e-mails with her and i cannot believe she remembered exactly what i did. i think she really maybe has been touched by her clerks who are passionate about particular areas and i have always done civil-rights work and disability advocacy. i think her mentor should has influenced my direction. >> we have been talking with three clerks of judge sotomayor as her hearings for the supreme court are due toç begin on monday, july 13. thank you all very much. >> thank you. . .

and so they decided not to make up part of the promotion process. white test takers then filed lawsuits under title 7 saying this was desperate treatment. -- disparate. and then they told new haven they did not have to use the

test under title 7, that was required. 5-4. >> and what did the supreme court addressed in that decision? >> they were trying to reconcile two competing provisions of title 7 to make sure that both were given proper effects. and what the majority rule is that the firefighters were entitled to some of their claims that they had been discriminated against. the courts granted summary judgment against them, they had had a chance to go to trial, and the opinion by justice kennedy ruled that the plaintiffs won their case. four defense justices took a different reading, but i will note that they also concluded the second circuit applied the wrong standard in rejecting a

firefighter's claims. >> in terms of the supreme court overturned the decision, an opinion in part written by justice sotomayor, what does that say about that opinion in particular at the second circuit level? >> nobody is name was assigned to it. sotomayor, along with her colleagues, joined the opinion. i think the concern many of us that had that clinton's second circuit judge had was that the opinion failed to deal properly with various substantial claims that firefighters had raised. it was literally one paragraph, six sentences about it, 130 or so words. it really did not even present the questions that the firefighters have posed.

so the judge said that this case deserves better treatment. he called for the supreme court to grant review of it and the supreme court ultimately decided that the claims were not only deserving of fuller treatment but that there were meritorious. >> in terms of justice sotomayor's opinion, how does this fit into any kind of pattern about the previous use of discrimination? >> it was just a short paragraph, which is very typical when eight court is affirming, and in their opinion, we agree with the reasoning. so what they did not bother to do was write it out, but they made it clear they were forming a long and detailed opinion. so i think her rationale, which was reversed by the supreme court, was not under developed. she agreed.

the way you see a rule in a lot of cases, she tends to want to avoid overturning this is a democratic branches of government. -- by democratic branches. and since there are not lawyers, i want to make it clear that she was not saying it was good as a matter of policy to get rid of the test or watch it but she would have done if she were a new haven decisionmaker. -- what she would have done as a new haven decisionmaker. the supreme court reversed it, but we see the pattern of her saying, "i will be hesitant to overturned democratic decisions is out of -- to overturn democratic dishes and." -- to overturn a democratically- elected decisions in."

-- to overturn democratically elected decisions." i should note here that the supreme court said in a majority opinion, there has not been a lot of case law. it was a tough issue, which is why the supreme court took it. there have every right to inquire about her thinking in the case, but i hope to look closely. she has had about 100 cases where people have complaining about discrimination, and her rulings have been extremely moderate. the vast majority of the time she dismisses claims of discrimination. she is not reaching out to find it in every case. she is usually joined by republicans and other appointees.

>> president obama has talked about his and that the standard. he seems to what supreme court justices to decide cases. and when you look at this case, you look at some of the other statements that the justice has made about the role of judges, and we see a broader concern about the ugly subside of empathy, which may be antipathy towards litigants. >> she was actually involved in an abortion case on the center for reproductive law. what was the background? >> this was a challenge to the so-called mexico city policy, which would require foreign organizations receiving u.s. funds bought to promote -- not

to promote abortion. it was not brought by foreign organizations, but domestic ones. and the judge and her panel ruled that the same issue, the exact same issue had come before the second circuit years previously. it was a simple matter of application for her. >> so the case and did there at the second circuit's? >> yes, and i agree with his analysis. one consistent pattern in mergers produce was that she was not looking to overstep parole and fall of president. and mexico city is a perfect example of that. that is the decision in this

case. >> abortion is always an issue for supreme court nominees. looking at what we may see ahead, are there areas of concern coming before the court that the judge may take for the justices? >> she seems to have a great respect for following past precedent, and that will guide decisions she makes. abortion is guided by the fact roe versus wade is still lots of land. >> -- still the law of the land. >> in settling case law, you talked about her empathy. would you concur on the whole about her opinion? >> yes and no. i would say that a circuit judge is much more help to president

-- help to president -- helps to press ahead -- held to precedent. by statements about the role of judging and prejudicial activism. looking at justice ginsberg's aclu all past is an indicator for her. and so i think demand is right that if you look at her time on the second circuit, there has been more or less within reasonable bounds, it is a meaningful predictor, given some of the other things we have. >> in your.

-- in your point of view, has she been balls and strikes? >> yes. what is interesting, and i have not read them all, is that i think she has a great awareness of the limits of her role. i agree that that role changes somewhat because the president will not bind her in the future, but at mutual respect precedent whether she agrees or not. at that was how she was trained as a lawyer and a judge and i think she respects her institutional role, and i think you see her with respect for the decisions made by a democratically elected decisionmakers. >> there is also president -- precedent on the second

amendment. it did not involve guns. it involved other kinds of weapons. i do not know. in that decision, the court was basically a challenge for the constitutionality of the new york law prohibiting having one of these in your homes. and the heller decision had come down before this case was decided. >> deegan case in the summer of 2008? >> yes, a case in which the supreme court said -- really changed people's understanding of the second amendment establishing new understanding which was giving individuals the right to carry a gun. the issue was a bit of a technical point. it is, the second amendment

right barring the federal government from barring a gun also prevent the states? that is a question that was entered a long time ago, i think, 1876. and they said that the no, state governments are not restricted by it. so again, it is a matter of adhering to precedent. judge sotomayor said that until is overruled, the heller decision does not apply. >> does that leave thorny issues ahead? >> as the amendment indicated, the supreme court ruled in the

19th century that the second amendment does not apply against the state. but back then, they've ruled that the entire bill of rights does not apply against the states. you had an incorporation resolution that occurred from the 30's or 40 purse extra onward where the bill of rights applied to the states to the due process clause of the 14th amendment. the question became at once heller recognizes there is an individual right to bear arms, does that same right apply to the states? at least three courts of appeals have addressed this so far. the second circuit ruled on grounds very similar to that. the ninth circuit ruled that there is something for the

states to. there's no reason to sit around and wait for more rulings. my guess is the issue will be decided next term. >> what do you think the judiciary would be interested in regarding her views in cases. plans to second amendment law? >> i'm guessing the answer would be what many have done in the past, which is to say i cannot comment on a case that will come before the court they are going to ask me to sit on. she will not enter, because it would put her in an awkward position if she did. for gun ownership, this look at her record. whenever she thinks about what the second amendment means, she recognizes that there is a precedent in heller that as a supreme court justice it will not be binding the way it is on circuit court, but the doctrine

is decisive. it tilted just to follow -- it tells judges to follow precedent, and sheep will respond that she will fall a lot just as other justices have when asked about roe versus wade. -- she will say she will follow along with the law. >> look. just one comment on the question of application of precedent. no justice has ever exercised it wouldn't roll -- a wooden rule where you automatic respect every precedent. if she did, she would be the first.

>> she used the term in the mulally case that it was locked, set to the 1800's. then the court came back and said there was nothing said about the second amendment's be on the fact that it does not prevent the prohibition of private military organizations. is she saying -- does that give an indication for her going into the court, 1 to uphold decisions from lower circuits? >> her court established that it did not apply to the states. it was not up to her and her panel second circuit judges to decide the precedent had been

overruled and suggested it was no longer held squarely, and a lot of good ball. -- no longer good law. lower courts are not supposed to overrule directly. even when intervening precedent is suggested. they are not supposed to predict what the court will do. that was the point in the mulally case, and i think she respects it, maybe more than most judges. not every judge follows every past president, and every so often, you'll see a deviation. >> i think this illustrates that the question of fallen issues,

the second amendment does not apply or at least says there is no privilege to gun ownership and the state. and then you have all of these cases from the 1940's for word. there is not some mechanical way in which you could say there was a super precedent. i think that shows she not simply will be able to say she will follow precedent. one minor point i want to highlight, the issue arguably did not involve the same questions the supreme court will address. arguably, it was just looking at whether there was a privilege or a clause protecting that. so that would be one grounds for

distinguishing that. >> the giuliani case. what is that about. >> we're looking at that in conjunction with the rete case. the case involved a new york police officer who anonymously sent racist, bigoted material out into the world from his home. he brought a suit against the city, against the people saying that, "my first amendment rights were violated, because i should be free to speak my mind. the majority of the panel said, no, you do not have a first

amendment claim. and they used a balancing test that the supreme court established. they said that we have to weigh the value of the speech to the employee against the needs of government or the department of government to operate and have a second employee, and having a known bigoted racist cop is not necessary. judge sotomayor dissented, and what is interesting is that there has been a lot talk about her on background, her tender influencing her and her decision. and what this -- concerns people is she might never have sympathy for people who do not look like her. she said, i think this police officer, as repulsive as i find

him, has a right to speak. >> when you read that opinion, what you think? >> i think there is a difficult question for the panel members in applying this, and a man is right -- amanda is right that joe -- judge sotomayor was right. that is encouraging in and of itself. i think you learn -- we look more broadly after first amendment cases and her record and there are concerns about whether she has a broader defense of the first amendment. she has a strong endorsement of campaign finance restrictions and limitations they impose.

it may turn out that her views differ. there was a court of appeals opinion by president bush where he had joined an opinion of the court upholding an administrative agency ruling that an employee should not have been fired because of an ugly, racist act. this judge was vilified by the left as a racist. the same folks the condemned here are championing her fitness for the court. i have to say, there is a certain irony in have manipulable the arguments can be -- how manipulable the arguments can be.

>> how does this pair with her other first amendment cases? is this in line with decisions and majority opinions she has been in on? >> i in she shows great respect for the first amendment. there has been this concern, and i understand it, from folks thinking, look, the judge will come into this court and see everything through the lens of for personal ethnic background, and maybe this means she will be way too sympathetic in cases where people claim discrimination. right? that is one concern. and that is where this is important, because it shows that she does not always see cases from blinder perspectives. she has great empathy and sympathy for a man who even though she dislikes his views, she thought he had a right to express himself because his views trumped other interests.

