caller: good morning. i get up at all different hours. i am retired. in a tv switcher. in may, there were talking about the swine flu. it had dna from swine, flu, and humans. there was a scientist on the re that said that this flu was man-made or it was an accident. i did not see it again. i called congressmaen. nobody knew what i was talking about. it was never on the news again.

why? guest: that turned out to not be true. early on in the swine flu outbreak, because the h1n1 strain was unusual -- tan lee, is -- technically is rna not dna. it is from pig viruses. some people speculated it was made in a laboratory that turned out to not be the case. host: our guest has been philip alcabes, author of "dread." thank you for your time. our guest is a ph.d. professor at hunter college in new york city. thank you. guest: a pleasure to be with you.

host: we will be back tomorrow at 7:00 in the morning. the author of a book called "ricochet" as we continue our series with authors. enjoy the rest of your day. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] .

>> the associated press reports the obama administration is signaling its willing to consider insurance cooperatives rather than a government-run in charge program. health and human services secretary kathleen sebelius says a government-run idea is not the essential part of the plan. as the health-care conversation continues, cspan's health care of as a key resource. go on line and follow the latest tweets, video eds, and likes. keep up-to-date with health care events like health care meetings, house and senate debates, even upload your

opinion with a citizen of video. the cspan health care hub at c- span.org but/healthcare. there is a report on juvenile crime today which is followed by a panel discussion on whether to the miles should be sentenced like adults with life without parole. cspan to have live coverage at 11:30, eastern. at 1:00 eastern, cspan 2 will be live with a discussion of the massachusetts health care plan and how it might work nationally. a rand corp. economist has analyzed the plan. tonight, some light foundation co-founder and executive director ellen miller will discuss however organization uses the internet to provide transparency in government. this month, cspan to's book tv

weekend continues all week in prime time. we have more books on the economy, current events, and politics. tonight, quacks out this cspan funded? >> the u.s. government. >> i don't know. some of that i think is government raised. >> it is not public funding. >> probably donations. >> i want to say my tax dollars. >> a cspan father? america pause cable companies created cspan as a public service, a private business initiative, no government mandate, no government money. >> we now hear from a group of democratic house members on what it is like behind the scenes in congress. they spoke recently at a conference of bloggers and online activists, hosted by netroots nation. you'll hear from you as representatives alan grayson, patrick murray, and carol shea-

porter. from pittsburgh, this session is about one hour, 10 minutes. >> i would like to welcome everyone who was watching at home on c-span and streaming video from this session this afternoon and from all our efforts. we are fortunate to have three first and second term representative. patrick murphy from pennsylvania, carol shea-porter of new hampshire, alan grayson from florida. [applause] there were all elected with netroots support and that is what what we would like to talk with you about today, what has been their experience in their first and second turns and how are they finding getting gigs on washington and what the differences between the eight --

between what they envisioned in their campaigns and the reality of life on capitol hill. before we begin, i would like to turn over to you, congressman murphy. i know you have a few words to say about the news this morning. >> thank you, netroots nation, for all your support and being here today. sometimes, we lose focus that we are a democratic family. families fight and we have different caucuses but one of our family members, democratic nominee for congress in 2008, sergeant bilcare who ran the pennsylvania fifth congressional district was not successful when on his third to plummet. he was deployed twice in a record of his third to plummet to afghanistan, was killed yesterday morning. our thoughts and prayers go out to him and his family. his wife is pregnant with twin daughters, due in set -- december. sometimes we get wrapped up in

politics and washington but when you lose someone who is a democrat and was proud to be so and be a marine and gave the ultimate sacrifice, you have to sometimes reflect on people who are trying to do what is right for our country. we have to get our fault -- foreign policy right every time. >> thanks very much i'm not sure that all of your that as this morning but it is important that we all give some thought as to what that really means. thanks for starting us off that way. it is hard to turn to the discussion but that being part of the reality of life, we will talk about the reality of life on the hill. i would like to ask the general question of each of you and maybe we will start with you again and work our way back -- some general thoughts on --

tells about was first motivated you to go out and run for congress. i don't think that any of you were legislators before entering congress? is that correct? i would like to hear little about what motivated you to run, a little about what you really hoped to get done when you were elected, and then in an honest assessment of how difficult it may have been to see some of that come to fruition, if you have great success stories, you can share them, but we are also interested, what are some of the frustrations or roadblock to getting things done. >> i remember in july, 2005, drinking liberally at the brewery in philadelphia and i remember saying that i was running for the u.s. congress and many folks did not who was.

i was a captain with the 82nd airborne division, just back from camp -- combat. 19 of my fellow paratroopers did not make it home with us. i wanted to run for congress to change the direction in iraq and bring the troops, and change the direction of our country here when we talk about domestic policy. i am proud that we fought in the congress. i know carol and i are both in our second term and allen is a freshman but when you look at -- we made top boats in that we passed a time line in iraq, even though it was under president bush and many folks said it would not pass the house and we passed that time line in the house. a stood there in my first term in congress and there was a

funding mechanism that passed the house for the senate would never pass the senate and that passed the senate. then, it was vetoed by the president. but then i promised my constituents when i ran for congress that i would not give this president a blank check. after it was the toast and they brought it up with no time on, i did not vote for that. that might have been an end to my congressional career. i won a race by a difference of 0.6% of the boats. at the end of the day, i have to be the one to look at myself in the mirror and say i said -- stood for something. if my congressional career was sure, i have to look at myself in the mirror, i will be with my wife and little daughter, who is two-years old, and she will be proud for daddy when he was in congress. i hope it is more than two years.

at the end of the day, i am given faith and confidence by my constituents to do the right thing for our district and our country. that is what i am most proud of. i am proud to serve the people like carol and alan in congress. >> congresswoman? >> i will never forget your speech, patrick, on the floor of house of representatives that brought us all to tears. this is somebody i wanted to serve with. the class of 2006 was the change that the country wanted. what first got me involved was watching what had happened -- i talked politics for more than 15 years and i was also a social worker administrator and i could see the changes and work rule changes coming over america where the poor had fallen, the middle class was struggling, and i talked about that often in 2006. the top 1% were having better * than ever before except in the 1920's. i have great concerns about what was happening.

still, i thought that my job would be to get more involved and i did. i became the head of our city democrats and i worked with the general wesley clark's primary. i thought that my job would be to find somebody who could take away one of the enablers for the george bush administration that we could at least to feed our congressmen and put somebody in there that would stand up to the bush administration. for a long time, i was working for that. i then realized, we are the people we have been waiting for. i went down to katrina and a volunteer for over one month. i came back and said this has to stop now. this has to change. people have been asking me to run and i offered to help them run buried after katrina, never looked back. i know that we have failed on sunday levels that we had to do something when i saw what happened to the people, i had to turn around a woman who had about 78 cents in her pocket, she was elderly, and she came to

our shelter and she said if she did not get money, she could not come back to the shelter. i could get for nothing in this country. this cannot happen anymore. i came back and decided to run. i will tell you that i raised $17,000 for the primary and i ran against the house minority leader. that was not very much money. i start off with $100, my $100 per the message to people is if you think you have a voice and you want to make a change, get out there and do it. i do with regular people. i did not have any paid staff members. i did not have any polls, i have absolutely nothing except fellow members of this state of new hampshire who wanted to see change. they worked alongside me to get there. in my campaign literature in 2006, i said that i want to make this country safer by having an

independent program so it would not rely on countries that were not friendly to us and we could protect the environment. i believe in this. i knew that we get this done for iran on energy. i also read on health care. i have had people in my own family who have not have insurance coverage. i knew that we could do this. i never supported the john conyers bill medicare for all but i called for medicare for everybody like my mother aspirate that is because i want to leave it private where doctors one of their own private practice as they could have, if hospitals want to speak for- profit, they had to come under the same roles. a mother makes a comment and no becomes between her and her health care provider. i support medicare and i always have. i support the robust public

auction. i ran on that. i also said that we need to believe in ourselves again. i have children who deserve an education and deserve the same opportunity that we had in my generation. that pushed me into running. the reason that i one is because it was a shared message. it was a message of everybody, the middle class, and my little local was running for the rest of us. >> thank you very much. congressman grayson? >> i was shocked to see how incompetent and sometimes malicious the bush administration was. in my case, the experience came from my direct experience prosecuting profiteers in iraq. i was the person who was the lead attorney for every case that was being litigated against war profiteers in iraq when i was elected. i saw that the bush administration called people who were cheating the troops, cheating the taxpayers, getting away virtually with murder.

