you head meat-packing -- had meat-packing standards. he made clear regulations to protect kids and teenagers. if you did that, the economic vibrancy that we all recognize will be at the centerpiece of the economic and educational engines of the future, that will happen. the industry might say that as a burden, but we would strongly disagree. we think it is in all of our best interest. next question. >> first of all, how will it is a kid? 17 and under? is it 17 and under? >> for common sense media, it is under the age of 18. >> do you agree. >> different policies with a different kids.

>> i agree, but for our purposes it is 12 and under. >> the department of education thinks about privacy, safety and a private security across all the information. >> how does all company now when a person goes on line at -- let's say they are looking at a tapeworm on wikipedia. how does it now it is a giggling 13-year-old against a 35-year old person with the medical condition. -- medical condition? >> do you want to take a shot? >> sure. companies cannot always tell, of course, but certainly, they

developed profiles of the internet addresses. they do behavioral marketing. if you go online, you will see that advertisements generally sent to you are sort of a relevant to your universe of interests. i think, in lots of instances, those profiles are developed often using third party cookies, which are somewhat controversial. at some level, you cannot distinguish between kids and adults. -- you can. >> how many believe the regulation so far has been relevant -- adequate? >> we did not believe that industry self regulation is adequate. >> to the rest of you feel that it has fallen short? >> there are clearly issues that need to be addressed, and that

can be addressed in a number of different locations. there is no question that industry is looking more carefully at their privacy policy because it is a broad consumer issue, and we are also looking at the best way to foster a growing and trust and broadband system. -- trusted broadband system. >> if some companies have done a very good job on privacy protection, but overall industry needs to step up the plate and self-regulation. there will be a very big debate in the next congress, and if they do not improve collectively their efforts at self- regulation, i think congress will be very interested in writing more prescriptive rules. >> my last question is, if these companies get very tough on privacy they could lose a lot of revenue. they depend on advertising. what is in it for them to act on what would seem to be against

their short-term self interest? >> i will take that from a common-sense standpoint. at common sense, we do not believe the only value that matters is shareholder value or short-term profit. we believe the interests of kids and families are paramount. the idea that certain privacy policies may limit corporate profits from companies that are making enormous profits, by the way, and having enormous public offerings, and enriching their employees, founders, and shareholders greatly, is simply not a huge concern for us. we believe they have a responsibility to the public, specifically to kids and families. if there are short-term investments they need to make, or certain restrictions on profits that come from a do not track law that did not allow them to share third party information with marketers and advertisers, that as a bargain

that as well made. he has to balance the best interest of kids against short term profits. we believe the interest of kids and families is paramount. >> i would add that i think we are on the cost of dramatic growth in the application of new technologies in education, not just in the classroom, but beyond. i think many in the industry see that potential and are poised to deliver against that. i think it is in our economic best interest to ensure that students are protected, that teachers and parents feel like these are safe tools to protect privacy, and that will accelerate the deployment of these tools. to not do so, is not in their economic interest because it will slow their use. >> a lot of companies and executives do actually care about privacy. with respect to something like do not track, i think is most

consumers -- it is not clear that the technology is there, but it seems close -- if there was a do not track mechanism, a lot of consumers what ought not to be is it not to use it. they prefer more relevant adds. i am not sure the rate would be terribly high. time may tell. >> very quickly -- i think there is a growing awareness in companies that operate in the the space that if the internet is not a trusted place, it will not have the growth characteristics that are needed for the greater success of those companies. if small businesses do not trust the internet, and did not taking advantage of opportunities in

the cloud to expand to new markets, and lower their cost, said it will hurt the business that is try to sell to those small businesses. we of all participated in discussions where the industry is taking this issue more and more seriously. it really is broadway required -- broadly required for both protecting basic privacy values, and also ensuring the success of the internet to have it be trusted and secure. >> we will take one more question, and that will be it. >> i was wondering if you could collaborate on the current state of privacy law -- elaborate on the current state of privacy law with regard to protecting kids, and what potential improvements would be needed. do you feel like current law is adequate? common sense is calling for no

behavioral marketing to kids. how should the law treats behavioral marketing to kids? >> well, i would sit privacy laws in america are a quilted patchwork. sometimes they do -- they work well, but often they were developed in isolation. that is why you see some members of congress that are far more comprehensive privacy legislation. we are doing an accelerated review of the childrens' on- line protection act. my recommendation -- my sense is that we're want to have some policy recommendations out of that, and maybe some minor changes to regulations themselves. we have not decided that yet. again, when you are an agency, and you do rulemaking, they are

cabin begin by the parameters of the extension of the law. >> i agree with jon. privacy laws and protections up here in many places. they are a patchwork, and they do not fully anticipate the challenges we are now facing. that is why this is getting a serious look in congress, and why each of our agencies are looking at it, and also one of the reasons why we set our joint task force. we want to be able to deliver to the public a coherent, sensible rules of the road that accomplish the goals we have been talking about. >> i think that congressman markey's statement today is quite important, since he has been of one of the leading figures in the past 15 or 20 years, looking at the whole

issue of media and technology, and was the primary office -- , author of the act that the chairman have referred to. for him to say he would like to see an update on the law, we see that as good news. there will be legions of lobbyists who are trying to protect their own self-interest. we hope very strongly that the best interest of kids and families will be part of that, and we can come up with a true set of common sense privacy rules for the 21st century. as parents, we all know we need this. i agree we very much with what chairman genachowski said -- in the long run, and even in the short-run, said it will benefit our economy. i am optimistic, and we have common sense would like to see that a bidding of the laws in a

comprehensive, common sense way. all of us will benefit if that happens. >> part -- privacy is one of the least partisan issues in washington. chairman genachowski and i testified before the committee in the beginning of august. privacy issues, particularly do not track, really resonated with members on both sides of the aisle. on the house energy and commerce committee, you have ed markey, who has been a leader on privacy, and so has joe barton. this is an issue that has been looked at, and it will be looked at and a bipartisan way. >> if we lose the room, we really should go. thank you very much for coming. [applause]

