just agree to some of the lower-hanging youth and have to leave a longer-range agreement until maybe after the election. >> so a smaller package than people had originally envisioned. >> right. >> what did you hear from him on taxes? republicans have said no tax revenue increase, that that was not going to be part of it. >> particularly in the house you've heard leaders say tax increases should not be part of any deal. senator alexander seemed to be waiting and seeing right now to see what the biden group comes up with. he wouldn't rule out anything in terms of tax increases. and that signals to me that particularly on the senate side, republicans are -- may be open to certain revenue options, whether they call them tax increases, whether they're fees, oil subsidies, we'll see. but it sounds like they're keeping an open mind right now on the senate side. >> and if medicare were to be part of some sort of deal, democrats have said they don't want it to be, but if it were to be, what did you hear from the senator about what he would

like to see from medicare? >> well, i think the republican leadership has pretty much acknowledged that paul ryan's plan to transform medicare into a voucher system is not going to be on the table in these talks. they acknowledge it's not going to go anywhere because democrats won't touch it. but the distinction that he made is that he is more in favor of the pete domenici, a former budget committee chairman, and alice rivlin's plan, which is a similar approach to paul ryan's, in that it transforms medicare, but it allows people to stay in a traditional program if they don't find a choice they like in the private market. he said he would be more in favor of that kind of choice. for republicans, that is a much safer place to be, because then when democrats say you want to end medicare as we know it, they say, no, we want to leave medicare as you know it, but also give people a better choice that they can opt for. so politically that's probably where we're going to see a lot of republicans end up. >> for democrats, joe, is that

something they could agree to? >> you've heard some democrats say they're open to sort of minor changes in medicare and medicaid, but not the more fundamental changes that republicans are talking about. so they're carving out space for themselves to agree to some changes on the entitlement side, but they seem nowhere near endorsing any sort of large-scale changes at this point. >> joe schatz is a writer for congressional quarter, julie hersh feld, a reporter for bloomberg. thanks you for being heart of "newsmakers." >> new york yankees for having us. >> thank you. >> this week on q&a, pierre thomas discusses some of the stories he's worked on, including the death of osama bin laden and the shooting of congresswoman gabrielle giffords. he explains how the stories came about, his use of sources and how abc news handles

stories for different stories and platforms. pierre thomas, our guest on "q&a," tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern and pacific on c-span. >> connect with c-span online with the latest scheduled updates and video on twitter. continuing conversations on facebook. political places in washington and beyond with father square and highlights on our website. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> house speaker john boehner spoke last night in ashlands, ohio, at a memorial dinner honoring john ash brooke. he discussed republican substantial for job creation and reducing the national debt and took questions from the audience, this is 25 minutes.

>> thank you very much. it's hard to stand there and have people applaud me. just a regular guy with a big job. peter, thank you for the introduction and thanks for the great job that you're doing with the ashbrook center. i'm honored to have a chance to speak with all of you tonight at this great event held in honor of a great man and a great ohio ann, john ashbrook. as most of you know, tonight was originally supposed to happen a couple of months ago, but we had to reschedule because i had to be in washington for the final negotiations on the bill to keep the government running and finish last year's budget. so i was supposed to be with all of you that friday night, but instead i spent the day on the phone with president obama trying to squeeze another $1 berlusconi out of the most powerful man -- $1 billion out of the most powerful man in the world and a reluctant one, i might add. i'm hoping this evening will be more pleasant, and in fact, it

already has been. so let me thank you for your patience with my schedule and for sticking with me as your speaker tonight. you know, as important as that process was this spring, it was important in part because we needed to cut spending and we needed to move on to the next debate, the real vital debate, and that's the debate over this year's budget and the president's request that we raise the national debt limit. ultimately this is a debate that is not about numbers, it's a debate about jobs. and it's a debate about the very future of our country, and that's what i want to talk to you about tonight. as everyone in this room knows all too well, our nation is confronting a very serious debt crisis. our national debt has exploded to the point where it's no longer just threatening our children's future decades down the road, it's threatening our economy right now in a very tangible way with very real

consequences. and my message to you tonight is that we will not emerge from this crisis until we adopt policies that allow our economy to create jobs and to grow. all of the short-term gimmicks from washington have to stop and what we have to do is seize this moment. we need to use it to stop the madness going on inside the beltway to open the door again to long-term american economic growth. i bring this message to you tonight as a fellow buckeye and as a fellow son of ohio. my generation grew up in a land of opportunity, courtesy of the generations that grew up before us. my family didn't have a lot. i have 11 brothers and sisters. my dad ran a bar. but each of us had the opportunity to choose our own path to set our own goals, and to choose our own destiny.

that was the gift bestowed on us by our parents and our grandparents. those opportunities are what allowed me to get a college degree, to run a small business, to raise a family in a great community and ultimately to serve my state and my country in the united states congress, and now as speaker of the house in the united states congress. those opportunities are also what drove our nation's economy for decades and made america an economic powerhouse. you might even say that they powered the american dream. today, because of the massive debt burden our nation is accumulating, those opportunities are vanishing before our very eyes. not just for our children and grandchildren, but for current generations as well. the evidence is all around us. the jobs report issued by the u.s. department of labor last week was a punch in the gut, a

sobering reality check. unemployment is now 9.1%, creeping upward again, with only 54,000 jobs created last month. the stimulus spending bill enacted in 2009 was supposed to keep unemployment from rising above 8% and was going to create millions of new private-sector jobs immediately. it didn't happen. i would submit to you tonight that the reason we are continuing to struggle economically is because we've been placing too much trust in government programs and not enough trust in our people. [applause] it's the american people who have always been the real driving force behind our economy. the reality is the bigger the government gets, the smaller the american people get. the more government, means less

