vacation weighing options that now include airstrikes in syria. martin dempsey is preparing options for the president to address militants in iraq and syria with a variety of tools including airstrikes. that came from a pentagon spokesperson. and josh ernest was questioned by reporters about the airstrike option and if he would go to congress for the approval. >> i am not talk about what is required if the president were to make a specific decision one way or the other. the president thus far hasn't made a decision to order additi additional military action in syria. that said the president is committed and remains that way as he has throughout this situation and advance of isil in

iraq and is committed to consulting with congress and congressional leaders regularly. the president >> hoshosted a meeting the last week in july or first week in august where he invited democrats and republicans from the house and senate to talk to this. and there is consultation that has been done from senior members to congress members. those conversations continue. but in terms of what maybe required if the president were to take or order a specific action i am not in a position to guess. >> this can be done with the consent of congress or it can be done passively by attaching it to a bill that has to be passed. would the president want some kind of congressional approval? >> i am not going to guess what kind of approval is requested or

required based on military action that hasn't in ordered. there has been a number of war power notifications that have been submitted as it relates to specific orders in iraq. the president is committed it this process and consultations but i am not say what may or may not be requested or required based on a decision that hasn't been made. >> host: the pentagon is reportedly coming up with military options for the president and some include airstrikes for syria. us today says about the air surveillance of isis in syria and the plan for intelligence missions over syria was contained in the executive order

that allowed for airstrikes of isis in iraq. this is under the same umbrella of what is going in syria. should the president go to congress for approval of what is going on in iraq and syria to combat the threat of isis? willy in toledo, ohio, you are up first. go ahead. >> >> caller: i think the president should get approval from congress because he should not give the president the stick to beat him across the head with. >> host: the us today says obama must consider congress. tim kaine, democratic from virginia, said he has quote reservations about whether the islamic state in iraq poses an imminent threat. i will always support the president when he takes action to protect americans, service members and diplomats, but i am

calling for the current military action to be made to clear to congress, the american people, the men and women in the uniform and congress should vote up or down. what are your thoughts? does the president need to go to congress for congressional proval? that is on many papers this morning. including washington times with the headline going at it alone. obama may bypass congress for airstrikes. this is from jack reed, a democrat, who was on the state of the union on sunday. look what he had about their threats. >> we have to look at if they are a threat and this look at their capabilities.

i don't think we can dismiss them. but to jump from what they have done, which is horrible with the murder of josh foley, to say they are going to be a threat on the homeland. it is our interest to destroy them. >> >> host: senator reid about the threat of isis vme. the president is considering possible airstrikes in syria to go after isis. should he get congressional approval? caller, go ahead.

>> caller: he ought to ask them to provide the money and budget so we can afford to go to war. we went into the war originally in iraq without any way of paying for it. we have to do it right this time. we need to have congress provide the funds in the budget to pay for expenses of the war. >> host: on that question, walter pink a veteran reporter on intelligence issues, writing in the "washington post" about can obama and congress unite against the islamic state? he writes about republicans seeking to reduce the spending to meet the cost of the defense budget. a surtax has been a better solution. other capital hill bills are relevant to the fight but the house and senate work on bills

that could limit the meta data collection because they may include data from innocent americans. but organizations like isis are using e-mails and cell phones to fight. would you support a surtax? >> caller: yes, i would. we don't have the draft anymore. so we don't need broad support. but with a surtax people would know that war cost money. if you make a decision to go medaling in someone's affair around the world we ought to put pay the money from our taxes. if it is takes a special surtax to do that, with our current deficit, we need to get that under control. we cannot borrow the money from china for another war. ... , what you'veieve

been saying right now about meetings between the president and congressional leaders -- if we keep telling syria what we are going to do all the time, there will never be shock and awe. if you don't take the time to get congressional approval and you have these cells of isis in the area of syria, we know those camps are there and how they got started, if you took out the root of the problem, it will slow them down some. host: so don't broadcast what they're going to do. the president should just do this operation? caller: go in and get it. host: >> caller: well, you know, that's the way, surprise, look at world war ii and eisenhower and all those guys. they didn't broadcast to the germans when they went in. you don't broadcast. that's not the way you do our

military. it's shock and awe. if we tell them we're coming they will be ready for us. >> host: what do you make of this lyrically? ahead of the 2014 midterm elections for the president to make that kind of move when the power of the senate hangs in the balance. i could go to the republicans. >> caller: i hope it does go to the republicans, but what i'm saying is right now the president doesn't seem concerned what's been going on in the world around him and what we see on the news today about him being out on the golf course. so why not just go ahead and do what we need to do? he's not concerned about that, about what the sentiment is going to be. >> host: let me go back to the walter pincus peace. he talks about this, the politics. he says --

o issuee threat of on this issue of the threat of isis, mike rogers, chairman of the intelligence committee on house republican from michigan, is also on the sunday talk shows on "meet the press." here's what he had to say. >> i'm going to dispute that. we know in the number 2000 of western, westerns with western passports is low. intelligence has a different number and it's much higher than that. the very fight between al-qaeda that allowed isis to separate from al-qaeda in syria was the fact they wanted to conduct western-style operations. the leader of al-qaeda said no, we want you to focus on city. that's what started to fight. this notion that they were too barbaric is almost laughable given that al-qaeda flew

airplanes and slaughtered 2000 people on 9/11. it was all about direction, control of those individuals. what you're saying at the time was we have a lot of people who have passports that can go to europe and then to the united states without a visa waiver, meaning they would have to apply for a visa. the only way we would know who was riding on those airplanes and that might not be enough. so they would be leaving at the time that they could be aggressive in that and they still talk about that. rhetoric is we're still going to conduct western-style attacks. al-qaeda wants to put some points on the board because they want to be the jihadists organization that attracts people and money. isis has said they are and want to be the al-qaeda, or the terrorist organization. >> host: intelligence chairman in the house mike rogers on "meet the press," laying out the threat of isis to the united states. the president supposedly considering airstrikes against

isis industry. the "washington post" with a headline this morning that that country is warning the united states against attacking the islamic state on its soil, saying that the u.s. should work in coordination with them, with the assad regime to go after the islamic state in that country. "the new york times" front page, their headline on that, as obama proves air surveillance of isis in syria, they say it's a step towards strike and his goal is to hurt the militants without aiding assad. alaska, republican caller. good morning are you with us in juneau, alaska? republican caller. >> caller: yes, i'm with you. the president is the commander-in-chief. he doesn't need to say congress, okay or not. go in there, user tactical nuclear weapons and get rid of these people once and for all. >> host: okay. are you in support of that?

>> caller: yes, i am. >> host: do you agree with the last caller, he should do without letting congress or the american people know? issued a surprise attack? >> caller: he's the commander in chief. >> host: james in halifax virginia independent caller. good morning, james. >> caller: thanks for taking my call. i agree that he should seek congressional approval for where this process no desire to eliminate isis. he is allowed in to get our take some iraqis. >> host: jesse in muskegon michigan. your thoughts treachery i don't [inaudible] i'm not for it. stop these wars altogether

because -- [inaudible] >> host: i'm going to keep it on topic. we will go randy in pennsylvania, independent caller. good morning to you, randy. >> caller: good morning. the president needs to seek congressional approval. first of all it's not a presidential power. there's nothing in the constitution that gives the president power to go to war. being the commander-in-chief all that does is let him decide the direction of war once war is actually declared. that's congressional power. us going to war come as commander-in-chief he gets to decide the direction of war. >> host: linda, california, democratic caller, you're up early. go ahead. >> caller: yes. i also feel that he shouldn't have to publicize his moves. i think as the commander-in-chief he can make

the moves that's needed and necessary. whatever happened to top secret? in world war i they didn't publicize everything. and we won. so i don't know what to expect to accomplish by announcing everything. congress hasn't passed anything. the senate has but congress has been against him from the beginning. and if he thinks they will pass this, the heck with that. they are not. why waste anymore time and why publicize it? get isis and get them now. they are killing machines. >> host: to your point and to the others said that the president does not need congressional approval and that he should not announce his decision, take a look at what the president had to say a year ago, september 10, 2013, when he addressed the american people in the east room in prime time and he talked about the chemical weapons syria was using on its people and that he would seek

congressional approval if the deal with russia to destroy those chemical weapons did not happen. but listen to his argument from a year ago. >> after careful deliberation i determined that it is in the national security interests of the united states to respond to the assad regime's use of chemical weapons to a targeted military strike. the purpose of the strike would be to deter a sock 'em using chemical weapons, to degrade his regime's ability to use them and to make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use. that's my judgment as commander-in-chief. but i'm also the president of the world's oldest constitutional democracy. so even though i possess the authority to order military strikes, i believe it was right in the absence of a direct or imminent threat to our security to take this debate to congress. i believe our democracy is stronger when the president acts with the support of congress.

and i believe that america acts were effectively abroad when we stand together. this is especially true after a decade that put more and more warmaking power in the hands of president, and more and more burdens on the shoulders of our troops while sideline the people's representatives from the critical decisions about when we use force. >> host: president obama from a year ago september 10, 2013, talking about why he would go to congress than to seek congressional approval against any sort of action in city because of chemical weapons they were using. this is the headline after the speech the next in "the new york times." obama delay's serious strike to focus on a russian plan. many of you remember rush helped negotiate a deal where syria would give up its chemical weapons. the papers reporting recently that that mission has been accomplished, the chemical weapons that were on the list have been destroyed.

but the president a year ago laying out the reasons why he felt he should go to congress. if the president or did you airstrikes in city now because of the threat of islamic state, should he go to congress for approval? poll, independent, what do you think? >> caller: i think they are a do-nothing congress anyway. why go to congress when they end up doing nothing? if a war is worth fighting, is a draft worth instituting? >> host: okay, paul. ron in california, republican caller. good morning to you. welcome to the conversation. >> caller: morning. isis has styled itself as a state, established itself as a government, have stated that they are at war with us, and let's get congress to pass a declaration of war. i know that's not going to be easy but a silly way that the

president can then close the doors on all the public interest to what's going on over there. if we are at war, it would just be like world war i or world war ii. anytime when we were actually in a state of war, everything could be kept secret. that's the only safe way to do. any other way, the leaks will get out of. >> host: baltimore, maryland, democratic caller. what do you think? >> caller: you know, as a vietnam veteran i'm tired of our soldiers losing our lives in wars and things like the. i know the country is tired. i'm glad we have a president that takes his time and just dozen willy-nilly going to war. people act like we can just go into somebody else's country and just what we want to. we just go into libya and just drop bombs. what about the casualties they are? we could go into somewhere else,

syria, syria has already said, we have to let them know if we come into. they are a sovereign state. we just can't go willy-nilly dropping bombs like we are the cavalry of the world. >> host: all right. on your point about libya i want to show the front page of the "washington post." official said monday market escalation in the chaos of war among libya's rival militia to turn american another diplomatic some the country. the obama administration did not know ahead of time about the highly unusual military intervention. although the united states was where the action by arab states might come as a crisis in libya worsened, said one official, the airstrikes appear tied to fear over the growing muscle of the islamist militias.

that happening, reported in the washington post. none announcing the decision to the white house. let's go toaul in we will go to paul in new york, independent caller. >> caller: i just want to say that the president of the united states as 90 days before he has to go to congress. and i think that the president is doing an excellent job, but i have to say to go to congress would be a waste of time because they are doing nothing. they plan to do nothing. they have proven they want to go against the president on everything that he wants to do. they have no intention but to make me look bad whenever they get a chance. >> host: allen, tacoma, washington. what do you think? >> caller: i think this whole conversation is frankly disgusting. it exposes how ignorant the

american people are. we didn't even know about isis. isis was nothing to was a month and a half ago. and now we're being told every speck to do believe that it is worse than al-qaeda. well, you know, if isis was all this and that why didn't they attack us or other western interests years ago? i don't buy. we need more proof. this looks like another neocon rollover of the american public by virtue of media and the beltway experts is everything you want them to. thank you. >> host: north carolina, republican caller. good morning, jarret. >> caller: i believe president obama should go to congress because he's such a weak leader. if you want to congress it would give more teeth to anything that the nation does in the form of military response. >> host: why d.c. is a weak leader traffic i believe the world, the world views them as a weak leader. he makes threats, for example, the red line in sand in syria.

