next, "q&a," and then david cameron at the house of commons. after that, the c-span "wrote to the white house coverage -- "what wrote to the white house -- the "road to the white house" >> this week on "q & a", author michael hastings discusses his new book "the operators." >> no. michael hastings, why did you call the book "the operators?" >> that is what special forces call themselves.

it refers to a special forces. i also thought everyone involved in this conflict from diplomats to journalists to public relations people to aid workers all have a bit of an operator in them. it is from people in the white house to the embassy. >> if you total up all the time you spent in iraq and afghanistan, what are the numbers? >> a lot more time in iraq and afghanistan. at this time i did for trips to afghanistan. i think i spent four of the last six christmases there. it has been my life. >> you're how old? >> i am now 31. it has been a long decades. >> your college is what? >> nyu. i studied english. it's certified me to join the

workforce. while i started at "newsweek" as an unpaid intern working for being is international. >> you say in your book that there are 27,000 working pr people in the pentagon spending $4.7 billion a year. 27,000? where did you get that number? >> it includes a broader number, not just propaganda folks. it goes from software programs. the pentagon is making auditors are social media. there has been a recent example where the army is using a program that monitors how may times bradley manning is mentioned. it goes through the massive public relations apparatus that all branches of the military

have. i have often thought about this. there are more public relations people on a general staff in kabul then there are reporters. they need all the help they can get apparently. even with this message, they have not been able to put a positive spin on this. >> you say i hate this war. did you hate the iraq war? >> yes. >> did you hate the afghanistan war? >> i learned to hate war in general. it would be difficult going for a number of things to be gung- ho about any conflict. this adventurism has made me -- all war does in my experience is destroy what we love.

it destroys people. it destroys families. it destroys homes. it destroys memories. it is very dark. the flip side is that there is this grand excitement to be involved in it. that is the operators. they love the war in a sick and twisted way. i was talking to a state department official. he was recalling his time in baghdad. in 2006, he said it was a magical. there are all sorts of conflicting feelings. the states are the highest it will ever be. it is life and death. you feel like you're at the center of history. that is an intoxicating feeling. hence the cover of the book where we have an illustrated picture of a general with a pistol in one hand and a scotch glass in another. that is intoxication. >> did you have a problem with your first publisher? >> they had a problem with me

is probably more accurate of the way to put it. i said i was going to write a book that would push the envelope. it was controversial. that said it would be great. i delivered the book and they lost their nerve. fortunately, i am now with my amazing editor david rosenthal and made the book much better in my opinion. >> that is penguin? >> yes. >> which is big. >> they were excited about it. for this book you needed a publisher would be 100% behind you.

if you do that, you need the support of people who believe you. i did that have that the previous publisher. >> who was that? >> little brown. it was disappointing to see this gutlessness from them. it worked out better for me. david rosenthal is the one you want editing this book. >> what makes them so special? >> he has worked with everybody. he worked with some of my idols. he worked with hunter s. thompson. at the most, his fingerprints are on a lot of the best books. >> what in your opinion in this book is the farthest you went about anybody or anything that

makes people nervous? >> my guess would be the most uncomfortable aspect of the book will be my depiction of general david petraeus has been widely regarded as the hero of the iraq war and afghanistan. i offer a very different picture from what one is accustomed to when you read about general petraeus. >> like what? >> i quote some of his colleagues talking about him. the knock on him from his colleagues, there's a lot in the involvement in this, too. there's also truth. when he comes up he makes everyone before him look like a total idiot. i used from your language in the book. there's a great quote from another in general. petraeus leads the dead dog on the doorstep every time.

this is a very popular indictment of the record from iraq and afghanistan when he was responsible for equipping an army the rescue army. it was a total disaster. to this strategy in afghanistan which was in my mind a complete disaster. >> you can see a person right now saying "that young punk is 31 years old. you never served in the military. what do you know about anything about the military?" >> i report what i have seen and heard. i was a baghdad correspondent for two years. my younger brother was a bronze star winning entry platoon leader.