freedom. less freedom means less growth. less growth means fewer jobs. you know, the first keynote speaker of this annual john ashbrook memorial dinner was a man who understood this well -- lr. nobody understood this better or communicated it more effectively to our nation of the american people understand it as well. it's ingrained in our national character. it's part of the american d.n.a. and what's been missing are national policies that reflect what the american people know. across the nation we're seeing a renewed interest in sound constitutional principles that have been the foundation of our country for centuries. here at the ashbrook center, weekly letters from an ohio farmer are going out to members of congress, reminding us of ways we can remain true to the principles of a government by and for the people. still, a majority of those in washington refuse to listen and

most of the federal government is out of sync with the american people, pursuing policies that take us in the opposite direction and the result has been a jobless recovery -- and i might say recovery is probably too strong a word. balancing the budget requires us to cut spending, but it also requires us to commit ourselves as a nation to policies that allow our economy to create jobs. there's much, much more challenging propositions than you might think. let me give you an example of what we're up against. imagine you could solve poverty by simply having the government print more money. more for everyone means everybody wins, right? well, of course it's ridiculous. it doesn't work that way. but sometimes i believe that's the way people in washington approach our jobs issue. if our economy isn't producing enough of them, the thinking goes, government can just create more jobs. it means that we need a new

government spending program of some sort. well, as you know, it doesn't work that way. jobs are a product of our economy, a product of the hard work and ingenuity of the american people. the government doesn't create jobs, the private sector creates jobs. [applause] >> the responsibility of the government is to ensure that there's an environment that's healthy for job creation in our country, and it starts with staying out of the way. spending by government doesn't create jobs and instill certainty. it spreads uncertainty, which destroys jobs. john ashbrook was a man who understood this. here are a couple of things that he said, and i'll quote -- "onions and their liberal allies -- unions and allies want a national health program which would push up deficit

borrowing. this waste of investment hurts all americans, but it hurts workers most of all." they also said liberal economic theorists argue that a large budget deficit will stimulate the economy and produce jobs. in reality, however, large deficits destroy jobs. now, these are arguments regularly articulated by conservatives today. but they were uttered nearly 40 years ago by john ashbrook. he was aiming those comments not just at his ideological adversaries, but also some in his own party who began to drift away from their principles. john ashbrook never ascended to the presidency, but his government unquestionably heard his call and the result was the presidency of ronald reagan and a new approach to governing and the largest economic expansion in our peacetime history. i believe the american people themselves presented a similar rallying cry at the polls last

november. you could hear the echoes of john ashbrook's wisdom. the current economic situation is grim and the policies coming out of washington are making it worse. but despair is not an option. there are steps we can take to get our economy back to creating jobs. my colleagues and i put forward some of these steps in our pledge to america last fall, and we recently reinforced them with an expanded jobs agenda that we released last month. you can check it all out at jobs.gop.gov. but our agendas calls for reducing the regulatory burden on small businesses, reforming the tax code to help job creators, passing free trade agreements to open up new markets for american products, expanding the production of american-made energy. these are the things we need to do to encourage growth that are united by a common theme -- removing government barriers that are creating uncertainty and slowing our economy down.

there's one other thing we have to do if we're serious about job creation and that's to ensure that there's no increase in the national debt limit unless it's accompanied by major reductions in spending and real reform. [applause] and these reductions in spending need to be larger than the increase in the debt limit itself. and let me underline "larger." they should also be actual cuts in program reforms, not broad deficit or debt targets that punt the tough questions into the future. if we don't do these things we simply raise the debt limit without changing the status quo. it's going to do exactly what president obama says is going to happen if we don't raise the debt limit, according to his terms. it's going to hurt our economy and destroy jobs. now, some of these so-called elites don't get it. they don't see the connection

to jobs. but i think it's very clear to me. if we raise the debt limit without cuts that are larger than the increase, we're saying to the world that our government still doesn't get it. we're saying that washington is still not serious about addressing the spending addiction that is sucking the life out of our economy. and that means fewer jobs. and you don't have to take my word for it. take it from any one of the more than 150 economists who signed a statement echoing this position last week. the opportunity to do something big for our country and our economy is looking us right in the eye. this is the moment. this is the time. if i really want to provide a jolt to job creation in this country, we need to do something that defies expectations. right now the expectation is that the politicians in washington will kick the can down the road one more time. same thing is true on medicare. right now the program is

spiraling into bankruptcy. the expectation is that washington, despite paul ryan's courageous budget, the expectation is we'll do nothing. and i believe that we can defy those expectations. consider this -- a few years ago nobody thought it was possible that congress would clean up the earmark process. and when i and a few others call for an earmark ban to crack down on wasteful washington pork-barrel projects, a lot of people laughed and said, "well, it will never happen." today the house of representatives and the senate is operating under a total earmark ban. [applause] we just didn't reform the earmark process, we brought it to a halt. and this is going to be the first congress in modern history that passes appropriations bills without earmarks and the first congress in modern history to approve spending bills that cut

spending dramatically, instead of increasing spending. it all started a couple of weeks ago. we can make the same dramatics changes when it comes to the rest of the federal budget. i truly believe that. but doing that will require leadership, leadership of the sort of the ngs type. i've reached out to the president and i've made it clear. mr. president, come on, you and i will lock arms and jump out of boat together. you know, we know what the problems are, and for the sake of our jobs and for the sake of our economy, i said, let's get it done. i know a thing or two about creating jobs. i may be the speaker of the house, but i came to be speaker by way of the private sector. i ran a small business. as i said earlier tonight, opportunity is what's gotten me here tonight. i want our children to have the same opportunities that i had. and we have a responsibility to

ensure that. this is the moment, not later. now. are there political risks? sure there is. but that's why we're in the mess that we're in. i've always operated under a very simple standard, one that i got from my mom an dad and i taught to my kids -- if you do the right things for the right reasons, good things will usually happen. you know, things will usually take care of themselves. edmond burke credited this saying -- the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. our nation's elected leaders have been pretty good over the past few decades at doing nothing. john ashbrook was not the type to sit idly by and do nothing. i believe we're entering an era where the american people will no longer tolerate those who believe that doing nothing is the right thing. the people i talk to know that our nation is dealing with a crisis. they know that the future of