>> host: his supporters say yeah, he said a redline but he was able to negotiate a peaceful resolution, if you will, to the issue of chemical weapons. the assad regime is still in power but that the president worked with russia and they agreed to destroy their chemical weapons. >> caller: well, look at the ukraine. i believe the world is afraid of anything president obama says or does. >> host: all right. bill said this on twitter. i've got a great idea. why doesn't obama issued a redline to isis? and his from joe masek obama learned in getting a year ago in syria but that you be turned into peaceniks over. he should have bypassed them them. what are your thoughts quick should president obama go to congress for approval for any sort of airstrikes in syria against the islamist state which is what comes of congress are saying on twitter recently.

gym and off, top republican on the senate armed services committee, president obama's in action over the last three years has allowed the rapid growth of isis. then you this as well from senator john mccain. quoting general dempsey, no striking isis in city until threatens homeland. translation, do anything else in u.s. won't act. another redline equals green light. and then you this in kelly ayotte, another member of the armed servicearmed services com. senator harry reid, majority leader tom had this to say earlier in august. we'll be heading of mr. foley highlights the role of foreigners with isis. any americans involved in isis will be dealt with as traders. and also this from bernie sanders, independent senator from vermont.

that coming from ber so that coming from bernie sanders, independent, from vermont. and then also this from the speaker of the house john boehner had this to say on august 8 when the president begins these airstrikes against isis in iraq. >> host: poll, independent caller. what are your thoughts? >> caller: good morning. i think he should go to congress because the are two things that the gop will not sunday to -- will not say no to but it's tax credits and war. this is what they are all about. this is what they represent. they are always willing to fight

wars. they don't worry about how it's a four anything. the president should go to them and let's see if they send no this time to him. >> host: j. in clearwater, florida. what do you think country i do believe the president should call an emergency session of congress and get a vote up or down. would have stuck her nose into a hornets nest over the. it's just a mess and everything. this group of isis, if we are going to bomb syria, we do need outside help. the british, french, whoever else wants to go into. but i do not believe we should front of the whole thing are so. the whole middle east the way it is cut and chop up is part of the european problems. they got in in world war i, truth abound and put together people who do not get along. so instead were going to go in there, we've got to help from the europeans but if they don't want to help, stay out. >> host: we will keep taking your phone calls and thoughts on

this this morning about whether or not president obama should go to congress for their approval for any sort of expanded effort against the islamic state. by the way, president obama is going to be in north carolina today before the american legion for their national convention. he's going to be talking about veterans issues at their convention in charlotte, north carolina, and we will have coverage of that on c-span at 12 p.m. eastern time. and then "usa today" has this headline about the veterans administration, vows sweeping changes to seek care for veterans. sweeping changes and ample attrition and are paired response to inspector general's report, due this week on a scandal over delayed health care for veterans. ava response, copies of which were obtained by "usa today," includes talking points that

reveal at least one crucial finding by investigators. head of the inspector general report, the.a the va under the new secretary, bob mcdonald, is preparing for the inspector general report. va secretary will be speaking today in north carolina with the president and we'll have those remarks. and then as many of you know, kay hagan, democratic senator from north carolina up for reelection in 2014, the headline in the "washington times," taking braces for obama's visit and nortel and. her reelection bid in doubt. she has an uncomfortable decision to make as president obama arise interstate tuesday before a critical audience she is trying to woo veterans. joining the same camera shot as mr. obama who nearly lost north carolina in 2012 and is unpopular in the state --

speakingf speaking of the 2014 midterm elections for the senate, here is the lesson is, the street journal fewest news section. mark pryor in arkansas, you mark begich in alaska, kay hagan in north carolina skeptical of the president making decisions on immigration by executive order. so that on the midterm elections. we are getting your thoughts on whether or not the president should go to congress for congressional approval for airstrikes in syria. mississippi, what do you think? >> caller: i think the president has the legal

authority to go after isis within the 90 day window that i think has already been established. and that he should after degrading them as much as possible go to congress and go to our allies and the international community and then form a coalition to deal with them long-term. >> host: nick in new york, independent caller. good morning. >> caller: good morning. listening to the exact subject under discussion, i think no matter how bad they are in syria, but this is the best regime that syrians can hope for at this time. and the president should use, with collaboration with the syrians and probably the iranians and the russians to organize some military action

against isis. >> host: okay. north carolina, republican caller. good morning. >> caller: good morning. yes, i think the president should go to congress to say exactly what he wants to do and why. the other countries, many other countries would go along with us if he did that. i believe a tax should be imposed to pay for the war. every taxpayer contributes. and the draft should be reinstituted so everybody does their duties for the country. >> host: on this issue of the president's persuasion, powers, michael bersin has accounted in the "washington post." too cool for these times. he writes --

michael goes on to say a few , he facess down

the issue of his presidency. tom in michigan, independent caller. what are your thoughts? >> caller: good morning, greta. >> host: good morning. >> caller: i really don't believe that the president needs to get congresses approval, because he's charged with protection of this country. but i do think that the i to sit down in the oval office and have a conversation with the american people and explain what the threat is. with this isis. and then get the intelligence

committees together and explain what he has in mind of doing. but with congress, he tried getting their approval last time over this syria thing and that didn't work out too good for him. you know, congress can't even agree whether it's day or night anymore. >> host: if you missed it, we show that earlier president obama's speech last to relate out the argument of why he would go to congress to get their congressional approval for any sort of action in syria when syria was using chemical weapons against their own people. you can go to our website. that it is. the president later was able to negotiate a deal with russia and syria to have them give up their chemical weapons. those chemical weapons destroyed by "the new york times" and others felt that the president,

the resolution to approve action and she was not going to get past. in congress last year. so we're asking all of you this morning, if he is considering airstrikes as the newspaper said this against syria, should he go to congress now without approval? cabin in maryland, an independent caller. good morning, kevin. >> caller: good morning. >> host: what are your thoughts? go ahead. >> guest: i agree he should go to congress and i also believe that he should be working more with the leaders in the middle east so that they can work together as a coalition to defeat the problem altogether. >> host: bob, kansas, democratic caller. good morning, bob. >> caller: morning. i believe that the president should go ahead and go to congress for this but also believe he got to bring forth the proposal that essentially we

in state a war tax to pay for it so it's a for ahead of time. i also believe that if we're going to go at this full force, with both parties agreeing with it, that we might need to reconsider reinstating the draft. so when people vote to go to war, they've got both the money up front to pay for it and they have the lives of their families and children also in line to pay for this. aspect you're a democrat. have you changed your mind in recent months, or since last year, about syria, about iraq and his threat of the islamic state, of isis? >> caller: you say have i changed my mind? >> host: have you come to this position of okay, you know, might be open to military action treasury i was against ?

>> caller: i was against the fact of going into syria, and just for the fear of the fact that the government, you know, in effect in the middle east are there for a reason, and our involvement in trying to change and make them democratic is questionable in a way. according to the police and so forth. i think the president took the right choice in backing off in syria originally. if he wouldn't have, i just think it would have been worse than it is right now. >> host: bob, democrat in hillsboro kansas. in other news this more and, other quick headlines for you. front page of "usa today." poli.

so that on the front page of "usa today." and also on the funeral of michael brown yesterday, here's a quote, let your voices be heard, black americans. urge to act as michael brown was laid to rest in missouri history. also front page of "usa today" this morning has this headline. warren -- --

at in e wall s so that in "the wall street journal" this morning, reporting on this latest issue of tax in versions. by the way also it's primary day

in a number of states today to take a look at the map. where primaries in arizona, florida, oklahoma and vermont today. michael, republican caller. good morning. >> caller: good morning, greta. again you guys just let people say anything regardless of what a lot it is and we believe and follow up or ask where to get that information? stick with me. that caller said republicans would approve of or and higher taxes are woodrow wilson, world war i, democrat. roosevelt, democrat, world war ii. harry truman via, democrat. john kennedy, vietnam, democrat. bill clinton, decided the law of the iraqi regime change act 1998 went into bosnia and serbia, bomb orthodox christians under

most holy of days in the churches on the danube river and its republicans that are warmongers? again, c-span, keep feeding the propaganda. go to war unless a democrat is president. >> host: the beauty of the show is you get to call us and go through everything that you just went through. you can respond to what other callers say. call and give us your comments and questions on the topic of the day. john, illinois, independent caller. good morning. >> caller: the morning. i think the president should seek congressional approval. it kind of smells of the beginning of the iraq war all over again. you've got the same warmongers and pundits on tv beating war drums. i think it should go to congress and get the votes on record as to who is for it and who's against it. >> host: south carolina, democratic caller.

>> caller: hello? >> host: go ahead. what are your thoughts treasury i feel the president shouldn't go to congress because dutch make. [inaudible] this is how they live. we could go over there and try to clear things up an airstrike. it will do no good because this is all they know. when we leave to continue doing the same thing. >> host: okay, michelle in great falls south carolina, democratic caller. >> president obama's expected to make remarks today regarding veterans affairs. is speaking to the american legion national convention in charlotte, north carolina, could watch his rockslide at 11:40 eastern on c-span. later the new va secretary will address the group. is expected to start at 1:30 p.m. eastern also live on c-span. a look at the future of the european union with panelists at the wilson center. speakers over the secretary-general of the

european parliament. live at 3:30 p.m. eastern. >> join us tonight on c-span for look back at the irs targeting investigation. we'll focus on a number of congressional hearings on the subject and will hear from irs commissioner john koskinen among others. it starts at 8 p.m. eastern. here's a quick preview. >> this is not being forthcoming. this is being misleading again. this is a pattern of abuse, a pattern of behavior that is not giving us any confidence that this agency is being impartial. i don't believe you. this is incredible. >> either long or. the first time anybody has had that you do not believe me. >> i don't believe you.

>> that's fine or family to stand on a record. am willing to remind you that it was not buried in 27 page. most of the 27 page is extended. when asked about the custodian -- >> being forthcoming speed is which we knew for one day speed is i'm sorry -- >> do know what -- >> will you let him answer the question? >> i didn't answer him a question. >> yes, you did. >> the gentleman, the gentleman -- >> i control the time. >> i realize interrupting this hearing is sort of -- >> no, no. >> the gentleman from wisconsin -- >> i am not yielding time. i control the time. is what being forthcoming is. >> regular order. >> if we are investigating criminal wrongdoing, targeting people based on political beliefs, and e-mails in question are lost because of a hard drive crash that is apparently unrecoverable which a lot of i.t. people would question. you don't tell us about your we asked about, that is not being

forthcoming. i yield back. >> that's not true. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleness yield back this time. >> thank you. >> a brief portion of one hearings will focus on tonight during our look at the congressional investigation into the irs targeting. that begins at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> this weekend, special programming on the c-span network. friday night native american history.

