they want to grow so clurl. things with this government is we have become more europian in our approach to deficit and approach. they want to grow the economy but they think the way to do that is having tough cuts. it's a calculated risk. in the u.s., not only summers, but tim giter who i workt with at that time as well and put growth forward. but the jury is out, but for the first time in a long time, u.s. and u.k. with see similar issues and both ran up the public and private debbed and had the spending spree, housing boom and bus and taking different

approaches and u.s. needs to cut borrowing is being cut down the road. >> the prediction that he was making, if i dodge the united kingdom would have to 0.7 the-two $0.70 trillion. >> that is right. in the united states, we have -- what is it, about five times bigger? >> as i was saying before, debt relative to the economy is going to be the same ballpark. it depends on how you treat state debt and how you treat the social security trust fund.

we're in the same ballpark. the u.k. has put forward what most people would say is a credible plan for putting the death on the downward part. you're borrowing less, but you're not allowing the other debt to rise. that is not what has happened in the west. >> this is a small thing for you. if you are over 65 or 70, you get free bus rides. >> gordon brown gave a few freebies that were introduced by in the cost a lot of money. free tv licenses for older people. that is overstepping. -- over 75. here, if you buy tv, you have to buy a tv license which costs a

little under two hundred dollars, maybe $275. people over 75, even if they are very well off, get a break. if you are over 60, everybody in britain can get a card for free bus travel at pete times in london. that is a point of contention. the treasury would like to get rid of it. they think that it is crazy to give free travel to a lot of rich pensioners. >> i had a pass for a week here in london and it was about $40 for five days. >> that would be for the subway. you do see that there are much reduced rates for people to go on the subway.

you see people waiting and uc slightly older people waiting outside a subway station for 9:30 a.m. when they can use there's. >> there are free prescription charges and three in test. -- free i tests -- free vision test. >> that is mostly for the elderly. they want to encourage people to go and get tested. it was a very sticky issue for margaret thatcher back in the 80's when she introduced this for the non-retired population. some of these other things that the call universal benefits that go to everybody, they are under a lot of pressure. there is a fuel allowance that you get. you get a big check for about $300 or $400 every year just to help you meet your home fuel bills during the winter.

that is not necessarily needed. >> what is this housing allowance that we keep reading about that some people are taking advantage of? you see the article in the newspaper on all of the cheaters. >> it is called the housing benefit. it is help for poor people and people on low incomes to pay their rent. it was developed because there was not enough cheap housing for people, so this was a benefit that developed. the bill has risen to $20 billion. that is more than we spend on police and other things. understandably, the new chancellor of the finance minister said that we have to start bringing this down. what worries people is that although there is money going to people with big families, for

them to find a house and have their rent paid could be a lot of money. it could be tens of thousands of pounds a year. some ask why they are getting it when you're struggling to pay your mortgage or your brant. -- for your rent. -- for your rent -- certainly, putting them out. if they cut money and reduce the bill, and you can see what they do not want stories of people sitting in mansions at the government's expense, but if you make it very difficult for poor people to live in london, that would have a thing for people to rely on.

go back to your report on what the labor party promised before the election. what is the difference? tim you give me some specifics? the difference at the cameron government and the coalition government brought into being? >> there were some tax rises that labor introduced that pretty much has been stuck with. the bulk of the cuts which were being introduced were going to be through spending. the conservatives are doing a lot more spending cuts. they are playing a bigger role. the old minister was planning to cut spending by about 50 billion pounds over the next four years. under this government, it will be $80 billion. that is about 5% of the national income.

they took what he had done and they stuck with most of it, including the tax rises, but then added another half on top. you said earlier that you have an american passport could do you feel british or do you feel american? >> i speak like a brit and i feel more like a brick because i spent more of my life here. i went to school here, but i s.rtainly miss the state' i feel a kinship with america. i like to think that i will carry on. >> is your mom still alive? no, she passed away 12 years ago. my daughter was born on the 12th anniversary of her death. david camerons photographer and video maker have left the public

payroll after the prime minister's vowed pressure over his vanity staff. is that something that this government is getting caught doing? >> with these guys, any politician that announces that things are going to be different, they always get caught. it is a mistake to say that you're not going to do these things. david cameron has been caught out having a photographer and a videographer working with him on the government payroll. i would say it is a small piece of it. it is an occupational hazard for them having them to cut waste and made people think that there's a lot of money to be saved. of course, it is easy to catch them out on these little bits of

spending. there have not been too many of these. >> we talked briefly about governing and the two countries. how long did you write speeches? >> i did it from 1997 until the end of the the administration. i was there doing 9/11. i was working at the metro station in new york. >> how long did to work there? >> i was only there for six months. i went to do a particular job and there was a change of leadership. they had a lot of problems afterwards. one of the initial problems i had was that i did not find that they were creating the job that i went to do. it was an amazing experience. people i worked with, i really enjoyed it. it is a hell of a place to do it.

we have something in common because rupert murdoch owns the times and the sun. in the united states, he owns fox news. >> is there a difference in journalism between the two countries? >> there is a little bit -- they trust their journalist more. they have much lower standards in terms of fact checking. they leave the journalists to make their own judgments on things. that means there is a lot of stories that are not true. the great thing about sunday it is that the stories did not have to be as true.

i thought it was a rather worrying expression. you would never hear that any serious newspaper in the u.s. i was taken aback initially and rather impressed by the amount of attention to detail when i was working at "the new york times." how many americans do see coming to herb blog? >> if i am writing about something global, it will go on the effort -- on the front page of the bbc website. i will then get several hundred thousand hits from that. it is very hard to judge, looking at the comments, they sometimes will be from the rest of the world, but not so much from the u.s., i am not sure. >> go back to what we first started to ask you about. if you work for the chancellor of the exchequer, george osborne, versus the treasury

secretary in the united states, what would be speechwriting be like? >> i suspect the speech writing process would be similar. it depends on the person. there are some leaders who are very careful about their speeches in the want everyone to have seen it before hand. i suspect they are in the minority. most of these guides get in there, and they have people they trust. the people at the u.s. treasury would be tearing their hair out because larry and i would be discussing his crucial speeches at 3:00 in the morning. i suspect that is similar. what is interesting is the u.k. treasury is much more powerful and the u.k. than the u.s. treasury is. i was amazed -- i should have known this going in.

but when i went to the u.s. treasury, i was surprised about how important it is. -- important -- impotent it is. the budget the produces and january is kindly received, and then promptly ignored. the chancellor stands up on a certain day, you saw the report i did on the day in the spring when this happened. they stand up on a certain date and then dealt with there going to do, they sit down, and in a week or so, it will happen. there is no debate. none of the months of painful back and forth that you have in congress. the treasury is much more

powerful. when it comes to the rest of the world, no one really cares what the u.k. treasury things. in the case of the u.s., we did have an awful lot of control. some people had said too much control. the irony is that we had a lot more control over many other countries policies them we do over our own. >> when we watched the cuts being announced over here, 500,000 people are going to be cut in the public service, is that like cutting a fourth of our civil service? is it the same thing? how do you find 500,000 civil servants in a country that only has 60 million people? >> they are everybody. it is also going to be the policemen and the bureaucrats were dealing with the different departments. campbell also be a lot of local

authority and local government officials. -- it will also be a lot of local authority and local government officials. >> but controls -- what control does the prime minister have over the local government? >> we are going to give you a lot more control over how to spend it. they hate the fact that the people they were forced to spend on certain things, it is similar to the states. the state's hate having the federal government control how they spend their money. money,have a lot less but we will stop putting so much control over how you spend it. in that sense, he will have less control over what the local government does. a lot of the cuts will be felt at a local level. >> in the united states, the president says we are going to cut the money to the states.

he may never be able to do that because congress will not go along with it. what about here? >> that isn't -- that means it is going to be cut. what they say in parliament, happens. you would hear about them even in the states because they would be a major loss for the government. things are a bit different in a coalition government because you've got a lot of debates between the two parties that has to happen behind closed doors within the treasury before these things get announced. there is not a new check and balance on the conservative power that would not have normally been there.

was to get to the point of announcing it in parliament, but that is the parliamentary system. >> right across this river, the conservative headquarters, still is came to protest the raising tuition. is that going to happen? if it does, what does it mean for the potential college student? >> at the moment, it has been a very difficult issue for governments for 30 years. how do you pay for university education? when i went to college 20 years ago, they were just beginning to prevent better off families from getting grants and getting minutes money will they read college. i did not pay a penny and my parents did not pay a penny for

fees. the fees were introduced under tony blair. the big loss that he nearly suffered was the tuition fees. now those fees are going up. the fee at the moment is capped at 3,000 pounds. it could not be -- that in many universities. -- it could not be doubled that in many universities. that seems terrible, even though the money is going to be paid up front. it can be paid back once you are earning. if you are not earning more than a certain amount, you would not pay it back. it is progressive in that respect. it is a touchstone issue, but i do not think they will back down. the universities are saying, we cannot pay our way. we cannot stay serious academies if we did not get more money. >> a lot of politicians and people said often that the united states is the greatest

country in the world. what does that sound like to a bread box >> -- to a brit? >> they used to be as snobbery as the u.s. that they were about to ego and prone to plan their on trumpets, things like that. people here, we never talk about what a great economy we are. i think it has changed. there is a respect for the u.s. now, which certainly lasted through any bad feeling about the bush administration. i did not find -- people would rather like to say that the u.s. is a great economy. >> paul passed president obama died in the eyes of most -- how has president obama at dawn in the eyes of most brits? >> there are surprised how much less power he had coming into that meeting to persuade people

to do things because he just had the election results and there is a sense that i'm that that is on the back foot, -- that america is on the back foot. that is a shame. i think people here wanted to see president obama do well. >> i have to ask you about a phrase you used in one of your blogs. i had never seen before. you say the treasury is predictably cockahoop. >> my grandfather would be telling me exactly where it came from because he led the

derivation of these things. i have no idea where it comes from direct it is an extraction -- where it comes from. it is an expression about being please. >> when you are in the united states, what do you say that people say, what? >> that would be quite up there. there are a lot of -- there are plenty of those on there. there are a lot of traditional once -- ones. as someone who is transatlantic, i got pretty used to not using those expressions. i do remember a conversation in the treasury in washington about growth in the future. larry summers was there and tim geithner and ebert talking about the profits in the economy. if it is one.

north, that is not going to be so bad. everybody looked at me and said, one. north? i was teased and immersed -- i was teased mercilessly. >> the impact of going to oxford? >> it is one of the better known colleges in oxford and it is well known for being a place for people study politics, philosophy, and economics. it tells you something about the u.k. that everyone has done the same courses. i had a great time there. it has a tradition of being very politically focused. it produced a lot of prime ministers.

a lot of the rhodes scholars used to choose -- we had a lot of interesting u.s. and canadian graduate student there who are now doing exciting things. one of them is the canadian ambassador in afghanistan. >> harvard -- how long were you there? >> i was there for two years. having had a bit of time out, ended up doing not the government department. i changed to the kennedy school, the school of government. i was quite happy with the two- year course and the freedom of being able to do pretty much anything i liked. it was disneyland for academics. i taught justice. i had a great time. >> did you ever contemplate public service? running for political job? >> i have thought about it over

the years. my friend and former college mates have gone that direction. i ended up more of -- on the journalistic side of things. i enjoyed very much being on the government side in the u.s. once you've gone into the government in some way, even if i went into the government as an aide, at i would then find it very difficult to go back to journalism. it would probably be the same thing in the u.s. the bbc is very crucial and i am glad that no one has ever really questioned the i have an objective view. people do not know what i think about a lot of these issues because i am very careful. that is the way it should be.

