are so many different ways sports effects our lives. many of the stadiums that exist are built with government funds. the federal government should be more involved in ways. >> you can watch the rest of the interview tonight on c- span's "q & a."

>> richard norton smith, "the contenders," 14 weeks -- what was your idea? >> first and foremost, it was the stories -- personal stories within the historical context of these 14 individuals. each of them had the unique experience and made a unique contribution to the story of the country. above all else, it was a chance to, in some cases, remake the acquaintance with some people who unjustly by and large had

been forgotten. >> when you look back at the 14 week series, what is your broad thought about what you saw? >> because of the fantastic job done by a lot of people behind the scenes, the experts, and the folks who were brought together, i think we succeeded. >> jean baker, do you have a reaction to the series? >> none of my relatives work for c-span, so i just want to say it was absolutely spectacular. the combination of the stories, the folks who called in, the physical settings, and the relatives of the contenders -- i give it an a+. >> the great-grandson of hannibal hamlin called from texas. >> did you learn anything?

>> yes. i learned a great deal, especially the early ones -- henry clay and james p. grant. my skepticism lasted about the first minute of the first show. i got an e-mail from jonathan martin from politico. be said you should watch it. i said, ok. there you go. this is relevant about every one that cares about politics today. every one of the contenders and everyone of the show's be as valuable insight to what is going on in the country today. >> gene is absolutely right. the calls were an enormous contributing factor. it was because x-factor. we did not know going into this that as we got further along in the schedule, these people would begin to be real.

people who define themselves as young people cheering for wendell willkie are going mad for adlai stevenson. 50 years from now, will people make the same calls to c-span about the current set of people? >> this is the first time we have heard any discussion like this. we started with a discussion among these three historians about the 14 people we work featuring who lost in a campaign over the last couple of hundred years. we will spend the next 85 minutes looking at some of the video and getting their reaction to what they hear in these clips.

first up, a number of folks appeared in the series who are relatives. we will get our group's reaction. >> i was born down on south street by the oak fish seaport. he raised his children here. he went to school here right around the block. when his mother died, he had to go to work. >> he was a large man. some called him a big bear of a man. actually, his brother was a heavyweight greco-roman wrestler in the olympics. he would put on a suit and it would become ruffled. he cannot keep his hair straight. his wife would have to tell them when to get a haircut.

he was not so worried about his outward appearances. what he was worried about what the idea. >> were you out on the campaign trail with your family posing for pictures? >> no. >> do you have memories of the campaign in 1948? >> not really. >> were you here on election night? >> yes. >> what is your memory of that? >> watching the returns and being sent to bed. the next morning -- it was relatively early in the morning -- i remember dad coming into the bedroom where john and i were and said, "well, we lost." >> for him, democracy was not a device for acquiring power. it was a system for informing the people so that they could make a sound judgment.

he said, "trust the people with the truth, all the truth." what wins is more important than who wins. >> my father, to me, in my heart, he was not a racist. he was a politician. that does not make it right what he did. >> carl cannon, what do you see? >> i see wonderful continuity between these contenders and their families. the first show was henry clay. henry clay, i've learned, heard patrick henry speak in virginia as a young man. abraham lincoln gave the eulogy at clay's funeral. lincoln formed the republican party. the republican party was saved in 1960 by getting it back together. john roberts is seen in this series as consoling charles evans hughes. that is so enriching.

>> richard norton smith, we were watching the thomas dewey interview. the is not the interview of your dream. he was saying no, no, no. what was your reaction? >> a lot of people ask me about it. the last question -- he and his brother seemed to be so detached from the events that had engulfed their lives, everyone thought there were going to live in the white house. it did not seem to really be part of their dinner conversation.

the only response i have -- i recently did a project on gerald and betty ford and i talked to the four children. the remarkable thing is, in the summer of 1974, they may have been the only family in america that did not have the dinner table conversation about what would happen if they never discussed the possibility that their wives may be offended. as strange as it may seem to people who are not involved in politics, there is a family dynamic. parents consciously decide to shield their children from all of this. >> jean baker, you wrote a book on the stephensons. did you rely at all on the family? >> indeed. his sister, buffy, i would spend hours in her house. she was the beloved sister. this is bloomington, illinois. adlai moved to libertyville.

i was struck by adlai iii comments about his father, who he adored. he told an antidote about giving his credit card and the clerk looked at the credit card and saw adlai stevenson. they said is that resonate with you? she said, nope. it is a cool name. after all of their contributions to american political history --

>> hear are a couple of callers from the adlai stevenson show. >> the 1952 election was my first presidential -- in other words, i went door-to-door and did whatever i could. i was crushed that he did not win. but on retrospect, i thought he would contribute so much more on the world stage as a statesman and in a way he did. but i will never forget how disappointed we were. >> go-ahead, dave. we are talking about adlai stevenson. >> i just want to tell the story -- >> hello, congressman. how are you doing?

>> i just want to tell the story about adlai stevenson. this was madison, wisconsin in the 1960's campaign. i was a student at the university of wisconsin. he came to madison to give a speech at the civil war roundtable. afterwards, he was scheduled to appear with the governor. we had a large crowd of democrats gathered. they were over an hour late, and the crowd was very restive. finally, the two walked in. they went to the thought of the room. gaylord said, "folks, i am sari i am so late. i have to get the governor over to the mansion and get him to bed. he has a long day tomorrow. i would give one of my short speech is."

adlai stevenson said, "i will give one of my typically longer ones." nelson said, "you do, and i will leave without you." stevenson said, "go ahead, we will see who leaves with you." he was quick on his feet and clever in making the audience feel good. he was my hero. >> always an interesting surprise when a congressman calls. >> a woman's life was profoundly affected. she was one of millions of people who heard his voice come out of the dark, probably over the radio, in the first time the summer of 1952. that is why we did the series. >> of the gentleman in the

picture i remember for the vast wasteland speech in 1961. >> one of the eye witnesses -- jean baker, this is your subject. how do you respond to the calls? >> adlai stevenson encouraged lots of young americans and to get into politics. these are the kinds of stories that are lost when we tell presidential history. we do not get the cracks and we do not get the other side. it is important for all americans to understand that adlai stevenson never got beyond 45%-46%, but his impact on american history it was considerable. he believed that he was, as he told all of the people that

said they were the shakespeare vote, -- he would say, you flunked the course. he was trying to educate the american people? it was less partisanship than we have today. who is trying to educate us today? >> that woman who called in was the perfect bookend to an antidote told on the show. eisenhower had a heart attack and adlai stevenson was running again. he was grousing about running in the primaries. politics was changing. you have to run in the primaries.

the reason he ran again was because the young people kept coming to him and insisting that he run. there was a great groundswell of people who loved him. >> george mcgovern is very much alive. he is close to 90 years old. unfortunately before the run-up of the program, he fell. been some of you who saw it have seen some of the press. he spent about five days in the hospital out in sioux falls, south dakota. he fell right before he came in to where the studio was set up in mitchell, south dakota. unfortunately, we never got him on the show. here is a clip that was not on the program i think you might find interesting -- an interview that george mcgovern gave us before that night.

>> this is the most corrupt administration in american history. she said that on "meet the press." she was right. nobody believed that they figured it was just politics. open the door to china, which is good. i give them credit for it. i went to richard nixon's funeral. i figured he was president of the united states and did a lot of good things as well as bad. i was listening to all of the eulogies, including one by my friend, bob dole. i thought, gosh, even from nixon's standpoint, it would have been better if i had one.

i bet you he had the same feeling. he would not have been thrown out of office. historians would have talked about the opening to china, detente with the soviet union, he was pretty good with civil rights. the only problem is he was perfect. that is a big problem. >> george mcgovern got 37.5% of the vote in 1972. >> i will tell you a quick mcgovern a story. he also attended mrs. nixon's funeral in 1993. afterwards, there were reporters who ask them why. his initial response was the

sort of think you would expect. they wanted to press -- why would you in effect honor a man sharing his grief who destroyed your career, etc., etc.? mcgovern had the classiest reply i ever heard -- you cannot keep campaigning forever. >> carl cannon -- why did richard nixon win so big? >> the country was doing well economically. we did not know about watergate. >> we knew about it. >> not in time. not really. but, you know, george mcgovern said on his first day in office

he would bring all of the troops all from indochina. people were not ready for that yet. he gave a speech to a small audience in the wee hours of the morning. >> 2:30 a.m. >> he had every problem you could have in a campaign. when i think of mcgovern -- maybe it is a function of my career -- he was equally quixotic. he did not know he was appointed by ronald reagan. i got to know him in iowa. you would be alone with him went i asked why he was doing it. at some point, he said winning is not the only thing. you have to have a message. you have to conduct yourself well. to me, that was sort of -- >> look at what he did afterward in terms of his programs.

that is something we should probably bring up about all of these contenders. they lost -- that is their definition for the program -- but they contributed in marvelous ways. >> most of them after they lost as well. he continued contributing. as a third-party candidate -- he is very much alive. i understand he was watching the progress of the other night. let's watch. this is not seen in the ross perot show. let's watch mr. perot. >> let's put my life in perspective. again and again on complex difficult task, i have stayed the course. when i was asked by my government to do the pow project, within a year the vietnamese had sent people into canada to make arrangements to have me and my family killed. i had five small children. my family and i decided we would stay the course.

>> does anybody have anything else you want to raise all the problem of the people coming across my front yard? >> did you see the five men? >> i was asleep. >> who saw them? somebody did see them? >> of course, they saw them. they released the guard dogs. it is none of your business. it has nothing to do with the presidential campaign. if you want to know if on i am telling the truth, i have given you multiple reputable people. you are pursuing this logistical money. wait a minute. i find it fascinating you will pursue this story but not about the money wasted on saddam hussein. i am it will not waste any more time on trying to satisfy you on every little problem you may have about it.

>> carl cannon, how does that look in the present day? >> it was exactly like it was at the time. this was a compelling figure who was saying things no one had the courage to say, but he dropped out of the race. he gave a strange explanation. what he did was revealed he did not have the temperament for the presidency. he got back in in october and played the spoiler role, but ross perot had not held that press conference, it would of been a close a three-way race. we would have seen something we had never seen before because it had not happened since 1912. a close three-man presidential race. >> i remember during the show we had a clip, where he said we were over $3 trillion in debt. he then talked to the media -- you are pursuing this story, but not that story?

>> the justification, if you will, for his candidacy and the discrepancy between the age old stated desire of the american people. the reality of what we saw, which was someone seemingly almost unhinged about a question he found offensive. >> what did you think about him then and what do you think about him today? >> i am a great supporter of third parties, not necessarily his. but i do think one of the issues that comes up when you look at a broad span of

presidents and presidential contenders is the issue of temperament. surely this is on the horizon right now. what are these people going to do if they get into the provincial office in terms of their ability to deal with the media and make their case? third-party candidates are sometimes loose cannons because they do not have the discipline of the party structure. >> remember herman cain a few months ago. he was accused of sexual harassment. the reacted kind of like ross perot did. this is not important. nobody uses this phrase anymore, but the president of

the united states does have his finger on the button. you have to be calm in times of stress. the herman cain issue was about his character -- his temperament. we have to know about it. we want to know about it. >> people talked about wendell willkie. someone who comes out of nowhere who suddenly bursts upon the scene. for most americans, ross perot was an unknown commodity. that was reflected in the initial polls. is this, for example, a preview of michael bloomberg? you can see parallels between at ross perot running of the debt issue in 1992 and mayor bloomberg challenging the two party system 20 years later.

