>> but i've got to respond directly to mr. bush. you have questioned my patri patrioti patriotism. you even brought some right-wing congressmen into the white house to plot how to attack me for going to russia in 1969, 1970 when over 50,000 other americans did. now, i honor your service in world war ii. i honor mr. perot's service in uniform and the service of every man and woman who ever served, including admiral crowell who is supporting me. but when joe mccarthy went around this country attacking people's patriotism, he was wrong. he was wrong. and a senator from connecticut stood up to him named prescott bush. your father was right to stand up to joe mccarthy. you were wrong to attack my patriotism. i was opposed to the war, but i love my country. and we need a president who will bring this country together, not divide it. we've had enough division. i want to lead a unified country. >> janet brown, just a moment in

which there's so much at stake in 1992. a sitting president being challenged by a little-known governor from arkansas and this became one of the centerpieces of that fall campaign. >> it did. and we were speaking while it was being shown about the fact that that exchange is so much more dramatic because you can actually hear what both men are saying. and the notion that governor clinton invoked the name of president bush's father about another episode that was similar was very dramatic and very direct. that told you something about both individuals. it is absolutely fascinating to see how it works out. this gets into personal service records and principles that are delicate. and sometimes they resonate, and sometimes people come away feeling as though it really

wasn't real estate that was productively explored. >> i'm going to ask jessica larkins and donaldson questions. >> i have a quick observation that leads into a question. the observation is i'd like to make sure that at some point we make mention of the debate that was probably the most consequential in terms of changing votes. and that's the 1980 debate which was -- took place only about a week before the general election. many polls showed jimmy carter leading ronald reagan before that debate. reagan was widely perceived to have done very well. and there was a surge in voter sentiment in that last week for reagan. and so that's the observation. the question is, since clearly this was one reason there has never been another debate within a week of the election, what kind of behind-the-scenes wrangling is there between the

parties over trying to get this done? i know that happens. and i wondered, has it ever gone to the point that there was a serious question of whether the debates would take place because the two sides had such differing concerns. >> and bob's right. that debate took place in cleveland, ohio, seven days before voters went to the polls between president carter and governor reagan. >> bob, the question is a good one. and actually, there has been a testing of the limits on this. the best example, the reason we did four debates in eight days in 1992 is that the campaigns did not agree on a package of debates until after the last day of september. and at that point, you are pushing deep into the weeks and days right before the election. you know well that there has been traditional reluctance to having a debate very close to the election for the reason that you just alluded to. there's very little time at that point to change people's

impressions coming off of these debates. and in '92, one campaign, shall we say, made sure that there was a giant yellow chicken that started showing up at the other -- another campaign's rallies saying that one candidate was being chicken george for refusing to come to an agreement about the debates. that tends not to play very well with the public. there is suspicion about why a candidate is basically not agreeing and looking as though they are trying to duck these. it does happen. it has happened. it does not play well with the media or the public who believe that there should be time during these last few weeks to definitely hear from the leading candidates. >> jessica larkins from the washington center, go ahead with your question or comment, jessica. >> hi, ms. brown. i'm just wondering, do you believe that the debate process

better shapes the candidates and their campaigns? >> jessica, i don't know whether my opinion really matters, but you hear candidates repeatedly say, unthoughtful journalists who study these debates say they believe the primary debates make the candidates stronger because, in fact, they have to participate in these forums and get used to all of the different tasks that we've listed in the last several minutes. the flip side of that is a very interesting comment that president carter made when we interviewed him for our oral history project. and that is that as he said, if you get to a general election debate and you cannot accurately guess at least 95% of the topics and perhaps even the questions that you should be prepared for, then you haven't done your ho homework. because as he pointed out, it's

very rare that someone gets that far as a candidate for president and has not followed significant public office and been through a whole battery of debates, town meetings, forums for many years. so that was a very interesting comment by somebody who had gotten there and said, if you can't really be prepared for this, then it would be very unusual for you to have reached that stage. >> a couple more questions. lynnwood donaldson, you're next. go ahead, lynnwood. >> all right. i think most americans would agree that the debates have become very engrained in our political culture. but then again, there's also candidates, for example, barack obama in the 2008 election who there's probably not too much he could have done to lose that election. do you think it's possible that a candidate that was either very popular or has a national emergency that makes them the very likely candidate to win,

