we have a panel questioned. we ask people about their faith or questions about eight every week. this week -- is christmas a christian holiday. the answers have been a really interestg. actually the are more people who celebrate santa claus and shopping than people who actually celebrate the birth of christ, and yet it has become a national holiday and many people -- christmas is my favorite time of year. i have always loved christmas. even as an atheist -- a great tree andn angel and the christmas carols and all those kinds of things. so, we celebrate faith and we want all different views, we want to have people get to understand and learn about other people's points of view. so, if you have a discussio about gays in the military or

gay marriage that we did a couple of years ago, bishop eugene robinson, who is a gave bishop, write a five-part series about biblical interpretation of homosexuality, which was really fascinating. and i interviewed him at great length. i did a video interview with anee rice " -- anne rice, who grew up catholic and then became a fee is for 30 years and then went back to the catholic church and then she decided she rejected the catholic church because of their position on homosexuality and a number -- abortion, a number of things. and just two weeks ago when she was here she went to the national basilica, the shrine, for the first time she sat -- set foot in a catholic church. she has had this incredible and

up and down relationship with the church and with god and her faith. for me, every single person i interviewed, i always ask them about god, what does not mean to them, who is god, and i ask a piece the same question and i never once have the same answer because the legend ultimately is a very personal thing. you can belong to a religion, you can be part of the rituals and the religious community but in the and it is your relationship with what ever hire our you decide it is that matters and no one has the same relationship. host: religion an impolitic is our discussion witsally quinn. sarasota, florida. joe, independent caller. are you there? you are on the air. caller: america was built on the christian values and if you look at the past 20 years, wh the

black of christianity coming -- more from of the atheist point of view, look out that the society is. you can't talk about god in school but get kids can act anywhere it -- any way want to get the less christianity there is, the more problems. host: if you go to the "on faith " forum there is a discussion about whether or not christmas is christian. one posting who write to this -- what do you think? argue with that? do you want to weigh in on what he had to cite? guest: this is one of the things -- what we are trying to do is educate people and when someone

says joe says -- is sensibly he says you cannot be a good or moral person without being a christian. that is insulting to billions of people around the world who are not christian who are decent people. belies thes totally whole idea of what christianity supposed to be. it is supposed to be inclusive. if christ was nothing, he was a conclusive. every man is created equal and every man is created in the image of god. so, the idea that christ would exclude someone because that person was not a christian is completely the antithesis of everything he stood for. the fact is that some people just don't believe in christ -- jews don't believe that jesus is the son of god. i would venture to say that some

of the most religious people that i know are jews and muslims and hindus -- would you say that the dalai lama was a bad person because he is not a christian? it does not make any sense. i think that point of view is a bigoted and narrow minded. i don't bring this country has changed because a lack of christianity. when he talks about the politicians, when you look at politicians who get in trouble and end up in jail or hold it in scandals, they are all christians. somehow it seems that if you are ahristian you can say i let down my face and ask for forgiveness but if you are not a christian you don't get to say that. think by reading "on faith" there are points of view --ou

can say, my god, they are wonderful and good and decent people. this is not a christian country. yes, it was founded by christians. it was founded by christians who left england because they wanted to get away from being persecuted. and there were certainly christian values this country was founded on but we are not a christian nation. barack obama said that. we are a nation of many faiths and no faith. and people are moral because they areecent people, not because whether they believed jesus christ is the son of god. host: the pew forum breaks down the religious composition. we can just go through the percentage -- jim, republican mike. go ahead. caller: good morning. can you hear you -- can you hear me?

i would like to qstion -- do you have to be a christian to celebrate christmas? my background, i hold to the historic orthodox christian faith, the faith of luther and calvin and others, but you certainly do not have to be a christian to celebrate christmas, that is obvus. i think our country now has kind of, and has bn for a long time, you have christians who celebrate christmas, the birth of christ and do the mangers and all those things anthen you have of the group -- other groups who have a mix of that plus more secular giving of gifts and things of that nature, and then you have, i think the majority of the people in the country today moved away from the traditional celebration of

christmas can we have that. but i kind of agree with martin luther, he says if you put all religions on an equal footing, that means every man gets to go to in his own way. -- gets tofgo to hl in his own way. guest: that is a great line. host: dan, independent. caller: religion -- i see unfortunately the way i see it being used, is it is a scapegoat. we can claim a believe and god or higher power to justify our irrational actions, things that we do that are completely counter to of the message of the bible that we do.

we turn around and almost say we are doing it in the name of god and you have all the politicians doing a prayer before they start. to me, if we are not really in charge of the planet, too, and someone is looking over and as long as we say we are sorry for all the bad things we are going to have them, then -- why have any responsibility for anything? it is a way to excuse bad behavior. guest: i agree with that. i don't think religion has anything to do with whether you are a good person or not or whether you are a moral person. i think that is intrinsic in each person. some people believe in heaven and and some people don't. the fact is that none of us knows really where we are going or whether we are going

anywhere after we die. i think to talk about the fact that if all you have to do it is to say you believe in god or a certain date and you will be saved and you will go to heaven, and, you know, as many religions to say that people who do not believe what they believe will go to or should be killed, depending on how an extreme the people in those religions are, is just to have zero understanding of what religion is about. because the basic tenets of all religions is the same, which is the golden rule, and that came from confucius long before christ and it is due on to others as you would have others do unto you. and it seems to me that if we all live with the golden rule, then we would have a lot fewer problems. it is when people say my role is better than your role and i know

and you don't know and you are going to hell if you do not believe what i believe in is, i think that ignorance. host: i want to t your reaction to john wilson's column. he writes, the christians over emphasize christmas? he says and placing some much emphasis on christmas, some people say christians fail to grasp the meaning of their own story in which eastern should clearly take higher place. when we celebrate one, we celebrate the other. guest: that is his point of view. host: what is your reaction? guest: what i think is christmas celebrates rebirth, renewal and hope because christ is born, that is the idea of it. christ the saviors born. that is what christians believe. easter is the resurrection,

which is christ is reborn. who can say what is more important? if he was not born in the first place he would not have died and be resurrected, so you would say christmas is more important because without kristen -- christmas there would not be christ. we don't even really know christ existed. he probably did, and he certainly was a great profit. christians believe he was the son of god and people who are not christians don't believe that. but as far as the christians over emphasize priced at christmas, i don't think so because that is what it is all about. but i think there are plenty of people who see this as a secular holiday with christmas trees and santa claus and present, a time of giving and it also coincides with the winter solstice which is the darkest and shortest day of the year. the whole idea of rebirth -- and

this year was an extraordinary year because there was an eclipse of the full moon on the same night of the winter solstice which has not happened since the 1600's. so, there is something symbolic about -- and we know that jesus was not born on december 25 and that it was originally a pagan holiday. so, of the idea of the winter solstice and christ being born is a renewal, once the darkest day of the year is over we have only light to look forward to so that part of the meaning of christmas is as and ports and toole a lot of people -- not simply, but as the birth of christ. >> a viewer in arkansas --

guest: well, i think that is true. you know, i think a lot of people who have problems with the separation of church and state, who still feel we should have prior in e school and religion, theology should be taught in school, and i believe that religion should be taught in school the same way you teach history or art or music. i don't think you can be fully educated in any of those subjects or philosophies if you don't understand that religion came along with those. particularly part and music drew so much from religion. but the idea that the separation

of church and state is there is as important, and i think a lot of people who are religious don't see this -- actually could be more important religion than it is for t secular. if religion becomes important and is not separated, then at the state can start dictating to people how they should believe. then you have a theocracy. that is what happens in a lot of muslim countries. they have a theocracy, ich is that the government basically dictates what your religion has to be. host: on this topic, another e- mail, from kentucky.

guest: well, that is true, although i have to say that it is really impossible to separate politics from religion. people use religion in order to get elected, because so many politicians believe that this is a christian nation and they believe they cannot get elected unless they are christian. that may be true. we will see a gay president before we see an atheist president. it would be stunning to me to have someone run for president and say, "i am an atheist, i don't believe in god, vote for me," and people would vote for them. i don't think that will happen did you cannot really keep religion out of politics. in washington, it is interesting, because washington has been a secular socially and politically, the city itself, for so long.

when people go out of washington, they have to run with some religious -- they have to say "i believe in god, god bless america, my family and faith," they have to make some sort of declaration of their faith or they cannot get elected. there is a feeling in washington that that is something that they have to do out there in order to get here. often it is very hypocritical. a lot of the people -- i know people who run who don't believe and yet they have to. you cannot get elected if you are not a believer. host: politics and religion came up during the lame-duck session. senator jon kyl of arizona talked about majority leader harry reid and the idea that they might work on christmas eve.