>> thank you, guys. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> our campaign coverage continues at 8:00 p.m. eastern tonight with the second debate between the u.s. senate candidates. fallen by live coverage of the debate in wisconsin. at 10:00 p.m. eastern, a debate between north dakota opposing democratic and congressman, earl pomeroy and his republican opponent, rick byrd. and then in illinois, a democratic fund-raiser. some political news for you, former speaker of the house newt gingrich is predicting event -- a landslide in november. he told fox news today that republicans will win enough seats in the midterm elections to take control of the house. he predicts at least a six-seat pickup. to become the majority in the house, republicans need to net 39 additional seats. and a reminder that you can get dozens of debate, political ads, some speeches and pancake -- campaign rallies available on

time -- available online anytime at c-span.org/politics. >> the c-span networks, we provide coverage of politics, nonfiction affairs and american history. it is all available on radio, television, on-line and social networking sites. find our content any time through the c-span video library. and we take c-span on the road with our digital bus and local content vehicle. it is washington your way, the c-span networks, now available in more than 100 million homes. created by cable and provided as a public service. >> a look now at the growth of the tea party movement and its potential effect on the elections in november. from today's "washington journal" this is about 35 minutes. cv. host: on this friday morning we are pleased to welcome back to our washington -- "washington journal" neil king and his story

this week caught our attention. earlier, we had people reporting on the tea party, suggesting that they were proud of their independence and lack of structure. you are suggesting that this is starting to change. guest: i think that they are realizing that to last, they cannot just be a lot of groups in various cities or counties that are just totally grassroots. because to do that, they have to maintain a certain passion that is just not there. what they're trying to do -- i think virginia is the best example of this. they are building a loose federation across the state that will help them organize and unify and push forward on things that they want to push forward on. and looking toward 2012 on the national front. host: different is virginia from other states? -- howled different is virginia

from other state? guest: they are the most mature in terms of inside. i think there are a number of reasons that is the case. they had a big election last year that brought a number of conservatives into office. it did some of the purifying the of the office that other states are trying to do. they also have a prominent center for election this year. it has caused a lot of strife in a number of other states, like nevada and arizona and delaware. they are ahead of people in some ways and then below the radar in other races. host: i want to put the numbers on the screen and invite you to talk politics 2010 about the two-party movement -- a tea party movement and its alignment with the republican party.

jamie radtke, who is she? guest: she is an interesting figure. she is the head of the richmond tea party. she is one of the driving forces behind this federation of virginia tea party patriot. six or seven folks have come together around the state to create this federation. they're having a big convention starting today. ms. -- host: ms. radtke, thank you for being with us. tellus about your involvement with the tea party. -- tell us about your involvement with the tea party. how long have you been involved in politics in general?

caller: i am probably one of the out buyers in the tea party movement -- out fliers in the tea party movement. i have been in politics for about 15 years. when the two-party came along it was very similar -- the tea party came along he was very similar to what i had already been doing. host: is being a politician your profession? caller: no, being a mom is. host: how old are you, if you do not mind me asking? caller: i'm 36. host: tell us about the tea party there in virginia. caller: we wanted to maintain our sovereignty, but we knew we needed to work together. i invited some groups into richmond to work on that and we brought everybody in their across the state. and i think we have this

federation and to be able to coordinate and collaborate on things across the state has been very effective for us. we have the health care freedom act last year here in virginia that our attorney-general is attempting to sue about. it that has emboldened us here in virginia. at the convention we are expecting 25,000 people here. it will be the largest tea party convention in the country by a least three or four times the size. we are just hoping to activate the tea party going into the midterm and even into next year. host: and you are also doing a straw poll i have heard. caller: we are, we are doing a presidential straw poll. this will be the first straw poll of just a tea party activists. it will be interesting to see

who the tea party like and who they do not. host: are the tea party movement organizers in other states in communication with you to understand what you are doing in virginia and how to apply that in their own states? caller: we have had that conversation with groups. we have a national tea party that we use just to communicate through e-mail and phone and share ideas. that is something that we just sort of recently because we found that the interaction that we have in virginia has been very effective and we are trying to get that across the country. host: tell us about, the organizations' focus for the 2010 elections. what are you aiming for and what will be success in your organization? caller: the virginia t. party association is not directly involved in any of the elections. we have focused on conventions, as well as help to support local groups.

our focus has been on legislation. but the local tea parties have been involved. there busing people door-to- door, hosting debate. -- they are busing people door- to-door, hosting debates. host: how would you describe -- i know it is a general question, but your relationship with the gop, and in particular, gop- elected officials? caller: i would say our relationship with the gop- elected officials is pretty much manilnil. we do not have a relationship with elected officials. we meet with our congressman, but we do not how many relationships at the federal level. guest: host: -- host: is that intentional? caller: some of the congressman

have had a tendency to be involved. they were not sure what we were all about. and then they were focused on the health care bill. some have been more embracing than others. and we have also focused on the state here because we were having not much effect at the federal level. they were going to pass the health care bill anyway and we started trying to pass legislation in the state to thwart what was going up there. host: mr. king, do you have any of the questions for her? guest: this is a thing that i think is unprecedented, the governor and attorney general, [unintelligible] just tell me about on the local level what your interactions have been with public officials in the state.

caller: we have been proactively meeting with legislators -- state legislators and the eternal -- attorney general and religious of that we want to -- relationships that we want to nurture. that has been our focus. in that regard, they have been very receptive and we are very encouraged by that. host: thank you very much for spending time with us as you get ready to host 2500 to 3000 people in richmond va. we look forward to hearing about your straw poll prepare. i want to get to call, but before we do, i do not know if you watched our last session, but we had a very frustrated conservative caller who does not like the fact that the mainstream media can report about the tea party and not get

their arms around the story. how you get to the core of it? guest: it is interesting. in this case i went on to virginia for several days and talked to more people, then i could possibly fit in the story. i also talked to people all over the country, a tea party leaders, largely trying to figure and of these people were trying to do something below the rate are seen and what kind of corollaries there are out there. . .