our country is on the line and they want leaders who are serious about taking on those challenges. they want leaders who aren't afraid to speak the truth. we honor the legacy of john ashbrook by serving our country and taking a stand. this is the moment, this is the time. let's not pass it by. thank you all very much for allowing me the opportunity to be here. god bless all of you, and god bless our great country. [applause] >> thank you all. [applause] thank you. thank you all. thank you. thank you very much. >> thank you, speaker boehner, and thank you, especially, by

the way, before i ask you a few more questions -- the mic's not on? >> is it on? there you go. >> is it on? i have to kiss the mic to be heard. ok. thank you very much for coming and thank you especially, by the way, for speaking with the ashbrook scholars, the students. they appreciated it. i have a few questions, if i may. do you have a few minutes? [laughter] you know, he's the boss. >> that's the question. you ask a question, you give an answer. he's a big guy. he's not going to let me get off the stage here. [laughter] >> i didn't play football. the 2010 election was a clear rejection of big government policies, like the president's health care law. what's the latest on the new house's majority efforts to repeal obama care? >> listen, if you believe, as i do, that obama care will ruin the best health care delivery system in the world and bankrupt our nation, you would agree with us when we -- [applause]

-- when in the first week that we had our new majority we passed a bill to repeal obama care and we sent it to the senate, where they've never quite been able to get it up on the floor and actually have a real debate over out. since then we have also eliminated a number of mandatory spending programs contained within obamacare and have had dozens of hearings outlining and trying to understand this complete government takeover of our healthcare system. our team will not rest until obamacare is repealed, all of it, top to bottom. [applause] >> thank you. how are the debt limit negotiations going? will republicans and congress be successful in forcing significant budget cuts, in your opinion, without defaulting on the u.s. debt?

>> well, they could be going quicker. listen, i told the president, this is the moment, this is the time. we know what the problems are. i'm not going to kick the can down the road another year. and i've watched leaders that came before me look up at this problem and it was as if they were looking up at a mountain and they'd see how tall and steep it was and they'd decide, well, we'll kick the can down the road another year. well, guess what? we're out of room to kick the can down. not going to happen anymore. [applause] now, there's an arbitrary date that's been set, august 2, by the treasury department. we've already exceeded the debt limit, but they've got all these little tricks. i think they have an endless number of tricks. but i have told the president this. this is going to be no surprise to him or anyone else, when i said this is the moment, this is the time, i meant it.

we have to deal with this. we know what the problems are. why don't we go solve them? no punting them off until next year, no weather whistling past the graveyard. it is going to be the fight of my political career. and i'm ready for it. i'm calm about it. i can be patient, and i will be very patient. >> thank you very much. [applause] democrats are running ads attacking republicans for voting for the ryan budget to turn medicare into a voucher system. one ad goes so far as to show an elderly woman in a wheelchair being shoved off a cliff. does the ryan plan in fact turn medicare into a voucher system, and will medicare be the defining issue in the 2012 election? >> well, you know, in washington we do two things -- we do public policy and we do it in a political setting. and on every issue that we deal with, we have to deal with the policy side and you always have

to deal with the political side. when it comes to the medicare debate, the medicare trustees have made it clear that unless there are changes made to the program, the program is going bankrupt, and, as they say, benefits will necessarily have to be cut. so republicans come forward with a plan. paul ryan's plan, i think, is prack will ca, makes sense, -- practical, makes sense, gives the american people a choice, doesn't affect any seniors 55 or older and gives them the kind of choices in health care that members of congress have. everyone's guaranteed to be issued a policy, and for those who are middle-income or lower, your program is entirely paid for by the government. if you have substantial means, you actually may have to pay the full cost of your premium. wow. we're broke. and, of course, we're being attacked on it because the democrats think this is good politics. well, guess what?

they have no plan. they've got not the guts to say how they would fix medicare, and yet, they have the audacity to attack us. i've got to tell you what, my colleagues are prepared for this fight. my colleagues have been talking to their constituents about this, and i think the american people -- i want this debate to go on. i'd love for this to be the defining issue, because if it is, we will win this fight. i do think, though, that the defining issue in the next election is going to be the economy and jobs. >> thank you very much. [applause] the media o portrays the tea party as extreme and asserts it will be a liability for republicans in the 2012 election. what impact, in your opinion, will the tea party have on the 2012 election? >> listen, the tea party has brought new energy to the political process. i've been to dozens of tea party events around the country, and the makeup of the crowd is always pretty much the

same. a few disaffected democrats and republicans, but 80% of the most normal, average americans you've ever met, none of whom have ever been involved in the political process. they've been driven out of their living rooms and into the streets to demonstrate against their own government. so we ought to welcome their participation and their energy into the political process. what do they want? they want three things -- they want the debt to be gone, they want jobs, and they want to get rid of obamacare. why would i have a problem with them? [applause] >> thank you. the last question -- we have a very large pool of republicans seeking the presidential nomination for 2012. what are you looking for in our next republican presidential candidate? >> one that can win. [laughter]

i do want to win, but what i told the ashbrook scholars downstairs a few minutes ago is i want to see somebody in the white house who has a real background in our country, someone who's done something, someone who's accomplished something, someone who's been involved in our community, maybe run a business, been a governor, somebody who comes to the white house with a real background of experience that can help guide our nation through the very difficult days ahead. i believe that we'll be able to produce such a candidate, and i can't wait to know who it is. thank you all very much. >> thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> tonight on "road to the white house," an interview with g.o.p. presidential candidate

