and third, defines what voting requirements would be so congress would have to be on the board to do their job. these are the three things we are working on. we do need as jane said to do this now melinda. there's no reason to to extend this questionable war for five or six months until congress gets around to it. i'm excited we have our first meeting with the foreign relations committee and i look forward to talking with my colleagues today. [applause] >> it's an honor to be on the stage to date next to senator

raqaa who has been at the forefront of the issue and jack goldsmith senior fellow at the hoover institution at stanford which means he has to decent educational institutions covered. and jay and it's always great to see jane. we see jane in the "cnn" green room but also the field as well. senator kaine i wonder if i can begin with you. this is an issue that splits both parties and you see the president now oddly presenting pursuing aumf as an olive branch to their site but knowing there some gop that might be more forward-leaning that members of his own party. i wonder in the current environment if we can look at this issue as one where there's a potential for bipartisan agreement, to give some definition whether before or ideally as you say during the lame-duck session but perhaps

after as well. >> i look at the split in both parties not as a negative but as a positive. so many things up on the hill get divided into partisan camps and this clearly is not partisan. i'm foreign relations committee one of my hardest votes was whether to authorize use of military force in syria to punish bashar assad for chemical weapons against civilians. it was a nonpartisan vote. it was a divided vote because the question was hard to you as a nonpartisan vote because it didn't break down among parties. there are democrats a variety that we have in the democratic party who i think she'll come and they may have different feelings about the isil mission itself and the parameters of it. they do feel strongly they don't perceive that power. the two infected. and senator corker who had worked closely with i know this has been a passionate his as well. i don't see it as a partisan issue and i think that create some opportunity for finding a

path for it. there are some specifics that are important specifics will and there are partisan differences. if you want to authorize ground troops or prohibit ground troops what should the length of the sunset provision be? their details are important where there will be differences but overall there are plenty who worry about presidential power. >> professor goldsmith by my count there are 7200 strike missions over iraq and syria so far. 800 have dropped bombs and the president is authorizing with this latest 1500 up to 2900 troops. that sounds like a war to me. isn't this debate arguably too late and by doing this now is this mostly about the president's legacy? doesn't does this set a precedent for other presidenci presidencies? weigh in on how important it is to act even though the war is already underway and to get to the lame-duck session the new

new year we are talking six to 12 months before we have a national but on this. >> first of all thank you for inviting me today. it's a real honor to be on this panel. i don't think it's too late. obviously it's not too late, happen it would be very important for the president for congress to give him the authorization not just to use force against the islamic state but also as senator kaine said to update the 2001 authorization and get that temporary approval and legitimacy and figure out some of the issues that have arisen in the last 12 years. >> to those necessarily come together? you get an authorization and your revised 2001? >> that's just a matter of how the politics works and it might be easier to do it one way or the other but i think they both should be done. isil is on the state authorization and updating the 2001 authorization, the present last week suggested the vote

should be done. it would be extraordinarily important to do so for all of the reasons for our political legal and constitutional values. as for the president's legacy i do believe it's very much in his interest to see this happen. for a long time until the rise of a climax state the obama administration wanted to declare war against islamic terrorists over with by the end of the administration and over a long time they resisted going to congress. the president has by accident develop the most extraordinarily aggressive war powers legacy. he used force in humanitarian context that he is never done before. he has done things that have really really good of the central provisions of the war powers resolution. he expanded the 2001 aumf when he said he wanted to track it. all of those things will be on his record and all they can be cleaned up so to speak for his legacy if he can work out these

issues. >> retroactively in effect. >> it will leave on a high note for him on these issues. >> jane washington to say the least handicapped for us. senator kaine has laid out a very ambitious agenda when you speak about the amf for revising 2000 month also the possibility the next step giving clarity to the war powers act but just for a moment handicap the chances in this congress with a hard-fought 2016 presidential election coming up that you can get real progress on this issue resolutionwise. >> i think with an election control changed hands in the senate but it didn't change hands because people decided the other team was great and the democratic team was bad. they decided everybody was bad and congress does nothing and i think this is in many ways a referendum on a company in congress. now you have someone new to congress in a new team and

control but i think this congress is on trial. the terrorists are going to check her party registrations before they blow us up so let's get that. we are not going to interview all of you and figure out which hat you are wearing. you are are wearing the good government pac, right? so as far as everybody on this panel, i hope that every editorial board in the country stops writing about the awol congress. i think this has to be item number one. tim said people are dying there. there hasn't been a public debate. the playset that the public can debate this is through congress. to spend a billion dollars and understand this is chump change these days the $1 billion over the next month is going to the be more billions than there may be turns and twists here that we can imagine. it's not just i actually agree with you that this is a moral

but i also think it's a colossally unwise politics for both parties. >> so you think they had better but will they? >> sort of. it will depend on how, what the public says. that's why the digital campaign editorials, come on. wake folks. this is day one and here's tim's kaine our one of day one down here doing the right thing calling for action. >> senator kaine did you see the partners on the other side of the aisle as we have a leadership change have a core group leaving into a leadership role mccain etc.. do you see them with views without leadership because there's leadership question. can the leadership to bring their own party to the table frankly above cites? do you think you the partners presence now in congress to work

together and go forward? >> i'm still the new guy but i do think we do. in fact the president has really pushed congress to have this debate before he went into recess. he got an authorization. what is my evidence for that? i sat around the table of the foreign relations committee when we debated and met with secretary hagel and secretary kerry. the single hardest piece that the president proposed on his speech's in september was the arming in the training of the syrian opposition. that was the most controversial within congress more so than the airstrike campaign. congress voted for that piece of it in connection with the continuing resolution. the vote was two-thirds and one third to the house-3/4, one quarter in the senate and i watched my colleagues around the foreign relations committee. who would likely vote yes on the other station that was a better margin. that was as of september 13 to

14th and now we will see come november but actually the president have pushed the authorization then he would have gotten it. it's more more complicated after the midterms but i do see partners there on all three of these immediate term and long term. i see partners on both sides. >> owns onset wanting on both of these points on how the president could have gotten a authorization before the midterms. if you look back at every authorization before and since world war ii every single major one and there have been 10 or 12, they only came about because the president -- it's very hard for congress to do this for all of the reasons we have seen. president of palm has gone from saying i welcome it to thing i will work with congress but if he set up a draft authorization to mindset i want this in a month that would get the job done. the question is going to be if he doesn't make that move whether congress can do it. >> boehner has said he wants a president to address it. >> and i say i completely agree with this.

