counterterrorism bureau there is a very good likelihood that the responses are going to come back where there's going to be the happens to be a problem of refugees with narcotics or with terrorism. .. i happen to think that most of

these places, there's usually two or three things you'd better get right or you won't make much progress. if we come in and do 25 things and have pages and strategies, it's not likely will be as well focused as we could be. the second thing are they to suggest is i think we need to look much more aggressively for what we are calling silenced majorities. the vast majority of people anomalous every case don't like the existing regime of the political opposition. they are nervous about raising voices in getting involved in the political process. many times you can see their apolitical, but generally you can find large examples and when men and used another significant populations politically underserved and eager to have a greater influence. stewart focusing on those, but the business community falls in that community has followed her

similar scripts of not clinicals. the third point is we need to go local at the very fine man. in every country that were working on right now, we find local initiatives that are likely not to succeed, so it doesn't make more sense to invest in that they bring in a whole u.s. infrastructure, which we probably cannot sustain which will probably take us months to understand what's going on. it increases our influence. it forces us to be catalytic and captures local talent that makes it much more sustainable. we've all talked about it for years and we still don't produce it. the first response is to send me 10 or 15 internationals. even the best of us in a new job it takes months to figure out which are doing. a new country or new job should be more complicated.

common sense would head in this direction. i guess the final point i would raise and this is an important one. and everyone of these cases, help is needed. and i must every case they don't want us to take over. so covert assistance to the kind were offering visits with these places need and want, but we should be much more respectful of the fact it is not ours to own them furthermore in a place we haven't really found it to be a very happy experience. cities are some of the rules we are refining us to come through this first year. a more than happy to talk about ways we are approaching the work in each case because they think that will bring it to life. but since many fewer practitioners, i thought some of these points might fit with some of your own findings. i would just say to you, people

already asked me if i'm having fun. first off, it's an unbelievable privilege and it's starting to be fine. sir thank you very much. i'm looking forward to the conversation. >> thank you very much, ambassador and assistant secretary. avalon ask if you're having fun, but i did want to start with a general question. in selecting these four cases are your focusing 80% of your energy, is this a science or an art that you're trying to cultivate? is a systemic approach are trying to develop or are you seeing what you can have a tailoring individual each case? >> it's both. as the result of a process with people at the white house company assistant secretaries secretary for regional bureaus, making sure there is an ambassador who needs help and

so, there is an internal gain them least sort of follow the blocks. we want to be in places that really matter. it matters to the yes at the moment is the right moment to do something that will take hold in their something we could then do as well. so that's really the criteria. our just give a quick example. how did we end up in syria rather than egypt, yemen and libya that were on the same table at same time a year ago. yemen was the easiest. we can all get killed or might not get out of the embassy. it didn't seem that the dynamic opportunity. egypt was a huge, ongoing operation and would highly would be hard to figure out unless the

ambassador said i want to take a review of the portfolio, it would be hard to figure out how we could influence the case. libya already seem to have more with the night nations in the other cases. syria also had a positive argument because of the location, we thought of its hopeful start teaching at attraction. there was the unpredictability of the conflict, how long would it go and make you get caught up waiting on deck? it turns out in a place like syria, the united states government rolodex wasn't very great. the embassy in damascus have not had a chance to get to know the opposition and where the energy was and is so revolutionary process. and so, the training and equipping the date of nonlethal

assistance and nonviolent opposition has allowed us over the last year to really broaden the u.s. knowledge of what's going on in syria, who the key players are and i think if you're getting closer to a circumstance where there might be either fraction alliance protocol in a highly decentralized result in a conflict, you really do want to know 100 people in aleppo. you don't want to go down in a suit of damascus and hope some later jumps on. so this is the kind of foundation building that you have to undertake and that we've done. >> could you tell us something more specific about how you're actually doing not? do you know 100 people in aleppo? you've got a team of 200. are you able to get people on the ground, work with others?

>> syria is a really good challenge because you have to work out of a third country, which has its sound very distinct feelings about what is going on inside his syria and what it might mean to them. up until the last two weeks we were to exclusively in turkey and now he started to work in jordan as well. that happens to be, not that the internal bureaucratic said that important, but that happens to be too geographic bureaus and different sets of ambassadors. so again, i don't want to overstate the sensitivity of that, but that's part of what we have to do. so the answer is yes. we do know 100 people in aleppo, but all of them have had to come across the border and we have essentially been helping to provide equipment, but also

training sessions and had used equipment safely and also some government issues. but we still have a lot more work to do in terms of getting to know more syrians and the ones we do know much better. because for example, if you do a vetting exercise, you want to make sure it they are not terrorists at the same time they say they are friends of ours, which is another part of our process. hamas is to tell you that much about how capable they are of which you can do it and. >> i believe two weeks to burma. what are you hoping to get ..? >> the lesson policy in burma trade to anchor ourselves and so we think the u.s. policy in burma is pretty clear that we want to open the place up, want to deal with the long-standing disputes and we want to do

business. rethink the second one is probably the most delicate one. >> specifically how do you approach that? >> it's been very delicate and sensitive because they're developing quite nicely on their own to is the first in third targets and this is the one that's most uncomfortable. so we tried to find a subject matter that might breed dialogue between the parties. the subject matter has been landmines because it turns out neither side really likes landmines. there's plenty of them out there. so two of the most conflicted areas are working with those parties to hopefully bring them together around the subject of landmines, feeling that there's progress on that, erasure discussion will follow.

>> can you give us some thoughts on afghanistan where there is corruption to the violence? are you involved in all of that? >> we had our largest operation in afghanistan, but in the course of last year, we have reduced it dramatically. with 30,000 people there and we are now down to four, partially because we felt the wet straw transition was the largest issue that we should probably do our part as well as we could. so all of our people now working on the transition plan doing planning for the embassy in the military the next steps. that's all we have left in the country right now. i just had a conversation with somebody the other day who said she what you're doing in the elections maybe think about afghanistan elections.