>> so we have worked over the christmas holidays, but i don't think it is desirable if one considers the needs of our constituents to occasionally see us back home, the needs of our families, and yes, i did say i thought it was disrespectful of one of the two major christmas holidays of the year. but this is where i will conclude -- i think it is disrespectful of the senate. >> perhaps he habeen in washington too long, because in my state, casinos throughou the state of nevada, ranches, they have to work hard on holidays including christmas to support their families. the mines don't shut down in nevada on christmas. people work. host: he also said, "i am a christian, i don't need to be reminded of the holidays from my

republican colleagues doctors watching that, the use of religion in politics, -- for my republican colleagues stock was watching that, the use of religion in politics, what you think? guest: religion has no place there. jon kyl can say whatever he wants, but harry reid makes a good point, that there are millions and mlions of christians who have to work on holidays. the people in government work for the people of the united states, and if they don't have their work done, they should work on cistmas. people work on many different holidays. there are people who work on the yom kippur, the most sacred of holidays for jews. nobody complains about that. it is not an insult to the congress or to suspect congress to have people working on -- or disrespectful of congress to have people working on yom

kippur. host: mike has been very patient, on the democratic line. caller: what i am basically wonding, because i hear a lot of things and see a lot of things on the internet -- is it your experience that santa a satan spell the same way as a coincidence? in the bible, it says that jesus talked to the lawyers and doctors -- this was on the passov. it was on passover and it was his birthday, that was supposed to be about his birthday -- what i'm trying to ask you, though, is that what i've seen on the internet -- a long time ago there was wild tribes of israel -- blacks, latinos, indians,

haitians -- and then the 13th try came from -- 13th tribe came, new jews, and they're having problems with pakistan -- host: mike, what is your point? caller: i just want to know if some of this stuff is true. you seem like you are not in a religion, so you would tell the uth a little more. guest: mike, i think -- i don't know where to start. [laughter] i think you probably have misinformation on a number of those issues. santa and satan is and you want to make, and i probably should have bee -- is a new one to me, i probably should have known that, being the moderator of "on

fayed." there are some parents might agree with you on that. [laughter] if you go to "on faith," you probably learned a l about religion. host: phil on the republican line. caller: one, i just wanted to comment on ms. quinn's conversion from atheism to lieve. to me, it was pretty much the same thing. i was an atheist until the late 1960's, when i was in vietnam. to me it was very intense and personal. for most people of belief, it is a very intense and personal thing. out of ottawa on the -- i want to follow up on the pew research and the number of evangelicals. i want to know if you have any sense of the undercurrents going

on within e evangelical movement now. it became coopted by politics in the 1970's and 1980's and seem to be the natural channel for conservative christianity are evenvangelical christianity, to maka dent in politics. there is a movement away from that to get back to where christianity was at the time when the arts would flourish, art and music and literature. it seems like a quite separatism were evangelicals, at least a lot of evangelicals i know, were interested in doing, rather than trying to influence politics, influencing arts and literature and music in areas like that and live our lives quietly. host: banks, we will leave it there. -- thanks, we will leave it there. guest: let me to say that i have not had a conversion from being

an atheist to a believer. i am no longer an atheist, but i would not call that the conversion to it is just reading and learning, and one of the most depressing thing about reading and learning about religion is that the more you learn, the more you realize you know nothing. i've become more pluralistic and more understanding of other faiths. as for -- what was the second part of the question? my own faith -- --t: talking about parts guest: oh, yeah, and evangelicals. you are absolutely right about that. there's been a huge shift, a schism in the evangelical community, a shift among some evangelicals away from the hellfire and brimstone and

senators and all the kind of thing -- and sinners and all the kind of thing to what can we do to help our fellow man. rick warren is one of the leaders of that movement. they are people who say that we are here to help each other. they not only talk the talk, but walk the walk. what to do to help those less fortunate than we are. let's show the good and what -- the good in what we do. i think also, what a lot of people realize i talking about -- what a lot of people don't realize i'm talking about politics is thathere is a difference between evangelicals and the tea party. the evangelical movement is much more of an outreach movement.

tea partyers are less interested in helping other people and more interested in politics and economics and finance. -- and more interested in economics and finance and politics. next fall. caller: greta, you do an outstanding job. i agree with the e-mail that it is personal, and religion has no place in politics. when joe lieberman ran on al re's ticket, i wrote him a very strong letter begging him not to talk about his religion, because i thought it would cost him votes with the anti-semitism out there. he responded with gratitude about my interest, but he did not agree that he should not

talk about his religion. i was unhappy with ms. quinn's response to the e-mailer that it would be a great difficulty for an atheist be elected president . i am an atheist but i voted for a man of god like jesse jackson and jimmy carter. to me, religion -- io not consider religion all when i cast a vote. host: you always voted for democrats? caller: with one exception, when weicker, if there were republican who i thought was courageous with his anti- nixon -- a liberal republican who i thought was courageous with his anti-nixon stance. host: so without faced voters

-- faith voters, there were not able to -- there are cuts were not able to keep the house and senate. caller: i disagree that it had to do with religion. guest: well, i think that you are wrong. i think that it has to do with religion. i wish that you were right and that it could be possible for an atheist to be elected president, not just the person -- not just because the person is an atheist and may or may not have the same beliefs as others. but i'm afraid we are a long ways from that. you mentioned a joe lieberman. joe lieberman is an interesting question. yes, we have anti-semiti in this country. it is not as overt as, for instance, is, pho --

islamophobia, but it is still there. joe lieberman is an orthodox jew, a verybservant jew. i think he did the right thing by talking about his faith, because it is so much a part of who he is. it could have cost him votes. on thether hand, an awful lot people saw him as being the devoutly religious person and that appealed to them, that the idea is that he is a man of god. we are all part of the aipac faith -- abrahamic faith -- i say "we,"that being the perception, is long, judaism, christianity did -- islam, judaism, christianity. if he had said he was an atheist, that would have heard a lot more than if he said he was jewish. host: 1 last culprit -- one last

call. caller: i always identify myself as the truth all were of christ -- true follower of christ because i follow the word of god. when you say religion, there are so many definitions, but it is just the belief of one person, and that one person may impress other people to think as they do and you had a group. but according to the bible, there are only two religions, the religion of god, righteousnes and the religion of satan, sin. upon these tapes, all other religions are built -- these faiths, all other religions are built upon. guest: there are many religions and faiths and ways to believe.

you happen to be a christian and those are your beliefs. i urge you to read and study and learn about other religions, of their faith -- other faiths, because i promise you it would be a real eye opener for you to understand other people's faith. in the end, what is about is that we are all looking for meaning in our livesa sense of the divine. what is imptant is what gives each at one of this meeting. what may give you meaning is fferent from what may give me a meeting but that does not mean that you are right and i am wrong or vice versa. host: if she goes to the "on faith," will she find different types of writings -- guest: erybody, all faiths.

>> tomorrow morning, brigadier general gary patton. republican pollster frank luntz talks to us about his findings. then fox news analyst one williams -- juan williams. >> a look at presidential debates including the first- ever televised debate between jfk and richard nixon. than a discussion on whether the arizona school tax credit violates the separation of church and state. then the lighting of christmas trees at the capitol and the white house.

this weekend, "q & a," continues. we will have a discussion on budget cuts and then the experience of a member of parliament as a minority member the power of the prime minister, taxes, social issues, and cost of living on "q and a." >> the first televised debate was between john kennedy and richard nixon. this was discussed by charles gibson and a number of others. is lasts an hour and 20 minutes. >> is everybody ready? welcome to the kennedy school of

government and politics pur. this is the fifth anniversary of the first televised presidential debates between then senator kennedy and vice president nixon. i in the executive director of politics at the institute of politics. i would like to recognize senator john culver who is in the front row here. he hails from the great state of iowa powe. he is a lifelong friend of the kennedy family prep. he is a great friend to harvard and the kennedy school.

as we mark the 50th anniversary of the first presidential debate, that is the first presidential debate we ever had. i am really honored. these people have all had a role in presidential debates. it is a very interesting panel. our speakers, i'm ing to introduce them quickly. you probably know most of them. i will start with michael dukakis. he rose to the ranks of politics and became lieutenant governor. he was governor a mashie to ship -- of massachusetts. he is the onlyerson on this

panel that has preceded it -- participated in a presidential debate. charles gibson has seen every presidential debates. >> every o. >> he has also covered every presidential campaign. he is moderate a presidential debate. he moderated a debate two years ago during the democratic primary season. next to charlie is andrew ras

siei. to my immediate left, is mike mccurry. he is a princeton man. >> c'mon, harvard people. you are supposed to hiss. >> use the spokesman for the state department in a spokesman for the white house. he set a standard for openness for dealing with the paress for the president. then of co-charima commission for a predential debates. to his left is nikole wallace,

the director of communications in george w. bush's white house. she emulated mike mccurry. she earned a reputation for arguing for more openness. she also worked on the sarah palin campaign. like me, she is a californian with a degree in journalism. with that, we are going to start. i hope we will get to oligarch questions today to all of your questions -- i hope we will get to all of your questions. with that, we are going to see a

clip from the kennedy debate to help get started. >> in 1950, only 4 million homes had televisions. by 1960, it reached into 44 million homes. congress has made possible direct to television debates for the first time to give one station in chicago was chosen as e scene. >in the studio, they prepared fr the arrival of nixon and kennedy. representatives approved each detail.

vice president nixon was the first to ride. -- arrive. now he listens why the rules of television debates are explained. >> good. excellent. >> the first question will be to senator kennedy. once you get up, you are up for the rest of it. >> what is it? >> get out, 5 seconds. >> you want to cut quickly? >> howard will give you a few seconds.

looking right at the camera here. [inaudible conversations] >> i've the bursting in the morning. -- i leave first thing in the morning. [inaudible conversations] >> will everyone move back, please?