>> i hope that she acted on what she thought was the best reading of the precedent. >> one more thought on this. you mentioned on this tied in with the ricci case. explain your answer a little further. >> there was concern that she was too willing to overlook the case of white firefighters who were frustrated to have taken a test and have the test run out. and the concern was that her view of the law would be

twisted by her background and perspective. the wall the first amendment -- she saw it clearly, and she said, the first amendment protect him. >> i do not think it dispels the broader concern people have about her impartiality. >> for most americans, she famously is known as the savior of baseball for the 1995 injunction. what does this say about her judicial activism or temperament or philosophy?

>> look, i think the discussion of her role in the case for the white house to say, oh, she made the right ruling, the wrong ruling. if she made the right ruling, she should be credited, that is her job. the rahm ruling. >> what should be listened for in terms of indications of judge sotomayor's judicial temperament and philosophy watching these hearings? >> the hearings have a strange theater to them, questions about

in back-and-forth from one side of the aisle to the other. i think you'll see in opening statements by senators which probably take off all of the first afternoon, these themes are developed by each side, by senators. so with them doing what they can to diffuse the concerns that republicans have, republicans will be trying to get answers from her. they will try to embrace it. >> can we get a quick scenario and synopsis of what that is? >> i find disturbing one case,

brown versus city of on the octet. the question basically involves whether police officers can be sued for violation of equal protection based on how they go about acting on a racial identification of criminal suspects. she joined a descent into the nile. they had a liability in a way that it would protect the folks. it seems that she was using equal protection as a bludgeon and await inconsistent with the voicing of deference.

>> what question would like to ask hurt most? >> hearings are an opportunity for her supporters to bring out what is terrific about her, and she has a long history of serving at the bench, because there is a lot to talk about. it is important for the country, and i'm always glad to see it. as for the case, there is a death penalty case. she did not issue a decision, but there was an interesting new york times story about the hundreds of pages of transcript. it is pretty clear she is opposed or at least took that position working for an advocacy

organization, and maybe just for their benefit, but as a judge, discussing the death penalty, she made it clear once again that she would follow precedent and that the federal level will provide to a death penalty. worried administered, she said to follow the law. that tells us a lot about her. >> supreme court nominee sotomayor's hearings begin monday. to see this program again or learn more about the judge, go to c-span.org and click on "america and the courts. it airs every saturday at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span.

>> and look at the wife of judge sotomayor through friends and classmates and colleagues. plus, the senate judiciary committee, and jamie brown. that is sunday at 6:30 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> live coverage of the sotomayor confirmation hearing starts monday at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span, c-span radio. we will on c-span 2 during weeknights. this fall, toward the supreme court on c-span. a pufup next, a discussion on

journalism and the impact of bloggers. young republicans talk about the future of the gop. following that, toby keith on his life and career. two bloggers spoke about the viability of newspapers. this is just under an hour. >> to my right is nick denton, my longtime friend who founded crocker media. to my left is jason, who founded it weblogs.inc. inches nnchings c. i do. when you see me think that way

just think of the music. janes founded weblog's inc. then went on the found the hollow. i happened to moderate a session with them in 2005 when they were at each other's throats competing at the start of weblogs. i think it improved weblogs as a result. the whole thing. small w. as a business. yes. but improved gawker. unfortunately for you, they're very friendly now and not as contention and angry but we'll see what comes out of them. why don't we start with yesterday? there was a session -- we were all a part of the media crack-up. so yesterday afternoon and last night there was a session with

varies luminaries trying to talk about trying to grasp for a future business model for media. what did you think of the thinking so far? >> this is my first time at the ideas festival and i understand the least -- it's a polite affair. one isn't supposed to speak ill about the panels. i was surprised that it was pretty much the same kind of panel, same kind of conversation that one would have heard in 1999. maybe a little bit of the air of the -- the air of desperation now is a little more intense. but it's the same discussions about, you know, is the model for news and online content, is it subscription or is it free, ad supported, a mixture of the two. is it going to be micropayments or monthly subscriptions? i was trying to work out what

is new about the conversation here on the stage with steven and katherine. >> it was a conversation that could have occurred in 1 5-1996 and if you look at the media industry, they went from being arrogantly does administrative of the internet in the 1995 -- dismissive of the internet in the 1995-1996 time frame. at the time they were paying over $5 listen -- an hour or a.o.l. or compuserve. then it went to maybe it's an opportunity? so they went from dismissive to maybe it's an opportunity to now -- because of 10, 15 years because of poor execution being terrified. when people are scared they take sort of two forms. they seem like they are

actually -- some of them are defiant. like we're going to go down with the ship, which is very noble, i understand. also very stupid. they're going to go down with the ship. we've seen it happen as newspapers close. and some who are literally frozen, some of those people in the media business. they know it's over. they know the titanic is sinking. they see the life rafts and they're just looking, don't do anything. >> katherine was, i thought -- >> plush irof the "washington post." >> very smart. savvy, sensible and she described herself as being open minded towards steven briles' idea of putting all newspapers together behind some pay wall and charging access to them all entirely. >> 10% of their content and 10%

of the people who pay and he has productions of the wealth that will cost. >> the idea of being open minded now or on the idea -- you've actually recommended yourself that newspapers experiment, that they try everything. it's too late. it's 2009. the time for experimentation was about a decade ago. i think it's reasonably clear what newspapers should be and what they can do. >> so what is that? >> i think they have to cut down on their political coverage, hive off and create brands around the areas of content that actually will attract readers and advertisers. like for instance, sunday styles, "the new york times" sunday section. very popular, highly female audience. desirable for advertisers. that could very easily be an online brand and get -- and support itself entirely through

online advertising. they're don't do it. they're still wedded to the idea of the package, the entire newspaper with all these topics covered and at the very center of it, national and local political coverage, for which there is no ad supported model. >> if you look at what the internet is good at, it speeds things up and it less you go deeper. so you can have, you know, all of the possible information about cars or hybrid cars that you want or sports cars and you can just revel in your niche and if you look at what newspapers did, they were designed to give people a broad view an inch deep of everything going on in the world which is very noble and it served a great purpose but it's unnecessary now to give people such a shallow look at the world. if you look at autos as an example. "the new york times" has an auto section. they do two stories every week. if you look at the blogs we

created about cars. auto blog and jalop nick, they cover 20 to 40 stories per day. per day. and in each of those stories there are five to 150 comments. if you're a car enthusiast, by the time the sunday "new york times" comes around and there are two stories about two cars that are 600 words each, you know everything that's there already. there are no surprises. and that's what's happening. how many times have you had this experience? you get the newspaper in the morning and you look at the front page and you go, i saw that on grudge -- drudge, i saw this on "the new york times" website last night, i got this in an email from a friend. i sometimes try to go through it and try to find something i don't already know. >> the printing press, since guten berg, 570 years, dictated what accomplishing was going to

look like. you could do it once a day or once a week. you could package it. it was going to be one size fits all, shallow. those assumptions come out of the necessity of paper. if you fake away paper it changes how you do the job of journalism. >> people consume news now in a live cnn-like experience. someone said michael jackson died and you keep getting little nuggets of information through the your day. not only have they not changed the disk bution, not experimented with the online, they're taking the method they did on print and doing it online which is wildly boring and effective when you have these scrappy start-ups sending out lots and lots of pieces of information and letting people debate them. >> the real question now is not what newspapers should be doing.

i think the answer to that is -- is there some chatter in the back? it's kind of annoying. it's how institutionly newspapers can force through the change. i think it's reasonably obvious that maybe there's a few sections of coverage that could be supported by subscriptions. there are a few areas, women, gadgets, cars. all those special sections in newspapers -- actually, newspapers for a long time did quite a good job of that. the papers were expanding. what was "the new york times" -- circuits. why wasn't that, "the new york times" computer technology section, why did that never become a brand? why did they let you with the gadgets and us -- yeah. i don't understand why they did that. so how institutionly can you

make people aware of that? >> can you. is it possible for the institutions we're talking about. put "the new york times" aside and the "washington post" aside because they're national in some way. but if you're the boston globe, losing $ 5 million a year. it's going to bring them down. what do you do with the "boston globe"? >> i have no idea. i don't really know local newspapers this country. the only ones that seem to have a chance are newspapers like "the new york times" and the "new york post" that have some franchise. the "washington post" could become -- if it hadn't let politico come in and grab -- "washington post" could be the dominant online -- >> it could be maersk's washington brewo. >> what about the "l.a. times"? >> i was asked to with the president of digital when somebody was trying to buy it.

i didn't take the job. but they asked me what they should do. i said we should cancel the print edition except on the weekends. we should put a large amount of it into that weekend edition that has deep stories that people could curl up with and keep it as a keepsake. you wouldn't want to throw it away because it's too valuable, almost like a magazine. >> is the staff of the "l.a. times" capable of producing that kind of paper? >> absolutely. they're basically doing some of that already. what happens when you have this printing press and daily deadlines -- you're spending all your time managing the machine, the printing and the distribution. just for the c.e.o. and the management team, all their focus is getting put on that and they can't focus on the real opportunities, which is the niche market online and other things. they have to have a radically smaller footprint.

smaller footprint. it's very hard for people to go for that. i do not think that the newspaper industry as large as fleet capable of change. almost all newspapers are going to shut down and become online editions. >> i have one idea. for a long time i had no idea about the newspaper, because i used to work at the financial times. it is a relatively productive newspaper, but to put change through like that which has great traditions that it has weathered, that is very difficult. everyone says you have to pay attention to your readers.