>> a discussion on u.s. foreign policy and the threat i says poses to the u.s. homeland and

western interests around the globe. this is from today's washington to a. it's 45 minutes. >> host: we are back with james carafano who is the vice president of foreign defense studies at the heritage foundation here to talk about this response to isa. let me sure the front page story of "the wall street journal" does when. u.s. lays groundwork for serious strike this summer to the new york times press as the president's approval of air surveillance over syria is the next, the first step toward airstrikes ass that would make sense but if you're going to conduct airstrikes, you do know what you are attacking. after intelligence. so the question would be what's the purpose but if the purpose of the operation is likely to roll eyes is back to pushing out of iraq, then you could say that my computer, might make sense to take back the comforts of one of the problems in vietnam is what essentially treated north vietnam as kind of no go

territory. we did bomb north vietnam but we never followed the enemy. when we push back they could go back, reset and come back again. if you're treating isis as an enemy, they don't recognize the border between syria and iraq. if your goal is to push them out of iraq, with the military calls lines of negation, supply lines, pipeline of fighters and maybe equippage, that extends into syria, then it would make sense the military would want to possibly do some operations in syria as part of the effort to push them out of iraq. the question is unlike what we just saw, for example, around herbal, that is a temporary effect on things but if you follow it up on the ground you can actually it's a bit of a game changer. you can make a difference. we bombed, march forward and take them back. in syria you don't have anybody to do that.

that we know. if you are just bombing, there's a question about how much utility or get, that might be somewhat useful. i wouldn't put off the table but it only makes sense if as part of an integrated military campaign to push isis out of iraq. >> host: let's look at that map again. you were talking about irbil and effort to push them back into syria. if you go after isis than in syria, you've got the other countries around there as well. what happens to turkey, other countries? >> guest: i don't think there's a strategy that carries the war industry. i don't know if that's necessary. you may have to strike targets in syria to push prices back across the border but i think once you push them back across the border, the responsible strategy is to have iraqi security forces, whether it's the kurdish and iraqi military in a sense keep isis from coming back. i don't know if you want to delve into secret. if you think back to the civil

war that we have in iraq in the sunni triangle after the initial occupation in 2004-2005, that's kind of what's going on in syria today. it's an currently sectarian conflict the scope of candidates in a really, really tiny place. it's almost impossible for outside force to come and go in there and cleaned that up. i'm not sure america's interest to have to do that, to really keep the contagion from spreading. what is key to stability and security in iraq. you could call bush that without broadening the war into we had to carry the war into. i'm not sure that is for sure. >> host: you think he could just airstrikes? >> guest: it depends. the problem with sitting here in the "washington journal," it's a cool office, we're not looking at maps, not looking at intelligence and we're not looking at targets. so the question is if you can hit a target and that material

affection or passage push these guys out of iraq, doesn't make sense? yes. that can only be really answered by a guy sitting in the command post that is pulling in intelligence looking at it and see what effect it has. i think the problem is bombing has become a metaphor for policy. we devolve into the stupid artless about bombs are not fun. i was in the army for 25 years. the one thing to building it over and over is you do things on the battlefield for the purpose. you're putting lives at stake, people could get killed. innocence could get to the nothing on the battlefield was done for that cover. hey, let's just do something. everything, every step you take has a purpose and it leads to military affect the lives of publishing your objective. and the peoples of bombing are not bombing, it's irrelevant

question. to me are you conducting a military activity that is suitable, feasible and acceptable and is going to configure realistic objective? and if the answer is yes, then i say that make sense. but if the question is should we bombed or not, that's not really an answerable question. >> host: assess the threat of the islamic state or isis. >> guest: i think we have to base our analysis of the threat on what we've seen in the past decade from islamist extremist groups that have transnational ties. i think you look from the perspective, for a couple of reasons i think isis is a significant concern. we have seen isis pull and adapt almost all the terrorist practices we've seen in the last two decades, and integrate those and try to actually improve on them. and sympathize in which i think is really troubling. part of this has been to launch attacks against the west.

so clearly i think the potential for that is there. the second factor i think that's very concern is we know there's foreign fighter pipelines, bringing fighters into iraq, that is a tactic we've seen over and over again since afghanistan in the 1980s. and in every case those foreign fighters can go back, train others, inspired others, to propaganda, conduct operations, organize operations. so that's a threat. look at the scale of what is happening. by some estimates they are already over 10,000 foreign fighters in iraq today. probably 3000 of them from the west. that's getting to be a number that would be pretty hard to track. 's i think that's a concern. i think the third concern, maybe the greatest concern is, and really the difference between a war in iraq and the war in syria, iraq is a very large state that is a very key and integral to the stability and the geopolitics of the middle

east region. a war in iraq, and we saw this back in the iraq iranian war, a war in iraq could be very destabilizing and it could turn into a sectarian conflict and could lead to a wider regional conflict. i think the wider regional conflict is a significant threat to the u.s. and its interest. on those two counts i think you do have plenty of history to say that we should take isis as a threat to key final u.s. interest. >> host: democrat from vermont had this to say about the james foley killing. this serenity that has got a lot of folks in congress talking. that it doesn't give us license to ignore the lessons of george w. bush and iraq. that's the issue of evidence, weapons of mass destruction. going into the country without clearly laying out and having the evidence of a threat than to isis owns a third of iraq.

i don't know what other evidence you need to say they're a threat. we know there are thousands of foreign fighters there. these, i don't think these things are subject to much debate. i would agree, foley was a great tragedy and a horrific murder and inexcusable murder. the reports we're getting of the atrocities are far greater than that. again, the atrocities are terrible and horrible. where does vital interest come from? i think he was vital interest comes from the potential for these fighter pipelines to bring transnational terrorism back to the west, to the trend, western europe and other allies on a level we haven't seen since nine 9/11 but i do think it's for a wider regional war but i don't think those facts are up for dispute. >> host: this is the "washington post" front page. egypt and uae hit militias and libya. the islamic militias have gone

in without white house, white house wasn't told about it. they went in to libya with airstrikes and bombed some of these malicious. >> guest: i was opposed to u.s. intervention in libya because again, there were a lot of terrible things going on. i didn't see where rose to a vital national interest and they think when you put u.s. forces on the ground in a coercive way you only do that were in use vital national interest. i didn't think we had a concern in libya. i think if you look at from egyptian perspective, they clearly do. tunisia is right along the fault line of countries that it will have an interest in not seeing a transnational islamist related terrorist threat spread throughout the middle east and north africa. if you look at the line running from algeria to tunisia, to morocco into egypt, that is clearly alliance or group of

states running over to niger that sees us as a threat to the vital interest. from their perspective they are right. tripoli is right in the middle of that so it is right for them to be deeply concerned about a terrorist state in since taking all right in the middle of an area that directly impact them. >> host: our first phone call for james carafano. oliver in baghdad, iraq. independent caller, is that right? >> caller: yes. >> host: are you there? are you a u.s. soldier? , yeah, i'm in baghdad currently. what i'm trying to say, i called three, four weeks ago when mosul fell down. and back and i said that the best thing to do is to confront them before they expand, and they will threaten the u.s. interest comes bush in the oil and gas sector.

now i'm in baghdad for educational purposes. i went to university of baghdad to complete my studies in geology. so what i tell the iraqi people, i think it is 180° turnaround, like couple years ago they were saying u.s. forces should leave iraq. our sovereignty is very important to us. but now everybody, shia, kurds, everybody sing we need the u.s. back. we need 50,000 us troops to stay in iraq and bases around baghdad, in the north and south because this is the best guarantee against the ambitions of the countries, special iran and other regional countries. so now i see there is a turnaround in the iraqi people opinion. now, my opinion is from getting around and talking to people from different backgrounds. they are saying, you know, that

they feel about a dark future for them. if you go and see like thousands of people are applying for passports, and they're trying to leave the country as soon as possible because they don't know what's going to happen. people are selling their houses, selling their cars. so the situation is still critical. >> host: okay. i will leave it there. >> guest: that colleges raise a lot of interesting and important points. i do believe there is a future for iraq. i do believe isis can be defeated. that there's a couple of major problems along the way. first of all i can certainly understand the concern of the iraqi people. look at the levels of post-conflict violence in iraq after the invasion. they bump up a little bit because you're kind of the regime fighting back a little bit. then you had in the sense than ever by al-qaeda to a night and insurgency.

so the level of violence steadily increased until we have the sunni awakening and then you will start to taper off dramatically. by the time u.s. forces left, the level of violence is down significantly. almost nothing. u.s. casualties were virtually nothing. then what happened is over time it began to creep up. the levels of violence today, even before isis invaded and started to take ground, the level of violence in iraq were far higher than they were six, seven years ago. so clearly the absence of these forces vary created, helped create a security vacuum that has allowed this is somewhat metastasize. just have two things both political stability and the security in the country. if you look at what's -- what you can achieve with the iraqi military and the policy, get

their act together, i think with for support i think they have the capability militarily to push isis, not just prevent them from getting more grandma to push them out of the right. we all respond to see that. there's another wave of terrorism. we've seen in places were isis has lost ground our place placed have gone yet like in baghdad, already seeing increased terrorist activity. we are seeing bombings in baghdad. 48 i the other day. we haven't seen a lot of terrorism in kurdistan in the last decade or so. so even if you push them to defeat them militarily you will see a wave of tourist attacks. so let's say we push them out of iraq and we get through this wave of terrorist attacks, the question is you still have the problem of an iraqi mentored and political system which is shaky. the one thing the u.s. forces to provide and to the left was an element of stability.

it can deter other people from messing in iraq's business. but also the notion ethnosectarian sides have taken advantage of the situation because you had this force of a balance. we need both a government that works for all the iraqi people and the security force that has the time and umbrella to rebuild its credibility and status. that's going to take time even after push isis out of iraq. this is the unanswered question, let's say get all that ground back. how do you keep the weight from coming back again like it did? i do think there's going to be a logical argument for supporting security force in iraq to stand therwith the iraqi people whilee government and iraqi security forces were you get reestablished itself. .. what is obviously achievable is we could get back

to where we were in 2008. we could get back to where we were when iraq was at peace and is of very little threat to the foreign forces that were there to assist them. we did it once after a really horrible, horrible urgency. i don't see why that could be accomplished again. host: democratic caller from pennsylvania. caller: good morning. i find it -- it has its foundation in your building. forget that. are these insurgents -- now, the same people we paid for two years and after we left the iraqi government was supposed to keep paying them. but maliki or whoever the prime minister was decided not to do that. host: ok. guest: that's a great question. >> guest: isis is not every

insurgeant in iraq. they are a relatively small group and did come from outside iraq into iraq. so are there other groups aligned with them? yes. are sunni groups that my side with them? yes. are some perhaps former folks paid by the government? maybe. isis is holding the coalition. >> host: who is their leader? >> guest: the core leadership is al-qaeda trained and experienced and much in the characters of other transnational groups we have seen in afghanistan and saw in syria. it is the same here. >> host: is isis more of a threat on al-qaeda or the same? >> guest: the answer is how do you know?

the problem is and this gets to one of the problems with our counter terrorism strategy over the years and we narrowly defined the definition of the threat. we said we will get core al-qaeda and any direct threat to the united states and the problem with that is it doesn't take a lot of capacity to become a transnational terrorist threat to the united states. it is more a question of will than resources and the problem is if you wait until people start attacking you before you take them seriously you can wind up in a situation like you have now with a group holding a third of the country, millions assets, many war equipment. >> host: where are they getting their money from? >> guest: a couple different

ways. smuggling is one way. smuggling oil. that is a tradition in the middle east and are not hard to setup. they seized a lot of money so that is a source of revenue. they are gotten foreign assistance in the past we know from wealthy individuals in the middle east potentially from some governments. >> host: going to david in sanford, maine, independent caller. >> caller: morning. hi, james. i would like to talk about the sunday's program on race and why you only had certain phones open. our military has been ham strung by the political ambition in this country and we can't win

the wars anymore. i would like to ask you if it were feasible to hire a hundred thousands people to keep on staff, all volunteers, and go out and exterminate these people. >> host: all right. >> >> guest: that is not legal technical technically. if you employ them that is against united states law and we could not do that. the question is could you have lawful military contractors and the answer is the country would have to allow them to be there and we would have to pay for it. what is the difference between having that and u.s. forces? in terms of u.s. commitment

really not much. i think the caller gets a key point. you hear this thing saying the united states should be the world's police man. it is a nutty idea and we cannot police our country let alone the world. and then you hear we should be the sheriff and the sheriff is like there is a structure of law with sovereignty and you can order people around. but you cannot do that either. we have to focus on what is makes sense in terms of vital interest and to the caller's point if you are going to do something with military force it should be important enough that it is important to your country and with you do that you have to ask if the level of force and the missions you give them is appropriate to the tasks you assigned and will accomplishing the tasks lead to achieving your objectives. if the answer isn't yes to all of those things you are using military force for political