>> is that the right tone of voice? it opens up a series of discussions. >> they prepared to measure two men for leadership. across the nation, parents quite their children. it is 830 p -- 8:30 pm. >> it really separate clashes -- lashes. >> the programs originally scheduled to and not be seen tonight. next week, they will be seen on

most of the stations. >> good evening. the stations and the united states and their affiliated stations are proud to provide discussion by the two major president -- cacandidates for president. according to rules set by the candidates themselves, each man to make an open statement of approximately three minutes. in betwe, they will answer or commentpon answers questions by a panel of correspondence. four.is ithe first of

>> now for the first opening statement by senator john f. kennedy. >> in the election of 1860, and abraham lincoln said the question is whether a man could exist half slave and half free. the question is whether they nation will exist half slave and half free. i think it will depend in great measure upon what we do here in the united states. on the kind of strength that we maintained. >> it was domestic affairs, then they spent a relaxing day at the hotel as a preparing for a college exam. he directs himself not so much

to nixon but to the audience. >> fnklin roosevelt said that this generatn has a rendezvous with destiny. i think our generation has the same ron do -- rendezvous. i think in the final analysis, it depends on what we do here. i think it is time the americans started moving again. >> now the opening statement by vice-president richard nixon. >> nixon addresses himself to kennedy. >> the things that senator kennedy has said many of us can agree. there is no question tt we cannot discuss our internal affairs in the united states without recognizing that they had a tremendous bearing on their international position.

there is no question that this nation cannot stand still because we are in a deadly competition, and competition not only with men in kremlinut in taking -- peking. when you are in a race, it the only way to stay ahead is to move ahead. i sscribe completely to the spirit of senator kennedy, the spirit that the united states should move ahead. where do we disagree? i think we disagree on the implication of his remarks tonight and on the statements that he has made on many occasions during his campaign. to the effect that the united states has been standing still. >> the nixon campaign stretch thvice president maturity. they seemed evenly matched.

for years, men and women will argue who lost the chicago debate. analysts will agree that it is the most will episode of the campaign. >> governor, i would like to start. do you remember that debate? >> i do. >> did you ever imagine yourself what? no >>. >> no. he was young, inexperienced. the single most important thing that happened that day was that when it was over he was the match for nixon. the whole idea that too is too

young to be experienced when to buy the boards. that did not mean it was over. this is a very close race. he was 42. he was pretty young. it so dominated our lives at the time. he accepted that discussio bur. >> you had just graduated from harvard law school that year. did to get personal inspiration from this? >> and my own case, there were two people that have profound influence on me. one was a guy named joe mccarthy that got me so mad. >> you are not talking about the baseball manager?

he had other problems. nk that heonce so drug calle walked away from the pitcher's mound. those days politics and major league baseball when hand in hand. the first time i started thinking about maybe going into politics -- and the think this is tough, you should have been there them. this is a scary time in american political history. kennedy was an enormous inspiration. the reason he was was because he had an extraordinary appeal to young people. i watched him in action for the first time here at harvard and eyewitness -- when i was at law school. he and joe clark came over to us

and said we had just been in a meeting. they gave into this group of about 400 harvard law school students and said he will not make a speech, start asking me questions. it is one of the most impressive performances i ever saw. he really had an ermous impact on those of us who are just beginning to come of age politically. he was a massachusetts guy. yes, he was an enormous influence. after i finished law school and took the bar exam, we jumped into a little volkswagen's sports car and with clear across the country. we went there to see -- we were not delegate or anything.

alice is beginning to get involved in local politics. we were in the hall when one he came over. he thanked us personally in an informal chat that night. we were there. it was a great moment. >> charlie gets in coming you were in high school when this debate happened. i do not know this the reason you spin your professional life in television. was that and inspiring thing? >> it was extraordinary. i grew in georgetown. the guy who lives across the street was david bruce, rumored to be the secretary of state. i was said to my homer. the motorcade pulled up in front of our house b.

i saw the president get out if the car and go to david prius's house. i thought, "i he a scoop." i was totally wrong. he went into tell bruce he would not get the job. i did not know that. alloys is doing my homework. -- i was just doing my homework . my dad was a television news junkie. so was my mother ca. television was in its infancy. we got one not too long before e debate occurred. he mentioned the audience was 70 million people. debates. were four

the audience held up at about 70 million for all four. it was interesting. the first obama/mccain debate got 52 million prevand the couny is much larger. so much has been made. i thought clearly kennedy won the debate. argument was that he was the experience in a to be present. just as a high school student, i knew he blew the debate in the first statement when he agrees with kennedy three times in the beginning statement. immediately, and he seems to be conceding that kennedy is qualified to be president would

undercut his argument. nixon have a knee operation in his neck was smaller than the size and his shirt. the whole atmosphere of kennedy's confident and nixon's uncertainty and nixon loong at kennedy of the time, all of that made it very clear that kennedy was very much on the rise. interestingly, a young don hewitt told the story that nixon had reduced the make a plea he was there. kennedy did, too. he looked better. nixon turned it down. four years later, at the republican convention, nixon was to introduce him at the convention. he was getting made up.

hewitt said to him, and if you have let frannie make up for years ago, goldwater might be introducing you and not the other way round. nixon said, "you are right." >> there was no live audience. it was a huge television audience. there is no in the place -- there was no one in the plays it said the two of these guys. you do not have the atmosphere you have these days. they are all quite express it. >> that reminds me. that was pretty close to what the sarah palin/joe biden numbers were. they had visited a larger audience for the vice president. i wanted to ask you about that. i want to ask you this thing.

my colleague wrote a thesis about the preparation. nixon was in solitude. in your experience, that the preparation of the debate tell you about the person? if the american people could see the preparation with the know how to vote? >> look, i think people usually get it right. preparationsin's were extraordinary. [applause] 0 -- [laughter] he is always trying to protect me. sarah palin came into her debate n the uhfouheels of four

interviews. one was with charlie. two or three with katie couric. tina fey had declared that she gets to pressure from her house. already, the character was overtaking the candidates. that was the moment of the vice presidential debate. toay whether the ticket existed the morning after was what was on the vice. if that debate -- was on the line for that debate. i have to cut her some slack when the preparation. senator mccain prepared the way many do. he and lindsey graham and joe

lieberman were debating each other the whole time. it was quite physical. i think it is something that a lot of senators kind of lean into those deliberations and they prepare for a debate with the presidency which is an entirely different exercise. >> we've not had one since the n. >> it is fun watching that whole preparation before the debate began. none of this, as a result of the experien in 1960 which was so consequential -- several things happened. there iss not in a televised debate for 16 years until the ford/carter debate. it was because the transform the nature of that debate that we just watched.

the idea of a to waltz into the room and start looking around rules" -- e are the clearly making them up. that is now heavily litigated. it is even down to the walkthrough where you get ot see the stage for the first time. that is now heavily litigated because it is a consequential. we have not reached 70 million people every time. this is still a fundamentally important moment in our democracy, when these candidates get to get their -- together. we are moving toward a much more interaction. we have moments in the history of these debates.

they support euille support and what they do not support. charlie was right. the fact that nixone repeated the key slogan of the kennedy campaign, we have to get our country moving again. that is what the committee campaign was all about. the fact that the thomas repeated that mantra was probably more significant than anything of the theatrics. he bought into the central premise that john f. kennedy was bringing to that campaign. i am co-chairman -- these are so fundamentally important, the fact t hat the theater of it is

so interesting that we often miss the substance. >> there are periods where there is any risk for candidates. debates are still a risky thing. i agree. >> gerald ford agreed to debate carter because he was down in the polls. he made mistakes. they make mistakes in those debates. it is hard to get over them. we will get to that in a minute. this was cutting edge technology 50 years ago. i want to ask you a couple of questions. what will we be doing 50 years or two years from now? we have technology we are not using. >> the internet hasraded massif opportunity for people to participate with you to order

twitter -- with youtube or twitter. become thet has ti com tivo of our time. they know they do not have to watch it live. it is in the opportunity to break down some of the artificial ways in which to select our candidates. they do not need to be sown negotiated or litigated. the technology can allow everyone to ask questions. they can also allow candidates to answer the questions online and allows citizens to vote, whether or not they a lot of questions. it can open up the process to third-party candidates. it is one of the major reasons why they hardly negotiate with each other in order to block out central or third-party candidates coming in to

participate in the debate. the internet -- the technology offers an abundance. this technology offered scarcity at a time when it was the main vehicle for people to find out information. there is a new kid on the block, the internet a mobile communications. it will change the face of politics. >> before the sarah palin interview, we solicited questions from the internet. i got 30,000 questions. they were about 25,000 people who were spring loaded and kissed off -- pissed off. it was amazing to me t he vitriol that was in the questions. or, if this is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

the majority, 99 put 9% of the questions were -- 99.95 of the question [unintelligible] >> we do not have retools for filtering comments. when not established ws to elevate the best questions. the technology allows people to vote on the questions they think are the most relevant. the commune vo a wallte often -- community will often vote them down. i run a platform called tenquestoins.com. it allows citizens tpresent questions v andote them up -- and vote them up or down.

it can deter given four weeks to respond. -- take four weeks to respond. they could think about it. they would not have to choose the president paid and the ability to answer a question. after the war in is, they could go -- where finish come and vote on whether the candidate entered the questions. >> i want to correct one piece of information. they said we have to keep a structured institutionalized way in which we have these presidential debates for the

reason it was possible for candidates to say maybe they will not debate. there used to be a lot of debate about debates. they have been institutionalized but by no means are third-party is excluded. you have to demonstrate you have the capacity to when and a tour college majority and you have to -- win and electorial majority. i remember the first debates with president clinton and george bush. ross perot was there, too. they can participate and that is fine. here is my question. the internet is a vibrant, whereactive place

ideas can surface. there are experiments with how they can be interactive. they can generate questions that come up from below. some of it was hokey. snowmen asking questions. i do not see a time where we make it sowed democratized that we allow anyone to lift up their questions. how come we take this great tool, the internet, and bring it into this process that respects the dignity that american people rely on. they rely on seen these debates on a dignified and appropriate forum that the internet cannot always replicate.