>> have you been controversial? >> i do not think so. there was one time when i was working for a program where i interviewed david cameron and one of the ways that we wanted to highlight a policy that he had before awarding marriage to give an extra tax break to unmarried couples, somebody decided it was a good idea to ask him to the personal version. some of the right-wing commentators saw that it was outrageous and that i was carrying the flag for the single parent and showing a left-wing approach. i was slightly trying to make a point about whether it made sense to give money to people who did not really need it in order to get married.

>> explain your thoughts about having a partner in -- and two children. is that accepted universally? >> i think it is pretty common. i think last year was the first time where more than half of the children born in the u.k. were born out of wedlock. it is certainly a very common thing. i suspect that i will get married. it is one of those things that we ended up -- and modeled world -- in the modern world, you spend your time looking for a house and starting a family and you look around and say, not married yet. >> in the united states, it is about 30%. in some groups, it is as high as 70%. what is your philosophy? >> it was not a conscious decision. if you meet someone later in

life, we met in our late '30s, you end up feeling there is a little bit of a time pressure. i have never been one of those people who dreamed about what my marriage and my wedding would look like. i was not sure that i would get married. it seemed like a bigger priority to find somewhere to live together and start a family than to get married. the families started a bit quicker than we thought it might take. it was just a question of timing. >> how old are your kids? >> two and four. >> there was announcement made that there would be a wedding. i can tell you from being here and watching it, everything went to those five pages. it went on for 24 hours. show us the relevance of that to this society today. >> i should ask you.

i gather that the coverage in america was pretty extreme. >> people flew overnight to be here to report and that. why are people so interested? >> it is all about how much american television had covered it. about 20 minutes after it was announced, i remember the networks you're going to open " good morning america" to say how it was their first news item of the day. we were very happy that americans were so focused on the royal family. i am not a firm republicans and i have nothing against the royal family. as someone -- i have never really understood the great fascination with them. on that day, people were very happy to have some good news. there was a pretty positive

feeling around prince william. people were happy to of something nice to think about. it was on a day were there was a

lot of talk about bailouts in the euro zone and other things and it was nice to have those kind of issues off of the front page for a while. >> they will not get married until 2011. d think it will be a steady drumbeat of coverage until then -- and do you think that it will be a steady drumbeat of coverage until then it? >> they are certainly -- they were the most photograph and followed couple in the world. people be interested in the preparations. what kind of dress was she wearing? interesting timing would be that some of the biggest spending cuts are going to be felt around the country around the same time as the wedding. there will be an interesting balance that the palace will have to strike between cheering every one up because they have not any money and making them pretty angry at the contrast between a roiled life and everybody else's life. i am not sure i would want to be in the palestine to manage that when. >> let's go back to the cuts. what will people start to cut here? what different things will day notice that is costing either more money or more taxes? >> consumption tax is going to go up at the start of the year. that is the thing that will be different. they ought said it bike -- there was a payroll tax rise.

they are doing this consumption tax rise. in the 1980's, margaret thatcher -- for some generations, is that still has resident. people will be focused on that. we should remember that the 20% -- this is a sales tax on everything but food. it will be 20% on top of the regular retail price. they will notice that money is not going into the in a jazz anymore. the administration -- the national health service. the government has said that they are not cutting -- there will not be a real cut for nhs spending.

for the nhs, that feels like a cut. after years for the spending was rising rapidly, it will feel like a cut for everyone else as well. >> if you have a serious operation and you had your choice, would you go to the nhs or would you pick the best hospital in the states? >> i think that there is a strong feeling that the best hospitals are world leaders. my son has a moderate parts

issue -- a moderate heart issue. for emergency care, the nhs has extraordinarily high standards. for some other kinds of care, if you want to get your hip replaced, or some parts of cancer treatments, there would be hospitals in the states that might be better. but they are expensive. >> what chances do give david cameron for being successful? >> it is all going to come down to the gamble on the economy. it is a fascinating time for me. did does feel quite a black and white. -- it does not feel quite a black and white. on this gamble, where the u.s. has taken one choice and we have taken another, he could be right or it could be wrong. it is a gamble.

everything else will flow from that. if the economy is much weaker and cannot withstand these kinds of cuts, the cuts themselves will be harder. if growth is faster than they hope, everything will seem a bit easier than they will have a much better chance of being reelected. but it is very much down to this economic gamble. >> there is a significant difference of the unemployment rate between the united states and here. >> what has been striking a plea of not have the kind of a rise in unemployment that you have had. we had a 6% decline in national income from what we would -- from the top to bottom. you had a much shallower recession. but you have a much bigger rise in unemployment. larry summers, when he was still in the administration, the

puzzling over why that happened. it is this such -- it is such a central feature. hear, people have not recognized enough what a difference that has made to the recovery as well. people never felt as bad about the economy as they did in the states because fewer people lost their jobs. they kept their connection to the work place. >> thank you so much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> for a dvd copy of this program, call 1-877 -- 7726. for free transcripts, visit us

at c-span.org. >> tomorrow, on washington journal, a look at north and south korea and with michael roslyn. it also a discussionut the latest study on u.s. drinking water with althoughnaidenko. then we will discuss food policy in america with chandler goule. that is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> tomorrow, american universities campaign management institute continues hosting is training program for people interested in working on

political campaigns. some seminars include operation research in the use of poland. the program includes seminars with local operatives. our live coverage starts at 9:00 a.m. eastern. >> a closing speech as an aspect of the establishment. an extraordinary experience for me is coming to an end. but my dominant feeling is pride in the great privilege to be a part of this very unique body. >> search for pair wrote speeches and hear from retiring senators in the c-span video library with every video since 1987 through more than 167,000 hours per it is washington, your way. and state legislative districts. you will hear remarks from the former head of the voting

rights section of the justice apartment civil-rights division. as well as state legislators from texas and south carolina. this took place at the national black caucus' annual conference. this is an hour and 35 minutes. >> we are delighted that you are here for a fascinating experience. redistricting is on the horizon and we are here to year from a panel of experts and we're delighted to have martin here as a moderator. we are delighted that all of you are here from all across america. we welcome you here. we are an organization -- our purpose here today is to learn more about this issue called

redistricting and to start us off, we would like to invite to the microphone -- >> thank you. let us pray. our father in heaven, we come to you this morning in thanksgiving. thank you for all the blessings. we thank you for touching us would love this morning. we thank you for all the blessings that we have seen. we thank you for all the good things that happened this week.

we thank you for the camaraderie. thank you for giving us the opportunity to discuss. what the participants share information with us. amen. >> amen. >> we want to welcome c-span. they were with us on the digital divide and now they are with us on redistricting. i want to thank all of the members of the panel that are here. we appreciate your expertise on this issue. we always welcome are longtime supporter. give him a round of applause. [applause] it is my pleasure to turn the microphone over to our vice- president. [applause]

>> thank you. it is an honor for me to -- we just had an unbelievable prayer breakfast and we all feel rejuvenated, dedicated, and ready to work. welcome. it is also my honor to recognize and introduce our moderator for this morning. award winning journalist and political analyst. i just found out that he and i have one thing in common. we both share the same birth date. it is november the 14th. when i looked -- when i looked at cnn and i see him come on, i always smile because i know there is going to be action. and there is going to be some disagreement. it is going to happen. maybe some furniture moving.

i was trying to be nice. you know that he was named to the ebony magazine most influential african american and that was 2008, two dozen 9, 2010. we also know that he is a former executive editor of the chicago defender. he also has a new book out. one of the things i can appreciate about mr. marden, and if you want to hear it the way it really is, he will presented to you.

we are very fortunate this morning to have him moderate are closing day. [applause] >> november 14 is a good day. i am certainly glad to be with you for this important conversation. today it is also a very important day beyond this conference. to date is also -- all of the office and the house standup city can be recognized. -- all of the alphas in the house, stand up and be recognized. as i tell them all the time, the difference between first- class and coach.

i do not mind coach, but it is not first class. one of my good friends, he tried to make a remark earlier. but just in case you forget, when you go home, i want this ringing in your head, who is your daddy? [laughter] i am a native texan. i was born and raised in houston. i lived in chicago for six years, but i am from houston. important distinction.

i want to introduce you to our panel. [applause] next u.s. is -- next to him is anita earls. john tanner is with deep justice department civil-rights division. next to him as the honorable state representative from south carolina. you brought your own fan club. last, but not least, from my

native texas, rodney ellis. [applause] he is a lot -- he is in a little pain. you did not think i was going to pass them over, did you? the whole notion of apportionment in terms of how we are going to be operating in the next 10 years is so vital. i will ask a political question. it amazes me how this issue was rendered totally irrelevant during the midterm elections. it was as if four democrats and republicans, it really came up, the actual stakes that are at play.

from a political standpoint, even if you do not been involved in politics, why is it that this is such an important issue? it's no attention every two years. -- it gets no attention every two years, until after the fact. >> one reason we tend not to raise it is it gives the appearance of being self- serving. we know that it matters. not just for members of congress and county commissioners. everybody will have to redraw the lines. usually, it appears to be so self serving. it is hard to get the public to

understand it until something dramatic happens. >> it is very self-serving to talk about it after the election. it amazes me how it is not a significant issue prior to the election, but afterwards, people said that it is so important. >> but we have a different response. i would suggest to you that it did not give raised with policy makers and people who are in a decision making position. from my perspective, the issue was raised. it just fell on deaf ears. the folklore in a position to make the decision about redistricting and understanding it and the fact that state legislators draw lines. we recognize that and those of us sadr on the bottom tried to get those on the top to recognize that. -- those of us that are on the bottom. it is as democrats. we are always a day late and a dollar short. because it did not address the

upfront, we now have a different frame of mind. what happened on november 2 means to me that the way we were thinking of redistricting, we will not be able to do this anymore. there are different decision makers in place. >> the players got it. when you are trying to raise money, it is because you let them know that the lines will be drawn. we do have a justice department hopefully that will not be as political as it has been the

past. and these that will help us have some semblance. >> if you are and a small state like south carolina and west virginia and all of those, the level of funding will be different. >> how many black state senators in south carolina? >> none. >> we might be big, but it's still too. one in dallas and one in houston. >> it is very important that the broader community is going to -- is aware of these issues and the ramifications of redistricting. we had an opportunity when doing this since this process to point out that that account was going determine our political

representation in the future. we did not do enough collectively in terms of our outreach and our elected officials and government to tide that issue to our representation. >> you are certainly right that it did not get the attention that it deserved. it got more attention this time than previous decades. from the perspective of voters on the ground, up redistricting has traditionally been done in back rooms. not something that they understand or had an opportunity to be involved in.

as the technology has made it easier for individuals to draw maps, over the last three cycles of redistricting, we have seen more community involvement. so north carolina, there was some talk about the impact of our state legislative and redistricting. there was more awareness from before, but not as much as there should be. >> can you leave all the microphones on? >> the one time i think redistricting in my state got more attention than it has gone a long time was in 2003. remember, we had the recounting stuff going on in florida. you have the recall stuff going on in california. then you have to read- redistricting in texas. into a dozen free, -- they decided mid decade, and they would just do it again. the house members broke the four men went to oklahoma. on the senate side, they were

gone about three days. we tried that and we thought we'd be gone three days. it put it on the front burner and the average person should -- could see how it mattered. my republican colleagues picked up five seats in the united states congress by redistricting. people understood that it mattered. >> i want to come back to that point. we're going to break down some of the things that happens. how race was used in the region by the republicans. >> there was more attention, but there never really caught on because it was an over the horizon issue.

it was a long-term issue. this election was about getting a paycheck next week. >> talking to -- tying redistricting to issues is one way to broaden the consciousness. the average american understands that in communities of color, word to many of our relatives are incarcerated and have their right to vote taken away, when people begin to make that connection, i think you could see them understand much more powerfully that that count and where we are counting will affect our representation. >> do you believe that when it comes to this issue that nationally, the democrats'

approach it as doing the right thing? republicans approached it as doing -- i do not mean that in a negative way. they see it as a takeover. democrats say, it is all about fairness and doing the right thing. it is amazing when you look at how different people view this very issue. speak to that in terms of how both parties, in your estimation, of this issue. >> -- a view this issue. >> i will say that i believe that all parties are operating in their own self-interest. none of them are magnanimous. there is a political calculation going on with republicans, democrats, and that is why it is important that another perspective needs to hit the table.

communities of color need to think of up protecting and preserving the representation that they have had increasing the representation going forward. there was a political sea change that just took place. american diversity is at an all- time high right now. there are over 100 million people who are not quite in this country. -- white in this country. we need to focus on the more positive side of the equation. those sobor protecting black representation and speaking about increasing its -- those who are protecting black representation in need to work together to make that dream a reality. >> i agree that this is an issue for the democrats are interested in justice and the republicans are interested in selfishness. but i'm a democrat. >> did as many as possible, even if we change it midstream.

