted to have you. is that something you want? is that what you aspire to? where do you see your career going? >> i've never aspired to a title, ever. i have always, i really charted

my career based on what i was curious about. i started at nickelodeon because i was really curious about the idea that you could have 24 hours of kids programming. what was a channel devoted to get, what would that mean? i went to fox to launch effects because i'd never launched a cable network from scratch without an infrastructure wild west, get on your horse and go launch it. and i went to disney because, grow up in nickelodeon, you're insanely curious about how does he do? i thought that must be a book somewhere someone will tell you, this is how they do it, this is how they launched those movies. this is how they built those parks. so i had a great curiosity about the walt disney company. that's really what guided me. and that will guide my next step. but i have to tell you where i am right now, i think is the most exciting place on earth. i look at what we've done over

the last 16 years that i've been with the company, and really especially the last five years, have just been probably the most exciting and the most fulfilling years of my career. >> part of the reason i ask the question in part of the reason we did a story is if you look at the ranks of fortune 500 ceos, i believe right now there are 18 who are women. amazingly small number. why, as someone who is on your way up the ranks, why do you think that is? >> i don't know. i don't know. you know, i do think there should be more women because i know many talented women in our industry. that he is here today. reader is here. diane sawyer. we can point to so many women that we know who have achieved great things. >> have you felt a bit more difficult for you as well? >> you know what? it sounds funny but i think of

myself as a person, and i believe that, i believe that i am -- i believe that i judged on every single day on what i bring to the table. i'm judged on my successes. i'm judged on my feet but i'm judged on innovation. i'm judged by how i got this great division for the wall disney company. i don't think about it along gender lines but i think about it it is about performance. so there are a lot of women out there who are delivering great performance. >> this isn't always a very easy august if you have lots of questions why do we go ahead and open it up. [inaudible] >> hang on a second for the microphone, and please introduce yourself. >> hi. john. you talk a lot about the transition to tap into kenny speak a little bit about the degree to which measurement of your eyeballs of yours is keeping up? in the world today where we'll see a little tiny company price with a bigger market cap than

the entire walt disney company is all about, you know, people looking at things as everybody moves, and i agree, children live on these devices, is their traditional in which your audience is measured keeping up to allow you to sell your advertising? we have know that everyone is going there. but is measurement stay with you? >> you make a great point because of the measurement is the key to a healthy future. and our ability to monetize this content. we are working very closely with them on a number of projects, to make sure that we capture not only the eyeballs and knowing how many clicks or how many viewers, but to these people are indeed it in a way that obviously respects privacy, but it is, it is key to the future of our business. and i.t. believe that you and i do believe people are awake. i believe they're working on a. i've seen a lot more work coming

out spent part of it is one where the eyeballs are. but part of it is can you can in the same of advertising dollars? >> i do believe if you can say to an advertiser this is who i have. i am delivering to you, and income as we do at abc, highly educated very engaged upscale college educated consumers. and those of the consumers that you want for the specific brand launch. you will get them and the dollars will follow. >> how if they're using this new skip -- dish machine biscuits over the the add? >> i'm -- i've only read about and i'm anxious of our technologies get in there and take a look at and see what it actually means. >> question right here. [inaudible] >> next on i will let you do it. other questions?

>> allen with abc. if you consider the fact that the viewers who are using that new technologies are younger and younger, do you imagine that sometime within the next, who knows, 10, 20 years it's possible you will ever have to schedule anything in a traditional way and it will all be basically all, all on demand, abc will issue a list base of it and instead of having the up front be delivering the new schedule, it will be basically just a list of shows and how you can get them? isn't possible -- [inaudible] >> that's an era question but it could be 20 years from now. and people using these devices are not necessarily younger and younger. i thought that, too, when the ipod came out.