this work so much better when the president since the draft authorization. it works so much better. i don't need you but i welcome you. you have six different authorizations. i put one in with basic authorizations and limitations that there are five other ones floating around. the better thing to do is for the president to send up the draft and for us to have hearings. that's what we did on the authorization. they set up one version and they got a different one but they started with a white house version. that's the best way to go. >> it might also help if the leadership on a bipartisan basis asked the president to do this. this is a big deal. i think of for the midterms they asked him not to do it. we are now at the midterms and he is doing what they asked. they wanted him to ask as part of the pre-conversation on this. so they wanted him to ask and now they want to ask them to

send up a bill and hopefully that bill will be prepared by a squad of outstanding lawyers like jim smith and jack goldsmith and others. >> i don't know this for a fact but i would bet if senator menendez is taking the senate version into the foreign relations committee that he's talking to the city administration they hear three versions. one from column a and one from column b and one from column c. i'm sure they're trying to do a frank and -- frankenstein job. >> let's not make this partisan in any way. >> the work and spices and isil is the biggest new war and they're still lots of troops on the ground in afghanistan. you have drum strikes going on in pakistan and yemen and somalia. we had military forces deployed around nigeria doing isr when we

have the missing girls. there are a lot of places where the u.s. -- the u.s. is killing people. if professor goldsmith this would deal with the isis issue. you need other authorizations for these other, they are called 10 points but they are expensive actions. >> yemen's himalayan pakistan and afghanistan those are all premised on the 2001 aumf or a combination of that and the presidents article ii powers. for all the reasons we have stated both in terms of refreshing the authorities, having the public debate about whether we should be doing those things and also i believe putting an procedural requirements so he can tell the american people who we are at war with and where. it's remarkable that testified at the senate armed services committee last year on this issue and it was remarkable how little the members of the senate armed services committee knew where we were fighting.

just a remarkable thing. >> and they visited those war zones. >> let me add one thing. first thing. first of all on the ground in syria there is at least one more terror group called al-nusra so with weird authorizing war in syria he can't just say isil is the entire game and there may well be others. but i think people are looking for a strategy and overarching strategy not just let's list this group over here in the group over there. how are we going to win may be an overstatement but how are we going to win the argument that some trying to decide whether to strap on a suicide vest, how are we going to win the argument? no military commander thinks we can win kinetically genetically. we actually have to have a narrative here about what we stand for and what we are trying

to achieve that respects the interests of those on the ground other than those involved in terror groups and empowers them because otherwise that argument will not be one to step up. so we need a strategy for that. i think that strategy with all all respect up to the part of the conversation with congress and a conversation in which the american people participate. >> it's not the case that we are losing that part of the battle because foreign fighters are keeping up. it's a great recruiting true -- great recruiting tool. >> is one in the conflict but it's also winning the argument. there's a bigger picture that involves diplomacy and aid and the only way you are really going to win. the cold war was simple. there were two competing power theories. now there are three there are three via taurean model the liberal democracy model and the sectarian g. hot model that is a

nonstate model. those are the competing philosophies of power that are out in the world right now. we all have a huge steak and wanting the small al liberal democratic argument to be the victor. >> and p.s. ps this war is being waged on social media. the most modern communication techniques to take it back to the seventh century, go figure but we have to wait it back on social media. >> and they are good. you see their propaganda videos highly produced in another audience well and it clearly works in getting folks whether possibly a shooter or not or an ax wielding or these teenage girls in colorado. one thing i want to get audience questions that janie at brought up something the new indiana but also the old enemy is aside. willen aumf senator and i'm

curious what the others think include could this also gets your point where the strategy is common to just about them or do we pivot to later taking down the assad regime? do we deal with that issue now or is that down the road? >> i will just say i don't think official policy in the u.s. any longer will be a regime change in the sovereign nation. i don't think there should be part of darfur shall policy. people say they don't like that the president said a red line and did not honor it. i think the president did exactly what he said he do with respect to the red line on chemical weapons. he used them i will take action and we did. there was a diplomatic follow on. i think the president did do what he said he was going to do but i don't think we should be in the business of saying assad must go. we don't set the timetable for a change in regime and other nations. we have been bad at it when we have tried and we should step back in the idea thinking we should set it. i don't think assad is a

butcher. the crimes are terrible that there'll bombing in the chemical weapons violated many protocols but we still lost we still lots of the timetable of a regime change for another nation. i think we should be added out of the regime change business. i don't think they front on we have to change aside out should be part of this authorization. >> i would love to go to the audience now and take the moderator's privilege if you would like and go to the front row. >> first of all jane thank you for organizing this. a lot of great ideas have surfaced. it's an enormous play complicated subject to get in a short period. two quick points i think we do need to decide on the strategy and that's unclear and that's really the president's responsibility. secondly there's an additional

audience here and that is our enemies and their allies. what we do in this legislation will be followed very closely. we will only win this war written broadly against islamic terrorism with allies and with the reform within the islamic world. if they know that this nation is not committed to a long-term commitment they are not going to participate. our allies are going to say you go ahead and we will watch. i think it's important that we signal to the world as well as to our own people and to the men and women who fight it that this is a long-term commitment by the united states and we are ended and we are going to pay for it. >> responses? >> absolutely. >> thank you for holding this. question, how detailed should

the congressional authorization be? should do just support going to war or conflict or are you going to suggest things like tactical questions, no boots on the ground, other conditions, use of certain kinds of weapons etc. and secondly what about a tax increase to pay for it? >> a great question because your proposal has a time limit and a prohibition on ground troops. >> i drafted an authorization. i don't feel pride of ownership and the pieces. i put everything in for a reason but subject to debate among me tell you what i did. my authorization basically tracks the president's four-point mission from the september 10 speech. we will continue to be the biggest provider can attain it in the future. it is an important thing we do. .2, counterterrorism isolation. there was news over the week that may prove beneficial in that area. the arming and training and

equipment of ground forces from the region. the iraqi army and the peshmerga and the kurdish area or vetted operation. a sunset, nothing magic about the year but there ought to be a report back and a reauthorization for it to sunset. i put in the limitation on no ground troops except under specified circumstances. i did that for the reason we just mentioned. there is no amount of american ground troops that will win this war in iraq and syria the ground forces from the region aren't willing to stand up against the extremists. >> let me ask you. >> if they are willing to stand up we should provide the support that an air campaign strike but if they are not willing to do it i don't think there's a successful american ground mission. just real quickly the other twoo two authorizations of limitations i put in his repeal the iraq go to authorization so we don't have doing

authorizations authorizations. member for cop narrowly describe who the target is. he used to be the associated doctrine as part is they aumf basically a fault to weaken take military action against any group connected with al qaeda or associated so long as they have a coalition partner. there were 59 coalition partner so let's try to be specific about who the target is. those of limitations i put in but i think they are controversial. the sunset is controversial in the no ground troops is controversial. we have had to get into room and hammer this out. >> there has been a lot of parsing of words by this administration on things like what is the war initially. what is combat and what our ground troops. you know general dempsey has not taken off the table and option the president has which is forward ground control. >> i did put into my authorization ground troops to

carry out they counterterrorism portion of the mission. you have to rescue american persons in it to do that so there are circumstances in which it should be used but overall general dempsey while he said i'm not going to take off the table recommending ground troops he made clear we are not going to win this in the sense that jane mentioned. we are not going to win this with american ground troops taking up with the region region itself will do to police the extremism within the region. >> let's be clear in a couple of things. everyone who flies an airplane or helicopter is in special forces wears combat boots so how are we going to count boots on the ground quick second of all afforded these things crashes it's going to be a rescue mission and so he rowboats is not an option. the other part of the question was about pay for. we are at 2 billion going higher.