there was certainly plenty of mayhem. when you have a truce -- our troops being elected in the showers and being fed poisoned water by contractors, he quickly developed a sense that something is very wrong since i began doing this work, long -- not long after the war started, i saw a different stages. at the beginning, i saw that the fraud was furtive, hidden, people tried to keep it out of sight. when they went through one year or two years of this and the bushman as treasurer -- administration about it and did nothing to stop it, they became most proud of it. everyone else serving in iraq in honor felt like a fool. people who were cheating the government and awesome the troops, they would talk about their kuwaiti bank accounts under swiss bank accounts and all the money they were raking in off the war and raping the soldiers in the process. something had to be done. i found that the only way i

could do anything about it personally was to run for congress. that is what i did. >> thank you very much. thanks to all three of you. i would like to talk a little about the mechanics of what it was like to arrive on the hill. you did not have prior legislative experience but not everybody does. i am sure that you found that most of the members are tied in, in some way, to the legal profession. that can help but many are legislators when they arrive. what was it like in trying to secure committee assignments that you were interested in. ? did you have committees in mind before hand or did you study that when it would become a reality? how to make your choices? who do you talk to? did you get what you wanted? how did you select second choices? how did you find yourself on subcommittees'? when we start this way and go back, congressman grayson?

>> i went up on the financial services as committee and the science and technology committee sprit i want to be on both committees. the match one in -- one's interest to once assignment. the match the district wants assignment and i was happy to see the process itself. being on that committee, it puts me at ground zero for what we have experienced in the economy for the past year or two. and what we're doing to make things better. we passed some real landmark legislation already on financial services and more is on the way. i have also seen a lot of opportunity to affect legislation in other ways. i think that the oversight function is simple -- sometimes of underrated. you can do a lot with it. there are lots of opportunities to change bills on the floor. as we get more experience and learn the ropes, it gets easier to do that our year marks have had a big effect in the district. we have brought money directly

to the district where the earmarks are 51% more than my predecessor could bring and buried there are all sorts of ways to do the job well but not limited to how you draw up legislation in committee. in the case of both committees, financial-services and science and technology, the path is open for junior members to contribute significantly to the process. i am very happy to see that. >> when you have made your choices, do you need at some point with the chairman or representatives of the staff in discussing how you fit into a committee like that? are you talking to members of the steering and policy committee? who do you speak with most about getting your assignment? can you tell us about that? >> in my case, i was out of the office one morning and did not get in until after 10:00. just as i got in, the

receptionist told me that i had just missed party frank. -- barney frank. this is bad and he came over to my office unannounced and i missed him. this is not a good start. somehow, our last few months, we have worked it out. the support is there. in this case, barney frank is a very active chairman. he spent a lot of time talking to us individually. we also happenings that are open to people as a caucus. we learned a lot about the legislation that is coming up from the staff directly. the lines of the indication are wide open. there is never any difficulty in finding out what is going on. >> congressman carol shea- porter? >> when i arrived in 2007, the democrats were just taking over leadership. we had to jump right in and be fully engaged. there was not much of a learning process.

so much was happening, as you recall. we were fully included rights from the beginning, which i thought was wonderful. as for my committee assignments, i was a military spouse and my husband is a veteran so i had a deep and abiding interest in what was happening in the military and to veterans. i received the assignment for the armed services committee. i have been very concerned about some many of the contractors and what was happening in iraq. i was very vocal opponent of the war in iraq. being on the armed services committee has given me a great opportunity to quiz witnesses to come before us. i have taken on a lot of the issues thekbr and other contractors and i got a provision passed out of the house that would say that contractors, and i'm not saying which ones, but any contractors are then responsible for gross negligence, that they will not get their awards and bonuses and that the secretary of defense could then decide to de-bar them

this has come from a position on the armed services committee. it is my knowledge and the reason i am on the committee is because of my interest before and my background. i am also in the education and labor committee. i have been a social worker and administrator and i ran for the middle class. we have a terrific chairman there. he is a great proponent for americans, for middle-class americans. we have been able to work on all lots of legislation that reflects my interests in education and other areas. i was never support of of "no child left behind." i have been happy to be able to be part of that conversation. it has not been able to come out of committee and i don't think it should until we get it right. we received a waiver to be on the resources, natural resources committee and that is because i

and environmentalists. i read on that platform. you have a great opportunity to engage in the great issues and then to vote on them when you are in congress. i always said, that we need people in the front yard yelling and i encourage people to be out there and express their viewpoints. the conversation and the boats in the living room and that is where i wanted to be. it is a great honor to be in congress, in the living room, getting to vote for policies that serve the american people best. >> technical point -- would you explain the waiver that you had to get? normally members are limited to two committees. >> two committees and four subcommittees' but if you look into and do your work and you can do everything on the committees, you can ask for a waiver for a third committee. >> the wafer comes from? >> that comes from the leadership. i have my legislative director

who has now taken on a greater burden because of that. i ask the committee and i would not be on the subcommittees' so there would not be too much work for it could not resist when they talk about the subcommittee. i could see my legislative director in the back and i put myself on two subcommittees. you know what that means. i see my legislative director cringing. you cannot resist the opportunity to be involved in the issues of the day. this is our time for change. we have to seize it and that is what the three of us have been doing. >> you see why americans love carol shea-porter from new hampshire because she is an overachiever. we have two committees and she has three. i serve on the armed services committee and the intelligence committee. i know carol and i have partnered and we have sat next which other on committee.

we all voted for the iraqi, -- accountability act. we're proud about that. on the intelligence committee, when it comes to foreign policy, we need to get it right. wes oversee was going on with the cia. you can't really talk about what you are doing on the intelligence committee. it is a small community and you're dealing with nation's secrets. it is a chance to serve and make sure we are getting it right for those folks that are trying to keep us safe. even with service committees, that does not mean that we cannot go do things in the judiciary are other committees. i have a pouch and for fallen policy and green energy. we're dependent on foreign oil. we have to wean ourselves off the oil. there is no magic bullet. we need to invest and wind power, solar power, geothermal,

and concerning the energy we use. my district in pennsylvania, in bucks county, where we have the old u.s. steel plant which is shut down, we have turned that brownfield into an energy hub that we are so proud about. they build 15-story windmills' that helps us become energy independent. we have the fourth largest solar panel field in america. we have another company that makes the poly silicon part of the solar panels. this is other issues that we're passionate about. you have a responsibility, as a congressperson, to do right by your constituents and to right table every single day. >> thanks very much. i'm glad we had a chance to

point out how the process works and i work for "the daily coast" and we also right in congress on matters. it gives people a greater understanding of what you are doing and what you are facing and why things happen the way they do. >> could i add one point? it is part of the process and how we work together. allen came and sat next to me on the floor a few weeks ago. he asked me to think about signing onto auditing the federal reserve. we had a conversation and i listened to him and i look it up again and i did sign onto that. not only do we sit on our own committees but we talk to each other constantly. if you watch c-span, you will see us milling around there. we are actually sharing what we heard in our committees and

asking people to either sign onto a bill or talk about a certain witness. sometimes i think it is difficult for people on other committees to know what a witness said of the armed services committee. you know i have a particular interest in that so you will take it to them and let them know the general so and so testified on a certain committee and this is what he said. we share the information back and forth to help each one of us make better decisions as we go forward. it is an important process, talking to another and communicating what we have heard. >> i know people are watching on c-span, when voting is going on, they are probably wondering what is going on when you were watching on c-span, the sound is turned down and you cannot hear anything. if you are in the chamber, it can get very loud and it becomes difficult to hear. at home you are watching and you constantly hear from the chair pounding the gavel, asking