>> there was c-span, but no 24- hour cycle. it has changed a lot. he was on c-span in 1987. i did not see that. he said the greatest country in the world does not have the will to pass a budget. he was a compelling figure. i remember in 1992, i began hearing about ross perot -- just whispers. do you remember the movie they made "on wings of eagles?" richard crenna was ross perot. there is a picture of the two of them. i remember seeing larry king and this guy with the ears, the twang, and the unfashionable short hair cut.

i said who is this? someone said, that is ross perot. i said this could not be ross perot. >> when he went on larry king and everybody got all excited, we looked at each other -- we had him on the national press club. we sold more tapes of ross perot's speech at the national press club than anybody who had ever been there. it was a couple thousand. today it would not be that impressive. >> one other footnote to this -- it is the nature of businessmen, especially hugely successful, self-made men who set their own rules. they do not cotton to having one of the reporters telling them what is important.

>> before we go to william jennings bryan, what role, jean baker, does peace-making itself make in politics? >> it has a big role, whether you are barack obama, who gets high marks for this, or whether you are william jennings bryan and you have this centurion voice. i never quite understood it -- and never quite understood this -- 20,000 people can hear you and, beyond that, another 40,000 or 50,000 would be there. >> [unintelligible]

we will restore bilateralism. england will have bilateralism because the united states has. if they dare to come out in the open field anddefending the gold standard is -- and defend the gold standard -- the good thing. we will fight them. supported by the commercial interests and the toilers everywhere, we will answer their demands for the gold standard by saying to them, you shall not press down on the halls of labor -- upon the bow of labor this crown of thorns. you shall not crucify mankind on a cross of gold.

>> he gives a speech -- he had a wonderful voice. the tape that you played was 1893, not 1896. the technology did not exist yet to record a speech in 1896. 36-oesn't sound like a year-old man in that. when ghe was 36, -- when he was 36, he was robust, he was vigorous, he had an amazing voice that could be heard by 10,000 people at a time without amplification. the sets it up so that he would give a speech at a time in the convention where you knew the majority of delegates were for him, but at the same time, no risky speech had been given yet at the time. they found his moment and he used it to great effect. >> what time the president would -- had he been president, what kind of president would he have been? >> i think a very good one. his skill as an agitator, his skill as an orator, he could rally people to support his ideas.

he was probably not a very good administrator. as president, he would have been a very divisive figure. it would have been very difficult for him to work directly with congress. >> who is the greatest speaker that you have ever seen in your life or ever heard of? >> seen? >> seen them on television or could have been in the audience. who would you label as the best? or can you? >> churchill. >> why? >> a combination of eloquence, passion, and the context. when you think of world war ii and you think about britain and the survival and all that that meant to the survival of westerbritain at the moment of s

greatest danger -- civilization, you think of winston churchill's speeches. >> jean baker. >> franklin roosevelt. >> why? >> at the time we needed someone who could make speeches that, in a sense, reassured the american people. franklin roosevelt used the medium of the fireside chat to great advantage. in the clips that you see, it is all roosevelt speaking. there is a certain emotional intensity. from the audience's point of view, you cannot help but note that this is a person that has connected to the audience and responded to them. "we have nothing to fear but

fear itself." i suppose it is an upper class, elite accent, but everybody in these clips seem as if they all came out with the same unspeaking a voice. >> not my guy. >> hubert humphrey. i will tell you why. when i was covering the white house for the baltimore sun -- i was covering bill clinton -- people said how eloquent bill clinton was. i get back to my office and i did not have a very good quote. i call william lee miller and said, "is bill clinton eloquent?" he said, "presidential eloquence was put in place by lincoln." hubert humphrey never made it to the white house.

william lee said the way you of that kindquence at that tim was a person said something that had never been talked about before, or something that was talked about a lot. when hubert humphrey told the democratic party those who said we waited too long for civil rights, we need to wait longer -- he said it is time to march forthrightly out of the shadow of state rights and into the sunshine of human rights. to me, that is the most eloquent thing any contender has ever said. >> if you are just starting us, we are talking about a series of programs we did for c-span called "the contenders." it went on for 14 weeks from september to december.

this group sitting here all per dissipated in that initial 90-- all participated in that initial 90- minute discussion we had about what the series would be. now we are back. before we go further, give me a 10 second biography. are you still teaching? >> yes. working on my syllabus. getting ready to have the students come in january. i am going to teach a seminar on american history. i am teaching seniors and freshmen -- an introductory class in american history from the founding to -- i hope we get to appomattox. >> richard norton smith, bring us up-to-date.

>> i am teaching a graduate course at george mason university on the american presidency. still working on the nelson rockefeller biography. in between, oral history project. >> mr. cannon? >> i am washington editor of real clear politics. i am writing a book. we have been e book that is out called "campaign 2012, the battle begins." >> how many words is the first one? "the publisher wanted 20,000 but it came in about 40,000 or more. >> if it is only $2.99 on amazon. go to amazon, google my name, and it will pop up. you can get it for kindle, ipad, or your computer. >> jean baker, can you get yours as an e-book.

>> yes. >> richard norton smith -- the reverse of who is the best, who is the worst figure you can think of who succeeded in being president? >> gosh. succeeded as president? >> no, got elected. >> warren harding. h.l. mencken invented a phrase. it is a lot better than anything harding ever said. mencken gave us the word "boviating."

-- harding gave us the word "bloviating." >> you are impeaching your own witness. >> harding gave one great speech as president. he gave to birmingham, alabama and gave a speech that was the most forthright in terms of race relations of any president since lincoln. he went into the deep south and basically told people the time had come to outgrow segregation. it was a very courageous act. >> he also gave a speech in which he said "do not ask why your country can do for you." >> there is an embryonic poem about him. >> i am a junior american studies major.

i am excited to be here. how has president obama affected you in this pregnancy flow far? >> i went to siena. very good. one of the things that there is a great parallel between the two is working with a legislature that is seen as hostile, the partisanship smith states that every year he was in office, he only had control of the senate for two years. the other eight years it was eight years of republican dominance here in this chamber and in the other house, the only served one term.

i think the problem of dealing with the other party is something that smith had to battle with and undertake. that is something the current president has a problem with as well. the other thing he has -- a remarkable sense of humor. president obama has a very good sense of humor. he handles press conferences the same way. al smith is the same way. he could be funny on occasions, but not all the time because people would not taken seriously. he could play a very good statesman with a sense of humor. >> i am not sure that barack obama has learned how to make it all happen. not sure he learned the lessons of dealing witha a hostile legislature.

>> one of the first things i noticed was the cigar. al smith had a cigar in his mouth barack obama -- we have never seen him smoke. could a candidate smoke and get away with that? >> in this current campaign, herman cain's campaign manager did an advertisement on youtube smoking a cigarette. even a campaign manager smoking a cigarette now is taboo. >> franklin roosevelt was famous for his cigarette holder. >> she started by asking them to compare at barack obama and al smith. >> going back to that campaign, 1928 -- al smith was a catholic. it had a lot to do with new york city. he was the urban candidate. the immigrant experiment. it struck americans as being

alien and difficult to embrace. ass noone reason smith did badly as he did in the south. it was not just his catholicism. there has been an attempt by some to repeat history in suggesting that quality applies to president obama. >> al smith sticks out for what he did not do after his defeat. most of the contenders have been loyal supporters of the party and whoever it is who got the nomination after their defeat. some of them, of course, unsuccessfully tried again and again, as did william jennings bryant but smith had some sort

of vitriol and, therefore, did not play the game. the game is if you lose and you are a good democrat, and surely al smith was that, you support your successor. wendell willkie goes overseas as a republican to help roosevelt in the war effort. >> it was seen by republicans as much as a patrol as the democrats did al smith. >> when i think of his relevance to us today, i think it is the catholic issue. he loses in 1928. the loses for a lot of reasons. the economy is going great, at least he thinks it is. he is a city guy. there is a clip where he saw a

horse and thought he was in the country. back intocoming civilization. it was thought after 1960 that doctrinal issues were taken off the table. now, this year, we have two candidates from the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints. mitt romney is being attacked for his more monism. -- mormonism. it is a cult. there are whispers. that goes back to the smith campaign. i am wondering if we do a show like this 20 years from now, will we be talking about mitt romney, not as a contender who paved the way for someone the president in the future. >> let me ask you a question you have been asked more than

once. why did you stop the series in 1992? >> a number of reasons. first of all, we had x amount of time. we managed to extend 12 to 14. it was tough to do more than that. you need time to form perspective. the passions of more recent campaign to being what they are, be it seems that 20 years was a good cut off point. that took us up through prospero. >> who were the contenders that did not make the show up through ross perot. >> the contenders' that did not make the show? >> al gore. a young man said he felt very

passionately about our oversight of leaving out [unintelligible] >> there is probably a finite constituency out there. >> our viewers ought to know that you can go to our website -- c-span.org -- and watch all 14 shows. if you missed them before, we recommend it to you who are interested in this type of thing. we now go to barry goldwater. the clip. >> he talks so fast, you know? >> hubert is sitting there try to listen to you reminds me of trying to read playboy magazine with my wife turning the pages i happen to think i am in a pretty tough race. i am spending the money i

legally can. that is the action. >> that is a stupid question if you don't mind my saying so. but i never said that airplane would not fly. >> people all over the country keep talking about legalizing gambling. i thought we already had it. it is called election day. [laughter] i now realize what it takes to become the president. apparently it helps to have a brother who sits at a gas station drinking beer all day. [laughter] when i was campaigning in that razor-thin election in 1964, i should have told everyone that

dean is my brother. [laughter] >> more than the humor thing, where has it ever worked in politics and where has it not? >> i'm wondering whether it can work. >> piven what wendell willkie -- said whenilkilkie asked about his religion, i think he said he liked to sleep in on sunday mornings. i think the sort of contrarian stuff has disappeared from contemporary politics. i think we've gotten to this bitter, too serious, and politicians worry about making the kinds of mistakes you can

make, although it surely they have made a lot. but it has not been from their efforts at humor. >> as someone who spent part of his career working for a would- be president -- bob dole. people are trying to homogenize and dehumanize the campaign process. i guarantee they tell candidates not to take a risk. do not take a chance. humor may offend someone. what you think is funny, other people may not think is funny. there are examples of that. be yourself because if you

cannot be yourself now, what are you going to do in the white house? >> who is the funniest man in politics today? >> obama. >> and bill clinton, when he came into office, the first year he gave a speech. he essentially attacked bob dole and john boehner. he attacked his enemies. i ran into george stephanopoulos and he said, "this is funny stuff, is it not?" i said no. eight years later, they did the funniest sketch of any president. he is running around, making hillary's lunch. jay leno said, "how am i going to follow this guy?" i was at a southy breakfast. mitt romney walks in.

this was the last campaign. the first time he ran, four years ago. the massachusetts supreme court had issued a decision directing the legislature to legalize same-sex marriage. mitt romney walked in and did not want to address the think it yet. he said, i believe marriage is between -- i am a mormon, so i believe marriage is between a man and a woman and a woman and a woman. the place cracked up. he had them after that. joe biden spoke the foollowing year. you would not hear him do that joke today. >> joe biden still speaks that way.

