iranians who are prevented from leaving. i think i am in a smaller category of people who are prevented from entering.???? perhaps what i would most like? to do is take my children and?? grandchildren back there.??? we have two children, iranian americans. their mother is iranian.???? they were both born there.??? >> so you're married to an??? iranian? >> yes, 46 years? now.??  did you matter and to rant? recordist in many years ago when as a peace corps volunteer. we were both teachers they are. so at the time of the revolution, we had been married 13 years and had two children already. the children remember iran. they have wonderful memories of good times there.

now they have their own childre who are one quarter uranian and? probably about the only relation they have now is their????? grandmothers cooking, but i??? would very much like for them to see that part of their origin. >> host: john limbert, was your family there in 1979? >> guest: fortunately, it was not. some of my in-laws where they are and were able to get out. my wife and children did not come to tehran. this one in the foreign service recalled an unaccompanied posts come a post about family. we had been in saudi arabia before and they stayed on in udi arabia, which is a good place for them. it was a great relief for me being captive, knowing that the were safe and in a secure place

>> host: finally come any ptsd issues for you? >> guest: none that i'm aware of. i know it hasn't been easy -- o course, these are not easy for some people. as you can tell probably peter, one of my best therapy is talking about it and talking about these issues. i mean, once in a while things come back about the incident. but as i said to you, the damage done to harness i think was much less than what was done to our iranian friends and relatives. poster we have been talking on booktv with her for sir john limbert, author of this book, "negotiation with iran: wrestling with the ghosts of history." you are watching tv on c-span 2.

>> host: now joining us on booktv is professor brendan doherty of the u.s. naval academy. his most recent book is called "the rise of the president's permanent campaign". professor doherty, who was packard bell? >> guest: very good question. first, thanks for having me on. i might be in your program. pat caddell was an adviser to president-elect jimmy carter and he is noted for coining that transition memo he wrote to then president-elect carter, in which he said the key to being effective as president is a continuing political campaign.

the notion was born man and popularized by book on political consultants when a teen 80s that has since become part of the common lexicon. >> host: how it should defend campaign? >> guest: it can be defined broadly or narrowly. the way i define as the extent to which a president focuses on electoral concerns throughout his term in office. by focusing the same presidential fundraising, and dedication to key electoral states to register them in office and the nature of electoral decision-making within the white house itself in recent administration. some people look at the campaign more broadly. the coupling operations, public opinion, but my focus is on the electoral questions the president confronted and how they deal. >> host: when we see president obama or president bush spending a lot of time in florida and ohio, that right there is the key? >> guest: exactly. what sparked the idea was president bush's first term when there was a lot of focus on the

time he spent in ohio, florida, pennsylvania. and you can certainly find examples of presidents, but i said but would receive for systematically, over decades, everything presidents do? what patterns to play out and is there a disproportionate focus on a lecture on matters? >> host: what did you find? >> guest: we've seen a substantial increase in the time presidents to vote to electoral concern. the clear indicators that the president goes to ohio two years before the election, is either because it's one of the largest states or because he cares about the people of ohio or the presidential election. that's a bit harder to say. but what is unambiguously electoral is presidential fundraising and that is seen as kuwait over the past three and a half decades. we've also seen a rise in strategic travel and disproportionate focus on battleground states and key nominating states.

not just an election year, but throughout the president's term in office and we have seen an internalization of electoral decision-making in the white house that the decisions that decades ago were made by the national committee, republican national committee are now made the a's who work in the white house and are on the government payroll. >> host: so give an example when it comes to fundraising with president obama. >> guest: sure, certainly. president obama has broken all records for first-term president. i shot every president since jimmy carter. president obama has held about 300 first-term fundraisers. the previous first-term record before that was george w. bush, who had held about half that amount. he broke the clinton's record and so on. so it's important to know it's a

story. it's meant to bomb its critic is quick to jump on him for devoting so much time to fundraising. and he absolutely has broken records. but there's a very understandable reason why. and what we've seen in presidential fundraising is an unintentional consequence of the rules of our political system, that we have campaign finance rules designed to reduce corruption or the appearance of corruption. and to do limit the amounts of money that presidents are candidates can raise from any individual or any group. the idea is you cannot buy an election if the comic of $2500 to a presidential candidate per election cycle. when you combine those relatively low campaignñ contribution limit for the rapidly escalating cost of campaign, presidents are virtually forced to spend more and more time raising money and it has been an escalation. 20 years ago with stories about how the first president bush won

a record-breaking fundraiser. thing about george w. bush and now barack obama. >> host: brendan doherty, president obama sworn in januar january 2009 goodwin to be he start holding fundraisers? >> guest: his first fundraiser was just a few months then. i want to say this about april, but it could have been march. presidents have started fundraising earlier and earlier in her terms as well. not just for themselves, the fellow party members. about four in five over the past three and half decades has been up for the president for national committee, but a fellow democrat or republican. in the same pressure that apply to presidential campaign brison caused a relatively low contribution limits apply that congressional campaigns as well. the members of congress feel compelled to spend so much time raising money for small increment and presidents are party leaders.