i actually members saying to steve jobs, oh, so this must be a big 12 to 18 year-old market. and he said no. it's everyone who loves music. and i think that the same holds true for the ipad. it's everyone who wants information, everyone who wants to watch entertainment. regardless if you're a kid or a boomer. budget point about the schedule is interesting but i think it's actually a long way off because i think what the schedule does, and as i looked at it and as we're formatting our presentation for the up front this year, i was thinking about how we were laying out the nights and what that meant. and i realized as i saw the nights go up on the big screen for the 20th time, that what we were telegraphing to people was actually very, very important here we were telegraphing when we stack america's funniest home videos and then we go to once upon a time. we are sending you two messages.

about how compatible the shows are so that tells you who the audience is, and we're also telegraphing very strongly that this is a abc, and you have expectations about abc, that those two shows we are certainly meeting. so i think that the network schedule will remain very useful for people because truly, everything that we have is on demand right now. everything. and it's on a number of devices. >> there's also a social experience. i know when my kids, my two girls were sorted in their early teens, i knew the one time of the week that i could get my whole family into one place was during american idol. and so it was, so i was rushed on to make sure i was there for american idol because i knew they would be there. and in some ways, the inactivity

expense, the facebook experience may reinforce the because people want to talk to the friends or family can while they're watching these shows order. so how powerful is that kind of social experience around a set time? >> it's even more powerful now because as people are experiencing television, and i had this, my god has been awake at college for couple of years -- my daughter has been away at college for couple of years. she was -- so it was so interesting because i would watch the east coast feed at home, and she's been in college on the east coast. and we would come if we weren't on the phone, we were texting each other about it. and i thought, this is just expanded, and people are come we know people are tweeting because we see. we know that their own facebook.

we know that this conversation is going on, which makes that show so much bigger than it was before all of this technology existed. >> that's very interesting. a lot of questions. right here. >> cheryl with nielsen. over here. >> go, there you are. >> my question is more about the marketing of the shows now. so as all of this technology changes, how viewers get to the program, how do you think differently about marketing, how much greater is the challenge from the investment, can you talk about that? >> sure. we still start with the essence of the show. we still make sure that we are all able to identify whether she was is about and what its importance is in the schedule. and then are, and who is the audience. and then we start to plot and plan how we launch. some of it is when we launch it.

because as we have all seen, the fall turns into clutter fest with everybody has the biggest, the newest, you know, most attracted the most dramatic, the funniest show on television. and part of it is being very strategic about when we launch. and then there's also how we launch, and is this a show that for social media is a very, very important, somewhat important, will become important after the show was launched. we make a determination, and then we work through the marketing plan and determine what is the best venue for reaching intended audience. so it's a very strategic exercise, really no two shows are alike. and we really just have a few new shows are scheduled this fall, which i think is helpful. the you that we launched desperate and lost, it was the fall of '04. we look at our budget and said, yeah, not a lot of money here.

we have to be very strategic, and we picked three properties to launch, and they were desperate, lost and -- [inaudible] >> that's not a bad batting average. >> right here. >> you painted a picture of a very fast-moving unpredictable technology environment. i'm wondering, how do you manage them how do you plan to exist and that of other? how do you think about planning? >> r&d i think is at the heart of walt disney company. if you go back to the history of walt and mary, if you look at his work in animation and realize the genius of experimentation and how important it is to invest in r&d, i think that's what our foundation is to the second piece of it is, working with people are as excited about the future as you are, and who are willing to interact and pay

attention to the consumer. and that's a very critical piece but every time a new piece of technology has, whether it is the video ipod or the iphone or the ipad, i made sure that my executive, everyone on my executive team had one. and we bring all of these devices into our staff meetings and talk about what can these devices do for the walt disney company? what can these devices do for abc news, abc entertainment, abc daytime, late-night, the disney channel portfolio, abc family. what do you know about your audience? how do they get out in the field, find out. so i actually think all of these pieces are critical to building a business model. and understanding, too, that we are creating with every new device that comes out, we have to reevaluate the business models that we are using. we cannot rely on the past. and believe that will make a successful in the future.