>> i agree with you that they are very powerful tools for house candidates perform and to pay our. -- who they are. technology is still very brand new as it relates to the internet. cnn chose questions that were sent on the internet. many not know how to create a yoube question and did not participate. a lot of things have changed. the technology gets better and better. there is the potential that everyone in the country participate in a visible and transparent process by which the most important questions are presented to the candidas. i bring the governor into this discussion. i think that being forced to

answer a question in 60 or 90 secondis not at optimal as being able to consider a question over some time, to be able to select and the way and setting in which to answer the question and to allow the question to live onward beyond the sound bite and the newspaper articles. they do it to the entire american public. would that be appealing to you as a candidate? >> i think it as an appealing part of this. for better or worse, there is a notion that we are going to see the major candidates. we will watch it for 90 minutes three times.

and it'sit's rewards risks. better thanows that i do. georgia you bush looking at is what seemed to me to be -- george w. bush looking at his watch seem to me -- w hen i debate, i take the watch off and then stick it on the roster so i can look at it. you want to know where you are prepar. this poor guy looked at it and it was interpreted that he was bored and cannot wait for it to get over. we have other examples. my own view is that we

probably have both. as manyf you know, hthe best technology at all of a human being walking up to your doorstep of. barack obama did it. that is one of the reasons why he got elected. i think it wi be a mix of all of these things over time.

>> i think there is a conscious effort not to have that kind of question. do you filter? yes. we've not found the way to get immediacy from the internet. >> i would like to folloon that point he made. i know michael will have this. you talked about t "got you" question. i wonder if we went too far the other way. you did when it to debate that one of -- two debates that questioned whether sarah palin had the gravitas to do it predell. then we had a month later with joe biden.

the moderate mayor did not do anything. -- did not do anything. out with like you to talk about the difference between a reporter and a debate moderator. >> andgb your predicate. with that in mind, so many questions were you have to show how -- people were angry.

>> that you -- at you. no. >> conservatives got angry at me later. the liberals, it was almost like they were riding to break her. i was offended by the e-mails. i said, look at the theme of but i am getting. what do i do? he did not prepare an interview for sarah palin. prepare an interview for joe biden and at sarah palin the question that you ask joe biden. at the bell is the best piece of it as i could have gotten. that.shies away from wha the difference between moderator and reporter, i do not think there is a lot of difference. the critical thing is that

there is no such thing as object of pity and did objectivity -- objectivity. >> should they have been called on it in real time by the moderator? >> what are you going to say? feel there is aou follow-up question that needs to be asked, you should ask it. you do not say, senator you are wrong on that or what ever. you would say something that get around it in a more even-handed manner. >> go ahead. >> a republican campaign never takes for granted the role of the paternalistic as archer. the reason charlie was selected

r sarah palin was that there are fewer and fewer arbiters and people who can stand without judgment and truly reveal someone or a campaign for the view wherer. much has been criticized about the mccain's se this isa intot -- campaign sit with evening news anchors. we are almost having to conversations up here. it is all about -- as a campaign operator, your job is to protect your candidates from too much risk while at the same time maximizing opportunity. it is so ironic to me that you seem to have a consensus around structured that you advanced.

every candidate i've ever word for has always fallen on their face. >> i am not suggesting a live chat. the fact you got a really lousy e-mails two years ago does not mean the internet is just angry people. there are thoughtful people on the internet, it too. this is a battle between an on- line debate beyond televised debate. they may both have rules. they teach us.

there is an opportunity to engage the entire american public in the process. it provides the candidates was something they cannot get live there a debate, -- they cannot get their a live debate, the ability to express themselves in detail. the real opportunity for citizens is to hold them accountable. citizens and i darevoteither von this platform or tell each other. people talk around dining tables and over the back fence. achan sentce is -- a consensus is eventually formed. it gets built up over time. you do what ever you can to

influence the debate. in the 2008 campaign, it happened the same way as any other campaign. d you3-year-old da would talk around the dinner asked me how to do an e-mail. i looked at the e-ml that he was sending. the subjecline was "watch thi" and he was sitting around a barack obama video. there are 1.5 billion views that mentioned obama or mccain in the videos.

nine out of 10 were videos produced by people trying to influence each other. when howard dean iran and laws, many -- ran andost -- george allen was unaffected by the internet. a candid and understand that allows them to validate their opponents and connect with their citins will have an advantage of those the will strictly stick to television. >> there will be three times if you are lucky that the major party candidates will bhere. who knows what is going to happen in 2012. and that moment, we need a

moderator he will encourage candidates to debate. that is what is fascinating, when they get away from their sound bite and scripts and look at each of their eye to eye -- each other eye to eye. i got it all wrong. i went to show my other colleagues how smart i was. he asked the most simple questions to try to get them to engage with each other. we know from research that people want to see these candidates actually get off their scripts and debate each

other. >> we are not going to get the modern -- moderator out of the way tonight. just have them talk to one another predell >> will try to use -- move the structure of the live debate in facthat director. we do not like that uncertainty. >> it is a wonderful point. they talked about doing exactly that in 1964. [inaudible]

they taught themselves to debate like the lincoln/douglas debates. >> ochs ford -- oxford style. >> with that, i am sorry. i have been getting signals that i have to open this up. i am happy to open this up. identify yourself. there are microphones. >> with the bulk of the

internet and the distant keep yourself from the candidates, and i write to my national government i get a scripted lecttter. you can tell some assistant wrote it . this is of people in the sense of where connected to many people. peoplewe disconnecting from what their candidates really stand for? obama got elected because of knocking on the doors. are going towards something with the connection of the internet? is it providing a comfort zone? it is ultimately disconnecting from the constituency predicts

an think you are asking two questions -- constituency. >> i think you are asking to questions. most do not know the different between a server and a waiter. i am serious. they still live in the 20 enturi -- 20thcentury. they do not want to engage with their constituency. they elect us if you look at the rate gerrymandering is done. we have a broken politics. the internet will not fix the but it may help. the kandel will understand it allows them to validate their citizenry -- the candidate will understand it allows them to validate their citizens surry -- citizenry.

one of the biggest potential malpractice laws it would have them politics is the squandering of 13 million people he had when you as an elected and the stopping of engagement after he became president. it will not happen instantly. the candidates who really wants to engage can use these tools. >> sarah palin is using these tools more than any politician on the national state. she communicates -- she tweets. >> dishy actually -- that she actually tweet? >> yes. >> there is a new era where

people are starting to use these tools to break the model you just described. >> i'm a freshman at the college. they are one of the way up into the summer 2007. do you feel that in general there is an over saturation of debate after debate after debate? do you think it helps the >> i've were to allow the candidates running for president. most of them have lost. there are more like the "star wars" bar scenes most of the time. there is a qualitative

difference between the primary debates. we have nominated candidates and third-party candidates that are mpetitive. it requires a different format and structure than what we ve in the primaries f. >> in 1980, we have 45 different debate.

people want to hear you. + you have a lot of those in their valuable. >> up there in the balcony. >> spymaster student here. -- i am a student here. i have done my share.

i think both parties have done a great job of learning to use the internet to organize their own parties. is a lot like reading to the choir. -- it is a lot like preaching to the choir. how do each abc reaching out to more moderate and using the internet to foster a common dialogue? >> i think this is the moment where the thought is either going to go the way it ms nbc and fox news where it will totally separate out. [inaudible] this is such an interesting moment to be working in this

area. we will look back in a few years. this'll be a moment when the internet either became or it will happen around issues. it came together around issues. maybe the internet will foster more bipartin communities around issues so we are not all riled up about our primary caidates bil. >> the internet is a network of networks. how you assemble them is the interesting thing bi. it the cannot assemble them around some larger proposition, it puts this in the election.

the candidates had to figure out how to take of these networks that are available and aggregate them into something that represent a movement. that is a talent on the political side. -- that is the challenge on the political side. if governor dukakis is right, ringing the doorbell -- the new way is to do that virtually. quite how many people here are on twitterr? facebook? had you had intended action engage with you? let's be honest. in 2008, only 57% of those who voted were under age 50.

the rest of them over age 50 to give they are growing. i have looked at all those studies. >> that does not have anythi to do with twitter. it is not just twitter. >> just hold on. let's not oversell. >> television is so important. i am about to call on this young man. >> thank you for coming today. i am from losngeles, california. my grandmother has a facebook. [laughter] my question is to -- my question is about the role of third parties in the debates and about having 15% of the possible -- of

the support. with the growth of third parties and candidates, do you feel like having more ideological adversity and helps the presidential debates even if they do not have a legitimate chance of winning? >> i think the cmission has taken a very principled stand that has withstood a lot of litigation by in the courts. to participate in these debates, which are fundamentally important to the american people so that they can look these candidates in the eye and watch unript momentsthey need to know that these debates helped to win the at what -- when the electoral college. the american communist party is not going to qualify. they have to constitutionally be able to be elected president. by the way, there are hundreds

of people who ran for president of the united states that you had never heard of before. they are third-party candidates. they demonstrate some modest level of support from the american people. it is not a huge threshold amount. ross perot was one in 1992. sarah island was the key party candidate. everybody -- sarah palin was the teap party candidate. not everybody is going to meet that threshold. there are voices that need to be heard. it they can get the support and use the internet to get a threshold level of support, i think that is a good thing.