centric, which is fine to say but it doesn't really mean anything. if newspapers did two things -- they put page view numbers next to every article. which we do in our blog posts -- posts. a measure many of the popularity of every single thing that's written. nothing more than that. and secondly, if they opened up the newspaper to reader comments so that they -- they could be moderated but basically every single article should have at the end of it a discussion involving the readers, maybe the source of the story, maybe the reporter. something to expose what the readers think about the particular piece. i'll tell you what would happen. for something like "the new york times," the newspaper which i read. within about six months they would have to give up a lot of the local political coverage. there's a very small class of

people, maybe the -- mainly the political class that cares about those stories sosh stories. they would realize that sunday styles was one of their most important franchises. all the things that they ought to know anyway would become undenial. >> they have all that data now. >> by exposing it to the public, it becomes impossible to ignore. the readers complain less if you point and -- see, that was 1,000 views. >> the standard argument is the paris hilton times that it would become, not "the new york times." >> that's probably true. >> this is an anecdote. i woke up on the saturday where the poor woman was killed in iran. nehta? and i happened to be on twitter and i saw iranian election,

clicked it. and i was reading the links and someone said, oh, my god, this woman has been shot. i clicked on it. they only had like 300 views at that point. i just jumped down that rabbit hole and started getting obsessed about swhast going on there which, is the wonderful ability about the internet, the ability to get o.d.c. on something. think how extraordinary it is that we can learn everything about a subject to quickly. "the new york times" was doing a live blog coverage of what was coming out of iran. it was brilliant, the best thing online. then i went and had a cup of coffee and came back and i tried to find it. i went to the nimentse. i couldn't find it. they had it buried like seven levels deep. >> online. >> online. there was somebody putting updates every 15 minutes about what was going on in iran with

two or three links to the source material. it was like why is this not the home page right now? there are smart people at "the new york times," i know many of them. but there is insurance institutional sloth and greed and fatness. they can't move quick. >> that is the tragedy. these newspapers have brilliant, brilliant people and more importantly, they have brilliant readers. i remember an article about blogging. it was the emily gould front cover of "the new york times" magazine about how too much blogging, too much sharing, too much exposure of your own life could not be worth it. they opened up that comment -- article to comments. for the first time ever i have -- i was terrified of "the new york times" as a competitor. the grammar was perfect, the

comments were smart. certainly our readers are very smart about gadgets or cars but not all of them can write and to see -- >> it doesn't deter them. >> no, no. why couldn't "the new york times" -- if the "new york times" could actually capture the intelligence of their writers and these people who are doing the great twitter live live logs and their incredibly smart readers -- >> the f.t. and the guardian write write -- the argument is you have an incredibly wise crowd and the challenge is to bring this out. in this new age, when i talk to companies about what their value is, they're always inwardly focused. media or any other company. we have our brand, our content, our reputation, our this our that. they hardly ever say our public. i'm violating this rule right

now. we're in a smart crowd. what are we doing up here just talking to ourselves? that's true of companies too. if they can find ways to capture the wisdom of their crowd, just in equal at a timive ways. they're missing that intelligence. >> when we were doing weblogs and we had 500 bloggers for us before we sold the company. i tried to hire journalist the. every time i ran into the same kind of problems, specifically with the audience. they had no interest in interacting with the audience. they wanted to moderate the comments. if somebody were to say you made a mistake, they would like to catch that before it got posted, fix it. this is where i think journalism got a little bit off the race and the media got a little fat and full of themselves.

the number one rule, you don't do that. they actually thought that they were very important people and they start to think that they're like the subjects they're covering. when you're a journalist and you start toly think that you're like the big c.e.o.'s or whatever important people you're covering, you start to lose something. they couldn't handle the pressure of the public audience interacting with them. that led us to the bleach we should hire some of the great commentators. people would write a article twice as long as the log -- blog post. that created the idea that we're equal in some ways. yes, i'm writing the post but you're an intelligence person. we respect you. you might know more than us. has anybody within been quoted in the "new york times"? has anybody who's been quoted

maybe felt that their quote wasn't perfectly accurate? exactly. we've all been manipulateed that way and have the writer ask you seven questions in a row to try to get you to say it a certain way, and it's insulting. and now that whole sort of process has been flipped over. frankly, i think they deserve to die, a lot of them. i don't cry for them at all. they made their bed and creative destruction is good. there's going to be a whole group of new news sources that are going to be better. faster and more accurate and deliver a quality of news that i think is less pretentious and treats the audience with a little more respect. >> we should pass that more accurate. let's face it, blogs are actually individually extremely inaccurate. we get stories wrong the whole damn time. if i was going to be -- getting back to your example of what it's like to be interviewed by

"the new york times." "the new york times" is never going to totally screw you over. they'll always be relatively fair. even if the writer is inclined against you, the editor will stop it becoming a hit piece. on a blog there's no one to call, no one to complain to. no ombudsman or anything like that. i think the key point is that in aggregate the blogs get it right, eventually. the great parallel here is the british press, which is more like blogs versus the american press in the coverage of where were the weapons of mass destruction after the invasion of iraq? i think the lag between the british press in getting hold of that story and the american press doing it was somewhere between six and 12 months. a british press bottom -- got a

lot of the individual stories wrong. they relied on one source inside the government, on leaks eck, misdirection. but eventually they got it right. i think that's the future of blog style journalism. it will be messy and -- >> journalism is not a product. we thought he was -- it was. that was a myth. it's a process. it's always been messy. we just tried to hide the mess to you. >> a french restaurant, a beautiful plate came out and if you went into the kitchen, oh, my god, it's a mess. some chefs, what we do is not perfect, but you're going to get to watch me cook. i think that's cool. when woodward and bernstein were doing their thing, would you have liked to listen in on some of their conferrings? things like watergate occurring

during a blog era would have come out much quicker because there would have been so many leaks. i'm a big boy. i can read something that says, ok this is a leak. buyer beware. it's probably false but it could be true troofment give me all the news and help me sort through it. that's a better process than we're going to collect it all for a couple of weeks and then let some out. >> when an official calls up for comment, the officials lie the whole damn time and if you're dependent on getting the on the record comment from the official you're not going to be able to print the truth because they're not going to give you the truth. you need to be able to rely on unofficial sources or maybe some crazy blogger who's going to print it anyway even without the official confirmation and then force the official or the company into making a denial or

confirming some elements of the story. and so that process -- it may be at the end of the day you need somebody like "the new york times" or its online equivalent to put the stamp of -- this is the 100% confirmed truth. >> for today. it may change tomorrow. still processing in the nimentse. >> we need the people to take the crazy risks for the story. >> hatch baked posts and blogs. nick, years ago, he often forgets things he tells me. but i'll quote him anyway. saying that this is what we know, this is what we don't know. what do you know. but putting up a story unfinished is like google putting out a beta. journalists have to become as good as saying what they don't know as they are as -- at saying what they know. even that blog on "the new york times" is an important cultural

move for them. imes you -- >> [inaudible] the traditional media or the model of the traditional media was that you had credibility and gravitas and you know where to find it. right? i think we've all seen a talent drain in the traditional media's quality over the last few years, too. right? to your points about -- and so at the same time we have the deep but unverified assertions of the bloggers, right? there's this bridge that's missing -- how do you recreate in my online media the same credibility -- does popularity do it? they were trying to basically measure gravitas and that had its limitations. then you have to inject on that the absence of a business model, right?

that online generates that -- how do you get the robust business model -- >> there are business models. may not be enough to support the 1,200 people in the "new york times" newsroom because the structure is different. >> we have 100 journalists. you have -- >> we have 500 freelancers. if you put them into full-time if you put them into full-time positions it would be 100, 150, >> it may not be the packaging we were used to. there is a brilliant essay. i am thinking "unthinkable" is the name. he goes back to gutenberg.

think about the destruction that caused. we are in upheaval, and our assumptions cannot rise and say when. [inaudible] i asked the question then, "what are you?"

books -- the internet can be that now. they still have value. it's both knowledge, but knowledge of how to do things but also how to connect people. if you reinvented alexandria if you reinvented alexandria today, you'd probably call it >> if you go to the new york public library and you see all those people waiting in line for the computers and they're not allowed to do homework and reserve and all that. obviously the library has a lot of purpose. maybe not to store books anymore. people can have that equal access anywhere. >> i worked at the new york public library for eight years as the vice president for development and i think what's missing here is the absolute joy of seeing the primary resource material, and we're talking about collections that are far beyond books, particularly in the new york public library and there are special collections in libraries flout the world but

in the united states we have really, really valuable resources that are not translated through the distinguished gentleman fromtyization. i don't care what anyone says. you cannot capture the beauty of a work of art on the internet. you can enjoy the image, but the aschettic experience -- >> that doesn't mean the book is bad. >> no, but you can have the opportunity to see actually man scriments, actually books that have value beyond the content. the actually touching of the book. when we would pull out the japanese scrolls at the norble public library for potential donors, it was just magic. that doesn't mean that all of the information that you want on -- about those scrolls can't be accessed by the internet. >> people should have access to both, yeah. >> i don't think any on this

panel is -- >> the question of the asympathetic appeal, the same argument that people made for paper print newspapers -- my iphone won't have -- >> or scribes who beautifully decorated the page and guten burg ruined all that. >> i admit ffl to having guten berg mentality but i'm very interested in the legal aspects of print versus you guys. and you have no ink base period but press has to sit back and say when am i going to be sued? you don't seem to enjoy lawsuits. i don't see any -- yes, but you're not bothered by the legality of lawsuits, are you? >> newspapers -- it's permanent. so once it's written it's committed. and anything that's actually

accomplished online can be changed and can be updated. and that changes the circumstances somewhat. >> and if there's disclosure and somebody says, we've got, you know, this leaked memo and in our anonymous email box from a yahoo! email address, take it for what it's worth, here it is. as the audience knows this is an anonymous tip and they can judge it as such. that means you're not going to really get sued. that being said, we got takedown letters all the time for things that were leaked to us. everything from schematics for an iphone to a blackberry -- >> maybe part of your success is that you're free of lawyers. >> we're not fry of lawyers. in fact, our head of operations is a lawyer and spends at least half his time dealing with letters from people who are

threatening to sue us. let's take an example -- the church of scientology. a very fearsome organization. they've intimidated most newspapers. i think st. petersburg times got sued pretty badley by them. they pretty much scared off mainstream journalists. weapon ran a video of tom cruise -- a secret internal cult video of him. we got the usual scientology letters, cease and desist, threats to sue. we're not necessarily brave, but the internet collectively, the competitive pressures to get something out, even if there is a legal risk. if you're not going to do it then somebody else is. collectively the internet is a more formidable foe to people like the church of scientology,

who want to keep things quiet. >> i think the law has to update too, just as industry does. it always must. we have to pay attention not to the mistake made but about what you do to it, what you do about it. i learned the ethic of correction on blogs is you don't erase the error. you have to cross out the error. you have to show that it was there. oh, yeah, he did say that but now it's corrected. >> the st. petersburg times, the church of scientology spent $37 to file that lawsuit. it has cost them their livelihood. >> the harassment factor is there, yes. >> but now they've given up. in the last year or two. >> they can't win anymore. >> if they knock one internet site down another one pops up with the same information. >> you largely can take credit for that.