we have to stay one step ahead, thinking about how we are measured, thinking about how we use these devices. how these devices are useful to advertisers, and what our role will be. >> right here, and then here. >> anne, i want to ask you a question. my prejudice is devices, social media. they are tools for people to interact. they are not content. i'm a strong believer at the end of the day content is still king. context has shifted somewhat over the last few years between reality type shows, scripted shows, gone back and forth. where do you see the shift happening in the next five years? >> you know, it's a great question, and i don't disagree with you. i think social media in large

part for us right now is a very important tool. on the content side, i think it's really dependent on the mood of the nation. and one of the things that paul has spoken about both flash and bitchy and the up front is being responsive. now, during a recession, after a crash, we looked back at the shows, the movies that were popular in the '30s. we looked at the shows that were popular in the '70s. and that informed a couple choices for us last year. that informed the choice for revenge. does a very satisfying show for people. [laughter] and also once upon a time, which was an escape to fantasy, but with a good dose of reality and drama inside of it. and one of the things that paul is launching this fall as they drama -- >> a creepy new york show. >> yes, sir this.

not too far from here. and i would say that building will become one of the characters. >> there is a real 666? >> i don't live there is a real 666. there could be. any new yorker is welcome to correct me. but that was together these we found out is that monsters and scary things worked very well spent and what better place than new york's? >> there you go. we love new york. [laughter] >> john rose. boston consulting group i want to go back to the question that alan was asking early on around competition, the proliferation of entertainment opportunities, and implications. and take it a little bit away from the walt disney company and abc specifically, because you have an extra in a set of assets. you're making a wonderful set of moves. but there's an alternative to the narrative that says to me, when television came up

everybody thought it was the death of everything else. i think we've seen in the recent years a different dynamic, the record industry has lost most of its economic value, and that is going to newspapers and moving to magazines. starting to move into radio. as you look at slow gdp growth of the united states relatively fixed, and to limit how much consumers will pay for stuff. so if you leave the walt disney company and abc on loan for second and look more broadly just at the video, the television industry, studious, the networks, the tv station, it's hard not to imagine that someone in that you chain loses. because there's not an infinite amount of money either on the outside or on the consumer pay site, and wichita to clos, which i've been doing a lot recently, they are fundamentally shifting their media mix. the advertising and marketing mix.

specs of the question is who loses? >> yeah, i think the people who lose are the people who do not understand their consumers and are not paying attention to them. people who do not have strong brand or if they have a strong brand, they are not continuing to build it. they are not continuing to expand it. you know, i think we have seen it throughout the history of business. fondly remembered, oh, yes, they have that product. what did he do after that? they didn't do anything. they got stuck. >> but those are individual companies. tv stations for example, don't generate -- >> pieces of the chain. >> are there pieces of the change structurally at risk, as opposed to companies individually? >> none that i can name. and i wouldn't say tv stations because the stations, we'll know

the relationship between the tv station and the network, of course, but the tv stations connection with their audience is incredibly deep and very, very import, and placed into the success of the network are i can say because we ate station. seven of them were number one in the last rating kerry. that speaks volumes to the effort that is made. but as far as your question, i don't have an answer. i don't know who -- >> cable is a hugely profitable business at the moment but does it go away at some point? every tv that best buy sells now is internet-enabled. does the internet become the delivery pipeline eventually? >> i think a strong cable brands, and certainly our government has been platform agnostic. so i think that the brands really will roll with the technologies that are out there.

as long as they are good business models for them. >> other questions? [inaudible] >> right here and then here. >> hello. i would like him kissing about how d.c. relationship with immediate agencies? i represent in the agency. how we can work together better? how do you see a relationship growing? >> i think the big idea for us is that we should be together at the forefront of reinventing advertising. i think we should be thinking in very big and very bold and very scary ways about what advertising will look like 10 years from now, what would it look like on an ipad? what should it look like on a mobile phone? what will it look like a television? what would it look like on a device that hasn't even been created yet? i think we all need to move beyond, we've done a lot of great things together. we've done integrations that,

you know, dazzle people. we have done 15th and '30s and '60s, in two-minute trailers. but i think there is a whole new chapter to be written, and i think needs to be written together. so i think -- >> is there a campaign you can point to that has been across devices or channels that sort of shown the path toward? >> i think i start to see some glimmers of it in the work that we did on the oscars this year. this is working with the motion picture academy, and making sure that we're getting the word out. but we started get a little experimental about how we brought that message to the different devices. a great example because it's not a major advertiser, but we are having conversations right now with agencies and clients, and trying to figure out the way forward. that is different than the way we are doing it right now. >> hi, anne.