i was part of a group of troublemakers during my 100 years in congress arguing that we should put our wars on budgets. yes there are emergency expenses but they don't last for 13 years. we will have to pay for that and not hopefully with the lives of the .1% who sign up and serving god bless all of them but all of us are going to pay for this with tax dollars. there has to be a debate around the cost of war and we have to step up and budget for it. >> just as a follow-up to that point i want to ask you professor goldsmith is very legal definition to a combat force and the reason i ask that is because general dempsey is taken out the large ground force but he has kept open the idea of a forward ground control to the presidents plan announced on friday puts u.s. advisers in

erbil not just into new operations centers north of baghdad that several sites around the country which are not front-line but a heck of a lot closer to combat. the way combat is in iraq that could be a suicide truck bomber driving for a brigade headquarters. so again when i talk to officials everyday feel like i'm being snowed on the definition. is there a legal definition? >> there's not a well-defined legal definition of ground strikes. there are various strikes on the ground now. one way of getting at it might be focusing on hostilities. although its it's fraud from the war powers resolution and where practice is then defined you are in a situation basically where the troops are in danger of being attacked. we are engaging in a military operation. you might be able to get at this by not with troops on the ground

but rather by what types of activities you may engage in. >> there is no subtle definition. >> if you're flying a helicopter or a plague you can get shot at. >> certainly and to put it mildly. >> apaches flying over anbar we know they have missiles. >> mr. kaine you said change will not be policy by the united states but at the same time you have this program in position. what are you helping them to do since their policy is to change the regime? thank you. >> yes, great question and we got into that and a significant way at the last foreign relations committee meeting we had in september. the question is could we provide arms to organizations that would fight isil that wouldn't be

focused on fighting the assad regime. we are talking about syria now obviously. that is a tough one. i think we want to make sure the primary mission of folks we are providing assistance to once they are are properly fed it is the battle against isil but i think it would be unrealistic to expect that they would suddenly decide they are not focused on bashar al-assad. in my view of the syrian part of this operation is as complicated as the iraq side the syrian part is extremely much more complicated. i would actually suspect that if there's an authorization of congress would get this authorization against isil you will probably see this mission if all of. when the u.s. wanted world war ii we didn't just invade germany. we went to north africa and then we went to sicily and then they came into france. you are going to see intense focus on iraq and attempting to stabilize the situation in iraq and stabilize the border between iraq and syria and the border

from syria jordan turkey iraq and lebanon. at some point there will be an opening to figure out what is the right path forward in syria that can lead hopefully to the end to the civil war. the syrian side of this is much more complicated than it ballots the question you raise. it's not easy to separate out the motives. >> don't forget egypt. new news. >> and libya. >> we will go in the back just for fairness. >> thank you. i would just like to ask a question about the precedence being set with other executive overreach into the war powers authority or congressional abdication. do you see this as a growing trend and if so what are the consequences and would you argue

that the united states either the president or congress is acting unlawfully? >> and if the two of you could answer mr. goldsmith and senator kaine. >> the president has precedent in the number of ways. using his article ii authorities not a senator kaine said under united states but when he is engaged in purely humanitarian interventions in iraq. where they think they are good bad of moral or whatever it's a serious question to push precedence where they have gone before. he is certainly stretched the 2001 aumf beyond where it's been core to the islamic state controversially and he has also stretched precedence in terms

with the war power resolution. not in this context as much as he did in libya. whether he is acted unlawfully this is a -- area. i wouldn't say he is acting strictly unlawfully. i think he is acting prudently. it's worse for all the reasons mentioned. >> i don't disagree but i would put more of the blame on congress's shoulders than the white house. >> just to be clear and excuse me for an drafting i am with you on that. >> i think the congressional abdication and mentality on this and so many other issues is so massive right now. i mean think about it this way. you have part of congress suing the president. we don't want you to use executive power but mr. president whatever you do not bring to us and a vote about

a worker for the midterm elections. the very people that are sitting to present over being too executive are telling him be an executive on this and we are not going to challenge you. it do this is the article i branch not doing what it's supposed to do in on abdication let me about what the real big picture problem is. here is how the worse involved in the country. he can start without congress. you can find it on the credit card. even vietnam as unpopular as it was we attached herself to paper but right now iraq and afghanistan all and credit card. and to extend its controversial we have private contractors now that we can contract to do things and we don't have to ask the military to do. each of those moves no vote on the credit card that kids don't have to server we can get

contractors to do it together come together to suggest a grave danger that we are outsourcing the moral responsibility of sober decision-making that the framers talked about when they set up the constitution. >> but add to that without a debate on a strategy and overarching strategy for all this i would say we are putting ourselves more at risk. >> you might even say an evolving strategy. >> marker with bloomberg. i wanted to ask you the responsibilities among congress but say nothing happens for x period of months. at what point do you think if you think this is illegal and immoral right now does the operation have to stop or is that completely unrealistic and how do you see this interfacing with our democrats going to be obstructionist against the gop

senate and is this a barter against immigration and other policies? >> the latter question i don't see that happening. i may be naïve. i don't see see it well let's see we can get an edge on authorization by trading off against immigration but i do think it might hope jane is encouraged editorial pages won't be banging on us to act but if congress does not there will be those of us introducing resolutions of disapproval are trying to get in the way and stop a war from going on absolutely. absolutely because i do think is jack indicated i do think this can be fixed. the president i think when he started on august 8 he had a good defense argument under article ii. yet congressional leader said -- leadership saying don't talk to us until october. now we are here. we have to have this discussion but if congress doesn't do what it needs to do i think congress has to try to reign in the

president from being a bad precedent of presidential election. >> let me add one more thing with a a mentioned that a sequestration. congress ducks the budget fight and instead imposes a straitjacket that nobody thought what actually happened but it's here both on defense and non-defense spending. there is no budget has been debated for these expenses. they come out of a sort of general account called oco and we are going to be hollowing out our military capabilities if it surges in this direction. i'm not sure whether we are debating it. what a something else happens in ukraine, and russia, in china? >> a bowl and look at the other things popping up. >> are we going to pay for that so this is just plain irresponsible.