>> i will be the devil's advocate on that. i think these guys are still funny. but we used it against them. >> rick perry has been funny about his mistakes. he has, to me, shown some humor. he has the ability to laugh at himself. i do not see it so much in the others. as to the republican front- runner right now, i do not think he has a sense of humor. >> if it did not start with barry goldwater. abraham lincoln when accused of being too faced said, if you think i am two-faced, do you want to see the other? it is later in life when lincoln learns the lesson about self deprecatory humor.

>> we ask you for your favorites and irrelevant at once. you called henry clay the best. >> one of the best. >> one of the best candidates? >> here is a bit from henry clay. >> if henry clay were standing here today, what would we see? what would he look like? what would he sound like? >> i do not think anyone could see henry clay and not like henry clay. he was not a handsome man. i always talk about his large mouth. he liked the ladies, as i said. when he opened that mouth, a great oratory came out. a person of the opposite party onetime came to a party and

said, "would do not like to meet the famous mr. clay?" the man said, "no, sir. i do not choose to submit myself to him." he have the charisma of charm. anybody who met him would like henry clay. >> why do you think this was one of the best shows? >> there was something about the series before on the radio.

this is a very cold medium because you do not have the still pictures. you have lots of stories and anecdotes. you also had the pictures of henry clay's home. you are able with or historical imagination to put in more than you can if there are clips and speeches and radio programs and movies, etc. of these people. i found myself using what i thought was my historical imagination about these elections. trying to within the range of history to fill in the blanks.

>> do you really think he is that ugly? >> i do not think so. he looked all right, but it must of been the voice. on that show they said he gave a speech in dayton, ohio that attracted 100,000 people who are these guys? there is no television, so there are no tv stars. he is newt gingrich, kim kardashian, and michael jordan combined. >> james blaine was one of the best. let's watch from the program. >> i think he was considered a very handsome man, very well dressed.

extremely well spoken. beginning in the late 1850's, he started out his career in agusta as a newspaper editor. he got bit by the political bug. by the late 1850's, was immersed in the emerging republican party. he had lots of experience in the late 1850's and late 1860's. that gave him a lot of practice toward being able to articulate his ideas as he emerged as a national figure. charismatic was another board attached to him.

>> my understanding is that he had a terrific memory for names. he could really make you feel that he knew who you were, what your particular concerns were. that made him a very powerful bigger. >> i don't know if he is handsome or ugly. it is the difference between radio and television.

people listening to the radio in the 1930's -- you are using a different set of imaginative muscles. you are called upon in a way that you are not when it is put in front of you. blaine, i would argue, is one of the most obscure to modern-day americans. therefore, getting a vivid word picture of who he was and why he mattered is disproportionately an accomplishment. >> when you ask people who was the president, it is hard. >> eugene debs was a 5 time candidate for president. >> when people get old, there should be social insurance for them. there should be retirement benefits. that is what we call social security. but the same people who hated debs and when he was alive and now want to destroy social security. that continues today. i think it is fair to say that many of the huge advances made during the 1930's under president roosevelt, the great society and lyndon johnson as well, those were ideas that people like debs probably brought to the attention -- the

first person to bring to the attention of millions of working people. >> i introduced senator sanders as if he was eugene v. debs. they are both socialists. >> he is a modern incarnation. he speaks highly of debs and i'm not a socialist. >> what does it mean to be a socialist? in debs' case? >> in barry sanders' case you don't want to caucus with the democrats or republicans but want to be independent. what does it mean? we were talking about william jennings bryan. occupy wall street criticizes, saying they don't have a message or order.

if they had william jennings bryan they'd be in business and they don't have to do that thing with the mega phone and talk because bryan could be heard through the whole crowd no matter what was going on. debs is the same way, if you allow me a metaphor -- the megaphone. i wrote this down and want to get it just right. but at his trial, gene debs said - this is 1918, while there is a lower class, i am in it. while there's a criminal element, i'm of it. while there's a soul in prison, i am not free. and he said this in 1918, 21 years before john steinbeck writes in "grapes of wrath" whenever this is a fight for the hungry to eat, i'll be there and whenever there is a cop beating a worker, i'll be there. and 50 years before bruce springsteen brings back the ghost of tom joad and repeats the words of steinbeck and this

comes from debs and is our conscience in a way. bernie sanders was right. the words he said literally echo through our time today. >> you mentioned warren harding earlier. why did warren harding invite him to the oval office after he left prison? he pardoned him. >> he pardoned him, and -- because warren harding, for all of his failings, was a decent, kindly human being. and i believe he felt that an injustice had been perpetuated on debs and he wanted him out of jail in time for christmas so he could spend it with his family. i think that tells you all you need to know. >> any comment on debs? >> a hero. and i think -- >> because you like him politically? >> for sure. and i don't like the fact that socialism has become an epitaph that you hurl at people without any understanding of what it means and in simple terms it's

the nationalization of the means of production and distribution. it's a question of how far we're going to go. debs is to some extent written out of the history books. and this is a man who stood by his ideals, knew he was going to be arrested when he gave that famous speech in ohio and was willing to go to jail for his beliefs. that's something that is worth remembering in american politics. >> and got close to a million votes when he was in jail. >> yes, 1960. >> i think the highest vote, the percentage was 6% in 1912. >> the percentage vote. >> and you asked about his socialism. what he really was was a radical labor leader and today we'd say he was sticking up for the working man. you could argue there are plenty of liberal democrats today who didn't view economics much differently than debs. >> let's go to charles evans hughes and i think, mr. smith, you called the best or one of the best shows. >> certainly one of the best contenders. >> you just like the beard. let's go to charles evans hughes. >> hello and thank you for a wonderful program.

i would like to know the opinion from your panelists to what you believe charles evans hughes might make both politically and judicially of what's going on in wall street right now. >> well, can you project? >> well, you know, everybody has their own perspective what's going on at wall street right now but i do think charles evans hughes was in some respects one of the great, early reformers and if you think about the trajectory of his career, he didn't seek out public service, you know, for sort of his own sake or as something he really wanted an elective office. he kind of came through public service through his law practice and through an opportunity to kind of investigate industries where there was a lot of corruption, and i think this is something that was a hallmark of his career. i think even in his presidential run, it's probably

consistent with the idea that he wasn't necessarily the world's best back slapper or knew how to build alliances with people, because i think he was very focused on getting rid of corruption and not caring if that meant if a few sacred cows were slaughtered in the process. >> buchanan because he was on the court before and after he ran, i want to ask you about this current election. what role do you think, there are a couple big huge cases coming up the court will play in the 2012 election. >> probably in march or june but sometime in the spring render a verdict on the health care law. and you know, you had paul clement on there and he's been the former solicitor general and he would believe in hughes. f.d.r. said when he tried to pack the court, the people are with me. hughes' response essentially was, well, maybe the constitution isn't. and we're refighting that again. we're relitigating that same

battle between the power of the president and the power of the people. >> if you've just joined us, we're talking about "the contenders" series that played on c-span in september, october, november, and a little december, most of them were on- site, mitchell, south dakota, albany, new york, in front of the supreme court you just saw there and lots of other places. but i want to remind you if you're interested in watching them, you can go to c-span.org and look under "the contenders." we have a little less than 25 minutes to go in this discussion and we're going next to wendell willkie, a hoosier. >> jason is joining us next from stanford, north carolina. go ahead, please. >> i just wanted to comment that in the fall of 1940, wendel willkie did a whistle stop tour and i happened to be a trainee in melbourne, florida, and he came through melbourne and was on the rear platform of the train and about a crowd of 50 or 60 people and i had the opportunity to shake hands with

wendell and that was either september or october of 1940. and it was very interesting. >> you remember when you saw him on that whistle stop tour what you thought when you saw him campaign? >> i was a kid of 18 years old and i just was in awe of here's a guy who could be president of the united states, i really looked up to him. i'm 89 now and just 18 years old, a kid. so i was really, really visibly impressed with him. he made a majestic appearance being on the back of that train. it was something very, very special. >> jean banker, you remember the first president you saw in person and where was it? >> eisenhower, in washington, at his inaugural. and of course i had voted for his opponent, and my husband and i had gone to the inaugural

parade, and of course eisenhower was a very comforting figure, and stevenson, at the time i didn't know this, never had much of a chance, i think one of the things you could tell the future contenders, try not and run against generals. it won't work out well. >> who was your first president? >> i saw richard nixon in 1968. at the republican convention. i was 14 and carrying my rockefeller sign in the floor demonstration hitting iowa delegates over the head with it because i knew we were going to lose. but i was there for nixon's acceptance speech. and then at some point we met him actually at mr. nixon's

funeral. >> mr. cannon? >> mine also is richard nixon -- no, excuse me. i take that back. it's lyndon johnson, i saw him in a rally. i was a kid, a teenager. >> when you heard the caller, 89 years old, he could still remember it and excited about the fact he saw mr. willkie in person. just in your experience, what importance is it to have seen a candidate? >> well, you contrast that and, again, you wonder if 50 years from now there will be folks like that because television, of course, has intervened between then and now and transformed the relationship between americans and their politicians and americans and their presidents. >> brian, this is "the contender" show and he saw willkie, he didn't see a president. the first time i met a contender was gene mccarthy. i had a sign, me and my friend, sophomore, at mcclatchy high school that said "all the way with l.b.j." and the college

kids were shaking their fists at us. and mccarthy called us over there, why are you for the president? we didn't know. we said we think we have the war going on and need to support the commander in chief. he said, boys, that's a good reason, i'll tell lyndon i said that. and i was hooked. >> here's a clip from the thomas e. dewey program. >> the most difficult time but an opportunity to be of great help to the people of this city, what can we do for you? >> i need a small squad of detectives who will go to work on this job as they never have before, who will know that the mayor and the commissioner are behind them personally all the time. >> is everything said? >> every gangster in the mob is being watched this minute. >> any signs of leaks? >> they don't expect a thing.