people to take their conversations off the floor and no one at home years and a conversation. if you were ever in wondering, that is a sort of thing that goes on on the floor. >> can i mention something about that? >> yes. >> it is amazing what you can't accomplish on the floor with regard to what carol just said. i introduced a bill not too long ago urging schools to teach the constitution to high-school seniors because many states don't have a civic requirements. we drafted a bill. it was a resolution to urge them to do that. in the course of three days, we got 200 co-sponsors for that bill, walking around on the floor. 218 means you have a majority. it is time well spent and a lot of business gets done that way. >> is that most frequently where you run into other members were not on your committees? >> that is your best chance to

build relationships. this is the relationship business in that you have to work with your colleagues. you have to be accountable to constituents to represent and that have to have a certain trust and confidence in new. your college in the congress have to know that you are a person of your work. when others come to me and talk about a certain vote they are interested in, i will take a look at it. if i believe in it, i will co- sponsor it. we will work together on certain things. some things, we can work on for whatever reason. as long as you are street with people, i have found in the congress, that people appreciate that your straight with them. you do not talk out of both sides of your mouth. that happens in politics too much. if you are straight with people, that provides a level of trust and confidence that breeds success. >> what about what the on boats? is that where you are most often found? other times when you want to

get off the floor quickly before they get to you or is that expected to? where did they find you most often when they are counting votes? >> nobody wants to answer that. i will answer that. it is part of the process. they will come around and take your temperature. you have a caucus and i want to know which way you are leaning. that is your first opportunity to stand up. by the way, you are not told what to do. you can be strongly encouraged. if you are down to two or three votes, you might be really encouraged but the reality is you can make your own decisions. we each have to answer to our constituents. the day i arrived, i remember that the speaker of the house told us that we need to answer to our own constituents. never get confused about who you are and where you come from. i just wanted to make that clear.

obviously, there is some legislation that you really want people to get behind. the energy bill is a good example and that was a tough one. they first started asking in colchis and you can stand up. we have all stood up there. we can really argue something. you can continue it, as long as you want. they might -- you can ask for a private meeting if there are issues that are driving you crazy and they can work it and they do. they try to compromise and work it. ultimately, you have the bill and your protest may not be fixed. it may still stamp the way it does. you have to make a tough decision if it is good enough and serves more of what you want. are you able to vote for it. sometimes you up to swallow hard but to have -- but you cannot throw away a bill. you have all seen it. you are on the floor and it's very close and people are

looking and saying if we can do this. what do we need to get you there? what is your concern? when they ask what we need to get you there, they are not promise anything. they are saying that is there some way we can legislate again. is there something we can do when the bill comes in conference before it actually becomes a bill, when it goes to the senate and comes back. if the answer is no, the answer is no. i voted no on the afghanistan money. i explained that i simply could not. i honored and respected everybody who did because people had their reasons and they were good reasons. my reason was because my husband was in the military during the vietnam era and i saw many, many, many men and women who have been impacted. i felt that until we knew exactly, what our mission was

and what the metrics were going to be and some kind of a sense of when we would know we would reach our goals, i could not do it. i know many terrific men and women who voted for this and voted for the right reasons for them. it was one of those tough votes. you can vote your conscience either way. regardless of what the weapon was, i put my feet on the ground and said i cannot do others could because -- these are difficult votes. nobody knows this road map. >> i always felt the same. democrats want to fall and love, republicans want to fall in line. as democrats, we are a family but sometimes we battle like family members. we have disagreements. we all appreciate that. at the end of the day, sometimes carol and i will not agree. i respect her as a person, even though we of policy

disagreements. i have a trust and confidence in her that she will follow her conscience and do what is right for her district and country, period. she will do what is right for the country. i appreciate that. >> i think that whipping is a misnomer. >> it is a tough term, isn't it? >> i have not actually been whipped. i don't recall that happening. i would have remembered that. in the first meeting we had with the whip, congressman cliburn, he told us and promised us that we would never see the rubber hose. he stuck to it. i have been doing this for eight months and i have never seen any sort of pressure put on us either directly or indirectly to vote for a bill that the leadership really wanted. it has always been reasoning together. if you vote no, you will be sure

that you will have at least one other 75 people boating note with you. that is a said that because the republicans always vote as a bloc. among the democrats, i think it is under -- easy to understand why we take our approach. the first time i went to a caucus meeting, we were choosing the leadership before we actually got sworn in. it was very nice to be invited to that before got sworn in. i looked around and i saw america. i saw white people and i saw black people. i saw men and women buried by such english speakers and i saw spanish speakers in our caucus. that makes us really different for our diversity is our strength. when you have a divorce group, the way you increase solidarity is the shared values. the kind of discussion that we had -- have won a vote comes up and maybe it's a tough vote because of my district or because i have problems with it on the basis of constant, the

discussion is always on the level of what is right, what is good, what is right, never what is in it for me or the leadership. it never takes the kind of turn. the result of that is that the democrats do not always vote as a single block. some of our votes have been very close and some are unpredictable. there were a couple that took a long time to close the vote. the net result of that is that through our diversity, we have our strength. you compare that to the other side which seems to operate on different principles, it doesn't have anything resembling diversity. it seems to fight the very idea of diversity grade i remember one situation on the stimulus package where a republican member from louisiana from a heavily democratic district who most people think was elected because it is a pawn of was found with $8,000 cash and his freezer, that member learned that there be over $1 billion coming into his district

because of the stimulus package. he announced publicly the day before the vote that he would vote for the stimulus package he needed that money. his district was hurt by katrina and all sorts of other reasons. the next day, with every other republican member of congress, he voted against that bill. i can only imagine the whipping that took place in that 24 hour-. with him. it was pretty harsh because he had announced he would vote for it and the district needed it and the vote against it. we don't operate that way. we operate through collegiality and for consensus. >> i have been told many times by leadership, you have heard it, vote your conscience. >> i know we have a big difference in the way the two sides operate. we mentioned it university. we have sub-caucasus and some

are the ideologically based in summer not. -- and some are not for it on the other side, i rarely say this sort of thing. there may be more than one or two groups but they typically compete for being the most conservative. in recent years, we have seen the moderate group of republicans be defeated or disappear or go into hiding if they manage to survive. >> or turn democrat. >> that happens, too. how did you come to choose to affiliate with some of the sub- caucuses, the progressive caucus? were you approached by members and did you know where you wanted to go? what was the process lichen joining of a? -- was the process like in enjoining pop-up? >> i may blue dog democrat. that is not very popular.

i am very frank with people. when i stood with netroots in philadelphia of july, 2005, it fell 95 degrees in that room. the banner behind me told about progressive values. one of those progressive values is fiscal responsibility. i believe, as a father and a policy maker, i have a moral obligation to believe that we have balanced budgets. sometimes you cannot balance the budget. there is emergency spending in wartime and the stimulus bill by i happen to be a fiscal conservative on social issues, i am a progressive. i am proud that when it was a blank check for president bush, i voted again.ujt(uáq i thought it was irresponsible. when the vote comes up on "don't ask, don't tell" i think that is a national security issue. i think it has been a waste of $1.3 billion.

[applause] i think it is a disgrace that we have kicked out of our military 13,000 troops since the policy has been implemented. that is 3.5 brigades. these are valuable event. they are values of equality. we'll take an oath to support and defend the constitution. i taught the constitution when i was a professor at west point. i take that obligation very seriously. i have colchis with the blue dogs. i have stood with them when it comes to fiscal discipline and try to cut waste and abuse from spending programs and to what is right for the country. i happen to vote with a lot of the progressives when it comes to "don't ask, don't tell." it is something i am proud of. the blue dogs, frankly, caucus every week as a group that i learn things of what is going on in different committees. that is what that group happens

to bring to the table. i think sometimes the disparity within the democratic family is a good thing. we should have these disagreements and arguments. we worked out and we do what is right at the end of the day for our country. >> you do spend a certain amount time meeting with the blue dogs? it is a similar situation? is there weapon within the group? the power of the blue dogs in particular is the leverage you have. it has limited membership and you keep the number of members about at the level it takes to be able to leverage a bill off the floor, if you want to stand in the way or if there is someone who has a problem with something. it is clearly a leveraged group. how much time you spend? >> i am one of the whips for the blue dogs. i probably been with since i was a paratrooper. let's take health care for example the blue dogs -- you

cannot just be a blue dog, you have to believe in those values and have a record of of fiscal discipline. in our group, when it comes to health care, i happen to think it is a good thing. i am for public auction. as my personal opinion. it shows competition [applause] ] that is what we need. the blue dogs did not recognize the public option. some wanted it and some did not. i was one of the ones who wanted it. they said want to make sure that it was -- it is deficit neutral. we want to make sure that this is not a debt that our country will incur and pass along to our children or children's children i think that is, that fiscal discipline, is something that the president agrees with. it is something that many progressive agree with, as well. that is an element in health insurance reform that we need. most democrats would agree.