>> tim writer from it german marshall fund. i want to get back to the question of long-term strategy not just against isil but terrorism in general and i worry about the language you sometimes calling it a war on terror. obviously isil is an actual war but terrorism is an ongoing conflict in there so much psychology involved. you have senior officials saying the drum strikes are basically in whack-a-mole and they just keep coming because every time you file a missile into a country people hate you and markey joining. it's hard to discern cause and effect but how much of the recurring terrorist earning isil have been as a device to do that because of our abortion iraq and afghanistan. i appreciate the article on the strategic narratives and i was wondering if you could talk about that. what's her narrative in whatever to build? >> a package as a couple of things. again that's away needed public

debate for. i don't think we are going to debated in the next 10 minutes here. but the war on terror was a misnomer. president obama change that after he became president. he started to call it the war on al qaeda. terror is a tactic you are absolutely right. it's a defined enemy and it's a tactic that is an overuse at the moment so that would be one point. on the drum strike issue, you are right to some extent there is than what an israeli strategist calls the boomerang effect. the more drum strikes you do the more enemies to build however those drum strikes and i do know a lot about this and i still know a lot about this by the few advisory boards that are relevant to this are highly targeted and we have taken out some real bad guys with jones. i would argue they have to be part of our toolkit. again we have to explain the whole thing in a way not just

americans that our enemies and her friends out there can understand so our intentions are clear and we are not building more enemies. donald rumsfeld actually said or retaking now more than we are racking up against us us? is it question mark and it has to be debated. >> we have been doing this for 13 years and i don't think we have answered that question. as bad as it seems it may be the least bad. >> a sobering thought. >> we will take a few questions together. since we have 10 minutes to go we might do something of a spin around. there's a woman behind you that has a hand raised and we can do a couple at once.

>> i am from american university. there are two issues that you raised initially to have an authorization for isil but also what to do with 2001 aumf. it could imagine that there could be a targeted argument to go after isil. it seems harder to do something with the 2001 aumf so i was wondering if jack would speak to the implications of allowing that to linger not only for the president's legacy but for the future, for the next presidency. >> before we get to that we would get if you end and we will do with them one by one if you don't mind. >> good morning. my name is veronica. i quite agree with senator tim kaine about this isis issue. that is the bigger picture,

philosophy of power. originally i came from indonesia the largest western country well. there is a sensitivity of the local culture on the muslim issue. i'm very concerned about the bipartisan issue on isil has jeopardized our attention and focus on strategic thinking and handling the world politics against united states through radical movements. that is what i think the congress has to focus on instead of bipartisan issues. so my question is, is there any discussion or investigative

research, who are the external actors on isis because the complexity complexion of the issue of muslim political culture, it is not only the local who are the actors. the actual actors should be investigated and they are the ones who are really harboring. >> we have five minutes but they sure question who is really behind isis? >> external, yes. >> we will have a chance for one each before we run up against our deadline here. there's a gentleman in front of you. >> yes, i have been waiting to ask this question.

>> in fairness let's do one each and if we have time we will come back. >> really quickly imagined narrowing the 2001 aumf several times and senator kaine. >> on the aumf the question can you split getting a new one for the current military operations from reforming or repealing the 2001 and perhaps related to that question this gentleman's question which is can it be sunsetted as well and maybe that's a question for you. >> briefly i do think it's very important for the aumf whether with the isil resolution are separately. one for congress to reaffirm who we are fighting against and even if it has the same scope and practice it's important for contemporary legitimacy and i think congress has to insist,

it's very difficult to capture the associated groups without a general phrase of associated groups. congress has to insist being informed about exactly in the american people should too but who exactly we are at war against. these groups and individuals and the combination of giving the public more information about who we are fighting against both the sunset clause on which senator kaine is included in a authorization which i support will do a lot to give rigor and accountability to that conversation. >> you could not let that all one aumf sunset except as a prank -- pressure mechanism to come up a to point out that there does need to be version 2.0 if only to continue the effort against al qaeda because al qaeda continues to be a threat but it does have to be

defined defined in away a way and indicating further groups how do we explain to america? >> what about assessment of costing controls on cost because that's a big part of this whole challenge expanse. >> to the question and i will you this, jane. the president has gotten to the strategy is saying we have to get after the flow of foreign fighters and funding the outside groups. you think there's a specific intention to the outside? >> the flow of funds is a big deal question then of course we have all read about these allegations as some people in some countries in the region are sending sending money and to find the isil and related groups. that has to be fully understood. who are those people and where those funds coming from and in addition to that isil has captured oil resources and other things that have to be cut off. they are the wealthiest terror movement in history and they are

different from the other ones because they are setting up estate inside. one is a failed state that would be syria and one is a challenge state that would be iraq but obviously threatening to make it bigger so your question is a valid question. >> it's also the ideology and these are not just mysterious actors. they are state actors here who turn a blind eye to groups. >> i agreed. >> providing support to them because they were the most effective and now they realize the threats. a lot of it stemmed from a desire to topple assad because they were getting support but there are still external sources. [inaudible] >> don't forget the sunni-shia tensions. a lot of that sat too. >> i will leave time for one more.

you have been patient here you in the second row. >> thank you. i am david rabinovitz. i was wondering about the implications of the sunset provision with aumf. given the history of congressional inaction is it possible the authorization could sunset and if that happens what happens? do they come home immediately and pull all of the equipment? >> i actually think it's possible what you say that it won't be reauthorized because the political deadlock. 2,072,008 congress updated surveillance authorities. they put a sunset on it and it has worked remarkably well. it has always been a little fraught. i have every good reason to think that will happen here. there is general consensus that we need authorization by these

groups but it has somehow laps lapsed. the president can do a lot of what he is doing now in theory under article ii. it's not a good idea but he could. it helps a lot under article ii. one consequence would be if the 2001 authorization ran out than the argument for detainees in gitmo and other things like that would have to be rethought and that would be the main direct consequence. >> senator kaine. >> it's a fair question. i have made my argument about congressional -- so your question to me is what's the likelihood that congress will do something with abdication but i do think enforcing mechanisms are helpful and there is a precedent for use of the sunset to drag congress back in and i think that will happen. >> i think the bottom line is the american people have to make