>> then it's 10:00 tonight, pick up the 15 ringleaders first. here are the sealed orders for the men. >> the roundup was skillfully directed. mob after mob was taken by surprise. simultaneously all over the city, the underworld was rounded up. >> we have made a real start on cleaning the gangsters out of new york. for 20 years the underworld has preyed on our people and robbed them and then frightened them into silence. but now the day of fear of the gangster is coming to an end. >> mr. smith, you wrote a book about tom dewey, did you ever see him with a sense of humor? >> oh, yeah, he had a sense of humor. but like a lot of us, he mellowed with age. >> are you mellowing with age? >> i said "like a lot of us." i think i'd be losing my sense of humor if i were.

you know, he said near the end of his life, everything came too early for me. you know, he had achieved a kind of perspective. one thing about dewey that makes him very contemporary. he was a celebrity before he was a politician. he was the gangbuster. that rather clumsily re-enacted scene anticipated a whole host of movies you can see on late night tv to this day with the likes of george raft and betty davis, hollywooders cranking out film after film, dewey, long before anyone thought of him as a president was the gangbuster, the prosecutor, the guy who got the bad guys. >> that's crazy in some ways. i think we forget that these are human beings sometimes and we just think of them as sort of figures that run for office and they don't have feelings and passions and whatever. i mean, what a terrible thing to think you won, to have that

famous headline and lose. >> but how much of that is their fault? that they delivered that, to know, to take that with you, to know that you've become a bye word for losing the sure thing. i mean, that's a negative legacy that you can't escape. >> but yes, this presidential -- it's not a race, it's a tennis game, so if you lose, you can always forget your mistakes and think that the other person was simply better. that i think did not help dewey. i don't think it helped al smith who was always angry that he had lost. so i think we need to show a little bit more compassion sometimes to our contenders and even our president.

>> if you were a presidential candidate today and looked at thomas e. dewey and what not to do. >> dewey didn't lose because of that. we had a candidate last time out, rudy giuliani who wanted to do what dewey did, he was a prosecutor and put people in prison. he didn't get the nomination. our politics have changed and wasn't right on the issues for the moderate republican party. but it's not enough. putting people in prison is a necessary thing. we admire prosecutors. we don't normally choose them for president. >> here's your favorite speaker, i don't know if he's your favorite candidate, hubert humphrey. >> all right. >> i worked for hubert humphrey, my husband in the 1960's was his press secretary. i was muriel humphrey's press secretary. >> my goodness. >> and we were involved in his 1960 campaign. we were with him through all of 1968.

we were at the democratic convention and the horror and tragedy of what was unfolding. we were with him as he stood there looking out the window at the violence and terrible tragedy unfolding in grant park. and the atmosphere in the room was almost of a funeral. and humphrey was the saddest man you can imagine on the night that he had achieved his greatest political victory to be the democratic presidential candidate. >> this moment -- this moment is one of personal pride and gratification, yet one cannot help but reflect the deep sadness that we feel over the troubles and the violence which

have erupted regrettably and tragically in the streets of this great city and for the personal injuries which have occurred. [applause] >> i look at hubert humphrey and comes to mind in the current campaign, newt gingrich had a lot written about how much people that work with him don't like him. and i wondered looking at hubert humphrey, was he liked by people? >> he was beloved, and by republicans, too. he was close to barry goldwater. he had a lot of friends on the other side. i think in that show -- he gave a speech in iowa once and who was the republican?

it might have been goldwater and they were attacking each other and then afterwards were seen having dinner together. you know, the 1968 convention for people who don't know, there were riots in chicago and left the democrats wounded coming out of that. they were already wounded by robert kennedy's assassination and torn in half by the war. but i don't think we like to say humphrey lost to richard nixon because of that convention but he probably lost to richard nixon because he hadn't done the one thing hubert always did all his career, was speak his mind and speak his heart and stand up. he didn't speak out -- he didn't stand up to lyndon johnson on the war. he didn't tell democrats how he felt.

the party would have been unified a lot earlier and humphrey would have looked a more courageous figure and that's sad because that's really who he was. this one time in his life he didn't really do it. >> except, think of september 30 in salt lake city where he gave this famous speech which even there was perceived as a break with the white house -- with the white house. you could make the break gene mccarthy contributed to humphrey's loss and if mccarthy had been more forthcoming in his support of humphrey who after all was much closer to his world view than richard nixon. >> jean baker, go ahead. >> i think we're leaving out something when we personalize presidential politics too much. and that is the effect of the machine and the affect of how voters are influenced by the

past, but also by these grassroots campaigns to get out and vote for nixon or get out and vote for humphrey. i mean, often the american people don't deconstruct politics and the leaders to the extent that we are doing this afternoon. sometimes it's simply a wrote -- rote vote. sometimes it's i'm going to challenge my father and vote a different way than he does. and sometimes it's the party discipline. >> but let me ask about the likeability thing again. any of you have examples of where behind the scenes likeability either got somebody a nomination or prevented them from getting a nomination because people didn't like him personally? >> i would argue on the contrary. i mean, i'll give you two quick examples. tom dewey was not a beloved figure. even among his supporters. we're hearing some of that today, parallels being drawn with mitt romney, for example,

but he managed to win the nomination not once but twice. gerald ford was universally liked. and yet it wasn't enough to hold on to the presidency in 1976. >> but i've got one that speaks directly to your point and it's from our books, here you get this free, not to pay $2.99. mitt romney last time out four years ago was not well liked and disliked by the other candidates and was considered aloof and attacked him for ads and they kind of didn't like him, the other candidates. and when mitt romney lost in iowa to mike huckabee, he didn't call huckabee and stalk in his mind and put it in his book a year later. but john mccain called him to congratulate him and both knew the campaign was then going from iowa to new hampshire where mccain was going to be stronger and mike huckabee said to john mccain, now it's your turn to beat the son of a bitch. he was talking about romney.

that didn't help romney. the likeability didn't help him because huckabee stayed in that thing long after he could have within nominated in part despite mitt romney. four years later romney has learned his lesson and tim pawlenty got out and romney greeted him like a friend and put his arm around and asked about his family and he was a decent guy. there's a very human element among the contenders themselves, especially in a primary process. >> can i speak to estes kefauver? may i speak, not can i? >> arguably should have been the democratic candidate when stevenson was. and also like tom dewey had been a crime buster in chicago. and everybody thought that he -- not everybody, but those folks in the democratic party who had power thought that he was a phony. and there was something about

the political presence in which i think the american people understand who is authentic and who is not. adlai stevenson who defeated kefauver in the convention was not a "let's go in the back room and smoke some cigars" kind of guy, he really was "let's go have a glass of the best brandy from france." but none the less, he could convey this niceness estes kefauver could not. and in that convention one sees the importance of being somewhat accessible and personable. >> very quickly, i would say we saw the charming side of barry goldwater and i would say for all the differences, goldwater and humphrey are two illustrations of candidates who are more likable than the men who defeated them. >> all right. we have only seven or eight minutes left.

here is george wallace. >> i feel, and i must say i've climbed my last political mountain, but there are still some personal hills i must climb, but for now i must pass the rope and the pick to another climber and say climb on, climb on to higher heights, climb on to reach our peak and then look back and wave at me. i, too, will still be climbing. my fellow alabamians, i bid you a fond and affectionate farewell. [applause] >> karl cannon, your reaction? >> george wallace burst on to the scene of america not sitting in a wheelchair but standing and looked like a middleweight fighter,

segregation tomorrow, segregation forever. he runs as a candidate. he runs as a racist candidate, really and spoke in code but there was no mistaking it. and late in life after he's wounded by an assassins bullet he recants on race and he goes and is a sympathetic figure at the end of his life, and he is the last candidate -- it's the last time -- it's a signpost in america and the last time you can really run a racist campaign and get any traction at all and people aren't even tempted to do it after that. >> i read somewhere brenner who tried to kill him is a janitor today and out of prison. you know anything about that? >> i would say that clip is distorting because it testifies to a remarkable human story and also because of that fact conceals the historical significance of george wallace

which as far as "the contenders" are concerned would argue is not in his subsequent transformation, moving as that is, but in his politics and the campaigns he waged before that transformation, that's why he's on this list. >> i think some of these contenders, most of them probably, the majority, are harbingers of the future, in that they knock on the doorway with programs, public service commissions, etc., etc., but others are statements of a real turning point in american life. and surely george wallace is that. i'm wondering whether he's using that quotation from martin luther king on purpose. it was something about climbing up. is he doing that on purpose or not?

it's really a quotation from king's famous speech, isn't it? >> i tell you what, jean baker, i think you're going to get the last word and leave it as a question. and we'll thank you for doing this with us from -- she teaches history at goucher college, richard norton smith is a long time author of the rockefeller book. >> work in progress. >> going to be out when? >> 2013. >> and karl cannon and you're writing a book -- >> in 2012, the election begins, the battle begins. >> i can't wait. >> thank you all for spending this time with us both before and after the series and richard, for your idea in the first place and our executive producer of this show. we're going to end it, this 90 minutes here, with a bunch of clips on the lighter and funnier moments of the series. thanks for watching. >> in one side note, he did not drink but did enjoy eating. >> oh, yes.

sometimes when he was on the campaign trail giving the speeches today, sometimes he ate as many as six meals a day and he was known -- he could devour three chickens at one sitting. >> the mansion of course had five children. its own zoo. this is true, he had a zoo. a zoo. >> was it there when al smith got there? >> no, he brought them all with him. a lot of things were given to him. he had bear, he had deer, he had elk. at one point someone gave him an alligator. >> why? >> smith always loved animals. when he was a kid, he used to collect dogs and down in the south street and the seaport and everything, people would come in -- sailors would come in and have these exotic animals and give him monkeys and goats and he'd take them home and put

them in his attic and then have them in his back yard. >> your brother is now a republican, correct? >> yes, he is, but i still love him very much. >> as adlai stevenson iii, if you have to go to a store or show your name somewhere, do people react? >> the old folks, some of the old folks, i was in a store the other day and saw this young woman at the counter looking at my credit card and she's looking at my name and i said, is that name familiar to you? and she said no, but it's cool. it has been a wonderful program. here's our lineup for this week. monday -- henry clay. tuesday -- james g. blaine. wednesday -- william jennings

bryant. thursday -- eugene debs. friday, charles evan hughes. saturday -- al smith & wendell willkie. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] they're designed to give the congressmen and women involved exposure. >> john feinstein on the intersection of sports and government. >> is a multi-multibillion- dollar business in this country and has a huge effect on the lives of country in terms of raising money, for universities,

for higher education. there are some new ways but it affects our lives. the studios are -- stadiums are built with taxpayer dollars. >> john feinstein's new book, " one on one." "q&a." on the c-span's >> president obama marked the end of the war with a visit to fort bragg, north carolina. they're leaving behind a stable nation. in october, the president officially announced the withdrawal all troops from iraq by year's end. michelle obama joined him on the trip and introduces him. this is about one hour. [applause]