>> what are you doing in the kenya elections? >> i think all of you know four years ago can you really lit up as a result of political leadership, essentially stoking the public to the point where several times people died and several hundred thousand people left their homes and it really got out of control. so that is the focus of overdoing. with the embassy asked us to do was help us drive all of our attention to the violence because if that happens again, it will be by far the worst thing that could happen to kenya. so we are on the right issue. what could you possibly do? we thought there would be a great deal of attention provided by the u.s. and other international partners to the election -- to the logistics of the election.

in a way, it's flattering and it's a bit of an industry now. there's a lot of people who know how to do election and even though almost every election has problems and delays, we still now seem to be by the finish line. so we thought the greater problem was that there was silence, who would check it? kenya is going through a period of amazing reform right now. they've got a new constitution, commissions for virtually everything under the sun. it's almost over reformed in the sense that it's got two much in the police happen to be lagging behind. we had to make an assumption that the police would not be in shape to do what we would hope they would do and standing in belaboring that point we didn't

think was particularly smart either. so we've tried to do is find ways of using an amazing network of the u.s. government, eide, state department and others haverty gotten underway for fighting aids, horticulture programs, for a series of initiatives going on please. how do you take that essentially apolitical mass of people and engage them in election related process click we have 14 people and other than having each of them tell us the wonder of their programs, read a conversation at a rate to the question. what worries most about your country this year? election related violence. are you doing as much as you'd like to do to combat that? note. would you like to be more engaged? yes. is there anything you could bring to this that might be helpful in terms of an early

warning system in making police are capable, checking how the election is going? the first person to speak with a man running a horticulture program and he said i hope i can help because i've only got 4000 kenyans in this area who are part of my program. i thought you could get elected governor of any state but texas was 4000 people is your base. the next person to speak with the person running the aids program in the happiness they we have several hundred thousand household we visit in this region every week. so he said, okay, what would it take for you to bring your assets to discharge? aig had a wonderful gift you can initiatives with tens of thousands of youths engaged in the election process. so combining these people with

catholic bishop su at thousands of refugees on their land and they were already involved in that. it's a question of how do you bring these kenyans to the next level of capacity? the one thing i said was we need to come together right away in second life, if you help us get local kenyans to have to take rsn and put it issues, will continue doing our day jobs. so the whole peace initiative was guarded, something like it on the coast. we're still very worried about places like islam's of nairobi, which are kept her, but anyway, i think you'll make a difference in a very, very least will be thousands of kenyans who are more involved in a political process. there would've been spectators and other participants in a blue that can only help. >> thank you. i think i'm going to open up the floor to questions. please wait for the mike, state

your name and affiliation. keep your questions brief. >> keep your questions friendly. >> ask him to keep your extremely friendly. >> i must tell you i'm impressed and that doesn't happen often. you're not going to jump in with those feet? are going to let locals do some of the work? you're not going to get it? my question is when are you done? >> when are we done? >> i keep hearing, but romania, lebanon, very good. >> yeah, thank you.

i've enjoyed your work over the years, so thanks for your compliment. i hope there is no sarcasm in it. just a touch. well, in a case like kenya, for example, were done probably a month if there's a runoff election. but i don't believe in every case it's that plain and simple. we will likely be involved in syria for maybe six months after the change in regime. but we believe that we will hope to get things started and really create the opportunity. and it should fit into other opportunities that the u.s. government and international community season this place. in a place like honduras, they're certain elements of the work we've done already finished because they were looking for

kind of emergency help at prosecution and the issue they are was this explosive homicide rate in the loss of government control and total loss of public confidence. quite a few things. but they were tied to the highest homicide rate in on conflicts over the world. so we did give them some initial emergency help to bring some prosecutors and homicide investigators because they didn't have enough of those in place. but we've tried to move on to his local initiatives that we believe are quite promising, to make the country safer, something that took considerable legislative action. it's not that great. so how do you build the success that might or might not work.

but we can see that's the biggest window. that's not overpopulated by u.s. capacity and capability. but it's not religious. it's a period that we can expand for six months or year as needed, but it should make us be more urgent to really drive the exercise. we bring urgency to almost any discussion and said the u.s. government. deconstruct his to do. >> i am really from dyncorp international. there are a number of areas in the u.s. government to look at failing state. there's the cia's failed failed

states index in the nfc chairs or use teacher in interagency failing state. how do you see as planned this? >> first off, we tried to work and must play with everybody you mention because we really want to be aggregators of talent and good work that's gone on. for example, even something as seemingly simple as analytics, we have a meta-data analyst in our shop now, but we don't -- we want him to be an aggregator of aggregators. i tell them you can't a sober on steroids because we can't possibly run the next step to you. and it turns out the intelligence community that's been called the state

department. they're flattered by it. they want to have their work respect to called upon. often times there may have been times when the state department has not been as friendly adores it could be to these other partners. i think particularly when you get some pain like policymaking, there's been kind of a secret formula, sort of a kentucky fried chicken. you have to go in the back room and nobody can tell you with the elements are. i happen to believe the process should he widest in the beginning and then narrowed down rather than hope everyone will jump on board. that's the way were trying to do it. >> over here. >> each time a given answer, 10 times more hands go up. >> i want to hear how the intelligence community was

called by the state department. >> i'm also impressed at the process you've gone through and particularly catalytic in terms of the bureaucratic politics, not just in terms of the impact on the ground. i've something of a concern about the short time horizon. he said it was zero to one year. the real problem was failed and failing states although there's deep-seated structural issues. if you're going to get the heart of that come you have to have a longer-term strategy of some sort. even if you use the example of kenya, for example, sure everyone is concerned about the elections, but one of the problems we had as we focus on elections and then go home and think everything is okay and it's not. how do you get to the next stage of what you're doing, where you really get to the fundamental underlying drivers of the failing states rather than just the triggers?

>> right, i think, i hope that my answer is even more so when our work that we are touching on those issues at the front end, that we are not just running through an election process, but we are really going at the core issue in particular in a place like kenya is surrounding political leave so that they don't have the room to instigate violence around the country. so it's basically the big idea of getting all these people in play if they will not only claim iou, but we'll let the political candidates know that the space they are operating and is shrinking dramatically every day in terms of how they can cite the public. so i start with precisely the behaviors of the political elites in that country, but you have to figure out how you check

it. a place like kenya and you've got wonderful press, very rich civil society. you have several of love. a lot of things are going on it don't exist in other places. but there's been something that has been used over and over again through the decade and it tends to come at least our analysis tends to come back to a few players have been acting highly irresponsibly and trying to limit the political dialogue to one of tribal divisions that supposed to have the country is run and how it should be run looking forward. the second part of the answer is there's many come in many parts the international community that actually are there to play the longer game. in some cases it takes two years to get there, three years to get there, but that is where most of the money is.

there happens to be two places where the money sits in our system. one is the instant emergency in the other is in a longer-term play. in between, we haven't done that good a job in an update which i'm not good of the job of getting started in the right direction. somebody starts up again about political elites would be much more effect in terms of what they do with their aids program as well. we're definitely thinking about it. but i see with the u.s. government needs to do is be more on the problem that we're here at the beginning of the vet very. but we should do both the inside and should he highly catalytic. but we are not responsible for the whole ride. morrison a part of the international community. it's got to be a contributor, so there is an journalistic mind that the become an in fix this place. at the end of the day, it's more

like having alcoholic relatives. you cannot have to help out where you can, but let's keep it on focus. and that's not easy, by the way, because we have a lot of wonderful things we do. >> a question that the follow-up to that question. rule of law -- he mentioned with the flow and the real problem is a lack of governance. to what extent on the business and economic development in creating are helping create the better economic environment? to what extent do you get involved with that type of work? there's a lot of projects you could do in that area that could have a long-term implications, especially in honduras. >> sure. i'm not sure this is exactly answering your question, but we

see the business community is the a huge area of opportunity that hasn't been called upon as aggressively as they should be in the cases, so we're trying to do that. i give you a couple examples. we had dinner one night when i was in mumbai for a new general manager at the hotel said something like it 684 rounds and during the last run he had eight guests in his hotel. so he was very attuned to how radically things could change it or not managed well. honduras is taxed on the business community. it has to be collected fairly. already there are signs that the collection rate is dropping for the compliance rate is dropping. it has be spent wisely.