>> not personally. it would have been somebody else. >> yesterday there was a conversation, if any of you went to the content? the content. did anyone go to that yesterday? it was content of the future and pri sele was the speaker and she was talking about books. and your comment about the library. i love the internet and all the news but this balance of liking the book and looking it up and reading. it was interesting what they were talking about with the kinly? the kendall. how you can order books in sections or chapters or short stories and embedded would be john f. kennedy's speech. so the whole thing is so ready to change. just the news and -- >> yes. >> the bulk of your initial discussion had to do with blogs versus newspapers, but where to

magazines or sunday sections of newspapers like the week in review section of "the new york times" or say an article in "newsweek" magazine about biological anthropology. you know, people who really want to find out about something but don't have either the inclination or the time or the either thetic to sit down in front of a computer screen as opposed to having something where you can turn back and -- i mean -- >> he was the founding editor of "entertainment weekly," so -- >> we were talking about this earlier. nick in's goal in life at one point was to be the psi new house of -- cy new house of blogs. is that still the case? >> i'm not sure -- >> if i started today it wouldn't be a magazine because it takes away this one size fits all notion.

it would be rotten tomatoes and other things. after a reported nelvet of 120 million. e.w. took an investment of $200 million, not all my fault -- before it broke even. my theory is that magazines will come back with the economy to some level of health but we're never going to see that level of nelvet again. what dice is magazine launches so hug the ones you much. >> long form journalism in a physical magazine. but there actually probably is a future for long form journalism online, certainly as readers get better and the screen definition of i fonse improves. one of the things that we found when we started -- and probably jason would confirm this -- there's a shortage of pointers to good information online so we provide the pointers.

blogs where basically short paragraphs with a joke or two and a link pointing usually to a newspaper article. one of the things we've discovered is that the returns -- this is not a morale imperativetous but the return for producing original and sometimes long form journalism, the return has improved. now there's a million twitter accounts and there are all these blogs and there's dig and there are all these people linking. all these people desperately looking for anything original online. and so whereas before an original piece might have gotten 10 times the page views, 10 times the audience of a throwaway one paragraph joke in a link, now probably the ratio is more like 100 to one. so the market is starting to

correct itself. anyone bemoaning the fate of long form journalism should be reassured by that. >> also, people have a.d.d. and it's part of our culture to sort of move from things very quickly. but after consuming information that way for a while i think people start to desire something longer and some wisdom -- wisdom. it's a natural -- if you've been watching short things for a while to be watching something long fomplet people are easily distracted online but long form journalism will be fine. magazines -- i had a magazine and sold it. it's a horrible business to be in. if you think about news, the news function of a magazine. we're talking about the news function of a daily newspaper being taken away from them. magazines just 10, 15 years ago used to be able to breaking news. oh, my god, a story coming out in "vanity fair" is

unbelievable, it's going to be on the news. people used to cover stories in magazines in the news, on tv. it's impossible now to keep a story that you're working on for three months under wraps. it's going to leak on the blogs. >> if you can talk about some of the new organizations in blogs like tumbler or delicious and digg and these sharing sites that are exploding. >> twitter is the biggest innovation. it's really just short form blogging and ironically i -- i think twitter is probably better news for newspapers than it is for blofplgts if you think about it, newspapers, the average article length is maybe, let's say 800 words. blogs, the average item length is 200 words, and twitter, the average length is probably 10 words? and 10 words goes better with

800 words than with 200 words. if you look at a twitter feed and you click on a link and you go through to a short blog post, you kind of feel cheated. whereas if it's a newspaper article, 20 words seems like a good introduction to 800 words. and so i think actually the latest innovation in blogging is bad news for the early blogs and good news for those ancient newspapers that now have another way to pitch their stories. >> i think a large portion of the traffic referred to newspapers will be twitter. it may be -- maybe it won't be google level but it could be for a niche publication, if they cover about something going on in aspen, some controversy, and 10 people from aspen tweeted and they each have 50 followers, that's 500

people. and they have other twitter followers. it's going to spread very quickly if it's news worthy. it's pretty radical change. it's accelerated the virility of stories. >> it becomes a means of choosing where to go. add search to that and you have the trends and a whole new lehr of news. >> they said this is good enough for me to tame -- take to time to share with it -- you. you're sort of validating it. the chance of someone click it go way up. >> no surprise that twitter is so popular among people you would have thought of as being dinosaurs. there are newspaper journalists who never got into any form or phase of technology and they take to twitter.

i think partly because they like to broadcast and twitter is kind of@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @r >> in the experience, somebody who we see here and appreciate a lot, tom friedman has said he's kind of let his twitter account languish.

but others have not. to what extent and how ironic is it that something is that as brief as twitter may make up that difference for the funded investigative journalism, which i thought was always overfunded -- underfunded and overhyped. are we able to make up for that with twit summer >> i think the blogs will do a better job of investigative journalism than twitter. journalists will use twilighter as a source of ideas. >> distribution, and input. >> but i think the impact of twitter is also that, by providing all that attitude and those quick links they can force everybody else to up their game. it's not enough for us to do quick blog post. we have to do original stories

that will get linked by twitter. we're being pushed into doing good despite all our best intention. >> i am feeling older and older. the longer i sit in this class. how does twitter make money? and who owns twitter? >> it doesn't. it was created, though, by the die -- guy -- one of the co-founders is evan williams who created blog and blogs changed the world. i would underestimate evan and company at one's peril. they're looking for a business model. google when it started had no business model. it was an ad company. skype when it started -- you can go to all these networks in a network economy.

you grow to that size and they will make money. >> they'll make money for advertising. it's text ads. you do a serve and -- search and there will be an ad that says, come to -- and you'll click that and they'll pay 50 cents every time you click. you'll see what people are twitting about the ski conditions in aspen and there will be a ski resort with some special for you to click on. >> i, too, don't want to sound like a dinosaur but what is a tumbler? >> it's a lightweight blog software. >> it's a real easy way to click quotes. >> thank you. hi, i'm nancy rye land. what do you say to the argument, why be on these

social sites beyond connecting? following someone -- i can barely be uber productive in my own life rather than watching everyone else be productive? my father is asking in his 70's, why would i do that? i can barrel get through my day and accomplish what you -- i choose to accomplish. so why would i do it? it's like watching tv about other people doing great things. why don't i do something great today? i'm not saying it's not a good place to get news, but this social networking bit -- >> it's probably a waste of time. i agree. there are probably better things to do. i concur. >> it saves me time. reporters i know who use it go out and ask the public questions and the answers come back. it's pretty magical that way. my book -- my readers wrote an entire chapter because i had no

ideas. they said you're wrong, jarvis, here's what's going on, and they wrote the chapter. >> they'll design -- [inaudible] >> it's a generous world if you enable it to be. >> [inaudible] >> don't you follow your friends, your family? don't you follow "the new york times"? >> i love them but i don't need to know -- i don't even know where my husband -- >> there's a reason to get twitter. >> you might need to have him start tweeting. >> i'm going to change the subject. how do you see blogging and the future of education? i'm a teacher at the middle school here. i've started to do some blogs but i see a lot of potential that i can't really envision. >> it's obviously a great way to communicate.

i know a lot of schools have blogs and it's a great way for people to build community and discuss issues around the school. i think it's probably a great way for students to learn how to communicate. writing blog posts you have to be pretty succinct. i don't know that they're necessarily the best tools for education. there might be others that are better, to be hongs. >> sort of follow-up comments, and i know you're not dealing with this. but do you know any good following cal studies on the impact of all this? recently i spent way too many hours in the denver airport and a young mother was there with maybe a 3 or 4-year-old and i was there for four hours and she was on her blackberry the entire time, not paying any attention to her child. i'm a professor and i worry about the lack of direct communication with people. i think it's great to reach out to others but i also worry about personal interaction,

eye-to-eye contact, conversation when, in the middle of talking to somebody, suddenly they're on their i phone and suddenly you're not nearly as important as that message coming in from some place else. another issue is what are we saving time for? what is the purpose of saving so much time? what are you then using that time for -- in order to go -- do more blogging in i'm curious. >> there's an excellent movie coming out called "we live in public" that won the prize at sundance about this very issue. people online can lose a little bit of their humility and you have to balance it. most bloggers, the good ones, sump from bloring burnout. they get too obsessed looks like -- like anything. some people reeled too much, ski too much, read too many books and don't socialize enough. everything in balance. you might have some terrible disease that you can't relate

to anybody because nobody has this but you go online and you meet 20 people instantly who have that and you can immediately start talking to them. that's an ini -- incredible advantage to the online world. but you are correct that there is no substitute for real world communication. i think we're evolving as a species to include this new lehr of campaign occasion, of interacting. if people told you 100 years ago that we would be watching 50 hours a week of television or whatever it is, they would tell you it's science fiction, not possible. >> i think we will learn eventually how to deal with these technologies but we certainly haven't yet. the lack of attention that people pay to people you're asking speaking to at the time is definitely an issue. the other problem is that often

writers, even news writers, will realize -- they will get so much response from anything they expose about themselves that they'll expose more. it feeds into narcissism. you have -- we had a writer -- i can say who she is because she wrote a big "new york times" magazine piece about this whole phenomenon. a writer called emily gould. she used to complain that she had writer is block. she was a good writer but infrequently accomplished. she started writing for us. writing news about also palking a -- talking about her relationship with a guy caulked -- called jasho, who was also a writer on the site. he would talk about his relationship with her. rapidly the whole thing got out of control. she exposed more than i think

she wanted to. it was addicting because the more she would expose the more response she would get. emails, comments. i don't think people have learned to dial that down. they haven't learned the price yet of that kind of composure. >> certainly young people don't think about the price of exposure like that. they think, oh, my god, i'm drunk. i'm going to take a picture of that and put it on my facebook. someone is hiring them and they google their name and it's like, whoa, hello. >> there are also benefits to publicness. because i live in public i found help for a medical condition i have, i got a book contract, i came here. i also think we're more social than ever. i think it's a good thing. how much of you have searched google for your high school or college or former boyfriends or girlfriends? pretty honest crowd.

the he's -- rest of you aren't, but that's all right. >> because we're a lot older. >> you wish you hadn't. you think of how you would never have found those people again if not for google. think how young people today will be connected to people for the rest of their lives and they can't run away, they can't hide. someone is looking for nick right now. these are profound changes in society we're only -- only beginning to figure out. we can do what the newspaper industry has done and try to resist them and hold off the change. the change is coming. we figure out about what to do wilt. you see here three optimists and you have the final world. >> in my generation we were taught, i think, that we only have one reputation, and you all have the ability to ruin one's reputation, but you say,

oh, well, this was something i got anonymously. but once you say it it is so hard for a person to ever take that away from themselves. i hope you have a great sense of responsibility. >> i wouldn't worry that much about the younger generation whose reputations are being trashed online because -- >> people can be ruined. >> i think the general public standards have changed too. the whole concept of what ruin means. paris hilton, who has sex, who has sex on camera, a sex video which is vute by tense, if not hundreds of millions of people, who actually has had no -- there's been no adverse consequence. i think the key -- key is the shame is only the shame that you allowed yourself to feel. >> the president inhaled. this president inhaled and he

got in. you could say that means a low erling of our standards or eric schmidt said a few years ago that perhaps we should all at the age of 41 be able to change our names so we can start over. there's a theory of mutual humiliation. jason has done embarrassing things. i've done embarrassing things. why go after him because he'll go after mine. >> it will make us more tolerant people. everyone has sex tapes, everyone does drugs -- >> and it makes for good blogging. >> i missed the sex at the aspen institute. >> and none of it really matters. >> [inaudible] >> not if somebody's taken a screen shot of it. >> on this note i think we've hit our time but thank you very much and thank you nick and jason.

