and we've seen a lot of innovation and technology when it comes to campaign ads and stuff. but when are we going to see this actually improving voter identification, accuracy, and ease of the process? when is the technology going to actually extend to the voting process? >> i'm not sure the technology is going to save us from some of the things that you are concerned about. the technology in many ways actually is freeing candidates to push the limits, to take votes out of context, put that into an ad or a video. so the problem that i see today is not so much the technology, but the lack of effective oversight. generalists used to take on the role of policing the ads, if there was an ad like the daisy ad that was considered too extreme or too tropical storm, they could shame the candidates into withdrawing those ads. today, it's very hard to shame

the candidates. they can put claims in ads that are misleading or deceptive. journalists made say, hey, that's wrong, they shouldn't be doing that. but people don't pay attention in the same sorts of ways. a lot of these problems are a function of the lack of effective oversight mechanisms. >> let's go to ariel with another question. ariel? >> i understand that air wars addresses, how much political ads have on viewers and whether or not political advertising is good for democracy. do you think if the gop successfully utilizes the media through the use of negative ads that it will actually instill enough fear in voters that the republican candidate has the potential to win in? >> that's the $64,000 question of this election. and to me, it looks like it's going to be a 51/49 race. so in that type of situation, anything that moves one or two percentage of the voters in the key states that are in

contention is a potentially decisive. certainly when you look at the republican nominating process, there's been a very heavy use of negative advertising, especially on the part of romney against his various opponents. given president obama's own high negatives, i anticipate the general election to feature a lot of attack ads on each side. because for obama to win against a republican nominee, he needs to make sure that person ends up in this campaign with at least as high negatives as he himself has. >> let's talk about citizens united and how that influenced the way that we're seeing these ads and who's paying for them. there's one question from one of the students at george mason university who e-mailed me earlier. will there be any legislation changing the disclosure laws for political ads, for example paid for by americans for a better america doesn't tell you who is really funding it. that is a direct result of citizens united from two years

ago. >> there is legislation that now has been introduced in congress to increase the disclosure requirements from the so-called super pacs. so one of the results of the citizens united court decision was to basically free multi-millionaires and billionaires to give large amounts of money. $5 million or $10 million to so-called super pacs which then can run electoral ads designed to either elect somebody or try and defeat someone. in my view, this is one of the worst supreme court decisions that we've ever faced because as we've already seen in election year 2012, the super pacs are running the negative ads in this campaign. just one interesting comparison. when you look at the ads from this campaign run by romney, according to the cantor media firm, only 52% of his own ads have been negative but 91% of the romney super pac ads have been negative. many of the ads that people are

objecting to and think are overly harsh or misleading or taking information out of context are these super pacs that essentially were authorized by the supreme court decision. >> not even dealing with presidential races, if you're running for congress, often there are ads on the air from groups that even as a candidate you may not know who they come from. >> absolutely. this is a huge problem. because the messenger matters as much as the message in a campaign ad. you want to watch the ad and see what they're saying. but you also want to know who's behind the ad. who's put up the money for this. this is where there's a real problem in american election these days. that you can basically have ads that are sponsored by innocuous-sounding organizations that could be a front for the electric utility industry or tobacco industry or gaming industry or who knows what type of industry. i think one of the most important things we could do is improve the transparency of tv ads so that at least we know

who's behind that message so that we can evaluate it accordingly. >> let's go back to bob lichter and george mason university, bob? >> you had a question, talking about negative ads, a lot of people don't like negative ads so the question is, why do you still get them and the answer is, because politicians think they work. a question to follow up on that general issue. >> what makes an attack ad backfire? i'm talking about like a vicious ad, like willie horton. what would make something like that backfire and has that happened in recent history? >> there certainly were examples of attack ads that have backfired. although i'm not sure i would put the willie horton ad in that category because george herbert walker bush actually won that particular race. but when you look at those types of ads that do backfire, they're often off in the sense of either they're not addressed at the issues that voters particularly