it is an important thing. >> sir, you have been very patient. >> in reference to joe mccarthy and the motivation to get into politics, even the close friendship between mccarthy and jack kennedy -- there is irony there do you not think? >> that is your question? >> i will be finished in about 20 seconds. in reference to grge bush looking at his watch invites scrutiny of you and your performance. if you think the question was one of those "gotcha" questions was something you could not handle, do you not think you should be a big boy? if you cannot stand the heat, go back to the kitchen. >> i never rejected to the

question. i said that whoever was running the show at the time -- the question was a perfectly good one. i had been asked it about 8000 -- i had been asked about 1000 times. people were watching. they deserve something better. a few are as opposed to the deh penalty as i am, respect a question like that. i was not surprised. i just did not da very good job of answering it. >> i am for the graduate school of design. there are clearly some candidates to have campaigners,

like bill clinton. there are some very intelligent people that might be good leaders, they are just not good communicators. at are your thoughts on the system helping to select a good states person rather than just a good campaigner? to you think there is a debate format that can focus on this? >> who wants this? >> it is an excellent question. it goes to, in many respects, whether there is a disconnect between the skill of running for president in the still of being president. many politicians will talk to you about that at great length. it is a frustrating part of the system. it is also one of the great disadvantage is we have in the system. it is so long. we started at the first of the year in 2008 with iowa and new

hampshire almost back-to-back. all of that part of the campaigning skills does not necessarily mean he will be a good president. all watched that in 1960. eisenhower and stevenson ran against each other. it now becomes critical that you -- look at the next congress. there are a lot of men and women there. do we need an entire united states congress as opposed to people who could be great statesman? >> after the 1984 campaign, i was covering california. i was covering a senator from

california. the finished so far back in the democric primary in new hampshire, ronald reagan got more right in votes. i came to live in an flu l to cover gary hart. abraham lincoln could not be elected today. i said, im not going to quote you saying that, but your point is well taken. this question is right up your sweet spot. i want to ask you a question rather than just agreeing with it. but to follow up on his, if you do not mind. you are not really taking the measure of a candidate, you're taking the measure of the whole party. >> how do presidents make

decisions now? they read papers. they talk to their aides. they look at the polls. they look at statistics. eventually, the president makes a decision. i think mike is right. there is something fundamental that we learn through the process of the televised debates. unfortunately in our modern era, there is something to artificial about it as well. the is not a particularly great deal of transparency about the way it is formed or where it gets money or the criteria. to makes tse decisions? >> take the measure of the candidate. the american people lookedt jack kennedy and they felt he could be president. that is something you would not want to take away from the

voters. >> 8 million people watched the speech in philadelphia that barack obama gave. it was not on television. they took a measure of the people at the time. it is not the internet itself, it is the ability to be able to communicate with the new media. it is not whether it is twitter or whether it is facebook. it is whether the candidate is connected to the citizenry. it is not interested in televised debauchery. that is what this is about. >> i think that the answer is the really good leaders, the tony blair's, the bill clinton -- >> i am a freshman at the college. there seems to be a conflict between the idea of political discussion via television and via the internet.

is there a way that in the traditiol televised debate format we can address those concerns and propose improvements so that we can get that greater forum for debate in the televised debate? >> if the answer is yes. the internet has an interactive nature. it has to be robust enough for people to come together and evaluate candidates and question each other. i like the idea of figuring out how to engage the campaigns of the candidates around that. there are three presidential debates and one vice- presidential debate begich haggled over sometimes. they ought to look beyond the one moment in which they have an appointment to show up and do it. we do not necessarily have to show up and be there at that moment, although that is when the two candidates come

together. beyond that, the internet offers a great opportunity and platform for people to interact, to submit questions, to challenge each other, to form debate groups and give back-and-forth. that is exactly what we want to do. by the way, who pays for this is the networks. that is a problem. how many networks are we going to have? the rest of it is the communities to support it -- the schools, universities, a communities the sponsor debates. it is entirely transparent how this commission works. is all about giving the american people a chance. if i was running for political office today, i would go onvery single day and do a chat. i would tight the answers myself. i think it is a great opportunity for politicians to

communicate their meaning. >> president obama has done that, by the way. >> sarah pailin does it. -- sarah palin does it. >> if you areoing to get the last question. stay where you are. >> i am a freshman at the college. thank you for being here to talk to us. my question is for mr. gibson. seeing as how you were the fst mainstream reporter to interview sarah palin and that you after the same questions you would have joe biden, what wasour first impression of her qualifications for the role of e vice president? [laughter] remember, whatever you say is going to be on the internet. [laughter] [applause]

>> i think it is a matter of fact that it is very difficult for someonto transition from the background that she has one of the things that knocked me out walking a route with her was she knew every single one of the people at the local high- school, the policemen, their problems, whatever. i thought she was a terrific small-town mayor. then she becomes governor of a very small state, which is not contiguous. i do not need to upset alaskans. it is a great state. she had not spent a lot of time the 48. it is very difficult to make that transition into the national stage. you have to give her credit for doing what she did. >> let me say this, it is difficult no matter what state you govern. [laughter]

you know, in my case i thought was a pretty good governor. i kind of thought the job to the presidential race is huge. it is greater for her. it is too long. one of the advantages to long primaries is that we spend a lot of time out there. real exchanges with people maybe the internet is one method for that. i crave the ability to do that. we have barbeques and clambes. we listened to the people represent. i do not care who you are.

that move from is huge. -- that move from the governor is huge. you are going to have a lot of difficulties. it takes a lot of work and effort. charlie said that in january, the candidates had been working since the last january. after you receive the nomination, it starts all over again. >> eve at the last question. >> i am a sophomore at the college. my question is for mr. mccurry. being a press secretary to president clinton, i i imagine that there must haveeen some

time where a question was asked that you were like, oh my g, there is no possible way we can come out ahead on this qstion. is there any way -- i am sure there were many -- are there any episodes you would like to share it? >> i am glad that you are so young and do not remember the best material. [laughter] i had one role, which was to always remember that nobody cared what my opinion was. they wanted to know what the president would say. i always tried to put myself in that frame of mind. the second thing, i always remember my family in south carolina. that is where most of my family is from. they have a hard time believing most of what they hear out of washington. how can i explaino my cousin's

what the answer was -- what should be said? if i can get in that frame of mind and represent the president and say what i need the present would want to say, i think that is the best you can do. it is a lot harder to be out there and be a candidate tn hold the office and run for the office. it is a great privilege to work with these people. >> i was going to go around the panel and have one more go realm. i thank you for your graciousness. i would like to thank the entire panel. i would like to thank on behalf

of the john f. kennedy jr. forum, thank you for being here. on the 50th anniversary of the kennedy-nixon debate, i would like to thank you for coming. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

to attend private and greenfinches schools. they will decide if this violates the separation of

church and state pur. >> general? >> thank you bu. arizona has allowed private citizens to contribute to organization set up by five individuals. the ninth circuit aired the binding. binding. constantine, inability to the three necessary alamance burda retake upon standing, it a. .he necessary elements greta: not of a fraction would go into any school cost. >> this money does belong to the

state, that the private individuals are using? it is the right to redirect it. >> that is their argument. >> one has to do it injured. as you track the taxpayer dollars, it does not fund any religious program. it is not that the government is spending money.

>> in the speculative whether it may be spelled out. when it is given, it often reduces the amount money the government cast his aunt edna -- government. >> the taxpayers who will religious ability to check a box. that check is cashed. it is given to the priest to say

prayers for the person who contributed the money. >> that is different than what we have today with deductions. 100%.ou are paying at i undesrstand. there is no on who could challenge that. >> i do not think any taxpayer could challenge that. could challenge that. if the government is doing something under includes a, -- inclusive, that is a texas monthly problem.

it could have been the case that as long as they were fair to every religion, papers congress could have funded it throughout the nation in churches for anyone to go and pray. that would not have violated the establishment. >> we talked about the standings and not the merits. with respect to standing, if the government only funded religious organizations, other organizations would have been careful to say there is a narrow exception to taxpayers prad. >> is anyone standing in your review to challenge? >> no.

i think that is with the general reluctance. it is not the underlying it is not the underlying premise per them . it to be unenforceable unless we recognize taxpayers. >> i do not see that. >> i do not see that. i do not think that is happening here. there is nothing more. nobody thought of this system. nobody thought of this system. >>i don not think thye are gone at all.

>> that needs be. you create what we have here. >> it can get around. those who are underunlcuded -- if that is the result, it is the result for every other clause in the constitution. >>we have a bill of righs. plaintiffs are heard teen. -- hurting. it is in the constittion. i thought that is what the problem was. i do not see that. i tink the court was very

clear. you would grant a tax credit that is a complain about someone else's money. . .