there are signs that it could be used as a slush fund a key political operatives. so these are the kinds of challenges that the business community can afford to privatize their security operation at a place like honduras, which is effectively what people do. oil compounds are not immune from the kinds of disturbances were seeing. we've obviously got to think about that in a much more sophisticated way and there have been huge interest in investments were necessarily foreign mining. they were unearned as opposed to the societal plan and so we figure out how to engage more broadly. but we are keeping that in mind everywhere.

>> doug fife from hud and institute. your bureau is an outgrowth or an abolition from record nation stabilization. how would you describe any differences between your bureau's mission and what was the original concept of the opposite we construction stabilization? >> i know i've got some people who work for me who could probably do a better job. but what i can say is when i was offered this job by secretary clinton, the office had lost a competence of key players on capitol hill and others in the u.s. government. so i just produce a chance to start over anything probably a lot of what we are doing with the original conception.

and i'm trying not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. probably nobody has said that since her grandmother died. so my feeling is they think the original intent was to be strategic and to have a policy influence. and then i think when it went through its middle stages a coordinator and never gain traction in the state department. so it then went into a kind of supplier of people, which i thought was too limited. so we've tried to recapture that want to be part of the conversation. we've been very fortunate to have the support for secretary clinton for the first year of our existing and now what we are finding that only been in a handful of meetings with

secretary kerry, but in every one of the meanings, he has said, or bring the ideas. give me some out-of-the-box thinking. we've got to find another way of doing some of these things. i am hoping our bureau can be a very aggressive supplier of ideas in different ways of doing things. i think if we come up with good ideas, will have influence on policy. will be invited to the rate means that we will be seen as a valuable instrument of change for u.s. foreign policy. i know that is the case at the embassies we are working with. i don't know how many of you have for the state department -- [laughter] i'm probably not begin in a totally foreign language here. but you would understand we've got to do it one day at a time

and occasionally with the big idea. one day at a time -- this is kind of a digression, but two or three months ago when i was in a relatively stressful time, i thought, why am i doing this job? i thought it might have one advantage that a lot of people don't have. that means for the first three years of his life -- the first 12 years of my life, i had an undefeated losing streak. every time he did anything, i lost for 12 years. my favorite line was always let's play again. i can tell you i got about a 50 year winning streak on my brother and tennis. so you can get to that point. you've got to be there every day. it is persistence. >> maria solano from north of grumman. i like what you were just saying about new ideas and there's a

place just a couple miles from here with a deadlocked government who couldn't use the new ideas that your bureau might provide. my question is, how sequestration affect your bureau? >> well, we've made a lot of administrative changes. but actually restructured 40% of our budget in the last year. part of that is to create more liquidity, not just to say it on people. so i think we're probably better positioned than him, but were not particularly well-funded. secretary kerry mentioned this in his speech today at university of virginia says something like -- i wasn't watching. i've been told this. i've got $60,000 for conflict

stabilization, which was what was spent to produce the movie the avengers. so we said something about us being superheroes. but you know, there does come a time. again, all of you who worked in the state department know that good ideas is great, but liquidity is also really important and this is something i did talk to secretary clinton about when i took the job, but it just like to be able to go to when ambassador in sick at a couple million bucks in my pocket. but it's also important for the people who work for bureau to have a million dollars credit line for the taxpayers. but for us to be creative. otherwise i don't have the time, i don't have enough people. i've got a million dollars or if you've got a good idea, call. we still need to activate the phone a little more.

i went to recognize steve orson who started oti and was one of the founders. yes, in the back. >> thank you. congratulations on your new position and congratulations to the new winning streak. we hope that lasts forever. you state from the beginning you mentioned focus and you also mentioned we have to listen to this majority. so president obama and secretary clinton hugged the focus to the asia-pacific, but you have worked with her mother. so my question is to southeast

asia and what you share with your vision of how to build brown eyes next year i think burma will be the chair and how to build a to the centrality role in how to work into that. the code of conduct and the rule of law to resolve some of the conflicts? >> i think it would for sure. i have to say since i haven't had a chance to visit burma myself yet, i'm probably less conversant with it than i am at the other major cases we are working on. but clearly there is plenty of opportunity for progress in this phase in the u.s. policy is really trying to drive back. in terms of the rest of southeast asia, right now as we

look at future engagement, there are a couple countries we have to be sensitive to and that we are reviewing. but we haven't got much beyond that stage. sorry not to be better informed to answer your question. >> when the back row there. >> thanks, claudia. mr. ambassador, you mention the crowded field out there. [laughter] doing the pre-impose conflict, how does cso plug-in or not plug into the other actors either bilateral or multilateral? >> i am hoping -- thanks, well. [laughter] i am hoping that we will be completely opportunistic in terms of who our partners are.

we have two people from our partnership office here today and will fail carlin and right over here and there job is to make sure that we do not play the entitlement game, do we just let to see who's got the best talent on the ground, who's got the best ideas. for example, on the way over, we were talking about calling our european colleagues because the canadians call to see me what to do something on the theory problem, but we don't know where to start. we said how about two of the platforms we hope to create. one office of foreign assist them and another was kind of the media of. the canadians had jumped in for a couple million specs, which is terrific. we are dirty jumped in on the

media idea. but we are putting people into u.n. mission and that's where we can make the most difference. i see thread here. fred and i worked for a couple years am trying to get a better participation between undp, the u.s. government and anybody else who would join in the world or whatever. we had a little experiment going on mozambique, which seemed promising because we all realize that we all have to put the same kinds of people on, do we have to risk of a good housing. do we have to hire teachers to drive our cars? can't we concentrate our effort and really be more effect is? i believe we have to do that in fiscally constrained times. furthermore, it's better part

this. it's not just about money. it's better idea. it's hard to get a really good leader. one of us had a good leader, falling behind that person because three good theaters and places almost unheard of. so it's a real limitation here and if we are more honest with ourselves, will be more effect in our partnerships will be richer. >> question in different here. [inaudible] -- tanzania and knowledge to come a small state which at one point was really doing very well and now it's almost nowhere. just another part of east africa. >> i haven't done any work there. we've done some early analysis,

for example, of zimbabwe, assuming there's going to be a change sometime. so we've really tried to go when there and say, what should we do if there's a change in government or an opening? we haven't done any work in that space, so i'm really sorry. >> halfway down there. >> dan smith, american university. i was struck on your initial points that you said more expertise was needed on conflict under crs, there is a lot of emphasis put on training. everybody had to go to training, but my senses others in this the department for not taking advantage. i'm wondering on conflict resolution has seeped down at all into the culture of the state department?