could they refuse to debate and still win the election? or is refusing to debate now just an automatic game end for a campaign? >> lynnwood, that's a very good question. and actually -- >> especially with a sitting president running for re-election. >> correct. that is actually what happened in some of the years between 1960 and 1976. is that the war in vietnam was cited as a national security issue that the sitting president could not and would not discussion. and therefore, having a debate was opening up something that would have been very imprudent for the incumbent to have discussed in an open forum. i think now it is hard to anticipate that kind of scenario. it's not to say that it couldn't happen, but i think also you'd have to be looking at one candidate among the group of leading candidates at that point. probably the incumbent, as steve just said, who was also leading

strongly and thought that they could make that argument and it would be respected. >> you saw that, though, in 1996 where bill clinton did two debates, not three, 1984, president reagan did two debates, not three. but yet in 2004, george w. bush did all three. >> that's right. i think that as time moves forward and you show more and more years where there are three presidential debates, that becomes the norm that people are used to. one thing that's interesting to think about is debate arithmetic is three 90-minute debates. that's 270 minutes to address all of the issues that people think are really important. it's really not a lot of time. >> in between olympic events, the playoffs, sporting events, football. >> and this year conventions ending in september. >> let's go to anna hall for the next question. anna? >> hi. i'm curious if you believe that there's been any challenges

specific to women in the primary debates as the medium has historically been dominated by men naturally. and if you think any dynamics will change as the result of a woman being presidential nominee for either party? >> hmm. good question. >> anna, that is a good question. and i have to tell you, my first experience with the issue you're talking about was when i was working on capitol hill and my boss was running in a state race against a woman candidate, and it was very interesting. he was an extremely bright, articulate candidate, and he was quite buffaloed by what the right approach to a female opponent should be. women candidates do bring a different aspect to debates. and i think it's fair to say that a lot of men candidates try to figure out what is the right way to deal with this?

you do not want to in any way talk down to this person even if the way you might talk down to a male candidate. witness senator benson's comment to senator quayle. it wasn't meant to be talking down, but it certainly was meant to be pulling seniority which he had. so for a male candidate to think about, okay, what is the right strategy here, are there things that i might say to a male opponent that if i say them to a woman are either going to be seen as wrong or at least indelicate or ill-advised? the flip side of it is that a woman is going to feel as though she needs to show that she is equally strong, that as was an argument that came up in the last general election year, does she have the strength to go toe to toe with other foreign leaders? does she have the fortitude, the

certainty, the backbone to do the tough kinds of things that the commander in chief needs to do? it definitely introduces a whole different dynamic that poses challenges for candidates on both sides to figure out how do you play this? the more women candidates are in these debates and races, obviously it will dissipate. but at the moment, it tends to be the exception. and there's no question it brings different sensitivities to the screen. >> so anna, since you brought it up, stay with us. let me show you probably two of the more recent examples of this, and we'll wrap it up with these points. we'll take you back to january of 2008 as senator hillary clinton asked the question about her popularity or lack thereof. this debate, by the way, taking place just three days before the new hampshire primary. >> my question to you is simply this. what can you say to the voters of new hampshire on this stage tonight who see your resume and like it but are hesitating on the likability issue where they

seem to like barack obama more? >> well, that hurts my feelings. >> i'm sorry, senator. i'm sorry. >> but i'll try to go on. he's very likeable. i agree with that. i don't think i'm that bad. >> you're likeable enough, hillary. >> thank you. i appreciate that. >> so let's fast forward another six weeks to february of 2008, cleveland, ohio, and this debate on nbc and msnbc. >> and this is a tough one depending on who you ask. "the houston chronicle" has called it a big win for texas. but ohio democratic senator brown, your colleague in the senate, has called it a job-killing trade agreement. senator clinton, you've campaigned in south texas. you've campaigned here in ohio. who's right?

>> well, could i just point out that in the last several debates, i seem to get the first question all the time. and i don't mind. you know, i'll be happy to field them, but i do find it curious. and if anybody saw "saturday night live," you know, maybe we should ask barack if he's comfortable and needs another pillow. i just find it kind of curious that i keep getting the first question on all of these issues. but i'm happy to answer it. >> okay. so anna, first, since you brought up the issue, your reaction. >> i think she did a tremendous job in the debate answering the question in a charming manner that only a woman could say, my feelings are hurt. a man couldn't have said that and come off as charming and more likeable. i think in bringing up in the interview that she was getting the first questions was a mistake on her part. i think that's something that should have been better left to the campaign to maybe mention and not for her to say on national television. so i think she did herself a disservice by doing that.