>> there is room for disagreement, even among blue dogs? >> absolutely. >> members of the progressive caucus, i think, probably -- do they meet as often? do they organize in the same way as blue dogs? >> we are progressive so we are disorganized. i belong to no organized caucus. i'm a progressive. >> that is the impression people have of what is going on in a progressive caucus. i do see is beginning to change and they are beginning to organize a bit. they are trying to exercise leverage of congress. >> i am neither one of them. i love both of these men and i will tell you that they are both driven by a moral compass that is just wonderful to behold. we share almost all the same kinds of goals and values and alan and i do as well. i do not belong to either group.

i come from a family where both my parents, who are my heroes, they were republicans. they were the old time republicans, remember them? there were absolutely wonderful. there were fiscally conservative. i share that with both of these men come here. i am very concerned about the size of the deficit. i'm very concerned that the cost of the iraq war in afghanistan was not in the budget. everybody needs to remember this. the bush administration drove us into the greatest deficit in history and three of these tremendous problems where we have had to reinvest in america. yes, we're spending money but we have not invested in america in many, many years. will not invest in our people. we are now trying to invest in our people. when i hear patrick talk and i hear the blue dogs talk, i agree with them about a lot of the issues they are confronting. i am concerned about when i hear the progressive caucus

talk, i agree with them as well i joined the populist caucus. everybody needs to be somewhere. i'm a co-founder of that caucus. that is basically, we can stand next to either group because the populist caucus deals with the issues that are affecting the people of this country. >> that is a relatively new or revised caucus. >> it is revived. we have the same issues where we support a public auction in health care will recall for fiscal responsibility, we want to see things on budget. the bush administration hid the true value of everything from the american people. as i have told people in my district, look around you. do you see a lot of that money that was spent around our state tax what do you really say? what we see is that that money was spent and those deficits were run up but they were not put on the american people. that is what we are trying to do now.

and the populist caucus, we share the same values that the others do. we may be slightly different at times but i would tell people that the man that i am sitting next to and the men and women that i sit next to in congress, they work hard every single day. the were to represent the district but also to try to do what is best for their country. they do not report to their state legislature every day. a report to the u.s. so, we have a huge task and we find common ground, most of the time. it is remarkable. >> i think these differences are sometimes exaggerated. if you look at the voting records, we have had something like 700 boats already since the beginning of the year, you will find that there is not a single democrat votes mostly with republicans prepare is not a single republic and that bodes mostly with democrats. the defense serious chasm is between the party of yes and the party of no.

that is the reality we all live with every day, as democrats. it is true that sometimes the republicans come close to peeling off the 40 democrats that they need to put no into effect. it is not so much the result of the caucus you belong to. it is more the result of the issue that happens to come to the floor. there are 39 caucuses at this point. there's no disrespect for the populist caucus but but remain caucuses are the progressives, the new democrats, and the blue dogs. what you find when you talk to people who are members of these is that they do not disagree about core democratic values at all. they do not disagree at all. what they disagree with is the question of priorities. in general, if i can speak for the others, the blue dogs emphasize fiscal responsibility. that is not to say that the rest of us are against it. that is not true in my case. the new democrats emphasized free markets. this is not the socialist party of america.

is the democratic party and you find that people want free markets in general. in the case of the progressives, the emphasis is on a human needs. these are not things that are at war with each other. they are not competing with each other. >> thank you very much. we have tried to take a close look at congress matters about who is voting with the larger democratic caucus and who deviates from that most often. the data is that it tends to be blue dogs and more conservative. you make the point that in almost no case, over the long term, is anybody boating more with republicans than democrats. it is sometimes difficult to gauge that because a great number of the votes are overwhelmingly in favor of things like suspension bills that will tend to boost the numbers. i think it is fair to say that

people who are observing, more casually or close the, will find the blue dogs find themselves on the opposite side of where progress of the observers are. i do think it is interesting to note the disparities between the mechanics of the with the group's work. the progressives, i don't think, do they meet weekly? >> yes, we made but i think we find that we don't need to spend a lot of time court netting because we have strong shared values. it is less important for us to talk things over. we pretty much know where we are. >> in taking a look at the voting patterns, the progressive caucus was much more cohesive unit voting together more often and there was a great deal of diversity inside the blue dog colchis. we found among the other side and some key votes, we found a much greater spread among the blue dogs on a graft than the

progressives. among the progress of blogosphere, that has become a source of irritation. they say is a larger caucus with cohesive voting but they seem to leverage things less often than blue dogs with their smaller numbers. there's a difference in the pope is, perhaps, of what the groups are about. moving on from that -- i don't want to make anybody too uncomfortable. it is important part of how things are working. >> i think it is important to remember that when people are sent to washington, they are elected they do have to reflect, to a large extent, the values that the people back home have. it is critical i pointed out that you are in the united states government and that you have to look at all whole picture of the united states and the relationship to the world. you also have to make sure that

you are speaking up and representing the people from your district. it is a delicate balance. sometimes, we'd be that on people too much. -- we'd be up on people too much. -- we beat up on people to much. we have to pay attention on many different levels. >> some of the beams you hear about between the three of us, accountability. that is what democrats stand for. we made the point about auditing the federal reserve. i happen to be a co-sponsor of that and that is partnered with republican ron paul. i thought that was the right thing for the country. i want to make sure we know where we are spending our money and where that money is going. i think that accountability that the democrats bring to the table. we don't write blank checks. we want to make sure we are getting bang for our buck. that is what the party brings to the table. most americans appreciate that

and as that -- and that is what we have a responsibility to govern and. >> i don't think you can expect either party to vote against their district. if they do, they just won't survive. because of the success of our party, there are now 50 democratic members of congress who are in districts that john mccain carried. we are a large, diverse colchis that reflects even a larger and more diverse america. the result of that is that we have members of our caucus to vote their districts and properly so because that is what we are therefore. >> i think it is a source of frustration. that is only because the group observing and to whom we are speaking for themselves cohesive and have a position that they would like to see voted. as you pointed out, i think that is the flip side of what you started out with in saying that the leadership is very clear in speaking to members, that they have the freedom to vote as they need to in order to

represent their districts. it is very important to bring both sides. while that is a frustration -- >> that frustrates us when we are getting to a certain vote. there is a lot of passionate debate in caucus about what we will do as we try to comes cuts -- some kind of consensus the wonderful thing is that there is a debate in the caucus, that everybody can stand up there and say whatever he or she wants to and we can work to persuade one another. i can be persuaded by a very -- by a very good argument and everyone else can too. we have that dialogue. i think that is what people should hope for in a democracy, that each one of us will engage with one another and keep our minds open. >> ultimately, it would be the hope progressives, that would never come to the point where the leadership was twisting arms so are the people were not

able to vote their conscience. that is not progress of value, in itself. the consequences of having the kind of freedom and engaging the kind of debate is that occasionally, things don't go your way. >> i thank you for addressing that. if i can jump back quickly -- think we will save the last 50 minutes or so of our session for that. one last question before we go. congressman grayson, you mentioned your marks that you're working on for your district. i know that is light whipping. if it is not an on fair terms, it picks up people's ears. i'm interested whether you came to congress with any kind of idea about earmarks being a problem. i would like to describe a little about what your position is on that, in general.