this decision. not a member of the senate and not a "cnn" correspondent and not even a grandmother over here. the way the american people speak is through congress. congress has to debate these things. i would argue they have to vote on these things, stand up and be accountable. >> let me have this closing thought. it surprises me this is a true moment of reckoning because we are talking about how the nation decides to go to war. the most grave decision that the president and congress could make deciding how the nation funds these wars which is an issue we have punted for the last several years as you say putting it on a credit card but how the nation debates it. in the lead-up to iraq we didn't have proper public debate. we are attempting to now. with all the political dysfunction washington is congress up to the task do you think? >> if we after 13 years of war have not learned enough to have

this discussion seriously then god help us. staff sergeant strong from suffolk virginia is on his fourth deployment. if we have not learned anything in 13 years of this we should have at least learned the question of how we start military action so i think we have learned enough. >> i would just say with shameless self-promotion i'm proud that the wilson center can convene a discussion like this on the first day that congress gets back after this election season from hell and i'm very proud of tim kaine for coming here in his first hour back to talk to us about this. bob corchran did it last year

and others have come. this conversation now needs to move a mild up "the hill." >> senator kaine jane harman and professor goldsmith thanks very much. [applause] >> thank you. enjoyed it. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

here are a few of the comments were received from our viewers. >> just going to tell you how much i enjoy q&a at 5:00 on sunday on the west coast. everything stops at my house. i turn off my phone, get my cup of coffee and is the most enjoyable hour on television. >> very informative, very good opinions. i enjoyed listening to him in the comments that were done today. he was very accurate and on point. he would not use his personal innuendo and i greatly enjoy it and i hope you have more guests like that. he was right on target this morning.

>> i'm calling to say that i think like many people c-span is wonderful but as to criticisms i almost have none. i'm a very partisan kind of person that the reason i have almost none is i think you all do a tremendous job of showing just about every side of everything and the way people look at things in d.c. and elsewhere. i take my hat off to you. thank you very much. >> continue to let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at (202)626-3400 or e-mail us at comments as he spent.org or tweet us ad c-span hashtag comments. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> now a look at the midterm election results for the 114 congress in 2016 presidential campaign. speakers include "washington post" opinion writer e.j. dionne democratic strategist paul

begala and ana navarro. >> good evening and welcome to the biennial mccourt school of public policy election reflection event. i am edward montgomery the dean of mccourt school. i'd like to take a moment before we get started to say happy veterans day to all who have served and their families and especially the veterans and active-duty members of the military in georgetown and the mccourt school communities. i want to thank you for your service to our country. a court school is excited to have a bipartisan panel speakers to discuss -- policy and politics in this country way beyond the summit.

first let me introduce tonight's moderators belcourt school professor brookings senior fellow in "washington post" columnist e.j. dionne. to his left i am pleased to welcome maggie haberman senior political reporter at politico. prior to joining political maggie worked at the "new york post" where she covered the 2008 presidential election along with numerous state city and congressional races. she also worked at the new york daily news where she focused extensively on the rebuilding around the world trade center and the aftermath of september 11 terror attacks. bag is a contributor to "cnn." next to maggie is ana. ana has served as the national hispanic cochair for governor john huntsman 2012 presidential campaign. she also is the national -- john

mccain's hispanic advisory council and national surrogate for mccain during night 2008 political campaign. in addition to that she served as governor jeb bush's transition team and first director of immigration policy in the executive that the governor. she is a country of "cnn" and "cnn" and a spaniel. lastly but not least we have democratic strategist and political commentator paul begala. paul is the chief strategist benemann 292 clinton-gore campaign. he served as counselor to the present of the clinton white house were according to politics policy anti-medications. is currently a "cnn" political commentator and adjunct professor at the mccourt school teaching a politics policy and media class that i want to welcome the distinguished panel and turn it over to e.j.. after the panel is spoken there will be a chance for questions questions. there will be mike's coming down the rows. please say your name your affiliation so we know who we are speaking to is part of that.

e.j.. >> thank you very much. it's good to know jeb hasn't announced and he is artecona transition named. welcome ana and welcome megan paul. i want to join ed in saying happy veterans day. there are many great things about being involved in the mccourt school but one is we have an extraordinary program with members of our armed armed forces. i've gotten to teach so many iraq and afghanistan vets. while i want to welcome everyone here today a particularly want to welcome our friends from the armed forces and to thank them for their service. [applause] they are awesome students too. i want to make for quick observations in an open up the discussion to the panel. i'm going to ask a few questions and we are going to try to bring the audience in as quickly as we can. we are going to have a couple of mics on either side of the

audience. we have a lot of hands. i will ask people to ask a few questions at a time which allows her distinguished panelists to evade any question that they feel like evading. for quick observations. i don't think there is any way for democrats to sugarcoat it. their hope was well we will lose some of those deeper red states but original home state of massachusetts my current home state of maryland in the state of illinois at all elected republican governors. there is no way for democrats to sugarcoat that. lasts there were only seven or eight states left with all democratic governments governors houses of the state legislature. roughly two-thirds of state legislature houses are now in the hands of the republicans. as recently as ripe for the 2010 election it was the other way

around it rate so we are talking about a very substantial republican victory. the second observation and anemic turnout. michael mcdonald who studies these things very closely has estimated the turnout in this election is 36.4%. that's down from 40.9% in 2010. there were a lot of demobilized voters and they seems to be disproportionately democratic. if you want some evidence of the democrats who stayed home just like -- look at d.c. maryland and virginia. the turnout in the democratic counties in montgomery county and prince georges was way down from four years ago, not from a presidential election. senator warner had a much closer race he anticipated again because one of the key factors that drop in democratic turnout over the river in fairfax and other areas like that.

the progressives did well in referenda but it didn't do them any good in the election for red state says minimum-wage increases personhood amendments background checks one in washington state that there seemed no connection between the referendum and the election. the last point is sent away bad news for each party which is the continued huge disconnect between midterm turnout in presidential election turnouts. this is complicated news for the republicans because it says they can't count on this victory to mean a victory in the next presidential election but i also think it's complicated news for democrats because if they can't figure out how to turnout midterm voters they will be on the short end and all of the states, 37 that a let governors in the midterms all the state legislative seats and in congress so they both have a lot to think about. i'm going to go down the panel

and maggie that's all i'm either going to say other than forceful interjections here and there. i'm going to invite maggie and then ana and paul. paul is last because he has the most explaining to do to enter a very simple question, what the heck happened on tuesday? ..