so, i guess i'm really curious about the univision abc collaboration, and anything about it you bring together to news organizations that have incredible kind of history's. but you think about abc news are more traditional news has been oriented towards domestic politics, domestic issues, the west, maybe the war on terror has been big issue. univision really did make immigration between a big topic they're probably -- so when you're thinking about the news service that is targeting english-speaking, you know, latinos, what is the new school to? what will we see differently than what we can see from what we've seen on -- >> i don't know that i would call it a filter and i don't think i would characterize abc news as a domestic organization.

i feel like i've traveled the world with diane sawyer, and there really isn't an important story in any country that we haven't not just covered, but we eventually physically been there. so i think that we bring that great journalism. i think we bring that world into the univision partnership. your point on immigration is a good one because i think it really speaks to the strength of univision. and what i was saying earlier about univision knows this audience better than anyone else, and that's why we want to partner with univision. we want to reach this young, fast-growing demographic. and we want to reach them with abc news, with univision news, with this information and lifestyle programming that is important except that's what we are relying on. so if that's what you're called a filter, maybe it's more of the criteria. we will determine together what we both bring to the party and

how that's assembled, whether it's on a mobile device or certainly on a channel next year. >> other questions? >> did you get breakfast? >> i just want to follow up on the other question. what you think the likelihood is that this goes ahead with it, and if they do, what is the industry's response? do facilities increase dramatically on dish? what do you do ask it's an important part of your ma. >> well, i don't know what dish is ultimately going to do with the. wicket from them but as i said earlier we asked senate our technology people to fully understand what the hopper technology is about. we have read honestly very little. we've seen a lot of reaction. obviously, you know, our advertisers are extremely important to us, and many networks, not just this week,

but weeks before us have spent a lot of time working with our advertisers talking about the opportunities that exist for the two of us with the fall season coming up. so jessica, i honestly believe it is a tv thing. i think we need to do more. are they going to charge more? is a free? how is a packaged into the current offer? and ultimately, where is dish going? what is that business going forward, and how does this piece fit in? >> at we can take a couple more questions. here and then here. >> hi. that pasha, a new york observer. i was curious what you thought, would you think of area of startups backed up by areas that let you live stream broadcast tv to any mobile device. >> yeah, i read about that, too. [laughter] we really don't have any comment on that at the moment.

>> have you seen that technology? >> i have seen the technology. i have only read about it. >> bob friedman from radical media. clearly, the cable industry is very robust but there's an ina that you are really 50 cable networks that matter today. and the irony is that they are in 80 million homes but in the early '80s when they're all developing developing smart cable networks, they were very, very targeted. back to the question that john was asking. is there a media -- having a copy like dizzy respond, what youtube is doing, is the new youtube channel really the new cable channels, i hate to say this, to data cells, but 30 years ago? what did they companies do what they just take advantage of the 80 million homes they have and they're very robust cable rolls back i think it's going to boil

down to how important they are to consumers. i mean, do they have must see, must have program on the air? are people going to go to them five times a day because they have to see it? again, it really always comes back to quality. it comes back to relevance. it comes back to is this something that's really important to your life. the jimmy kimmel show, absolutely very important in my life. but i don't think that every channel survive. i think we saw 30 years ago with cable, there were so many startups. we remember our ctv. we remember the entertainment channel. we remember the merger of -- that became lifetime. we had a lot of french left mtv networks to go to startups that ended up petering out or merging into something else.