that is something that i think it's a little experience in the house before you really make a decision on what you want to do. i noticed that many people campaigned on that as an issue. if we can start with you and move over. >> in the case of my district, we have been short changed over the years on federal spending. essentially, we export taxes and import debt. we send our tax money to washington, we get back very little in return for it is easy to see the result of this. if you look at the phone book for chicago and you look at the blue pages and look to the federal government listings, you see page after page of the federal government listings,ñrçb telephone listings in chicago. you look at orlando, you are talking over 2 million people, there is less than one page. we have no military bases in my district. we have virtually nothing in the way of federal facilities. we have some military recruitment centers and not much else. the result of that is that our

money keep going out of the district, year after year that saps the strength of the local economy. i think it is our turn. last year, my predecessor in his eighth year in congress brought $1.8 million to the district in designated spending. we are already over $13 million. we're working hard to increase and improve that all the time. i understand the arguments for and against your marks but in my case, i do not understand why some federal bureaucrat who worked for the federal highway administration would be a better judge of how to spend highway money in my district then we are. i don't understand that. i do not have any hesitation about doing everything i can to bring every fare dollar into our district especially when you're talking about a district that has been hit with 10% unemployment. the housing market is down over 30% in my district. we have the highest rate of

home vacancies in the entire country every stray, spare dollar i can grab, i grab for my district and i am proud of it. >> when i was criticized at a town hall meeting about earmarks, which i support, i said to the crowd there that if you think that the 53 members of congress in california are wondering how new hampshire is doing, you are wrong we have exactly two members from new hampshire. we were receiving about 68 cents for every dollar that we were sending. the rest of that dollar was being sent to states like alaska i believe them congressionally-directed spending. we know our district. what i don't believe in is the waste and fraud and lack of accountability and transparency. when patrick and i came in, that was part of what we talked about in government. we fixed that. we've requested in your market is post and we have to sign a financial affidavit that there is no way that anyone in our family will receive a benefit

and we should have that transparency and accountability. i completely support that. i just got money for men andn women who need it because they were in a iraq and afghanistan and they are closing is out. who would say no to that? it is for a naval shipyard which is crucial for national security reasons. a number of them was for health care clinics. we have to make sure that it is justifiable. we also need for people across the country to go to these websites and look at them. because, the only way we can reassure the american public who have been burned many times, many, many times, like the republican bridge to nowhere, they should look and make sure. .

other information. we have to have the accountability and we now do. we have to have the transparency and we now do. if people are not happy with it, there is an election. if they don't think there should be money for health care centers and there should not be money for the military or to take care of our veterans, say so in the next election. democracy is not a spectator sport. everybody needs to be involved in watching all of us. in watching all of us. >> lastly, i think part of it is it is frustrating when politics is behind it in that when carol and i came in, we want to be completely transparent. we cut the earmarks and half of what they used to bait. the third thing is that people can look at these things on the website because it is more transparent. are there abuses in the system? absolutely. that is why we have to make it

transparent. that does not mean that the whole system is bad. it goes back to when i used to teach cadets at west point and there are three branches of government. one is not more powerful than the others. sometimes, the executive branch get to a robbery case in point -- our troops in iraq and afghanistan really utilize the predator and drown. it is an unmanned vehicle in the air that helps them out. that was an earmark. the department of defense that it was a waste of money. that has saved american lives in a iraq and afghanistan. that is important thing. i am proud about that. that was something that was right. their actions were abuses from democrats and republicans and that is what we have to go after. we have to say no more and we have to change the policy. we have to make sure we are on top of it. we have to make sure that we have the full faith and confidence of the american people moving forward.

>> patrick boyle of the good point. -- patrick brought up a good point. the accountability and transparency should have been there all along. that is something our class did. >> i agree. you cannot say that all earmarked about like you cannot say that all earmarks are good. if you look at every year marks, they do two things -- they meet human needs and secondly, they bring jobs to the district. from top to bottom, that is what you say. what are your march is for providing surgery -- one of our pierre market is for providing surgery to troops in the field. one of our earmaks is providing surgery for troops in the field. another is rebuilding a bridge in our district which is the only escape route from hurricanes. that is an 80-year-old, one-lane bridge. i will defend that earmarked two.

-- i will defend that your mark, too. -- earmak, too. out of 435 members, there are only 70 the consistently vote against your marks. most of congress understands that we know more about how money should be spent in our district. >> i have watched members from the other side, specifically them read about earmarks come to the floor every time a congressman flake comes with this amendment to limit them. the majority of the republican caucus is happy to see that money earmarked. they know that they have their own and it makes a certain amount of sense. >> i think the frustrating thing from our perspective is that you want to be straight with the american public. i get frustrated when it comes

to spending issues. when people criticize the stimulus our economy was in recession under president bush. every economist said it would potentially turn into a depression. we needed to jump-start it. i voted for the stimulus. it was a big price tag but was frustrated from my perspective is that i voted for it and i thought was the right thing to put our country on the right track for the ones who voted against it, the ones that say these dollars are tight and wait for my britches, they voted against it. by our home saying what they brought to their districts. that is not being straight with the american public. that is what ticks me off. stop being a hypocrite. at least stand for a principal and don't try to play both sides. that is what the american people want in their elected leaders [applause] , democrat or republican

>> there are certain amount of people who rail against your marks and insist that will have nothing to do with it and they vote for them and they go home. if you are going to support this, be bold. tell the truth. the american people are very smart. just tell them the truth and explain why that is our job to take the top boat and explain to our people. by playing both sides and thinking this story will not catch up to them, that infuriates us. >> you have questions? >> thank you very much in my fifth year as a state legislator, i have only had to deal with one issue that goes over 1000 pages in the bill and that is our budget. everything else is only about 36 pages. i know you folks get bills that are 1000 pages and more.

how you deal with it? how do you know what may be hidden in between? how do you find out the information that gives you the ability to vote on something that may be a very critical but is so huge that you know you cannot read through it in time? >> thank you for your service to your community. for me, if i can talk about the health care bill, it was 1018 pages. the buck stops with me. i am the yes or no vote on a specific bill. i make sure i read every single one. i also have an incredible team of 22 folks who worked their tails off for our country. i split builds up. the bigger ones, they all take a section and we work as a team and we decide what is good and bad and how it will affect our district. we call and other experts and ask them what they think. we make amendments that would

really ask people's advice. my right -- my wife reminds me and says god gave me two years but one out for reason. i try to make sure i do my homework and do what is right for our constituents. that is how my office is able to succeed and do well. >> on the health care bill, i was one of the three committees of jurisdiction in the house. i certainly knew and followed all the. it is a huge bill. but patrick said is what happens -- you have these people and your staff, you choose them because of their ability and talent and you work with them every single day. they are working, you are working, you are talking to people, if it is not your committee, and we had so many meetings. we had like 75 meetings for people to stay up to speed on the changes in the health care bill. we had outside experts come in. when we had the tarp bill, i voted against it but i read it and my staff read it and then we

called congressional research service and brought professionals and. we reach out all the time. we have tremendous resources available to us. we read newspapers like everybody else. we probably read many more newspapers and get more feedback. our constituents -- i have people who will help me from the banking committee who want to express their opinion. i have people from health care. i have meeting with different groups. i am about to meet with two groups of physicians. i have already met with physicians and hospitals and consumer groups. all this state very engage on these issues. it is a tremendous workload. i can talk about congress and a positive light because i think we worked extremely hard. the average american would be shocked to see how many hours we put in. i had somebody fall in a couple of weeks ago for two days and he wrote me a note saying tha he had no idea how much work we did and how long day's work.