purpose as opposed to supporting the national interest. >> host: should the president support congressional support for expanding or should it me a move he makes without bro broadcasting? >> guest: i think there is a lot of operational secrecy you will get. i am not a lawyer so i cannot speak about the legality but i can think about the process and say it is always appropriate if we put military in harms way and that is flying in the sky or operating in an environment and the president if there is time it is appropriate to consult and congress is a representative of the american people. if we go to war, we go as a nation. i think it makes sense for the president to use military force and have a conversation with

congress about that. i have to tell you on this situation, i think congress is going to support him. people say we tried to bomb syria last time and everybody was against it. well that was a different set of circumstanc circumstances, mission and goal. depending on what we wants to do because we don't know and we have a notion of bomb or no bomb so the president goes to congress and explains we will do military operations in syria and this is the purpose and how it is linked to iraq and i think congress would be very supportive. >> host: angel from bridgeport. independent caller. >> caller: i follow twitter a lot and i saw a picture with john mccain standing with isis. i personally feel it is wrong to

stand on any side. it doesn't matter. we should not take sides. we should not be involved in their caliphate. it is religion to its core. >> host: when you saw the picture was a possibly senator mccain standing with the opposition folks who are fighting? i guess we won't know. >> guest: we makes a good point. it isn't about side. you have to have a foundation of why do we do things in the world. if you look at what is a vital interest of the state and keeping america free, safe and prosperous and if there is your metric they will be pretty clear. if it is about whose side we

should be on that is now how foreign policy is made. >> host: mitchell. los angeles, california. democratic caller. >> caller: when matt frier esca escaped from captors he said several people were fighting and some were pro-western and some were anti-western. i am wondering if we go in with regoing to bomb rebl-- are we g to not distinguish between the

rebl r r r rebels? >> guest: that is a good point. we think one that served the people and they are a small group and little capacity to win the future of syria right now. just bombing for the sake of bumbing makes no sense. i can here we can work with him but he is a genocidal dictator so why would we do that? if you bomb isis and strengthen his hand and do that to get isis out of iraq but we are not in the business of supporting the regime that is one of the most despicable ones on earth. >> host: salina, kansas, michael

is the caller. >> caller: i have been listening to peter monsoon and a lot of people and obama and the united states government is bias. they uprooted syria people and obama is hiding behind putin. i am a syrian and a retired professional. everybody is laughing about the united states jumping in iraq and they didn't jump into syria and syrians are destroyed. in the next few days they will pea picked up by a pimp or cabby and prosituted. and the united states handed iraq to iran.

they have been murdering and persecuting a lot of educated sunnis and isis is picking up like hurricane winds. i talk to people all of the time. my relatives are in the opposition of london. if obama wants to bomb syria he has to get rid of the assets. and the iranians think like a thousand years ago. i live in the united states rati, i am a muslim, call me an atheist. george washington is my leader. >> guest: this needs to be part of the conversation. we hear we should help the iranins because they will

help -- iranians -- and there is a large sunni population in iraq and we thought the iranians would work with us and push back on isis. but i think that is a bad example. during the height of the sunni insurgency the iranian government was allowing a pipeline bringing the deadliest ied's every brought into the iraq to kill americans. so this motion that they are a state-sponsor of terrorism and one of worst human rights record on the planet so the notion of partnering with iranians in iraq is trading one evil for another. the enemy of my enemy is my

friend is a saying but in iraq the enemy of my enemy happens to be my enemy. they have a common interest like a bank teller and a bank have a common interest. the iranians are the greatest destabd destabilizing factor. we have to make iraq free for the iraqi people and it will kill off a serious threat for us and bring stability to the region and reduce the potential of regional war. and the strategy accomplishing that pushes isis out of iraq. >> host: walden from new york. independent caller. >> caller: i appreciate the comments about forgetting about

going into the iraq with no objection under the bush administration. and the powers over there of iraq, egypt, saudi arabia and iran. we are talking sunni and shitte -- >> host: are you still there? >> guest: there is background noise. we will leave it there, frank. >> guest: we can have a big conversation about how we got here from there. i don't think that is important. it would be like the day after pearl harbor people sat around and said do we debate how we got her or how do we fix it? we have to go back to ending politics at the waters edge and looking for bipartisan solutions going forward. i am not spending a lot of time

debating how we got here. that is the key moving forward. the other thing i will say is we got to a place despite all of the horror and violence and sectarian divisiveness and problems and everything we screwed up about the occupation we got to place in 2008 where a country had a future and was a force of growth. so the notion that can not happen i disagree with. the notion that kurds and sunnis can't live together i disagree with. i think this country has a future. we proved that through the most horrorific times. it would be like on the world of two eve we said we had a mess in world war one but went back and fought another war. and that was one of the most peaceful renaligioregions on th.

i think history is showing even in recent times that the people of the middle east can win their own future if given a chance. >> host: what is the goal of the islamic state? how does it differ from al-qaeda? >> guest: it doesn't. if you look at the groups and read the ideas the reestablishing of the caliphate is always the same. reestablishing their rule on their terms which to many westerns says that sounds like modern totalarism and what we heard from the nazi and japan and in reality is kind of actual

is. there is no human rights or civil rights. there is a political order established by the elite at the top who rule by how they think the world should be run. >> host: what is the strategy for the united states there with airstrikes? >> guest: that is a great question and i don't know the answer. a strategy has three components: ends, ways and means. ends are what are you trying to accomplish and ways are how are you doing that and means are what are you going to apply. we have had discussions about things. the president says we are there for humanitarian process and that doesn't make sense totally. no one sits down with us and says this is watt we are going to do. the president said defeat germany first. that was one tiny sentence

defining how we will fight a global war. we will defeat these guys and we will do it by focusing effort and marching on berlin and then march on tokyo. so you had a crystalization of 60% of the men in uniform and 40% of the gdp applied to achieve an end. if you went to the average american and said what is the strategy in iraq they would look at you and blink. if i walked down broadway in 1943 and said what is the plan for world war ii he would have told me the problem. >> host: kathleen, democratic caller. >> caller: i have a question as an african-american.

what is a zionist. answer that question. >> guest: i am not an exert on israeli issues. >> host: we will move on. jim, pennsylvania, independent caller. >> caller: yes, ma'am and thank you cspan. i would like to ask if obama -- >> host: jim, we are listening, go ahead. >> caller: isis isn't going anywhere. no one thinks the caliphate -- they are just a bunch of murderous thugs and at the end of the day are they going to be

seen as that by the people right there? >> guest: he raises a good question. they are not ten feet tall. politically it is fragile. it is coalition of groups sitting over occupied land and many have been isolated and brutalized. they captured a lot of military equipment but don't have logistics or depots and sustaining that is going to be difficult. and they are holding a lot of ground and the more ground they hold the more you have to thin yourself out. they have been pretty smart. when isis moved to iraq they didn't march on baghdad and you will say why not? the closer they got to baghdad the harder the government, i

think the more the military and shitte militia came forward. they were smart enough not to try that and took a strategic pause and tried to consolidate gains and started to move on. we were not supporting the kurds with air support or anything. >> host: what does this tell you about what they saw in kyrgyzst

kyrgyzstan? >> guest: they would have been a prize. they are kurds and not respected as co-equal. kyrgyzst kyrgyzstan has their own oil. about 11%. it has been peaceful and wealthy and stable. if they could have toppled kyrgyzstan that would have gotten people's eyes. there are populations spread throughout the region in turkey and syria as well. that would have been enormous. honor is power in this part of the world. if you are winning you are respected. if you are loosing you are in a sense disrespected. so having taken a big chunk of iraq, isis was looking to show they were on the offensive and winning and powerful and

honorable. so the declaration of the ca calf -- caliphate -- was showing they set-up this dream and going or after the kurds and the killing of the journalist is a way to show we are powerful still and can hurt you. if isis is loosing on one front one way for them to get back in the fight and finding another way. if you could pull off an attack against the homeland or target in western europe it would show you are powerful and you can reach out and strike you and from their perspective what do you have to lose. if the americans are bombing them and supporting opposition and pushing them out. how are they going to make

america angrier? >> host: chuck, good morning. you are on the air. >> caller: good morning. i would like to know if isis is really as serious about what they are doing than we should get serious and go ahead because they have oil fields and refineries that will fund their progress. bomb them and wiping them out would eliminate the resources. >> guest: so the question is isis serious and i think that is a really interesting question. and again, i think if we look at the history of the last two decades. we have to take isis at its word in this case. if you go back to read bin laden's writing who was the head

before his death and he would issue religious statements of doctrine and in those statements we laid out the case to bring war against the united states. he would say we killed them in syria and lebanon and they ran away. if we strike against the west they will pull away and we can reestablish the caliphate. and they were available to western experts and a lot of people at the time said this is propaganda and not serious. we said this until 9/11 and realized that is not the plan. do we say that is just propaganda and they are too busy trying to survive and hold on to iraq and they are not going to come after us? that maybe true but may not be.

>> host: chris is the last one. democratic caller. >> caller: the think i want to ask is about -- thing -- interest. when you say what are the iraqi interest and you have the kurds, sunnis and shittes so it isn't one country. you have to talk about the mistakes the west made. and when they fail to pay the different groups they created after this war, you know. so these things cause issues.

>> guest: the iraqis fought as people against the iranians including the iraq shitte. if you had three groups separated out and the reality is much like the american colonies and we could have gone our own way and had separate countries and it would be which one was france or england want to pick off? the future is important to stay together because they are called targets but together they represent a country that has the economic potential and demographics to be what the

ancient crossing of the rivers and triangle was which is the paradise and emerging future. it is spread outwards of the middle east and i think that can happen again and iraq can be the source of peace and economic stability and growth and freedom that can spread outward in the middle east. i don't think that is a lost vision. >> host: thank you your time. >> coming up, robert mcdonald is speaking into the nag national legion commission. and a look at the future of the european union with panelist at

the wilson center including the secretary general of the european parliament. and here is a look at prime time programming across the networks. a look back at the congressional investigation into irs target. booktv is addressing poverty tonight. and american history tv tonight with a focus on the decision to drop the atomic bomb in world war ii. this weekend special programming on the cspan networks. friday night, native american history and on saturday a debate on scotland independence. and on booktv we have in-depth

with former congressman ron paul and then afterwards with william burrows talking about his book "the asteroid threat". on american history tv, friday a nasa movie about the 1969 apollo 11 moon landing. and on saturday johnson's exceptance speech from the 1964 democratic convention. and sunday night a look at legal law and a precedent of bush versus gore. let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. call us at 202-626-3400 or e-mail or twitter us. join the conversation. like us on facebook.com/csp and

us on twitter. >> we look a look at political ads from the past and those airing currently. the segment is just over 50 minutes. >> host: it is election season and 70 days before the mid-term election and all of this week we are breaking down campaigning in this modern age with campaign ads. we have two campaign consultants on the set. brian fold and donald donohue is here. and they make ads with mail and digital for campaigns. let's start with a number if we could. 2.6 billion could be spent on this campaign cycle it is estimated. how much of that is for ads?

and what cost so much? >> guest: when you are trying to reach voters in districts or in a state it cost a lot of money to reach them and that is airtime or direct postage for printing and all of that cost money. voters have a lot of things on their mind and they dealing with and the majority of what they are dealing with has nothing to do with campaign so the campaigns have to spend time and money to reach them and get into their lives so to do that whether that is paying for canvases to go to their door or television ads they all cost a lot. >> reporter: and 2.6 billion is just for ads. brian donohue, what cost so

much? >> guest: it is unbelievable. there has been more spending this year than we have ever seen with the courts opening the outside super pacs. to be able to place the ads in the media markets around the country is the most expensive part of any campaign advertising effort. so you your production and creation of putting the ads together is a minimum compared to placing those so you can get your ad shown to all of the voters you can so you can have saturation >> host: why is it in expensive in one part of the country verus another? >> guest: you might be in sioux city, iowa and the cost to run an ad on primetime television is

lower than being on the new york city media market. so the cost vary that way. but you have the campaigns themselves and third party groups trying to be a part of it discussion and that increases the spending going on. >> host: brian donohue, what separates a good ad from a bad ad? >> guest: they say that is in the eye of the beholder. but it is really what pushes the crowd and gains support for our candidate or declines support for the opposition. who cares if is creative does it sell is a slogan. does it move opinion? does it move emotionally? that is watt we are looking for.