and former new mexico governor, gary johnson. he talks about gay marriage, abortion, prayer in public schools and how he would reduce the national debt and the federal deficit. "road to the white house" tonight at 9:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. now presidential campaigns and the politics involved in planning debates. former clinton white house press secretary mike mccurry is co-chair of the commission on presidential dedebates. he's joined by the executive director, janet brown. this event was hosted on friday by the washington center for internships and academic seminars. it's an hour. >> thank you very much for being here. we have janet brown from the debate commission. we have her file. we have mike mccurry, who's

going to be involved with the debate commission, or is, and also served as a press secretary and other responsibilities. here's what we're trying to do with this seminar that the washington senator has put together. it's called "road to the white house." these are all professors in this room who teach about the presidency and about elections and other elections. we're trying to get as much inside information as students to get them interested in politics, studying it, and maybe even participating in it. so, mr. mccurry and ms. brown, before i come back to you, let me have the participants introduce themselves and the institutions you're from. >> michael rodriguez. i teach politics at richard stockton college in new jersey. >> i'm from the university of florida. >> kevin, political scientist at clairen university of pennsylvania. >> john smith, communication

studies and political communication at the state university of new york. >> good morning. university in nigeria. >> joe foster. i teach political science at the united states air force academy. >> thank you for coming. i'm ryan and i teach political science at college of the redwoods in northern, california. >> janet brown, could you start and help us understand what we might be able to teach students about what's coming up in 2012, please. . .

>> needless to say, these aren't just four nights that take place and then go away and are not part of a continuum of conversation and learning, they really haven't filled their potential. so this is what we are looking

at every four years to try to understand how do we improve, how do we move forward. how do we use technology to make sure these have the greatest educational value, interest, and stimulate further discussion and further learning. >> one of the things i think presidential debates have done is they have institutionized -- institutionalized the presidential debates. you all remember there have been presidential campaign cycles when the candidates discussed whether they would debate and if they would debate. we went a long time between the first televised debate between president kennedy and richard nixon before we even had another debate. the tradition has

institutionalized the debate. they have also created an event that people have some familiarity with. they are going to see people standing, or sitting or engaging in some fashion. that said, you can't have a format that remains static. our big challenge is how do you keep ininvigorating that format and that dialogue so it is truly meaningful for voters? i think this is particularly important for you as teachers and to your students because your students are now creatures of the internet age. and they expect some kind of interactive dialogue. in fact, they in some senses expect to be able to participate in these debates. how do you do that? with social media and the resources available on the internet, you could actually create ways which you could have an active dialogue if you treat

it as something more than just four times the candidates for president and vice president get together and face each other in a debate. we have been working on that. we have talked to a number of people who have successfully engaged young people in social media. i think those conversations will help us lead to interesting ways in which we innovate around a platform that is very traditional. we are still at that planning stage. if you have ideas or thoughts or things you think are particularly good, we would like to hear that. what motivates the kids that you teach? that would be the important thing. one other point, and then we're going to go around because i want to hear from everybody else. really, this is a passion of mine because i am very much interested in engaging young people and getting them interested in politics. it is one of the most trep neural -- entrepreneurial thing

the way a young person can walk into a campaign head quarters, make themselves incredibly useful, and ridesing up -- rising up and taking major roles in campaigns. it is one place where talent does rise to the top. you can communicate that to students. there is no secret as to how you succeed in politics. you just get in and start working. in 1976 when i was a senior in college at princeton, i went down and jerry brown was first time around governor of california at that point, and he was running for president late in the primaries. i found him very attractive. i was from california, so i went into the head quarters for what was supposed to be the jerry brown campaign in new jersey and showed up as a volunteer.

i had done some work in student journalism and had worked as a reporter on the princeton campus. so the guy writing the campaign said, we have these big endorsements from hudson ken. he was the machine, basically, endorsing jerry brown. they said, can anyone write a press release? i did, and i handed it in. i remember the guy with a big cigar saying, who wrote this? who wrote this? i thought, i've only been here an hour and i'm already in trouble. he said, "kid, you are our press secretary." i had to turn to someone i had been talking to and say, what exactly is a press secretary? that literally was my start on presidential campaign politics. i was in right off the street. that is the kind of opportunity available to the young person

who is interested, motivated enough to jump in, be a volunteer, take a chance. if you can communicate any of that opportunity, that would be a really, really great thing. >> what would help your students join the presidential debates in learning about politics in the presidency, please? >> one of the jobs of administrators is to capture the imagination of the students. bringing in speakers helps to keep them engaged. we have to balance that with the substance of what we are teaching. if there are concerns going into the political season concerning the debate is there is going to be a lot of activity. it has to have a real substantive educational aspect

that is value added. we can do a lot on campus to have the interactive dimension being very strong. is there enough going into the structure of the debate that can either add value as a substance or it can limit that. how is the commission struggling with balancing interactivity to the substance of the debate themselves? >> well, let me take a shot at it. then john can jump in, too. >> what the commission does is create and establish a platform through which the candidates can interact with one another. it goes without saying, the more

interaction and dialogue between the candidates, the more opportunity for them to get substantively into the issues, the better it is for the voter. there has been an evolution in time over the various campaign cycles to try to move toward foremats in which there really is true engagement between the candidates. any format in which people are basically reading their press releases to each other is less conducive than what you are talking about. so our goal is to try to create a format in which there is a maximum potential for engagement and really getting into the areas. now, around that, there has to be dialogue. there has to be a conversation. there has to be educational materials. there has to be fact checks. this candidate just said that. is that true? that's not the responsibility of the commission. if we ever got into creating that kind of content, we would instantly run afoul of both campaigns or any campaign

running, however many there are, because they would have some objection to whatever content we were providing. what we do is we rely upon that great universe of organizations now. some journalistic organizations, some third party groups, nonprofits, and others to create tools and resources that people can use. i think maximizing the potential for that to be available to you and to your students is what we have encouraged the content providing community to do. because they are the ones that need to be putting a lot of content up that helps put all the debate in some kind of context. i think that's where we are most interested in ideas like what is the most useful thing to have? is it resource material that you can use in the classroom? is it creating web sites in which people can actually have dialogue with each other, get on and blog? is it creating things where there is a real time discussion? you know how kids multitask now.