they start earlier and earlier are raising money for fellow party members as well. >> host: is this a bad thing click >> guest: it cuts both ways. certainly a president's time is the scarcest resource. in the george w. bush white house, his time as scheduled in five minute increments. there's always more important than suppress mccain doing any of the time to do. my 10 step from racing, electoral concerns does mean less time doing something else. and we should be about what the something else is. we don't know. i haven't looked carefully. presidents may be simply spending less time with their families, getting my sleep. they're quick to say they're campaigning instead of doing their job. that presidents do that because that is how they can get closer to the more perfect union in our political system. tonight coast-to-coast anymore numbers in congress. they need a second term, four more years in the white house to

have a chance to make their political dreams reality. and so the sun rising electoral concerns as a means to anon make decisions on how to allocate their time based on the rules of the system and if they want tou? make thep? world a better place? d.c. this is something i have t? do. >> host: professor doherty, with a different before jimmy carter? >> guest: that's a very good question. i start my systematic analysis of the book with jimmy carter because in the 1970s who nominated our president and change the rules of our campaign finance. so jimmy carter was the first president elected under the system we all know well now, system in which kennedy struck to iowa, new hampshire and they submit their fate to the will of the people in a series of primaries and caucuses, delegates are chosen a nominee's elected.

before jimmy carter, presidential candidates were chosen by insiders at national conventions. and they could run in primaries and caucuses, but they don't necessarily have to. it is very much an insight game. presidents now must raise a lot of money to take their case to the people in the way they didn't necessarily need to before. in terms of the travel and presidents spoke in on key states, your presidents now is key to political success has taken a case to the people and now that they're in office they continue to do so. in the book, talk about presidentially thing he needs to get back to his winning game, what does he want to do? they want to go back to the people and they happened to do it in thesekey electoral states. states of matter disproportionally in the upcoming election. it is very different before carter. jimmy carter was the first president to have an aid in an aid in the aid in the white house specifically designated to handle political affairs. in the book by contrast the

recent presidents carter, reagan, clinton, bush and obama with the truman administration. almost all political concerns rustlers to the national committee. the white house staff is smaller, different norms. everything is improper to someone in the government payroll, make an electoral planning decisions. the jimmy carter designated an aide to do with legal affairs not because the white house is political, but he was accused o handling politics and the whie use poorly. he wanted someone close to someone close to him who he could, who could help them keep in touch with key members of  y across the country and ronald reagan institutionalized it. it's on the white house office of political affairs, chevy president since has had none is given as the situation now where you're used to having the key campaign advisers by david axelrod david karl rove who are on the government payroll.

they are there to help the president do the job come but they're certainly the concern that you have a perception of a politicized white house and a politicized president. >> host: brendan doherty is a professor at the u.s. naval academy. this is most recent book, "the rise of the president's permanent campaign." university of kansas is the publisher. ofessor doherty, d.c. that ar battleground states, do they ge short shrift because of this? >> guest: they do. they certainly do. in chapter four of the book i look at places presidents never go or at least rarely go. in the states that systematically neglected by both parties tend to be small states. that is in populations where th lesser populated state.  host: north dakota, south dakota, nebraska, kansas anon anon. they tend to vote republican 

most tend to be well removed from washington. i looked at all presidential visit to the state of the past three and a half decades, looked at another spreadout by state. i said what if you allocated these according to population unelected the ones who get more state than the population would predict a number of visits and population would predict and it is the key electoral state that tend to be disproportionally visited. was this not just in election years, but are her presence turns about this and we've seen this fairly consistent since ronald reagan, but we've had  spike in the disproportionate focus in the key states in lesser presidency, george w. bush's presidency and barack ama obama's. >> host: what you teach at the u.s. naval academy? >> guest: i teach courses on the presidency of campaigns, elections, politics generally and occasionally course on the congress. it's a wonderful place to teach.

>> host: are those require courses or elective courses? >> guest: the introductory to american politics is required every student must take a cours  the u.s. constitution. the other courses or upper-leve elective courses are mostly political science majors come up with all sisters throughout the majors across the naval academy. >> host: what are some of the equent questions you get from e cadet? >> guest: faired midshipman. it's a common name given to cadets at west point and air force. so the mid, they have lots of questions. they're curious about the esidents are less commander-in-chief. this on teaching our campaigns and elections class and they'e very interested in who has the presidential election, how can

daystar curlicue groups, the attention they get to questions of their role as commander-in-chief and there hasn't been as much emphasis and not in this presidential election and others. >> host: can members of the military done a presidential campaign? >> guest: yes, they certainly can. the restrictions about what members of the military can do. they can attend political rallies. can put bumper stickers on their cars. they can donate to political campaigns, but they can't do anything in uniform in a capacity that would lead people to believe the military supporting one candidate or another because the military strictly nonpartisan. >> host: professor doherty, have you looked way more military members are republicans than democrats at all? >> guest: i haven't. some not something i've studied systematically, but i would say that while that statement on a broader level is supported by

evidence, there's a lot of variation within that. so you see variation that tend to leave more republicans than you also see variation among th enlisted ranks and officer corps. it's not my area of expertise. i don't want to go into great depths, but as with anything like this come it's definitely members in the military taking this,, putting lives on the line to hold a wide array. >> host: finally, professor doherty, the permanent campaign, has the lead to a more responsive government? task of us at alexander hamilton wrote it he made the case that having persons eligible for reelection but make them more responsive to the public and better incentivize to do a good job as president. it certainly has led to presidents getting out of washington more come into being more in touch with the american people. not all of them.

george w. bush's press secretary says if you want to see a president more come he should move to a swing state and then you'll be able to steer president mark. our system has incentives to more some places and voters matter more than others. the permanent campaign has kept closely in touch with the voters. the rest of fundraising keeps them in touch with certain voters more than others, those that are able to offer financial support for his campaign. and they're certainly a permanent campaign that's an important part of our political system, but it does raise questions about whether the system i have is the system we want to have. >> host: brendan doherty is the associate director of clinical science at the u.s. naval academy. he is the author of "the rise of the president's permanent campaign." you are watching booktv on c-span 2.