>> hello, everyone! i get to start you off. i want to thank him for his leadership here at fort bragg. i cannot tell you what a pleasure and an honor it is to be back here. i have some many wonderful memories of this place. a couple of years ago, i came here on my very first official trip as first lady. and i visited again to help put the finishing touches on an amazing new home for a veteran and her family. so when i heard that i had the opportunity to come back and be a part of welcoming you all home, to say i was excited is an

understatement. and i have to tell you, when i looked out at this crowd, i am simply overwhelmed. i am overwhelmed and a crowd-- and proud because final level of strength and commitment that you all display every single day. whenever this country calls, you all are the ones to answer, no matter the symptoms dance -- no matter the circumstance, no matter the danger, no matter the sacrifice. and i know you do this not to just as soldiers, not just as patriots, but as fathers and mothers, as brothers and sisters, as sons and daughters. i know that while your children and your spouses and your parents and siblings may not

wear uniforms, they serve, right alongside you. [applause] i know that your sacrifice is their sacrifice, too. so when i think of all that you do and all that your families do, i am so proud and so grateful. but more importantly, i am inspired. but like so many americans, i never feel like taken fully conveyed -- like i can convey how grateful i am because words cannot be enough. that is why i have been working so hard, along with joe biden, on a campaign that we call joining forces. it is a campaign that we hope

goes beyond words. it is a campaign that is about action. it is about rallying all americans to give you the honor, the appreciation, and the support that you have all earned. i do not have to tell you that this has been a difficult campaign. americans have been lining up to show their appreciation for you and your families. businesses are hiring tens of thousands of veterans and military spouses. schools all across the country and pta's are reaching out to our military children. and individuals are serving their neighbors and their communities all over this country in your honor. so i want you to know that this nation supports -- this nation's support does not end this morning. not by a long shot. we will keep doing this. we have so much more work to do.

we will keep finding new ways to serve all of you as well as you have served us. and the men leading the way -- and the man leading the way is standing right here. [applause] he is fighting for you and your families every single day. he has helped more than a million military family members go to college using the g.i. bill. [applause] he is fighting for your and your families every day. he has helped millitary family members go to college using the post-9/11 g.i. bill. he has cut taxes for businesses that hire a veteran or wounded warrior. and he has kept his promise to responsibly bring you home from iraq. so please join me in welcoming

one of your strongest advocates, not only in words, but indeed, my husband, my president, our present, and your commander in chief -- barack obama. [applause] >> hello, everybody! [applause] hello, fort bragg! all the way. now, i am sure you realize why i do not like following michelle obama. she is pretty good. and it is true i am a little biased, but let me just say it. michelle, you are a remarkable first lady. you are a great advocate for military families. and you're cute.

[laughter] [applause] i am just saying. know, gentlemen, that is your goal -- to marry up. punch above your weight. fort bragg, we are here to mark an historic moment in the life of our country and our military. for nearly nine years, our nation has been at war in iraq. and you, the incredible men and women of fort bragg, have been there every step of the way, serving with honor, sacrificing greatly, from the first waves of the invasion to some of the last troops to come home. as your commander in chief and

on behalf of a grateful nation, i am proud to finally say these two words -- and i know your families agree -- welcome home. welcome home. [applause] welcome home! [applause] it is great to be here at fort bragg, home of the airborne and special operations forces. i want to thank general anderson and all your outstanding leaders, including general dave rodriguez, general john mulholland, and i want to give a shout out to your outstanding senior enlisted leaders, including command sergeant major roger howard, lebaron bond, perry bear, and give a big round of applause to

the ground forces band. [applause] we have a lot of folks in the house today. we have the 18th airborne corps of the sky dragon. we have the legendary all- american 82nd airborne division. [applause] we have america's quiet professionals, are special operations forces. [applause] from pope field, we have air force. [applause] and i do believe we have some navy and marine corps here, too. [laughter] [applause] [laughter] and although they are not here

with us today, we send our thoughts and prayers to general helmick, sergeant major rice, and all the folks from the 18th airborne and bragg who are bringing our troops back home from iraq. [applause] we honor everyone from 82nd airborne from bragg and those serving in afghanistan and those serving around the world. let me just say that one of the most humbling moments i have had as president is when i presented our nation's highest military decoration, the medal of honor, to the parents of one of those patriots from fort bragg who gave his life in afghanistan, staff sergeant roger miller. i want to salute danny

rodriguez, merriam mulholland, linda anderson, melissa helmut, michelle votel and all of the inspiring people here today. [applause] finally, i want to acknowledge your neighbors and friends who helped keep this outstanding operation going, all who helped to keep your army strong. that includes representatives mike mcintyre and dave price and bev perdue. i know that bev is so proud to have done so much for our military families. please give them a big round of applause. [applause]

today, i have come to speak to you about the end of the war in iraq. over the last few months, the final work of leading iraq has been done. dozens of bases with american names that housed thousands of american troops have been closed down or turn over to the iraqis. thousands of tons of equipment have been packed up and shipped out. tomorrow, the colors of united states forces iraq, the colors you fought under, will be formally cased in a ceremony in baghdad. and then they will begin their journey across the notion that home. -- across the ocean back home. over last three years, nearly 150,000 u.s. troops have left iraq. and over the next few days, a

small group of american soldiers will begin the final march out of that country. some of them are on their way back to fort bragg. as general helmick said, they know that the less technical marched out of iraq will be a symbol and they will be a part of history. as your commander in chief, i can tell you that it will indeed be part of history. those last american troops will move south on desert sands. then they will cross the border out of iraq with their heads held high. one of the most extraordinary chapters in the history of the american military will come to an end.

the's future will be in hands of its people. america's war in iraq will be over. we knew this day would come. we have known it for some time. still, there is something profound about the end of a war that has lasted so long. nine years ago, american troops were preparing to deploy to the persian gulf and the possibility that there would be sent to war. many of you were in grade school. i was a state senator. many of the leaders now governing iraq, including the prime minister, were living in exile. since then, our efforts in iraq have taken many twists and turns.

it was the source of great controversy here at home with patriots on both sides of the debate. but there was one constant. there was one constant -- your patriotism, your commitment to fulfill your mission, your abiding commitment to one another. that was constant. that did not change. that did not waver. it is harder to end the war than begin one. all of the fighting, the dying, the bleeding, the building, the training, and the partnering, all of that has led to this moment of success. iraq is not a perfect place. it has many challenges ahead. but we are leaving behind a

sovereign, stable, and reliable iraq with a representative government that was elected by its people. we are building a new partnership between our nations. and we are ending the war not with a final battle, but with a final march toward home. this is an extraordinary achievement. nearly nine years in the making. today, we remember everything you did to make it possible. we remember the early days, the american units that streaked across the skies of iraq, the battles from karbala to baghdad, breaking the back of a brutal dictator within a month. we remember the grind of the insurgencies, the roadside bombs, the suicide attempts,

from the triangle of death to the fight for rumadi. your will proved stronger than the terrorist who tried to break us. we remember the specter of sectarian violence, al qaeda's attacks on mosques and pilgrims, militias that carried out campaigns of intimidation and campaigns of assassination. we remember the surge and we remember the awakening, when the abyss of chaos turned toward the promise of reconciliation. and by battling and building block-by-block in baghdad, by

bringing drugs into the fold and partner in with the iraqi army and police, you helped turn the tide toward peace. and we remember the end of our combat mission and the emergence of a new dawn, the precision of our efforts against al qaeda in iraq, the professional training of the security iraqi forces. in handing over responsibility to the iraqis, you preserve the gains of the last four years and made this day possible. just last month, some of you, members of the falcon brigade -- [cheers] you turned over the anbar operations over to the iraqis. it was a ceremony that has become commonplace.

in an area that once was the heart of the insurgency, a combination of fighting and trading, politics and partnership, the brought the promise of peace. this is all because of the u.s. forces' work and sacrifice. those are the words of an iraqi. hard work and sacrifice. those words only begin to describe the cost of this war and the courage of the men and women who fought it. we know too well the heavy cost of this war. more than 1.5 million americans have served in iraq. 1.5 million.

over 30,000 americans have been wounded. and those are only the ones that show. nearly 4500 americans made the ultimate sacrifice, including two hundred two fallen heroes from here at fort bragg -- 202 fallen heroes from here at fort bragg. 202. so to the families who have lost their loved ones, we grieve with them as part of our larger american family. we grieve with them. we also know that these numbers do not tell the full story of the iraq war. not even close. our civilians have represented our country with skill and bravery. our troops have served tour after a tour with precious little time in between.

our guard and reserve units stepped up with unprecedented service. you have endured dangers foot patrols -- dangerous foot patrols and you have seen the pain of seeing friends and comrades fall. you have had to be more than soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and coastguardsman. you have also had to be diplomats, development workers, and peacemakers. through all of this, you have shown why the united states military is the finest fighting force in the history of the world. [cheers and applause] as michelle mentioned, we also know that the burden of war is also borne by your families.

in countless bays communities like fort bragg, folks have come together in the absence of a loved one. as the mayor of fayette will put it, or is not a political word here. -- war is not a political word here. war is where our friends and neighbors go. so there have been missed birthday parties and graduations. there are bills to pay and jobs that had to be doubled while picking up the kids. for every soldier that goes on patrol, there are the husbands and wives, the mothers and fathers, the sons and daughters praying that the comeback. so today, as we mark the end of the war, let us acknowledge, let us give a heartfelt round of applause for every military family that has carried that load over the last nine years. you too have the thanks of a grateful nation.

[applause] [applause] part of ending a war responsibly is standing by those who fought it. it is not enough to honor you with words. words are cheap. we must do it with deeds. you stood up for america. america needs to stand up for you. that is why, as your commander in chief, i am committed to make sure that you get the care and the benefits and the opportunity that you have

earned. for those of you who remain in uniform, we will make sure to maintain the health of our force. we will keep faith with you. we will help our wounded warriors to heal. and we will stand by those who suffered the unseen wounds of war. and make no mistake. as we go forth as a nation, we will keep america's armed forces the strongest fighting force the world has ever seen. that will not stop. [applause] that will not stop. [applause] but our commitment does not end when you take off the uniform. you are the finest our nation has to offer.

after years of rebuilding iraq, we want to enlist our veterans in the work of rebuilding america. that is why we are committed to doing everything we can to extend more opportunities to those who have served. that includes the post-9/11 gi bill, so you and your family can get to the education that allows you to live out your dreams. that includes a national effort to put our veterans to work. we have worked with congress to pass a tax credits so that companies have the incentive to hire bets. michelle has worked with the private sector to get commitments to create 100,000 jobs for those who served. and, by the way, we're doing this not just because it is the right thing to do by you. we are doing it because it is the right thing to do for america. folks like my grandfather came

back from world war ii to form the backbone of this country's middle-class. for our post-9/11 veterans come up with your skill, dedication, leadership, i am confident that the story of your service to america is just beginning. but there is something else that we owe you. as americans, we have a responsibility to learn from your service. i am thinking of an example. lt. shell who was based here at fort bragg. a few years ago, on a supply route outside of baghdad, he and his team were engulfed by flames from an rpg attack. covered with gasoline, he ran into the fire to help his fellow soldiers and then led

them to miles back to camp victory where he finally collapsed covered with burns. when they told him he was a hero, he disagreed. i am not a hero, he said. a hero is a sandwich. [laughter] i am a paratrooper. we can do well to learn from alvin. this country needs to learn from you. folks in washington need to learn from you. [applause] policymakers and historians will continue to analyze the strategic lessons of iraq. that is important to do. our commanders will incorporate the hard-what lessons in future military campaigns. that is important to do.