guest: it's extremely hard. it's an ama uprising in a lot of ways. and it's at heart something that is extremely simple. they just want there to be less of everything, basically. there's been a lot of confusion i think created by the word party in their title. we know this goes back to the so-called party in boston a long time ago that had nothing to do with the political party. and the fact that a lot of these groups have the word party suggests to people that they should be a political party and put their own candidates forward. but they're much more of an advocacy group. and in talking to the fellow in

ohio, he said in a lot of ways we're more like the chamber of commerce or like an environmental group that is pushing for certain basic principles and not necessarily expecting to have or wanting to have kind of the whole panoply of platforms and what not that a political party would have. so i think there's still a lot of misunderstanding. i think the evolution of the movement itself is still under way. but the evolution of reporters understanding and the public's understanding is still a work in progress. host: david, democrat's line. good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. in the first place, a party or anything else is just a union because it is a group of people advocating for their benefit. so we could call them a union as well as a party. second of all, i can't understand the candidates that they are putting up are so

radical. take, for instance, rand paul. he wants to go ahead and put a $2,000 deductible on senior citizens. he also wants to go back to repeal part of the -- i can't think of the name. but he -- the things that he wants to do are not in the mainstream, they are radical. second of all, we have a candidate up in alaska that wants to do away with money that's being spent -- sent to alaska that is far more than they send in, and he wants to go ahead and change education and everything else. we have other candidates that are looking at doing away with the school board.

host: so what's your bottom line with these observations? caller: i don't think they're anywhere close to being mainstream. they are very, very conservative, and they don't reflect the working man's view of what should be done. host: ok. guest: i would challenge that they are the same as any group or union going out for their benefit. the thing there is they're really true to their word. they want less government. and a lot of these candidates, even talking about rand paul are talking about adjustments to social security that would in the end deprive people of certain things. including the people that are pushing for this. when it comes to the candidates, inet interesting. there's been this spontaneous eruption of support for certain candidates in certain areas.

the tea party movement both locally and nationally, they came in and made a difference. i'm not sure necessarily whether that's the perfect reflection of what this is all about. the various people that have popped up and been supported among this wave of people that have pushed them forward as the nominees. i think in the end we'll probably be a better judge in the next cycle because in a lot of ways, jamie down in virginia talked about this. in virginia they talked about the candidates that were there that were holding up the banner themselves as the tea party banner. so there's no doubt that there have been some unusual candidates that have stepped forward and ones that may not be elected. that's one of the main things that they're pushing right now is if you all vote for republicans, you're going to be promoting some of these agenda that is you may find scary. the polling, though, on the other hand, has been interesting because we did a poll a week ago that showed

that something like 70% of all republicans identified with the tea party movement, not that they were card-carrying tea party people. but that they sympathized and shared a lot of ideals. so to the extent that the republican party is mainstream, and 70% identified with the movement, it appears it's fairly mainstream. host: we have seen a lot of organizations such as freedom work and the like. but when you dig into the finances of these statewide movements or even more local, where are the dollars coming from? guest: there are these big organizations which have sort of curious roots and in some cases the tea party express is a good example of, which is a big nationwide thing. they moved into alaska, they had a big effect in delaware. it's itself affected with the

political advertising group. they make a lot of money out of doing that sort of stuff. freedomworks is doing that nationally. but again, if you look at an organization like the one that jamie has in virginia, they have a tiny budget and are receiving very limited, if any, help from the outside. what's interesting about these local groups is they're being run by people who almost in all cases have day jobs and are doing all these things in odd hours, well into the night. which is another thing that causes worry in their camp to what extent they can keep these things alive. jamie is not only a stay at home mom but a home schooler who has three children and teachers her kids until 1:00 in the afternoon and while she's trying to organize these huge conventions. and again, there's like the big national groups and then much more grass roots local thing. and they don't necessarily connect or in some ways even have all that much to do with

one another in a lot of ways. host: ann, republican line. good morning. caller: i'd like to talk about california a little bit, because we always seem to get labeled as being a democrat state. and a lot of people don't realize that there's like three different californias. northern california, southern california, and i'm from the central valley. and it's a very conservative area. lots of farmers and families and a lot of people here are conservative. they do believe in family values and think like the tea party does. and we sort of get lost in the shuffle there, that california is not that conservative. but there are a lot of conservative people here. i guess what bothers me is that people who are conservative are busy out there working and doing with their families and so forth so they're not really

vocal. they don't make a lot of noise. and unfortunately the people that make a lot of noise and carry plaque ets and on the street corners and so forth tend to be those who are progressive liberals, whatever they call themselves. so sometimes it gets me upset when i hear people speak for all of california or speak of -- for all the country like your last caller who said that conservatives or tea party people are radical and i see just a whole different view. i see mothers and fathers that are working and have families and are trying to do things in the community and go to soccer games and football games and -- host: let me pick that up and ask to see what you're observing. guest: we are engaged in an endeavor to see whether the country will change. and california is a great example. they've got some big senate

races there which could in the end tilt to the republican. that would be a big shift. obviously california has a republican governor at the moment, but both of its senators are democrats. there are other races around the state that could also swing to the other side. and one of the things that we've been picking up in some of our reporting is that both in new england, which is an area that's been pretty much devoid of republicans, at least in the house for some time, that that could shift a lot in the election coming up in november and similarly in parts of the northwest. so people think of oregon or washington state, california, massachusetts as being overwhelmingly democratic states and they still by and large are. but this election in november could put some red dots in some of those areas to change that. so i think maybe people's perception of california might change a tiny bit. host: susan has this posting in the politics column today.

guest: again, there is a lot of infighting going on out there. some of it kind of pretty humerous. in florida there's a huge fight under way as to who really has the rights to call themselves tea party. in florida there is a tea party that has registered. they are putting forward candidates. up in delaware and new jersey area there's also a fight, there's a candidate who is claiming that he really is the true tea party. in the case of harry reid, sharon engle race in nevada there's a guy running as a tea party candidate. engle's camp is really worried that in the end he may garner

just enough votes to tilt the election to reid and deprive her of what she wants to be -- wants to happen. so there's a lot of that in-fighting. some of it is really nothing more than just grudges and there are places where there are actual issues that divide them. there's the issue of nullification. do the states themselves have the right to prohibit a federal law from being imposed. that is running through a number of states where there is disputes. there's one in virginia, in indiana there's a big dispute about whether the tea party should take that up. a lot of people think they shouldn't because going back some connotations. so it's interesting. it's certainly not harmony out there by any means. host: in virginia at least they're recognizing that they need to find their way through internal differences. foo guest: this dispute that was highlighted there in south dakota is not the kind of thing that one is seeing in virginia.