care about. so they don't have kind of the sense of resonance that voters need in order to be influenced by the ad. or it could be using the wrong messenger for a particular message that you want to convey. so there are lots of ways that these ads can backfire. sometimes if there is a lot of media attention, kind of on one side of an ad, and basically people are condemning it as unfair, misleading, or outright deceptive, then sometimes candidates can experience a backlash from that particular ad. >> you spent some time overseas. so you had a chance to look at american politics from the vantage of europe and asia. how do they view this genre of ads? >> many people in other countries are completely mystified by american elections. they just see our elections as too personalistic, too negative

in the tone, and not really giving voters enough choices. you know, sometimes our elections feature a sharp contrast between the left and the right, which then forces people to make a choice that is not very comfortable for them. most americans remain in the center of the political spectrum. but yet we often face false choices at election time. and i think particularly with advertising, people outside the united states worry that ads are going to lead americans to -- are basically a device to mislead americans in terms of how they end up voting. so they understand the united states is very powerful, that what happens in our elections have consequences. they have great worries about our election process and especially the role of media and money in that process. >> we pointed out in this class that 1996 was the first year that we had the candidates using the web when they posted speeches. that was about it, the text of speeches.

now we have the onslaught of web advertising including this one from the republican national committee this year, just to give you a sense of how the web is being used as an effective communications tool. >> today does mark the beginning of the end. the most sweeping economic recovery package in history. the package is the right size, it is the right scope, it has the right priorities to create 3 to 4 million jobs. the federal government is the only entity left with the resources to jolt our economy back into life. 3.5 million jobs over the next two years. >> look at me. the stimulus is working. >> 8 out of every 10 stimulus dollars -- >> it's not even a good junk bond. >> unemployment is still very high. >> i'm not going to say the recession is over until the unemployment rate is down to normal levels. in the 5% range. >> the fbi raided solyndra --

>> $700,000 to create joke-telling software. >> shovel ready was not as shovel ready as we expected. >> the republican national committee is responsible for the content of this advertising. >> let's take this on two fronts. forget about the politics. the production value in that spot, what do you think? >> i think it's a good spot in the sense they weave together information from a variety of different sources. they compare obama's original statements with what has happened and the fact that, you know, people thought originally that the stimulus package would be adequate to really solve the economic problems. clearly that has not been the case. and so this campaign in many respects is going to be fought over that narrative. you know, we have a bad economy, why do we have it, who's responsible, what were the policy decisions that undermine this economic recovery. >> let's go to kevin rutherford, university of massachusetts at the washington center, go ahead, kevin. >> hi. i was wondering if you would tell me like what you think --

what ad is probably the most effective one in the past 60 years that they've been doing television ads. boy, can you pick one, that would be tough. >> that's like picking among your favorite children, you can't do that. i love ads. i study them. there have certainly been lots of examples of effectived as. we've seen a number of them here today. in '92, some of the clinton ads kind of arguing that george herbert walker bush was out of touch. those were very effective. reagan's morning in america ad, 1984, was very effective. some of the obama ads from 2008 were very notable in terms of his message of change and hope. so i think anybody who kind of looks at the history of ads would kind of point to those as particularly effective advertisements. >> let's go to cynthia novarro, you're next, from the washington center. >> my question is in regards of the evolution of ads.

so we've been seeing how they've developed in the past 60 years. from black and white film to cheesy music to a candidate speaking directly at the camera to us to what we have now. my question is, how far do you think technology and editing software's going to get, and where do you see political commercialth in the next 10, 15 years? >> i think when you look at 2012, the big innovation that i see is the distribution mechanism for ads. and particularly the reliance on social media. when you look at what obama's doing and roll mney and the oth republican candidates, what they're doing dmou is basically putting videos on the web using youtube to distribute that information. that allows people to watch the ad and then to share that ad with their family members and their friends. and so what the candidates are doing is to try and tap into those trusted networks because they understand people are very cynical about politicians.