>> >> is that governors in states like florida with the health care reform that is a positive it was a positive for charlie crist but what you saw in the selection of res obamacare means they government over reach beyond what it is. that is what people are protesting with tremendous anger. anti-incumbency is more 2012 and that is what happened. this is something though pulling community will

figure out. public polling for a the most part in retrospect but whether it is a different story but they were not great to have them there as as close as virginia of. and with the governor's race and charlie crist had him doing much better. and with those absentee voters. these samples were totally wrong.

but at that .2 weeks before election day i don't know why the modeling was so wrong but it was. >> but what is your take on this? >> i will give you my take on the republican side. but murdock and a can really helped. but republican entities the chamber of commerce the senatorial committee got involved in the primaries for what they did do and did not do to let the organic thing happen for what they thought would happen they

put the money they ran the campaign but they work toward whom they thought were the general election candidates. and when dinosaurs ruled the north shore democrats were way out to put resources into that, also fought back. in 2010 when people brought nothing is like war on women. when you have the burden of murdoch on your back. but that snippet does not work as well.

also opposition. there is a new organization that data lot of credit. because of opposition research for things like proust really getting clocked. or the memo that they sat on for months waiting for the right time to release that. it was not one thing but a lot of things and it was also a good night because of the national -- national narrative. id. >> here's what happened.

thanks for having me here. i love it and i echo about mine military students. i have been here 12 with 13 years. i come from a long line of coward's. [laughter] so people who allow me to run my mouth are great. the waves come. but usually it is the overriding issue in 1994 raise taxes in integrated they gaze into the military and gun control. i don't know. but 2006 with another wave it was about the war in iraq people were sick of bush.

in 2010 it was obamacare. but this is not. this is about obama personally. not the agenda but that is with all the liberal referendums. my side there is a real disappointment but the president was at 532 years deal with reelection and actually hebraists 44 witches one out of five. i will rant and rave about the two-party but the truth is if he just held his own purpose of the democrats would have won. hell have lee alienated one

out of five obama votes? the president did say the voters that through some of the cliff by her deal with those that did not'' i heard you also. i hope he did. presidential is so different from mid term. vote for president is a powerful act. it is who you are. it defines you. my congressman now i am sure he is a lovely guy. i wouldn't know him if he bit me on the ass that i voted for barack obama by god. that particular the people in the middle. but this second term has been atrocious for him.

but personally. they go into the break room and there is ralph from accounting obama is screwing up and it hurts you in your tired of defending him. that is my side with the republican side they did their job to nationalize the race. 57% of all advertising was about obama. not obamacare. they started on that because it is not doing great but better than there was. it was obama. and the sense that republicans have put the case they made with the mid term and not even liberal but it is weak but the beginning of the end of the second term was after new

town. we had that horrible slaughter and the president stepped up to put forward gun-control. pretty modest but essentially background checks that had 92 percent popular support. 92% and the senate republicans said we will kill it and they did you can take on a newly elected president to push an issue with 92 percent support and beat his ask you will never fear him again. that is what happened. and they said though no. the message. the message from the voters was that mitch mcconnell

took on that gun bill to defeat it. i don't agree but with the obama agenda for the next two years they did not say hate to gridlock and partisanship. they did not. that is an important lesson for people like me to get he said all the right things. i hope he does for the country. it is difficult to run around the country to make though whole election about obama then cooperate with him. >> but i do think it was. the reason you saw such a low turnout is people largess sick of government and general. and the guy is president obama of the buck stops with him and he paid the price. but people look at congress to see republican house and

a democratic senate that has done nothing but stick their tongues out at each other and it is getting tiring. so we tried it this way now let's try it this way. and i also think people are wary of government over reach with the narrative that has taken hold. i hope the message that republicans get it is not a vote for gridlock. it is for what they got at of the primary. >> they coopted it. >> the guy from mississippi?

>> let me interrupt for a second. it a joke. [laughter] but it seems to me the evidence is the republican voters were there to vote against a bombing and the democrats were dissatisfied what is happening in washington. that is what the polls would suggest. but here is a question with all of you and i will start with maggie. with the democrats getting stuck with the question of obama, there was a lot to brag about if you talk about bedrock in the unemployed and the rates of our we're

where it was when obama took over. however there were so many voters that were hurting but they did not offer much of a plan for those voters either. but then also a tongue tied on obama. if everybody is attacking the president and the response is i am not him him, there is an argument going on about the president. but that was the democrats talking themselves into silence. >> exactly. i think your diagnosis is correct. one of the most telling

moments would not say she voted for obama that was terrible. but that speaks to what you are talking about. democrats distanced themselves from obama of the not offering a future vision for a holistic message where the wanted to take the country. there is a lot of individualized targeting like women's issues, you saw us some economic discussion because there were too many voters to don't feel the economic recovery was benefiting them. it was hard for them to make the case that this is where i think the launch pad for the 2016 election will be. we saw a couple of things. there is a huge correlation

among the negative ads and every betty's favorable going down. nobody who was at 50 had never raced to a the bottom where people are turned off and do not reward gridlock. but for the democratic party and they're standard bearer at the moment there will be an impetus to come up with a broader economic message about what you just mustn't -- mentioned. and it has to be more forward-looking. >> but play a role that you don't play. but what kind of campaign would you have run?

and paul if you were on the obama staff six months ago what would you have told him to do differently? what campaign would you have run? >>. >> i think they should have seen because everybody's thought it coming. that they would put obama the news around their neck.

republicans ran on obama being the bad guy and got the most hope from the democrats with a self-fulfilling prophecy then you have president obama who may not have gotten the guidelines from the quarantine with the cdc but democrats talk about political quarantine for the last six or eight months nobody wanted to be seen with the guy when you reject a guy what to expect the message the voters will get? so they should have seen this coming but they were caught unprepared. yes we disagree on certain things but we will not treat him like he has leprosy.

>> that is the academic turned. instead of defending barack obama. that republicans are telling you elect me because we want to punish obama for the next three. and why you should punish somebody else. >> so pickup on this one. i never said he should have campaigned but the campaign should have figured that out.

>> to talk like maryland and illinois. >> it would have done no good but the few times that we did speak out i am not on the ballot but my policies are? but with kennedy that is not what you say. you say i am not on the ballot but you are. you can still obeyed discriminated against to have the right to take on that corporation. you are struggling to make ends meet. >> when he said that everybody cringe.

was that a reflection of him being ticked off? >> but what would you have done if he said i know we are in trouble what should i do? >> originally it was the failure on guns. i admired him as a father and a citizen but but i lived through it. if you have the nra by god be sure you win. that began it but always politics is the best policy. you have obamacare the most important issue of his presidency. and it was a disaster if you cannot run that capably

people cannot campaign on it. a huge crisis with the veterans administration. shameful. and also the irs. voters believed that the president was too reactive and weak. it seems he gets to the right place on ukraine and ebola and isis but he gets their late and been a much more quiet way. i got really angry with that border crisis and the children were flooding of border and he would not go down there. i was at mile high stadium he had a democratic convention that look like it was leftover. [laughter] so you go to the border

first of all, that you learn stuff that the bureaucracy does not tell you because you actually talk to border control, educate the country, show them they are not drug dealers. >> for talking to other immigrants. >> so he should have shown leadership. it is actual leadership for the you have to get out. >> he is surrounded by a lot of people in the white house that they all say that's right. he doesn't do that. >> tim russert explained the ronald reagan aftermath does it help you were an actor? you cannot do the job if you are not. lot of it is theater.