they are not going to be sitting there watching a television screen when these debates are on. they are going to be texting and twittering and all be kinds of things and having a debate as things are happening. how do we make that rich and full of substance and the kind of educational value that is useful to you? that's the kind of thing we have been discussing with outside groups. i think that's where the greatest potential is. >> it seems to me that our job is to try to make sure that the format keeps moving in the direction of having a conversation that is most substantive and interesting to the viewing listening internet consuming public. as you have seen over the years, we have gotten away from the panel of questioners. there is a single moderateor -- moderator only. the reason for that is the maximum amount of time should be focused on the candidates, no

one else. you get away from the formality which is associated with podiums and you sit with the moderator. we've tried to loosen the time limit so the moderator has capsules of time to devote to a single subject, but then it is not an egg timer going from one candidate to the next. days conversation that can take place in a certain amount of time, and then you move on. a single moderator has a way of making that graceful and see consequential. taking time limits off is something we would continuously like to do, but it won't surprise anyone in this room that candidates resist. in fact, time limits are a safety net, and a predictable, and a known. you can try to do it, but it depends on candidates being willing to participate in that kind of for mat. that said, if you push format,

and we're going to continue to try to loosen these time limits so the moderateor has time to focus on a small number of topics in depth and develop them from one debate to the next, my own feeling is that the more we learn about the capability of technology, the more it almost turns the table on the argument about who should be expecting what. i think technology makes it easier to say, citizens, there is a great deal of responsibility that rides with you. whether you are first-time voters or you have been at it for a long time. because now there is little excuse to say that you can't get access to information, to past debates, to past speeches, transcripts, fact checking, or interactivity with people that you want to discuss this with. one of the things we've seen in the commission a lot of is that the down side to technology is

it allows for people to reaffirm previously held views and cannediedly to voice them in ways that are sometimes fairly rude because of the anonimity that pieces of the internet afford. one of our most successful programs since 1992 when we tried it is this concept of debate watch. which is that you watch the debate with other people that you don't necessarily agree with politically and at the end of the debate, prespin, you turn it off and you talk about what you just saw and heard with other people, hopefully from the perspective of simply what was said. not whether it was your guy who said it. so you can actually have a more objective conversation about what just went on. if students aren't the most per fwect ambassadors -- perfect ambassadors to create and lead these forums -- not just on the

campus. get different aims and different back grounds. needless to say, anyone at their immediate availability is going to have access to do fact-checking if someone says, that candidate said this, and i don't think that's true. this, in fact, gives citizens the tools to make these conversations very much more helpful and to actually take back the responsibility for making up their minds about what they want to hear discussed. then ideally to make it clear debate to debate, it was ok in so far as it went, but we really believe the following topics should be explored. these topics weren't addressed at all. this becomes a complete engagement between the candidates and the public. >> i will tell you a great story when i was working with

president clinton, and my job during the preparation for the presidential debates was to impersonate jame l -- jim lehrer . i watched him and tried to mimic him a little bit. what i realized is the questions were very straightforward. there was not a lot of "gotcha" in them. he would turn and say, what do you think of that? i thought it was easy to prepare, because he was not trying to put his own personality in between the two candidates. he wanted his questioning to bring out what the candidates themselves would be saying. so i think that the role of the moderator and how the debate is structured by the moderator, since the commission cannot have

editorial responsibility for that, we can only turn that over to the person who is basically surrogate for the entire press corps. the person who was chosen to be there, because they are the one on behalf of that pool of networks that put that production in front of the american people, they have to shape and define what the content of the question will be. >> let's talk about a simulated focus group. i will go to all the participants first and then we will respond. so building off of this, what would help on our campuses to help young people learn through the debates. go ahead, craig, and then i'll come around to ryan. >> debates almost seem so dry. i think there is really no sfwans substance there. we have the soundbite media.

everything is shortened from lengthy answers with contacts to the one-minute soundbite to the two-minute soundbite at most. that's an issue we struggle with in terms of education. i think it reinforces the belief that interests tuges, the length of time that parents have to answer it, is becoming an institution and it may be detrimental. >> kevin, what would help you? >> we have had some debate watches, but generally speaking, the republicans have had their group and the democrats have had their group. one challenge is to have citizens get outside of their comfort zone. aloaning -- along with that also, picking up on the last point, how to avoid the dueling press conference. obviously candidates will get their key phrases and their key programs repeated, and how much does the format and the time limit -- which you need to have time limits, but if they are shorter, is that going to push

the candidates to get out of their comfort zone in terms of the canned statements and sound bites? >> it would really help leading up to the debate if someone were to do a quick, 15-minute introductory teach that was sufficiently balance -- balanced so each student would accept it. my students are relatively apolitical, and no matter what you do, they are going to be more influenced by what comes after what people tell them it meant because they don't have confidence in their own ability to determine the meaning and the accuracy and the effectiveness of the words.

>> i think what might help on my own campus early in the debate season is to have more of a multitude of opinions. sometimes when i have heard the debate, i have heard everything obama was going to say. i've heard everything these people were going to say. i wish we had more possibility of a third-party candidate. that this world is not just democrat or republican. it shows if you are weal wealthy like ross perot you can get into the debate. those were the most interesting debates. was he going to win? no. did i want him to win? no. but he raised questions that i think made both candidates uncomfortable. and making both candidates uncomfortable, like i'm sure ralph nader would have done, would have been something of real value to show there are

more voices than just two. >> i would expect to find some measure of fairness and justice in the way the process is managed so that people will have that understanding that everyone has been giving. if they share participation in the political process. because what happens ultimately will not only have implications for the american society, it has implications for the global community. the global community takes its cues from the american democracy , which is a model of democracy around the world. >> those of my students that would be likely to tune in a debate may not be likely to do so due to time constraints. i teach at a military academy. so the ability for them to not only see what they missed but