>> coming up next, a young republican talks about the future of the gop. after that, country singer toby keith on his life and career and then friends and colleagues discussed the work of the cougar of judges on them sotomayor. judge sonia sotomayor. >> edwi whelan, or ricardo, alim sytoff, and jonathan

moprgenstein. >> sunday on c-span "newsmakers," bill cassidy on health care legislation and what to expect before august recess. >> i think that the whole deadline is being driven by political purposes and i think that as i recall, tom-said -- a political process is driving this. i cannot look into the crystal ball. i do think we -- the american people are smaller than they presumed to be a. that is why we are seeing this fractionation of the democratic caucus. it may just be that they figured out the scheme and they are

moving the pressure to an earlier date. >> sunday, at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern time here on c-span. >> q&a, sunday, ronald and allis radosh. >> no one knew what truman would do. there was a press conference before. truman said that he did not know. but he had already decided and he told them that he was one to support a jewish state. -- going to support a jewish state. you can listen to the program on c-span and radio, on xm satellite radio and as a c-span podcast. >> now, the 2009 convention chair of the young republicans

talks about the future of the gop. from today's washington journal, this is about 25 minutes. conditions. >> the 2009 convention chair of the young republicans. joining us from indianapolis. good morning. tell us about what you've been didding this week with young republicans. we have been having a great time. we had to add about 120 new seats to the election process. we have some great speakers. it's a lot of enthusiasm. finding ways young republicans can support them while they move

forward. we have a lot of people that don't do this for a living like myself, i'm in it. >> i do it much more as a hobby or passion. young mrinz maybe see themselves as working for office at some point. what are some of the main issues? what are hearing people talk most about. trying to see what's going on in ds. how that's going to affect

people. our party and country. policies in regards to fiscal areas. you have your policy. how do you et that message out to people. we've been working with local companies. how do we take that message and make sure we are putting that message out briefly you can calm and join in the conference on the line. democrats and independents. you mentioned the discussion about the economy.

tell us your vision and strat guy. the two houses and the opportunity for young republicans to take the roll. both in their 30's. it's open to allowing young republicans to take a leadership roll. right now. the young republicans would move their way. right now young republicans are

here. the story in the assisted press this week. talking about how the chair rallied republicans. he said lift your head. i'm so sick and tired of americans wining. you lost. get over it. how much did the loss of the white house res nate with young republicans are they getting back out there and excite abouted what is next. >> i can't agree with them more. starting with wednesday night all the way until today. there's been nothing but enthusiasm. people see the opportunity. i think that's exactly what this con vens has been saying to

everyone. it's time to stop wining and wait forge leadership rolls. it's time for young professionals to take leadership rolls. sometimes you have to sees that opportunity. coming out of the con vens. a lot of people are willing to take that next step. what michael steele said wednesday night was what a left people needed to hear and what we wanted to hear. >> good morning and thank you for taking my call. it's important in my upon that the republican party become truly identified with its core vl crews. you hear constantly that the

republican party has to change and go a new direction. it's like trying to ware many different masks. these core values the republican party stood for. i believe in securing our boarders i'm profee document of speech and religion i've heard many republicans say we have to identify more with the hispanic community or the african-american community.

all americans, it doesn't matter your color, we should be physically conserve safe. you have to realize it's better to be hated for who you are. realize when you are under attack, you are doing the right thing. a lot of opportunities. doing a great job. i don't think we node to pan door. make sure what we are being told and what we stand for. if you were to attend this con

vens. those are the core values. it's putting us out in the forefront. younger people. we did not do so well with the younger people. we need to take our message and be proactive. perhaps maybe last year, we have suchzíw great car riz mau. they will decide if they support our policy. just as much as the democrats do or don't. we either stand for fiscal

policy and responsibility. we'll get those out there and let the voters react. that's what we have been talking a lot about. how do we get to voters not just once or twice the anticipated of the dashgs i think we are going to win. there was a resent erupt on face book this week with audra shay. this was a comment made on her face book page. we have a question on twitter. they are asking what do you think about the comments this week?

>> i'm not familiar with this situation. i know the two people running for chairmanship. she's never presented herself in a way other than professional. i think the comment made was taken out of context i would feel better if i knew the context we know if you make a comment and 50 more people make a comment and it's taken out of context. i respect audra. she's never made a statement to me. >> there was a seer russ of responses made on her page.

megan paige is a young republican who is concerned race politics. she has maybe some social more liberal values. how does that idea work? >> i would think you find in young republicans a pretty row bust balance between social versus fiscal. all young republicans are fiscally conservative, when it comes to social issues, i take those more personal. a lot of young republicans are struggling with where do we put fiscaó and social you will fin

a lot more young republicans leaning to libertarian issues. when it comes to elections, we lost them in november. are we allowing an open discussion in conservative and liberal social people in our party. i think they are willing to allow that to happen. it is happening this week. we had some discussion in social policy. how does that meld with republicans as seen in the society today because i think that a lot of people think we

are just social conservatives. i think that as a falsity. we have a lot of those people in our party. i think there are allowing the discussion to happen this weekend. >> he has been involved in politics since his freshman year in college and when a campaign in 2006. he works in the i.t. sector has his day job. you can call with questions. they are calling from nottingham met -- maryland. good morning, now. caller: hi todd. i was interested in -- now i'm confused. host: what's your question?

caller: getting rid of the democratic party completely. i'd like to see him impeached as bad as he is. >> that's not a discussion around young republicans. he is our president and we have to respect him. we went through a lot of harshness toward him. if there was a pot hole in the street, it was president bush's fault. if we would sit back and remember what we went through with our president and respect our president. we don't need topcz around and

say president obama is the problem of everything. to blame him for everything is not in our best interest. at the and of the day, we are all americans. sometimes the debate gets a little too personal. we have to have open debate and find comprimise. host: thank you, todd. sorry to interrupt. marie from pennsylvania. caller: god bless c-span. i'm calling to tell todd, there's no such thing as a young republican. huh awful and daunting a task it must be to try to make greed,

hip crassy sound logical. host: tood, the ideaoff young republicans and where the young republicans fit into the broad inspect rum itself. how are you being met by the leaders of the prty. are they seeing a roll for to you play. >> for our kick off, we had the young michael steele here. obviously one of the leaders in d. the speakers we are having at the convention speak to your answer. we've had technology experts. they are seeing a growing roll. they saw the numbers coming out

of november. they did not do as well as they had hoped. sometimes what you say and how you say it this is an opportunity for young republicans to get out there and turn the tide on luising 63% of the younger vote. we can do better than. that the groups are seeing opportunity for us as young republicans or those that follow in the young republicans instead. as the previous caller said, there's no such thing as a young republican. i know republicans 40's and 50's. they are young at heart. >> has it been doe moralizing to see the issues coming up.

how are people talking about that in indianapolis. we are looking forward, not backwards. we are look forward. we are not going to get caught in those issues. governor has a roll. we want to get court up in the size. we are going to move forward as a party. host: calling from dallas. caller: yes. i have been a life-line republican. i changed because i'm in dallas,

texas. then you can vote as an open primary. i reregistered so i could vote for ron paul because he was the only republican running. when smfrn r someone says they are running as a republican. >> i'm not sure how to answer that question. people don't appreciate how big our tent is. this is good service. this is fiscal conservatives, international conservatives. i would debate the woman who

said we are controlled by the neocons. we are control ourselves. this is no outside telling us what to do. we can control. there's no associationer political action committee or hipped the seasons person controlling the party. i would say on my own behalf and behalf of the young republicans. we control our destiny. we have to figure out where we want to go, how we are going to get there and leave that message to the people. at the end of the day, i think we are going to win. >> good morning. you are on the air. >> i'm a moderate democrat. i feel that the republican party definitely, i believe needs to reach out more to different minority groups, black people by

nature are con serve tiff people. i don't think it was so much about republicans abe lynn condition ending slafry. we are just conservative people by nature. we a >bv of times get away from what we bloeb. if you take a pole, minorities pretty much have the same views as conservatives. republicans need to get back to their conservative ways. that's what is going to bring them back up. >> i would agree we could do bet under out reach we are still doing a great job with that. we are only six months into his term. we are not going to see rangeover night. we are well on the way to having

great candidates. an sab slutly a magz candidate. it's a great story. we have to say, we have many more across the country. we have to do better in out reach. our next call. is it andy? can you hear us it looks like we lost our next caller. one more time. todd while we still have you

let's talk about some of the take away hand handfuls. what are some of the efforts you are going away with. one of the high reaching goals for us was to bring forth the opportunity of using technology. a lot of people are using facebook. we have two local groups. three exact targets able to come forth and show us the way. the we all know what our message is. technology is one of the best ways we could do that. the other discussion is how do we rectify what happened over the last ten years.

as people leave tomorrow when they leave, they are going to leave with, we have to use when we stand for, nothing is going to change in our policy. the young republicans are under utilized to get our message out there. we can do that. we'll change with what we are learning this week. you are going to get a vast change. look at the race and we are going to see what we have in the action >> someone a little younger, you are going to be watching to be a new leader.