>> i'm sure there's further progress possible. [laughter] i would say, we were hoped by maria on tarot who was there undersecretary for the last few years. she saw a need for kind of a broader family, kind of the whole civilian security side of the state department now. they put together a number of euros, including our own and to be broader than just a survey course. we believed in taking our best elements and putting it into that course. so i emphasized offering not. but there's still -- there's still plenty of work to do. one way were trying to do it is

to try to set aside two weeks a year for every one who works for us for professional growth and professional development. so we logically think about it that way and then we customized the training of those people. but i'm also a big fan of having leaders in the field that actually do more field mentoring because these cases are just really difficult. i read an e-mail in the last couple days about how stressed out one of our teams isn't one of these places. and you know, who is pretty troubling really. because we are pushing them to do a lot and furthermore it's dangerous where they are. i would naturally put you on edge. so we've got to think about you have to have special types of people to do this work.

it's way too demanding. there's a lot of people who don't want to face the prospect even a physical danger on a regular basis, understandable. so we've got to start by having somebody leaders ourselves and identify other good theaters in the state department and using them more aggressively and were just getting to die. i would say there's still quite a lot to do in that space. >> way in the back there. >> mr. ambassador, i feel like i have the prerogative to ask you the heart question. this is bobby charles. the gp are and eight -- omb a notice is not here at this event. it's very harsh, putting down a whole new set of process markers. whether your metrics for success given it a miss against the

duplication of some of the other bureaus and mail bureau? >> that's a good question. first off, i don't think there's a ton of duplication. that's a problem in particular the early days of getting going. but we're trying to feature real-time evaluation. i don't want to hear from the inspector general for the special inspector general two years later of the various things we could've done better. so we're already doing evaluations after three months. i wanted to be highly honest. i don't want people to tell me what the best thing the u.s. government has done. i want to know how we can do everything better. one fair measure is how we play with others. for example, ran honduras right

now. we're talking about we just got kind of a special appropriation last night, the first notice of it for additional work in syria ever going to do rule of law training with ino. but that doesn't mean it's going to be good or that it works. for example, we were working with the police reform commission. the best evaluation you have a say in these things or didn't work. i wouldn't go to if i said everything was brilliant teacher not immediately. these are some things are done better and not has quite a lot of residents. also getting resources and also makes you more credible because were not constantly championing

ourselves. we brought back $30 million of money that have not been obligated. i sat in embassies for two years. it's hard to make the argument, but nobody in the u.s. government takes you can go out and grab back the money. we did it in a highly predict the way. it was in a surprise that are of a million dollars out of it. some of that money is gone to a idea, ino. so that's another way you can show your more credible. in terms of measures, if it's mostly safe, we still won't be allowed to take credit for it because it's kind of a big thing. mobile to say these are the elements that contributed to that. if it's mostly violent, we can say with a less than where we

were? i'd rather be measured on what we were trying to do than make people behaved well. the bigger point is the reason were there. that's the way of that to be measured. >> thank you. we have time for one more question. i just want to remind you up at this meeting is on the record. >> it's too late now. >> make it a multiple-choice. true false that lease. >> nancy barrett, george washington university. a tried and make false. is it true you have a lessons learned process to share with yourselves and the rest of the government? >> well, we do, but it's also a work in progress. for example, we have a lot of people work in afghanistan of

course the last three years, not so much last year, but the last two years. turns out 150 people from our predecessor office tomorrow is worked in afghanistan. so the obvious question was in the well, what did you learn? it, but with a really excellent paper now, which they've now taken over to the afghan pakistan office as well and shared it with 30 people there. and so, the learning process -- this gets back to dan's question. heidi make the learning process broader than just yourself because ultimately you can't just play by yourself. so that we were trying to do things. if we do a tabletop on mali on friday, how to repackage ropey lines that gets through the state department and intelligence community, anybody else who thinks that they are

part of that exercise? even if the six people who came right, they assure the safe and sane of interest that must make sure it doesn't end up being the province of a few people. there's a culture of holding stuff to yourself in our culture is explore the knowledge if we can because we all have to get smarter faster than were doing it, evidence by our success ratio in these tough places. thank you all very much. [applause] >> thank you, ambassador burton. [inaudible conversations]

>> neh twice i have come issue is that the most wealthy widows in the colonies. and while in her mid-40s this can tittered an enemy by the british secret to take her hostage. later she would become our nation's first first lady at age 57. beat martha washington in the

first c-span program weekly series. we'll visit some places that influenced her life, including colonial poem for, valley forge and philadelphia to be part of the conversation about martha washington with your phone calls, treat them face the hosts live monday night at 9:00 eastern on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. >> tabasco governor, dave heineman unveiled his tax reform plan that he would eliminate or lower individual income tax and corporate income taxes. this proposal would look for alternative options to eliminate missed sales tax exemptions with all industries except for food. this is about 20 minutes. >> thank you very much. mr. president, mr. speaker, members of the legislature, tribal chairman, distinguished

guests, friends and fellow nebraskans, i'm excited to be here at the beginning of the 2013 legislative session as we take this opportunity to continue moving nebraska forward. since 2005, the nebraska legislature and i have worked together to make a positive difference for nebraskans. you and i have positioned nebraska is a state that is making significant progress. this is a great state and it starts with our citizens. they're hard-working, practical, responsible and innovative. as nebraskans, we bring a sense of quiet pride to everything we do. we respect each other only one our children to have any better nebraska in the future. nebraska is a special place in our job is to ensure nebraska is prosperous today and in the future. were on the right path and that path starts with a quality

education. education is the great equalizer in education is one of our state's top priorities. we invest in education because we know how important it is. your new speaker, senator gregg adams has been part of rp 16 initiative to an academic achievement for all students in nebraska. in 2008, i signed into law the legislatures 1157 that provides for statewide assessment for reading from or writing, math and science. angst about legislation in partnership with commissioner bree and the state board of education, more than ever before the focus of our school districts is now on academic achievement. we can be proud nebraska's high school graduation rate is 86%, fourth best in america. we have good schools and they want to be even better in the

future. my proposed budget continues to make k-12 education a priority by increasing state aid to education for $852 million to $895 million in fiscal year 2014 into $939 million in fiscal year 2015. additionally, i am proposing a 5% increase in special education fund name in each of the next two years. our students have today are the leaders of tomorrow and it is critical to our future that they have affordable access to a quality higher education. last week the university of nebraska president jb milliken, nebraska state college announced the university of nebraska at nebraska state colleges are prepared to implement a two-year tuition freeze for nebraska students if you adopt my proposed budget.