some of my best friends are in the military. but some of them were lost in these conflicts. you know, my experience was forced on the streets of iraq during the worst secretary and fighting promising three-star generals at totally clueless, act like clowns. they totally ignored the reality in front of them. i sat in on briefings every day while the guy with the two stars on his shoulder would tell us how great everything in iraq was while there were three car bombs every morning. i interviewed this warlord in southern afghanistan. on a tour is a human rights abuser and smuggler who general petraeus has embraced. he is a warlord as we speak.

judge my work. if you do not like my work, still buy a copy of the book. >> this is the "wall street journal." the review section is under the control of the editorial papers. the author of this review is a guy named mark moyar. i want you to put this in context. he is writing about your book. "during the vietnam war commit the generation of david halberstam and neil sheehan transformed into anti military. by the time a major war effort

returned in 2003, iraq, that generation have become too old to visit the trenches which allowed reporters who did not share their predecessors contempt for the military. most americans welcomed the change. not so for michael hastings as we learned from his account in the events from 2008-2011. he said this showed him to write the runaway general, the "rolling stone" article that doomed the career of general stanley mcchrystal." but that angle contrast. >> the reviewer is a consultant for the u.s. military worked for general petraeus. the wall street journal has

chosen a military contractor to review the book and did not disclose it. when we are talking about journalistic ethics, i would exhibit a in what not to do. >> how do you know it? >> it is on his web page. there's a company that employs him as a contractor. i wrote a letter to the editorial page. he did not see that to run my letter pointing out there oversight. that to me was sort of a really eye opening or deal. there is a real difference. it is generational. this is what it is. halberstam and sheehan were in their 20s in vietnam. they saw this stuff firsthand. they saw the disaster unfold

firsthand. they saw the horrors of the war firsthand. when they came back, they were able to decipher all the bs and get through this finishing. david halberstam called it "the great lying machine." packer made his career off of the cheerleading for the iraq war. dexter is in great reporting. i think it is easy to get sucked into this military reporting culture where you give up a lot of your punch in order to keep riding along with the boys. >> you talk about a lot of people including david silverman duncan.

let me start down the characters. when did you start wanting to do the general mcchrystal article? what is the first time someone suggested to you or you went to them and asked for it? >> the first time i had the idea was a in 2005 in baghdad. i said "would be interesting to do it with general casey?" i thought would be interesting to get inside the command and to one in the same way that we are accustomed to doing with the troops and the grunts on the grounds. there has been the first hand of what will and joe are saying on the ground. captioning their idiosyncrasies and what they really fear and love, all this experience of war for these low level guys. that grew over the years.

it is not about trying to do one on general petraeus. i would end of doing it anyway. i saw that mcchrystal was getting quite a bit of interesting coverage. i thought it was a bigger story. that was one of my models, to try to do a generation kill, to capture that with the highest command. >> who wrote that? >> evan wright. >> who did you call first? >> i sent an e-mail to duncan, one of the characters in the book, a civilian public relations adviser as low as to whether public affairs people. >> who were they? >> colonel lane shanks and

another. >> what did you ask them? >> i set out a lot to do a profile of general mcchrystal coming up on a year he had been in command. any act is seeking give me will be great. we can assess the situation. >> did they know your background at "newsweek?" but i'm not sure how familiar they work with my work. i was not expecting any access. whenever you are doing this, you always call and ask. >> you're coming out of "rolling stone" magazine. define that. >> "rolling stone" is 40 years of rock and roll journalism. no-holds-barred, kick down the doors. toss the hand grenades.