>> during redistricting, everyone, keep your back to the wall. it is not just the other party. it is not just people who are white. it is every person for themselves. your best friend, when it comes down to it, might not be your best friend. >> progressives have to be constrained by this notion of fairness. when barbara jordan when and, they had that scheme of electing people. democrats controlled the texas legislature. she had to fight with conservative white democrats to make room for others. my first experience with redistricting is back -- i was on the city council. they said, your district is the

right size, but your next one is too big, and the next one is too little. you have to take some people from a smaller district -- which precincts to do you want to take out? >> i am young, 29 years old, that is simple. the ones i lost. >> i can do math. >> take out the ones i lost. >> they said, they are the ones in the middle of your district. you should take out to a better hire and come, and do that are lower in calm. -- to add that are higher in combat and to that are lower income. >> we need to be concerned about this issue.

we need to be concerned about not fighting with hispanic legislators. we have to be concerned with our republican colleagues who want to help us. . . they would like to pass come -- 'em.'em and crack they want to get rid of people but i might influence. >> that is why i raise that issue. when you talk about the diversity of the country, we will be by 2042 a majority

/minority country. in 7 states, -- when you look at political districts, they are blacker and blacker, browner and browner, wider and wider. by design, it that is being done. over the next 10 years, how you fight that when you saw such a see change on november 2, use of state legislatures flipping. how do you fight that? the efforts to make these districts based upon it racial lines. >> the supreme court has made it harder free to fight that. in the board decision recently, the court said in order to

protect a district, you have to draw a district that is 50% or more african-american. the naacp was on the side arguing that if you could elect someone in the district of someone less than 50%, that should secede protection under the voting rights act. it will be harder. i am talking about the part of the voting rights act that covers the entire country, section two. you will have to show that it is possible to draw 50% or more. previously, many of our state legislators, many of local elected officials, are elected in districts that are 40 -- 42%, 46%. we have seen increasing white crossover vote.

>> i agree with that. section 5 of the act, a pretax gains that have been won it -- in gains that have been won. it protects the districts that have been elected minority candidates who are elected from districts that are under 50%. it protects against packing. if you take minorities out of current districts and put them district,tor ellis' you are reducing their power in the regional district. there are protections that are not present in parts of the country. the way you have to go in the rest of the country is show that

this change is motivated by racial discriminatory purpose. that is a complicated task. >> getting on top of the process right now -- some states have to take care of their redistricting in the next six months. states like new jersey. coalitions, and political coalitions, so that finding common ground rather than going at it in a death grip struggle over this line or a bad piece of territory. we did that piece of territory. if you can come up with coalition plans, and they could put pressure on the process up front. there are caucuses in this room

that historically have met that challenge. >> give us an example. the kind of coalition building that you were talking about that has been effective that could serve as a model for other folks to follow. >> i can give you a new york example. there is a caucus and new york -- in new york state black- hispanic-asian legislative caucus. back in the 1980's, that group first challenge be reduced in plan for new york city -- redistricting plan for new york city. they shot down -- they shut down the ridge assisting -- the

redistricting process. they challenged the commission that i have now been appointed to, but then they challenge the commission, the leadership of the state legislature, and they forced the redrawing of additional congressional districts. had those groups not work together, we might have had black legislators fighting hispanic legislators over this piece of territory or that. they would not have achieved a positive result. >> it is important to remember that there is no cookie cutter approach to the redistricting. each state does it differently. in some states, the general assembly does it. in some states, there are commission cetera appointed to coalition building has to be external and internal.

he has talked about the external piece. let me talk about the internal peace and break it down regionally. with all due respect to new york, is a little bit different down south. most southern legislators for the process is done internally, is what is left of white democrats, black and brown caucus members, i do not get together and agree up front that it is totally a ridiculous for all of us to pack in as much as possible into these districts, i think we are all missing the point. here is what i would like to leave with you. as legislators, the challenge is on august 2 first and foremost stop being selfish. -- the challenge is on us to stop being selfish.

we do not need these super majority black populations. i am only expressing my opinion, not the organization's opinion. i believe very strongly that the political climate we are in right now, with the polarization and all of that ball of wax about how we have gridlock, we have the same problems in state houses. did we have become much too partisan. for those of us who care about public policy, do care about people, and processed, it behooves us to talk about what is in the best interest of democracy and the people we serve and it makes us better legislators when we have to go out and work for the votes. if you have to go and work for

the votes and appeal to people who are different from you, that makes you a better legislator and makes the process better. [applause] >> a lot folks do not want to have to work that hard for the vote. let's just be honest. . .

>> no young lergets, you need to know the process. if it is a state that does not do that, the legal defense fund and various groups that will help you. you got to get on the computer and figure out how to draw a district. it is rather self-serving the

most important issue for every legislator here is the budget. who gets cut, who does not get cut? you appear to spend your time figuring out how to draw your district, you may draw a wonderful district, which you will probably get retired if they know that what you done. you see texas and three are seats. picked up a seat out of new york. right now 32 members of congress, probably have 35 members of congress, we'll still have 31 members of the state senate. i don't want my lines drawn where i'm just talking to myself. i want some people that will agree with me to influence. you got to take the element of self out.

i been here 20 years, i have served longer than i'm going to serve. i mean, i don't man from the -- for them to roll me out of there into the home. i want to make sure i can impact drawing a district that some person would -- with my values i think could win. they may not necessarily be african-american, most -- most of them in texas has been hispanic. a good number of border states and nonborder states. it is hispanics. i joke, young intern, i told them, one of these days, there'll be one african-american in the state senate and another person in this that probably looks like me but be from the dominican republic, nice brown skin, but that's okay, i want them to have a district where they could fight for issues. you got to back -- these are not our seats. the -- this is -- this notion of

the racial germandering is to create opportunitys for people that think like us. some people that look like me don't think like me. you got to be careful with it. >> americans demographics is moving in favor of communities of color. so community of color's backs shouldn't be against the wall, in terms of scrambling for representation. in 2000, there were 35 million african-americans. in 2010, there were 42 million african-americans. there are seven million mare people of african descent than 10 years ago. that's an opportunity for thking representation, not decreasing. not retro aggression. so, as senator ellis mentioned, we just need to find where this

new seven million is and reap the harvest. it also work with other groups in multi-racial and multi-political coalition so that everybody gets a share. >> clearly we are talking a black state legislators but we do have to confront the issue of the competition that is out this, that is prevalent, that is real when it comes to african-americans and his pangs. so for each over you, give me an example, of not what is worked but a horrible xm pell that you had that you witnessed, that you think hurt both communities by that level of in-fighting and why that can't be the road to progress over the next two years. >> i can't think of that -- that many issues in terms of redistrict but on political issues, i can.

generally black and hispanic legislators are going to agree on affirmative action programs for business. we come together. sometimes african-americans might be more sensitive than criminal justice reforms because right now most of the people in prison are black. won't be long based on the statistics to where there will be another explore. on the immigration issue, from time to time i had to talk to my black colleagues to say we ought motto go take the easy route, we ought to make sure that we're going to give the hispanic colleagues of the -- the benefit of the doubt to think through the issue. i don't want to break up that coalition. we usually have a general person's agreement in san antonio, texas, there has historically been one black state regtive and one african-american on the city council. they're not black, they're districts. in the houston area, fort bend

county right outside my district, there was a black guy that ran for the district, he chairs the martin luther king committee. he didn't win. he was frustrate add then didn't run the next time. a hispanic lawyer jumped up and won the seat. an african-american beat her. we have to have a closed door discussion and say we can't always control these general person agreements. i say we to try to have the dialogue on nafta at the federal level. the issue of labor unions being concerned by jobs. my part of the country where it was important, the african-american members of congress and teixeira politicians restrained themselves from getting that -- out too far that they were defense the issues because they knew it was important to hispanics as it was the case if it was south africa on the border with with dks instead of mexico. so i think we at least in my backyard we try internly to have

the discussions before it blows. sometimes people have a bad attitude. it won't have anything to do with you being black or brown, you got a bad attitude. that had nothing to do with race, it is because i just didn't like that person >> i can give you an example of where -- where african-american and hispanic communities in the redistricting process fought against each other. this comes from rhode island where in the last round of redistricting. >> rhode island? >> yes. >> rhode island? >> i'm just checking. is >> y'all lighten up. >> we not in vermont. i'm guessing. >> the city of province is a majority city. it has six state senate districts. in the redistricting it would have been possible to -- of those six at least have one

majority, one district that would elect african-americans and one hispanic voters. instead they engaged in a jeri mandering that cut out minority voters and ended up with one district. because it was a district that favored hispanics, they didn't -- they opposed it somewhat but not as much as -- as vigorously as they could. it went into litigation we won in federal court and got a court ordered that established two districts. one with hispanics and one with latino voters. using the courts and a league the theory this time around. -- legal theory that can't be used this time around. >> i want to respond to the comments about not wanting a supermajority district, that's

true but from my perspective, redistricting is about whose voices get political strength in the political process. and if you have a district that -- that is -- where minority voters control the outcome, that's the voices and interests that will have power in the political process. i'm not apologetic about having districts that empower minority voters. >> did you see them coming to your table at the justice department? >> yes, over 30-some years, i -- i seen that a hot of times. and in reaching that 50% that anita mentioned to create a new district under section two, i believe and i'm very hopeful that if -- if you could build a consistent record of working together with latinos and asian americans, then you could add the groups to reach that 50%. if you're fighting with each

other, and -- getting evidence in court about the fighting is not going to be hard. then, i think that -- that you know, you -- you lose a real opportunity and given the diversity of the african-american community, now, which includes many people who were -- direct immigrants from africa or haiti and other places, you node to think about unity within. one other point, the southeast, georgia, north carolina that, mississippi, alabama. places are -- arkansas, place that is have emerging latino majorities are the perfect place to start now to build those alliances to get everyone on the same page. and start building power rather than waiting around until there are enough people of both groups to start can you tell us cutting each other's throats. >> in 19 -- the -- the example -- the positive example i gave

was in the 80's where black and hispanic legislators successfully challenged new york city and state redistricting. 10 years later, there was a group of -- of within the hispanic community that actually challenged congressman ringal's district. congressman rangel represents north manhattan. it is central harlem rah to the east is east harlem which is pannish harlem and to the north is washington heights which is dom manipulate con. we had -- we almost had a fiasco in 1992 with blacks and latinos challenging each other over that particular congressional district. it worked out for the best and at the same time i think helping the process was the positive. that was the year, the same time kong -- congresswoman velazquez

vause voted in because she was supported in a spanish district in brooklyn. >> i don't think anybody supports reducing the districts. i don't want to give that impression with anything i said. what i'm talking about is reality and not rhetoric. i deal in the real world and not academicia. what i'm saying is based on 18 years of experience. a he getter and most of us in the south can appreciate this point that some of us are wondering if now is not the appropriate time for us to ask is it better to have power or position? is it in the best interests of the people we care about for us to increase our numbers and husband our influence. >> i would suggest to you the only important color in america is green. if you poor, you're going to catch hell regardless of skin color. so alliss' point about making sure that we understand the importance of -- of voices, that