also continue a conversation on line with whomever based on what they missed could be valuable. whether or not they will do that, i'm not so sure. that opportunity would be good. >> every semester i ask my students if they are called to look at the debates, and they study it a little, and i am happy i get to represent them a little bit to pass this on to you. but one of the things they end up being critical on is the commission on presidential debates. i think they feel that asking uninformed -- or voters that are ignorant of the debates a polling question to ask who you are going to get for and using that as a method of who is going

to get voted for is sort of hiding. they think a better method is what opendebates.org has proposed, which is twho would you like to see in the debate? so even if i am not going to vote for the guy, i want to hear from other people potentially because they will bring up issues. if this is supposed to be informtive and actually a scripted infomercial, i would pay attention more. >> i don't want to -- >> if you do that, you run the risk of not having any debate. >> the sad thing is to be in a democracy where the two leading candidates get to dictate about who gets to speak about an

election. >> i can put that question back to you. how can you make sure that diverse view points in the academy get more attention and that students not fall into the bifurcated of politics and gets exposed to more things. i turn it back on you. i think that is more your responsibility. >> sure. and to the best of my ability, i think we're trying to do that. even the language we use. such as, i hear the thing that we make sure that both campaigns. all campaigns. we have to be careful with language, but i think we have to be careful -- if viability is the only measure, then we'll all continually be the same sort of candidates always make it. i think one of the things is to educate, so they can start to challenge stheeze sort of -- challenge these sort of taboo

subjects. incredibly difficult situation you all are in. i recognize that. >> what we have to do, we have one fundamental mission which is to provide opportunities for the voters to really help make their choice. to get content that allows them to make a choice. it is a practical matter if you don't have some thresh hold like 15%. 15% is fairly low. that doesn't mean that it has to be a likely winner. it can be someone who represents a substantial minority point of view, but that is a -- that's a pretty good test. if you had much below that or did not have any threshhold, i'm telling you, your major nominees wouldn't participate. s >> you're asking people for 15%

before they see the debate, which i think is part of the problem. then the second part of that, people get included in the debates not just because they are likely -- you have a moderator because they help elicit questions. another candidate, if they helped people become informed, that's a valuable thing. >> there is something to take into account here also, which -- what mike just said is key. you won't get some candidates, if you open the door to a forum that is basically much larger. i'm sure given the expertise at this table, you know the number of people that file with the f.c.c. every year for president or vice president. may you have a hand please with the answer. >> 125. >> over 160. most of them believe that if they were included in debates, then they would get support. which in fact would launch the campaign even though, remember,

we're talking about basically the last six weeks of a general election that already goes on for quite a long time. >> what about ballot access in multiple states? there are only a couple parties beyond the democrats and republicans. >> still talking five to six plus. so now you're talking about something that looks like the primary debates, and you know well how much criticism there is about how difficult it is to understand a conversation when you have that many people, and when a very small amount of time each person gets if you are talking a 90-minute debate plus a moderator. >> the other important thing, a flaw in the logic there, the great thing about the technology and the great thing about social media is it provides -- it is a small de-democratizing of our

electorate because it gives anyone a point of view they want to present to the public. so the idea you could only get an awed eans -- audience to reach only 15% through the debate point is not accurate, i don't think. you can get that through the technology we have available. if someone built that grassroots campaign in the course of a general election they could probably pass that thresh hold. by the way, that criteria gets applied before each and every debate. so if in the course of a general election someone began to search and you began to see a real interest, and this is not -- this just happened in the u.k. that person could be included in the day debate. >> you had a question. >> obviously to pick up on the fact that we understand the clemia before the commission, there are major party candidates.

on the other hand, might there be a happy medium? the 5% thresh hold, instead of having five, six, seven, 10 candidates, when you look at recent history, it is not likely you would have that many candidates that would be beyond 5% in five national polls or going beyond federal matching funds. your thoughts on that. lithe might there be a happy medium so you don't have the fear of five to eight candidates , but also using a criteria based in federal law. >> we tried to figure out the

happy medium to see if there were events in the summer of the election kwlear because one of the mobs problems of the lgic of students that say, i want to see more people that i contribute something, i want this to be entertaining, it implies it is being handed to them as opposed to their going out and trying to learn about these people before you get into the last six to eight weeks of the campaign. which i think is more possible and convenient than ever. we tried to find out is there a way, if a sponsor put on these conversations, and i think professor scully was at a seminar where we lost this to a lot of media, print electronics.

you have never seen so many people dive for their coffee en masse. so the short answer is, there is no law that requires anyone to debate. there is no authority placed in the commission by either law or congressional charter or anything else. what i find interesting is that if there were a ground swell for this kind of event, there is every reason that groups could come forward and response -- sponsor that sort of forum using different criteria, inviting that larger group of people and saying we're going to have a conversation, and it is going to try to be based on a different way of measuring the input.

if someone has something interesting to contribute which has lots of merit, that's a lot of candidates, and a lot of perspective that you could say should be at the table. so the question is, are you going to use a combination? minority funding? whatever, and try to piece that together. no one has done that, which i find interesting. we get constitutional right sized for the fact that we stick to one mission, which is all that we are allowed to do, the way we are incorporated. it doesn't preclude someone else from coming in and saying, we believe that there is a market and an interest and a need in a different set of forums. i couldn't agree more with the professor here from one of our longest time international constituents. we have been working with nigeria now for 12 years. one of the great honors of the

c.p.d. that our smaul international work has been going 20-plus years and has taken off for precisely the reason you so eloquently articulated which is that debates are seen by people that watch them in real time all over the world as integral to the democratic process. we are the envy of many other countries that believe it is astonishing that our citizens assume they have the right to see candidates discuss issues in a neutral forum and a setting that does not inherently favor one person, one party, one anything. they think it is amazing. we have been approached now by dozens of countries. we don't know where to start. we would like your help. that is something this country should be very proud of.