-- were. i am happy to do it and i know my colleagues are, too. we are happy to be the voice of the people. we are pretty responsible in making sure that the legislation is what we think it says. occasionally, something happens and somebody has something that i am not happy about. we do have a -- we do a very good job of following legislation. >> i have people follow me all around from the nrc, but i did not get a pat on the back. we have american-size problems and they amount in america-sized bills. no one can think we can inform -- reform the health-care system with a five-page bill. the result of that is that we all understand that it is incumbent upon us to create the best bill we can. the result of that is that we spend an enormous amount of time

doing it. we had a session a few weeks ago in the democratic caucus that lasted five hours, going for the bill paid by page. i am pretty sure the republicans did not. the result of that is that we do make, in the end, good choices based on real facts and not misinformation, setting a sharp contrast with their opponents. >> we would take another question? >> after receiving billions of dollars in taxpayer dollars in bailout funds, goldman sachs and other banks are reporting record profits and paying enormous cornices. -- bonuses. how can change the situation and regulate banks and ensure that banks that are too big to fail are regulated so another meltdown does that happen? >> i think i heard you. we will see have my answer is correct. i know that what is being proposed is that these banks

will have to put more money and they will have to prepare what is called their funeral so they will set up what they have to do if they do fail. the call is for them to have more resources to deal with the problems and a plan in case they do not. when you have too big to fail, you have a huge problem. >> i think too big to fail means to big to exist. that is my own opinion. i hope that is reflected in legislation before too much longer. [applause] i voted against every bailout. i think that is a gross abuse of taxpayer funds all of us who are fiscally responsible feel very uneasy with the very idea of taking hard-earned taxpayer money and spending on private enterprise. in the case of goldman sachs, we sent a letter recently to the chairman of the federal reserve explain that goldman sachs was taking advantage of their status and borrowing money from the federal reserve discount window while still having

enormous appetites for risk, according to their chairman of the board. he said they have a high appetite for risk. we are doing what twhat we can to make sure they are not taking advantage of the taxpayer. >> our job is that it is transparent to you know where the government dollars are being spent there should also be read the accountability and you don't let them get away with it for you have to make sure that there is accountability in legislation and execution of that legislation >> we are actually out of time. if we have a few minutes afterwards, we will be able to answer questions. i don't know if our next panel is ready. i'm sorry we did not get as much time for questions. i think we had a fairly free- wheeling discussion. >> thank you. [applause]

[no audio >> the heritage foundation releases a report today on juvenile violent crime. this followed by a panel discussion on whether juveniles should be sentenced as adults to life without parole. the panelists include edwin meese, attorney general in the reagan administration. he will have live coverage on c- span2. we will also have a discussion of the massachusetts health plan and how my work nationally. one economist has analyzed the plan. president barack obama plans to think of veterans for their service today and talked about plans for the wars in iraq and afghanistan. he will be in the phoenix arizona 2 addressed the veterans of foreign wars annual convention. we will have live coverage c- span at 2:00 eastern. >> lobbying, and loans, and

money. the director of the sunlight foundation on how they use the internet to provide transparency elite government. that's tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. >> book tv weekend continues all week -- all month. tonight, senate majority leader harry reid. >> enter the home to america's highest court, from the grand public places to those only accessible by the nine justices. the supreme court, coming the first sunday in late october on c-span. >> political bloggers and other activists gathered over the weekend for what they called the right online conference. in this panel, they discuss how conservatives can use the internet for political change.

process for coming to this second annual rite on-line conference. we have had a good time and are happy have joined us. we're delighted to have with us a erik erikson, from the heritage foundation and matt lewis from "politicsdaily." the topic is how to write and went on-line. after this, you can go home back to your communities, get online and get engaged. we're so grateful that you're here and see the energy and enthusiasm that you have.

we look forward to staying in light touch in seeing how we can make a difference in moving forward. in your packet, there is a flair for the national defending the american dream summit for october 2nd and third. if you want to fill that out and hand that to our staff, if you want to register, you couldn't go to the website. we will be around if you have any questions. on that note, i will turn it over to these guys. process for being on the closing panel. >> process. i am the online strategy director at the heritage foundation. the process for joining us. we have with us to other great panelists, erik erikson and matt lewis. i want to give you an opportunity to ask questions as well because this is dependent on you. we are just three people among

many who have spoken the last couple of days, but we want to hear what undermines and answer questions about how we move the ball forward on what we do next. but i thought i stop -- i thought i would start by asking the panel is to share some thoughts on how we take the next that. i want to begin by looking back on where we come the past year. i know how many of you were in the austin texas last year, but i saw lot of enthusiasm and that several people who have returned from last year's conference. i thought we would start with eric because he was there last year. how has the right developed and adapted in late last year? if you think conservatives are still struggling to grasp the power of new media or if the left is looking to us for ideas? >> i think the left is looking to us for some ideas.

but we have been copying them. take a look at us. we have been doing what barack obama. we will find some donors with a 11 year-old daughter's will ask questions about why the left is so angry and we will deny the questions are prescreened. we will do it just like barack obama does. seriously, we're still behind. part of that is a lack of recognition on the right on what is going to do to get ahead. the left has been very willing to be collaborative and put money towards the problem. on the right, everybody is still interested in the profit motive. we're not going to make a profit. you have to decide you are committed to the cause. if you look at a lot of luck. sites, you'll see a lot of advertising by the aclu, the democratic party, but you don't

see that on the right. there is still a funding gap that plays into it. at the same time, there are still different interests. but i see the trends now, particularly on web sites, on the right traffic is starting to go up. take for example hot air. it is getting more traffic than dailykos. that is huge for us. so we're starting to make progress. there is still progress to go. there needs to be greater recognition on the right that demographically we are different. we are working families to work through the day you cannot be gauged on line as opposed to college kids and retirees on the east and west coasts. a caper time to it. >> you have warned many

different hats. you have also been involved in the campaigns. what you think about how things have pay it -- things have played out. >> i think he's right in that the right and left her different and it's a mistake -- we should try to learn from the other side always. conservatives and liberals, i am sure liberal tried to learn from lee atwater. i read joe trapeze book and i hope you did to -- i read joe trippi's book and howard dean. i do agree that that right and left are different. the left is worried right now. they're not worried that the conservative blogosphere is beating them, they are worried that the conservative blogosphere coupled with talk radio, coupled with the heritage foundation and think tanks and infrastructure that was put in place by the conservative

movement in the '70s, they thought it went away. so they are scared to death right now. what we have to look at is not to compare the conservative blogosphere against the left, but, sort of like the seat back analogy. -- surest -- sort of like the cpac analogy. the net reit nation is taking place today and this is our version of it. -- the net route nation is taking place today. the other point that want to make is the self flagellation has to stop. i agree that conservatives have a lot to learn and catch up with on the internet and i think some of us -- i don't it's is good because we're not as good as to it -- not as good at technology, but because the internet and

blogosphere blossomed when the conservatives were in power and liberals were out of power. people who were out of power are more creative and desperate and willing to try different things. though there is a tendency to over inflate the other side and how good they are and under appreciate how good our side is, that can lead to being demoralized. if you look at the last month, i would challenge you to tell me that the net routes have been more effective than the conservative blogosphere. without a doubt, the conservative blogosphere has been more effective and last month. i don't know if the trend will continue. >> would you say the election of president obama has helped write more on line that left. >> yes. it's ironic. i will give you a parallel. conservative think tanks, you worked at the heritage foundation and i used to work at the leadership foundation.

when bill clinton was president, they were raking in money because the conservative grassroots activists and owners were ticked off. when george w. bush was elected but then, all of our problems that apparently been solved because conservative donors quit giving money. the same thing is true on line. when your enemy power, there is something about being the establishment that means you are no longer a revolutionary. a great example happened, about a week ago, the white house put out this thing that you see any misinformation coming from about health care, you should read it -- i mean and formats. -- i mean informs us. the white house responded smartly.

they did what you are told to do. they put out their own video, they put up a web site. somebody came forward and did their own youtube video and nobody covered it. nobody covered it nobody in benefit -- nobody in that it. when you are on the outside, you are no longer the establishment. no longer a million flowers bloom and that is what happening with conservative blockers now. the problem with barack obama and the white house is that they won. it's no longer cool or fun. i was a conservative bloc urging the bush years and it's not fun. this is fun. while i would like to have conservative leadership badly the white house, as a blocker and writer, as somebody who writes about politics, there are benefits to not being in the power. >> as somebody who deals with

the grass-roots activists all time, how is the left still outmanoeuvring the right on line? what the things to we need to be doing to be more effective? >> there is still some outmanoeuvring. frankly, there are a lot more blockers on the left to do it as a field -- as a full-time occupation. you have many on the left or subsidized by the george soros machine. they get hired by the "washington post." greg sergeant is now an objective reporter. >> this is the first year as recline will not beat moderating a panel. >> and >> all aboard the sudden they are objective. we are objective now, and the