but the most important lesson we can take from you is not about military strategies. it is a lesson about our national character. for all of the challenges that our nation faces, you remind us that there is nothing we americans cannot do when we stick together. for all of the disagreements that we face, you remind us there is something bigger than our differences, something that makes as one nation and one people, regardless of color, regardless of creed. regardless of what part of the country we come from, regardless of what the background we come out of bed, you remind us that we are one nation.

that is why the u.s. military is the finest institution in our land. you cannot afford to forget that. if you forget that somebody dies, if you four get that the mission fails -- you do not -- if you forget that, the mission fails. so you do not forget it. you have each other's backs. that is why you, the 9/11 generation, have earned your place. because of you, because you sacrificed so much for a people that you had never met, iraqis have the chance to forge their own destiny. that is part of what makes us special as americans. unlike the old empires, we do not make these sacrifices for territory or for resources.

we do it because it is right. there can be no fuller expression of america's support for self-determination than our leaving iraq to its people. that says something about who we are. because of you, in afghanistan, we have broken the momentum of the taliban. because of you, we have become the transition to the afghans that will allow us to bring home our troops from there and around the globe as we drawdown in iraq. we have gone after al qaeda so that terrorists who threaten america will have no safe haven and osama bin laden will never again walk the face of this earth. [cheers and applause]

so here is what i want you to know and here is what i want all our men and women in uniform to know -- because of you, we're ending these wars in a way that will make america strong and the world more secure. because of you. that success was never guaranteed. let us remember the source of american leadership, our commitment to values written in our founding document and a unique willingness among nations to pay a great price for the progress of human freedom and dignity. this is who we are. it is what we do. as americans. together.

the war in iraq will soon belong to history. your service belongs to the ages. never forget that you are part of an unbroken line appears spanning two centuries, -- an unbroken line of heroes spanning two centuries. men and women who fought for the same principals in fallujah and kandahar and delivered justice on 9/11. looking back on the war that saved our union, a great american, oliver wendell holmes once paid tribute to those who served. in our youth, he said, our hearts were touched with fire. it was given to us to learn and to the outset that life is a

profound and passionate thing. all of you here today have lived through the fires of war. you will be remembered for it. you will be honored for it. always. you have done something profound with your lives. when this nation went to war, you signed up to serve. when times were tough, you kept fighting. when there was no end in sight, you found light in the darkness. years from now, your legacy will endure in the names of your fallen comrades etched on the headstones at arlington and memorials across our country. as you whisper words of admiration when you march in

parades and in the freedom of our children and our grandchildren. and in the quiet tonight, you will recall that your heart was once touched by fire. you will know that you answered when your country called. you served a cause greater than yourselves. you helped forge the safety of iraq. i cannot be prouder of you. america cannot be properly. god bless you all and god bless the united states of america. [applause] ♪

["stars and stripes forever"] ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ["stars and stripes forever"] ♪

♪ ♪

♪

♪

♪ ["god bless america"] ♪

♪ ["this land is my land"] ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪

[applause] ♪ ♪ >> on wednesday, senator john mccain spoke about the troop

withdrawal from iraq. he was on the senate floor and his comments are about 15 minutes. >> today, the president traveled -- the president of the united states travel to fort bragg, n.c., to mark the end of the war in iraq and pay tribute to the more than 1.5 million men, weomen who have bought and served there. they deserve all the praise and recognition that they receive. they gave up their comfort and safety. they give that up for lucrative jobs. they have given parts of their jobs -- bodies. the have given up the quiet little sacrifices that often go on mentioned, but often hurt the most. spent alone, birth of a child mist, first steps not

seen, the first words not heard. they have given all of that and in all ways they are prepared to give more. the deserve to be honored by us all. i know the president's words of praise and appreciation for our troops today were sincere and heartfelt. i have every reason tothat he wr to keep his promises to take care of our troops and our families here at home. and to never forget how those noble americans have done far more than their fair share for the betterment of our nation. the president is a patriot and a good american. i know that his heart swells with the same pride that we all feel in the presence of our men and women in uniform. feelings of wonderment and

these are humbling feelings the unite all americans, whether you supported the war in iraq or not. our men and women in uniform have been able to come home from iraq by the tens of thousands over the past three years and not just come home but come home with honor, having succeeded in their mission, for the simple reason that the surge worked. all of this is possible because in 2007, with the war nearly lo we changed our strategy, changed our leaders in the field and sent more troops. this policy was vehemently opposed at the time by then-senator obama and now the president of the united states and his senior leaders right here on the floor of this senate. on january 10, 2007, the day the

surge strategy was announced, then-senator obama said -- quote -- "i am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. in fact, i think it will do the reverse." on november 15, 2007, when it was clear to general david patent system trapetraeusand amd many of us that the surge was working, then-senator oh bammer said -- and i quote -- "the overall strategy has failed because we have not seen any change in behavior among iraq's political leaders." finally, on january 28, 2008, when it was undeniable the surge was succeeding, he had this to say. "president bush said that the surge in iraq is working and we

know that's just not true." at the time, the president's preferred alternative was to begin an immediate withdrawal and have all u.s. troops out of iraq by the end of 2009. i'll let future historians be the judge of that proposed policy. all i will say is that for three years, the president has been harvesting the successes of the very strategy that he consistently dismissed as a failure. i imagine this irony was not lost on a few of our troops at fort bragg today, most of whom deployed and fought as part of the surge. the fact is, the president has consistently called for a complete withdrawal of all u.s. troops from iraq at the earliest possible date and he has never deviated from this position as president. indeed, he has always reaffirmed

his campaign promise to end the war in iraq and withdrawal all of our troops. so perhaps it should not have come as a surprise when the president announced in october that he was ending negotiations with the iraqi government over whether to maintain a small number of u.s. troops in iraq beyond this year to continue assisting iraq's security forces. i continue to believe that this decision represents a failure of leadership, both iraqi and american, that it was a sad case of political expediency triumphing military necessity, both in baghdad and in washington. and that it will have serious, serious negative consequences for iraq's stability and our national security interests. i sincerely hope that i am wrong but i fear that general jack keen, who was one of the main

architects of the surge, could be correct again when he said recently -- and i quote -- "we won the war in iraq and we're now losing the peace." let me be clear. like all americans, i, too, am eager to bring our troops home. i do not want them to remain in iraq or anywhere else for a day longer than necessary. but i also agree with our military commanders in iraq, who are nearly unanimous in their belief that some u.s. forces, approximately 20,000, should remain for a period of time to help the iraqis secure the hard-earned gains that we had made together. all of our top commanders in iraq -- by the way, chosen by the president of the united states -- all of our top commanders in iraq, general petraeus, general odierno, general austin, all of them believed that we needed to maintain a presence of u.s.

troops there and they consistently made clear to many of us during our repeated visits to iraq. on february 3, the commander of u.s. forces in iraq, general lloyd austin, and u.s. ambassador to iraq, jim jeffrey, testified to the coarmed services -- committee on armed services that for all the progress the iraqi security forces had made in recent years -- and it's been substantial -- they still have critical gaps in their capabilities that will endure beyond this year. those shortcomings including enabling functions for counterterrorism operations, the control of iraq's airspace and other external security missions, intelligence collection and fusion, and training and sustainment of the force. our commanders wanted u.s. troops to remain in iraq beyond this year to continue assisting iraqi forces in filling these gaps in their capabilities. indeed, iraqi commanders believe

the exact same thing. in august, the chief of staff of iraq's armed forces could not have been any clearer. he said -- i quote -- "the problem will start after 2011," he said. "the politicians must find other ways to fill the void after 20 2011. if i were asked about the withdrawal," he stated, "i would say to politicians, the u.s. army must stay until the iraqi army is fully ready in 2020." during repeated travels to iraq with my colleagues, i have met with all of the leaders of iraq's major political blocks and they, too, said they would support keeping a presence of u.s. troops in iraq. so let's be clear. this is not what our commanders recommended. it is what iraqi commanders recommended and it is what all of iraq's key political leaders said privately that they were

prepared to support. so what happened? what happened? advocates of withdrawal are quick to point out that the current security arrangement which requires all u.s. troops to be out of iraq by the end of this year was concluded by the bush administration and that is true. but it's also beside the point. the authors of that agreement always intended for it to be renegotiated at a later date to allow some u.s. forces to remain in iraq. as former secretary of state condoleezza rice, whose state department team negotiated the security agreement, has said -- quote -- "there was an expectation that we would negotiate something that looked like a residual force for our training with the iraqis." she stated, "everybody believed it would be better if there was some kind of residual force." so if that's not the region --

if that's not the reason, i ask again, what happened? the prevailing narrative is that the u.s. and iraqi leaders could not reach agreement over the legal protections needed to keep our troops in iraq. to be sure, this was a matter of vital importance. but while this may have been a reason for our failure, the privileges and immunities issues is less a cause than a symptom of the larger reason why we could not reach agreement with the iraqis. because of his political promise to fully withdraw from iraq, the president never brought the full weight of his office to bear in shaping the politics and the events on the ground in iraq so as to secure a residual presence of u.s. troops. this left our commanders and our negotiators in baghdad mostly trying to respond to events in iraq, trying to shape events

without the full influence of the american president behind them. last may i traveled to iraq with the senator from south carolina, senators graham. we met with all of the major iraqi leaders and all of them were ready to come to an agreement on a future presence of u.s. troops in iraq. but as prime minister malaki explained to us, the administration at that time and for the foreseeable future had not given the iraqi government the number of troops and missions it would propose to keep in iraq. for weeks after, the administration failed to make a proposal to the iraqis, and when the iraqis finally united together in august and publicly asked the administration to begin associations, the response from washington was again characterized by delay. this ensured that a serious negotiation could not begin much less succeed.

i novak is a sovereign country. i know it has an elected government that must answer to public opinion. and i know there could be no agreement over a future u.s. military presence in iraq if iraqis did not agree to it and build support for it. so this is as much a failure of iraqi leadership as it is of american leadership, but to blame this on the iraqis does not excuse the fact that we had an enormous amount of influence with iraq's leaders and we did not exercise it to the fullest extent possible to achieve an outcome that was in our national security interest. in fact, in the view of many, they deliberately refused to come up with a number. they deliberately refused to engage in serious negotiation with the iraqis, with the ultimate purpose of fulfilling the president's campaign pledge that he would get all troops, united states troops out of

iraq. that's not a violation of sovereignty. that's diplomacy. that's leadership. leaders must shape events and public opinion, not just respond to them. starting in early 2009, with their desire to accelerate their withdrawal from iraq faster than our commanders to our hands-off approach of government formation last year to their record of delay in passivity on the question of maintaining a presence of u.s. troops beyond this year, this administration has consistently failed at the highest level to lead on iraq. i say again, perhaps this outcome should not have been a surprise. it's what the president has consistently promised to do, and that decision makes good political sense for this president. such decisions should not be

determined by domestic politics. the brave americans who fought so valiantly and given so much did so not for political reasons but for the safety and security of their fellow citizens, for their friends, for their families, for their children's futures and for us. this is a decisive moment in the history of america's relationship with iraq and with all of the countries of the broader middle east. this is a moment when the substantial influence that we have long enjoyed in that part of the world could be receding, in fact, is receding. we cannot allow that to be our nation's future. we must continue to lead. we must not let short-term political gains dictate our longer term goals. we need to continue to shape a freer, more just and more secure future both for iraq and for the peoples across the middle east, because it is in our own national security interests to do so.

over 4,000 brave young americans gave their lives in this conflict. i hope and i pray that these decisions made in large reason, in large part for political reasons. i pray that their sacrifice is not in vain. i hope that their families will not mourn the day that their sons and daughters went out to fight for freedom for the iraqi people. unfortunately, unfortunately, it is clear that this decision of a complete pullout of united states troops from iraq was dictated by politics and not our national security interests. i believe that history will judge this president's leadership with scorn and disdain -- with the scorn and disdain that it deserves.