all those people are currently elected officials. running or exploring the opportunity to run for u.s. snat. i would keep an thank you for joining us. >> have a great week. >> the president of ethics and

policy center and an rea cardinal -- maria cardona, alim seytoff and jonathan morgenstein. live on c-span. >> president obama gave his weekly address from italy, the site of the g-8 economic summit. he talked about the economic recovery plan and the need for overhauling the nation's health- care system. he is followed by the republican whip.

wha>> during my visit to russia, we addressed keep national priorities. at the g-8 summit, leaders from nearly 30 nations met to discuss how we will collectively confront the urgent challenges of our time, from managing global recession to address and global hunger and poverty. and dan ghana i laid out my -- and in ghana i spoke about democracy. we came into office facing the most severe economic downturn since the great depression. at that time, we were losing 700,000 jobs a month. many fear that our financial system was on the verge of collapse. as a result of the swift and aggressive action that we took

in the first few months of this year, we were able to pull the nation and our economy back from the brink. we stabilize our major financial institutions and help homeowners stay in their homes and pay their mortgages. we also passed the largest and most sweeping economic recovery plan in our nation's history. the recovery act was not meant to do this on its own, but stop the freefall. . .

thousands of which from the beginning now. in the months to come, thousands more project will begin, leading to additional jobs. i realize that when we passed this fact, there were those who felt that somehow, doing nothing was an answer. those critics are judging the failure of the effort, although they have not offered a plausible alternative. others believe the plan should have been even larger and they're calling for second recovery plan. as i made clear at that time it was passed, the recovery act was not designed to work and a four months.

it was designed to work over two years. we also knew it would take time for the money to get out the door because we're committed to spending it in with that is effective and transparent. this is a plan that will select a lawyer it greatly through the summer and the fall. we must let it work the way it is supposed to. in any recession, unemployment and to recover more slowly. i am confident that the u.s. will weather this economic storm. once we clear away the wreckage, the real question is what we will build in its place. even as we rescue this economy from a full-blown crisis, i have insisted that we must rebuild it better than before. without serious reforms, we're destined to see more crises or suffered stagnant growth rate for the foreseeable future, or a combination of the two. we are laying a foundation that is not only strong enough to

withstand the challenges of the 21st century, but one that will allow us to try and compete in the global economy. that means investing in jobs of the future, training workers to compete for those jobs, and controlling the health care costs that are driving us into debt. through the clean energy investment we have made, we're already seeing start-ups to small businesses make plans to create thousands of new jobs. in the california, 3000 people will be employed to build a new solar plant. in michigan, investments in win technology will create about to 600 jobs. a few weeks ago, the house passed historic legislation that would finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy, leading to new industries and jobs that cannot be outsourced. to give the workers the skills they need to compete for the jobs of the future, we're working on reforms that will close achievement gaps, and sure our schools have high standards,

reward teachers for performance, and give them new pathways to advance. finally, we have made important progress on health care reform. we will control the costs that are driving our families, businesses, and government into debt. the senate and house have not produce legislation that will bring down costs, provide better care, and curb the worst practices of insurance companies. the plan would allow americans to keep their health insurance if they lose their job or change their job. it would set up a health insurance exchange, a marketplace that will allow families and small businesses to access one-stop shopping for quality, affordable coverage. it will help them compare prices and choose a suitable plan. one choice would be a public auction that would make health care more affordable to competition to keep the insurance companies honest. one other point. part of what makes our current

situation so challenging is that we already have massive deficits as the recession gathered force. although the recovery act represents a small fraction of our long-term debt, people have legitimate questions as to whether we can afford reform without making our deficit's worse. let me be clear. i have been firm that both health care reform and clean energy legislation cannot add to our deficit. i intend to continue the work of reducing waste, eliminating programs that cannot work, and reforming our intimate programs to ensure that our long-term deficits are brought under control. i said when i took office that it would take many months to move our economy from recession to recovery and ultimately to prosperity. we are not there yet. i believe that even one american out of work is one too many. we're moving in the right direction. we're cleaning up the wreckage of the storm.

we're laying a former, stronger, -- foundation so that we can better weather whatever future storms might come. this year has been and when to -- and will continue to be a your resting our economy. just as important will be building a long-term engine for economic growth. it will not be easy. some will argue that we have to put up our decisions that we have deferred for far too long. earlier generations of americans did not build this great country by fearing the future and shrinking our dreams. this generation, our generation, has to show that same courage and determination. i believe we will. thanks for listening. >> hello. i'm house republican whip eric kanter and i have the privilege of representing the hard-working people of virginia seventh district. american families and businesses are struggling. republicans to put forward thoughtful and comprehensive

plans of action that put jobs first. we offered an economic recovery plan that what that would have revitalized -- plan that would have revitalized small businesses. the president in tandem with democrats in congress has pushed through the $787 billion bill full of pork barrel spending, government waste, and massive borrowing, cleverly called "stimulus." there's no doubt our nation faces many challenges. the plain truth is that president obama's economic decision has not produced jobs. it has not produced prosperity and it has not worked. president obama has already asked you to borrow trillions of dollars. so far, nearly 3 million jobs have been lost alone this year. remember the promises? they promised you that if you paid for their stimulus, jobs

would be created immediately. in fact, they said that unemployment would stay under 8%. months later, they're telling us now to brace for unemployment to climb over 10%. they promised jobs created. the scramble now to find a way to play games with government numbers by claiming jobs saved. simply put, this is now president obama's economy and the american people are beginning to question whether his policies are working. that does not mean we are out of options. together, we can bring about a strong and real recovery. we can create an environment that empower small businesses and american workers to thrive. we must focus on job creation and restoring the financial and retirement security lost by millions of americans. for the sake of our children and our long-term fiscal liability, washington must up spending money that it does not have.

that is why every day, my republican colleagues and i are fighting to enact policies to stabilize our economy, create jobs, and ignite prosperity. you and your family deserve no less. since january, we have offered alternatives to be out of control, big government democrat agenda. unfortunately, it has become law and has failed to create jobs. our plan is simple and smart. its strength is that it does not invest in washington. it invests in the american people. we believe washington should stop its war on the middle class and reduce taxes so every hardworking taxpaying family in america will see an immediate increase in their income. a prosperous middle class is critical for our entire nation's well-being. we believe washington must stop targeting america's small businesses and instead empower

them by allowing employers to take a tax deduction to free up funds to retain and hire new workers. our history proves that it is the small businessmen and women who will reignite our economy by putting people back to work. washington should get out of the way and encourage small business employers to start growing business. leslie, we believe washington must be responsible for every taxpayer dollar that is spent. washington must live within its means. we will not support tax hikes to pay for even more so-called stimulus spending. the overwhelming majority of americans are working hard and playing by the rules. they're providing for their families and doing their part to return america to the pinnacle of prosperity. their reward? trillion's more in debt. with the stimulus alone,

washington borrowed nearly $10,000 from every american household. let me ask you, do you feel $10,000 richer today? do you feel $10,000 better off? if you don't, please know, most people agree. that is why we continue our fight. during these tough economic times, it often seems that washington is offering you few choices expect for -- except for spending. i am here to let you know there are alternatives. common-sense tax relief, smart and necessary reductions and spending, and intelligent policies that do not bankrupt our nation. that is why i am asking you to join our fight for accountability and common sense. we can do better. we will do better. first, we have to come together to change what is going on. the time is critical. the choice is yours.

i am eric cantor. on behalf of my colleagues, i join with us to get washington working for you once again. thank you for listening. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> coming up next on c-span, toby keith on his life and career. that will be followed by friends and colleagues discussing the work of judge sonia sotomayor. after that, a discussion on the employee verification provision in the homeland security appropriations act. a look at the life of judge sonia sotomayor to friends, colleagues, and former classmates, plus the confirmation process with a former staff director for the senate judiciary committee, and jimmy brown, who was part of the team that shepherded justices

alito and robert through the process. that is sunday at 6:30 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> live coverage of the confirmation hearing for supreme court nominee sonia sotomayor starts monday at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span, c-span radio, and on the web at c- span.org. we will replay the proceedings weeknights on c-span2. coming this fall, to were the homes of america's highest court. the supreme court, on c-span. >> country singer toby keith talking about his life and career. he was a guest speaker at the national press club for about an hour. [applause] >> thank you. [applause]

>> it is an honor to be here. we are launching a campaign. i do not have our itinerary yet. tonight, we are leaving for afghanistan and iraq. i am not sure about that, but -- [applause] you can thank me for being here because that is my chicken fried steak lunch that you have. it might be the first time in the history of the press club that you got the chicken fried steak. the saga continues about the green beans. they cannot quite get it, can they?

we did kosovo and bosnian back in the day. it is a labor of love for us. i want to take this opportunity. it is great timing because this gives me a chance to go on the record and say some things since the press is here. [laughter] first of all, i got here today thinking for the last week that i might be getting ambushed here. in the pre meeting upstairs, or next door, awhile ago, there's enough military in here that i think we have the perimeter security. [laughter] we are in good shape. i will take you all on here. i do not care. bring it. after 9/11, my father's a veteran who was injured during

his service. he taught his children at an early age to expect veterans and people who are willing -- or even that were drafted. i cannot say "willing." they are great volunteers today. there have been many men and women drafted in our armed forces that were very vigilant for everything this country stands for. when you live in this country and make the kind of money that entertainers make and live free, that is a great thing. even living on the bad end of this country and being poor, you still are free in this country. that is due to people making sure that the laws of this land are protected and our freedoms are protected. you cannot have it both ways. you cannot stand on the first amendment and try to x out the

second amendment. they're all there. [applause] i am not a political guy. i never have been. it really freaks people out when they find out i'm a democrat. [laughter] it really does. they have read so much of lies and stopped in the press that they just assume that i am all right wing loco, you know? it is not true. this is not a pity party for me. i will stand firm on whatever i have done in the past. i'm not sorry i wrote the song. i am not sorry i am patriotic. i have never apologized, ever. [applause] the polarization that happens in this country has gotten to the point where i feel like living in mesoamerica that it feels

like a civil war to me. there is some much hate on both ends that it is hard to get anything accomplished in this country. i come from a family that has never had one republican on my family tree. they still know right from wrong and they still defend their country. they still understand the sacrifices that are made by people that do these things. what i see that is unfair about our media today is everybody selling headlines so much that half the time, when you read the story, it never matches up to the magnitude of what the headline is that drew you in in the beginning anyway. somebody prints a headline about me and slams me, and the retraction comes later. it will be back on page 45. that is not a big headline.