he is one of the great names of publishing. he supported me 110%. >> when was this? >> 2010. >> your in your 20's. >> yes, it does happen in april 2010. in february or march, i went into the "rolling stone" offices and pitched them the story. they told me to write a more detailed one. i did so. i got in touch with mcchrystal's people. >> we're in the early part in 2012. this was 2010. how long from the time he got

the idea until the time that general mcchrystal was dismissed from the army? >> probably three months. >> why did they let you? >> this is the public relations strategy that general mcchrystal had pioneered. i call it "petraeus envy." they are all trying to do what general petraeus did so much. it is to bypass the chain of command that gives petraeus a lot of influence. he has been on the covers of everything. they say he places media game so well and look at the advantages. he can do what he does so well. he can push whatever policy he wants. i believe there was intent to

create the same sort of cult like or hero status for general mcchrystal which would allow general mcchrystal to get away with more to push his own policies and create a separate power base in the media. >> why would you want to do that? >> the concrete example happened during the review when mcchrystal and petraeus actually use the media and strategic leaks to get the number of troops they really wanted. >> when did the 60 minutes profile come out and general mcchrystal? >> in the middle of the beginning of the controversy over the strategic review. there was a concentrated campaign given by friendly journalists and think tankers who had worked with mcchrystal earlier. it was a conscious campaign. >> give us 30 seconds of where general mcchrystal had come from.

he said that he was at west point. >> he started at west point. his father was a general. he had a wild man reputation. he went into the rangers and the special forces community. over the last decade, the war and terror decade, mcchrystal played the most pivotal role in the worldwide counter-terrorism operation that the united states was running. >> when did he get the four stars? >> he got them after he got the job in afghanistan 2009 in 2009. he is working with admiral mullen at the pentagon. >> he is connected. >> he was connected in the previous administration with rumsfeld and cheney. after mullen introduced him to mayor mike bloomberg.

>> you say he's a democrat. >> he is. he voted for obama. he is liberal on social issues as well. he famously did not have fox news and its headquarters. you usually have these tv screens. he did not. dave silverman is quite a character. he is a navy seal who became one of general mcchrystal's most trusted right hand me. he was a dynamic, interesting, entertaining, accomplished guy. now he is in general mcchrystal's consulting group.

>> you have seen that he is on the board of many. >> jetblue. his is also offering training seminars. >> he reportedly gets $60,000 a speaking engagement. >> go back to the moment for they said yes to you. >> i got the e-mail back from duncan. he said what you go over to paris where general mcchrystal will gain support. he e-mail me. i then e-mail my editor and said can i go to paris? he said yes, get on the plane. by april 15 i had arrived in

paris. i had arrived in paris. i walked into the hotel lobby. i imagine a mcchrystal for the first time. he looked at me and he said "so you are the rolling stone guy. i don't care about the article. i just want to be on the cover." i said "it is between you and lady gaga." i was joking. he said "just put me and lady gaga in a heart-shaped tub." >> what happened next? >> we had a non event. the key moment came the next morning on the first briefing i sat in on in the hotel room. it was the briefing were general mcchrystal at the end of the briefing started making fun of the vice president biden. he said "who is that?"

then he said "biden, did you say bite me?" everybody laughed. i thought this was an imaging bunch of guys and now they're talking about the civilian leadership. >> did they ever say to you "this is off the record. you cannot write about this." two times he asked me to keep it off the record. >> did you? >> i did. i honor that agreement. the attitude was we're not going to tell you what to write. go for it. it has been interesting to see the response that general mcchrystal and his allies have had.

i have been absolutely consistent from the minute the story broke until now explaining what happens. where they have changed their stories a number of times. they apologized for their behavior. then they said "i overstepped the ground rules." that never really define where that was and what i was doing. it is our deadline to "the washington post" and making stuff up. when there two subsequent pentagon investigations, they lost their memory. they cannot remember who said what but everything i said was confirmed but they could remember who said it. it was reported that i was gung

ho for the war. that is absurd. did you ever imply that you were not gung ho? >> the funny thing is that they have these memory lapses. i was the one taking notes. i remember what was said. on the other hand, i think general mcchrystal felt embarrassed by the whole thing. i think his staff felt embarrassed. they had to push back. it is not uncommon for them to deny, evade, or disavow. >> did you set out to get general mcchrystal? >> no.

