polling data, the closer you get to actually delivering services and being accountable to people, the better people feel about their government. >> anita, what can change that? what can change the conditions that steve has diagnosed? >> i actually believe that voters at the end of the day have to be the first line of changing this for the very simple reason that right now voters in both parties have been rewarding the most polarizing kind of behavior in their primary processes. i think steve would agree. i think it started with our party back in the democratic wing of the democratic party days. i'm not saying that is a terrible thing. but the reality is that between redistricting and between the primary processes, not just for the presidency, but also for the legislative offices and congress in particular, that the activist wings of both parties, thanks in no small part to the fact that campaign finance rules have

changed and that the internet has given people a portal to democracy which is a wonderful thing, but also means that again those people who make the most noise can often get the most support. so the reality is that voters who say they are sick and tired of the partisan gridlock, voters who say that they want solutions, they want people here who will work across the aisle, voters actually have to step up and take control of this democracy again. i am a huge believer that at the end of the day when voters say they've had enough of this behavior, then people are going to change their behavior. but i don't actually see politicians deciding absent that because right now centrist behavior gets penalized and not rewarded at the voting booth. >> i'd love to bring you into the conversation. if you have a question, stand up. we'll get you a microphone pronto. if you don't mind saying who you are and go ahead and ask your

question. >> identify yourself. >> hi, my name is lee fong from the republic report. the 2012 election is shaping up to be just as much about the undue influence of lobbyists just as much about the economy. you see this from the rhetoric of occupy wall street to the attack ads from romney against gingrich. my question is for anita dunn. you have a lot of access to the president from advising his campaign to regular visits to the white house. do you think it's a little disingenuous that you're simultaneously being paid by a lot of corporations to lobby against the reforms, specifically on childhood obesity and predatory for-profit colleges. >> i'd like to start saying i'm not a lobbyist, never had been a registered lobbyist. i do public relations. >> what's the difference? >> well, the difference is -- i should also say to my friend over here that my cooling-off period from the white house,

because this president has instituted some of the strongest ethical reforms of any president ever means that i actually don't talk to anybody in this administration about any issue where i'm doing public relations for two years after i left the white house. as white house communications director i was actually involved in so many issues. it's not possible to say i'm going to wall off this area. so i actually don't talk to anybody in the white house. and i do work with people and i do work with non-profits and i work with some corporations because, the fact of the matter is, we're in a democracy and there's a dialogue and people have a right to be heard and the fact of the matter is that most of the time when i work with people, they have a story to be told and we tell it. now, this president has done things that allow my friend over here to say, well, i'm a regular visitor to the white house. why? because part of the move of this white house towards transparency is to make sure that anybody can go on any time and see who is visiting the white house. it sounds like a small thing,

but it isn't. because it means there's a greater degree of transparency and accountability. this white house by and large has shut down the revolving door because people who leave the white house cannot lobby this administration on issues that they worked on while they were inside the administration. this white house and this campaign don't take money in registered lobbyists. now, these are not rules that congress applies to itself. as we move forward in our political process, i think one thing you will see is that voters will continue to demand greater transparency from everybody. if you look right now at governor romney's kind of flailing around on whether he's going to release his tax returns, the reality is that politicians aren't going to have a choice about transparency much longer in this country because voters expect it of them. >> okay. >> let me just say for future questions.

i'd like to start with the mayors. >> we've got the lights on now. right there, yes. we'll get you a microphone. go ahead and start. >> who are you? >> timothy herbst, mayor of trumbull, connecticut. i want to thank you both for coming. i've enjoyed your chat. i have a very simple question. last two presidents have really i think put an emphasis on who they have selected as a vice president looking for certain things in their running mates. if you were advising mitt romney, what would you be advising him as to look for in a running mate to somebody running with him as vice president. >> a great question. steve schmidt. >> my wife has said i should never give an answer to a

question about who to pick for vice president. we won't tell her. look, i think first and foremost on the issue of who to pick for vice president, it's an important question and i think there's a lot of lessons to be learned from the 2008 campaign, but also from the 2004 campaign, because i think the selection process is fundamentally broken in a number of different ways. and both parties have resulted in nominating people who were manifestly unprepared and unqualified to be president of the united states. john edwards on the democratic side and, of course, on the republican side in 2008. there's a lack of having gone through this process on our part, there is a lack of --