so that's kind of my feelings and my take on that. >> well, thanks for bringing the issue up. any thoughts, janet brown? >> those are perceptive observations, anna. this is the reason that studying these clips and trying to understand what's going on in these debates, there are personal statements that are made. and you're right. some of them were fine. and i agree with you, a woman can say, my feelings are hurt, and everybody goes, oh, shoot. and a man, you look at them and go, so? it's great that you're looking at these with this level of sophistication for these kinds of messages. >> we're talking about the fall schedule in a moment. but turn to bob lichter for a final comment or thought from you, bob. >> well, i'd like to say that if you look at the history of these debates going all the way back to the beginning in 1960, there was a lot of concern by observers that this was a made-for-media event. this wouldn't be a fairway of looking at these two candidates for the voters, that it might

skew pem's perceptions. there was a fear of television in general and what it was doing to politics then. but in recent elections, over and over when the public is polled, the presidential debates stand as one of the very most liked, if not the most liked aspect of the campaign. and that's clearly in part because you actually get to see the candidates in an unmediated situation speaking for themselves. so i think the public over the long run has spoken and has come out clearly in favor of these debates. >> janet? >> thank you. >> so let's talk about the fall schedule. you've got denver, colorado. you've got boca raton, florida. you've got long island, new york, and you have a vice presidential debate at center college which many people may not have heard of except some of the students at the washington center in kentucky. >> that's right. we are really looking forward to it. it's a great bunch of universities, and they're all off to the races already with a lot of good curriculum materials

and programs and speakers. but to go back to a question a long time ago, i hope that students at any school will let us know what they think we should be doing in terms of engaging campuses in the discussion of these issues. if they've got initiatives that they'd like to share with us, if they'd like to be a part of something that we're doing, we have a great online program we're going to be announcing soon. these are meant to be conversations that we hope will engage the broadest number of people. and everyone comes to these equally capable of understanding not only the content but why they're important and why they're important to discuss one debate to the next and moving on to election day. >> in all that is happening behind the scenes. you mentioned about al gore and what he was going to wear and how they check out the tie and color of the shirt. there really is a lot of aesthetic issues that come into play, where the candidate is going to sit or stand, what the room temperature -- just touch on that if you would for a

moment. >> well, arielle would sympathize with this, and i'm sure there are other debate team members in the classrooms. you wouldn't go out for what is a defining job interview in front of tens of millions of people without being very careful about making sure you look the best you can look, that you know where to look, that you understand what the format is going to be. for some candidates, this is something they've done a lot. and for others, it is relatively new. so there is a ton of preparation that's done and rehearsing once they get to the debate venues. but some candidates actually build a set so that they can do their rehearsal exactly the way they will be doing the debate. with opponents and moderators throwing questions. and the whole nine yards. >> janet brown on behalf of c-span and on behalf of the students at the washington

center. and at george mason university in fairfax, virginia. as you know, we have a tradition. we end with a round of applause to say thank you for your expertise and sharing it with our students. >> and thanks to all of you. you get a round of applause from me. i walked out after the iowa caucus victory and said game on. i know a lot of folks are going to write, maybe even those at the white house, "game over." but this game is a long, long, long way from over. we are going to continue to go out there and fight to make sure that we defeat president barack obama, that we win the house back, and that we take the united states senate and we stand for the values that make us americans. that make us the greatest country in the history of the world. that shining city on the hill. to be a beacon for everybody for freedom around the world. >> and with that announcement, rick santorum ended his 2012 presidential bid. a process the former pennsylvania senator began in 2009. follow the steps he took along

the road to the white house online at the c-span video library. with every c-span program since 1987. this weekend on "newsmakers," we take a look at some of the most competitive senate races this year. our guests are the heads of the democratic senatorial campaign committee and the national republican senatorial committee. "newsmakers" sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. the carnegie endowment for international peace recently hosted a discussion on the arab spring and the rise of islamic political parties in the region. and business leaders from tunisia and egypt talked about the economic and political challenges facing those countries. this is an hour, 40 minutes.

>> okay. good afternoon to all of you. i think there are still a few folks coming in through the door. in the interests of those who have already arrived, we should get started. we're going to move from the politics to the economics. and we have a wonderful panel which is going to first of all lay out a little bit the vision in terms of the economic strategy that is there for both tunisia, jordan, egypt and then i would very much like this to be an interactive panel. so in a way, the more we have questions from the floor, the more specific can be the responses and the more we'll be able to get to the heart of issues that are on the minds of the audience. you have the bios of all of our distinguished panelists. so i'm not going to go over the