>> host: joe fold, what do you do before putting an ad together to see if it will move? >> guest: it is figure out what the opposition and what they will say and creating contrast and making sure any advertising falls within the context of what the voter is thinking about. right? a lot of times what happens is you have a creative ad as brian said but it doesn't connect to voters. so you can have the most creative ad in the world but it doesn't mean it will move voters to vote for your candidate. >> host: you get a candidate and client, do you put a road map together for that client of a strategy of we'll do this ad first? >>

>> guest: you put the plans together to say during the course of the campaign we can predict this is what we will discuss. the issues important during the election cycle. what are opponent is doing, how they present against our candidate in particular and they put together a strategy and plan associated with that. but you have to be flexible because in recent election cycles the issues coming up with unbelievable. they are not saying this is the domestic cycle or the war in iraq cycle but every two weeks something is coming up and you have to be adaptable and flexible in order to put the right ads that speak to voters they care about most. >> guest: i would equate running campaigns more to flying a glider versus a plane. on a glider the wind is blowing

you lots of ways and that can be your opponent's message or third party groups. so it is trying on the message you want. >> host: let's talk about traditional ads versus digital. here is a story in politico saying that mid-term elections are three month away but there is a clear winner in 2014. digital advertising. brian donohue? >> guest: it has been incredible. my agency is doing more than i have ever seen. when you see are seeing it pre-booked and hard to put ads on in terms of inventory. we are seeing it for the first time where inventory is getting bought up. but the ads different.

the creative and experience that people have online is a different type of voter experience in terms of how they consume information which is very different than television. it is more active and participation rather than tv which is a passive event. >> host: what does that mean for how you create them? >> guest: you have to get attention but it isn't like where people are ready for the t tv breaks. a lot of people said the worst thing to happen to digital advertising was banner ads and people said they don't work. but there is an array of platforms that were not available when they started all the way from pandora, youtube preroll and social media advertising to facebook to twitter and all of the various things you can do to get

people's attention. you can provide a larger mix in digital and the targeting is there. and your ability to target becomes a greater ability. >> guest: you are building ads for interaction. what is great about a digital platform is you can get feedback from voters and they can send comments and they can cacheonne and get involved in a direct way like with a television ad. and with the targeting you are able to narrow an ad down to an individual and whether that is reaching them on their computer at home or on the phone and they are walking by an early voting place and where you can say you can vote now. the way to interacting with people through daily lives and digital is so much more than the past types of techniques we had.

>> host: cheaper than commercial? >> guest: it is more direct and scalable. it allows you to direct your dollars because it as a specific audience where whereas with tv spend more to reach people. >> host: we are breaking down what goes into a campaign all week and today the focus is campaign ads. we want your questions and comments on that. (202) 585-3881 republican line. (202) 585-3880 democrats line. and the first call is from ted from new hampshire. >> caller: i'm tired of these attack ads.

they show more and bring up more dirt about the candidates than they do the issues of how to fix them. we are all hurting and i don't care personal things about the individual as long as they can produce what they say. >> host: is there a specific race in new hampshire you are referring to? >> caller: all of them. i just watched the one on the governor's race here and i i see is attack ads. it is childish.

>> host: can it be too much? >> guest: i was hoping he wasn't speaking about one of my ads. we do work in new hampshire. it is a great point. traditionally you saw more contrast and negative attack ads. those tend to be the terms that i think frame what they are. voters and focus groups always say they don't work. our polling and numbers so they do work.

we are reading the numbers and ruls and we follow the data and it comes down to the voters and how they react. >> guest: i think what you see is a good campaign not only defines the opposition but defines themselves and says not only here is what the problem is but also says here is what the solution is and you have to do both these days. it isn't enough just to say the incumbant is wrong and made these mistakes. you have to say this is what i am going to do about it. as brian said it is about trying to figure out how to reach and communicate with voters and that is tough. >> host: and from new hampshire brown and partner in a dead heat. scott brown is former

massachusetts senator running in new hampshire. robert, democratic caller. >> caller: good morning. i enjoy your programming. i wanted to ask a question and i don't know isn't satsfact ory. where does the campaign money go once someone loses or drops out? >> guest: usually the money is spent on communicating with voters. there is usually not a pool of money that is leftover. depending on the different states and places there are legalities on where that can go if it is left over but usually it is put into the campaign. >> guest: you would rarely find a loosing candidate with leftover money. often they will offer to send it back or president it in pacs.

>> host: danny is next. hi, danny. >> caller: why don't they talk about what they will do? not about who is more evil. no one wants to hear that anymore. >> host: okay, danny, joe fold? >> i think it is a valid point. you have to make the contrast, as i said earlier, and say here is the difference between us and our opponent. it is not only about saying what is wrong and what the opponent has gone badly but what you will do about it. >> host: when should a candidate run a negative ad? >> guest: we like to present their voting record and contrast and that appears negative.

your previous caller brought up the personal attacks. that muck raking and kind of stuff and people are fed up with and don't want to see it and i think that comes down to the ethics of the campaign and the candidates and they should be held countable in terms of what they are telling in terms of record, voting and truth and what people are doing and the decisions making versus attack ads on their family or personal life. >> host: peter from arlington, virginia, republican. how are you? >> caller: morning. there has been a lot of coverage on joey earn ad and others that caught fire online or gotten a lot of publicity online. and i would like to get your attention on how that translates on election day or even a few

months later? what is your prediction on if that is going to be effective. >> guest: some of the ads released online are meant to do different things. some are meant to drive base and you can put an ad out to get your base voters connected and focused or you can set the tone for the future campaign. i think what you are seeing on a lot of the earlier digital ads is laying the groundwork for what they are going to be talking about later and being able to use the summer to get some sort of early communication out there. i think it is very smart for these campaigns to figure out how we can get something out digitally when it doesn't take a lot of time. >> guest: consult aants and tea

are looking for favorable and unfavorable. and your chances of being successful on election day depepped pends on that and your opponent's and you want to work on that. what is interesting over the course of last few cycles is the movement of the electorate is shifting. you could secure your base and then go after the independent voters but we are seeing movements in shifts where we got support and then it might dissipate or increase. >> host: among the base? >> guest: among what you believe is secure voters. it has been more fluid in recent election cycles. all ads matter but the digital ones especially from 2012 with the president putting out web

video ads that had higher recall than tv ads. so they are very effective. >> you want to try to get engagement. part of the battle in an off-year election like this is about turn out. it isn't just about the message. it is about turning out voters and making sure you are turning out the people you need to turn out. >> host: we are talking about the art of making a campaign for

the next 30 minutes. alan is in lakeland, florida. good morning. >> caller: i have a question. are you willing to express an opinion on the citizen united decision by the supreme court? >> host: brian donohue i will start with you first. >> guest: i think it is an important decision because we are seeing a lot of camp pains and advertising as a result. i will answer it personal. i tend to be a lib ertarialiber and i believe in opening it up and the supreme court allowed that. >> guest: i am not a fan of citizens united and i don't think corporations are people. i would fall more on the side of

having a true understanding of what money is being spent in elections. >> host: we will keep talking about modern day elections with campaign ads. but i want to go back and show the viewers a couple historical ads. the first is an ad from one of the first ones to air and featuring cartoons from disney and then the famous johnson ad against goldwater featuring a little girl in a nuclear explosion. take a look: >> ike for president! you like ike. i like ike. everybody likes ike. let's do that big job right.

cai, i like ike, everybody likes ike for president. we will take ike to washington. ♪ now is the time for all good americans to come to the aid of their country. >> one, two, three. four, five, seven, six, six eight, nine, nine -- >> eight, seven, six, five, four, three, two, one.

[boom] >> these are the stakes to make a world in which all of god's children can live. we must either love each other or we must die. >> vote for president johnson on november 3rd. the stakes are too high for you to stay home. >> host: two campaign ads from the past. joe folds, were they effective? >> guest: i think both were in very different ways. so the first ike ad did a great job of being liked but saying now is the time for americans and getting people to hone in on civic duty and doing something

patriotic by voting for ike. the other is the daisy ad that only aired once that set the tone as here is a consequence of your vote and really trying to use those ads to show what is at stake and what is the difference and both did that in a different way. >> host: brian donohue. >> guest: political ads are important and provide commentary on a person's mood. with you look at history and -- when you -- and back in the day before television you saw ugly and unbelievable political ads and sheets and handouts that candidates used to have. these two ads are important because they both evoke emotion. the first is happiness get behind the flag and ike is wonderful and we will kercarry

positive through. and love or die -- these are words that evoke emotion and use fear. i think the second one, the daisy ad, probably motivated people more because of the emotions. >> host: pat, from fort wayne, indiana, republican caller is on the air. >> caller: my question is more about the business. i am curious to know, first of all, do you have sales people who go out to the party committee or to the individuals? >> host: how does your business work? how do you get clients? >> guest: reputation.

the kind of work you do and you work with a lot of different campaigns and operatives and people that work with candidates. but it is a lot of work. you are out there meeting with a lot of candidates across the country and working with organizations inside the beltway. it is not as glamorous as i think many people make it out to be. >> guest: and i think it is developing relationships over time. both of us work with different groups and organizations and managements and develop relationships over the years. i think it is trying to give back to different causes and show we care about the work we do and i think clients see that. >> host: lisa, baltimore, democratic caller. hi, lisa. >> caller: thanks for taking my call. i would like to hear what evidence there is that digital ads work.

my experience is they provoke antipathy and you are swatiting them aside. and i don't know why anyone could take the ad serious when it is sitting next to a fighting belly fat ad. i would like to know why they think they are effective. >> host: brian donohue. >> guest: we have seen a lot of information on how effective they are. what they need to do isn't always different in breaking through emotions and getting a feeling afterward and that is not lost going from television to digital. ... in digital for a few races.

we've all tested versus people who saw or digital ad and people who did not. and we saw anywhere from a or person-7% increase in their support for our candidates. that is just basic metrics. and then we had a number of variables where we see types of audiences timothy models of the segments that we have, and how we are moving numbers among them as well. with such a crowded marketplace, you're never going to reach a voter in one place. what you're doing is using television, direct mail, digital, door to door, and all --the things in carbonation and all of these things in combination. it used to be we could reach the voter in just one way, but that is not possible anymore. a piece of mail, and little bit by the television , we he done o j

>> host: we will keep taking your questions and your comments on campaign ads. let's break down some ads for this election. i want to show our viewers the ad in her senate race against democratic senator, the incumbent jeff merkle. merkley. the "washington post" has described as one of the best ads of 2014. take a look. >> i was 21 weeks pregnant. i had an ultrasound. my doctor called me and said there's something wrong with your baby's spine. we need to look at terminating the pregnancy. the world stopped. >> the doctor was the first person to get the so. she was the first person who said congratulations, you're having a daughter. she was going to open her back and reconstruct my daughter's entire lower spine. she just hugged me. >> it's going to be okay, sweetheart.

i've got her and i'm going to see it in a couple of hours particular the most precious thing i had. i trusted her. >> we have a 12 year old today because of her. to make an incredible senator. you always do the right thing. she will act with integrity. all of washington needs be full of people like her. >> host: brian donahue, why does it work? >> guest: it's a very good and. i know the producer and i think that wonderful add because it does exactly what i described earlier. it invokes emotion. it really helps you to understand the candidate outside the context of a politician. you really get to know them, they're worth, their service, with their passions about based on the. dr. wehby, how she cared for patients, how she cared for people and families and that their willingness to validate that in a testimony and an

advertisement like the it breaks the mold. what caller college or say, i'md of this negative stuff. here's an ad writer who tells you a lot about a candidate, does it in an emotional way in which is a lot more, testimonial ads. these testimonial ads are really strong validator. they working with real people telling real stories about candidates, is really i think a nice development in political advertising. >> host: what about the candidate talking to the camera themselves? i want to show our viewers mark pryor running for reelection in arkansas. tiahrt praises for this at. take a look. >> i'm not ashamed to say that i believe in god, and i believe in his word. the bible teaches us no one has all the answers, only god does. and neither political party is always right. this is my compass, my north star.