>> i think the common thread is ultimately was the case is i have never been clear all these years what is the president's aides? he is the figure to us but there was a fundamental misreading what the reelection meant and how much of a mandate it was and what it would mean having a terrible relationship with congress and for the next phase and has been striking. and how the democrats figure out how to deal with the obama. but the relationship between senate democrats and though by house completely deteriorated leading up to the election if you want and the indicator that was it

the firing squads started early and often to the extent that i don't know how saying so go forward with though lame-duck session because things are not great between harry reid office and the president there was some breathtaking quotations >> i want 2.0 a datapoint. if you hear about the democratic representative what he is saying is reflective of what just happened in this campaign because there did seem to be a reluctance to defend the president. >> you must have paged at some point -- aged.

[laughter] he reflects and he learns. the the reflexes to go into a denial. there probably last about 30 seconds. >> i have had many losses. >> you don't obsess about the wins. most people who are driven are much more by the fear of failure that and the joy of success. and those that lost to the congressional rank i thought obama would win the nomination because he lost the house but to be reelected by a three planes and that is a landslide. [laughter]

and i. a. curry with all of those that say we'd jump too early straight to the 2016 election. will jabber run? paul, if he sees in a competition for hillary clinton for what an absurd thing so you don't want to fight and take it from there >> i hate this question more than the root canal i got this morning. i have to give you a the caveat jeb bush is my friend. i see him all the time and they talked like normal people not just politics. but i think jeb today where

he wasn't in 2008 despite 2012 despite people asking him today he has been incredibly transparent to say where he is headed and what his time line is. he is seriously considering. he has set a time line for himself by the beginning of next year. i'm a nobody means he has decided but the announcement would not be until the first quarter of next year is my guess. i think he needs to ask two questions. do i want to to run? what is my vision and what is mine agenda? can i tell the american people what i stand for?

i think jeb bush answer that already. the second question is should die? what does that mean for my family's life for me? what it means today in the cortex of politics, like duffel speed plunder. that you guarantee you are fighting for your life for international scrutiny of least one year. if you win the nomination you are rewarded to be at a higher level of more scrutiny for an additional year. if you win the thing you are in the for the rest of your life coming out of the white house looking like you were in that aging room. [laughter]

so it is said barry waited question for somebody in a good place in his life that is filled, happy, making a difference, and making money , spending time with his family, aziz is grand kids but the answer is i don't know. i don't think he space he is seriously considering it and is very serious about it. >> those that regard him as the brother or the former governor's son but that is small on the democratic side >> with the caveat i dunno of tilbury will run. i don't know. i hope she will but any of us have never seen that support.

from a the grass roots level those that were not even born through the biggest donors and supporters but having said that she will have a primary opponent but that march is the best things that happened as the politician. and that is why the partnership port when she went into government. of the day after shooting was admiring of obama. i don't know who or what but i am antiwar and untied wall street and anti-washington. george h. w. bush has

successfully prosecuted a big war and 100 hours and the cable talk-show host 38% against them. so one-third of the vote is forced her to ask the question for the area cannot run from them. i spent all of 2012 to help to reelect him. but he is winding down the bush wars and kill though some of the london and one though latin grammy? [laughter] the nobel peace prize. but to come from the west

that is all so dissatisfied. there is no downside. seriously. >> i think i cover hillary more than jab -- jeb bush. >> but i think that jeb bush has been straightforward about his process and his brother has also he said he wants to be president i am not sure he wants to be -- if he wants to run but not all of us will run for president. in terms of hillary clinton whose first senate race i covered it was night and day

that is the common traits in 2007 she was terrible and 2008 she was much better than her book tour was terrible and campaigning for other candidates was much better. i think there will be a challenger i don't know who it will be in my home state of the york there has separate a popular governor and he's still an hawaiian who appealed very strongly. >> gap. she got 387 fed is the coolest professor named my

mother made me go to confession afterbirths. [laughter] >> but she had nothing so as but she is in her own worst enemy in every race. and she resorts to the tactics the issue will have a primary challenge. and the question of ready raises what she said dash she tries to run away? she can do that easily on domestic issues. she has opened up with the benefit to be true but with foreign policy. but that is not what they will base their vote on.

my question about health may clinton is because 2,008 again and was said meet in the way that is not barack obama but of five she will have to and sodas shadbush and is though different i thought maybe it was an opportunity to connect with the voters but that was her doing this signing books, at a table but did not speak to

people. on the campaign trail herd but she was not connecting wires are talking to voters in new hampshire shoe meshes but it is hard to go through the head of state's to which she was to go to iowa and doing that over and above were and that is the big question she will have to look. >> of fish via but can you help me and i see hands. nobody likes to ask the

first question but think of this says the second. [laughter] >> have a a question. rice and its fifth extent to which cut this year there was talk however headmen americans not and there was. but to see that with the prospect you seventh and creative head footed in

snapped into chais the it proves from whom she knew and but it is the republican incudes heal the fact that is i'll a former new hampshire as of carolina that conditional a favored. >> mechanic should reassure homes and then inflation enough and those of the policies. thank you. >> but president obama has really changed for the way

he and in its but he is feeling better if you ask me because this is why a and her president with the rising and earned hands but the -- those performers but the president it was the combination of the man and the message and the mechanics. i hope we have the message to energize those constituencies and those mechanics but we don't know. here is one of the reasons i am very excited about the candidacy because would get that coalition inspiring the bay he did and do better

with the working class voters. 39% of the white vote that is the worst in a candidate has done since walter mondale. he carried one more state and my grandmother. [laughter] so we have a declining power of though white vote but you don't 130 and%. i think hillary can speak to that and i have seen her do it and can rally the base but in just the wings russa demographics we have to completely. >> young people floated that 21 percent realize.