my recommendation provides the necessary state funding to achieve this two-year tuition freeze for you and all, you and k., usmc, wayne state and peru's state. this is very goodness for nebraska families working very hard to ensure that their sons and daughters can afford to go to college. community colleges sorry component of our education system as well. i am proposing a similar increase in college funding for each of the next two years said that each of our six community college is can also consider adopting a two-year tuition freeze. but educating the students for the jobs of tomorrow is only half of our formula for can any access. in order for nebraska to continue to grow, we must create jobs and retain our best and brightest outlook on future nebraskans to essay.

working together with the legislature may first year as governor, we pass the nebraska advantage and it has been incredibly successful. agriculture is an important part of our economy and agriculture remains relatively strong in nebraska. for second and cattle, third-quarter production, sixth in soybean production in the second begin ethanol producer. however, farmers and ranchers have also faced the challenge of the drought this past year and they've managed their operations with the efficiency and flexibility. water resources who can give you to be a challenge for agriculture, businesses and communities due to the continuing drought. exports are important to nebraska on my summer that a trade mission to china. we can do need to expand and strengthen a relationship to china, just like canada, mexico,

japan and many other countries. during the past few years, nebraska asked for to china have grown rapidly in china is no nebraska's fourth-largest trading partner. the nebraska china relationship is just beginning and i'm confident this will be a growing and improving relationship for many years to come. as we continue to make state government more efficient and accessible to citizens, how to recognize professionals throughout state government for what they do. from online motor vehicle registration renewals to our 511 system that provides immediate and accurate information about current road conditions, our goal is to provide more and better technology in the future. i'm also pleased to share with you our efforts to have state workers make wellness a part of their everyday lives. we offer an innovative bonus

program in a health insurance package designed around wildness. in 2012, the state of nebraska wellness program became the first and only state to earn the coveted seat cover koop national health award, to receive this prestigious award, you have to demonstrate health improvements and cost savings. ..

>> we control spending, not by raising taxes. nebraskans are conservative on how they spend their money. this conservative approach has led to positive national recognition. lending tree says that nebraska has the lowest average monthly mortgage payment of any state in america. 24/7 wall street name from the third-best run state in america. the gallup poll has recognized them as the fourth estate live in. we have a strong work ethic and a low unemployment rate. but taxes are impeding economic growth. they are not attractive for entrepreneurial growth and high-paying jobs. the entrepreneurial council states in the 2012 business policy index that, a high

personal income tax rate raises the cost of working, saving, investing, and risk-taking. the personal income tax influences businesses far more than generally assumed because more than 92% of businesses file taxes as individuals, and therefore, pay personal income taxes rather than corporate income taxes. this same report states that nebraska's top personal income tax rate is the 35th highest in america and higher than every one of our neighboring states. additionally, 23 states exempted a portion of all retired military pay from taxation, but nebraska does not. forty-three states exempted portion of all social security income from taxation. but nebraska does not.

according to the tax foundation, nebraska's business tax climate is 31st out of 50 states colorado is 18, kansas is 26, wyoming and south dakota are one and two. only iowa ranks lower at 42nd. while this is important, this is about nebraska's leaders. our sons and daughters and erastus grandchildren. how many of you have brothers and sisters in other family members who couldn't find the right career here in nebraska.

everybody in nebraska knows exactly what i'm talking about. the question is are we willing to do something about it. are we going to be satisfied with a mediocre tax system that won't create the jobs of the future for our sons and daughters? or can we reform the cat in turn tax code so that we have a modern, simple, fair tax code? are we willing to have an innovative tax plan that would create a top 10 business tax climate in nebraska? nebraskans know that we can do better than a mediocre tax system. so what can we do? well, the state of nebraska, sales and income tax generates $4 billion and $10 in revenue. the remainder comes from sales tax revenues.

did you know the state of nebraska provides $5 billion in sales tax exemptions? nebraska exams more than we collect. is that fair to small businesses and working nebraskans? imagine if we eliminated half of the current conventions? nebraska would not need a corporate income tax. without the individual income tax and the corporate income tax, there would be no income tax on working nebraskans. social security and military retirement income would no longer be taxed. there would be no tax on small business income. in recent months, i have asked business leaders if they would give up their sales tax exemptions if we could eliminate the individual income tax of the corporate income tax, or at

least lower the individual and corporate tax rates. you may be surprised, but many are willing to have that discussion. they want simplicity and fairness. they want a modern tax code that rewards productivity and profits and job creation, rather than having their lawyers and accountants spending time finding the tax code for exemptions. our tax system should not favor one industry over another. change is not easy. especially when it involves taxes. but this is the discussion that our state needs to have. the world has changed, and our current tax system needs to be modernized and transformed. it has been nearly five decades since nebraska has had a series the great about our overall tax system. life has changed drastically since the 1960s. we were operating in a completely different economic

environment done. the average cost of a new home was $24,000. a first-class stamp was 5 cents. gas was 33 cents per gallon. in the 1960s, americans do not even have personal computers in their homes. today we live in an electronic age. today we are preparing our children for jobs that have not yet been created with technology that has not yet been invented. today we are operating in a global free market economy, and we need a modern tax system. our tax reform proposal is revenue neutral and budget neutral. i know that there are organizations that want to tax more services with the goal of growing government. they want to spend more tax dollars on more government programs. that is not what most nebraskans want. that is not what a planet about.

our goal is a better business tax climate that will create more high-paying jobs and more rewarding careers for our sons and daughters. we need a tax climate that rewards middle-class families for their hard work. in the next few days, i will have legislation introduced that provides alternative options for eliminating many business sales tax exemptions that could lead to the elimination of the individual income tax and the corporate income tax, or at least lowering nebraska's individual corporate tax breaks. this will provide a starting point for our discussion. i would like to emphasize one point. our proposal will not tax through. it will be challenging, but it is necessary. nebraskans have strong opinions and we are able to disagree on policy in an agreeable and respectful manner.

i welcome and look forward to your input. i am prepared to work with you and all nebraskans. together we can develop a better tax system for nebraska. by adopting a modern, simpler, and more fair tax code, we have the opportunity to make nebraska a top 10 business state so that our sons and daughters and new nebraskans can find jobs and careers right here in nebraska. our young people will stay here because they want good jobs. they will have good careers. seniors and retirees will stay, because nebraska will longer taxed their social security and retirement income. our entrepreneurs will grow their businesses in nebraska. they will no longer face the burden being the 35th highest taxed state on small businesses. the choice is ours. this is about nebraska's future.