>> one last question. right over here. >> margot, author of shackleton's way. anne, i'm your basic nightmare and that i refuse to own a television set today. and i clear in understanding that all of your programming is moving to online so i can watch it on my comp your? >> actually we have been online since the fall of '06, which was when we launched abc.com. and we actually did that very thoughtful. we launched the data within of our affiliates and 10 of our advertisers in the spring of '06, and determined after 60 days that we were onto something, and it looked good. and that has continued to evolve. that site has changed. certainly a lot over the last six years, and now it is offered on mobile phones and it's an app that you can download to your ipad as well.

and your abc news is available as well. >> i'm going to give the final word to our sponsors here, john roll's, but before do that just a couple of quick reminders. you can see video clips of this, and you should be able to later see the whole video on the viewpoint website. we're back your june 12 with carlos, the next breakfast. john? >> i just wanted to thank anne for joining us today. alan for running as usually does a spectacular dialogue. our cosponsors for orchestrating this. and as al pointed out, will be here in a few weeks with another great discussion. and will be ending the show with -- [inaudible] so that should be -- >> for a response. [laughter] >> and will play the appropriate

clips. [laughter] as we wanted him to the chair. so thank you all for coming, and for participating. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> we have more about telecommunications indeed the innovation coming up this weekend. issues national cable and telecommute haitian convention will bring you panels on the feature film and music distribution with the ceo of comcast, rising, wireless and thibault.

the founder and chairman of dish network, charles ergen. he talk resort about his career and the future of broadband at the university of colorado law school in boulder. for a professional blackjack player, started echostar communications 30 years ago by going door-to-door in colorado. he launched dish network in 1996, which is the second largest u.s. satellite broadcaster currently in more than 14 million homes.

[inaudible] reportedly your dad take you to see outside and on day to see sputnik in the sky. i assume if that's true it's the first satellite you sell. talk a little bit about growing up there and what effect if any that had on your future. >> well, first of all thank you very much for having me. it's my pleasure to be here. certainly grown up in a relatively small town, a count of 30,000 but it was unique in american history and it was one of the three places that really focused on atomic energy and the nuclear bomb and was started the processing uranium for the first atomic bomb in the middle kind of nowhere. and part of the biggest thing i got out of related business i got out of, i grew up around a lot of really smart people. so all the kids parents were ph.d and scientists working on nuclear energy.

around the world, so i realize early on there was a big world out there, and these people were really smart and i got a bad end of the gene pool. a lot of these people in school were really, really smart. i think we're 26 national merit finalists or, in my class but i certainly wasn't one of them. but i recognize that there are people that are really, really smart and can do things that other people can't do. so i had a good sense of that, as i got older and as i got in the business. >> you had an unconventional business background, among other points, involved you playing blackjack professionally in vegas so will your band. -- so well, you were banned. a lot of people talk about how playing blackjack displayed a business goes. bill gates, many people said his poker skills was part of his

business acumen. is there something there in terms of cardplaying skills and success of business? >> i think is a pretty good foundation. i think it's just like, very similar to those of you who are getting your undergraduate or graduate degree here. it's a good foundation for things. i would take it farther than that. first of all, the stories about me our prefix accurate. my partner was a much better blackjack player than i was, and he looked pretty shady. so he got take out a lot more than i did. there was a couple of years when i retired, i was looking for a business to start when i was 25, and i spent really two years, i played a lot of poker, i put a lot of backcheck and backend to each of those, each of those was a different discipline. in the sense that blackjack is very scientific. so there's always a right answer in a wrong answer, to take a card or increase your bid or bet

big or bet small is absolute right and wrong inspectors never made pesto, never cheat, i lost four times in row. i will win the fifth time. there's never, you know, it's your money or we can the. it's very, very disciplined. poker on the other hand is a game we don't have got the best than to win. and that's, poker is really reading of the people and reading human emotions, which certain comes to play in business. and backgammon, while is a big part of backgammon over a period of time, the real key to backgammon is to be able to thank many, many moves ahead. so most people when they played backgammon, a move the dice, but if you really get good at it you think about what are the odds on the next two or three or four rolls, and what are the two of three balls your opponent might have. sometimes you take a long-term