stepping back, it was -- in 2008 it's a story of assumptions, that this person is a governor. therefore, this person has a that diminomousily would make them prepared to do this. that turned out not to be the case. it's also a story about outcomes that don't go the way you want them. no one had the intention of putting forward someone who was manifestly unprepared to be president of the united states. but, you know, the focus is on trying to win the election. the focus is on trying to get ahead. it's a story of ambition. it's a story of wanting to win. this is a process that requires a great deal of circumspection. i think on the part of the media, on the part of the press,

it should be framed for what it is. this is the first presidential decision that a candidate makes and that the candidate really makes by themselves where they have to take the measure of the person that they're going to put into the position of being the next in line, and if you look at the history of the country, a lot of vice presidents have had to come forward to take the 35-word oath and assume the duties of commander in chief. i think that obviously for my part over the last couple of years, it's an issue that i've thought about a great deal because when you run a presidential campaign or you're involved in the decision making of a presidential campaign, you never have the aspiration to have the result where someone was forwarded to this who was not prepared. >> all right. anita dunn, let's be clinical about this. if you were advising governor romney, would you advise him to

pick as his vice president senator marco rubio of florida or senator rob portman of ohio? >> well, if i were in that room with him, i would say remember the two most important things are that, one, you believe this person is prepared to be the president of the united states if, god forbid, something happens, that you have that confidence and you can go out. as steve says, it's your first presidential decision. can you go out, look the american people in the eye and say this is the person. the second is do you have a rso you trust this person? the role of the vice president has evolved to an enormous degree since i believe it was john nance garner who said it wasn't worth a warm bucket of spit, right? it's become an operational role that's a good thing. but that means the president has trust.

so i think those two things, one, can you say that this person is prepared to be president? so then, if you look at the two names that you said, rob portman i think is someone who you can certainly present to the american people as someone has served in government, who has an understanding of the fiscal issues, who clearly has been through enough vetting processes. to play off what steve said, g about national issues. with senator rubio who i don't know his record as well, no, you would probably want to do some i think at the end of the day, decision, it's going to be republican nominee's decision and given the fact that the

republican nominee is mitt romney, the guess is that he probably does want to pick someone who offers him regional diversity and who offers something to fill up his governing resume, something he . i would also add, though, that the idea that a vice presidential candidate brings their state or brings anything to the ticket i regard as by and large just not true, maybe occasionally they can helm you on an individual state. at the end of the day, you pick the person that you think can be president. >> i think clinically, mike, too, it's that the only criteria here that should matter is this person prepared to take the oath of office to be president of the united states? and there is a list of people that meet that qualification in both parties and there are other people that don't. i think all of the political

calculations have to be subordinate to that. i think it is one of the chief lessons of 2008. >> i think we have a question in this zip code. yes, sir. down front. >> hi. thank you for joining us this morning. i'm bill globa. mayor of davenport. in 2008, president obama won by approximately 9 million votes nationwide. one of the biggest margins since lyndon johnson. he won with young people, students, afro-americans and poor hispanics. in 2010, we got the worst shallacking since the civil war or something. lost 63 house seats. 63 congressmen. i remember in 2008, 39 people, i got out of the vote in homeless

shelter. went to the same shelter in 2010, no one voted. what can you tell me to reassure me a little bit that things are going to be different? that people are, in fact, in these demographics are going to turn out? when i see people protests on occupy movement. i see the highest poverty we had up among our base. so what are the polls showing? how is a campaign going to get to these? wrong romney necessarily can. what are the positive signs you see in the demographics that didn't vote in 2010? >> anita dunn, to what degree can you reassure the mayor? >> in 2010, the election as mid terms are, was a referendum. it was not a choice. it wasn't framed as a choice. presidential elections have

different dynamics than mid-term elections. i think this presidential election will present a very clear choice to people. so that's the first thing i would say. rather than having the people turn out who tend to be angry as to the administration, that you always get a larger turn out in presidential election years anyway. there will be a clear choice. the president will frame the choice, i think, in a way that will motivate people to come out because it really is a significant difference. you, as mayors, understand what the stakes are here because you have been living with the idea that somehow we can -- the federal government can just reduce all of the discretionary spending in the federal budget and we will all live happily ever after and you know that is not true. there are significant needs in this country. significant investments that need to be made in education and transportation and in your