if you just see an obama ad or a romney ad, you're often turned off by the messenger. but if a friend of yours has seen that ad and recommends that you watch it, that puts that ad in a different light. because essentially it's been endorsed by somebody you know and somebody that you respect. and so a lot of what the candidates are doing this year that's different compared to past years is going to involve that use of social media. >> so let's go back to where we began. the road that we've traveled. that ad that the obama campaign released last week, 7:00 or 8:00 at night. so it was almost appointment viewing on the was. and that video, 17 minutes long, is going to be interesting. because of not only the way in which it was distributed and the fact that the obama people are counting on a big viewership, not just from people watching the ad but friends recommending it to their friends to watch the ad. they also did a very interesting thing of integrating

fund-raising into the ad. because you can watch the ad and then there's a very easy interface, if you happen to like the ad, like the message, like obama, to click on and contribute money to obama. the president has set up a $3 campaign contribution, giving you a shot to have dinner with barack, as he puts it. the integration of fund-raising and advertising is now enabled by new technology in ways that are very new and interesting. >> let's go back to george mason university. >> i'd just like to follow up on that. television brought us a brand new way of making political appeals. we've looked at an arc of trying to channel old-style ads into a new medium and the way that the new medium has really developed its own means of communication that have swept aside most of the competing means. now we're finally at what could be another watershed. i was listening carefully to

darrell. and that is, you get away from the problem that you might have a great message but a bad messenger by making the distribution network distanced from the messenger. so, yeah, that's great. if you see a youtube ad or ad on youtube, it's like seeing anything else interesting on youtube. so i wonder if this isn't really on the cusp of a whole new way of communicating political ads in campaigns. >> i think we certainly are on the cusp of a new age of advertising. just because it's not possible to customize ads, it's possible to target advertising in much more specific ways than ever before. 44% of americans now own smartphones. so we're starting to see candidates employ mobile ads in text messages as a way to get out. we've seen some cases where, for

example, if you're attending the iowa state fair, you have a gps device in your phone, and so if you've registered to receive messages from the candidate, they basically know that you're within two miles of a particular time of the iowa state fair, they can target a message and say, hey, mitt romney is going to speak at that iowa state fair, you should go hear him. the technology is enabling radically different forms of outreach that are both more personal and more customized to the individual viewer. >> let's go to timothy hatton who is joining us in the washington center, student at the university of mt. union. tim? >> yeah, i had a related and slightly connected question. in reading your paper you wrote last month on campaigning, mobile technology in public outreach, you cited that 83% of registered voters are -- either own smartphones or tablets. i'm wondering what role the

traditional media will play in the current election, if we consider the new uses and the new roles of the new technology. >> that's a good point. >> it's an excellent question. and the pew research center just put out a survey where they asked exactly about that point. where are people getting their news today? and the interesting thing was, only about one-third of people say they're getting them from traditional news organizations. the other sources are social media, facebook, twitter accounted for about 10%. then search, google searches and microsoft bing searches and yahoo! account for about one-third of the sources of information. what's interesting is it used to be people would just rely on conventional news outlets. today people are kind of going out and getting information, either through their friends or through searches, because there's something they want to know. >> bob lichter, i'm going to turn back to you for a final question or comment from either you or one of the students at

george mason. >> i just -- as much as i love to give questions to my students, one comment. we talked about the message, we talked about the messenger. it's important also not to forget about the reality. there are certain conditions, economic conditions, foreign policy conditions, that kind of thing, in which campaign takes place. so an ad like morning in america is a great ad. but it's a great ad because things were better in america for a lot of people. and sometimes we tend to -- i'm not saying darrell west does this but sometimes people tend to ascribe too much power to advertising, in the sense somehow people are being persuaded of things they wouldn't otherwise believe, when the ads are intended to reinforce the most positive way that a candidate can pitch their own message that's built on the reality that people experience. so the people will say, yeah,

that's right. because things are like that. it's a way of communicating that. but i don't think you can have an ad that goes against the grain and tries to pretend things are great when they're they adapt their advertising strategies to the political and economic realities. that's what makes american elections so interesting to follow. >> bob, we have another minute. if there's a question from one of your students, go for it. >> nicole. you haven't questioned yet.