nebraskans care about the special place that we call home. we won't nebraska to be in. >> we want our state to be a better place to live and work and raise a family. together we can find a nebraska commonsense solution. >> here is a look at our primetime schedule. beginning at 8:00 p.m. eastern, transportation secretary ray lahood briefs the impacts of sequestration on his department, which could include major airport delays and air traffic controller reduction. on c-span2, it is booktv. pogroms related to the civil rights movement. on c-span3, american history tv and a visit to the historical sites across the country. all of these events begin at 8:00 p.m. eastern on the c-span

network. >> at age 25, she was one of the wealthiest widows in the colonies. while in her mid-40s, she was considered an enemy by the british who threatened to take her hostage. later, she would become the first first lady as 57 years old. she is martha washington. we will visit some of the places that influenced her life, including lewisburg, mount vernon, philadelphia, and part of the conversation is dedicated to your questions with facebook and your tweets. >> you're watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs. we have live coverage of the senate and every become the

latest nonfiction authors and books on booktv. you can get our schedules our website, and you can join in the conversation on social media websites. >> a look at the 2012 election with the top strategists. the university of chicago institute of politics hosted this event in early february. white house correspondent chuck todd moderates this event. [applause] >> good evening. i am the student engagement share for this advisory council. my role consists of creating excitement in political events

and community involvement, helping to provide avenues for this type of engagement across kansas. it has become clear that it is incredibly important to foster good students and leaders. many residents were directly involved in the presidential campaign this past year, through internships and advocating for the candidate. others were indirectly involved whether tweeting or making facebook posts, everyone knew about this election. in reality, it can become 10 times more complicated when we zoom out and analyze the factors that are required to orchestrate this at a national scale. it is an understatement when we say that running a presidential campaign is one of the most challenging seats in the political system. in alphabetical order these are

speakers. david axelrod, who started in journalism and is now a key strategist for the obama campaign. his role as senior adviser to president ended in 2011, when he became the senior strategist for the 2012 election campaign. he is the founder and institute institute director for the university of chicago institute of politics. eric fehrnstrom began as a reporter for the boston herald, and served as an assistant treasure. he then became governor mitt romney's mutations director and was most recently a top aide and strategist or the romney campaign. larry grisolano has been involved in politics for the last 30 years and has been a leading politician for some of the most important battles of the democratic party, both in the 2008 in 2012 elections, larry grisolano served as a

director of media for president obama's campaign. jim messina started his career as a college senior and rose to prominence in campaigns across the country. he became the chief of staff of operations in 2009 and went on to become the manager of obama's reelection campaign in 2012. jimbeth myers started with the reagan campaign in 1989 and has been in politics ever since. she has worked with governor romney since the 2002 campaign for the governorship. she was most recently a top adviser for the romney campaign. she is one of the inaugural fellows to the institute of politics. jen o'malley-dillon rose to a career working on several democratic issues over the years. in 2008, she served as a director of speech for the obama campaign, and was the deputy campaign manager for his successful 2012 bid.

matt rhoades has been a lead strategist for the republican national committee and he worked on the 2000 election. he was the director of opposition research for the bush campaign in 2000 and was the governor romney campaign manager for the 2012 election. he has also worked on campaigns overseas. stuart stevens was involved in the media in 2008 and served as a senior strategist for the romney presidential campaign in 2012. finally, our moderator for tonight, chuck todd, a man who has had extensive experience in journalism as an editor, a political director, and an on-air local analyst. it has given him a fan base. he is trying to shed light on

what went right, what went wrong, and we would like to especially thank the strategists are governor romney's campaign for giving us the privilege of posting this. the caliber and expertise of tonight's guests is extraordinary. it is a true honor to be able to introduce what should be a fruitful and enlightening discussion. ladies and gentlemen, i would like to thank you for coming, and i join you in welcoming our distinguished guests. [applause] >> all right, should i start

from the beginning? eight people, 90 minutes, i think matt said to me, it is just like another republican debate last night eight people and 90 minutes. it could be small for a republican debate. [laughter] we will do our best to take up too much time on your answers because interest because we would like to hear from everyone. i would like to begin with the thing that i'm curious about. the thing is how did people become interested in politics, and when did you have that conversation with governor romney who said, okay, i'm in. a lot of them assume we have been running for president the whole time. but when did he decide to run? one wasn't clear?

>> when was it clear to you? >> he decided to run immediately afterwards. he decided that the economy would continue to improve and running and losing in 2000 it was very liberating for him. we kept talking around it. we had a very busy 2010 client schedule. and he said, finally, on election day 2010, you can't do anything for your clients, so

why don't we meet on election day 2010. he said, okay, we can do now. my partner and i met him in boston at his condo in 2010. that is when i got a sense that he was really intending to run. >> i got a sense of who's definitely intending to run. >> david, i have the sense that you to you guys thought you were running against mitt romney. you always sort of used him as the face of the republican party. is that unfair? >> after the 2008 elections, he asked me who i thought the nominee would be in 2012. and i said my romney. i knew that we would head into

an economic maelstrom. i spoke about the opposite very of presidential races that people potentially emerged out of this. there is mitt romney's business background and so on. he is like the kind of person that could emerge from not. on election day of 2010, it was clear to me that they that there were forces as part of the republican party and it was going to be challenging for any nominee to navigate those forces. but they were going to have to make some difficult choices. it was an element of that.

i always thought that mitt romney was likely guy. >> guy. >> was there every time he didn't think he was going to do it? >> yes. he had a very relaxing 2009. ann had a health scare. and so in 2009, who knows, he was enjoying it. the time that i came to think that he was most likely to run was right after he sat down with eric and said that we need to get another person up here. and he said he he wanted to move matt rhoades up to boston, i thought that was a good indication that he was specific about running.

>> i was with governor romney in 2008 and on the plane back to boston, they were trying to arrange peoples lives. and he did not sound like a person who is plotting another run. he seemed exhausted by politics. then there were developments that happened in new jersey and other victories, like in virginia and republicans are on the march. i think that mitt romney felt, he said so in his speech in 2011, he said he felt he had something to offer with respect

to his skills and jobs and the economy. that is why there was a precise moment. >> i think it is a process that happens over time. there are a myriad of factors that could take precedence. but certainly at the time the matt rhoades came out, we knew. >> you were in the white house and you have always done a lot of congressional politics. but you are a political junkie and so forth. what was your review? did you find yourself effectively following mitt romney, the republican presidential. >> could you take me inside the white house when you guys have this discussion? >> yes, we thought for a long time that it would be mitt romney. mitt romney never went below a scale of one to 10, he was a

number one. i thought the book was really good. you could really tell that he would be a favorable candidate. we get a look at each other and say, can we get through this climate agreement and, you know, it turned out to be longer than what we thought it would be. the. >> what is an interview like with mitt romney? did you interview him, and what was some of his questions for you? >> well, the first time was really in february of 2010. i remember there was plenty of snow out there, even in chicago.