and there are other states, ohio i would put in that category for sure, pennsylvania to some extent, texas is obviously a huge state with a really vibrant kind of tea party movement but a difficult one to put all into one hopper. and a lot of people don't want that to happen in the first place. host: north carolina, bernard, independent line. caller: good morning. i -- [inaudible] host: we have a really bad phone connection. can you do anything about that? caller: can you hear me now? host: that's better. caller: first, i'm a black person and i'm offended by the whole tea party movement. first of all, [inaudible] every day, tea party every day. the same like the tea party movement seems to be a white

movement that whites don't have an understanding for. also, why didn't they talk about this when bush was president? c-span seems to have like a pro-tea party agenda that seems to be counter productive. no one group owns hate and hate has a tendency to go both ways. i'm not a hateful person. i was in the military and the -- continued to hear the people [inaudible] wonder why i serves f served in the first place. never talk about the nation of islam. that's not fair because they have their opinion about things too. host: thank you for your call. guest: he has a very good point certainly about the bush era driving up of debt, the encroachment of the federal government into private lives on a lot of fronts. you know, and i think that's one of the real weak points of the movement.

they claim that a lot of these things started before, their concern started. it only really came together after obama was naugyated. but it's also very clear that the naugation of barack obama and some of the things that were done quickly, the stimulus packages is also just the sheer economic jolt that the country experienced in the year before was itself a big force. and gave people the sense that something had gone wrong in the country. particularly on the economic front. but, i mean, i also agree with the caller that this whole, we want our country back, has some unfortunate connotations in some ways. i'm not sure really, though -- he used the word hate. i'm not sure it's a hateful movement. some of the earlier impulses that were seen at the early rallies have subsided to some extent. c-span junky tweets.

guest: they don't really have too much choice in that regard. there's also been a big debate which we mentioned a little bit earlier about these divisions within certain movements about whether to go the third-party route in the first place. i think there's a consensus across the board among all these tea party groups that's not the way they want to go. host: going third party? guest: yeah. there's wreckage looking back over the decades of third parties that tried to get movements and fell apart and most had a defining person behind them. if you look at ross perot's attempt to move forward as an independent. one thing that's so striking about this movement, despite the fact that there's people like sara palin and others is it's very much a leaderless movement that wants to remain a leader ls movements.

there's strength but also a lot of challenges. host: next, a call florida. caller: good morning. mr. king just answered my question. i was calling to see if he thought that the tea party would be a viable third party. that's good news for me. i'm a democrat up here and there's a lot of noise in florida this year, a couple of new candidates challenging career politicians like allen boyd, for example. and they've got a lot of funding from these people. i'm just real worried about that. i was watching earlier this morning. i just wanted to say that i've listened and watched for over five years now, i'm a college student and first-time calling so i'm a little bit nervous. but i appreciate what you are doing. i don't think you have a tea party agenda. i think you guys show both sides and i want you to keep up

the good work. host: thanks. what are you studying in school? caller: i'm a history major. host: what are you going to do with that? caller: i'm going to be a teacher. i'm looking forward to it. i like kids and i want to help people. host: thanks for your call this morning. caller: thank you. guest: it's funny because he said he would be worried as a democrat when they went that route, when i think if they went the third-party route it would be bad news for the republican party because it would sap support in a lot of places. the movement, dick army of freedom works, uses the word hostile takeover. a lot of people objected to that even within the tea party movement. others are wanting to sort of purify the republican party, bring it back to what they think is its original origins. and doing that not only in this election but well beyond.

the question is there how long will that last if it lasts well into 2012 it will be perhaps an enduring movement. host: talking to kneel king of the "wall street journal." next call, louisiana. ellis. caller: good morning. i simply want to make a suggestion and object vasion that the party, rather, the movement as you all call it known as the tea party movement , very similar, if i'm not mistaken, to a movement back in fill mor times, during and post civil war time known as the know nothing party in the south. and i would recommend that if you're not involved knowing anything about that, you check a book by a former history professor of mine of a college in louisiana by the name ofo

verdyke. very similar to the tea party at this day and time. simply want to make that suggestion to you. host: appreciate the call. guest: i don't know a lot about the know nothing movement. but what's interesting about the tea party movement is it's steeped in all kinds of nostalgia, which the previous caller before this one brought up the whole aspect of wanting their country back and all that sort of thing. a lot of these ads of the tea party people run, various people fighting during the relutionry war, there's a lot of talk about the founding fathers, all kinds of books that have become mandatory reading, basically, many of these books being decades old about the principles of federalism. so maybe for all i know this know nothing book is among that library. host: this viewer on twitter wants to weigh in.

guest: i think really there are several events that really caltpoletted this. just the shock of september 2008, the stock market, going down the financial crisis the tarp bill that was then passed to give so much money to the banks. i think that particular financial bailout was the biggest single thing a lot of people now believe that that is something that happened under obama. of course it didn't. that was to a lot of people the ultimate symbol of the government stepping in, in a place it didn't really belong. and then of course the inauguration of barack obama moved this along, particularly then the democrats pushing forward so swiftly on the stimulus package which underscored the whole theme of federal bailouts. so i think it had roots definitely that go back

further. there's no doubt about the fact that it really came together in the first month after the democrats took washington. host: we're talking about funding earlier. open secrets.org, one of the sites that tracks money has this statistic. do you have a comment? >> guest: there's no doubt. there's been huge money that's poured in. there's just a lot of people all over the country who, if they all started contributing $50 can make a big difference. there's money like that has poured into a number of these big races that have drawn national attention. chris tin o'donnell in

delaware, she won a primary there, whatever it was, a month ago, had very little money in the bank and within two weeks i think she had brought in almost $3 million almost entirely in these kind of donations. host: oklahoma city, democrat's line. caller: good morning. this is ridiculous and i want to say something else. you mentioned o'donnell. here you have a woman who said that she worshpped the devil. but then you have these tea baggers who say we're christians. but now they're going to back a woman who said that she used to be a devil worshipper all because she claims to be a member of the tea party. and just like the guy said, what it is is a lack of information, because you have these tea baggers trying to blame my president obama when bush is the one that gave us the bank bailouts, bush is the one that had the jobs being outsourced. bush is the one who got us into a war, two wars that we haven't