i set out to write honestly about the war and put my viewpoint of the war out there. one of the strange things about it is that i ran numerous critical stories about the war in afghanistan that are widely available. i've been on the radio talking about a mine views way before i ever met them in in paris. >> what is your general view of the military? >> at the military is necessary. there are lots of great people doing an amazing job. it is a really difficult job. it is way too big. i think it is bloated. i think often we give the military a pass on a lot of things because of various guilt left over from vietnam and our own guilt. [inaudible]

he was talking about the greatest generation. he said there were a lot of drunks and kooks in the greatest generation as well. that was a total paraphrase. that is the idea, right? what i am opposed to is mythologizing the military. some of the most formative years of my life have been with members of the military in these situations. honestly, i do not think any of the people who have fought in the wars that have reached out to me, they have never criticized my reporting. in fact, a lot of them have said to me "this is what it is

really like." to me that is the greatest compliment. if people are upset, i've probably done my job. >> how long were you allowed to hang around the general and his staff? >> off and on for a month from paris, berlin, kabul and washington. >> you get to hear their intimate conversations? there were no restrictions? >> they did not put out any restrictions. i will later have a discussion about the other moments where there is this great bash, party in paris, where duncan would say "remember the night in

paris, that was off sort of off the record." they're very worried. >> what else the general mcchrystal say in your presence that cause some trouble with the president of the united states? >> there was the biden comment. that was the major one. also criticism toward general jones who is the security adviser to president obama. >> there are some rough things in your book about general jones. >> the white house was not a fan of general jones. he was an outsider coming into the obama white house. he did not mesh with the obama national security team. >> they brought him in. >> they brought him in because it was to show a bipartisan, a

serious national security pick. they fell with a president with no military experience it was important to have not just campaign people in the warm inner circle. now he has gone away from that. >> general jones was a four- star marine. what other military people that you are around say about him? >> mcchrystal's people did not like him at all. dave silverman said he was a clown. >> how could you call a four- star general a clown? >> i probably called him one in this interview. >> i don't mean you. it is easy for people outside the military. dan silverman was a lieutenant commander. >> navy seal. >> to be a navy seal you have

to assume such a huge amount of risk. your whole life is one giant gamble. you're jumping out of planes. you're doing the crazy stuff. it breeds an attitude that special forces of a cavalier disrespect for authority. there's a lot of tension between the special forces unit in the military over the issues of attitude and demeanor. >> here you are on april 6, 2011, about a year ago. >> one reason i would shocked by the response and still am is that i have been covering the wars for five years and usually no one cares about anything i write. i didn't even mean that ironically. there is this job dropping stuff that comes out every week about what is going on at least nary a dent in our public

consciousness. my thinking at the time was i knew it was good material. my thinking was maybe they will talk about it on cable for a couple of hours and then i will go on my merry way and write a book about my time. >> that is at the george polk awards. every time your name is mentioned, "george polk winning" novelist. why is that so important? >> it was a great honor. it is one the most prestigious awards to journalists, investigative journalists. by then giving me that the war, it gave me a stamp of approval for the journalism i did. there has been a lot of great journalists who i admire you

have one than before. >> is it fair to say the winners are usually liberal journalists? >> probably. most journalists i know are liberal. >> actvist people. would you consider yourself an activist? >> no. any journalist worth his salt has a real moralistic righteousness to them somewhere. i think we talk in grand terms about ourselves inflicting the powerful and comforting the inflicted. >> where is your home? >> vermont. recently, upstate new york. >> what was your family like? >> the family was great. >> what is your family do? >> my family was doctors. my younger brother was in the

industry and med school. my younger brother is also in medical school. >> your mother and father are doctors >> my mom is an ophthalmologist. my dad is a cardiologist. >> they have political point of view? >> yes. my dad is a conservative. my mom has been traditionally a democrat, although the wars have pushed her toward the nader/ ron paul. >> where did you get your intellectual start? >> when i was 5 years old, my dad and i would go to an army surplus store in a town close to the canadian border in

upstate new york. i bought it army jackets and helmets. then we moved to montreal for a couple of years. i remember being in seventh grade and i have become obsessed with the vietnam war. i would argue to my classmates that america really won the war. i remember supporting george h. w. bush in 1992. i was 12 years old. i was an active seventh grader campaigning on his behalf. i was telling my friends about vietnam and this and that. as i moved into a teenager, i became fascinated by a lot of the drug literature material. as i had to get a job and wanted to write, i knew i wanted to write from a young age, this