infrastructure and in your sewer systems. in those things that the federal government needs to do in order to build us for a stronger future. that is going to be a huge thing, especially for young voters. because young voters are the people who really have the great stake in what happens next. i think that the different visions, a vision of an america where hard work is rewarded, where we have responsibility and accountability for government and business and for individuals. where we don't have a you're on your own attitude. people make investments and have public/private partnerships. whether it is an infrastructure bank or education programs that all of you are doing in your cities in public/private partnerships. people are working together to move the nation forward together. that is something that is incredibly important and different from a republican vision that we have seen through

the republican congress, which is -- no, you are on your own. tough luck. let's reduce. let's cut all these critical programs that help disproportionately seniors and low-income people so we can keep taxes low for people who do the best in this country. that will be as steve said in the beginning, there will be a major debate in 2012. i think it is a healthy debate for the country to have. i also think that debate will motivate people to come out and vote in a way they were not motivated in 2010 when it wasn't seen as a choice of two different directions. >> steve schmidt? >> well, you know, obviously on the frame of the issues, i profoundly disagree. the tax cody think is more progressive than it has ever been. the most compassionate policy government can have, i believe,

is a pro-growth economic policy. i think the federal debt is at enormous crisis with $15 trillion with no end in sight. i think we will have an election based on choice. anita is right. it is a referendum. it is often a referendum on presidents. you had two occasions. 2002 and 1934 where there were first-term presidents had pick ups and seats in that first mid term election. every other president has lost seats. as we talked about it earlier, there are a number of other factors that are driving instability. in an election for president is a choice. this will not be an election, you know, in terms of the type of job that, you know, the president is doing. it is a choice of who is going to do a better job? there is an abc/washington post out that shows 57% of voters

disapprove of the way the president is handling the economy. as a republican, i look at that through two prisms. the first way i look at it is that means there is a lot of room to criticize the president on the economy, but also because i think that the president's floor in this election is 47%. it is a very significant percentage of the people who object to his handling of the economy are, in fact, going to vote for him structurally in the election. it will be a close election. i think there are some elections where there are pale differences between the parties and it is not painted in bold, bright colors. i think this election will be one where there are clear lines and bold colors. i think it will be a healthy debate. there is a fundamentally different vision offered by the president and ultimately by the republican nominee about where the economy can create opportunity. >> in the mayor's introduction

at the top, he talked about the deafening silence that he hears in the presidential race on the issues of most concern to the city. anita, if i'm a mayor of davenport or philadelphia, how do i better connect with a washington that doesn't seem to be listening? >> i was going to say you and the rest of the country. so, in terms of how you feel. i think it is critically important for mayors in particular to hold the candidates accountable. both parties every level. you can't separate out cities from suburbs. we all know how inner connected we are as a nation. i think that mayors command great megaphones in their communities. one of the things i think steve and i as people who do public affairs will members of congres

senators, are increasingly sensitive to what they hear in their communities. much more so than they used to be. when i -- i'm getting a little old now. when i started working in washington it was still possible for people to quote, say one thing in washington and another at home. now it's not possible for people to say one thing, you know, at a town hall meeting and another thing five minutes later because it's already on youtube, right? so i think that part of what mayors need to do to connect to washington is to connect to washington at home first. and to hold people accountable. and publicly accountable. if you need to. because people are elect -- elected officials are extraordinarily sensitive to local criticism, particularly when it's linked very directly to how conditions are at home. i think that's one thing. two, i think your collective voice is very important. there will be a republican nominee. there is a democratic president. there may be a third party or a

libertarian candidate, but all of these people are going to come looking for votes in your area. all of these people are going to debate and your collective voice to put things on the national agenda is significant. and i think that picking a few critical areas whether it is transportation and infrastructure spending, which i just happen to know some of you care about, whether it is, you know, whether it is education and education policy, which is obviously a huge debate in this country. to pick a couple of issues and make your voice heard. with the candidates, holding them accountable, but also with your elected officials. >> steve? >> yeah, i agree with that. i think that public communicating your issues as opposed to an antiquated approach that we can solve these with one-on-one meetings, we'll have a chat, doesn't work anymore.