even paid for, $3 trillion. medicare under bush, homeland security. you talk about more government. he gave us homeland security. he gave us the patriot act. and you guys are worried about barack obama. i mean, this is ridiculous. because if you ask these tea baggers they do not get their information from anybody but fox news. they need to educate themselves. ask -- and this is it. how many get their information from the computer? how -- host: i'm going to stop you. we've got your point. thank you for your call. guest: a loot of these folks are really -- lot of these folks are pretty educated on a lot of things, i agree fox news informs a lot of their thinking, and there's a lot of people who tune into that. when it comes to the religious issue, that's interesting

because there's a divide where there are those who are very much libertarians, government off our back, less federal government, that whole thing. and then there are those which are more religious in orientation if you look at the glenn beck rally that he had last month, which was basically a big church pick nick, primarily overwhelmingly a religious event, these are people i'm sure identified largely with the tea party movement but were themselves kind of standard social consoytist. so that's a whole area of the movement that is yet to kind of figure itself out as to what extent of the tea party movement is going to be religious in context and to what extent it's going to be mainly about limited government. host: as we close here, what will you be watching? how interesting is this straw poll from the virginia meeting this weekend? guest: i think it will be somewhat interesting. i think these straw polls to be kind of indicative of -- but of

no particular consequence. no one would have voted for barack obama in a democratic straw poll. he was beyond being an outliar for the race at that time. i think there are a lot of people who could step forward in the republican race, somebody like mitch daniel who may not even be on their list today or tomorrow when they do their straw poll. still, as jamie was saying, there wasn't anything quite similar to this. so i'm sure people will take note of it. host: you will be out listening to voters between now and election day? guest: i will be out there. host: thank you for being at this desk this mor >> our campaign coverage continues at 8:00 p.m. eastern tonight with a second debate between that connecticut senate

candidates. that is followed by the senate debate from wisconsin. at 10:00 eastern, a debate between the north dakota congressman and his republican opponent. then, president obama at an illinois fund-raiser. and there reminder that we have dozens of debates, political ads, speeches and campaign rallies available for you to watch any time online. visit our web site, c-span.org. >> most generals, their great this is what they do on the battlefield. arguably, washington's greatness was what he did between battles. >> sunday, an interview about the just published biography on the george washington.

>> this weekend and through december, listen to landmark supreme court cases on c-span radio. >> what we are arguing is that you may not publicly desecrate the flag, regardless of the motive for your action. >> flag-burning and the freedom of speech, saturday at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span radio. that will be nationwide on ex-im satellite radio channel 132, and online ne c-span.org. a number of journalists and scholars met with mahmoud ahmadinejad on his recent trip. now we will hear them discuss their meeting from the center for international scholars.

this is one hour and 10 minutes. >> i am the director of the middle east program at the woodrow wilson international center for scholars. i would like to welcome to you -- welcome you to this meeting to assess mahmoud ahmadinejad's trip to the united states. we auletta iran has been in the news for the last three decades -- we all know that iran has been in the news for the last three decades and continues to be so. mahmoud ahmadinejad decided to take part in the un general assembly in a bizarre way.

i do not think there was one media appearance that he missed, and he -- during his visit, he met with a selected group of journalists. he also invited a group of what they referred to as iranian- american intellectuals to a private dinner. of course, he also made outrageous remarks about the assertion the 9/11 was pre- planned and orchestrated by the united states and that there are

no political prisoners in iran, that iran is the freest country in the world, and that no civil rights had been violated in iran. we wanted to know if he made the same assertions in the private meetings he had with rabin ended john. obin anded them to -- rab john. we invited them to speak up their experience. we will speak until about 1:20

p.m., and then we will take questions. there is an overflow in the other room, and we will take questions from their as well. our intern will take those questions. we would ask each speaker to speak for about 15-20 minutes. i would like to ask you to close yourself funds -- close yourself phones, and no text messaging or using your e-mail on blackberry or whatever, because it interferes with the live web cast we are having. i think you can afford to be cut off for 15 minutes from the outside world. our two speakers are very iranianuished the rab

specialists. robin is a wilson center distinguished scholar and a journalist. during her fellowship, she will which willr butook, probably have a new title by the time it comes out. she just finished editing and -- editingimer an iranian primaer. i will start with her and then

moved on to john, who is a distinguished professor of the united states naval academy. we are thankful to him for having accepted our invitation to bring his class along. we especially welcome those third few -- those of you are in uniform here. occasionally, i am asked, who are the people in uniform attending your meetings? i answer, i do not know your name, do think i know the names of the people attending my meetings? [laughter]

>> as holly mentioned, we have been working on a project about iran politics and policy. is it is an un -- it is an unprecedented project. it is all fact based analysis. we are putting the entire project on the web for free, it will be available as of october 18th. there is a chapter on the obama administration, a chapter on u.s. sanctions. it is written by a very distinguished group of people, half western and half from the middle east. we tried to have balance perspectives. anyway, let me get to our subject today which is the visit of mahmoud ahmadinejad. this is the third time i have met him in new york for one of his working sessions.

this is also the fourth president of iran i have met with during their visit to the united nations. the first was in 1987. as i waited for of midday jog -- for mahmoud ahmadinejad to arrive at breakfast, i reflected on how much has changed but how little has changed. in 1987 when khamenei arrived at the un, he was a secondary political player behind the speaker of parliament and well behind the prime minister, who was a former architect turned and who got a run

through the bloodiest middle east conflict, and a year war during which time oil was $13 per barrel. the one thing that stuck in my mind from that breakfast was the way the two bodyguards had to come over because of something that had paralyzed his right arm. they had to come over and cut his breakfast be. he seemed like such a weak figure at the time. how much has changed. he is now the prime minister. the interesting thing above the speed to 1987 was that the u.n. mission had told us in advance that this was going to be a speech reaching out to the world, even nodding at the

united states. the day before, the united states hit an iranian naval vessel in the persian gulf. sailors had been killed and captured. iran claimed that it was a merchant ship. the united states claimed it had photographs. this was at the height of the iran-iraq war. needless to say, that is what has not changed in 23 years. the united states and iran are still confronting each other, only this time the gap is far wider and the issues are much bigger. that brings me to the breakfast 23 years later. i would describe mahmoud

ahmadinejad in four terms. the first one is that he was undeniably in charge. he appears more self confident today than ever, despite the unprecedented turmoil in iran at one year ago. his answers were filled with crist certainty, even when they were -- with crisp certainty, even when they were questionable, misleading and sometimes dead wrong. he yet again talked about denying the holocaust and wanting an international panel the truthat what was behind what happened during world war ii. the second term i chose was unflappable. there was no question that seemed to face him, whether it was the troubled economy of iran or the wave of opposition

leaders in the recent couple of weeks, including the two nominal leaders of the green movement. he was masterful at countering any suggestion that i ran faced any problems. -- that iran faced any problems. on the economy, he said that one of the most active -- he said that the iranian market was one of the most active in the world. he said iran had your economic problems than the united states. on the opposition -- had fewer economic problems than the united states. on the opposition, he said that they were free to publish their views and the news. he said their past behavior had led them to be embarrassed and that is why they had gone silent. as for the international community, he was claiming he was always prepared to talk.