by being this lightning rod, if you will, of patriotism, it also gives me all of the check marks in the right-hand column, extreme right hand column, with all of the left. however, i have some in a disagreement with the extreme right. there are great democrats and republicans. there are great independent americans in this country. they can get along and disagree and agree on issues. those extreme ends seem to create all the noise. their poison. that is what needs to stop. i do not know how, with the internet the way it is, i do not now how with everybody competing -- there's not just one or two places we can get trusted news. i want somebody to just report me the news. i was involved in the deal were there were four people that were

quoted by a guy saying that -- there's a headline about me. three of the four people that were there said it did not happen. even the guy that this guy was glorifying said, i do not recall it happening. the publication said they were sticking with it and running with it. that is ridiculous. i cannot begin to defend those things. i'm not going to try. if i ever cross paths with the sky -- [laughter] -- with the guy -- [laughter] i might have to have a little chat with him. when you say, do you pay your country's uniform? have you ever shot anybody? have you taken a check? i am wearing what i wear on my uso tour.

i have warned this country's uniform. that will be taken out of context tomorrow. we going to bat places. we do not just blow the whole place up. we go door-to-door looking for bad guys. we do not go in and fire. the those are not the rules of engagement for americans. that is a tough order to deal with every day. you cannot know these things until you go to the operating bases where i go and see what goes on every day. as i have gone to seven uso tours, aha we do two forward operating basis. sometimes there will be guarding the smugglers route. they are guarded by the best, the best pilots, the guys on the ground. that is why i go.

i feel secure when i am there. it took me 100 shows in the forward operating zone to learn to trust how good our guys really are and what they sacrifice. these are volunteers that our elected officials chose to sent to afghanistan. i wrote a song called "courtesy read white and blue," knowing our military was asking a bunch of volunteers to go in and find justice for the people that died on 9/11. if you read my song word for word and do not apply your agenda to it, that is all it says. i want you to win. i do not want to to die. i want you to win and find people responsible for 9/11. that is been taken out of context. it has surpassed over 25 million albums. it has surpassed 25 number one hits. it has surpassed concerts'.

it has surpassed all of that because it is so agenda- poisoned. there is no way to stop it. everybody is trying to compete for the headlines. we are trying to sell headlines. it is poisoning america. it is pushing us to where there is so much heat from both sides that there is no way we can continue and get along some they. it may not be in my lifetime. if it continues like it does, there will be people dying in this country over their political agenda. it is getting ridiculous. i have never been a political got. i have check marks all over the place. i left a friends think i am nazi and my righty friends think i am happy. anyone who knows me personally, they know i am a normal guy that goes out and fishes, raises his kids.

i dedicate two weeks every year to the uso, which is contrary to what you hear sometimes. they're one of the best organizations and they have been doing it longer than anybody. they provide more than entertainment. they send every kind of care package in the world to the people on the front lines. the uso is the grandest organization designed to do that very function that there has ever been. [applause] some people in the news media last year were saying that the uso was not doing their job. i jumped up and started fighting with them right off the bat. the reason the u.s. so cannot get more people to go in there is because it is a hell's on. it is a war zone. -- it is a hell zone. it is a war zone.

it is hard to convince people to stop what they're doing here in disneyland and sit in the middle of a war zone. you know? i have never shot anybody, but i have been shot at several times. i have raced marines to a bunker. i know how it feels in my little 14 days i'm over there. can you imagine being over there 18 months? it is a longtime to have to live on the edge. everybody expects them to come back here, and you have to support these guys. if you see one of them in the airport, thank him for a least making sure that you say what you want to say. [applause] there is -- the uso works diligently. we do not just talk the talk in my world. we walk the walk.

once 9/11 happened, my agent, my booking agent, my promoter, one of the bigwigs of live nation, my assistant, my band, everybody as a group effort decided that we were going to go down a dark time to the military. curt has been a board member for the uso. he has worked hand in hand trying to get other artists over there. he has been fully responsible for picking up the entertainers that go over. it is difficult to get people to go because of the agenda or because they are afraid to go to a war zone. i understand those. we try to go to forward operating bases and set examples for them, show them that just because you make a lot of money

-- just go over here to walter reed hospital or go to a base or go to the green zone, where it is safe. i would take my son, my 12-year- old son, to the green zone in baghdad. that was a war that not a body agreed with. we had people in their at% in and i would support them. -- we had people in there that were sent in and i would support them. i did my time in there. wherever the next conflict starts, nobody in this room is powerful enough to stop or start. that is including myself. we have people that are volunteers and are making sure that it does not the one right here in d.c. or in oklahoma or california or hollywood. as long as those people are willing to go out and take care of it on the perimeter for us, the least thing we can do is

pass them on the back and shake their hands and say "good job." know what i mean? [applause] back on "courtesy read white and blue," that song, word for word, has nothing to do with kosovo and bosnia. it has nothing to do with iraq or north korea or iran. it tells you in there were for work that we got sucker punched on that day. these guys are serving justice on you. you will be found and you will not mess with our country again. everybody that i know that are good republicans and democrats all want for the same thing. there's a big blow but in that we could push that we"peace," we would push it. we all have different ways of pursuing that and what our ideas are.

as americans, everyone should agree that we need a military. they do a great job for us. [applause] i am going to shut up yapping because i want to take a bunch of questions and see what we have got in here. in the closing, i want to thank the national press club. i want to thank the uso. i want to thank my staff for going on another great uso tour overseas. i want to thank our military that are listed that are present and the veterans. thank you all for having me. [applause] >> you have done a dozen uso tours now. seven years. why you keep doing it? >> i have developed so many

friendships and relationships from national security adviser. i knew right off the bat that i was not. be a hypocrite with all of that hate bush or the heat clinton stuff that went on in the last 16 years. when you have a commander in chief, you have to give them a chance, whether you agree with them or not. our american citizens voted our commander-in-chief in. the first thing he did was hire one of my best friends and dearest friends, general james jones, as his national security adviser. right off the bat, he got a brownie. from me. i cannot imagine anybody who would have taken that presidency not picking him for that position. [applause] i think he should run for

president some day. he is a great guy. he was the reason that i released "courtesy, red, white, and blue." i some marines leaving from constitution hall. am i right, sarah? constitution hall, i played for a couple thousand marines. i had written the song so on my trips, i would have something. someone came up to me and said, you have so many marines in year. there is not a dry eye. he said, and but in the military needs to hear that song. it is the greatest military song i have ever heard. my first relationship before i went into the middle east was with general jones. i met the general over there.

he climbed in every helicopter i went in and was with me for years. those are the relationships. meeting people -- and meeting so many of the people that i would have lunch with, they would die or perish a week later. i would have lunch and my host would be a young sergeant. i would move on to afghanistan and sarah, who worked for the office, was my uso host. she would say, you remember sullivan at camp cook? he got killed by roadside attack. you meet their families on the road. i would come back and play oregon, where first lieutenant eric mcrae's parents came to the show. i flew with his coffin out of baghdad. it was one of the most disturbing flights, moments of

my life. we were loaded on a plane and they brought a flag-draped coffin up. his parents have been to four shows. his whole family comes out when i come to work on. we try to treat them and thank them. we feel sorry for their loss. you make so many relationships, it becomes a family. one more thing. i'm going to take over here. [pounding] did you all hear the one about -- [laughter] there have been some hatemongers reporting that i get paid to go over there. the uso, from the marines, from general jonestown, the army,

general pace, petraeus, any of them will tell you i have never made one red cent. there are people who go to do tv shows in the green zone and get paid half a million and come back and show that they have been in the military zone. i get a little press from it. i do not promote it. that is why people do not know i have done 100 shows of there. by that time we get back, we will be well on our way to 125 or something. never one time have i taken one penny. [applause] >> this is mine. why is the easy money banned joining you on your middle east tour? it has been just you and one other person. is it because of the region? bigger audiences? >> we did a big memorial day in germany. it was one of the greatest shows

i have ever been involved with. we did a wonderful show in baghdad in the green zone. it is hard to take an entire band in a blackhawk helicopter. since we are predominantly going to be in one country, they're going to set up a few bases and allow us to really throw the big dog daddy at them. >> how would you compare military audiences to civilian audiences? >> it is different ever where you go. the first time i landed in bad debt, most times, it is just rowdy. they are drinking near beer. we're one of the countries that do not allow our fighting men to have a day off or they can drink. australians and the british all have pubs and throw down. our guys are not allowed to. they show up with near beer. it is usually a big party.

i have also been in places like -- the first, landed in a baghdad, they took me to falluja. we were just learning that word. the marines and the army had just taken it. i got there is midnight. i went into an old clunker. it was bombed out and you could smell the smoke. marines laid on the floor, 500 of them. it was difficult to entertain because they're so beat up and tired. yet, they're relying on their packs. there were no chairs in there. most of the time, it is just a party. >> speaking of falluja, this tour does not include iraq. why not? >> i think the war that nobody thought belonged in or that we could win or overcome our guys

overcame. the military and uso agreed there is no use to go to iraq. >> you mentioned that you have never been in the military. why didn't you and list when you were younger? >> one reason is because my dad had a job waiting when i turned 18. i was a songwriter on the side. i have the band going. my job -- my dad had a job waiting for me that would have paid me more money than if i went to college. everybody ran from the draft if you did not want to go to the army. luckily, i came at a time when there wasn't a draft. i want to tip my heart to the people who did so. >> you mentioned polarization among americans. do you feel that you have the ability to influence the american population enough to decrease the current polarization? how would you do that? >> i do not have enough power.

first of all, i am not an activist as far as other than support in the troops. i do not have any other time that i have put into anything other than my children's charity -- i do not know what else i would do. i am not an activist. i am not a political person. i just know that from my point of view, the hate that i see from both sides is really polarized. if you read a review of my concert, which i learned back in the 1990's to never read your own press because of someone is writing a review on un -- you are not that good or you're not that bad, ever. once in awhile, my manager, booking agent will read one and will say, this guy really got it. when you read it or they tell

you about it, it is all agenda. it is not about whether he can sing or write or the place was sold out or if it was a big party. they take you down with their agenda. it is implied in there the whole time. you can see they give themselves away. it is really difficult to figure out how you can pull those two sides together when you have somebody that does not know you writing that same review every time you come to his town. the people that work at the show are reading it going, this does not make sense. the people who were not there were not enough of a fan to come to the show. you know? if they say, toby keith sucked, and you were not there, you say, i am glad i did not go. you know? [laughter] if you were there, you're going, what is this guy doing? he was not at the same show.