>> the results may have been the same but it would have been on the standings instead of being mayor its parent of a bottom- line decision would have been the same but the way the court got their -- that would have been no standing. >> no taxpayer standing. texas monthly standing could have been issued -- >> i don't remember that the government participated when this came up under the tax incentives. >> we did this. >> there was no word from the government about the lack of standing and ignore list of the fact that standing has not been pushed but i acknowledge that they will be brief as they are here. >> our point is not simply that the cost of the program is speculative, this is also the relief that the plaintiffs are

seeking will not reach us their problems. if you gave them everything they are asking for, the very same religious school and they would continue to be funded, they would continue to be funded because they would leave in place the tax deduction and so there would still be

government revenues being spent in favor of these religious programs. this would be 1/3 instead of 100%. i don't think that that satisfies the problem. i don't think that james madison would agree. the principal is what matters. >> thank you, general. >> mr. chief justice and made this please the court, there is a tuition tax credit and this does not violate the establishment clause because this is a lot that results in scholarship programs of private choice. like the tax deduction. and there are tax credits available on a neutral basis. >> can you tell me why arizona adopted this sort of scheme rather than the more typical tuition voucher to for this gives them the voucher or what have you at this is so much more complex and unusual and i am wondering why this was chosen or what the state thinks the

advantages are. >> one of the things is true in arizona that was not true in ohio is that under the arizona constitution, any direct aid to private schools is prohibited. the other thing about the tax credit program is that it does encourage contributions not only from parents bought from the community at large and this provides money for low income students, students with --

>> does this show their nations with people who cannot have students? >> there are some reports that have been done that show that there has been some children that have switched from public schools to private schools as a result of the program. many of the scholarship programs, in fact most of the scholarship programs provide scholarships based on financial need. >> i don't think you answered his question. the question is, is anything in the record that shows whether any of the money that is involved comes not from parents but rather from others who can contribute to the program?

>> what the record shows is that there is a large amount of contributions. there's $55 million. the department of revenue report says that this is the number of contributors and to contributes are not the individuals to contribute. this does not specifically line out to the contributors are, whether their parents or not parents. >> i suppose if some of the contributions are considerable like a billion dollars, that cannot just be a parent, right? >> you are right. >> are their contributions of that size?

>> again, the record does not show what the size of the contributions are, it shows the number of contributions and the total amount. >> if you give a million dollars, you only get a five and a dollar tax credit, right? >> that is collected. if >> the programs are programs of private choice because any assistance that reaches religious schools, that is after four levels of a private decision making. arizona sets up the rules for the tax credit and after that, private individuals and organizations takeover. anyone can perform their position and the increase in the number and diversity of school tuition organizations over the 13 years at the crest -- the tax credit has been in existence demonstrates the fact that this is -- >> arizona probably spends millions of dollars on public schools. let's take 40% of that and spend it on religious schools.

people might get into considerable discussion about whether this qualifies or are they just teaching religion and what the rules and regulations are, how is arizona dealing with this problem? is there a system for dealing with the legitimacy and circumstances under which schools qualify for this program? >> under the tax credit program, the schools have to be qualified schools and order to participate and that must be a set of regulations and rules. primarily what it is is that private schools in arizona

satisfy the compulsory education laws as well as they meet the requirements that this public schools have and terms of providing qualitatively the subject matter. >> those standards have nothing to do with this program? to do with this program? they are standards of any private school must satisfy to satisfy the educational requirements of the arizona? >> that is correct. >> what you have to do to be a school is a very complex thing. you have all kinds of requirements that eat up quite a bit of the day.

i wonder how the religion part fits in as it turns out to be. when do they do this? did they teach religion at 6 in the morning? does it matter if a person is qualified? i once had a case on this and it got to be surprisingly complex and i just wondered how the turned out to be any problem at all in this area. >> the record does not reflect that and i am not aware of any problems with private schools in arizona and certainly have not participated in this tax credit program. >> suppose that they discriminated on the basis of race. suppose there is no federal statute on this. would there be a constitutional violation? >> if it was a private institution --

>> this is an s.t.o. -- >> this is a private institution. >> with this there is no state statute and no federal statute. >> unless the discrimination could be attributed to the state and the stage direction. >> don't you think that it can be attributed to the state? they have rules about what -- has to be and the state provides the mechanism through the credits and the funding. >> limits for funding -- >> i assume there is a tax deduction fontributions to churches. >> yes, your honor. >> many discriminate on the basis of religion, don't they. does that pose a constitutional problem? problem? >> know.

>> what about the answer to my question. >> well, your honor, you have said that they are sufficiently private. -- well, your honor -- >> you have said that they are sufficiently private. >> this is a private school and they are discriminating on the basis of race. the question is whether they could have tax-exempt status so they could have donations to them. >> yes, your honor. the department of revenue could preclude the university from having tax-exempt status because that violated public policy and therefore they were not entitled to tax-exempt status. to hear all of these organizations are tax-exempt, they would not be able to discriminate based on race.

>> i will ask justice kennedy's question in a slightly different way. if this was just a straight program, the state could not give tuition doctors on the basis of religion. if you are a catholic, you don't get these factors. what the state has done here, apparently, is to set up a scheme that uses intermediaries that make exactly that distinction. they can say, sorry, if you are a catholic, you don't get the scholarships. why should the state be able to do that? if the state cannot do it

itself in providing tuition parent out of shelters, on why should they be able to set up a system using intermediaries that exists for no other reason than to it minister this program that can make those distinctions? >> -- for no other reasons than to administer this program. >> anyone can set up a school tuition organization. these organizations that support purely secular schools are in existence and there has been no problem sending those up. the top tend to provide scholarships to any school of the parents choosing. >> the plan discontent and this is a motion to dismiss, there are some that make these distinctions that clearly would be impermissible if the state administered the program. these are not existing charitable proses -- programs or schools, they're set up

solely for the purpose of the minister in this program and yet the state has said that they can make distinctions that the state itself cannot. >> there was one school tuition organization that administered the test credit and certainly the private schools that participated in did exist before the school tuition organization. what this program allows private organizations to do, it allows parents to get together with private schools. >> you said that there was a school tuition organization before this program. the money went to arizona, not before the school tuition organization and before the scheme was traded.

>> before the scheme was traded they would have gotten a tax deduction instead of a tax credit. there is not a significant difference between a tax credit and a tax deduction in terms of constitutionality. the only difference between a tax deduction is that for purposes of a tax deduction, it depends on the tax bracket of the taxpayer where as the tax credit, the value is equal for all taxpayers that 0 the taxes. a court has never made a distinction between tax credits on the one hand or tax exemption and tax deduct under the respondents theory, any money that the government

does not take in would then be the equivalent of state money. that would then undermined charitable organizations. what you need to look at when arizona decided to give a tax credit for this is if they were thinking if this is a worthy public purpose to not take in certain money. this is not a question -- that type of purpose has been upheld in various cases. again, there is not a basis of distinguishing here between what arizona is doing and what other organizations that have for years been able to enjoy the

benefits of tax savings, tax benefits, and help to gives scholarships to religious organizations. should >> thank you, counsel. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. may it please the court, i voted

to start with the statement that if we win this case, we do not get any relief because as much money would go into religious education as those now. that shows you do not understand our claim. our claim is not that state money is going to religious schools. our claim is that state money is our claim is that state money is being given to the beneficiaries of a state spending program on the basis of religion. discrimination in the distribution of these state funds. >> i get it, but the school this seems to get the most money on the list does not appear to be a religious school at all. it is not even discrimination between religion and non- religion. it does not favor religion at all. >> i did not say it favored or disfavored religion. >> what is your problem of the establishment? >> the problem is that government benefits and government benefit programs cannot constitutionally be given to a program on the basis of their religion. if a parent comes to one of these -- >> we have a government program that gives out money indiscriminately to organizations that provide hospital services, it would be unconstitutional if that included organizations that were religious organizations as well as religious organizations that

were not. that would be unconstitutional? >> let me clarify. you must give the money to the beneficiaries without taking the beneficiary pose a religion into account. >> how does this take the beneficiaries religion into account when the program works perfectly and exactly the same way if it is a non-religious school? they do not care whether it is a religious school or not. >> because the sco's are giving government funds. they are on the government's behalf distributing tax revenues. >> i did not think that was my question. how is it discriminating on the basis of religion if the government money does not care whether it goes to a religious school or not? the most money is given out our organizations that do care. >> the state does not care whether it goes to a religious sto or secular.