he believes mediation will begin again soon. he said there was never a need for a mediator and then he should talk to the united states directly. he said he was optimistic about talks with the united states. he dismissed any prospect of military action either by israel or the united states. he said no one could clash with iran, and he said there was no other way but to talk. the third adjective i would use to describe them is "undaunted" by recent developments, from a new u.n. sanctions to the resumption of mideast peace talks. he claimed the sanctions were useful to iran in strengthening its economic independence and industries. he said new sanctions would be useful as well. he said the american sanctions

were particularly painless because there had not been trade for such a long time, while eu trade totaled about $23 billion a year, but he said that was not a large part of iran's economy and that other countries could easily replace them. middle east peace he said that, yes, iran once that too. he said there is no other way. when pushed about whether he would accept any deal the palestinians accepted, using language the former president had once used, he was quite clever. he kept saying that the world must allow palestinians to choose their representatives for any peace effort, and if the elected palestinian representatives were not included that the talks would go nowhere. in other words, no deal would

work or be accepted unless hamas, which of course was elected in 2006, in an election verified by the united nations, was part of the process and agreed to the terms. the fourth adjective i would use to describe him in the end was unconvincing. is claims grew increasingly outrageous as the session continues. just three quick examples. first, on the disputed 2009 election and the government crackdown, he said iran had never had such open and honest elections. he said no one had been arrested without proper judicial orders. he said the security forces and the ministry of intelligence took no action independent of the judiciary. secondly, he said that iran does not mind u.s. arms sales to gulf countries. he said iran does not consider

either these countries or their arsenals to be rivals or of threat. he said u.s. allies effectively had to buy american weaponry to bailout of troubled american economy. he even issued a warning and said that those to sell arms might find that if there is any political change in the country they sell these arms to, that they might end up in advance of countries that turn against them. the third and most unbelievable allegation was that the united states had never fought a real war, not world war ii, korea, vietnam, iraq or afghanistan. he said quite flippantly that during world war ii the united states had dropped a couple of bombs, at which point of reporter from the "new york times" turned to me and said,

"it sounds like he has never heard of normandy." he said the reason that there would not be a war with iran was because the u.s. realize that this would be a real war. at the end of for the breakfast, i was thinking back on how it is possible for a man who makes these kinds of allegations to become president of iran. there is a secondary lesson here. i thought back on the years when i covered the iraq-iran war from the iranian war front. i remember being struck in 1982 when i went down to the rocky border where iran had launched an offensive that had pushed back iraqi troops for the first time. i was with a small group of foreign and journalists. a group of revolutionary guards came over and ask if there were

any americans among us. i raised my hand because i know that you can get into more trouble for lying down for telling the truth. meanwhile, i was thinking, well, it has been a sweet life. they took me off to the side and they huddled around me. they wanted to know three things. was johnny carson still on the air? had nebraska beat oklahoma? did pink floyd have a new album out? the only thing that hurt me was that i had never heard of pink floyd. that would probably not be true of senior revolutionary guard commanders. one of the things that is so striking about mahmoud ahmadinejad is that we have now seen a generation and a half since the revolution, and the emergence of a group of people in power today who emerged from that environment who have no

exposure or experience, at least at close range, with the united states. they did not train in the united states. they have produced people whom -- i do not believe the believes everything -- i do not think he believes everything he says, but i do think he believes some of the things. we are clearly a very important juncture with iran. last spring we witnessed the collapse of diplomacy and the last effort by the united states, the european union and turkey to get some kind of deal with iran, a short-term deal that would lead to long-term talks on iran's nuclear program. that collapse of those talks resulted in the passing of the

fourth round of sanctions by the united nations. it has been said that there will be new talks this fall. they have been working hard to develop a new strategy for iran. they have the potential to be the most important talks since the 1979 revolution. the state department has worked on the possibility that these would have been shortly after the united nations general assembly opened last month. the european union foreign minister has been working very hard to try to get something going. my sense, however, is that iran is in no hurry, to put it mildly. i am prepared to let this -- they are prepared to let this process of negotiating about negotiating carry-on. all we have is the kind of language that mahmoud ahmadinejad used that the united nations in basically every sentence -- basically every

setting. it may be that there is internal opposition about what they can put on the table. that may be part of it, but probably not all of it. meanwhile, mahmoud ahmadinejad is scheduled to make a triumphant visit to lebanon. doing his two-day visit, he will support deadly -- he will reportedly week at the graves of lebanese who were killed by israelis. he is scheduled reportedly to stop at iranian reconstruction projects in the south, and quite possibly go directly to the border with israel, where some reports claim he wants to throw stones across the border. israel, not surprisingly, is reportedly responding by beefing up security along the border.

my fifth term to describe mahmoud ahmadinejad is that he is increasingly audacious in what he is doing both at home and also in terms of the region and the outside world. one of the things that also struck me about the theatrics of the breakfast was the man sitting next to him, who was originally a longtime friend of mine when i met in a job. their children are -- friend of mahmoud ahmadinejad. their children are married. there was an attempt to make him but he becamet, of bu chief of staff. it was very striking to watch the two of them.