>> i want to discuss the process of deliberation, of scrutiny, and also raising questions and concerns, and to have it -- buzz it is an event that separates the students and the community from being a part of that. it also brings scrutiny to the value itself. the challenge for me and the responsibility for me is that it is a process that has concerns, questions, scrutiny, the opportunities for deliberation, engagement on various levels and not to over-state the debates and a single set of events. i want to demystify them a little bit and make them part of a platform for real analysis or

real discussion or real scrutiny. i think the benefit of having those debates be so central during that season. >> i think that's the right approach. this is a season of conversation rather than four separate events. they are important as moments during the process because i think you get those moments where there is a true glimpse of what the character of the candidates are or where the weakness is in the argument that they are making or what their capacity for leadership is or for really understanding what the american people are looking for and the person that's going to guide us in the future. i think they are important because they are one of the rare unvarnished moments in which something can happen that is not preplanned, precooked, and prestun spun.

but it has to contribute to an ongoing investigation and the kind of scrutiny you are talking about. stats exactly what we want to encourage. >> the good thing is, that does happen. there are multiple voices, multiple perspectives available in real time. >> a hard question. has anybody considered the prospect of changing the format of one of the national debates to a more lincoln-douglas time where candidate a gets 20 minutes, candidate b gets 20 minutes, and then 20 minutes then five minutes to some, five minutes to sum, and done. and part number two, would in the 21st century, candidates

nominated agree to participate in a debate of that format because it might be so difficult to script? >> the answer to the second question is it is less likely without some structure that you would see a willingness for participation by candidates, and particularly by candidate's staffs because they are trying to minimize the risk of something happening that will be problem matic for the campaign. that's a reality. now, i happen to, when i worked for governor bruce babbit in arizona in 1988, we did exactly the kind of debate that you are discussing. we called governor pete dupont, the republican nomination, and i said let's go to des moines and conduct an oxford style debate which is along the lines of what

you just said. we had ken body from nbc there as the moderator, and his sole job was to put a topic in play, and to governor babity and governor -- babitt debated back and forth in that oxford style scomprks it was a wonderful format and served the purposes of both of those candidates that were trying to get attention during the primary season. and there was a fair at of commentary sase saying that's a great format where you are saying you get people to engage. short of that exact question, what you hear us saying is that the commissioner recognizes and has tried to evolve the format in that direction. and we'll continue to do everything we can knowing that there is going to be pressure back from candidates and their staffs who want to have more structure in the debate. 4 it is a bargaining process,

and every four years, and there is negotiation between the two parties, and i'm sensitive to the idea. there was a debate about the race that happens as part of the process. i re and i think what the commig has done, to the voters that major candidates will participate in the debates that the commission that is divested. i think that's a very, very important thing. that institutionalizaion.

>> what i've been trying to do is develop context. because you covered campaigns and have been involved with campaigns, if you could just think of the campaigns you've covered, all these campaigns if we could help our students understand, if we could do that with campaigns. >> i found primarily, like how president john glenn, president bruce babbit, vice president mondale, president dukakis, president bob kerry, president john kerry.

through the national democratic institution, i went to pole yand i don't understand and worked for mozoevski. you just an international world class ruse loser. but the significant movepls moments -- moments, i mentioned benson, and obviously that moment in that debate was a juncture in which people saw benson in a different way and saw his vice president, dan quayle in a different way, and it developed out of that moment. which, you know, the complaint about the sound bite aspect is not the fault of the candidates, it is the fault of the medium. that was a moment picked out, but it framed something about the difference between the two

candidates and what their respective compafts were. and we leverage that. the fact senator benson was seen as someone who had a legacy and a history and had capacity beyond a much more junior colleague in the u.s. senate that was running against him, we then put in front of the voters and instantly turned, you know, senator benson into a more formidible running mate. we started going places because he suddenly was kind of a rock star. we put him out campaigning in places where he otherwise would not have gone. it was a moment where these debates impacked the way in which the campaign developed strategy after wards. i think that is interesting. but there are other moments, like in the 1996 camp president clinton was running -- 1996 campaign where president clinton was running for re-election, i

felt we were plodding our way through an election where we were running significantly ahead in the polls, and we were trying to run an error-free campaign without creating news we didn't want to create every day. and i think you have to say, how do you hold the candidates accountable. how do you create situations in which the voter gets a glimpse of what it would be like to have that person serving in the oval office. i think that's what the challenge is. and we've been talking about that at commission, too. it is rare campaigns plan for that kind of spontaneity.

>> it's what happens when people who have dedicated this much time in their careers to political life and service and campaigns come to this particular forum. one of the great side-bars of the commission's work is to do an oral history. you see a lot written, not so much with participants mple you hear them saying, talk about this. well, if you get firsthand statements from the individuals that were on the stage, all of a

sudden, those of us who are near viewers and listeners, understand this is a completely different zip code. and two of the more poignant comments were made both by president carter, one of which was, if you don't think that a presidential candidate isn't going to be able to correctly anticipate 98% of the questions that are going to be asked by a serious moderator, then that person has been doing their homework or paying attention while they have been running for office. he said, if we are not first in the whole portfolio, there's something wrong. the second observation, equally important was, he said, you have no idea when i went on stage at the first debate. i am a relatively unknown governor from the state of georgia, and i am on the stage with the man who had dealt with the watergate legacy.