-- that those of us of color who with fighting for that kind of representation be there is what is critical. i want to say one other point very quickly, because again, black and brown, i want to give you a positive example outside of the legislature. about what some of us, particularly this the south, are doing. et elephant in the room is race in the south. -- south. i serve as the d.n.c. for the southern caucus. in the southern caucus, black and brown have come together to talk about sharing power. our executive committee is made up of black and brown. we're coming together. here. in the south. in january, to talk about the election results, to talk about -- i know this is off the point but it is more to those of you out outwhich that want to be part of the conversation.

it is time to stop dancing around the issue because unless we deal with the issue of race and get the key to figuring out how to get poor white people to understand that it is not in their best interests to be voting for republicans. they don't have pot nor window. 0 simon saying to you that this redistricting is a big issue but for a lot of us it is not just about black and brown. the coalitions that we're trying to build is with black and brown and poor white folk. >> the -- and the next thing to go into was the issue of class. because what you're also seeing when you -- when you're looking at african-americans, hispanics, asians who are upper middle class and going higher, that is also playing a role in this whole process and so, as folks

on the front line, how have you seen class emerge as a significant way of suppressing certain folks' voices? >> it is a tough issue. you take the health care debate as an example. some of the town hall meetings that one of my congress members was having. she was jackson lee. i remember going to one and asking the people who the room that didn't have health insurance to hold their hands up. the whites held their hand up. the people that clearly benefit, the -- many people don't have health insurance and good number white. so it is hard to get them to understand, don't forget about my color because somebody is hispanic. the system played us against one another. it takes time. you know this broader issue by the way, representative, you know, and it really makes sense, it is okay for a black politician and hispanic politician to fight and have a

disagreement. we evolve beyond it. two blacks this the senate, sometimes senator west have to remind one another. it is okay if we disagree. sometimes something that may be good for his district in dallas, may motte be -- that's okay. >> not let the system play us against one another. i can disagree with my white members and it is not personal. so even with hispanics, we got to get beyond that on the growth issue, look, only four or -- four majority states, the first one was from white. the second was new mexico. not a black thing. inate of american, hispanic and anglos. that contutes that -- contutes that majority. third california, fourth and last one right now, according to the federal demographer is texas. it is not a black thing. we -- 12% of the population is -- we don't always live this seg grated neighborhoods anymore. some point you got to take the california model and talk about cumulative voting, if we keep

voting on the color thing, because a lot of people are fing mr. out of those historic neighborhoods. >> i just want to suggest that the data shows that there's not a conflict between recognizing and giving voice to minority voters and low income voters in the redistricting context. my evidence for this, comes from the reno case out of north carolina, where -- where the -- the two -- two congressional districts, we had two congress the districts that were black districts, the first and 12th. when we looked at the economic dem graphics of those districts, those were the two poorest districts in the state. and beyond the -- the raw economics, the 12th district was an urban district, it united all the way from durham down to charlotte, the inner city areas of the state. the first district was very much a rural district. the issues of the rural poor are

different from the urban poor, in the resdefwricting process, you could american interests. i don't see that there's a conflict between trying to -- to look at when voices are left out of the process -- >> anita, we admit sometimes for the african-american or hispanic politician to get to votes of the poor rural voters is more difficult because of the historical things that divide us. even poorer anglo whites sometimes, in my district i do very well with the gay community. i do well with the jewish community. do i well with -- with wealthy whites because they know in the district. we could do a lot worse, we got to go with him. some of the others, the chats issues, it is hard. maybe in time we'll get there. it is difficult for a black member of congress to appeal to those. in south carolina, perfect example. more rural whites. >> i think there's a dynamic between -- between class and

political diversity, also in motion here. the black electorate is becoming more politically diverse, and the white electorate. the one party i don't think we have mentioned is the tea party. they were very much presence in the last redistrict cycle and some interesting things happened to -- two black republican congressmen were elected in -- in white promptly white congressional districts. another factor is that several members, i understand close to half of the congressional black caucus members are representing districts that are not at least 50% african-american. >> yeah. >> which means they're representing whites, latinos and asians and others. so the political diversity is trumping class in some ways. people are crossing racial lines

to vote for elected officials because they feel that those people will represent their interests regardless of race. >> i -- the -- the way i disagree with that is -- you said that they're crossing racial hines. but the class issue is still prevalent. the reason i bring that up, is because when you look at certain areas, the atlanta area, where you have high income, largely african-american neighborhoods, you're seeing the exact same thing in other places of his pan ibs, those are now being perceived as suburban districts and you have legislators, republican, saying how can you possibly grasp those areas because you're no -- now talking to them in an economic discussion as opposed to a racial discussion. with that being said, how do you think that the class hment looking at -- at the economic numbers, will play in this

process thinking over the next 10 years. wreck tpwhifing how the neighborhoods are shifting. recognizing how you have african-american neighbors and hispanic neighbors that are becoming poor, and poorer because they're leaving the areas. their interests changes compared to those in the poor areas. how is that level of class going to play out? i think one thing to be aware of while low income people move frequently, high income people of any choice have more choice of where they move and one thing you need to be aware of, especially in inner city neighborhoods like in atlanta, which right now have relatively scattered minority populations and then all of a sudden, a bunch of luxury condos pop up. and when you thought was an area of -- that is going to give you

a majority of a thousand votes, all of a sudden is 5,000 people who are going to have a different outlook. >> the old model used to be a high-rise public housing complex, or a nursing center, that is now a condo. and -- the people who are -- their earning power in the condo now changes to -- the dynamic and that's where class comes in. >> right? >> and i think another -- another, another aspect of this is that the supreme court especially justice kennedy as he made clear in the redistricting case, is i think eager to find differences among minority populations and there they found that -- a district, a new minority -- a new latino distribute that combined urban area that is were latino and rural areas in the valley was not a minority district because they hadn't been working together. they had different interests. it didn't count.

it didn't satisfy section two of the voting rights. >> his thinking is that -- so because of their focus, so all of the skin color was the same -- >> he finds focus on skin color offensive. i think that surprised people in texas, because the people -- latinos in austin and houston will vote together. >> maybe kenny should visit texas. go ahead, i'm sorry. >> i guess until this last time and that raises an issue of when e -- where two of the districts flipped. i believe some of the -- some of the state legislative districts in texas and if arizona that we thought were mine nort districts were vigorously challenged by ainge hoe and latino republicans, so the republicans won. one thing we need to do is look

afresh at a distribute where minority voters can control the outcome. >> they'll say the last election cycle was a doviation, the hispanic turnout was not as high. those were solid his pang districts. like when i got up on the election, my wife says, you lose, you figured you had it. i got nervous too, that pea party running against me was hand-some, you know, young kids and all. i got young kids awl a. it is a real challenge, some is on the candidate and not just on us. then your learn about zosing and fire safety if you stay in. that's the nature of politician, you represent your constituency. we change with the times. >> can i respond with the piece about the tea party and i'm

tpwhrast glad you raised that and the two congress people of color who were elected. as a floridian, one was from florida and as a current resident of south carolina, a former colleague that will soon be in congress, it is a mistake to believe there was crossover voting for the one from south carolina. the first congressional district that my friend representative tim scott soon -- is now congressman elect tim scott was elected from, there was no crossover voting from -- from voters of color, not significantly in the first congressional district. the whole point about some of us of color being offended when the issue of color is used to define us and to suggest that you ought to vote for us of color, i think representative congressman elect scott would agree that he didn't run and that -- in that district as a congressman of can color. elect me because i look like you. if he had done that, he would

not be congressman elect. the other point that is critical in that. he was endorsed by the tea party and our general simply, he carried the legislation to repeal health care. it is about speaking to the issues as has been pointed out that are important to people where ever. he's going to congress not because people of color put him there, he's going to congress because conservative, mainly white republicans put him in a district that is a conservative republican district. >> i don't -- for me, i don't see that even being an issue because you have congressman steve cohen who represents memphis and that was a district that harold ford jr. held and his father held. even the last two, the former mayor of memphis just ran against him and got dusted -- because cohen was all about the issues. but do i believe that the point

-- the point i think you're trying to make is not a question of the crossover vote but how does an election of a tim scott in a largely white conservative district and alan west in florida, and in memphis, there was plays a role on the judges? when it comes to making the decisions, because typically, the argument has been, need to have district designed a certain way to elect people that look look -- look like us, but if you have hispanics winning largely african-american areas. powell won that seat, how will that impact those -- those judge decisions as relates to the ruling. i think that's one of the points she was trying to make. >> i do yoling matters. >> class matters. race hearties, they're all

important factors but itology has clearly emerged as a very important driver in the process. and the court system and we have to -- we have who lawyers here who will elaborate, is taking that into account. as we go forward in the redistricting process. >> mine says that the legal doctrine has always been about candidates of choice of black voters. the right under the voting rights act is for black voters to elect their candidates of choice. if the people are elected are not candidates of choice, it doesn't impact whether or not there's a voting rights act claimed. what matters is whether or not the black voters vote together, are they cohesive. if not, if they're voting all over the place then they have no voting rights act protection. what is matter is the choice of the voters. >> the point he's making, as we're becoming more ethnicly diverse and politically diverse, that may very welcome to pass,

john, and so, the typical -- the typical claims justice department to the courts, may really -- render themselves moot depending on howe the folks have r-voting. we're talking about a process of obtaining districts for the next 10 years. you're projecting how things will change over the next 10 years. could this very well be, possibly the last round of how we currently look at it, based upon america becoming a majority-minority country? we're one generation from that. i want you to think forward here as you seek to answer the question. >> i think, first of all, the good news is -- for someone who grew up in birmingham, alabama in the 60's and saw the attitudes then, you got -- you got republicans electing the guy -- for beating a fellow named thurman in the primary, i believe to represent the district that has fort sum.

er in it. those republicans -- hell has -- -- a buffer in the district of fort summitter. >> i think that's something to acknowledge and celebrate for what it is but not to be blinded to think that is -- that means i go in other than you know, the bare facts. again as anita said, the focus is on the voters, and are they're getting elemented in fair numbers. it is what the voters want and whether minorities are winning on an equal basis. >> you say what the voters want but typically when you have these discussings, they largely are, do they look like us? >> what you look at is the

election returns. you got the minority and white and mixed. it is not a secret. everyone knows which of the minority precincts, which are -- are the white precincts. you could tell. you could just look at the -- you look at precincts returns as each of you had, you know who is voting for whom. it is not a secret. we could pay experts a lot of money. one other thing i like to add. you need to focus on the particular office, usually black, white contests for a particular office and not get sidetracked by -- by a juddish election where everyone is just voting for the bar and not to get sidetracked by the obama election. great as it is. don't try to take those returns to the bank because you know, they happen to ull a of the other stuff that you took to the bank. it is it is not -- >> i thinkman davis figured out

that real quick. >> roland, i want to jump in on a point about the question about black republicans. give you a simple example. the vast majority of african-american voters are for affirmative action. right? >> yep. >> if you elect a black person from a republican district, if they go carry a banner for affirmative action, they probably won't get that nomination again. >> right. >> so what we're saying is, it is the voters. if at some point in history, african-americans are against affirmative action, we would be out of sync. that -- you got me? >> a court can take, a junge can -- judge can take anything they want to justify anything. that's how -- what we learn in law school, how to justify anything. they want -- they have three african-americans that hold statewide office in texas, chief justice of the supreme court. been reelected.