i wondered as i watched it mahmoud ahmadinejad may want to push them forward as his successor for president. i asked if he believed this man was qualified to be president and if he would support him as president. he finally came back and said, that is three years away. i wonder if he was trying to put ull a coup, butlbe his man in charge so that he could still be the puppeteer. despite his rhetoric and his audacity, i think mahmoud ahmadinejad remains seriously

invulnerable. -- seriously of vulnerable. there is a five-year plan to cut back on subsidies that account for something like 25% of the iranian in gdp. a container of bottled water is more expensive than a container of gasoline in iran. this could be a real political issue in iran on the premise that it is the economy, stupid. i also think that sanctions are biting more than the regime much to admit, not necessarily the targeted sanctions, but the political senses a do not get enough attention are hurting the regime. i think the most under-covered

story in iran today is that come even though the green movement has been silenced, the labor movement has not. labor groups come out holding up banners, demanding that which is going back three months to four months, shouting "we want jobs!" labor is providing the kind of dynamism and leadership, even a fragmented and in bits and pieces, that the political opposition has not been able to. >> thank you. >> thank you for those very kind words. i was recently reading about is that day, i think it was a psychologist at the university of california. she was looking to find a point at which flattery stops to be

effective. her results were very interesting. her results was that there was no such point. [laughter] of course, our iranian friends have known this for thousands of years anyway. much of the impressions of what rabin has told you about ahmadinejad i share. so maybe i can cut my remarks short and we could eat earlier today. [laughter] the setting for the private meeting of about 55 people up in new york, he apparently has done this every year. it is the first time that i had ever been to one of these things. there were about 50 to 55 guests, including academics,

former government officials, think tankers, various people from the iranian-american community, and what i call, in general, the second-trackers, those who have done the track ii diplomacy with iran. the session was scheduled for 90 minutes. it went on for 150 minutes, two and a half hours, at ahmadinejad's wish because he wanted everyone who had a question, he wanted to get them in. he enjoys himself, clearly. he enjoys himself at these sessions. he had this attitude of give me your best shot. i am here. let me see what you have. is that the best you can do? and then he would come back with

his answers, whenever you thought of his answers. in terms of content, he certainly knew his lines. he has done this so much. he has done so many interviews and so many of these sessions that he has his lines down very well. whatever the question is, he will go back to his talking points. about 80% of the questions were about the nuclear issue. again, he has his lines down on that. finally, he even got tired of it. he said, "is anybody going to ask me a question about anything else other than the nuclear issue?" clearly, the exchange was not terribly productive. he made two points. one was -- and this is an old third world theme. this harkens back to the 1960's and the 1970's.

he spoke about the need to reform the world is run, a kind of new world order. he spoke about the management of the world, how this is done. the current system, with of the un and the iaea, and all these organizations is stacked against smaller countries like iran. they basically dictate to these countries and they do not have a voice. iran objects to the system. iran does not accepted and it will push for its reform. this kept upcoming again in context, the second thing, you cannot tell us what to do. you cannot dictate terms to us. if we are going to negotiate, we will not negotiate under your

terms, your preconditions, and with you insisting that we agree to everything before the negotiations start. in one form or another, this theme kept coming again and again. impressions -- first of all, as i watched them, i thought, i know this man. it is the first, have seen him, but i think i know him. it was not because he was alleged to be one of the hostage-taker is back in the 1970's. they did not introduce themselves to us. no one came up to me and said, you know, my name is moahmoud that i hope you have a pleasant stay with us.

but when i say i knew him, i knew people like him. there is people who had been my students back at the university of iran back in the late 1960's who seemedly 1970's to think and speak very much as he did. many of the people who were holding us in 1979-1980 also had the same view of the world. of course, many of them, people like -- these were actually his friends. he knew them pierre and he probably studied with them.

but there was a kind of combination of a book-smart, being very smart at your engineering lessons, with apologies to all the engineers in the room, but with an engineers' view of the world in which there is no nuance, there is no doubt, and there is one solution to every problem. and that, combined with a view of the world form by very conservative -- the attitudes of very conservative small towns in iran -- many of my students came from places like cause a room and/or rod -- came from kasarum and darab.

their attitudes of the world were formed by the views of these very conservative towns and they are very conservative families. many of them came from middle and lower-middle class and traditional families. but studying very hard and being very book smart, they were able to get into the universities, which were extremely difficult and competitive, and advance. my feeling was that i recognize this. this is not new to me. this is something i have encountered before, not literally, but figuratively. but there was also something else. there was a mannerism that made me uneasy. i could not figure out what it was for a while. he sounded reasonable. he was soft-spoken. he was self-deprecatory.

he joked with the people asking questions. and i kept asking myself, is this the new ahmadinejad? and then i was reminded and some will remember this in the room -- this reminds me of the new nixon. [laughter] some of us may remember from the 1960's the new nixon where nixon would go on late-night tv and you could watch them being self deprecatory and pleasant and soft-spoken and very open. of course, it was all coached and it was simply a facade to cover something else. once in awhile, as i watched president ahmadinejad, i saw something else emerged from behind the facade.

there was a kind of petulance that was there, this defiance that lay behind this new ahmadinejad facade. it came through a particular when someone asked him about nuclear weapons. does iran want nuclear weapons? and he said, no. we do not want nuclear weapons. we oppose nuclear weapons on ideological grounds. nuclear-weapons are only for murder. they serve no political purpose. they are expensive. they are not in our interest. they are morally wrong and all these other things. by the way, he never mentioned religion at all in these two and a half hours. and then he said, but, if we were to pursue nuclear weapons

or not pursue nuclear weapons, that decision is ours to make. you cannot tell us what to do. we will make the decision, coming back to this sort of old defiance, petulance, any of us who have ever had the pleasure of raising an adolescent will know exactly what i am talking about. you cannot tell me what to do. i will do this, but we will do this for our reasons. and this will be our decision. finally, robin mentioned then you have seen some of his more outrageous statements, including the one about 9/11, he did not make up these statements -- he did not make any of these statements that evening. when i read about this, i was

not all that surprised. in his circle, the people that he knows, the people that he deals with, ideas like that, that the united states is responsible for 9/11, are pretty widely held. among those people he knows and the people he talks too, is probably pretty widely held. i will not go into the whole question of conspiracy theories because i think that is probably pretty familiar. in my own years as a serving officials, as a diplomat, i was not in iran more easily than 30 years ago. but more recently, i encountered that idea and similar ideas which are quite widely held. the difference is that many of the other world leaders would

not say that in public at the united nations general assembly because they would understand the effect that they would have on part of the audience. case, i do nots think he necessarily said these out of malice. i think he said something he believed and, without any idea of what their effect would be. to me, that gets back to this rather limited world, limited view that he has. thank you very much for your attention. i look forward to your questions.