>> in your opinion, what makes up a really effective ad? >> there are lots of things that go into effective ads. the nature of the times, what we were just discussing with bob certainly is a big factor. the production values matter a lot. the authenticity of the ad really is very important. in the sense that you need the right messenger for the particular message that you are seeking to deliver. so if you have all those ingredients taken together, that often is a winning formula. >> darrell west, former professor at brown university, author of "momore than a dozen boo books. what one thing did you learn in researching this book about advertising that may not have talked about? >> it's really interesting just to look at the history of campaign ads. because when you look at the 60-plus-year history, it's interesting to trace the types of messages that candidates use, the strategies they employ, the distribution mechanisms. there have been big differences

across american history in how candidates have communicated. but each of those factors matters a lot in terms of how people ultimately receive the message. >> embracing new technology. >> throughout the history, we've seen dramatic changes in the technology. going from the tv era to the internet era and then even in the internet era, now we're moving into social media. every time there's a new change in technology, it changes the relationship between candidates and voters. >> darrell west, on behalf of the students at george mason university and the washington center, thank you very much for being with us. we appreciate your time and perspective. this weekend on "the presidency" on american history tv -- >> think of the fdr memorial. it wasn't just three redesigns, it was three-plus designs before they got to a final plan. and so i think that we shouldn't be afraid of looking at this issue, because we are building something for the centuries. and we want to get it right.

>> with the eisenhower memorial designed by frank gary opposed by the family, a house subcommittee discussed the planned memorial to our 34 the president. watch sunday at 7:30 p.m. eastern and pacific. part of american history tv this weekend on c-span3. on monday, the supreme court starts three days of hearings on the constitutionality of the new health care law. hear the oral argument for yourself in its entirety as the court releases audio at around 1:00 p.m. eastern each day with coverage on c-span3 and c-span radio and at c-span.org listen and add your comments. coverage starts monday morning live on c-span with "washington journal" and continues through the day from the supreme court. and then the oral argument on c-span3. a discussion now on the house republicans' 2313 budget proposal from today's "washington journal." this is about 40 minutes.

>> congressman tom cole is a republican from oklahoma. he represents the fourth district. good morning and thanks for being here. >> morning. >> your colleague, representative paul ryan, released a budget plan this week. why do you support it? >> i think paul is actually one of the few people in the country that's serious about dealing with the long-term structural deficit that we're facing that i think is really the construction of our economic problems. and i'm very proud of what he's recommended on medicare, very proud that he's dealing with the sequester in his budget so we won't have devastating, across the board cuts to domestic and military programs next year, very proud he's laid out what i think is a framework for long-term tax reform. it's a solid budget, it's a thoughtful budget. in that sense it makes quite a contrast with the senate which has not produced a budget for three years, or with the president's budget which is largely solid on the critical issues in front of us. >> what congressman ryan has put forth is not expected to get

through the senate. is it symbolic or is there a lot of meat here? >> a lot of people underestimate it when they say it will not get through the senate. we'll operate wind the house along the lines that paul has laid out. but there's no question this is a document that helps frame a great national debate that i think's going toon cur in the context of the presidential campaign this year. it hasmpact. it puts us on record as a party. you're going to know what we're going to do if we're fortunate enough to win the senate and fortunate enough to have a and so i think it's a good place for us to be. >> let's take a listen to the senate budget committee chairman, kent conrad, democrat of north dakota. on tuesday he was responding to the republican charge that senate democrats haven't come up with their own plan. >> we do have a budget. it is the law of the land. it was passed last year. it is in place. those who say we do not have a budget have either failed to pay

attention to what they voted on, or they're deliberately trying to mislead the public. the budget control act was passed by the house of representatives. it was passed by the united states senate on an overwhelming bipartisan vote. it was signed into law by the president. it is now the law of the land. >> that senate budget committee chairman kent conrad. congressman cole, what's your response? >> first of all, we don't have a budget, we have a number. we have a number that we'll appropriate discretionary spending to, that's not a budget. a real budget would tell you what are you going to do over the next ten years in terms of long-term deficit, what are you going to do on medicare, medicaid, what your plan to deal with deficits that aren't going away? the sad fact is the democrats in the senate haven't produced a budget in three years. they don't need 60 votes, they need 51 of their own people.