view. user to put yourself in a position that you will does initially, only with the thought that maybe that will go away in the long run. so those three, two years i get a lot of that was a good foundation as i got into business, i was ready well prepared for many of the fun times that we had, going forward. >> what was your best game? >> i really wasn't very good at any of them. but i was probably better at blackjack. >> we will transition from that, what was that goes here, circa 1980 come and nature partner, jim difranco, and now wife, candy, do you start the business with. you are selling c. band satellite off the back of the truck in rural colorado. talk about the early days getting the company started. where did the inspiration come from?

>> the inspiration actually came because the scientific community i got up income and my dad did take now, i'd go watch sputnik when it first came across the skies. i think a lot of my generation did. it would come by every "60 minutes" or whatever it was. i studied when i was retired, i was in the stock market with the limited funds i had to wonder the things i was looking at was satellite communications from a data and voice perspective. because it was so much more economical to do that over oceans and so forth. when jim difranco call me up and have you seen this, i so saw a satellite dish on the side of the road, and the guy was in a band watching football games. well, that just struck me as may be a business that might make some sense. as i know a lot of people having played a lot of poker, at least bet a lot of money of the

balkans, i thought maybe want to watch the football games. so that was the early edition of the nfl season ticket. except all those games were free. so that was kind of the intriguing part of the visitor i think ultimately the thing that intrigued me most about the business was not the business itself but the fact that i did not anything about the business and neither did anybody else. it really wasn't the infancy of big dish satellite business. there was maybe one or 2000 satellite dishes, consumer satellite dishes in the entire united states at that time. and so there really was no place to market. i felt like i could start, we could start at the beginning, starting gate and depend on our efforts, our ability to we could go assess in wales could go. that was different from expand. i worked for frito-lay, a division of pepsi, and they didn't need me. there were people there that been the 20, 30 years and knew a lot more about making potato

chips and i was ever going to know. they didn't need me to tell them how to make potato chips or how to make money. if they want to make money, just raise prices. they did need a financial analyst to say that. i thought people would stand in line to buy these things. didn't quite turn out that way initially, but that was the thought. [inaudible] it was a fairly successful business. did you think at some point okay, someone is may be willing to buy the business, willing to take the money and run? did you ever think about selling out at that point? >> i think when i started the business, like many onto printers, i think at least my goal was to make a million dollars, which was actually a lot of money back in 1980, by the way. and it was a time i think, three

or four years into it where i had a million dollars in a bank and at that point it was like, okay, that's not really that cool. so never really thought -- the passion, we got pretty good at it and to get good at something a lot of times you get passionate about. we got passionate. that's when we first started come a range of dining david drucker was in the audience here, and he started talking of the fact that you can launch satellites and actually did, could make the dish small. he was one our first customers. he worked for united cable at the time, when it was united cable, right? and he started talking about how to make the dish smaller. there was a nasa satellite that actually had a payload on. bathroom started thinking about why don't we do that. just kind of one thing led to another. >> you mentioned the passion quickly became more important than the money.

[inaudible] many of which revolves around true entrepreneurs who are building a company, then starting a new one. what was it about building a company that made you want to stay with it, as opposed to hitting the reset button? >> so as you get passionate a struggling sunday, you actually, it was a lot of fun and i love working with people. i also love working with people outside the company, and there were a lot of, anything from ph.d's to hobbyists, the creativity was amazing because we're starting a new industry, and the creativity of how you would make this dish work and in how you would make this dish track the satellites and how you might make the polarity change. always people who came up with this was pretty impressive. there was a day when we got offered $100 billion to buy the company, and that wasn't, that was probably five or six years into, maybe $100 million it was like just why?