it gives me comfort and guidance to do what's best for arkansas. i mark pryor, and i approve this message because this is who i am and what i believe. >> host: joe fuld. >> guest: what i think that add does well is it sets the tone for mark pryor saying here is how i make decisions, here's what i'm doing to fight for the people in arkansas and it again is a warm connected to add to come him directly to camera and try to connect with voters who might be hearing a lot of sordid negativity around democrats and who they are and what they believe. he speaking to them directly saying here's who i am and here's what i believe. >> host: let's get back to phone calls from shreveport, louisiana. democratic caller, go ahead. >> caller: good morning. i was calling to ask about any interesting features and trends they have noticed with recent political ads and other developed nations such as in

europe and asia. and, of course, while there are cultural differences between any country, any chief differences in strategies that they may have noted between those ads and our own here in the u.s. treasury as mentioned earlier in terms of historical ads we see really kind of the commentary of society any of these other countries and nations were using political advertising as well but the important difference, the united states is somewhat unique in the fact that we have such an open forum for political advertising. we don't have in most parts of the world, it's very controlled, very moderated. you can only send -- spencer amount of dollars to give government spending, limited airtime. the united states it is wide open. that's what you see a lot of political advertising year. you see a lot of difference. it's enjoyable to see political ads from all other parts of the world where you can see the cultures come alive in some of the political commentary. >> guest: in the international

space, digital and mobile has taken off. that is because they don't have broadcast television or mail the way we do, but most folks have a phone and so it's connecting with them whether each using an old technology like texting or whether it's showing ads on, just on phones. they're able to connect with people that way and i think we're seeing rates are cutting edge digital technology coming from abroad. >> host: twitter reacting to our conversation there i want to share a couple. i don't think either one of you want to do this. what about this sentiment of am just so tired of hearing these, seeing this, how can he get around it transit often time when the people and tell them what i do, i say i produce many of the ads that you don't like. i said and a lighthearted way. there's a lot of them.

in our society we say it's rude to talk about religion and politics at the dinner table. well, those ads are delivered to you over and over and over again, specialist amount of advertisers we are seeing in modern political campaigns. so i don't blame people for saying it's too much. it's overwhelming. there is a lot of it, but audiences and audience viewership has become segmented. we are seeing budgets now starting to go into more digital spaces in other places where i don't think you see so much concentration and broadcast advertising. >> guest: one of the things you remember, that although we say that our $2 billion is a lot, it's small compared to what commercial advertisers are spending. so we are competing to break through like a marketplace where mcdonald's and coca-cola and large brands are spending lots of money to to make it with voters every day.

we have to do everything we can to get a message to break through. and the truth is, letting folks know about a voting record, the only way folks are going to find out about their voting record of their congressional member or senatsenate candidate is a deta. >> host: this is the headline from the hollywood reporter. tv political ad spending forecast will drop in 2014. according to moody's -- down nearly 10%. of course every nonpresidential you versus a presidential year. minnesota, republican caller, go ahead. good morning to you? one last call. okay then we move on to philip in california, independent caller. philip, go ahead.

philip, you are on the air. >> caller: thank you. one of the things i'm very concerned about is obviously a negative, the negative seems to work over and over and over again. why can't we get to the point where we talk about issues. can we talk about the things that are really important to the american people rather than tearing each other apart? it seems to serve no purpose. yet in politics it works so effectively. >> guest: well, again there's this contrast. we talk about the reason why campaign to do it, because they have to break through and they want to let voters know about the difference between them and their opponent. i think the caller makes a point that at some point campaigns have to teach and make a decision about the tone of the campaign, and when to not only define their opponent but defined themselves.

>> host: take a look at the democrat running in kentucky. this is a high profile race. trying to unseat mitch mcconnell, the leader for the republicans in the senate. she has rolled out a television series called questions from each. take a look. >> this is don disney from cloverleaf kentuckian is a question for senator mcconnell. >> i'm a retired coal miner. i want to know a you could've voted to raise my medicare cost of $6000. my wife and i come home we supposed to afford that? >> i don't think he's going to answer that. i approved this message because i will work to strengthen medicare, not bankrupt seniors. >> guest: so this is a great ad done by putnam partners, and to think what it does is two things. one, it defines mcconnell because he's not answering the questions that we want him to and fighting force we wanted to.

but she is able to say here's what i would do, right? so it's that great sort of mix of defining the opposition and saying what the candidate is going to do. and it does it in a personal connected way. >> guest: it's speaking to the question and thinking about this, we really provide communication that speaks to the polls -- the pulse of audience and the. voters are like consumers. and truly they are empowered to decide if they want a certain type of advertising or if they don't. if they're not going to react to the negative advertising that's only people are disenfranchised about, it's really up to our democracy and of the people to really determine that they're not going to react that way. you know, there really is a

populist, serious, anger among voters that you see a lot of ads speaking to, which is perceived as often times as negative advertising. but it's a great spot. i think it's a little kitschy but i enjoyed it. i think she clearly conveyed a message in that ad and that's important. >> host: this is the headline from washington of yesterday. mcfadden out chinese franken. senate hopeful's ads are tickling voters. it said -- former saturday night live writer and comedian. >> let me show our viewers his ad. >> quarterback keeper onto, ready? >> coach taught as blocking and tackling and running hard. >> mike mcfadden for minnesot minnesota. >> he says washington is fumbling our future.

>> obamacare needs to be trashed. >> let's get out there and hit somebody. >> i'm mike mcfadden and i approved this message house of representatives why does it work? >> guest: he is not the politician in the suit working as a dead shaking the seniors had something people see over and over again. it's become sort of cheesy that people are tired of those but he looks like a real person. he's got his start. he can get and that's what people want and politician. it works to portray him as a guy who has a sense of humor. >> host: joe fuld, why can't al franken be funding? >> guest: one, i think al franken is funding. but also he's doing a lot to fight for the people of minnesota. you will see in his advertising where it's warm and connective and showing what he can do.

and has been doing for folks. so i think it is a cute ad, as i said earlier, cute as don't necessarily when it elections. i think that's a bad word is trying to break the but i don't know that's going to be successful. >> host: back to calls. wisconsin, democratic caller. >> caller: i have a couple russia either question and a comment. not particularly about campaign ads, but i noticed on a national car at it the other day that even with the racial tension and some of cities in the united states, that there's a major car company that is advertising a new car and it has a black man punching a white man to get away from his car. now, i find this very appalling but apparently nobody else does because i'm not seeing anything on television about it. >> host: so is this political

correctness? >> caller: i believe there's no truth and honesty and i believe if you ask the average person outside of the beltway that they will tell you that these people don't care what kind of shock ads they put on television as long as there's a paycheck connected with the. >> host: joe fuld, can you be politically tone deaf? >> guest: listen, i think it's the responsibility, right, of all of us to run ads that connected voters and talk about issues they care about. that's what we tried into everyday and really try and whether it's working on issues are working for political campaigns can make a difference and really make the right kind of change. >> guest: you do have to pay an important attention to cultural sensitivity. and if you do make a mistake in that regard, you are insensitive to any group of people, or if there's a news event or

something that's shocking and you seem to want to attempt to play into that, that could fail miserably. that could backfire. we've seen a time and time again. that's something that those in politics from a dozen other kinds of advertisements have to pay attention to. we see mistakes over and over again where the just, you wonder. who was the person who made the decision that was so insensitive? i'm surprised that people haven't spoken out about an ad that, that this gentleman is talking about. >> host: some political observers point to former representative pete hoekstra's and that he read what is running for senate against democratic debbie stabenow. let's take a look at that one. >> thank you, michigan senator, debbie spent enough. she spent so much american money she borrows more and more from us. your economy gets very weak. hours get very good. we take your jobs.

thank you, debbie spend it now. >> i think this race is between debbie spend it now and he'd spent it not. i approve this message. >> host: brian donahue commute talking about mistakes made. people point to that add. >> guest: just from a message perspective and how the ad was done, i side from, there's obvious cultural considerations. i don't think it was a very good and. i think is too complex, a lot of things being said, kind of a tongue twister with all these other things. clearly up front, i mean, it seems to lack some sensitivity because it just doesn't provide context. there has been ads done where we presented or other organizations have presented other countries like china and their influence in the is ending and the issue. this one didn't do it. it didn't pull it off and there was a lot of backfire and that

particular raise. >> guest: i just think that ad just completely missed the mark. i think one of the things that debbie stabenow was able to do in that race was really define the campaign. i think that money was wasted that was spent on that add. >> host: we'll hear from jimmy next from athens, georgia, independent caller. >> caller: good morning. i like your necklace. >> host: thank you. >> guest: -- >> caller: my question concerns who is paying for all these ads. i believe a few months ago in florida was a special election and after it was over both sides claimed the other side had spent more money than they had. and i believe discrepancy concern outside money wasn't raised by the campaigns themselves. what percent would you estimate of the campaign ads this year will be paid for by outside groups as opposed to by the campaign themselves treachery i

think, in many places there will be more money, a lot more money spent in the actual campaigns by outside groups. so these outside groups are spending money. part of which is citizens united, are spending the money and really it's not clear who is spending it and where the money is coming from. >> guest: jimmy, what first got in this business it was hugely, the two campaigns that you might want or to outside groups. you may have for advertisers in a market or in a race that particular. now i mean, predating the citizens united decision with a lot of packs an organization's coming in, but afterwards worsening in many races anywhere from seven to eight to 10 advertisers many different people with different groups and different organizations, and it's not just business

associated with citizens united. it's labor, it's a because special interest organizations and using a lot of it, jimmy, to answer you question you see a lot more of it and that percentage is increasing much larger than the actual candidate to spending. >> host: we'll hear from alan next in richmond, virginia, democratic caller. go ahead. >> caller: okay. i keep hearing that people don't like negative ads, and how terrible they are. and i wish people would focus on the real important thing about the ads, and that is are the truthful? it's on this ads that everybody ought to be complaining about. >> guest: very important. that's a great point. and joe brought this up before. it's really up to all of us, the

media, the voters, those who can take action by doing their homework and determining is something true or false? if something is false, if it doesn't pass the sniff test, then we have to call these campaigns out. that's was going to keep them in check. we are a democracy where people can participate in the system, and we have to exercise that. >> guest: at the end of the day it's the voters decision on which campaign they're going to vote for or not, or whether they will turn out. and so what the voters to is they have a choice to believe the ad or not, or to go and look for further information, right? to justify is this, are these folks telling the truth? why they're able to go online and look at digital ads enabled the research and see, all right, who am i really voting for and what are the issues that really matter to me? that's what these elections are about. >> host: you made the point

earlier that just because you get a lot of attention for an ad doesn't necessarily mean you're going to win on election day. i want to show our viewers tea party candidate matt rosenfeld who lost his bid for the republican nomination from montana's at-large seat, but earn a lot of attention for this ad. >> i'm matt rosenfeld and this is i look from a government drone. and this is what i think about it. the federal government is too big and too powerful. more taxes and regulation has put montana families out of work. spying on her citizens, that's just wrong. i'm matt rosenfeld and i approve this message because i'm ready to stand tall for freedom and get washington out of our lives. >> host: brian donahue? >> guest: he broke through the clutter. i think he got people's attention at the beginning of the ad and again i think it tends to go a little bit more kitschy but it works.