>> that does not matter. if the grand he cares, that is unconstitutional. >> when you have the decision made by a private entity whether to use the money to go to a religious school or nonreligious school, that does not violate the constitution because the decision is not made by the state. it is made by the private organization. >> i believe the court said th decision was made by the grantee, not the government. the government program -- grantees were given funds to educate adolescents in sexuality. the court held that although the pro constitutional on its face because -- it was not unconstitutional because religious organizations could participate, it would be unconstitutional with those organizations distributed the benefits of the program on the basis of religion.

think about a headstart program. suppose the government sets up that the head start programs in a particular community. they are all run by private organizations, some religious, some not -- >> just to get back for a moment, the entities that were distributing the funds could be private or religious? >> same as here, yes. >> the entities were not identified. the recipients of state funds were not identified as religious or not? >> i do not understand. i think the court held that if the grantees were to give out their services on the basis of religion, that would violate the establishment clause. >> do we know that the schools

here do that? do we know that these religious schools do not admit people accept of a certain religion? >> i think we do not -- we do know that, and the complaint alleges that. the board is not what the religious schools do but what the sto's do. they are government grantees to string government funds. the constitution prohibits organizations that distribute government funds as part of a government spending program -- >> it is a great leap to say that it is government funds. any money the government does not take from me because it gives me a deduction is government money. >> this is money that the government takes from people. this money has never been in the government's coffers. the government declined to take this money. >> it is money raised by the state income tax. every tax credit dollar is a dollar that has to be paid either to the government as income taxes or to an sto. >> i give you credit.

you say in your brief that there is no standing and no violation, but i must say i have some difficulty that any money that the government does not take from me is still the government's money. let me ask you -- if you reach a certain age, you can get a card and go to certain restaurants, and they give you a 10% credit. i think it would be rather offensive for the cashier to say, "be careful how you spend my money." [laughter] >> no, it does not. with respect, the money involved in this case is money that is generated by imposition of the state income tax, not by non-and position. if there were no state income tax -- >> would you say the same thing about a tax reduction? -- tax deduction?

that is the government's money? >> we are kind enough to give the taxpayer a deduction for certain contributions. >> when a taxpayer makes a charitable deduction, that is made from the taxpayer's money. at the time the taxpayer makes that deduction, the taxpayer can do whatever they want with that money. that is not true of this tax credit. at the time the tax credit is taken, the taxpayer owes the government $5,000 in state income taxes, and you have to pay that. you cannot keep it. it is not your money. it is not that all of your money is the government's money. it is that this $5,000 a year or the government in income taxes -- >> why is that not true of the tax deduction also? this is a modest credit, the tax deduction a wealthy person

would get by making a donation to a college or university with a religious affiliation is much more valuable than this $500 credit. >> when the taxpayer makes a payment, the taxpayer is paying their own money. when you make a charitable contribution, you are using your own money.

you not know how much money goes to the government until you figure out your taxes. this credit does not come into play until you figure out your taxes. >> back up. it is december 31. people know exactly, they can know exactly what their taxes will be, and if they make a deduction, then it will be x minus y. what is the difference? >> to me, the broad differences that the tax deduction is given for charitable contribution, and i think the court will decide -- i do not think it has ever had to -- that it is constitutional for the government to support private charity, and if the government is going to support private charity by let you deduct charitable contributionannot leave religious charities out of that program. that is a violation of the establishment clause. so if you believe a charitable deduction in income tax is a constitutional thing to do by supporting private charity by picking up part of the tab, then you have to give the deduction to people who contribute to religion. yes, there is government support for that private charitable contribution, but it is a charitable contribution. the money in this case is not a charitable contribution. it is not the government's money, then whose money is it? the taxpayers' money?

no, and if you do not take my word for it, look at what they say on the web sites about this program. one says quite frankly that you can give charity with someone else's money. another one says that it will not cost anything. you can give shared with other people's money. >> what difference does it make what they say on their web sites? >> there's a very important philosophical point. you think that all the money belongs to the government except to the extent that it deigns to allow private peopo keep some of the. that is what your whole argument is based on. >> no, it is not. my argument is that if the government imposes an income tax and people know the government a certain amount money and income tax is due and the government says you do not have to pay into them, that you can pay to an sto, that is a payment of government funds --

>> they do not owe it to the government if they have made the contribution. they did not owe the tax to the extent that they have given money to one of these institutions. you posit at the very beginning that you owe a full amount of taxes. that is just not true. you do not owe the tax if you made the contribution. >> i disagree with that. if you look at the arrows on the income tax form, it says, "here is your income. apply the tax rate to the income. here are your taxes too. $5,000. you may pay that in part by paying an sto." you are paying your taxes. >> that is the problem. they have to revise their form so it is a deduction -- a deduction before the line. that is a lawsuit?

>> money in this program is not private charitable -- i see your argument. the holding, i would think, which i was not in agreement with, is that the government can have a spending program, and what they did was the government spent money in the form of vouchers to be given to private individuals to use for such education as they wish that met certain standards, including religious schools, so what is the difference between the program here and the one that was held constitutional? >> the difference is that in zelman, the money went to the parents without any religious determination. the parents got funds based on their financial need and the fact that their children went t school in cleveland.

the program was to give them, based on their financial need, a voucher. in giving the parents a voucher, nobody asked them what their religion was. nobody asked if they were going to send their children to a religious school. the court said as clearly as it could that that would be unconstitutional. >> so they say to the parents going to the school, what is your religion -- in other words, they give the scholarship only to catholics? >> exactly. >> what you claim as an issue is the money that contributed to the sto has failed to give to the government when it is the government's money. that decision of whether to give the money an sto or not, whether to give it to a religious affiliated one or non- affiliated want, there is no religious discrimination in the choice.

>> let me put it to you this way -- suppose the government in this case gave the money directly, and they then gave out the scholarships -- would it be constitutional for them to say to a parent who comes asking for a scholarship, "are you catholic? if you are not, we will not give you a scholarship." >> but you have an intervening parent or contributor, and it is that person making the decision of whether to give it to a religious or non-religious organization. it is not the government making the decision. >> parents under this program are not allowed to give contributions for scholarships for their own children. the people who can claim the tax credit, the person that gets

the scholarship cannot be independent of the person -- >> i suppose they change one rule. they said they would give you tuition if your otherwise qualify if you are a child to go to the school that you wish to go to, and if you are jewish or protestant and you want to go to st. joseph's catholic school, that is absolutely fine. they will not keep you out, and vice versa. in your opinion, that would be constitutional? >> yes. >> the only thing you are challenging is the rule that they will not give the scholarship to a protestant to go to a catholic school? how do we know? >> we allege that the sto's they give up the majority of the funds, i think now it is about 70%, that they only give

the funds to parents who will send their child to a religious school. that is designated by the sto. >> that is different. what you were complaining about is i'm jewish, i want my child, let's say, to go to st. joseph's. do i qualify or not? >> that depends on the sto you go to. >> your complaint is only with the ones that would not let you send the child? >> exactly. >> and we know that they exist? >> we alleged that they exist. >> i want to make sure i understand your complaint. you just said that your complaint was that the sto's are giving scholarships based on the students religion.i thought anor

complaint was that they were giving just to religious schools. >> they did not give scholarships to religious schools. they give them to parents. >> but to attend that school. the essence of your complaint is that some of the sto's are requiring that the recipient child be of a particular religion? >> that and some of the sto's also require that in order to get a scholarship, the parents agree to send the child to a particular religious school. >> but that does not get you there. >> you are saying both of those? is that right? >> yes. >> do you understand the beneficiaries of this program? has the state said wh the beneficiaries of this program are? are the beneficiaries of this program the parents, or arethey? >> the beneficiaries of this program are the parents and the children. that is what the program is for. the state set up a program to

help parents send their children to non-public schools, and to do that, they are going to give them scholarships. scholarship money is going to be available. >> i would assume then that it is the parents that have to be treated equally. >> exactly. the scholarships have to be available to parents on a religiously neutral basis. the scholarships are not allowed to be made available to parents according to their religion or according to whether they will send the child to a religious school. both of those kinds of discrimination are going on here. >> i go back to your point. you were making the distinction between the taxpayer charitable donation where the taxpayer has the whole universe. he could spend it on fine clothes, on gambling, on this charity, that charity, but your point here, this contributor

does not have the universe to pick. this one has either give it to the government, or you give it to the sto? >> exactly. it is not the taxpayers' money. it is confusing because we're talking about two kinds of tax payers. my clients are general taxpayers whose money is being used to fund this program. and we are talking about the taxpayers who take the tax credit. >> if arizona had a statue that gave an income tax deduction only to individuals who make charitable contributions to educational institutions, there would be a problem there because it was not a general tax exemption for generable contributions -- general contributions? >> when you get a deduction to making contributions to an educational organization, that

could include a religious education organization. you cannot set up a program that gives you a deduction for giving to educational institutions but not to a religious institution. that would be unconstitutional. if you are going to support private charity, you have to support religious charity in the same way your support non- religious charity. >> i'm not sure that justice ginsburg was the difference between this and the federal tax contribution. federal tax deduction is available for a broad range of charities, whereas this is available only for a very narrow range. >> i may have misunderstood the question.

i think the question was at the time the taxpayer makes the charitable contribution that he is going to take his deduction for, the taxpayer could do anything he wants with that money. take a vacation, give it to the charity, buy clothes with it, buy food with it. it is a completely open system. nobody tells the taxpayer what he has to do. in this case, when the taxpayer rights that check to the sto, the taxpayer cannot keep that money, cannot use it on a vacation, cannot use it to buy food. has to either pay it to the state or paid to an sto. >> the same thing is true of charitable deductions. when you take a charitable deduction, you do not have the money anymore. you have given it to a charitable organization. you are allowed to give it to a particular religion, particular church, and there seems to be nothing unconstitutional about that, right? so what is unconstitutional here about the private decision to give a benefit to an organization that only supports particular schools and indeed only supports people of a particular religion that go to that school?

>> there is nothing unconstitutional about taxpayers sending the money to an sto. if they did not discriminate on the basis of religion when giving the money out, there would be nothing -- >> but churches discriminate on the basis of religion. when i take my deduction to give to reticulate church, that church discriminates on the basis of religion, but that is ok. >> the government says do not pay your taxes to us, pay it to a church, and the church gave its benefits only to people of a certain religion, i believe that would be -- >> it really is just that line in the tax form that you are concerned about? the only relief you really need is the change in the tax form?