a thoroughly respected and liked congressman from michigan who had been asked to step in at a terrible time in our nation's history. he said the sheer admiration he felt for president ford, not to mention the junction the united states was confronting, he said it was difficult to then simply engage in a combative way when you felt the sense, the meaning, the significance of what this man had done. they are both respected senior public officials. but he said that whole dynamic was a big part of how he went into this exchange. you can't take that away from this. it is difficult in gaze debates to aemploy a lot of ought tos to apply metrics which seem desirable, but at the end of the day, you can't take the politics

out of a political debate, and you can't deny that the individuals who are participating are going to care very much about how this happens. so those are, to be honest, they never lessen in significance. they are powerful and a strong reminder of the luxury that we have in the american democratic system. >> anybody follow? >> i was just going to remind you, nbc in 1998. >> i can't imagine who asked you to ask me that. i have no props, but i will try. and you will have to forgive me, because shortly after this incredibly wonderful story, i

actually have to go to the state department to do a video conference call with another one of our international constituents. i beg your pardonen, if there are other comments, questions that you have or that your students have, that you will get them to us. john can get you our contact information. we welcome this kind of input. it is very important to us. we would really like to hear from you on an ongoing basis and have your involvement and your students' involvement. that's the only way we can get better. once upon a time the little commission on presidential debates was formed in 1987. we quickly found out that the summer olympics in 1988 were going to be in september not in the summer because of a lot of different considerings. and the hosting network had basically blocked off wall-to-wall coverage 2 1/2 weeks into september. when, if you add that to other contractual obligations on the

networks schedules meant there was one free televised electric between labor day and election day, and it was a friday. which was not the optimal night, but so be it. in our optimistic naivete we contacted the network and said do you think you could find one free night where we could schedule a debate and perhaps we could do that in a way that is convenient for you. the answer came back faster than the inquiry could be made "no." so we persisted, and we said, excuse me, do you think there is one night on which water kayaking could be taped and shown at a different time, in spite of the fact that the world is so keen on this sport they will have to forgive us. answer, no.

so our third contact, i don't know what it was, stupidity or hard headedness, we said, ok we're going to be talking to some of your friends on the hill so have a nice day, and all of a sudden the answer came back from new york was oh, all right. a delegation of 12 suits was sent to meet with us. i would have liked to have had some suits with me, so there i was with a table just like this only a whole lot longer and the suits were at that end, and i was here with my pad. and i got a lecture for an hour on the economics of the olympics and what that meant and why it was inviolable. at the end of the lecture, the lawyer that was delivering the lecture looked over and he was not only in a suit, he had on more metal than i could count. there were tie bars and tie

clips and cuff links and really large watches and he was sort of weighed down by all of this, and then the half glasses, so when you weighed him all down he was trying to look over his half glasses at me, and in his best long island lock jaw, he goes, you know miss brownie don't think you understand, the olympics only happens once every four years. it was a great moment. >> that is one of the great stories of all time. >> all week we have had speakers and historians look at 2012 and 2008 and compare it to previous times in history. you mention 1996, how critical that election was.

can you think, mike and janet, of a time in history which is comparable so we could share it with our students? can you think of a time when the country is facing, that will come forth in the debate? especially with what we have been wrestle with? we have had people talking about social media and things being so different today, and i'm trying to figure out if there is a time comparable. in fact, we were talking the other day about the period 1840 to 1860, you know, presenting for years problems that built up in the course that convenient 2008ed -- that econvenient 2008ed -- that eventuated in the 1860's. >> i am so ill-equipped to answer that in a thoughtful way,

and it is a really good question. the only thought that comes to my mind is that you will remember in the gap years, 1968-1976 was the fact that there were wars going on that they did not want to, did not choose to discuss prrks and very clearly there are a lot of serious issue that is will be coming up in this campaign, and one of them is this incredible engagement that the united states has depending on how you count it. one network said last night, we're opening a fourth fund. so i think it is comparable in a sense to some of the years where, in fact, particularly in the 1970's, there were not debates for reasons of conflicts that were incredibly controversial, and once again we

are facing policy defense and engagement that is a very serious level. >> that report from yemen? >> yes. >> you got me thinking earlier about when i was a student and first came to washington in 1976 and there were profound issues on the national agenda were the lack of a coherent national energy policy, and the defense petroleum, an education system that didn't prepare kids adequately for a global economy, a health care system that didn't provide insurance arrangements so people could get access to doctors and medicine. concern about entitlement perhaps and their insovency and whether they would be around to meet problems of people retiring, and it starts to sound familiar if you think of the issues on the agenda in 2012,

because by and large, the baby boom generation through a series of these elections has not confronted a question. one of my bosses, daniel patrick moynihan posed, which is in reality how much government does the american people want in terms of government benefits and services, and how much of the american public willing to pay for that in the form of taxes? we have tried to have it both ways. all of those very important questions, i think, have now cascaded into the very real dilemma that we face, and i think we face a very real prospect that there won't be an honest vetting of those issues short of the candidates being challenged to address those issues in an honest way in the course of the coming campaign in 2012.

the debates play a role on that. the role of the media is important, too. but the sense is that this should be a defining election because of the profound nature of these challenges is real. the worry that it might not be that kind of campaign because there say temptation to provide easy answers is something that you as teachers and we as voters have a responsibility to deal with. we have got to try to make some choices as a country about how we are going to resolve these questions and we have to elect people with a capacity to come together and solve some of these problems. i think, you know, how do you compare it to other times in history where we faced enormous challenges coming out of great depregnants or great wars and how do we bring a country back

together? how do we improve the functioning of our government. how do we break down some of the bitterness and polarization and hyper -- the problems in our system now. i can't think of a time when that challenge is greater, and it has been made greater in part because of the technologies that accelerate the public's attention to these issues that allow the conversation to become incoherent sometimes and to go off on wild tan gents because of something that just seems momentarily zesty and interesting. these are really, really go to the heart of do we have a capacity for self-government of which the debates are a piece and the whole process is a piece . i don't think there has been a time in which the american experiment has been as fragile as it is at this moment. which to bring it back full circle is exactly why these debates are so critical.

because they are kind of a moment in which we face exactly those same questions. >> thank you for helping us learn, and thank you for helping our students learn. [applause] >> the washington center has this for you. >> thank you. >> again, thank you very much. >> it has been a great pleasure. >> thank you.