and it really was not an interview as much to run his campaign at that point in time. he was asking whether i would come up and he was talking about picking it up a notch. sometimes it's more important. presidential campaigns are little different in other campaigns. the shooters who is time when you are thinking about it. that is almost more important than the day when you say, i am ready for this. he wanted to kick it up a notch. he had a book that he was just about to rollout. so i came up about that time and he asked me about it. and i think i gave him some advice, he said i would have to think about that. the next day we were off and running.

it just kind of progress is a pattern. by the time i became campaign manager, i don't often sat down and had a formal interview, but you know. >> wended you guys going to the reelection mode? in some form or another? >> you know, i have to say that sensation of hitting bottom. >> like a 2010 election? >> the debt ceiling site. there were obviously thought given to this. >> that is one everybody -- jim was putting the mechanisms in place.

he was putting mechanisms in place and we were doing girly things that had to be done. everyone was very focused. at least on a message side. it was a line of demarcation, the debt ceiling numbers weren't as bad as they were throughout the whole presidency. the rumors were swirling around and our folks were nervous. it was clear that we were now in a situation where we have to fight. so there were artier mechanical things that have to be done. one of the things that we knew is that they were going to have the big primary and we would have time to put things in motion. >> genin larry, can you talk abt

the program? >> well, i was at the dnc. so a lot of the work we did there was building the foundation of what we knew would come for the reelection. while it wasn't a permanent campaign, there were a lot of things that were under the radar. building on some of the internal polling that we didn't, really honing the strategy and having staff turning this into something to do to empower them. all of those things started pretty quickly and we build off of that once we got to chicago. >> wended you help to building the structure? >> i showed up in april on a full-time basis. we started very early in april

or may, doing some intensive research. trying to get a handle on what people were thinking out there. this is before in the bathroom, but we knew that people were weary of the economy. we really wanted to see how we fit in, how they were following it, what was going on. by the time the debt ceiling had, we had a pretty good sense of the landscape and what the way was to move. the debt ceiling kind of galvanized the cohesion report on some other things over the summer and. >> what was your assumption on what this would be about, the primary, before the announcement? you guys were preparing and, and i always think that the public and media don't understand how important it is. but you go back to obama's announcement speech, and what

were your assumption, you are working on that, governors working on our? >> we talk about this a lot. you know, we have an announcement each of you could give the day before the general election. that was our goal. and i think best created the model of the speech. it was one of the more successful models that president reagan, candidate reagan, could have given the day before in 1980, the general election. we always believe that we had to force the primary to be about the economy. that mitt romney was going to be the candidate of the economy.

and to beat be him, you had to beat him on the economy. every candidate was going to have to try to trump him on that. and we were fairly confident that no candidate was able to do that. the process was going to be a referendum on who is best suited to defeat barack obama. in a somatic sense. in that sense, but the primary, as much as possible, were you often spend time talking about this and that, and then you have to shipbuilder. that was the caveat. if you go back and read the announcement speech, you can

take a look at what was like before the general election. >> leary mentioned the formative research that we were doing. i think we would all agree that it is all about the economy in some form or fashion. [talking over each other] >> what was the definition of what the economy was? all that research that we did in the spring of 2011 was largely about the way people saw the economy from their own experience. the general sense of empowerment that the middle-class felt, you know, it was real anger. anger about the forces they felt were conspiring against him. we knew that we had an objective as well, to find an economy on our own terms and wake up without the sense that -- you know, the definition over what

the economic challenge was was central to the campaign. >> [inaudible question] >> well, i don't know which one is a. [laughter] >> okay, but you can't worry about it. was there one of those? >> i said earlier that sometimes it's more important to begin the process of thinking about running for president. but when you are in a primary, you cannot worry about that. people came to their own decisions. we were going to run the primary race we were going to run no matter who got it. i certainly think that winning the nomination is always tougher than anyone thinks, even if there is a front runner.

i saw how brutal the process was. i had the opportunity to work the present selection 2004. we had a lot of opportunity to look at that and we always thought if we were going to put this together, john kerry would always be on top. so there is always the inevitability of something happening and things being shipped out. but i know worrying about one individual getting in no, we have to get in. >> [inaudible] >> you know, he would speculate on people, but i think that, you know, rick perry got involved. and he had always said that someone else is going to get in the race.

he said he didn't know who it would be, but there is still this turf out there. so when rick perry got in, that's when we thought about it [inaudible question] >> on the republican side. i'm going to talk to you about the independent. i certainly believe there could have been a third-party candidate. >> i think we all internally believe in this. >> like he's trying to find a way to run? >> yes. i think that we have spent a lot of time doing this. >> the governor, i mean, he was openly talking about other

people getting in, in a way that i'm sure didn't make you guys very happy. err, do you remember governor romney, governor daniels asking him if he was in or out? >> yes. >> there was a lot of potential media speculation of a third party candidate. >> correct me if i'm wrong, you guys did the points -- the talking points? >> it was a couple weeks before. >> explain your thinking behind why you felt the need. >> there was a lot of pressure internally whether or not the

governor would change his position. or what his position would be on this and health care. so it was important to get that off the table. let the chips fall where they may. >> eric fehrnstrom, do you feel like they are off the table? >> health care was one of the major obstacles to the nomination and we have. what he put in place in massachusetts, what the president did with his national health health care, we thought there were some meaningful differences. everyone wants to extend health insurance to more people. the way that we finance is at the state level, was we took the pot of money and mitt romney said that this is what made it work for taxes, and why don't we repurpose it.

use it for people who need financial assistance for buying their own coverage. that is so much different than the financing mechanism of the president's health care. [laughter] [talking over each other] >> that is what we were convinced of as the primary electorate. and i think that we make persuasive arguments. far more persuasive with the economic condition of the country and in our view, mitt romney had superior job creation skills. >> and it always looked like you guys were finding ways to talk about mitt romney and health care. it was like you guys use his name to almost -- is it a fair observation?

[laughter] >> we like what he said. >> that's right. a. an important decision was a big piece of it to make sure that people understood the similarities. it was an easy place. >> it was also particularly important to do that while he was involved in the republican primaries. one of our objectives was to make the process is long and is challenging, understanding that we would probably do anything we could to create a little mischief, and it was good. you know, there is just no doubt about it. i think these guys handled it as well as they could. but much of this was built around opposition to the health care plan. so it was a natural thing for

his opponents to attack them. but i do admire him for what he did. i know a lot of republicans didn't. >> it always seemed that you guys were waiting for as long as you could to engage in this. when was the moment you guys decided to engage. that we have to engage. you would engage on a staff level, but i'm talking about the rest of it. >> when we looked at the calendar, you know. >> i want to ask about reforming process in a position you were in. >> when we looked at it, that is immediately when i thought that we came out and prepared for that.