>> and john boehner says that he opposes the two month payroll cap -- tax cut extension bill approved by the senate yesterday. mr. boehner says that he wants the new version of the bill that will last an entire year. >> it is clear that our members oppose of the senate bill. the president said we should not go on vacation until we get our work done. frankly, house republicans agree. we passed a one-year extension of the payroll tax credit with a written reforms and making sure that doctors that treat medicare patients are not going to see their reimbursements cut.

we have a reasonable, responsible bill that we sent to the senate. if you talk to employers, they talk about uncertainty. how can you do tax policy for two months? we really do believe that it is time for the senate to work with the house to complete our business for the year. let's do this the right way. >> you are suggesting to start over and make this a one-year extension. >> i am suggesting this. the house has passed its bill. now the senate has passed its bill. under the constitution, we have these disagreements. there could be a formal conference between house and senate. our members really believe that we should do our work. the president said we should not go on vacation without getting our work done. let's get our work done. the house and the senate in a

bipartisan, by camera away, funded the department through december 30. what would be a regular order here is a formal conference between house and senate. >> of votes on the payroll tax extension are possible as early as tomorrow. >> sometimes i think it would be best for government just to stay out of sports completely. often when congress gets involved, the hearings are basically television shows designed to give the congressmen and women involved exposure. >> john feinstein, author and sports commentator, on the intersection between sports and government. >> the flip side is that sports is a multibillion-dollar business in this country and it has a huge effect on the lives of people.

there are so many different ways that sports affect our lives. there are also times when i think that the federal government should be more involved. >> john feinstein's new book is called "one on one." you can see the rest of his energy tonight, on "q&a." >> on saturday, "the demo and register," announced that he would -- the des moines register," announced that they would support mitt romney." they interviewed him earlier this month. this runs a little over one hour.

host: [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [laughter] >> i have weighed about the same since high school. it is perception. that is a good thing. i hope it is reality. maybe the weight is just gravitating towards the earth. [laughter] i am still doing my best to keep the weight off. thank you. >> you have done a little bit of running a round, these past five years? >> i did get a chance to write a

book. something i had wanted to do. you become frustrated that the positions that you have are not fully frost out. one minute answers, i got a chance to write a book. by the way, i hired a ghostwriter. i took a look at what he wrote and said that it would never work. writing it myself turned out to be a great experience. other members of the team here. let's shake hands on the way out. hello, tony, how are you? >> you might want to introduce -- is that david? >> you know david. next to him, andrea. on the road with me this

weekend. >> good. welcome to iowa. >> it is not bad. when it is sunny and clear like this, with no precipitation, it is kind of a nice day. >> it is a pretty nice weekend by iowa standard in december. my name is ricky green, editor of the paper here in iowa. we welcome you to our editorial board meeting today, with former governor, mitt romney, who is seeking nomination in the 2012 election. you have met our editorial board. for the next 45 minutes or so we would like to give you time to talk about what you're seeing on the campaign, issues the are important to you, and frame why your seeking the nomination. >> i thought that, having lost last time, i would not be running again.

i wrote a book early on in the president's term, describing what i thought the country needed to do. in the ensuing months, it was my wife who said i would have to do it again. she continued, relentlessly, because the president, she said, does not get america, the understand what it takes to make our economic engine the kind that will put people back to work and provide for our future, children, and grandchildren. she and i both believe that, having spent my life in the private spend -- private sector, taking it into government, it gave me the kind of leadership experience that the country needs. i think that the issue or the choice that americans face is whether, as a nation, we will continue what the president called a fundamental

transformation of america. or if we will see that europe is not working in europe, time to restore the principles that made us the economic powerhouse of the world. making america more like america, with a merit based society where individuals, through education, hard work, and risk-taking are able to build a better future for themselves and at the same time lift up the entire nation. i see this as a clear choice for the american people. do we transform america, or turnaround america? i spend my life in turnaround's. political, a volunteer. and business, or private sector. i have had the chance to run two different businesses. the kind of experience is what america needs at a time when we are headed in a very unfortunate

direction. which is tending to weaken us. the president's direction has slowed down the recovery, in my view. he has not put forward a plan to reinvigorate our economy. at the same time, not only has it hurt us on a near-term basis, i believe this program has made it difficult for america to remain the economic leader of the world over the coming century. the consequences of america falling behind economically, in a global race, is that the defense of freedom itself could be in jeopardy. i am concerned, both short-term and long-term, because i do not think the president understands how this country works. at the individual level, the private sector level, or the governmental sector. i do not think he has the experience or the leadership capacity to lead in a time of

difficulty. he continues to complain about government? look, that is -- he continues to complain about congress? look, that this government? -- that is government. they have been there for a long time. they need a new leader. >> the good news this week is that you made the cover of "time," magazine. >> you know what the numbers look like in iowa. why do you seem to be stuck in this number? why have others been able to soar above you? >> so far as i can tell, over the last year or so, i have been towards the top of the polls for most of the last year, which i consider to be pretty good news. in the last poll i was number

two, yes, and no. 1 or no. 2 -- was i no. 3? by two points? oh, well. i have watched surges of various people over time. my experience with those is that people take a look at someone, project on them a sense that they are exactly conforming to their own views, and as they get deeper and watch that person more carefully, they realize that there are elements that they do not agree with. background issues that are not consistent with my own views. people come down. my guess is that over time, speaker gingrich will follow a projection that is only unique to him and by the time that we finish this, i will get the nomination. i am pretty pleased with the fact that i have been either at or near the top of the polls at

most states for a long period of time. that is a good thing. there are a lot of competitors. it has been a long time since i could recall a race where someone got 50% or 60% and held on to that. last time around, let's see, we had john mccain, myself, fred thompson, rudy giuliani, mike huckabee. we were all bouncing around between 10% and 20%. i consider high teens and low 20s to be pretty good news. in the final analysis, i have to get 35% of the delegates in the first few, then 45%, then 50, which gets me the nomination. >> you have not spent as much time in this state as the and the candidates. why is that? >> we track the number of days for all the candidates. there are some, like rick

santorum, who focus entirely on iowa. they will spend a lot of time here. newt gingrich and he are the ones that have had more days the have here. i am also campaigning in new hampshire, south carolina, florida, and nevada. i want to do well in the early primary states, but i also want to get the delegates to win the nomination. this is not try to surprise people by doing better than expected in a few states, i want to do well in all the states. this is about getting the nomination. for me, that meant -- that means spending time in various states. we have spent a lot of time raising money. whether or not that is a wise strategy, i do not know. that way, i can go out and get my message to the people in south carolina, freeing up a lot

more time. going around the state, making sure that we have the resources. not just to do well once or twice, but to go through the process of the nomination. >> it is not the issue feel there are social conservatives that dominate the party better pushing the question? >> i realize that i have an uphill climb to get the no. 1 spot in iowa. i would like to get that spot. but, if i do not, i will be happy if i do well. i would like to do well here. again, i am a delegate. in a lot of the early states, they will award delegates on a proportional basis. i want to get my fair share of that portion from the beginning, taking larger shares as time goes on. >> is it different from four years ago? is it changed, forever? >> it really is. >> the way we view this process,

in this country? >> it seems to change every cycle. i couldn't tell you what the next will be like. it will likely be different from this. for me, this cycle, i have folks that had supported me before that were inclined to do it again. last time, i had no one. i had to spend a lot of time getting to meet people again and again, signing them up to be a part of my team, hoping that they would be with me. this time, i started with a bit of a base that i did not have less time. it has allowed me to spend some time in other states as well. rekindling mild support, generating support from folks that do not know who i am. i do also think that one of the things that changed in this cycle is the importance of

debates. the audience for the debate is much larger than last time around. i do not know why. last time, with three giuliani, fred thompson the movie star -- [laughter] tv personality. tv star. he was famous. these guys, john mccain, a famous. i was 1%, 2% in the poll last time. i had to allow with shoe leather and get known. -- go out with shoe leather and yet known. hopefully, i can get support here and down the road. >> when we think about personality, we think about donald trump. tell us why you decided not to participate in that debate. >> well, in the month of september, i had requests for

six, eight debates. we all met and compared schedules. we could do two to keep up with fund-raising and campaigning. we picked two debates. well after we announced those, of posts -- the folks from the trump debate came and said that we would like to host one as well, and we said that we have already sell our calendar. we respect news max, donald trump, and his conservative organization, with nothing against the debates proposed, but that we can only do so many. i joked that people would call in to returned to regularly scheduled programming. someone said the other night that we have had 14 to bite -- debates and forums. i think we have already had more than we had last time for the whole process.

so, there comes a point where people feel like they have seen it enough. there's also the concern that if you had that many debates, the questions begin to become more and more arcane. they are not the questions at the front and center people's minds, which may not have helped the process. two in december made sense. yours being one of them. then, in january, maybe a few, again. maybe three. time will tell. >> [unintelligible] >> some of the candidates for the republican nomination, there being portrayed as a wrecking ball coming into washington, d.c., destroying congress, the courts, and the presidency.