right really sucks and is really evil. it used to be my opinion, but now because i am mainstream media, it's a fact. it's funny how that works. the right is never going to be embedded in late media as the left is. the left has an easier time inserting stories into the media. that is why there is a much anger at the town hall meetings out. you have a majority of americans who ever realized the politicians to control washington are against them and the press is not reporting accurately what is happening. they have a natural anger. they are having to yell to get their message out because it's not getting out anywhere else. the left has an achilles' heel and the right is beginning to capitalize on that. once the right solidifies this, it's going to be terrifying for the left. the left came into the internet because that was the available pool for them when republicans

ought -- available tool to them when republicans ran the white house. but when the right was out of power in the '90s, the available tools and was talk radio. so the right began to dominate talk radio. the left has never been able to succeed at talk radio. never has been. imagine a resurgent online right and a thriving radio right working together. it becomes a very powerful force to bypass the left and the media operation in washington and new york to get people across the country and get to voters. you are regularly seeing that happen, particularly with local talk radio stations. the left and the media have generated this astroturf story that is americans for prosperity, freedom works, the rnc and others who are working

to drive * servers to town halls. that is not true. you want to find where the largest town halls are, they are in metropolitan the markets that have thriving talk radio stations. that is where your town halls are. it's not the guys in washington d.c. doing it, it is a local radio guys. >> let's talk about what blockers have done -- let's talk about what blocker -- what bloggers have done. how do people think that would have been on msn the sea or the cnn? at the same town hall, there was a lady who happen to be there who represent yourself as a pediatric surgeon. she was not. if you're going to fake your profession, fake your name.

that's a good rule of thumb. the "houston chronicle" ran with a story, they put her in the paper, saying she was a pediatric surgeon. there was a blogger presence and found she had 8 myspace page. he interacted with her and she admitted she was not a doctor. this is what bloggers are doing in the grassroots. these are not people like us, these are bloggers who live in houston and they're making a difference. >> and their feeding that into a talk radio apparatus. there is no doubt the left will start pushing the fairness doctrine again. >> the important take away from what both of you have said is that people like you with us here today are going to be the ones who will go out and do this. you cannot do this from

washington d.c. those of you in local communities who are doing this, recording these town hall meetings, other things in your community, it is reliant on you. most of you come from different kinds of perspectives when it comes to blogging. you are more of an activist and you are more of a pundit. there may be disagreement among the two of you and i expect there to be, do we need -- what is more important, activism or reporting? >> i will start. [laughter] the guy who starts usually wins. always throw the first punch. a couple of years ago, you got into a heated debate with

[unintelligible] about this very topic. this has been around for a while and there are people who say -- as much as conservative blocker's identified -- as much as conservative bloggers get into fights, people say the purpose of doing it is activism. if you are not donating to the canada, you are not for real. there are others who want to george will when we grow up. there is this clash, but my argument has always been is a false choice. if you look at when the conservative movement was effective in the past, you always had people -- yet great activists and great opinion leaders like william f. buckley, and yet politicians like ronald reagan. i still believe inly place called hope. [laughter]

i still believe we need that and we complement each other. newton gingrich is fond of quoting mark thatcher said first you win the argument, then you win the vote. george w. bush did not teach. he quit teaching the american public. ronald reagan was a leader and he would sometimes do things that were not popular, but he would bring the country with him. he understood it was part of the job of being president to educate the public on what free- market work or whatever. while meat -- why we must be communism, those great things. i do take issue with the argument that bloggers should strictly the activists. i do believe it's important we find out these bills optical and ideological battles. when i write for "politicsdaily

" which is a main street -- mainstream website. i am a conservative voice, a conservative viewpoint. hopefully people in late new york city and sam francisco are reading me. >> obviously, he is wrong. [laughter] actually i agree. it is not a false choice. the dean barnett argument started when i [unintelligible] the problem still continues. it is not that we need either pundits or activists caucus we do need both. rush limbaugh -- because we do need both. rush limbaugh rallies the crowd and is a good job of educating people on issues. but you will rarely hear him say

call congress. it is other voices is a call congress or go to your tea party. we need a variety of voices. the problem in the blogosphere, and we are really bad about this compared to the left, is if i do something at red state, a protest, there's going to be someone who will spend 10,000 words writing why i either should not do it or if i would just do it their way instead of my way it would be more effective. you get that everywhere, but the right is notorious about everyone wants to be the next rush limbaugh or george will or glenn back. -- glen beck. i am a big believer at throwing stones are republican politicians have gotten out of line. [applause]

as i said this morning, we are rapidly getting to a situation where we may just take back the house and it will hurt us because we have not learned all the lessons we need to learn. that's why we need to grow a lot of stone's right now so they figure things out before next year. inly the right blogosphere, at some point, you have so many competing voices, that the way they try to distinguish voices, they start throwing stones and that could be a problem. but we do need activists and we do need pundits and the need to work together. >> not only throwing stones, but he has the most harsh or controversy all rhetoric also gets their name and a paper and is linked to what ever. you brought up earlier that there are not enough full-time

conservative blockers. if you work full-time as a blocker -- as a blogger, you have to do what they called research. if you can do this full time, you can go to sec.gov and become an expert on who donates to house leaders or whatever. but if you can't spend that time doing it, you cannot be a policy blogger, if you only have a limited amount of time, it's easier to write your opinion because everybody has an opinion. i write opinion of lot, but i try to come up with someone note -- with something no one else is thinking of hopefully. but going back to your point of not enough full-time conservative bloggers -- there's

not a time or money. >> for those of you who do not have bloggers, now is not the time to start one. now maybe the time to go find pre-existing communities and become part of a larger community. a lone voice crying in the wilderness rarely gets heard, particularly on line when there are 20 million blog. but if you go to a community of like-minded people and start working together, your opinion is valid and now want to make sure you understand this -- your opinion is valid and i am interested in your opinion. but what i am much more interested and if you're ability to pick up a rock and throw it were any to the throne. pick up a phone and call congress or give money to get canada. go to a town hall and make your voice heard. -- pick up a phone and call

congress or give money to a good candidate. i think that's more important than the lone voice crying out in the wilderness. >> as i said earlier, the audience should not think of themselves as a blocker -- as bloggers, but 21st century community organizers. >> i have a background in the journalism and i wanted to be a reporter and was a reporter for five years. then i took a job at heritage. >> you are more qualified to be a reporter for the "washington post" and the leftwingers they are hiring? >> i think i could get a job there. my point is, in addition to george will, we also need people like robert novak.

inly every column -- and every column, there's always news. it wasn't just strictly opinion. the other thing we need and the left has been able to do this with the funding they have received from talking. memo, is investigative reporting. it is reporting obviously slanted toward their perspective but they're still breaking news. i think that's an area that i am personally interested in and i will look to see more people on the right to vote their time to that. >> that is the single greatest area of deficiency between the left and right now. the left has whole organizations dedicated to filing ethics complaints and information requests against republicans coupled with a whole separate set of organizations to write the stories based on information gathered and feed it to the mainstream media. we're still not there yet on the

right. the needs to be significant investment in late that area. >> we need people who can spend all day at the house of representatives to ambush a member of congress and ask them what they think about death panels. it is time consuming to do that. you can't do it unless short getting paid. >> there are some things that are happening. particularly the franklin center, they are working in different states across the country, with state-based think tanks. each state has a think-tank. there are things happening, we need to wrap them up and devote more attention to them. i want to shift gears a little bit. this november, all eyes are on virginia and new jersey because there are gubernatorial elections. there will be the first major elections in the wake of obama's election last november.