>> it is the difference between charity and paying your taxes. when you make a charitable contribution, you are making a charitable contribution. it costs you money. in arizona, if you make a contribution of $1,000, it costs you $950 at the maximum tax rate because the maximum tax rate is 5%. in arizona, if you take this tax credit, it costs you nothing. it is not charity. >> just a follow-up on the question, if this system were set up exactly as it is now but arizona said contributions to sto's are deductible, you would have no problem? >> no, we would not have a problem with that. >> the only difference is that arizona set up this system where you get a tax credit instead of a tax deduction. >> of course. >> that would be true even at

the top marginal rate was 90%? >> yes, it would be true even if the top marginal rate were 9%, which is never going to happen in arizona. [laughter] >> but the federal rate has been up that high. >> that is what the establishment clause turns on? >> yes, because that is still charity. the top rate is 90%, when you give that money, it is your money and can be used for anything. even if you are in the 90% bracket, you are giving some of your own money, engaging in charity, and the constitution permits the government to

ize private charity. the government is going to subsidize private charity, it cannot lead religious charities out. that is the dividing line. is the government subsidizing private charity? in this case, they are not. because it is not private charity. >> if this is government money, why would it be constitutional, in your view, for this scheme to exist if the sto's did not discriminate at all? >> because it is perfectly ok to use government money for non- religious discriminatory uses. for solar water heaters, and you get something for the money, and that is totally different. this tax credit is very strange. this is a tax credit only used to pay your taxes. that is the only function it has. >> yet, you have sto's that will only give scholarships for religious affiliated schools, but they will not discriminate on the basis of the students religion. if this is the government's money, you think that would not be an establishment clause? >> if an sto discriminates either by saying they only give

to people of a certain religion or not giving to people of another religion or by saying you only get the scholarship if you send your kid to a religious school that they designate? school that they designate? >> but he said the opposite earlier. let's suppose you did. suppose the government gives its money to put cat scans in hospitals. one group of beneficiaries is the association of catholic hospitals. another is tssociation of jewish hospitals. another is a set of totally secular hospitals. the catholic group is going to give it to catholic hospitals and so forth. what is wrong with that? >> i do not get your hypothetical. >> they have government money, just like you claim this is, and they say that we give the money to those organizations, and we expect them to distribute

it, and they will distribute it to their members, and in some cases, their members are religious organizations, and in some cases, they are not. what is the difference between that and what happened here? >> it depends on with the beneficiaries of the government -- >> the beneficiaries of the government cat scan program will be catholic hospitals because they are the ones who belong to the catholic hospital association. money will also go to the secular hospital association, as it goes with the secular sto here. >> on not clear on your program. as a governmram to benefit hospitals, the benefits have to go to hospitals on a religiously neutral basis.

>> the government says -- it does give the money away on a religiously neutral basis. it gives it to hospital associations. it turns out that some of those, naturally, are supposed to give it to their members, all of whom will be religiously affiliated. >> but the hospitals are the beneficiaries. that is the difference. the beneficiaries here are not the sto's. the beneficiaries are the parents. the constitution requires that the benefits of a government spending program go to the beneficiaries on a religiously neutral basis. the beneficiaries were the parents, and the vouchers had to go to them -- >> i do not understand the answer. his question was you give it to the hospital equivalent, and

that gives it to hospitals on a religiously discriminatory basis. why are the hospitals not the beneficiaries of that program, just as you say the parents are here? >> if the hospitals are the beneficiaries of the program, then the hospitals have to get the money on a religiously neutral basis. >> the analogy would be the patients are the beneficiaries of the program. the government wants to help cancer patients, so it is going to give money to hospitals to help cancer patients, so it gives money to various hospitals. hospitals.

>> if the hospitals are the beneficiaries, they have to give it on a neutral basis. the analogy would be that the patients are the beneficiaries of the program. the government wants to help cancer patients and so it will give money to hospitals to help cancer patients. it gives money to various hospitals on the program. if one of those hospitals say that the only true catholic cancer patients, that is unconstitutional. >> we're trying to separate, in your argument, the issue that some of these organizations are religiously affiliated from the arguments that moreover, they will only give money to individuals of a particular religion. i understand your argument for the latter. but i must say i do not understand your argument for the former. >> if i go to get a scholarship from an organization and is asked where i'm going to send my child, and i say that i did not make that decision yet, they say they will only give us the scholarship we send our child to a jewish school which teaches people how to pray in the way that jewish people pray. it's education is jewish religious education. that is religious discrimination. >> thank you, counsel. >> you have four minutes remaining. >> thank you. i think i have this right. we are talking about my clients whose money is being used to fund this program. that is not a description of what is going on here. it is recognized that a special solicitude for taxpayers when money is taken out of their pocket and used to fund religion against their conscience. if you accept all of this public money discussion that has been happening, not a center of their money is the one to fund this. >> this seems to use the wonderfully precise word, "next." white -- given that it is a nexus, what is it not also in texas were you have this complicated system that -- taxes were you have this complicated system. you have directly subject -- attracted $5,000 cash to a purely forbidden religious program. >> and this is not the next test that is the definition of what the actual tax payer plan is. it requires that tax money --

>> was that in that instance, -- >> if there is any doubt, it is very clear because exactly what you said is looking at economic affects and that will be enough and just property clause and that does not matter. >> they could not have meant that this is your particular dollar. there is no way to know that it is your particular daughter and -- dollar and that would be a silly thing to say . toflask said was that taxpayer dollars are going to this activity. >> i disagree. i think it is about the microstructure of a sense that is coming from your pocket and

being used. it may be very small, but it is a special column of conscious when it is your hard earned money being used to fund a program directly to something that you do not like. >> here, a taxpayer is challenging a provision of the tax code and has pursued to the taxing and spending power that grants a tax benefit. that is as close to an axis that you are going to get. >> i do not think that deals directly with the taxpayer. even if you disagree with me, you have to have a tax credit that will not cost the government money or save it. if you have to know that the government will not cut spending to make up the shortfall in revenues.

you will have to do all of those things, none of which that you have to do in a flask situation. regarding state action, i think it is this court's precedents that the fact that the government funds something does not transform it into a state actor. that would be an enormously damaging precedent for this court to follow. what blanc says is that the performance of a traditional prerogative, and here, all the sto is doing is handing out money and it is doing so on a neutral basis and anyone can form an and anyone can -- a guy >> thank you, general.

the case is submitted. >> tomorrow night, a former supreme court justices sandra day o'connor and david souter and discuss their experiences on the court. that is 9:00 p.m. eastern tomorrow night on c-span. joined by michael niemiraril -- michael marrio of the international council of shopping centers. this is the holiday season. how does spending look? guest: it looks pretty good. we started out on the strong side of it in november. momentum has continued through december.

of course, we had, the last few days before christmas, time to evaluate, and post-christmas shopping. but it is shaping up to be probably the strongest holiday season since at least 2006 and a 2005. -- and maybe 2005. host: how much of the recovery is going to be consumer spending-driven? guest: the arithmetic is that it is going to be about 2/3 of gdp. when you look to 2011, you have a series of positives that will presumably give you some support to the pace of consumer spending. one thing in particular is the payroll tax deduction that will give consumers additional disposable income in 2011. we are ending 2010.

-- we are ending 2010 on a positive note for consumer spending, and a tax rollback for 2011. host: this year association feel that there is enough uncertainty now -- does your association feel that there is enough certainty now with the tax situation in the united states? are you satisfied with what came out of congress? guest: well, certainly, the extension for two years of the bush tax cuts of 2001 adds a little more certainty, and we will probably worry about what the outlook looks like again two years in. but for now, i think that the extension does provide that certainty, and that is a positive for the economy and for consumer spending. host: before we get to calls,

talk about the economic situation in the united states and consumer spending and the outlook for 2011, i want to go through the papers and get your reaction to the headlines in some of these stories. this is the associated press -- "factory orders outside of automobiles and airplanes sore. orders for long-lasting manufactured goods outside of the transportation category rose by the largest amount in eight months. growing increase for computers and heavy machinery." guest: you have to step back and ask what is driving that. it is a sign that the recovery is in full force in certain areas. but if you'd step back, since the recovery began in summer of 2009, one of the things are really was the catalyst, two things up with a catalyst for

the recovery, was the manufacturing sector that had taken inventory down so much and started to rebuild them, but also the improvement in corporate profitability. that is the key reason that, since late last year, you sought capital spending -- saw capital spending on equipment and software really booming trade that continues even with today's report. -- really booming. that continues even with today's report. by the way, profits will ultimately be the story why employment picks up in 2011. host: "wall street journal," page a4, "economic growth exceeds forecasts. forecasters have been raising growth projections for the

fourth quarter and for 2011. optimism about the u.s. recovery has grown sharply in the past month, fueled by a series of economic reports showing everything from consumer spending more freely to bu sinesses curbing layoffs." that is "the wall street journal" this morning. here is "the financial times," the lead story on their front page. "slow u.s. growth highlights fragility. the housing market continues to struggle, highlighting the challenges of sustaining a fragile recovery." those seem to be contradictory stories. guest: well, that is not unusual to have different perspectives. let me step back and say what is the long-term trend for growth? that may color the way you interpret these data. if you look at the last 20