>> for the young people between the ages of 18 and 29. to every college campus i'd go to how many people get free health care in america? one hundred. what percentage of young people get free college that cannot play football? [laughter] maybe the university of texas. we cannot do either. o. y? because there is a great song that says you cannot win if you do not play. old people don't. dash tel:91 for president he said they don't vote for president. that is why.

so the president dramatically inspired young people and unmarried women the women of color. can we pick that up? and build on that? i hope so. that is the road map. but also but i am white if you can see and that is what all of us. >> gant now you seem to be extinct. >> you should go to and the primary. [laughter] >> of the primary issue the way it is shaping up we are headed to use something that is similar to use the 2012

to have a whole host of characters. i do think the rnc has tried [laughter] i struggle to put some restraints so it doesn't look like so we don't have a debate after debate when people say colorful memorable items. >> 9-9-9. and rand baltica way to run at the same time. and cruise is looking for office space for a campaign.

there will be a lot that is running. and i convinced myself to do a lot of their fee and liquor that anything is possible. [laughter] and i can say this with some conviction it is good to have these primaries because as painful as it may be or entertaining for you is soul-searching and at the end you come out with a defined voice. . .

>> i think that we are going to see a realm of voices on the far right, some from the more moderate part of the republican party. and we are going to come out with one nominee and some of them will be liked like more than others. >> i like the campaign slogan. and we have a lot of support for that. [laughter] and this is a neat and well organized effort. >> yes, where the definition of those two parties exist. so i think and i can't really talk what she just said. but i think that in terms of --

in terms of that you do have two parties that are trying to figure out where their soulless and the fight for that on the democratic side is you look very different than the fight on the republican side. on the democratic side, the irony that you will hear is that she actually was more popular than president obama in 2000 and eight at the end of that campaign. >> i definitely agree. >> until because she is not in the campaign mode right now, you won't hear about the foreign-policy parts at all. she actually was a support of this health care, which was a huge debate in the campaign. so i think that where you're going to see the fight, i believe that if hillary clinton runs she is very likely to be the nominee and i believe that she is running comest therefore i think she is the nominee.

but i do think that you are going to see a very hard effort to try to pull her to the left, even though i think it will be a largely rhetorical effort because i think on most issues she's already there. in the language of economic populism in the democratic party has changed. that has been linked to is chancellorship when obama got elected to got reelect a. it became a lot of discussion about the and the system not working for everybody. and that is what elizabeth warren has done so well, there was a lot of thing she did and that's something that you saw and she campaigned and truly clinton was out of her comfort zone and went a little too far with the language. it did not end well. she had some moments like that. on the republicans i think that there's two different factors and one i think there is the media, which is we are all

running various versions and northern ireland pretend that hillary clinton is more swappable and some of these candidates did poorly in some did well respectively. the entire debate shifted to the right and the one thing that we haven't talked about is immigration. you could see that play out in the primaries. and i think that what paul is describing is a big void and that is something that you had a catchall. you had the weakened economy, you had ebola for a moment a couple of weeks ago where you

did see a lot of the numbers going sideways in the races. and on immigration i think the republican party is about to have a big definition of a moment on this because i expect the president will do something that will please neither side of his own party. and i think it will be where they can take the south. >> [inaudible] >> hello, someone mentioned the catchphrase and the modern presidency and i think as a voter from florida -- >> i'm sorry. [laughter] >> i think that it's rough. a lot of my friends to go out to vote because they felt very frustrated by a lot of the name-calling and the slander and they were just totally turned

off. and i've always said scott talking about this, part of the reason i've always thought that is because the democrats have talked about this. and so you need to understand this to actually do that. democrats need to follow love in order to go out and vote. whereas republicans were more used to the disciplines even if we have to do it holding our nose. so i haven't met anyone that likes either of those two

candidates. >> we watched a kid part of this and i think that this is kind of a modern thing that is blaming obama for everything and a lot of the name-calling on either side of the aisle. i'm interested in hearing your thoughts. >> i beg you not to see the microcosm.

>> let me ask maggie on that. >> some of that was the outside money where all of that was not only negative that part of this. and there is this turnoff that ran on and you're seeing it particularly in your generation that was really inspired in 2008 and that was an amazing thing to watch. but it was real and something terrible has happened in the last six years. can you talk about this?

>> is a full point for the younger voters dropping off so dramatically. and i do think that it is larger than citizens united. and this includes a suitcase in their bank account if they have a benefactor is and president obama was devastating. and you know, you had a lot of very polarized house districts and that includes in 2012 the

super pac that paul is involved with and it ran some of the effective things in memory. in this includes the joke among reporters that became that mitt romney killed a guy and that is essentially what the ad -- [inaudible] >> it's not quite like that, but it wasn't far off. and this is obama. >> the advisers can't coordinate

and so this campaign decided early on that they'd identified mitt romney as the likeliest nominee. >> yes, that was over quickly and they developed this strategy. and some of the supporters aired against newt gingrich and they were also devastating. and that includes the col-and tf the tiffany ring boxes, because

his wife was likely to shop at its needs. and they basically tied newt gingrich -- they tied him to china's one child policy. and the odds were really tough. and so you saw a proliferation of that he saw it in some of the statewide situations as well which would be one of them and that this became the norm this cycle as reference before whether it was below 50 or negative. and this is became illinois governor and he had a net negative approval rating or favorability rating and that is okay because his net negative was greater than that of pat quinn. and so that was the same thing as florida and you could see this over and over. it's a factor and it sounds cliché to say, but it's starting

early and it's very ugly and it has now become something where it has been punished and now it's just sort of part of the system. >> the outside groups that you can't even blame the candidates for. >> i don't want you to defend the advertising. like if i want to raise your taxes, it would be true and there's nothing wrong with a map. what i'm talking about stuff way beyond that. >> any good negative ad has to be factual and about public record and public issues. and i saw this whole cycle in georgia. and michelle nunn, she's the

daughter of a democratic senator and she worked for a senator for a long time. purdue ran an ad that said they that foundation gave money to terrorists. but no, they didn't, they built habitat for humanity homes in that kind of stuff. it's not on the agenda of president bush. and it was a despicable thing. but the only one i can think of. so 100% of the ads were negative and i lobbied to run one more after the elections we could surpass the 100% negative ads. and if they are fair and factual, that is a public record about your life and i think that they are great and really good and i'm sorry to be mean, but young people need to toughen up. on twitter they say the most vile things to each other.

the first tweet that i ever got, i from iris on for 30 seconds and somebody said, when you drink rat poisoning and jump in a wood chipper. [laughter] >> that's what you do. it's kind of redundant. [laughter] and there is science behind this as well. a friend of mine is a professor of political science at uc san diego and he's done research on this for the more negative campaign, the higher the voter turnout. many years ago when edwards, edwin edwards was running against david duke recently and he had the greatest line that we are both lizards between the sheets. [laughter] and the bumper sticker that he had said over h