>> so did you guys use jen as an organizing tool, and how did you do that? >> is actually a double edged sword for us. in some ways, our folks are engaged in a want to get involved to see what issues are being discussed and they felt like that do not represent what they felt was important. so they wanted to volunteer. at the same time, we did have a lot of folks saying that this is fine and it's all right. >> we faced in apathy early on that people do not want to get engaged. thinking that they didn't need to get involved early, but it was such a challenge. >> up exactly right. we put michele obama out there in a big way, she really motivated our base. it makes them understand how

tough this is going to be. people kept saying that, you know, wake us up when the sky has a chance. >> larry, what were you guys doing on debate night? is national conversations on politics, but on one side, what were you trying to do? >> there were good opportunities for us to enter into the commentary and share the pokes and jobs underneath. and it was also a chance for us to see how the message was unfolding. there were things that were said in the debates that we kept good notes on. >> you have been questioned about this before, the issue of immigration.

[talking over each other] [talking over each other] >> you are overreacting two. [laughter] >> what about the issue of immigration. >> you have to go out and take it. at that moment in time, rick perry had a very formidable opponent. you have to look at that individual at that moment of time. we were running a campaign based on jobs and the economy. and at that point, people would say that we knew he was formidable. we knew that we could get him to participate. we began the process talking about where we started.

>> it was very aggressive early on, what's in a? >> yes, we had a position on social security, what he had written on social security on his own book. >> it might've come up in the debate. [laughter] >> what happened was by the third debate, when we opened up that on immigration. >> we had art he tied the string and that we didn't need to go into that space. so i stand by what i have said. hindsight is 2020. >> it seems to be helping. >> had you dispatched it basically? >> you know, i think that

governor perry was a good candidate. >> is he the only one who had the ability to beat you? >> all, no. i think that, you know, there is a great under appreciation for the quality of the candidates that are in that primary. i think that for the republican primary voter, senator rick santorum was much more in sync than senator clinton was. she was a pro-war candidate and obviously did not have the promotable apparatus. shouldn't have the bodyweight. >> through talking about the early months? >> what we know about the republican party reign other

than it has an evangelical population. well, what do we know about mitt romney? [laughter] >> i think it's a testament that he didn't begin this with an ideological base. yet he was able, particularly in those debates, to take into position, in many cases, people disagreed with him, like on health care. to convince the republican party's that he had the qualities he wanted to be their nominee's. >> every week it was the new mole game. and then he sort of blew up with

the bloomberg survey. that is kind of where it ended. who were these voters? who were they? i mean, it seemed like it was the same 20% of the electorate. >> i would just like to add on about this. governor rick perry, senator rick santorum, anyone who underestimates the ability to try to earn the nomination, the guys and gals worked the hardest, senator simmons one certainly have the work ethic and commitment go right to the end. the governor polonsky, on paper, and incredibly formidable opponent. >> the many say that, oh, that's right. [laughter] >> later on in the primary

process, he certainly could take away some of what we were going to garner. when we won the illinois primary, we won because of the southwest of chicago. at that moment, it probably would've been would have been a lot more challenging. you mentioned the fact that we had 22 or 24 -- i don't know. >> three or four good ones were the ones on nbc. i know that. >> if you have 24 debates and speaker gingrich is in all of them, he's a pretty formidable debate. you know, they have a lot of qualities intended, and you have to go out and take the nomination. because someone is going to be the anti-rick perry, you guys had a little bit different situation in 2008, that is the

way politics works. so people have certain point in the campaign. they were not completely ready to close the deal. they went shopping elsewhere. during the course of the primary, i think our campaign did a good job. >> i would like to give you credit. i remember you said that it would come out in iowa. >> you were the one guy saying early on that this is how wise. >> he is an immensely talented individual. but i think the impact of the super pacs, elongating this

process, there has been a lot of talk about the rules and all of this, which i think is definitely worth discussing. campaigns and because they run out of money. and they took that quality away from a lot of these campaigns. nobody wakes up at campaign headquarters and says, they can keep their staffers. the super pacs, they elongating this race in a way that we have never seen before. mitt romney obviously had two per pack help. >> without super pacs -- >> oh, i can't say it was this or that. but i think overall it serve to

keep candidates alive and it did not have the fundraising ability otherwise. which is why the campaign sometimes end. at an important point when you study the process. >> you guys made a decision. when the that decision hit you? what you see out there that said we are going to flip-flop on this? >> i think david and jim should speak a little bit more to this. but the reality is the system was up and away that we were fighting against what was coming at us. it was clear, the thing that was out there was how coordinated and sophisticated ways. whether it was americans for apple pie or i love my grandma, they all had money, they all had very coordinated messages.

>> it sounds like it could be pretty negative at times. >> yes. >> when you guys came out and said no, no on the super pacs, there were a lot of democrats complaining. and you would get that call. a lot of them would complain that you have ruined super pac fundraising for the entire democratic party. >> i think that this was the right decision. they said they were going to go out and do this thing. and burton and sweeney were running the democratic super pacs. >> okay. >> there was an explosion of this. the nra and all of these groups.

one day i wrote on my whiteboard how much i probably would stand. and the number was 660 million. and david looked at that and said that we need to have a meeting. and we put that out there. >> the reality is that there is a lot of money on the other side. it was a chilling experience. we have to make an adjustment. getting back to the point, in the primaries there, there was a check written to newt gingrich, by the way, speaker newt gingrich will be here on the very 19. [laughter] one guy wrote a check. then he's back in the game.

>> when did you guys know that you guys had to be in the super pac game? >> was there ever a doubt you guys were going to do this? >> was it out of necessity? did you see it as a strategic advantage? >> jim got the luxury of pushing off that decision. >> did you figure that they would come to that decision. >> yes. >> you guys need to do this from the get-go? >> well, we did not do it. >> what was the rule? that was what was so weird about it. it's not really coordination, so what is the?

>> communicating before the first 90 days. why that exists, we played very much by the rules. before the campaign existed. >> i think that this whole question of the impact is something that is greatly underappreciated. also, this is the first time that we have mentioned federal funding anti-incumbent on either side. in 1976, we knew this would present an advantage in the nonfederal system with this money. so we had a billion dollars,

which was the amount of money that we knew that the obama campaign would be able to raise as an incumbent president. so the system is a bit crazy. >> correct me if i am wrong. bush and gore, after their conventions, spent $64 million. i believe that was one week of advertising in a month of august on both sides. that wasn't very long ago. word got out, if i'm not mistaken. people kind of new where everybody stood. >> i would like to go before we get to the general election. what was the scariest moment in the primaries? what are your thoughts?

that he might lose the thing, the michigan primary, ohio, what was the moment? >> i don't think we were ever serious about losing it. but the moment was south carolina. >> putting gingrich back into the game. he finished back there, he was stating and he performed, outperformed in south carolina.