another african-american on the supreme court, did not get the nod from the governor. ran against a -- went on the republican side and beat that person. then as an african-american on the railroad commission, regulate oil and gas in texas. somebody take the position, you don't have racial disparitys in texas because you got three black people that elect to stay white. you could just justify anything you want to justify. but in reality, you would know they can't take positions as would be the case of the position of most hard-core african-americans, or they get in the office. i want to answer the question about whether the increasing diversity of black voters and their political views threaten their voting rights protection and if this is the last decade it matters. while the data shows there's more diversity than in the past, there's still enormous political cohesiveness, enormous solidarity, when we look at the

data, that's looking at election returns, it used to be you would find 100% of the plaque voters would support the same candidate. now maybe that quon down to 85%. but that's -- that's still overwhelming political cohesiveness. i'm talking about from the mid 0e's until now. i don't think the change is happening so fast that this is the last time the voting rights act. >> looked like he wanted to respond. >> i respectfully disagree. if i understand your question. >> which is why it is a question. i think there's a shift, there's an i do logical shift going on. in the federal judiciary, when you look at line of cases. i'm not a lower but i pay attention to this stuff because i'm a manager. >> what did you do, stay at holiday inn express? >> and we have to be -- i think we need to think conservatively that the climate today may not work in our best interests. we need a defensive strategy,

that's not to assume that the kinds of voting rights decisions that got us to where we are after the last round. i think they're moving in a different direction now and we need to be more conservative in terms of how -- how we set, we play the game and the process. a couple of things out there, shape matters, you know, bizarre and elongated districts, reaching for blacks over here and down the road over there, i think that is out the window. okay? and size matters. attempting to manipulate population deviations. we though it is zero for congress. every congressional district in your state was -- must be exactly the same size. what we have been. what everybody been playing around with up until now is this, so called 10% rule. there's not a rule. i think the rule is going out the window. when we talk about state and local redistricting, we better stay as close to zero

population. the closer we are to zero, the less opportunity there is to critique your plans when they come in. i think those are some of the new directions that this -- this redistricting process is going in. we may -- i think we are seeing the end of an era to use your words in terms of the containeds of standards that are going to be amied against redistricting plans going forward. >> john and anita. >> i think that's -- i think that's true. it is good advice, the courts are getting progressively hostile. one thing, especially those of you in the nonsection five states need to try to do as best you can is have your plan -- your alternative plan better than their plan in these racially neutral standards. lower deviation, get the districts as compact as you can. try and avoid splitting county boundaries and other boundaries. try to make -- if you can, have a plan that looks better by all of the racially neutral standards that the courts like

so much, then -- then you are, well on your way to showing that they adopted their man with a racially discriminatory purpose and knocking it out. >> i was in a federal district court -- district court in the district of columbia yesterday morning, arguing that section five of the voting rights act is actual, at least arguing for that side. i have no -- no doubt that the -- that we're in severe danger when it it comes to the voting rights act and section five of the voting rights act. there are two cases pending that challenge the constitutionality, one from alabama and one from north carolina. the plaintiffs have the cases on the fast track. there's every possibility before the election, there's some possibility that before elections in november 2012 that supreme court could have ruled that section five is unconstitutional. so i don't mean to -- to say there's no threat to the voting rights act. my point was about the conditions that give rise to the justification, for having those protections in place.

>> one more monkey wrench. florida. i had congresswoman karen brown on the morning show. she was dead set against a stayed wii ballot initiative that determined how districts would be drawn. what was interesting, though, she -- she was -- she was absolutely against it. but the aclu, the league of women voters and the ncaa -- naacp were for it. how do you possibly see state ballot initiatives being used to determine how districts are drawn based upon that -- that initiative passing in florida? >> there are about a -- attempting to change the rules of the game. that's exactly what they're doing. they're rewriting the rules for how redistricting is done.

>> you say they. who is "they"? the issue of thrrd was, you said it, all of these weirdly drawn districts. with the initiative, they said, let's not look at the crazy districts, let's have sensibly drawn stricts that people can clearly understand and you have people that who, again, those for that, the coalition was pretty interesting that when you hear black members of complaining, saying this is going to threaten our seats, the very people that typically have been there, their allies said no, we're for that initiative. i think it is tough to make a strong public policy argument to convince voters to be against one of these, so called independent commissions. we don't have ballot initiative in texas. thank god. we would be like california and call kind of stuff. >> constitutional amendment. u got to run it through

legislature, you can't just amend the constitution on the pat with, you got to come by us to get it on there. if it is on the ballot, if you could go to florida -- if you could do that in florida, if you could do that, it would be hard to argue against it. even if you have this independent body drawing the lines, they got to comply with what is left of the voting rights act, you made a m koent mr. about us being a majority minority country. i hope i live hong enough and i'm still in my right hind when i'm going to see some of my anglo colleagues that vote against the voting rights act, no. in texas, we got to have that. at some point, my hispanic -- >>ly hispanic going to vote. they had people fighting me on it. they dig up all of my best speeches. they -- >> and -- the reason i raise

that, i certainly believe that -- that we are seeing the -- the frankly -- the roots if you will of that -- of that argument, something i call white victimhood right now. you hear it when you listen to glern beck and those -- and you hear, i hope they don't treat us like we did them. the next generation, threw stuff is going to change. that will be a very interesting argument. >> you take this vote on imgrigse as example manipulate read of history. you went to school in texas, my read on history, the impress sareos, you could settle their hand, you got to do three things, you got to learn spanish. you got to convert to catholicism. and you can't have slaves. what do you think they were really upset about?

what's that again? i didn't major in history, so i won't go there. as woe move out of the neighborhoods and our population changes, a hot of us don't think about the way you vote in a corporation, you vote on a cumulative sector, you don't go to say people, who want to get rid of the c.e.o., it is a cumulative voting. as we integrate our neighborhoods with record foreclosures, a lot of people moving into neighborhoods that they never thought about moving into, they get them cheap. people moving out, they thought were their neighborhoods. it'll change over time. i think there will always be some version of the voting rights act but this notion of a bipartisan independent commission, i don't think we should rule without it. i supported it in texas and got criticism. i supported it when it wouldn't pass. i don't know if i supported it when it will pass. i'm a politician, you got to understand both sides.

the issue is how do you make it truly independent? got me? everybody is against ugly district. to senator jerry that did the salamander. everybody against it until they think about it. they find out the communities of interest, people in buck head may have more in common with somebody out in the suburbs than they think they do. and when they all end up in a nice heightal compact district, you may have a mess. it is hard to argue against a independent commission if the voters have a chance to vote on it. that's tough. >> and the florida lalt initiative. >> it is important to remember in each of the commissions one standards they have is with the voting rights act. i think florida setting up guidin los is a gift to lawyers. it gives you a whole lot of things to argue about and it is -- it is just -- it is going to cost the state of florida millions of dollars in attorney's fees and going to

cost everyone else in attorney's fees. -- the california -- has done this with a very elaborate procedure to insure a lack of partisanship on the members. it will be interesting to see how that works out because there are some delicate issues in california, especially for african-american communities there. but generally, you know, the -- in states the republicans control, they're in favor of independent commissions in districts with democrats control they're -- >> shocking. >> amazing coincidence. >> i want to point out, that we're out of time for redistricting reform process to impact this next round of redistricting. but i think the issue gets at the fundamental question of what is a redistricting boss and who should do it? who should be in control?

i think it is a policy issue like every other policy issue. the people we're holding accountable ought to be the ones that do it. legislatures who hear from their constituents they are in my mind good people to though what communities of intst interest should be brought tole together. we need communities involved in the process. i'm a strong defender of having legislative -- >> i want john to answer this. the reason i raise has and i go back to the earlier point in terms of how people from both parties view this process. i do believe that folks that lean with -- who are democrat spend more of their time, as john said, assuming that games won will be there. the experience shows us with the federalist society and various conservative think tanks they're not thinking necessarily about this round, but they're thinking

about -- about 10 years from now and 20 years from now. they're testing small changes now, the -- to see how they could be effective to spread in a wider area come 020 and then 2030. so that's one of the reasons i made the point in terms of thinking more long-term as opposed to well, what is going to happen in the next six to nine months when you have folks out this who are well funded. well funded by multi-millionaires and billionaire who is are saying, what can we do today that is the difference maker in 2020 and in the very same group that is are progressively democrat and then they're flat-footed, they supposed to be planning for 20, 10 years. john, go ahead. >> independent redistricting commissions. you need to judge whatever process by -- by the results. you know, i'm -- i'm an avid

student of democracy. but at the end of the day, if the roof, the current rules got you where you are now, there are 44 members of african-american members of congress, there are 200 state legislators, 150 senators and 450 members of the lower house in the country. what you need to decide is in your state, is the process they're talking about, what ever label -- they could call it label, independent, none offer them independent by the way. even if california, when they got down to the -- to the -- they had something like 30,000 people apply initially. to get on the commission 37 they got it down to 60 names and then the -- then the four legislative leaders of the california legislature get to veto half of the final 60. so that is not really independent. okay? there's no quote, process that

is totally free of -- of partisan input. even in iowa, they -- another model they hold up, the legislature gets to vote up or down at least on what this quote independent commission does. you need to figure out in my michigan state, in my locality and am i going to wind up with more on the table or less. i don't care what they call it, it sounds good but what is the result going to be. you're not going to be -- to have -- have the same or better, you're not better off than where you are now, you should not be for it. >> we have a time for questions. the camera is there. want three folks to step up at a time. come here and step up the steps so they could see you versus having your back to the camera. you have a question, step up so you could ask about the -- the panel. take three at a time. >> so, then -- once you folks can answer the question, again we look for questions, not comments. if it goes too long, i will pull your coat. let me also make clear that --

old phil donahue, don't touch the mike, i got it. i will pop your hand if you touch the microphone. cool. your name, where you from, your question? >> state senator, hare miller. >> tennessee. >> can you anticipate a ton of lawsuits. give an example of tennessee, we have 64 republicans, 34 democrats and one independent. in the senate 2013. i agree with you, roland, i don't think they're going to take any prisoners, when they start redrawing those district lines. so we can anticipate a lawsuit, do you anticipate lawsuits coming throughout this country from the parties that are in the minorities? >> heck yes. republicans have more power on the state legislative level than they have had in 50 years. the end game is all about lawsuits, republicans are far more prepared and far more resources.

they focus on this much better than we have. we have been quietly having discussion. we not nearly where they are. we go to the state legislatures and fight on budget issues. they know to cut and plan in the end game for lawsuits. >> my point is not only yes will there be lawsuits but we need to be entering and redistricting and preparing now for them. >> name. >> i'm i'm joe from california, and i'm on the planning commission. we deal with the housing elements and what is going on now, we're dealing with in 20-year increments of housing. what we're doing is moving the housing in to middle class neighborhoods. now back in the day, the change in the names instead of the game. we used to call them projects. now they call them mixed housing. we used to call them duplex and now they condos. one of my commissioners got real uneasy. he said in 20 years, this will not reflect the community that i thought i was living in.