our show is more don like -- , would compare it to a magic show with a vigorous, like our friend lance burton. he does a magic act. if he blows his magic act, ever but it will go, you are not that good a magician. he nails it tonight. you can see intricate things that he could fix, but the audience never notices. we do the same exact show on tour every night. these are very professional people. unless i have a cold, that is the only thing that it -- that dictates how good or bad we're. unless i have a local problem, which i very seldom ever do, so if the crowd is rocking and it is sold out, and it is the same show we did last night, we never get very far off the center line. when the head of the building comes and says, this was like

the world series out here tonight, this is crazy, and the next day you read a review, everybody sat on their hands all night, and even his soldiers on did not get them going, you know what i mean? you're giving yourself away here, pal. there is no way to pull the two together the time powerful enough to do. it will take a greater power than me. i am just telling it like it is. [laughter] >> what has been your experience with how accurately the press covers your views on public policy? >> i covered that. [laughter] it is so much out of context that one line in one song out ways one of the most successful songwriters and performers of

the last 20 years. i have been very successful. i embrace -- dialer years ago i could not fight the heat. you cannot stop hate. there is no way. what i did was i got smart and i embraced it. what i'd do is i save million dollars on publicity by finding out where these heaters exist. when i am putting an album out, i go to their forums and give them some reason to hate and from my album on top of it. they'll go to work for me. it is really easy. [laughter] [applause] four right? a public-relations woman says i am the best she hasn't seen. i will go on stephen colbert and put in now better -- an album on

there. i know who is watching. i will put the cd on there and say, here it is. i would was song and get all of the bloggers going with their sick hate. in every one of their columns, there will say, he has a new album out. [applause] [laughter] >> you have been to iraq and afghanistan have a dozen times. what have you seen there that you do not think the media is reporting? >> there are 1000 stories that i do not have enough time to talk about. but, i have a very eloquently written letter from a major in iraq that there were building schools. a reporter came in and spent three days with him and took him around and showed how the communities -- where the community was, how developed, how the school systems are

working, how the hospital is operating, how the locals have taken to having the military there and understanding that they're going to leave them, and the whole story the woman came back and wrote was so opposite of everything that happened that he felt compelled to write this newspaper publication, a letter. i have a copy of it. there are some anything's. like always telling you earlier, all of the people who do not support the military -- i have talked with people who do not even believe we need military. it does not make sense to me. i know the difference between right and wrong. i wonder sometimes. with john wayne or bob hope be able to exist in hollywood today? i have talked to people while doing movies and stuff who literally do not even think --

they think we should open our borders and get rid of our military. they do not think we even need protection at all. so, when i see -- when you are talking to these people, and then i go see what we're trying to accomplish over there, they think that we're just going in and bombing everybody in killing everybody and leaving them to die. we take over and impress our way of life on a variety. these radicals and extreme people are christians and jews. they want is dead. whenever but the figures that out, they will understand that we have to back up and protect our perimeter and stay here or we can go out and try to help the world. something has to happen. you cannot just allow these people to come in here and impress their will on us. [applause]

not every time it is a war. not every time it is our work. the world will have to step up. the world will find out if you allow this extremism to grow. the world will find out how bloody it can be and how serious they are about their agenda. it gets rid the difficult sometimes to watch us have to be the leaders on that. sometimes, i really wish we could back up and sit here and watch the world do what they are going to do also. we are not getting much help. our guys have to lead the way most of the time. where was i? what was i talking about? [laughter] >> i will ask your new question. how about that? >> did i answer the old one? >> you were around there. your father said the higher you fly your flag, the bigger target you are. can you give me some examples when that has proven true? >> you know, it just -- there

are a lot of people who support the military. you have to be a big name to get the heaters to come get you -- the haters to come get you. i go into hollywood and i am working on a movie or a project or something, doing a show, and other entertainers will pull me aside. the right bashes hollywood and there are a lot of people saying, hey, man, i support the troops, but i cannot do it out loud. the people who want to stand up and protest and that make the noise, they give hollywood a bad name. there are a lot of people who support. there are a lot of people in my business who will not speak up in country music against the war because they do not want that to

be pushed on to them. it is a back and forth. it is mainly a big name. my dad said, when you get up the flagpole far enough for everyone to see your rear end, that is when they come and get you. they only get the head target. i will accept that. i have learned to embrace it. you cannot stop it. i let them believe what they want to believe. most of the time, it is wrong. >> do you think the u.s. is doing a good enough job taking care of its recent veterans? why or why not? >> they are trying. i get e-mails every day from people raising money for the veterans. i do not know if our government will ever do a good enough job.

none of us could ever repay a veteran for his time spent over there. i do know that the public and a lot of the citizens here in the u.s. have got thousands of organizations and are doing lots of cheer to work to try to raise money for our veterans. i wish the government would do more. i know the public is working. >> what do you think about people who say soldiers coming back from combat zones are dangerous? >> well, they are dangerous. [laughter] make no mistake about it. they are. they are not dangerous to the society. we have been bringing people back home for years and years. they will single one or two about that goes off on a binge

sometimes and gets on a clock tower somewhere. there are so many of them that mix right in and become great citizens. they are sound and solid. you cannot beat the training and the respect, the adult that comes back when you send a boy over there. they do a great job. [applause] >> we have determined that you are a democrat. our audience asks, would you ever consider running for political office? someone wants to know if you will run for governor of oklahoma in 2018 or possibly sooner. >> i am not political. i could not do that. i could not deal with all the lies. i could not shake your hand and walk over their 5 feet and say something bad about you.

to me, that is all politics are. [laughter] politicians, they kill me. [laughter] the reason i do not vote straight ticket, the reason i have been a democrat is because my family was. you cannot vote straight ticket. you have to vote for somebody that you think can make this country or your surroundings a better place to live and can advances to a better spot. heat, heat, heat -- hate, hate, hate, i do not hate americans. my agenda is not to hate. being a politician with me to have to get along with too many people. [laughter]

>> moving from politics to music. can you tell us about the first song you ever wrote and how it came to you? >> i cannot remember the first song i wrote at all. i was a teenager and my grandmother had a club and had given me a guitar that one of the players in her band had recommended her give me for my birthday. i started summer between 8 and 14. those songs must have been so bad, i do not remember them. i wrote 500 songs before somebody said, you wrote that? they got closer and closer together. i wish i could remember. it was probably something like to check she broke my heart and i broke her jaw -- something like, "she broke my heart and i broke her jaw." we are only kidding, ladies.

we are on c-span. >> did you ever think you would get this thing is? did you think you would become a celebrity? >> i struggled with that every day. in my home town, i am just -- i play a little golf, raise my resources, and coach my son's football team. when i come out into the world, whether it is canada, mexico, europe, wherever, all over the u.s., anywhere that i am recognized, it is really uncomfortable for me when i am sitting in a restaurant thinking that i am all by myself and i looked up and 10 people are watching me eat. it has never been real comfortable for me. but, it is great to wake up every day and know that that is my job. as a songwriter, to be that successful, i do not know.

i have got the best job in the world and i would not trade places with anybody. >> ok. one of your big breaks came with a flight attendant. can you tell us that story? have you ever written a song in praise of flight attendant? >> there is a lot to this story. no, there's not. i had a huge fan when i was playing regional. her name was laurie. she would sit and watch our band played. she knew every song that i had written. we recover songs because we were playing nightclubs. i was knocked signed with the major recording company. she would sit and watch us play. she graduated from college and she moved to dallas and took a job as a flight attendant for american airlines. from there, she moved to nashville. i had never been to nashville.

finally, four or five years later, i have not seen her in a while. i went to nashville and took a song to capitol records for a meeting that i had to get a recording contract. i get there and they turn me down. eh, you are not all that. the guy said, when you go back to oklahoma, get back in the workshop and work on your writing. i went to dinner that night at a steakhouse and ran into her. she says, all i have got are these two old recordings of yours. do you have new stuff? i had a few things i was passing around town. i gave one to a. she was on a flight with the vice president of mercury records at the time, who

discovered alabama, cyrus, shania twain. she gave him my recording. he gets 1 million of those. he got out on his boat in the gulf of mexico and he got far enough out that he did not have any radio signal. he plugged my cd in. he had her number. he came back in, called rep, and said, who is this guy? that is how i got my recording deal, through an american airlines flight attendant. [applause] >> what kept you going in the early days of your career when your record labels were constantly changing and people are criticizing your songs? >> just knowing that truth is on your side. i pray a lot. a lot of the things i do in my life, my relationship with my

creator, i just was in the place that i was supposed to be. i knew that i could write thsons as well as anybody. i put my songs and my years into establishing myself as a singer- songwriter. i got to a point where i was not going to let a president of a label -- the president at the label could not sing or write. he came up from the mail room. he was telling me what to record and how to do it. there were other producers that did come up through the studios and through the musicians' side.

people were producing hits and wanted to produce me. i was locked in mercury. i said, i am not going to do the kind of music you want me to do. luckily, i got out of there. that was 25 million albums ago. >> how does audience interaction affect your performances? what do you think about the leverets signs your fans make to grab your attention? >> we will not talk about some of them. [laughter] every night, from the tailgate, weekly amphitheaters, which hold about 20,000 people. at some point during the day, the tailgate like they do with football games. the cowboys and cowgirls will come in and flip their tailgate down. there will be flipping burgers. it looks like a football game. the tail gate in the afternoon. you know when you hit the stage that night who you are dealing with. you know? [laughter]

i give them what they need. it does affect your show from night to night on how the audiences. however, in a professional environment when you're getting paid to deliver, like we do, even if the crowd is not quite there, you still go -- you still stuck on the gas. it is not quite as good as last night's crowd, but i'm going to give them what they need. it becomes a challenge to me. if they are off the hook and they are getting the rest, i am happy. -- and they are getting arrested, i am happy. >> was "how do you like me now" autobiographical? >> cycle wrote that with another guy. it was fun. we both got our stabs in our old girlfriend.