>> i would like to rush to a first question. did you feel there was any new ones in his answer or he just came up with an avalanche of words which some were familiar to you and some were not? there is a new jargon and language that is very difficult to follow. it was my experience three years ago that -- whether that made a difference in the way he expressed his opinion. to robin, what is the issue of for human rights -- of human rights?

70% of the questions may be had to deal with the nuclear issue, but what is important for iranians now is the very issue of human rights more than anything else. i would like to have both your opinions on the human-rights sanctions. john, the language. >> it was interesting to listen to this person because i heard new persian words. there has been a lot of exchange over his use of some very colloquial and boulder expressions -- and bolder

expressionless. he did not do that with this audience. i will give him the credit that he did seem to have the tone of his audience right. his person was clear, maybe because he was working with an interpreter and he knows how to work with an interpreter. his person was clear. it was not very literary. but it was clear and direct for the purpose. but i did not hear a lot of new jargon and i did not hear a lot of these kinds of the vulgar expressions that he has been criticized for. >> human rights? >> there was one question about human rights. i wish there had been more. but to emphasize what robin said, everything is fine.

there are no problems. everything is fear. do not believe what you read in the journals. do not believe what you read -- and i believe what the world press is saying. i wish she had been pressed harder on the subject. again, had he been so, he would've continue to press the same one that he was pressing. -- he would have continued to press the same one that he was pressing. >> there is a question about the hikers and he said that he had asked for clemency for the young woman who was released, sarah shroud -- sir short -- sraaarah shourd.

but she had been trespassing on iranian soil and she had to go through the system. in terms of human-rights sanctions, clearly, it is an important move satellite to play, but it is not want to make any difference to the eight individuals who were sanctioned. the timing was a little unusual because you had the amani delegation in tehran during the release of the other two hikers. the timing of a surprise me a little bit. this was something that the iranian opposition has been asking the net states to do since the aftermath of june elections last year. >> just wait for the microphone.

it is coming. >> i am bob dreyfus with "the nation" magazine group i was in iran last year talking about the green movement and the sanctions. they were all the stress that the sanctions were having a real of economically and translating into certain political opposition that was building. i think a lot of the green movement was given some emphasis by the need to get out from under the sanctions that even then existed. i wanted to hear more about the labor movement. sanctions are designed to take a long time. you do not just have sanctions and then they surrender and throw up their hands. you have senator lieberman

talking about having until the end to the year and then considering the military option. he is an embarrassment when he talks like that. do not sanctions take a long time? and what is the impact, politically? what is the mechanism by which we get the current state of sanctions to some sort of political impact over there? >> sanctions to take a long time. i covered the rhodesian civil war. it to exit -- it took 15 years from the declaration of unilateral independence from britain and his agreement to talks with the opposition forces. that was someone because -- that was only because the south africans turn off the trains. you also have the financial sanctions. this is the most dynamic element

of sanctions. the fact that there are no over 100 international financial institutions that will not to do business with iran -- i know one banker in iran who said he was not doing business with other iranian banks because he was afraid of being sanctioned as well. i think the labor movement is something that is parallel, not as a result of sanctions, but a result of iranian mismanagement. in the past year, there have been literally dozens of strikes, some of them very small, but they have persisted. they have affected most of the major industries. they have taken place in front of government offices. i have a list of them appeared to have been keeping them because i think they are so interesting.

-- i have a list of them. i have been keeping them because i think they're very interesting. what happened in 1979 with the oil workers' boycott signal that the regime could not continue. i think there are a lot of things, not sanctions, but the mismanagement by the regime combined with the difficulty of doing business. therefore, businesses cannot expand or hire people. unemployment is a growing problem. that is particularly among the young. that is one of the two most dynamic parts of civil society. >> you're exactly right about taking a long time and the impact of this will be difficult to measure and predict.

on's take a historical view the economic side. iran has been confounding experts for 30 years. for 30 years, the experts have said, this cannot go on, the combination of sanctions, of economic mismanagement, of corruption, of the brain drain, the failure to invest, of the energy sector. this will bring the system down. it simply cannot go people have been saying that. it is a little bit like zeno's paradox. the closer you get to it, the farther it gets away. my own view is that, as long as there is a dollars per barrel oil, -- as long as there is $80

per barrel oil, the impact is psychological and political. most iranians that i have talked to -- i have not been there for 30 years, not by choice, but i'm just not welcome. but many iranians that i have talked to, it is very clear that they do not like being put into the same category as the sudanese or other miscreants or north koreans, but particularly the sudanese for reasons that you understand for they cut closer to home or the libyans perhaps for the same reason. and that gets back to one of ahmadinejad's themes that you must treat us with respect. you must give us the respect

that is due to us. and this idea of constantly being singled out by the world as violators to be punished flies in the face of self-image that this government carries. so when it was said recently and that we should take these sanctions seriously, i have this idea that he is speaking maybe one-third economically and two- thirds politically and psychologically. >> i will take a question from the side and a question from that side. ok? yes. and then there is a question from the fourth floor. >> robin, i was intrigued by

your observation that ahmadinejad said that the u.s. will not intervene in iran because it did not want a real war. i was wondering, did you get the sense that he really believes this. that implies that he does not believe the u.s. will intervene, that it simply talks or blocks. i would be interested in your impressions. thank you. >> that is a good question. i wish i knew the answer. i had the sense that he really believes it. that is why he is unflappable. he came across as particularly dangerous because i do not think he understands the reality. but when pressed on it over and over, he seemed so flippant about it. this is a real war.

i often describe the iranians to those who do not know them, if you know a texan -- happened to have a cousin from texas. he is impossible. think about the most chauvinistic texan and at 5000 years and then you get an iranian perspective on things. [laughter] >> i cannot follow that. [laughter] >> just wait for the microphone. i want a very brief question. >> i am a muslim scholar. ahmadinejad has become a hero in among streets, even muslims who are usually enemies.

why does ahmadinejad have this good image more than muhammed katami.i american foreign policy is responsible for this. usually, it creates enemies and empowers them, as if it needs to keep this country busy in unnecessary wars. this is my answer a question. what is yours? >> i am reminded of a persian proverb or poetry saying that

the sound of the drum is very nice from a distance. people in other countries do not have to put up with him on a daily basis. they do not have to put up with his economic policy. they do not have to put up with his erratic statements. maybe is a comment on -- maybe it is a comment on the difficulty of domestic politics when somebody like that, from a distance, appears attractive. but i think,