theying rio they think redistricting is taking place by way of the housing element and the housing requirement. what do you have to say regarding that? >> the question. thanks a lot. >> dispersement. eye agree. the changing housing patterns that one word mentioned, foreclosure is moving people out. and moving people in to communities, that's one the reasons that we can't attempt to be overscientific about drawing districts and we have to think long-term and housing policy or lack there of, more -- foreclosure crisis is driving a lot of what you just described. >> john? >> no. the more concentrated you are, the easier to draw districts. there's societal benefits by having desegregated housing and no free lunch out there. >> in a big state like

california, what is california? 40 million? 30 million. >> it is tough, you did elect african-americans and as a attorney general in california. maxine waters districts. those districts are becoming more and more hispanic. if it is a school board or city council you could do it. there's a reason why san francisco before the race issue came up, use cumulative voting. as big as california is and as big as your population is, you just want to stay in the neighborhood, that's historically plaque, you got to move to houston or south carolina or something. get over it. >> state of illinois, chaired the redistricting committee in illinois state senate we're not quite -- >> you're name. >> kwame rowe, we're not quite out of time in illinois. this week we passed, we passed voting rights expansion with regards to redistricting that would codify what justice kennedy in the bartlett decision was -- said was permissible which is the crossover coalition

and influenced districts. i want to -- to -- i want to -- anita. >> you're clapping. >> i think that's a wonderful model. there's a california voting rights act. there's important ways that legislatures can add to the protections of the federal voting rights act. that's an excellent step. >> you also see kwame raul walking around with the cane, the president had bausted hip. all y'all do over 35, stop playing basketball? it is over. go play golf like me. you don't walk around with a cane. don't play golf like you play, because you going to -- >> the way you swing -- >> i broke your pocketbook, that's what we talking about. we'll leave that alone. >> ken duncan, state representative from chicago. question for aneat a john. you mentioned john, regarding the prison population, is this any pending law our lawsuits

that can help us really put that back in the right form? that is the districts. their home districts where they were arrested compared to those promptly none black communities, or hispanic communities where they're being counted for c.b.g. monies, federal accountability and state and local accountability in tems of dollars. now votes. what is pending? >> i think you and senator sponsored an m.b.c.s.l. resolution on this subject. there are three states in the country that passed state laws already on prisoner count. senator thompson and assemblyman perry here in new york led the fight to pass new york's prisoner count law. so you do have model statutes. i think you could work from. maryland, new york in terms of how it is done or being done in new york. we're working with -- with department of corrections to

figure out how to reallocate 60 thouks addresses back to -- back to the -- to the prisoners permanent residence as opposed to where they're being counted now in the prison. >> i'm curious -- just popped in my head with that question. if you're going down that path, do you -- potentially see a problem where the critics will say, wait a minute, we allow clean students to be able to vote in the place where they go to school. all of -- they're living somewhere else, could they use the same argument to justify how they count prisoners? >> people not in the country legally, so you can't -- you count them but you don't calculate them in terms of drawing the line. >> the amount of college students and prisons doesn't hold, because the issue with the prisons is partly the fact that

near not actually vote bug they did prorgs natalie minority. and prisoners don't get the choice of voting where -- whether incarcerate ordinary in the home state, they don't get to vote at all but because they're disproorganizationer natalie mine authority, it impact the communities they come doctor. >> is it where a.m. university has been. they been fighting the county for a long time because they don't want that promptly black college impacting those local elections. again. i'm just thinking out of -- in terms of how critics may see it. if you're advocating on behalf of those students in those areas how can you k-you oppose the prisoners in the same areas. >> this went to the united states supreme court, my daughter could vote at columbia, new york, or -- it is their choice. >> let them make the choice. that's the difference. the stubts have a choice. they can vote where they in

college or the dorm or where they're from. but the inmates don't have a choice. they're not voting. >> i -- i like to add a wrinkle to this. first of recall, fair view, the prayer view voting case was in 1976 was the first one i worked on when i was in the justice department and you know, there's some good steady customers out there. people, people are keeping us in business. but there's a wrinkle on the rich counting. that's you know, it is very important in new york and houston where -- where the prisoners go out in these all-white republican areas and build up their population. this the deep south, a lot of those rural areas are promptly african-american. and they're -- they're in area that is are losing population and if you start taking parchment out of mississippi and take angola out of louisiana and moving them out, there's people here who might have a real hard time making up that population.

and that is a good illustration of how -- how you really need to look at your own district and look at what is on the ground, who is there, who votes doesn't vote? who is a je hovevess witness. get out and drive around and know the areas because there are lots of pitfalls out there. >> questions. name, where you from? >> i'm representing the geraldine thomson from florida, where we now have rules that the legislature will use to draw district lines. i heard if you don't like the sight of blooder, particularly your own, you stay away from redistricting. >> or florida. >> y'all always have drama. >> we do. >> my question is, how do we -- how do we make sure that there's inclusion and there's fairness in appointing people to serve on the redistricting committees that are -- that our legislature will have because those

decisions are made by the people in power. so my question is do you have some thoughts or some ideas or strategies in terms of how we could be involved in the process? . .

>> you have to focus on your budget in florida before you focus on your district. you may not be foreclosed on, but you could be moved and read a little place and your family will come out and see if he can win again. >> two more questions. >> in the new jersey state senator and i have been to this process before. i do not have the luxury of time. in january of this year, going into the junior election, we will be in redistricting again. my question is to the justice department's and others. what is the earliest point in time that we can involve organizations like yours in the process. we have been to court before. from the black caucus

perspective and latino caucus, we need to file with our attorneys from day one. >> i think that each of you should go home and the deal with the voting rights act. you need to learn the website and wander around it. there is a contact list that has two attorneys responsible for redistricting. up.day morning, call them of you should be monitoring systems and build a relationship with the people and the staff to get a sense of where they are coming from and keep them alert to facts as they develop rather

than waiting until the plan is passed and you have a disaster sitting there and expect them to come to your rescue. there are not as many of them as there are states and counties and school boards and cities out there. >> do you anticipate with attorney general eric colder and president obama, do you anticipate this justice department being very aggressive in looking at the views of districts and seats over the next six months? are they gearing up for what is about to come down? >> the department of justice is saying publicly that even though they're under attack in the courts, they will vigorously enforce it. they will not be intimidated by these challenges to the constitutionality. by the same token, they are getting thousands of

submissions, so you really have to get on their radar screen and get your data together so that you can access them. the other resources will give you to get assistance is the redistricting institute. you will see a lot of resources there. >> are you seeing progressive donors coming to your organization? are you seeing an uptick in that area as well? >> yes, the donors are coming to the table but they are slow and not as much as they need. there are resources out there that are non-partisan. you have to work for community- based organizations and other nonprofit groups, but there is money out there. >> anita, were you at the prayer breakfast?

in the black church, you always ask for money. that was a setup question for anita. your answer should have been, "no, the money is not flowing. it needs to follow a lot faster." always ask for more money. >> i wanted to ask senator rice -- you need to pull your resources. you need to hire your lawyers and you will not have enough lawyers to hire the lawyer, but if you pull your resources, -- they have already asked me to give them your district. they know what not to give you if you do that. >> columbus, georgia state rep. how do you suggest that we

develop the best strategy to attack this redistricting? >> at least a committee, a task force. you need a working group of legislators and staff. your staff is one to do all work. -- born to do all the work. -- going to do will work. >> i think that that says it all. all of us are not want to be experts on all these positions. you need to pick out which colleague is really going to read that and understand law, or go to some of the gray hairs. people who have been through it. you need to cool -- pool resources. >> of the big question is where are you going.

the democrats will have an interest in cutting the fat so that those voters can be used elsewhere. you need to watch out that they are not cutting muscle. you need to get together on what you think your best strategy is an keep in mind were you are going. >> big government groups and community. it do your homework. figure it out. understand. >> anita? >> they need more resources out there. >> somebody was paying attention. [laughter] we are out of time. give it up for our panel.

we certainly appreciate it. thank you a lot. >> give it

.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> these are the things a americans value. you need to tap into what people value. ok. so here is another slogan, which is helpful. you motivate through emotion. it is an old saying.

republicans used to win every debate but lose every election. that doesn't happen so much anymore. we occasional win them too. we love to talk about statisks. i love the commercial that david snowed the last session, because what he is showing, and this is where the marketing comes in. i thought they would all be separated to make it fair, when going the groups. stuff about features versus benefits. this is marketing but this is the way you market ideas. as an engineer, we talk about the capacity for the cell phones or the computers and the amount of memory they have and people's eyes just glaze over.

it is like when you want to buy a car and the guy wants to pop the hood and talk about the warranty and what the horsepower is. most people don't care, because those are features. what you need to do as a salesman and marketter and as a political consultant for a campaign worker, you need to transfer features into benefits. this is a three-day lecture. how do you determine the benefit? anyone? i will give you double points for this. yes. there are outcome of the features? better mileage, that means you have more opportunity to go -- get to where you -- >> the outcome? that is good. what else? >> benefits that people can connect to. >> so it is a benefit to the person. you have got to ask.

ask somebody. so if you were a salesman at a car place and somebody walks in, you got to talk to them. you don't just stop popping the hood to show them the engine. you might say, this car has an interesting feature in the engine. is that something that would interest you, and if they say no, let me show it to you. no, you have got to figure out and good salesmen can tell by the way a person's dressed, the way they talk, who they are coming in with, what they are really interested in. it is not hard, but it is what separates professional salesmen from order takers. ok? a liddy comes in with a couple of kids, you're not showing her the sports car, unless she says i'm here were if i husband. no wife is buying her husband a sports car. it is kind a personal decision.

that probably doesn't happen too often. so you have to ask. ? n politics, how do you ask? how else? interest groups, good. what else? hillary did it right. she went up state, new york, where she was running for senate. a publicity tour. this is a newt gingrich model. listen, learn, help, lead. that's the model. this is something that newt gingrich shared back in the 1990's. listen to what people care about. they will tell you. so listen to them.

hillary did this. she went out on a listening tour. with her chicago cubs hat on and went to upstate new york. i can't believe they let her get away with that. new yorkers are not very forgiving. forgiving enough, i guess. she did a publicity tour. she learned what is on people's minds. she announced before every meeting, i will stay as long as you want me to. i will not leave until every question has been answered. she did it. you get a lot of credit for doing that. the billionaires who sell their businesses, do they do those? no, they are buying ads. hillary did it, so you listen and you learn and then you help people. once you help them, they will ask you to lead them. not just running to the front

of the parade. this is real. you have to do stuff. the candidate who wants to do something and the candidate who wants to be somebody. you will have listened, learned and helped. go back to nashville. going to be hard-working, independent guy. right? he ran for a council seat. charlie, what a great candidate. when charlie first -- he has two daughters. when they started middle school, they went to the middle school and he said i would like to start comings to the parent/teacher association meetings. the p.t.a.'s. they told him we don't have one. so what did he do? he started one. his girls want to play basketball. they wouldn't let them play the

the boy's basketball league. what did charlie do? he started a girls' basketball league. this is before running for anything. he was just involved. this part of nashville, there was no recycling. he goes to the local supermarket and goes to kroger and saids can you guys put a recycling bin in the parking lot? they said we're not going to man that. he said i'll do it. i'll show up and we'll take recyclables just on saturday morning. they said sure. he mans them every saturday morning. wand the proceeds, gave it to the p.t.o. what a great guy. so there is an opening on the city council. people are screaming for charlie to run. that's a great candidate. and he ran against courthouse crowd. bottom line, he won 70/34030.