details except to tell you who's sitting where. who's sitting here is, of course, from tunisia. and selles is sitting next to me, he's from jordan and from egypt. what i would like each of the panelists to do is to take ten minutes to answer the question which i think is on many people's minds about the economics which is the following. a year after the start of the arab spring, in all of the three countries that are sitting here, the good news is that there hasn't been an economic crisis. so all three have managed to avoid a crisis. but that's really all one can say. if you look at the economics a year later, there's been no

growth, any of these economies. a little bit of negative growth, really, in a couple. unemployment has gone up. social pressures are rising. and even maintaining macroeconomic stability has become more challenging because of pressures on these economies have increased. so one immediate challenge facing all these countries and indeed the governments that will be taking office or have already taken office is how do you avoid a crisis in the next year? that's the immediate challenge. but what brought about the revolutions and the uprisings wasn't because there was macroeconomic instability in these countries. actually, none of these countries had macroinstability before. what brought about the revolution was the sense that the growth that was happening wasn't high enough. no jobs were being created. young people were coming on the market without any opportunities

for them and what opportunities there were not being distributed fairly. so there was really a big project of economic transformation. and five years from now, what the economic outcomes of which governments in all of the middle east will be judged is partly on whether they avoided a crisis because a crisis is like a heart attack. you have a crisis, everything stops. you focus on that. so you want to avoid that. but just avoiding a crisis isn't going to be enough. and what people will judge governments on is how did you generate the jobs that were needed, the transformation that was required to make growth more inclusive, to have safety nets that were targeted, to have people feeling that they have an opportunity to participate. so my question to all three of you will be, if you could take ten minutes to lay out where you think you would like to be in five years and what is it that you think you're going to do

that will help to get you there, and what help do you need from the rest of the world to help you get there? then i think we can get into specifics of that. but if you could start with that, and i might start with you, if i could. >> sure. thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to lay down the economic policy of tunisia as we go forward. i would just like to take you back on the reasons for the revolution. there are two main slogans that were raised during the tunisian revolution. which is liberty and dignity. so it's not bread and food revolution. it's a revolution against dictatorship, to regain freedom and dignity as well. we need to keep that in mind. but there were also some socioeconomic problems that

were, you know, developing in the society before the revolution. now, the strategy for tunisia has been published. just two days ago, i'd encourage all of you to go seek it on the web because the government presented its strategy on the -- to the national institute of assembly on monday as well as the complimentary budget load for 2012. and there is a lot that can be learned from an official government document which is 120 pages with many details. but basically, let me brief you about the general outlook and the general picture in the government strategy. when we sat down to put the strategy for this government, the coalition government, we were afraid if we had an elaborate strategy and a general policy and a general framework

and a very developed policy published that it will give the wrong signals to the people. and we would be criticized as, you know, being just for a period of one year and giving a general policy where, you know, the execution of this policy might require five years or ten years. on the other hand, if we didn't do that, then we will just issue a set of measures with no general framework for those measures which would not give visibility to the people. so what we finally did is state the vision for tunisia. we start to form a vision. and the vision is to make tunisia democratic, modern and prosperous. democratic is the political reform process which we talked about this morning. it's the type of society you would like to make which is an open society, a modern society where there will be reconciliation between islam and

modernity and democracy and modernity. and progress is the economic program of the government and where we want tunisia to be in the next five years. now, this vision was detailed, and general policies were stated how we are going to execute this. on the economic and social front, the economy basically starts from the precept that in tunisia, employment comes from growth. we have no oil. we have no gas. we have no minerals. the only way we can provide jobs is if we create growth. and 1 percentage point of growth is equivalent to 15,000 job says. so in order to absorb all new commerce on the job market which is approximately 100,000 new job

seekers every year, we need growth of about 7%. now, the economy was growing approximately by 5% for the past five years before the revolution. and in order to create growth, that growth can only come from investment, both domestic and international. and for that investment to be generated and stimulated, we need to create the right environment in order to attract foreign investment and in order to encourage people to go and invest. now, in order to create that environment, we have adopted three pillars. the first one is a set of political reforms that have a direct incidence on growth. for example, the eradication of corruption. the establishment of good governance and transparency. the establishment of the independence of the judiciary. these things are very important for investors.

and they usually lead these reforms in this area lead to direct percentage points in growth. the second pillar is to introduce 13 sets of reforms. the reform of the investment code. the reform of the tax code. the reform of the public code, the transportation code, the knowledge economy code. all of these reforms need to be carried out starting now. some of them will finish by june this year. some of them will take a year and will finish during the mandate of this government. others might take two to three years but are going to start now. and others will be subject to debate in society. so the second pillar is to introduce a set of reforms which makes the business environment friendly for investors.