what would you do with the money? because then you would just go out, probably like win the lottery but i think as people who win the lottery, at the end of the day it's probably not that fun. because most of the time you spend your life with people asking you for money. >> a sad reality, there's some studies on lottery winners and you are right. people end up sad winning the lottery. >> survey i've seen people, years of soul do business, and they usually come usually goes in a couple stages but at first they're very happy and they start playing golf for about six months and then how you doing playing golf? and the problems, the golf never gets that excited about six months, i've been playing some golf. and then if they are married the wife does not want them at home. because she knows she rules the roost, and somehow you're telling me, can kenya medical home and tell your wife out to

do the dishes or where to put this, or why she's not looking nice today, go to work or whatever, or the kids need to be picked up our whatever you're doing. she already knows all that. so she doesn't need you to tell her what to do. [inaudible] spent actually it's his life that told me that. laughing she said please, get him busy. and then they get bored, and actually say, a lot of people who sold the business, they really get bored and aborted is really, really bad. they want to get back into it again. >> if everybody gets bored, i don't want to get bored. >> that was not a problem. the 1990, you make a hard move to putting satellites up in the sky and towards direct broadcast via television. you raise 337 million in junk bonds. talk about the capital intensity

at that time, and were there any other options, and would you raise money through junk bonds against? >> well, we reached a point where, because all the things david talked about and we learned about those things, the fact was that we in the business we knew was going to become obsolete. and so we decided that we try to launch our own satellites. and realized that that was risky, but we knew doing nothing was even riskier. so that they can a fairly, became the logical conclusion, it was less risky to take a risk. so we went about trying to figure out how to do it. there were a lot of obstacles. money being one of the biggest ones, which it actually costs money to build satellites, it costs money to launch them. then, of course, you had to run a business. so we made quite a bit of money. by that time would probably come and we've never spent any money.

we hadn't bought a plane or yacht or a new house the we really say dollar money. so we had 100, maybe 100 something million dollars but i try to school whole a bit of that away. they said you have to put all your money and. sweep it all the money back in to the business, and -- >> you are all in spent i was all in. but i learned that from playing blackjack. if the odds are in your fifth, you go all in. the odds were in our favor so we went all in. we found somebody on wall street, after knockout a lot of doors, we found somebody. after i made the presentation, the guy said i was born to raise money for you. i had been turned down, at the time i had been turned down by 28 firms on wall street to raise money because they look, they said let me get this straight. you're going to go launches and satellites, go compete against tci and at&t, comcast and directv's, general motors is going to be there, two years,

two and a half years before you are, and you don't have any money and you never build a satellite before and you will yourself, and build your own receivers angel lodge on the chinese rocket that has less than a 50% chance of success? [laughter] thank you very much, why don't you give me her card and we will call you if we think that make sense. this guy said yeah, i can raise money for you. again, having played poker, i said well, i've got a couple of other guys, jpmorgan is looking at it, you know, at the time lehman brothers. so meanwhile, i was about ready jump out of my skin, of course. and i went back and call them a couple of days later and said i like what you said, we'll give you guys to shut. said that company went and raise billions of dollars for us. it ended up being the best performing high guild at the time, now called high guild because there were warrants. so those equity as well, it became one of the highest

performing high yield bonds ever issued. and i would hope that we don't have to do too many more of those that are credit is a little better today. but we would be willing to do that. for sure. >> one thing, maybe what you said and it comes up again, your willingness to cannibalize yourself. [inaudible] the painful reality as most economy firms are locked in their eyes, their perspectives, technology can come along and it's very hard to embrace. that's exactly what you did there, and then again you were willing to be disruptive and by disruptive technology, and not thinking about the wireless. how do you, this goes back again to your card playing wisdom, but how do you have a presence of

mind? most of days can't do that unless congress can do that, and they end up like kodak earned me the transition to digital photo, now it's gone, or when computers are would have. they can't make that transition. >> is difficult for a variety of reasons because i think people, i think to some degree you get in a habit of stopping to learn, and so you start doing the same thing over and over and safety in the habit of that, number one to number two is when you become successful, then it's hard to continue to take risk because you could lose. so, you know, what's that song, that song is bob dylan or something -- nothing left to lose. but when you lose, you don't try it. so you have to develop a loved of an attitude -- develop a little bit of an attitude that you have to take a risk. in our case, it is, we are actually doing the same thing