70/o 30. when we ran for re-election, i think so he got 86%. he ran at large for all of nashville and he is on the council. what a great candidate. because he wanted to run to do something. by the way, if you're going to run to do something, have a plan. go to my website. i've got a five-point plan to do whatever. i've got a three-point play. an eight-point plan. bill clinton was the master of this. that's real thing. i'm running because the last line of my resume is blank. i don't really have any idea what i'm going to do. it seems like i'm a kennedy, i should run. i don't know if you can -- that

answer that he gave that is pretty horrific. so those are issues. that just happen during the campaign. you can't predict that. ok. so bush against kerry. let's go back to that. what were they saying about kerry? voted against it before he voted for it? flip-flop, right? now you're the kerry team. we want to show the contrast between young and old. we want to show contrast between boring and hip. so let's put john kerry on a -- right? adult professional making a lot of money on campaigns. sounds like a good idea. what does this allow the bush

people to do? he puts his finger up in the air for lots of things. how is the wind blowing? it was just devastating. that was their ad. ducaucus' tank. the fust time that aired, it was his ad. pro military. step in a tank. so you get in trouble when you start doing stuff like that. new hampshire, bush 2 in the -- w in his first campaign. he goes up to nanch. new hampshire is what helped his dad become president. right? his dad won for president. what better person campaign for you than a guy who was president, your mom and dad. his mom and dad go up there and say vote for my dad. what message that?

he can't do it for himself. he loses in n new hampshire. it sounded like a good idea but became a horrific idea in practice. karl rove realized he messed up. so he pivoted. did you ever see barbara bush ever again in that campaign? she still campaigned for him and went to omaha. no, she flew in, went to someone's house, did a fundraiser. three flue flew out with $300,000. thank you very much. she was still active. sh wasn't campaigning for him 3789 you can adjust your tactics and learn from them as you go along. yes, sir? >> the sailing excursion and

the ducaucus -- can you neutralize an opponent? >> yeah, if it is on purpose. ducaucus didn't put himself in the tank to make fun of himself and kerry didn't put himself on the sail to make fun of himself. so self-parody, that is great stuff. candidates will learn to make fun of themselves, sure. that's when you go on jay lone. you know, or letterman or whatever. or jon stewart. but there is a purpose for that, but it has to be sincere. if you're not a funny guy, don't try and respond.

al gore, kissed his wife with a lip lock. once. then he kept doing it 20 times more. every campaign stop. it was like al, get a room. it was so insincere. it crossed the line from being genuine. the first time was genuine. no question. i don't think it was planned. you could tell from her reaction, she was surprised. it was a warm, sincere moment. then he keeps on doing it. after a few times i think she slapped him. said enough. he went from, again, he then proved what people were criticizing him for. that he would do or say anything to get ahead. when you become a parody on "saturday night live" that is a bad day, unless you're a republican running a primary.

if you're running a my i don't recall campaign in a primary. i want to go back to the personality issues and the snowball campaign. that is important. so we talked about the value. then there is a lot more of them. basically you want to move from features to benefits and the best ads do that. so the ad that was shown earlier, the futures were -- will get you reception anywhere. but benefits is time with your family. watching commercials i hope with that in mind. how are you getting from features to benefits? once you make that transition, you're in good shape. what is the benefit of to the person? once you get the benefit, you get the feelings. once you get the feelings, you get the values. now you know what ch issues

kind of fit in. ok. let's talk -- finish up with a discussion about personalities, issues, and snowball. in a personality campaign, you've got the charismatic candidate and then you're running for high school class president. that is the easiest campaign to run. the other guy is the geek. you're cool. you're bill clinton. and everybody else is not. i love bob dole, but he was not the best campaigner. and if you don't have personality, you have to go to issues, which is tougher to do but you can win issue campaigns. snowball campaign is a snow ball is running downhill. if you're behind this snowball,

it is a glorious thing. you can do nothing. you're going to win, like last month. you're going to win. not everywhere. but you're going to win. if you're in front of that snowball, it is just not a happy place. you can do everything right and lose by 20 points in a toss-up seat. in other words, none of the stuff matters. the thing is beyond your control and that snow ball is running downhill. it is very rare. three snowball campaigns in 1994, 2008. it suggests that 2012 will not be one. you have a change or a status quo campaign. a status quo campaign, you're coming to get re-elected. incumbents still get

re-elected. only two senators were defeated. that's it. lincoln, blanch, whatever her name is. blanch, lincoln, lincoln, blanch, lincoln, jefferson. whatever. in 1994, 88% of incumbents won. many did not run because if they did, they would have lost. i would rather be on the side where 9- 10 are winning than the other side. the older seats that really swing back and forth. it is either the status quo or change. tweerl 2008 was change and 2010 was change. by the way, you could run as a republican in 2010 and copy obama's campaign in 2008. people are mocking the obama

campaign by screaming, yes, we can. the republican who stole keensd seat in massachusetts. that's good stuff if you're republican. -- stole kennedy's seat in massachusetts. the media doesn't decide anything. they really don't. they think they do. we'll pretend that they do. >> they project it. >> when they start doing horserace stuff, it is because they have nothing else do do. suddenly, it is a whole story. it is their own pole. -- poll. by the way, if you ever actually, you know, i guess when you can't afford reporters, you commission a poll. it is cheaper. >> sbu that the idea when --

>> somethingout your control. there is nothing you could have done. if you were a demeam 2010 or a republican in 2008, there was very little you could do to drive the messages to youth issues to your advantage. nothing you do is going to work. if you're at the top of the hill, it is a lot of fun. by the way, it determines your tactics as well. for example, if you're on the winning side, you cancel the deejay at the victory party and you get a live band. important considerations like that. you can go bark at tend, working as a volunteer with a candidate recently, i recommended that he goback dark in the last two weeks. and he, you know, agreed. great consultant team. the media guy says yeah, you

don't really need to do it. that is money out of his pocket. and the mail guy. some of whom you will be hearing from later this week. said you don't need to do it. sent the money over to the national committee. so your tactics can't be determined by that stuff. if you're in front of that snowball, do not northern house. listen to barney frank, cement $200,000 to not lose a race he really wasn't going to win. but he was scared. i say make him spend every penny. i know barney really well. i love barney. he is a brilliant guy. i love watching the way he debates. you can learn a lot from watching the other side.

don't just throw bribblings at the tv. you can do that too. >> >> sometimes you can't tell it is going to be a snowball race until it is pretty well developed but -- 1949 was not a secret. 2008 was not a secret. 2010 was not a secret. you could see that coming a year out. people saying well, the chief of staff won so -- he ran, runnings against obama. he said i would have voted against health bill. so when they win, they can't say well, see. no one would have thought, other than the n.p.r., national political reporter that the democrats would keep the house, two months out. he said republicans would win by two seats or something in

the "washington post" crystal ball. yes, sir? if you know you're in front snowball, why go on? good question. maybe by running, you can help bring out your base vote for that district for the statewide candidate. maybe you're setting yourself up to run in two more years when the climate may be entirely different. there is a lot of reasons to run. >> it is a lot of money. >> sure. it is a lot of money. hopefully it is not yours. you're raising it. it is a lot of effort. no, this stuff is serious. you want to run everywhere. howard dean made a great job making a 50-state committee and republicans should do the same. karl rove did a lot of work

getting everywhere. so i think people should run. sometimes you don't run because you don't want to bring out the other side's -- for the statewide. every situation is different. i hate the always and nevers. ever campaign is different. i'll give you another quick example. i work for frank riggs from the napa valley and all points north in california. he was running for re-election in 1996 after 1994. he was first elected in 1990. he won with 43% of the vote. the democrats got 42%. the third candidate got 15%. the joke was that glemp the district loves trees. half like them vertical and half like them horizon ontal. this is a district where a

young girl liveded in a tree for a year. her name was butterfly. i'm going to cut it down and see if she can. but the very polar izzized district -- with a serious far left -- it is the largest -- in the region of the country. it is an interesting district. 1-90. got beat in 192 when bush was tanking nationally. came back in 1994. he won. very hard to do. 1-2-3 voter decides they don't like you, buyers remorse. in 1994. it shows you what you a strong year 1994 was. in 1996, every democrat that could walk was running in the primary. they figured whoever if the nominee wins, there is no way

frank can win this thing. there is no runoff in california. so the democrats nominated -- i think her grandfather was mayor of san francisco. they own a restaurant on fisherman's wharf. she had never laved day in this distribute. ok? zsh in this -- lived a day in this district. frank was a native to have district. we decided that would be a good contrast for the campaign. but just before running, she was working for al gore in washington. so we had the option, of saying she moved in from washington or she moved in from san francisco. ok, so which is worse? who thinks it is worse that she moved in from washington? this is 1994? who thinks that would be worse? hands, come on.

who thinks it would be worse moving in from san francisco. >> so you're split 50-50. so were we. people were 62% less likely to vote for her because she moved from washington. 68% less likely because she moved in from san francisco. napa valley and not that far from san francisco. you have to be smart after you get the poll results. as moderate as people were in the district, they still did not like san francisco. that's why they moved out of san francisco and the district went all the way up the coast to oregon, they were over 90% less likely to vote for her

when they learned she had moved in from san francisco. usually 10% are don't know, undecided. clueless. 91% less likely to vote for her, so after that, every answer became she moved in from san francisco. how do you do that? how does that become an issue? ok? and it goes back to -- any issue could be answered in a way that reminds voters that she is from san francisco. throw me and issue. ze portation. well, my pound has blah blah blah on the issue because that is the way they think. but i lived on the coast all my life. i'm a deputy sheriff for 18 years. i talked to many people in many communities and i know what they think and they think blah

blah blah. see, it is not what you believe. it is why you believe it. like george costanza. there should be a book of politics written by joverage costanza. jason alexandria, write that book. it is not what you believe as well as why you believe it that voters care about. it is not who you are, it is why you are. that voters want to know. kevin gentry works at coke industries. he likes to say it is a wizard of oz 340dle of campaigning. because, because, because, because, because. it is because, why? because. say you are at disney world. and you cut in front of somebody with your 6-year-old

kid. what are they going to do? what is their reaction going to be? get out of here. right? but what if you say, excuse me, i just learned that my husband has been in a car accident. he's at the hospital. i've got to get back. he is going to be ok. but i've got to get back, but i promised my 6-year-old that we would ride on this ride before we left disney world. and i've got a six-hour drive and if this kid doesn't ride that ride, i'm going to have six hours in the car with that kid. i don't know if it is true or not. but i'm going to let them get in front. it is the because that people want to know. it is the same thing. why are you pro life or pro

choice? why? what is the why behind? that is what voters want to know. if you can give a thoughtful, intelligent answer, then you're now thoughtful, tent candidate, if it is just rhetoric, then you a problem. that's how you use issues. to buttress your theme and your message. choosing issues that will put you new the two boxes you want to be in. do your boxes, people. this is not just chit that you can talk about. those box are pretty interesting. you can do boxes on yourselves. do your resumes. ok? when somebody hears your name, what two or three things do you want them to think about? here is an interesting

question. if one is details, don't send me a resume where attention is misspelled, of all words. that actually happened. i sent it back. red ink. carry it everywhere. >> obama, a lot of speeches where he tells stories explaining health care. >> there is a something that some consultants are doing now called p.h.d. personalized, humanized, drama cized. personalized, one l. personalized, your message. specific individuals. for example, talk about human

terms that people can relate to and then dramatize the message. this is where they hold an advantage over conservatives. because they have victims. it is a lot easier if a factory closes and on the day it is cloudy skiesing you stand outside the main gate with microphones and show people leaving the factory for the last time. how do you interview the person who never got a job in a plant that was never built? how do you do that? it is easier stob a liberal. another thing that consultants like to do, e.c. cubed.

this is their attempt to sound smart. but a lot of them are using this now. so i will share it with you. m equals e.c. cubed. that is message equals emotion contract, correction -- connection and credibility. you may hear these things in the future so i mention it to you. smnch message. e. is emotions. and the three c's are contrast, connections and credibility. you're welcome so your message needs to connect with voters on an emotional level. remember, per through reason. motivate through emotion. contrast.