people watch that in his message was articulate and clear and i think spoke to a segment of voters who really are fed up in kind of a populist way, and in that particular part of the country. i think that's an important issue. i must say he's probably not off message. >> guest: again you can make a splash. it was a cute and put them the question becomes what do you do with that? how do you galvanize voters and get support for them to turn out? this primary he wasn't able to do that, right? part of it is the ad can be great, the ad can be on message but if you don't have enough money behind the ad or if you are not able to have a campaign ground game or other piece to really turn out to vote, the greatest ad in the world and it doesn't necessary mean you win the election. >> host: what ads for you are the most memorable? brian donahue. >> guest: ronald reagan's morning in america is one of the

most memorable ads. i think it spoke to the time, people looking to be uplifted. i think of it was a testament to reagan and how reagan's communications i was which many people believe is positive. so that and i think that was the famous health care ad during the clinton years where you have to people around the table, it appeared to be husband and wife, when hillary was promoting government health care in the '90s. i that it was a very effective ad that got recalled again almost a decade later just because of its significance. i think those two are really good ads and powerful ads from both sides of the aisle. >> guest: and for me it's having the ads that connect with the most historically. obama ads can have it connected voters was great, and as well as bill clinton's personal favorite, has a really great ads that were able to connect with voters in an emotional way. and again i think long-term what

we're looking for is candidates that have a relationship with voters. those two candidates did well but as you saw from the ads we played today, whether that's crimes or of the candidates, it's time to make a personal connection through tv which is not easy. >> host: what about outside campaign at scriptures tweet from one of our viewers. you have a campaign strategy that works. >> guest: that's a point i made earlier. door to door real person-to-person communications them especially in local races, even if the congressional and statewide races is good for the kind by the right voters and now with technology we have an even better way of just honing in on the voters that we need to talk to as campaigns. i think you'll see more and more those old-fashioned door-to-door campaigning with technological twist. >> guest: it's historically in

the '90s republicans are spending more on television advertising, and in early polls were leading in the races but in the last three days many of these republicans were losing. what our research had shown, on the other side of the of the democrats really doing a lot more grassroots activity, which probably the republicans to really kind of work on what they called the 72 hour campaign which is something that helped lead in the republican party in the 2000s. and that illustrated that you have to have a mix of comedic asian styles and approaches in a campaign. audiences are so segmented you can't rely on the fact that it just might be watching one medium and consuming in one place for dickinson in all places and you have to have a broad mix of comedic asian in a political campaign. >> host: brian donahue is important with craft media/digital and joe fuld is president of the camping workshop. i want to thank you both for being here for this conversation. appreciate your time. >> guest: thank you so much.

>> today and look at the future of the european union with panelists at the wilson's panelists at the wilson center with speakers including the secretary-general of the european parliament live at 3:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> join us later tonight on c-span for look back at the irs targeting investigation. will focus on a number of congressional hearings on the subject and hear from irs commissioner john koskinen among others. it starts at 8 p.m. eastern. here's a quick preview. >> this is not being forthcoming. this is being misleading again. this is a pattern of abuse, a pattern of behavior that is not giving us any confidence that this agency is being impartial. i don't, i don't believe you. this is incredible.

>> i have a long career. that's a person anybody has said they do not believe me. >> i don't believe you. >> we can have a disagreement. i am willing to remind you that it was not buried in 20 some pages but most of the 27 pages is exhibited when asked about the custodians we advise you -- >> being fourth coming is to say -- >> i'm sorry -- >> congress is investigating the 111 answer the question? >> i didn't ask him a question. >> yes, you did. >> gentlemen. the gentleman from wisconsin has the -- >> i realized disrupting a hearing sort of -- >> come on. >> no, no. the gentleman from wisconsin speed i have not yield the time. i have the time. >> here's what being forthcoming is. if we are investigating criminal wrongdoing, targeting people based on their political beliefs and the e-mails in question are lost because of a hard drive crash is apparently

unrecoverable which a lot of i.t. professionals would question, and you don't tell us about it until we as asked you about it, that has not been forthcoming. >> that's true. >> i yield back. >> that's not true spent the gentleman has yielded back his time. >> thank you. >> a brief portion of one of his will focus on tonight we'll look at the congressional investigation into irs targeting. that begins at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> this weekend, special programming on the c-span networks. friday night, native american history, then on saturday a day on scottish independence. sunday q&a with judge robert, chief justice of the second circuit court of appeals. on c-span2, booktv in prime time. friday at 8 p.m. in depth with former congressman ron paul.

then on saturday at 10 p.m. on afterward with william burroughs, talking about his book the asteroid threat. another chance to see the program sunday at nine eastern. on american history tv on c-span3, friday, a nasa document about the 1969 apollo 11 moon landing. on saturday lyndon b. johnson's nomination acceptance speech from the 1964 democratic convention. sunday night and look at election laws and the legal precedent of bush v. gore. find our television schedule at c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. call us at (202) 626-3400. on twitter use hashtag c. 123 or e-mail us at comments@c-span.org. join the c-span conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter.

>> c-span to provide live coverage of the u.s. senate floor proceedings and key public policy defense. every weekend booktv, now for 15 years the only television network devoted to nonfiction books and authors. c-span to greater by the cable tv industry and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> scottish voters will be going to the polls soon on whether to become independent from the united kingdom. we looked into the issue to the upcoming vote on "washington journal" this morning. this segment is about half an hour. house of representatives joining us on the phone this one is the political editor with bbc scotland to talk about this vote. brian donahue does it debate last night over this idea of voting for our voting against scotland's independence. first, tell us why is this an

issue? why is scotland, why is there a referendum for voters in scotland? >> caller: i know it's a horrible thing to say but let's go back to history of it. independent country for many centuries, until -- when the two countries of scotland and england agreed to merge their parliaments. previously there had been a shooting because the scots king became the king of you as will. there was an agreement more of us openly in terms of the parliament. but since then scotland has maintained some of the parts of separate scottish legal system, the chapter tends to be -- different education system. all sorts of things that are different. over the centuries it became an issue as to whether scotland

would regain a degree of sovereignty which was done the establishment of a divided parliament which might call a state, but maintained a body of opinion in scotland is that scotland should reestablish nationhood and supporters would resume their place on the community of nations. so the discussion with is there's a feeling in scotland, scottish identity. the discussion is whether that is best represented within the wider united kingdom are whether it acquires sovereignty house of representatives so take us to last night's debate. we covered it here on c-span. what were the issues put out there for and against? >> caller: the way this debate has proceeded because it's all little election but there are two manifestoes or two contenders and you examine each equally. it's a referendum on a single proposition which is the question is should scotland be

an independent country. that means the entire campaign has pursued in a way by reassurance to those who are opposed to scottish independence, who want to maintain the united kingdom as she is, say that comes they say scotland could be independent but they pose thousand scotland's coventry, doubts about the economy, doubts about scotland's place in the world. out also expressed by president obama and others about the impact it might have upon global stability more generally. so they pose a doubts. it is up to the supporters of independence to offer reassurance but they have to operate in minute detail. there to reassure on everything because the people are looking for answers. some of the big issues raised last but, certainly the cabinetry. the chief proponent of independent said he wished independence for scotland but he wants to share the parliament with the remainder of the uk.

..his opponent say that is all very well, a fine idea, but it would not suit scotland, they they say he cannot wish this upon the people of dk, but only the people of scotland. i think he succeeded well last night. he got his retaliation in first by saying a yes vote comes as a mandate for the full package as set out in the prospectus by the scottish government, that includes a sterling zone. the former chancellor of u.k. says, no, you can speak only perhaps for scotland if you would never vote, you cannot speak for the remainder of the united currency. kevi[indiscernible]

a series of questions and doubts posed in an attempt to offer reassurance. ho brian taylor, so is this for the scoth citizens all about issues of prosperity, or is there a strong enough desire for independence? >> guest: it's about a range of things. it's about underlying identity not to be stressed, because this is an issue for all the people of scotland, not just those who are born in scotland or of scottish descent. it's about that, it's perhaps the underlying question. it's about scotland's place in the world, it's about nation building, it's about a sense of pride. but equally it's about patriotism. it's about, ultimately, it's about the economy, and in particular it's about the household economies, macro,

global economies, it's about the household economy. the people of scotland are taking a really hard look at this. i've never seen an election campaign or a political event where the people have been so engaged. they are incredibly engaged in this debate. people stop me in the street and ask me questions. it's about the household economy. they want to know, supposing we vote yes, supposing independence takes place in 2016 as envisaged, would we be better off -- not we globally, but my family, my elderly mother, my young kid who's just starting school. they want those answers, and they want them in detail. supporters of the union say, no, you're better within the wider tax base and the wider economy of the united kingdom, supporters of independence say, no, scotland could kick above our weight as a small country like, perhaps, denmark or norway, and they believe that scotland could be vibrant as a consequence. that is where the decision will

rest. that is where the decision will be finally concluded. >> host: well, brian taylor, we're going to ask our viewers coming up whether or not scotland should vote for its independence, want to encourage people to start calling in now. the phone numbers are on your screen. brian taylor, americans are used to outside influences in their campaigns -- [laughter] what about in this one? >> guest: there have been a number of external influences. the most intriguing, undoubtedly, being president obama's reflections that he believes the u.k. was basically stronger together. it caused a very considerable ripple of interest, huge ripple of interest here in the campaign. supporters of the union, of course, said the u.s. president was merely reflecting common sense, reflecting global strategy and reflecting u.s. interests but also the interests of the u.k. alex salmon, who leads the snb, as i say, the main guy proposing

independence, he said that if scotland were to become independent, scotland would remain a firm friend of the united states as he rather cheekily reminded scotland of 1776 and wondered whether that opinion would have just been similarly of that standing at that time. >> host: what are the polls looking like, brian taylor? >> guest: if you take the last six or so, they're about 53 for the union and 47 -- actually, 57 for the union, rather, and 43 for independence. it varies a bit, as these things do, but they tend to suggest a lead of that magnitude for the no camp. now, mr. salmon believes that and pundits generally say that he won the debate last night. was that a direct impact? i don't think so. it was certainly a bitter debate on occasion. it may not strike a chord immediately, but what the yes camp believe is that it motivates their street campaigners for this final push of three weeks, three and a half

weeks after what has been a quite remarkably long campaign. in one sense it started three years ago with the election of the majority snp administration in the scottish article m. in another sense, it started 300 years ago. >> host: yeah. brian taylor, we covered this debate as you were talking about it, and if our viewers are interested, go to c-span.org. we're going to show our viewers for and against arguments from last night's debate. but leading up to september 18th, is there any events, anything that could sway the scottish voters one way or the other? >> guest: i think we have the big events now. we have the publication of the scottish government's white paper, as we call it here, the plan for independence. we have the publication of a series of documents by the u.k. government countering that prospectus. we had debates on various stations including last night a debate on bbc scotland also shown throughout the u.k. we've had visits by the prime

minister and others to scotland, he's due up, i believe, in the very here to future again. we've had comments from around the globe, but ultimately, it is down to the people of scotland, and it is the undecided who will decide. those who are still deliberating, those who are still unsure. i don't mean that in a pejorative sense. they are trying to get to the root of this and make their mind up. it is the way that those undecideds move that will determine the outcome here. will they listen to the doubts and the anxieties and believe that there is a positive case for the union, or will they listen to the arguments for independence and believe, as alex salmon is now saying, that scotland's future could be jeopardized by staying within the united kingdom? i stress again, i've never seen engagement like this. people are discussing it in the living rooms, on the streets, in pubs and workplaces, at village and town hall and city meetings, not just on big stage debates like last night. the whole country is enthralled

with this topic. the people will decide. those postal ballots are due out in the next couple of days, the remainder voting on september 18th, and we'll know the results in the early hours of the following day. >> host: all right. brian taylor with bbc scotland, thank you for your time. >> guest: happy to help. >> host: so let's turn to all of you. kevin in bloomington, indiana, independent caller. should scotland vote for independence from the united kingdom? go ahead, kevin. >> caller: i do believe that after 500 years it's time to let the scottish people make up their mind and throw off the yoke of england. that would be, it would justify the rights of the people who have been fighting for independence for half a millennia, and i just think this is just a time that's come, and it'll be interesting to see what the scottish people decide for themselves. and i think that, you know, if