what is the barometer going to be dependent on how these play out? what do you foresee in the next 80 days before these elections? >> if you compare where we were in 1993 to where we are now, we are all little bit ahead. if you compare state legislative seats picked up by republicans as opposed to now, we were 13 total in 1993. we went virginia and new jersey than. those were big indicators that something was afoot, particularly when in new jersey. but you have to be careful not reading too much into it. take virginia for example. the democratic candidate is running the worse can it anyone has ever heard of. his campaign is a disaster. it's horrible. he started monday last week

saying bob macdonald was not going to kill as many babies as bad governor. then he said he flew a confederate flag at an event. it was exposed that that was made up by his campaign manager. so to shift the dialogue, he problems -- he promised to raise taxes on all virginians. it's not a winning campaign. in the -- in new jersey, you have fbi indictments coming every day. i hope not to much as read into these elections, but there's something to be said that we're picking up seats in state legislative elections. my view is that 2010 is the most important election we will have had since 1968. the reason i say it is the most important is think about this -- this will be the first election since the passage of the voting rights act where the republicans

did not control the white house during redistricting. picking up state legislative races in 2010 is of critical importance to the republican party. it is going to be the state legislatures that draw the lines. those of you who do have bloggers and those who want to get started should be focused on the democratic state legislatures to we can pick off to make sure we have republican majorities, adding a democratic white house who will do everything possible. >> i put a lot of stock in the momentum. i think this is a huge year. i heard the chairman of the rnc in the 1990's who said -- i did not know this, but when george allen won a new jersey and -- most candid to one in 1994 signed on, they were recruited after christine todd whitman and

george allen won. that's amazing. not only is a victory in 2009 a harbinger of things to come, but it will literally encourage top tier candidates who are sitting on the fence that they can win in 2010. it doesn't just have psychological value, it has a tangible, real value. winning this year will encourage talk to republican candidates who have been sitting out since nobody wants to lose to actually get in the race. i think it's huge and i think we when in virginia. i'm optimistic about new jersey except for the fact that they could just replaced their canned it to weeks out and put in someone else. you can never predict what happens in new jersey. it's impossible to predict. but it looks good in virginia. i wrote something the other day

where i looked at the book george stephanopoulos wrote. i looked the part about health care. i started reading about what was happening in 1993 and 1994. it was uncanny. we all know that there is a comparison between the health care debate today and 1994. i challenge you to look at my piece because what you will find is even down to the fact that talk radio played a huge impact and he even mentioned at one of the town hall meetings, there is a guy with a gun in the audience. the cia had to take away from him. this happened in late new hampshire. -- as happened in new hampshire. this was almost history repeating itself. i think democrats have made many of the same mistakes they did in 1994. >> adding points to what he said about recruiting -- this year, the house body for campaigns has

had a heck of a recruitment cycle. they already have significant top tier candidates before next year. after new jersey and virginia rolled around, if we pick them up, unfortunately the senate side is a whole disappointment for republicans. the senate side cannot seem to get its act together. on the house side, which is what matters, because in late the constitution, it starts and house and not the senate. >> a couple more questions before we turn it over to the audience. a lot of critics -- a lot of credit goes to americans for prosperity for putting on a conference for a second straight year. the president, the executive director of right on line, i

applaud them for their efforts. do you feel other leaders in the conservative movement fully understand and are embracing the media to the extent they should? if not, why not? >> i think they are starting to get it. we had grover norquist year today and you mentioned tim phillips. the fact we're having this today, a conservative organization is putting this on, is very important. i agree with eric -- they need a succession plan. there are a lot of older conservative leaders and i don't think -- let me back up. john maxwell, a great leadership guru said without a successor there is no success. if you have a conservative organization today and there's not a good succession plan in

place and then you are not doing your job. there are a lot of problems, there are a lot of good things and they are starting to get it. we're not at a place where they know everything, but they know they don't know. we should be on this twitter thing -- that's where they are at. they now know what is. >> i would like to comment the afp foundation for what they have been able to do in the last couple of years. i went to last year's conference and can't recommend it in half. it's a huge conference. it brings people together -- talk about some of the things we're talking about today and more. it is a way to get focused on

moving forward, unlike a lot of the other forums the right has had for a long time. part of the problem we have on the right is there are a lot of groups that have gone into status quo mode and are doing the exact same things now with democrats in charge of the white house and congress that they were doing in 2003 with republicans in charge. that's not a winning formula. there is a way to much status quo on the right. there are some fine organizations on the right that are consuming massive amounts of resources and are not doing anything with it. some of these organizations -- >> and do you want to name names? >> i probably should not. there are some and we probably know them. they're wasting resources on the right. think of some of the conservative organizations and compare them with what is happening here and compared with

the defending the dream conference. you're not just turning out people to be pontificated to by politicians in washington, but turning out people in washington to fight the good fight. that does not happen on our side anymore because people got complacent. they are now fully endowed and the network for it. it's good to be hungry. >> process. -- thank you. i hope you would not include heritage in that list. >> i would not. >> i can tell you having worked at the heritage foundation for the last two and half years, it's remarkable to see just how much they have been willing to let me do. when i started, there was a reluctance to even let me blog. now it's one of the most popular places for our analysts to get

the message out. it has changed the entire way we message and communicate. >> we should also note that heritage started town hall.com. they were ahead of the curve. >> from my personal perspective, having worked for three organizations and become -- in the conservative movement, i have seen a willingness to adapt. it is slow and it takes time for our leaders to do that, but there are good ones and there are good ones who set a good example and hopefully others will follow. >> as i am doing my plug for defending the dream, you should have a packet for it. we are hungry right now as a movement. going to events like this, going

to events like the defending the dream conference are so critically important because my rule of thumb is with conservative conferences, and there are a lot, of the focuses not on meeting each other and collaborating, we are wasting time. i will say what i said this morning. if you don't know the person sitting in front of you and sitting behind you when you leave, we're starting at a net loss. we have to start figuring out to each person is and how we can work together. >> there's been good synergy between conservative organizations have done these. i know that americans for prosperity are part of the red stag gathering in atlanta and at the leadership institute. that's healthy and get to see. >> absolutely. playing off that note and finding them who you are sitting next to in making that connection, what would you say

if you could offer one piece of advice to the people attending here and those who are watching on c-span? what is the one piece of it by sea would give them leaving this conference today that they could do on line to be effective? >> the one piece of advice i would give you is no represents you and if you have a problem with that person because of their voting record, let the rest of us know. building a record in the opposition against those we intend to fight is quietly important right now as we move into an election season, finding out who the people are and what problems are. this really is a fight. you see it now every day. some of you here and up onto town halls have been attacked by

the media as phony and the media is treating us as fugs a beating people up. becoming not just part of the conversation but part of the movement is the number-one thing. when i say the movement, and not talking about some esoteric thing, i'm talking about the movement of people from their keyboard to their town hall to their voting booth. >> i'm not sure i can top that line. >> that's good. we should put that on a bumper sticker. [laughter] >> #1, follow me at on twitter. that's a shameless self- promotion. in reality, the first thing i would have believed with this don't be demoralized. i think the wind is touchback. -- the wind is at your back. we have lamented the fact that the left is more organized and right is not.

in a way, it's always been that way. they have a top-down structure, command and control. conservatives by nature are rugged individuals. we don't take marching orders from a central agency. >> what? >> you do have an e-mail list trade -- e-mail list. >> itunes and every morning to get my marching orders from karl rove. they tell me every morning when i have to do to defend big oil. [laughter] >> get an iphone or flip camera or blackberry or something with a camera and the ability to tweet. go to the town hall meetings and take your member of congress.

the fourth estate is the media. you are the fifth state -- citizen journalists who are out there holding representatives accountable. there is nothing more helpful for democracy than that whether you are on the right or left. it's something i think everyone can do. keep in mind power you have. you essentially own a printing press, a broadcasting station, a camera -- the beatles recorded their music on a five track player that kids have in their basement. the technology is there to make you an incredible activist and incredible citizen journalist. someone out there keeping an eye on the government that we the people on. >> i don't even think they make five track players anymore. kids don't have them in their basements. >> i do have some great care. [laughter] -- i do have some gray hair. >> on the make a good point

here. psalm 73 -- i envied air again when i saw the prospect for d -- the prosperity of the wicked. as he ponders this, he realizes and he has this great line that basically in an instant, possibly are they destroyed, completely swept away by their terrors. [applause] we on the right must be happy warriors until the end. we must be happy warriors because we don't know when victory -- and i -- i am not christian and people that -- i generally come from that perspective. victory comes, we just don't know when. be happy warriors until the end.

[applause] >> that's excellent and i think it's a great. the shift from me asking questions to hearing from all of you. we have a couple people with microphones and i see a question in the front -- in the front of the room. please identify yourself. >> i'm a little bit hard of hearing, so the microphone helps. >> i thought it was interesting to hear you talk about the combination of talk radio, which was well established in the '90s as being a benefit to us, and if we add to that the media right. if we put those forces together, we would be unstoppable. the question is, what happens as they pushed the fairness doctrine on talk radio