democrats in the majority in the house the last year did not present a budget. we're told they're going to present one next week which i think is a very good thing, it means they're entering the debate in a real way. frankly i think the senate democrats just haven't gotten their job done and i think senator conrad's trying to put the best face on a bad situation, a pretty embarrassing situation. to not write a budget is to basically say, we're not capable of governing and we're not willing to be honest and open with the american people. i'm glad we've avoided that. >> a recent op ed piece, "slight of hand budgeting." there's no credible path to budget reduction. this is a fundamental conclusion of every responsible group that has examined the issue most prominently the simpson bowls commission. it's a fundamental failure of the blueprint released tuesday by congressman ryan. >> it's simply not true. we all know that the drivers in the deficit are not the lack of revenue.

but frankly they're the failure to deal with long-term entitlements and the pending retirement of baby boom generation. paul takes on what's really the tough part of the budget issue. in terms of revenue, look, all the bush tax cuts come to an end at the end of this year. the payroll tax deduction that the president fought for comes to an end at the end of this year. sequester begins the first day of next year. the revenue situation will be dealt with by the end of the year one way or the other. it will probably depend on who wins the election. but if you gave the president and the democrats every tax increase they asked for, you're still talking about trillions of dollars in shortfall over the next decade. so getting the entitlement issue right is actually the main thing and that's what the budget does. >> congressman cole, what did you learn from paul ryan's plan last year? a lot of concern over medicare, there's a lot of attention paid. even on the campaign trail, republican candidates for

president talking about it. newt gingrich, going back and forth on what his take on this was. what did you learn from that and what has congressman ryan done differently? >> i think first of all you learned you can touch the third rail of politics and survive. and big problems take bold solutions. and you're better off to lay them out and make your case. we've done that. i think actually, if you look over the course of the special elections, we know we can argue and win this argument. and i think the american people know we've got very serious problems and they're looking for people to actually be honest with them. they don't expect magic solutions that are going to be absolutely painless and they want politicians to lay them out. so that's the number one thing. it's time to be bold. number one is that so far the other side hasn't been willing to engage in the debate. the president appointed the simpson bowles commission. 60% of those members, including some of the republicans like tom coburn, voted for it. the president never embraced his own commission's proposal. it's not in any of his budget. we don't know what he's willing

to do long-term. i think the failure to lay that out is a failure of leadership. >> if you'd like to join the conversation and speak with representative tom cole, republican of oklahoma, here are the numbers to call. republicans 202-307-0002. first up is anthony. independent line from valdosta, georgia. >> caller: good morning. i thought it appropriate that the representative is on discussing the budget after we talked about education. my question for him is, why don't we use the tax code to incentivize everything else but parent involvement in their children's education? why don't we utilize the tax code, say the child tax deduction, to incentivize parent involvement? have that tiered out for the performance of the children in

schools? and i just listen for the representative's response to that. >> actually, it's a good idea. and it's done quite often at the state level. that is, there are many states will have special deductions for money spent on a child's education. obviously you have 529s, college savings plans. there are a variety of ways this should be and can be done. i think federally it's worth looking at something like that and i suspect next year we're going to be in major debate over long-term tax reform. broadly speaking i think what we need to do is try and remove a lot of the exemptions, credits, what have you, at least have a debate about which ones we want to keep, try to lower and flatten out the tax base. i suspect there will be discussion about it. so far it's mostly a state idea as opposed to a federal idea. >> next caller is jan, democrat in orlando, florida. good morning. >> caller: good morning. this is my question. i've got two questions. first off, i'd l