what is your take on that approach? what is your philosophy of governing at the federal level? up >> heated rhetoric generates a lot of support. but we have got to fix the country. there is no question, but there are needs for reorganization in much of what government does. i will eliminate programs and combine agencies. when i was the governor of my state, i brought them down into three groupings, but i did not eliminate everything that they did. i simply streamlined the way that they worked together. congress has been a difficult body to get to act on key measures. in my view, that is because of lack of leadership from the white house. we have had the same structure in government for a long, long

time. right now we are in a crisis setting, economically. with the right leadership, i think we can make it work. do we need to change washington and the nature of the discourse? absolutely. i think that flows from the white house. this president, despite the rhetoric, has really been missing in action. he is almost like a by standard president. stimulus came along in his first weeks in office. that was apparently delegated to nancy pelosi and harry reid. the obama care health care plan was ultimately something that was devised and worked out without as much direction from him as was expected. three years in, we know that the president has said that medicare and social security are both fiscally unsustainable. three years in, he has made no

proposals to make them sustainable. i find it to be a very unusual presidency, with a white house that has not reached across the aisle, worked with republican leaders, battled it out in private, refrained from attack, and thereby been able to lead. >> what would you do differently? >> i will tell you, specifically. i remember the beginning, with the stimulus he said that he wanted republican input. eric cantor called me at my mother's to come testify before a group of republicans in congress, to lay out our views about what we should do. meg whitman was also there. we testified together. the day that we were there, nancy pelosi introduced the

democratic plan. it was clear that they had no interest whatsoever. obama care came along. in every way possible, they said -- the american people said they did not want obama care. they elected scott brown, for gosh sakes. they wanted no input from republicans. they have bipartisan plans that were just pushed aside. from what i could tell, this white house has led harry pelosi -- harry reid and nancy pelosi run the show. was the governor in a state where my legislature was 85% democrat. i figured out that i would get nothing done if i attacked them on a personal basis. the speaker of the house has

suez -- has to have respect for me, and i have to have respect for them. we established the practice of meeting every monday. we rotated offices. we fed each other. we got to know each other. we talked about the challenges going on around the state, none of it ever beat, all of it off the record. on one occasion one of the leaders said to me -- look, this bill that we're pushing is not one that i am crazy about, but you have got to give me more cover so that i can stop it. we had that kind of open discourse. i never attacked them. we talked about differences in issues, but there was no attack. the result was that we have enough respect for each other that we did a lot of things that were quite successful.

the balance the budget every year, for four years. we built a rainy day fund by the time that i left. we held the line on education. some people said not to implement this requirement that you cannot graduate from high school of was to pass the graduation exam for. i said the would hold firm to that. they stood by me on that. issue after issue, we were able to work together. >> you think you could have the same kind of influence in the house? and in the senate? >> they are pretty independent. >> people are very independent. as i can assure you, the leaders in the massachusetts state senate are quite independent. there were places where we disagreed and i was unsuccessful. but i worked at it hard enough

on a personal basis that we were able to make progress on very important measures. this was done against long odds. our education system is now 1 in mint -- no. 1 in the nation. republicans and democrats, working the other. i cannot guarantee that everything i want to do in washington will get done. i will focus on getting that job done rather than getting reelected or pursuing a partisan agenda. i have run for office and lost. i have run and one to make better. i am in this race to fix the country and get on track again.

i am concerned that if we stay on this track, we will be italy or greece. in five years to six years, we will face the same problems that they have right now. the consequences of america in distress are virtually impossible to calculate, because no one could bail us out. i am concerned about the trauma that so many families feel today, who are out of work. i am concerned about the catastrophe that would exist if we fell into the italy, europe, ireland distress. i am concerned about protection of freedom long-term. >> talk about programs the would specifically eliminate and how else you would reduce the federal deficit. >> there are two parts of the federal government that i think we have to address.

number one is the income statement, the other is the balance sheet. the annual budget is when we have to cut annual spending, in my view. there are three parts of that. the first is to eliminate programs. the easiest to get rid of is the ones that we do not like. obama care, that will save us much by the fourth year of the next term. amtrak, the endowment for the arts, public broadcasting. there is a long list of programs that some people like. even i like some of them. but the test is -- is is so critical that it is worth borrowing money from china to pay for? right now we are funding most of these things by borrowing money from people that will demand interest and pay back at some point.

i will eliminate a lot of programs. the -- even the ones that i like. no. 2, there are programs that we need to keep in place that can be run far more efficiently as we return to the states. one of those is medicaid, for instance, the program for the poor. taking last year's no., inflating it, saying to iowa that there's a mandate and you cover it. you structure that and give the state time to organize programs of that nature. just out of medicaid, making that change, growing it out of state direction saves $100 billion per year. there are 47 different work force training programs that have been put in place in the federal government.

the gao did an evaluation of those programs. they did not find any of them to be effective. i would take all of that money, bundle it, send it back to the states and say that you craft year-round programs to train your own work force for the jobs that exist in your state, as opposed to having the federal government telling you how to run those programs. looking for candidates that would also be returned to the states. housing vouchers, food stamps, other programs where we could return these to the states. it is different from iowa, massachusetts, or mississippi. >> how are you going to ensure millions of americans? >> i have a model for how we did

it in my state, let them craft their own programs. by returning medicaid dollars, iowa will then have the resources to care for its own uninsured. the iowa solution will look different from massachusetts. we will learn from each other and the laboratories of democracy will provide the models to help people become insured. i would replace, obama care, for instance, at the federal level. i would allow individuals to purchase health insurance on their own with the same tax advantaged basis that occurs for corporations. we would discourage against individuals that would purchase their own. that is, by the way, tax

advantage. a deduction for the company to be able to purchase it for you. if you are running out of it -- running your business out of your home, you have to pay with after-tax dollars. i want to change that. i know that people like you would say the would rather purchase your own insurance and have the register by for you. that is a change that you can make. i would like to make sure that we provide for the concerns of those who have pre-existing conditions. they should not to worry that if they change jobs or become ill, or are laid off or whatever -- you have to cover those things, i would insist, at the federal level. the other side is the balance sheet.

medicare and medicaid, social security and other entitlements. social security is relatively easy to make balanced. medicare is a tougher one. with regards to social security, for the next generation of would -- not the current generation, for them things stay the same -- before the next generation i would lower the growth rate of benefit for higher income social security recipients. for the middle income recipients, the growth rate associated with the wage index will stay the same period for higher income people, they will have lower growth rates. that balances social security. >> what about private accounts?

>> without regard, i do this. i eliminate, for anyone making $200,000 per year or less, i eliminate any tax on dividends or capital gains. i let people create the account that they want. there would be no tax on their savings. over to medicare, we have got a program for some time called medicare advantage. where people have a choice of traditional fee-for-service medicare or private insurance. that is a choice that they have that exists already. people have a choice between private plans. my plan takes that idea and says that we will provide that for the next generation and give people a premium subsidy,

purchasing of any product that they want. the private plan or the medicare fee-for-service plan. that takes advantage of the concept of medicare vantages that exists right now. by virtue of congress adopting a plan for those support payments over time at a controlled rate, we are able to make medicare cost effective without breaking the bank and making sure that it is sustained long-term. a simple question to which i am giving you a long answer. getting america's fiscal house in order is not a quick sound bite answer. it is several things to do to get our income statement in line. getting our long-term obligations in line. >> are there any cuts in military spending in the balance in your budget?

>> there are a number of areas in government itself. those exist in the military, as well as other agencies. those programs are defense programs that i think our insisted upon by various congress people that have their various projects in their home district. in some cases there are various weapons systems and i anticipate that money not going to paying down the budget deficit, but being used to update the navy, the air force, and bringing in off-duty personnel and providing veterans with the benefits that they deserve. i anticipate no net cuts to the defense department. i think we ought to keep approximately 4% in the near

term. federal spending as a percentage of gdp today is 25%. there is also wartime cost. i should clearly communicate that as our conflicts in afghanistan and iraq wind down, there will be savings there. >> the final date in afghanistan, the appropriate date to set as a target is 2014. the 2012 pulled down on the surge of troops has been accelerated by three months, for political purposes.

i think that is a mistake. the pullout should have been in december, as requested by commanders -- >> iraq? >> i was talking about afghanistan, there. i hope that i got that right. i think of the september date is a political date and it puts our troops in a withdrawal mode during the fighting season, which is dangerous. regarding iraq, we are following the bush timeline, with one exception. president bush and others anticipated that we would have an ongoing force their to help in the transition. the president's secretary of defense suggested that would be the case, but they were unable to negotiate a status. by the way, the money from those

things, which is quite substantial, as you know, that funding i did not keep in the military. >> what is the basis of your opposition to it? same-sex marriage? what would you do, if president? >> the ideal setting for raising a child is a male and female being involved. marriage is a relationship between a man and woman and i support that concept. the action that i take as president depends upon washington, the people there, and the options that exist. certainly, i would defend the defense of marriage act, which the current president has refused to defend. i believe it was well constructed and should be maintained. i would like to see a national amendment to finding marriage -- to defining marriage as a

relationship between a man and woman. but that was three or four years ago and is not likely to receive the necessary support in the near term. >> what about gays serving openly in the military? >> that is already occurring and i am not planning on reversing that at this stage. >> you are not planning on reversing it? >> by virtue of the complicated features of a new program in the middle of two wars, they are winding down and moving in that direction. >> let me ask you a quick question. was the difference between you and the former speaker of the house, newt gingrich. right now there is a situation where his numbers are surging. and >> what is it the look for

when you are choosing a president? you have to think about that every four years. one part the to look at is -- what are their ideas? that is an important part. there are some issues on which he and i disagree. that is one measure. the other -- tell me about a person's capacity to lead. have they been a leader before? what kind of job do they do? how did it do under their leadership? i grew up in a home with a father that was a leader. i grew up by watching him. i was asked to run a company that got into distress.

i made it into one of those successful of its kind in the world. salt lake city also became a success. in each of these cases, you do not do things by yourself. i came to massachusetts at a time of difficulty in the state and was able to turn around the state to make it more successful. looking at the candidates, how does he lead? what are the measures of success in that role? looking back, what made ronald reagan a great president? jfk? dwight eisenhower? one of my favorites. teddy roosevelt, john adams, lincoln and washington -- what made these people great president? it was not necessarily that they had the best answers on issues,

although they were pretty good at those things. but they were leaders. they confronted the challenges faced by america was the set -- sobriety, wisdom, and judgment. they had the capacity to lead. i believe that that is an area where you will be able to look at the various candidates and say -- who has been a leader and who will be the best leader in a time of challenge. i have also spent my life in the private sector. the speaker has spent his life in washington. there is nothing wrong with that, it is just different. i think that having spent time in the private sector and understanding how jobs come and go, why businesses grow and shrink, competing globally, that experience is essential at a time when the battles that we

are facing a round of world are not military as much as they are economic over the coming century. i hope that our military is so superior that no one thinks of testing it again. i understand how the economy works. and then, of course, there are the issues and policy decisions, with regards to medicare, i agree with "the wall street journal." i disagree with the speaker, saying that we should eliminate parts of child labor laws so that children can clean schools. i do not think that that is a great idea. the speaker had a measure to put a permanent colony on the moon to mine rare materials. i think we have some other priorities for our spending, before we do that. even talking about a series of mirrors in space that can light a highways at night.

we have differences on issues and ideas. i respect to the speaker as a bright and capable guy. but we are different people. my background and his, we followed very different paths. i happen to think that at a time like this, someone who has spent their career in a private- sector and in the government sector has, by far, the best chance of defeating the president and fixing the country. i said this at the outset, and i am really concerned. the president believes that there's something wrong with the way that this works. entitlement is the wrong way to go. we have to be a mirror of society. society.