i think you can communicate publicly. there was a story in "the washington post" where there were a bunch of republican members of congress who stood up in the conference meeting and began quoting lines out of the movie "brave heart" and analogizing the payroll tax to the fight to the death that was taking place between the british and william wallace. i think in the context of being a mayor and actually running something and having accountability and being responsible for services that's just so off the wall as to almost be unimaginable. i think there's a detachment between the reality you live in and it's important to communicate your reualuality in way that makes them accountable. i think all politicians have a high instinct for

self-preservation and to the extent you are able to put a burden on to the member of congress that triggers that instinct by advancing your agenda in the needs of your constituents is probably an effective strategy. >> mike, i would add one thing which is that due to the news cycle having accelerated exponentially so there's much less time for the kind of in depth policy reporting that one would like to see, that gives you a huge advantage because you can play that role. the conference of mayors can play that role in terms of looking at the impact of the policies that the candidates are talking about. and this is -- this is something that just isn't being done as much as it used to, because nobody has the time or the space or the resources to have reporters go do this. but it's critically important to you and critically important to the people you represent in your

cities. and so i would suggest that one way to be in that dialogue is to be the people who say this is how it will affect you in real life. not just in candidate rhetoric or in 90-second answer in a debate. but in real life. so -- >> we're about to get the hook here, so mayor riley will have our last question. we'll do this as a speed round. >> well, the tea party movement appears to have moved the republican party even farther to the right. to what extent will that pose a problem or may it prove to be a benefit to the republican nominee? >> i think the tea party movement is broadly misunderstood. i think the reality is there have always been conservatives in the republican parties, there will always be liberals in the democratic party. i think that the fact that there are energized conservative

voters, accrues to the benefit of the republican nominee ultimately. i think that if you look at, you know, the two movements that have gotten a great deal of media attention over the last year, the occupy wall street movement and the -- and the tea party movement i think the tea party movement is a movement that does good for the republican party and i think that on an issue basis has appeal in the middle of the electorate. and i think one of the great unanswered questions is what does the occupy wall street movement look like in the spring? and to the degree that, you know, you all walk by mcpherson square, i don't think that that necessarily helps the democratic party in the context of a general election in the fall. but i think of the two movements and, you know, what the impact will be on the general election, the one that is likely in my view to be far more consequential is the occupy wall street movement. >> so i agree with that.

the occupy wall street movement is still, you know, in many ways is still at a very early stage. but if you look at how quickly our national dialogue has changed to really address the issue nobody wanted to talk about which is the growing inequality and income equality in this country and i think that that will be an issue that will be central to the economic debate in 2012. i mean, we have republican leaders of congress like paul ryan what have felt it necessary to go out and give speeches about this in a way that six months ago they never would have. so i think that at least for 2012 that the occupy wall street movement will have a significant effect on the national dialogue, while the tea party movement far more effectively actually politically is organizing. i think that's fair. >> i'll stay around to visit with you and see you on politico.com. thank you, steve schmidt, and

anita dunn. thank you for participating. coming up, a summit looking at cyber security and overseas voting by members of the military. after that, several programs on the department of defense budget starting with a look at the automatic cuts set to take effect january 2, 2013. also a couple of briefings looking at the army and air force budgets. next a summit exploring new technologies and ways of approaching problems in overseas and military voting. you'll hear first from the vice president and general manager of enterprise security at hewlett-packard. he spoke about cyber security challenges and ways to prevent voter fraud and the challenges

facing military voter participation. and the implementation of the move act which protects them to vote, regardless of where they're stationed and other ways to ensure that overseas service members have easier access to voting. hosted by the pew charitable trust and the ovf, this is about 90 minutes. >> sorry about the dark video. especially at this time in the morning, but the fact of the matter is we are under attack right now. and cybercrime is a seven by 24 crime. in fact, most of us don't know that our businesses, corporations, even our personal information is under attack. so i'd like to share some thoughts about how we got here. what's happening in cyber threat right now globally. and then maybe some things we can do going forward. if that's all right. so with just over 30 years ago when the first famous cyber criminal, a gentleman named john draper nicknamed cap'n crunch

became a famous cyber criminal. we were transitioning from the rotary dial phones to tone-based phones, and he found that with a whistle he got out of a cap'n crunch box, he could blow that into the phone and with the right tone and pitch he got access to the phone's administrative systems. from there, about 100 individuals around the world learned how the use the tones, and basically do things like free long distance calls, play jokes on the operators, nothing really serious. two of them are famous guys, steve wozniak and steve jobs of apple computers were two of the original phone freaks. i find interesting that steve jobs who learned how to hack into phones made one of our latest great phones that we all use. but that was really the start of it. if you actually fast forward and we started to put computers