again. we're going to do that again because -- >> which were the three times? this was the first time. >> we actually bit me before that. we bet it early on windows a new car that came out in the big dish disappear and new product that we went out and bought, put a purchase order in on a $10 million. we put in place of purchase order for $109. so by -- to buy this book because we thought it was a good product. it turned out it was a good product but it turned out it made us a lot of money, but we were betting something that we didn't have at the time. so we have done it a few times. obviously, launching our satellites was one time. but now we believe that we're kind of a one trick pony as a cover. we did fixed video very well. we do it very economic. with a great product. most everybody who wants a television today has a.

there's not a lot to get us information with the recession. so there's not a lot of growth. it's down to a 1% a year, down from two or 3% a year. in fact, there is for major competitors in those markets. so it's really just customers moving back and forth. between customers. for us that's a good business, but 10 years on a that's not going to be a good business. but what will be a good business when you put that together and you put that together with mobile data and mobile voice, and fixed broadband, then you've got a business. so that's what we're trying to transform the company, and we are willing to take, you know, money that we've made so far and risk it again to try to get into that business. >> before, just a few minutes ago, there was some stupid, and alumni and you shared an interesting story that early on before echostar, you had two dishes on the back of your

truck, or one on the back of the truck of the times the? two dishes spent and you lose one. it literally goes off the side spent the first day on the job. i was driving. we're going to install one of these big satellite dishes. we had it on a treasure on the back of the car and about 4 a.m., a gust of wind came, flipped the trailer over and broke the dish. so we lost half our inventory. [laughter] so that was my first day on the job. and so, you know, we survive. a, i found out i had a really good partner, jim to franco, because he didn't to me. and we kind of sucked it up and made the best of a bad situation and never to come we understood that we could overcome obstacles. we really never ever had, i guess not that will, never had that big of, never that series of an obstacle since.

we've lost several hundreds of millions of dollars, you know, we tried to acquire directv and when a $600 million breakup fee when the government turned that acquisition down. and that was not nearly as painful as turning over a dish back in 1980, i can tell you. >> i was going to say, the day which the chinese rocket picture for satellite up, did you think about that dish going over and what was the sense of emotion during that day? >> i did know. i actually was pretty calm and, of course, i had my whole family with me over in china. we were in the middle of nowhere, it was really just a few of us and some cia agents. excuse me, they were attaches to the air force i think. [laughter] and i was pretty calm. we have done, because we did everything we possibly could do

to make that launched successful. and then you have 20 minutes of a controlled explosion that you can do anything about. you just kind of, but i thought we'd done everything we had worked really hard. we have done everything we could possibly do. we had a lot of expertise alan people who helped us to get to that point. i think we're quietly confident that really had two good options. one, that's not what was going to be successful and we were going to be in a business, you know, for a good long time. or number two, it wasn't going to be successful and that's going to go back to being an accountant in alaska. both of them i could live with it i was okay even we. both of them sound like a pretty good deal. but it turned out, it turned out the way it was supposed to. >> so in the '90s, you end up doing what most investment bankers thought was crazy which was competing head-on with cable.

tci being the most notable at that time. you had the 1992 cable act to help you out to access program. when you look back at that venture, taking on the cable companies with this new technology, what would be keys to success and what were, looking back, the risks that what could have gone wrong and how did you manage to pull it off? >> i think there were a lot of things that help. one, certainly directv deserves a lot of credit. some other management that helped pave the way. in fact, we were a distributor for directv for the first two years when they started. so a lot of people that paved the way. even prior to that the people who try to enter the business and failed for a variety of reasons, mostly timing. and so i think that, that, i think we were fortunate that the cable industry was arrogant and

didn't believe the fact that david and i went, we actually, the first company was actually called -- that we started. we first filed for fcc. united cable -- >> we will lead this program at this point for a brief