they can have a vote and have it done peacefully, it just, well, it speaks well for both sides of the issue. and i'll be interested to see what happens. >> host: okay. >> caller: thanks a lot, greta, you're awesome. >> host: all right, kevin. democratic caller in virginia, hi, elizabeth. >> caller: how are you today? >> host: morning. >> caller: i would hope that the united states' population could take this opportunity to, for once, keep out of someone else's business. i think the scottish people have the right to vote for whatever they choose to, and i'm all in favor of whatever they decide. thank you. >> host: okay. kaufman, texas, hi, marlin. good morning, you're on the air. >> caller: okay. i agree with elizabeth there that this is not the united states' business, it's scotland's business, and if they want to become independent, they should do so. if they want to stay aligned with great britain, they should do so, and we should keep our hands out of it. especially our president. >> host: so you're referring to

president obama weighing in. >> caller: yes. >> host: okay. minneapolis, richard, independent caller. hi, richard. >> caller: hi. i would hope that they would follow the vote of the scottish people and the direction that it goes. >> host: and what do you mean, richard? you're concerned that they wouldn't? >> caller: um, we should -- the u.s. should keep their nose out of that and, hopefully, let the scottish people give their direction from their votes. we should respect that. >> host: okay. brian taylor laid out the history for us a little bit. but from "the wall street journal" recently, they have this: scots ponder to leave or not to leave. they have this graphic here, and below that: independent streak, a history of the union. start anything 1320, the deck declaration proclaimed scotland's status as a sovereign state. in 1707 the acts of union make scotland part of the u.k. creating a single parliament at westminster in london. in 1934 the scottish national party is established. in 1987, the scots vote for a

separate scottish parliament, and then in 1999 a scottish parliament is reestablished with power to make laws in certain policy areas. in 2011, the scottish parliamentary wins a majority, and then you have the vote, september 18, 2014, scots will vote on independence in a referendum. bill in pittsburgh, pennsylvania, republican caller. good morning, what are you thoughts? >> caller: hello, hi. >> host: morning. >> caller: i was just calling to say that i sincerely hope that the refer dumb does not -- referendum does not -- [inaudible] and scotland remains formally within the united kingdom. however, we're seeing this around the world and particularly in scotland. by the way, i'm a proud descendant of a scotsman who left right after the '45 instead of the 1700s when scotland lost its last shot of staying independent. but what we're, what we're concerned with worldwide is

devolution. there are so many places in the world where the national borders are, you know, created historically but within several independent communities. i'm thinking of the basks and the -- [inaudible] the welsh. the war that government can keep defense finances centralized but devolve powers to their component areas the better. >> host: okay. all right, bill. let's listen to the arguments against independence. this from the debate night. alistair darling, this is what he had to say. >> i know that people want change, but they also want security and jobs and pensions and their children's future. that's why my message is that, no thanks will not mean no change. that's why there will be more powers for the scottish parliament on tax, on welfare, on everything that makes sense to decide here. we've delivered before, and we will deliver again.

now, tomorrow we scots will start voting by post, so we need answers tonight, right here and right now. the currency, no answers. let me tell you why currency matters. currency is about jobs in huge numbers. currency is about what we pay for the weekly are shop. it's about interest rates, mortgage rates and rents and the value of our pensions. and critically, currency -- the money we use -- is about being a able to pay for public services upon which we all depend. that's the real threat to our national health service, not the ones he's trying to scare us with. and the questions have grown. what about oil? last week the north sea oil export issued a stark warning. quite simply, he says they're hugely exaggerating oil revenues to make sure the sums add up. again, are we going to place all our bets on alex salmon alone being right? we don't need to take that risk.

the united kingdom is about sharing risks and rewards with our neighbors. being part of something bigger gives us opportunity and security as well as our scottish identity and decision making. this is a decision for which there is no turning back, but our children and the generations that follow will have to live with that decision. now, you might hear some good lines from him tonight, but remember a good line is not always a good answer. it's answers now we need. otherwise for ourselves and for our children and the generations to come, we have to say, no thanks. >> host: that was the alistair darling who laid out the arguments against independence. scots will go to the polls on september 18th, decide whether or not to leave the united kingdom can. alex salmon, who is the leader of the scottish national party at last night's debate, made the argument for independence. here's what he had to say. >> and since the parliament came to scotland, life has got better. we introduced free personal care for the elderly with a move of

tuition fees for the next generation of students. we helped the -- [inaudible] by providing security, and we gave opportunity to the young. and when we have problems like the current effect of the ferguson shipyard, we can act decisively to save jobs. but there is much, far too much, that is still controlled at westminster. we couldn't stop the bedroom tax. we can't stop illegal wars. we can't stop the poor and disabled bearing the bankrupt of welfare cuts. we can't stop the spread of food banks in this prosperous country. we can't stop countless billions being wasted on a new generation of weapons of mass destruction. now we have the opportunity to change all of that. three weeks on thursday we can take matters into scottish hands. next -- no one wants to go backwards. more and more scots want to complete the home rule journey. the case for independence depends on a simple proposition.

no one, absolutely no one, will run the affairs of this country better than the people who live and work in scotland. no one cares more about scotland. just like in 1979 the voices of doom tell us we can't do it, we can't do what every other country takes for granted. and just like then, they are wrong. we are a rich nation, a resourceful people. we can create a prosperous nation and a fairer society. a real vision for the people of scotland. this is our time, it's our moment, let us do it now. >> host: the scottish national party leader alex salmond there from night's debate laying out the arguments for independence. again, that vote september 18th. scots will go to the polls to decide whether or not to declare their independence in a referendum vote from the united kingdom. we're getting your thoughts this morning whether or not you think scotland should vote for independence. by the way, if you missed last night's debate, we're going to

be reairing it, the whole thing, coming up here on c-span at the top of the hour, 10 a.m. eastern time. tony in ohio, independent caller. hi, tony. >> caller: good morning, greta, thank you. >> host: good morning. >> caller: i'm curious, i wanted to ask mr. taylor how much emphasis the candidates were giving on a national currency, a scottish means of exchange. >> host: a lot. a lot, tony. brian taylor was saying that a lot of focus has been on this issue of currency and what -- do they have their own currency? so that's definitely been part of the debate. >> caller: right. i think that would give, you know, the homeland people the power to set the interest rates, to control mortgages, loans to new business start-ups and to put more homeland control into the financial sector. thank you. >> host: okay. all right. well, this is from the "wall street journal" article. alex salmond contends that full

independence would catapult scotland into the club of rich and happy small nations that includes norway, finland and sweden. those fighting independence, including all three main political parties in london, warned that quitting the u.k. would cost scotland dearly. that from "the wall street journal." eva in lansing, michigan, democratic caller. eva, go ahead. >> caller: i'm just calling to say that personally i think that the affairs of britain and scotland are their own affairs. but to needlessly drag in a musing comment by the president of the united states who didn't make it in a speech, he was simply musing, simply gives certain sections of the american public an opportunity to just shoot at him again. i thought it was unworthy. thank you. >> host: okay. all right, eva. this is from "usa today" yesterday. david callway. in scotland, it's a separation

circus. he writes that on september 11th, one week before the scottish votes, they mark the 300th anniversary of its loss of independence. the catalans don't have the opportunity for a refer dumb, but a scottish yes vote could raise their cause in a dramatic way. they will not squander the opportunity to give the yes campaign a nudge if they can. look for something big to happen that day and for the scots to notice. europe's history is one of changing borders and national allegiances. 300 years is not a long time here. indeed, while most folks i spoke with said they would vote no and that they expected the vote to fail next month, they all expect there will be another vote this a few years and another after that. scotland has time on it side. we're getting your thoughts on whether or not should scotland vote for independence from the united kingdom.

keep taking your comments and your thoughts here for another four minutes or so. "the washington post" from monday also has this headline about the vote: britain's nuclear program is at stake in the scottish vote. for decades britain's contribution to the threat of global armageddon has found a home on the tranquil shores where soaring green mountains plunge into murky gray waters plied by welcomed yachtsmen and nuclear-armed submarines. the subs slip past as quietly as sea monsters, their dark hulls breach the water's surface on their way from base out to the deepest oceans. the british naval crews spend months poised to unleash the doomsday payload. but if scotland votes yes in independence referendum next month, the submarines could become nuclear-armed nomads without a port to call home. washington's closest and most important ally could in turn be left without the ultimate deterrent even as europe's

borders are being rattled anew by resurgent russia. general george robertson, a scots match, said in a speech earlier this year that a vote for independence could be cataclysmic for western security and that ejecting the nuclear submarines would amount to disarming the remainder of the united kingdom. the pro-independence campaign promptly accused robertson of scare mongering, but the possibility that britain could become the only permanent member of the u.n. security council without a nuclear deterrent underscores just how much is at stake far beyond these silent bays in northern scotland. john, independent caller. what do you think? >> caller: hi. i lived in a police in scotland off and on for about three years, and i don't care which way the vote goes, but my observation is that a lot of this is about alex salmond's ego and sean connery's money.

now, the one thing i'm totally clear on is that the scottish parliament has input to the british parliament, but the british parliament doesn't have that much input into the scottish parliament. and i believe that gives scotland already a level of independence. >> host: okay. all right, john. thomas, ft. lauderdale, florida, democratic caller. thomas, you're our last. go ahead. >> caller: going according to what is being said at the moment, but i'm just saying something from revelations. we are called by divine design. in comparison the coming of christ. so i just called to say that this would be very important if you could read of religion 14-19, give you some insight into the coming the of christ. >> host: okay, thomas. that will be our last thought. >> here's what's coming up today on c-span2. next, a congressional hearing examines extreme weather events. and then another congressional hearing, this one looking at the

safety and regulation of e-cigarettes. and later it's actor seth rogen who testified at a hearing on alzheimer's research. >> here's a look at some of our prime time programming across the c-span networks. on c-span tonight at eight, it's a look back at the congressional investigation into irs targeting. on c-span2, more booktv. tonight's theme is addressing poverty. and on c-span3, american history tv, tonight's focus will be on the decision to drop the atomic bomb in world war ii. >> this weekend special programming on the c-span networks. friday night native american history. then on saturday, a debate on scottish independence. sunday q&a with judge robert katzman, chief justice of the second circuit court of appeals. on c-span2, booktv in prime time. friday at 8p.m., "in depth" with

former congressman ron paul. then on saturday at 10 p.m., "after words" with william burrows talking about his book, "the asteroid threat." another to chance to see that program sunday at nine eastern. on american history tv on c-span3, friday a nasa documentary about the 1969 apollo 11 moon landing. on saturday lyndon b. johnson's nomination acceptance speech from the 1964 democratic convention. sunday night a look at election laws and a legal precedent of bush v. gore. find our television schedule at c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3400. on twitter, use the hashtag c123 or e-mail us at comments@c-span.org. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter.

>> two homeland security officials in the delaware secretary for environment and energy all agree that more states need to have climate adaptation or mitigation plans as more extreme weather events become the norm. the testimony came before the senate homeland security and governmental affairs committee recently. senator tom carper chairs this hearing. it's an hour, 45 minutes. >> well, welcome, one and all. great to see our witnesses, great to be here with senator johnson. and we'll call this hearing to order. i appreciate the effort of all of you to get here today. i'm glad we're having the hearing today and not tomorrow. if we were having it tomorrow, we might not be having that hearing. today's hearing, as you know, is focused on the costs of not being prepared for extreme weather events and exploring the ways that our federal government

can increase resiliency in our communities. and i would just underline this, save money in the long haul. we have deficits coming down. they're still too much. down from $1.4 trillion i think four years ago, this year we expect to be down to about $550 billion, only $550 billion. that's still way too much, and we have to continue to look in every nook and cranny to figure out how do we save more money. that's the focus of today's hearing. but i'll try to take about five minutes for my opening statement and yield to senator johnson. delighted that he's here. then we'll recognize our first panel of witnesses. each witness will have about five minutes to offer your statement to our committee. following your statements, we're going to have a question and answer period. and then a second panel of witnesses will come forward, and we look forward to hearing from you as well. but