contains the choices. person a or b or c or d or e. it is a little tougher. when you stock market -- there are three ways to target. you can target geographically, demographically or -- you sf as you think that through, what is your unique advantage with your candidacy? is it the geographic region that you're from that the other three are not? demographically, are the demographics, is there something unique about your demographic? and then issues. are you the only one who feels a certain way? primaries are difficult because -- we'll talk about that briefly now. but for the most part all the candidates agree on most of the issues, primaries. i'm going -- you know, everyone is for the death penalty.

you know. you're like my grandfather in the bronx, new york where i grew up. people believe the the death penalty for double parking. that might make you more unique than the other candidates but not by much. some are pro-choice in the third trimester. some don't care about sex selection. there are minor shades, partial birth abortion. if you're going to make the distinction, you're con reasons ising a pretty small slice of the electorate that does not determine it. but maybe. you get a gold star. so the point that philip made was basically that primaries are typically personality driven. yeah, a lot of times they are.

who do you trust? you know? who that is right tone? tone is real important. you want to see the kinds of candidates that did the best in 2010 and i believe will continue to do so. look at scott brown's victory speech in massachusetts. as painful as it might be. get out there and throw meat to the crowd. this crowd wanted meat thrown at them. he got up and other than offering up his daughters into slavery or human trafficking, you take the part out, though, the vest pretty good. but he said, i just called ms. kennedy. and then went noooo! calm down. i just told her how proud i was to be representing the state and serve information the seat that her husband had occupied.

not the kennedy seat. listen to the tone, the language, really good stuff. and sincere. scott brown, as we like to say, he is a great guy. so, personality and issues, back to reagan 1984. he did issues against mondale and personality against mondale. when you go for a drink at a bar, which candidate lost all 50 states? a trivia question. i guess not anymore. walter mondale. he lost 49 to reagan and then lost the senate race. he lost all 50. two different elections, but use it as you will. con treast, -- contrast,

connection. there was a candidate who ran for governor of virginia many, many years ago. he was an obscure candidate who didn't go anywhere. his one issue was abolishing dungeons and dragons. that game. that was his issue. he showed up and said my issue in this campaign is dungeons and dragons. some kids got so wrapped up in it they were committing suicide. not so say it wasn't an issue. but to run for governor? but again, it was not self-parody. though, he did make "saturday night live." >> guy in our state who ran for lieutenant governor, the only thing he would say is if i run for this office, i'm abolishing

this office. this $1 million office. he had a huge, shaggy beard and he got 45% of the vote and he -- that was after shofse anti-big government here. -- shofse anti-big government here. >> al franken. al franken. everybody laughs. sorry, i shouldn't make fun of incumbent senators. contrast, correction and credibility. your message has got to be believable. that goes back to when you do your box and the strengths and weaknesses, it has to be frufmente you can't lead by lying. say i just lost once, everybody lied about me.

they lied about you because they didn't just want to beat you 35-85. you lost because you didn't have if resources to respond properly. you didn't have the credibility. you don't need all five but the more of them you have, the better. one is you need fire in the belly. you have got to want to do this. ok? because as walter said before, it is hard! it takes a lot of money. a lot of effort. time away from families. you got to admire anyone who runs for office. they got a screw loose but you got to admire them. sonny bono once said politics is show business for ugly people. you have to have a nire the

belly. you have to want to do this. the second thing is a -- a winnable district. i don't care how much you want it, if you're running against charlie rangel and you're a republican, i don't think you're going to win. some districts are just unwinnable. you should establish the secondry reasons in your campaign plans. it has to be a winnable district. the third thing is a vulnerable incumbent. that's helpful. some guys you're not going beat. you're not beating barney frank! it is tough. might win an open seat but you know how -- the baggage that

barney has so, it might be tougher. the fourth thing you need is a good name in the community. i go back to charlie in nashville. people knew who charlie was. he wasn't a politician. but they knew who he was. he had a good name in the community. if and when the opponents started to attack him, it couldn't credible. it just didn't work. believe me, they trade tried. 4 -- tried. he would have laughed it off. we know charlie. it is not believable. not true. a good name in the community is important. that's what makes incumbents hard to beat. even in a snowball year, look at who is winning the primary. in 1949, look at a five-person primary. a lot of people winning are people with no political experience, the state senators are running and the

representatives who were running for congress were losing and businessman and farmers and sonny bono were winning primaries. although he was a mayor. so that was a real upheaval. i think there was an upheaval in 2010. look at a lot of people who win the primaries, it is now state senator who won the primaries. they get to have a name in the community. people know who they are. they get eight years as a state senator or when the attacks come, people go i know the guy. this is not a first time candidate running for governor. gosh. you're not going the get the benefit of the doubt. when the former house keeper nanny turns out to be in the country illegally, hypothetically. if that had happened to jerry brown, i think they would have

exchted it from him. -- expected it from him. he always says silly things. we love joe. the fifth and final thing, is the ability to gather resources. some would say that is leadership. the ability to gather disparate resources is a real talent that a successful candidate needs have. you don't need all five. sometimes all you need is a vulnerable opponent. you don't have any of the other four and you win. that's what my experience has taught me to hold sway. now talk about which issues to use. we haven't spent a lot of time talking about the issues. let me just finish and wrap up with that. it is far more important to choose the correct issues than

it is to fine tune how you speak about the issues. that is an important part of this as well. ok? to my republican brethren, who supports abolishing the estate tax? ok. two hands went up. that's a trap. never call it the estate tax. it is the death tax. same thing but it polls differently. people react to it differently. if you were to ask the american public, do you support profiling at airports, i'll bet you an overwhelming majority would say yes. if you asked them do you support racial profiling at airports? no! well, that is what it is. it is the same thing. how you talk about the issues does make a difference. it is not as important as choosing the right issue.

this is where, as conservatives, we believe the mainstream media is grossly biased. they don't all get together, i don't think, every day, and say how are we going to stict to conservatives? but because of their -- the way they think, in a liberal way, they are predisposed, i believe, to believing a liberal message or attacking and at least criticizing a conservative messages. when a liberal makes an attack and sticks a mic in a republican's face and says what about that. and when a republican makes an attack, they say prove that. how can you say such a thing? they decide what is on the front page and in the headlines and that matters. the "washington post" on friday, page two or three or four, there were three articles. one was on illegal immigration

and another was on don't ask, don't tell, gays in the military and i forget what the third one was. but are these really the pressing issues that matter to most americans? no, jobs. not a word on jobs. nothing. when clinton had the saying, is the economy stupid? that was never on a bumper sticker. he never called voters stupid. i believe that was an internal discipline for the campaign. they knew if they were talking about anything but the economy, they were going to lose. morn policy? social issues? they don't want to talk about those. so he knew if they were not talking about the economy, they were going to lose. that was an internal discipline for the campaign. it was all over the walls in

the campaign. i don't think they did ads on if the economy is stupid. i might be wrong but i don't think so. i think it was for the campaign. they were very successful. if anyone in the campaign ever talked about anything but the economy, they got a phone call. so, unless you want to get one of those phone calls, you don't talk about anything but the economy. you don't tell them that's what you're doing. i'll answer that ghe a minute. but i want to flip it right now. no. no, you just do it. you answer the question quickly and then you pivot and talk about what you want. you answer the question you wish they had asked. dan wrote that down. he should get points. nobody else did that.

so let's talk about issues. the death tax is not the death tax. mine, it is the death tax. it is not the estate tax. in today's paper, oh, come on. where is it? i'll find it in a second. today's "washington post." does health care law need title reform? and it says prior article on page 813. the patient protection and affordable care act. we all know it as obama care. and then there is an analysis. it is a problem. everyone is calling it obama

care. we don't want that. she says we -- obama's job performance improves, it will be fine to call it obama care, but not now. now it is obama care. so who wins that battle? if you call it obama care, you're starting out, on the right, with an advantage, on the left, it is a problem. you have to call it -- what is that? ok? it is an interesting article. it talks about senator chafee wants to introduce a health care bill. they call it the heart act. what does that stand for? he says i don't know yet but it is going to be called the heart act.

jeffers gave a committee a help, health and education committee. there is no filter at all. it just comes out. ok. congressman burgess had an amendment to strike the word affordable out of the bill. the meanings of these things do matter. obama called it the affordable care act. that is not quite as catchy as obama care. again, in today's paper. so the language of the issues matters a lot. you can focus group it. you can poll it. you can just ask people. there are a lot of ways to clear up this stuff.

there was a property tax increase for -- >> it is for the children. you're laughing. it is for the children. it is not the teachers' pay raises. it is for the children. i'm on the raidee and i debated two union guys and it was myself and a conservative commentator. at the end of the hour, they said what do you think is going to happen? i said it is going to fail 50-40. rige away they thought we were doing polling. are you doing polling? no. in the hour we had 10 people call in. six were for it and four

against its. you talk to people and listen to what their concerns are. if you can't figure that out, why are you running? that is the why are you running? if you really don't know what's on people's minds and what they care about, you're probably not going to win. so, any questions? about issues and how they relate to the message and which ones to use? ok. thanks for your attention. >> thanks. [applause] >> we'll take a short break. >> today, american universities

campaign management institute continues hosting its training program for people interested in working on political campaigns. some of the seminars include opposition research and the use of polling. it includes seminars with pollsters and media consultants. our live coverage starts at 9:00 a.m. eastern. >> today on "washington journal," a look at the conflict in north and south korea with michael auslin. also a discussion about the latest study on u.s. drinking water with olga naidenko and then we'll examine f nols north america with chandler goule. that is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span.

house budget committee sharme john separate was defeated in his bid for a 15th term in the november election by republican nick mulvaney. the democratic congressman was elected in 1982. the state's northern fifth congressional district has not been represented by a republican since 1882. we spoke with representedive sprath about his time in congress, his service on the budget committee and his future. this is a half-hour. leaving bye ch oi of the voters. i really want to start there. all of the c-span watchers probably wonder what it is like to be a politician and lose an

election after all these years. can you give us some reflection on that? >> it is fascinating from my viewpoint and to leave public office and public policy making. it is dismaying to work hard and be turned away by your constituents, but i understand that the move is sweeping the country. every county in my district is in double digit unemployment. you have to go back to the 1930's or maybe 1940's to see that. people do not understand health care and allow people are opposed to anyone who voted for the health care reform bill. generally speaking, people are worried about debt accumulation. they're concerned about members

that voted for debt accumulation. they simply do not agree with the bailouts. i thought that was something that we had to do in dire circumstances. >> as fascinate -- fascinating is a word thatakes you out of the picture and looks through another lens. it also has to be painful. >> i was there for 28 years. life goes on and there are a lot of things i can do. the phone is ringing with a lot of different ideas. eyeglass up -- i'm glad that i had the opportunity to serve. >> what are you thinking about? >> it would be teaching. it would not be practicing law or any of that. teaching or taking part inhe activities of one of the many think tanks around town.

>> we were talking before we started recording. you came here in 1983 after the 1982 election. i was looking back over some public opinion polls and the first couple of years when you were in the house, public opinion of congress was generally 46%. the last one i looked at was 70%. has the country changed or has congress changed? >> i do not think that congress has changed that much. is it different? yes. there was a similar situation when we came here in 1983. it has gotten worse, but i do not tnk it has gotten worse to the point where you get the number dropping to 17%. congress is a responsible party. they took it out on us.

>> it is interesting that you talk about 1982, when there was bickering. over and over again, you hear people waxed nostalgic for the time when tip o'neill and ronald reagan would disagree, but then would go a share a drink. >> there was a little apocrypha in that. tip o'neill was the speaker and he did not mince words when it came to ronald reagan for his lack of good wi for the people. he was the sort of guy that you could sit down and enjoy a drink with because he was a great storyteller. >> what do you think about all of this concern about the partisanship iwashington? partisanship iwashington?