war again became something i was fascinated by. i felt like these are the big stories of my generation. neil sheehan' s advice is to find the biggest story and grab onto it. >> explain your being interviewed by a well-known reporter. there seems to be a tension here. explain this. he is the establishment and you are not. >> i do not mean this to be contentious. obviously, your piece has created some controversy among your colleagues. do you think it is fair to hang out with somebody over a long time or even a short time and,

you know, go drinking with them -- >> i did not drink with them. have you read "rolling stone?" >> came out with them and hear their off-the-cuff comments. >> these are not off-the-cuff comments. >> i am going to test any inaccurate thing you say. >> jokes. jokes. i am not saying they are irrelevant. they are things people say. banter. banter among them. do you think it is fair? >> i heard this before. >> what was going on? >> i remember as it was going on and thinking "this guy is a real piece of work."

what is going on there? good question. it is interesting. a journalist is asking me when you are writing a profile should you try to capture the moment the reveal the people you are writing about? that is what he's asking me. it's a good 20 minutes to get to it. that is the question. my response is as someone who's trying to get at who these people are as characters, those off-the-cuff comments, the unguarded moments are what you are going for as a journalist and a writer. the other place on the comments if those comments represented a cultural attitude of general mcchrystal's staff, contemptuous toward their civilian masters. the reason why that is significant is because that actually had real policy implications. they're content to their

civilians set up a situation where they had felt no compunction to disobey what the president had asked them to do. the president had said "i do not want a decade of nation- building commitment in afghanistan." general mcchrystal and general petraeus gave the president a plan for a decade long nation- building commitment in afghanistan. general mcchrystal said "we're only 50% there." a direct slap at the white house. at first, that sort of response was somewhat perplexing. i said they just do not get it. then i realized there was something much more larger at work. it was not about me. it was not about "rolling stone." it was about the nature of reporting on the military. when we call it the "pentagon

press corps" it is an extension of the pentagon uses representing the pentagon like a pr firm. >> how concerned are you that in the future when you want to do a profile, the doors will be closed? >> i am not concerned. when you are dedicated to reporting, you find a way to get the story. you find a way to get the story. >> once they knew the story was coming, how tense was it? >> i was back in vermont. duncan had told people this

story is either going to be fun or end my career. >> did it? >> he lost his job. he resigned. he was a civilian. i think duncan took a lot of the blame when there is plenty to share. >> who else should take some responsibility? >> admiral smith was in the room. general mcchrystal knows this. he was setting the tone for the entire bunch. he is the ultimate operator. he set the tone. >> was there any fact checking that went on from "rolling

stone" to the military? >> yes. "rolling stone" is one of the few magazines like that does extensive research. they did not read quotes. we would not easily do that. >> where were you when the article was first exposed to public? >> i was in khandahar working on a story about helicopter pilots. unlike a story that comes out when a magazine decides to release it and it is on the newsstands, in this case a copy of the pdf was leaked to the associated press. they ran away with an item from the story and it snowballed.

before "rolling stone" put it up, general mcchrystal had already lost his job. >> what happened to you when you were there in the middle of this? >> it was a very intense experience. i was on the phone for 14 hours doing radio interviews. i was trying to get the story on the helicopter pilots. i went on a mission with the helicopter pilots while this stuff was going on. i watched a gun battle that went on between the taliban and american forces on the ground. i got the story and essentially i agreed that it was probably time for me to get out of khandar and go back to kabul and in the united states. it was a very intense experience.

it was very strange. we got rocketed in khandar. i'm trying to write a blog post and rockets come by and not the power out. usually, it is hard to get on a military flight. this time was pretty easy. all the soldiers had copies of the story. >> how did they treat you? >> they treated me well. they have always treated me with respect. >> what would you tell someone who wanted to do the same thing you have done? what should they expect? to talk more about the reporters and the establishment press? what about john burns?

>> john burns of the "new york times" came out after my story was released and said that i had permanently damage the relationship between the media and military. he is a pulitzer prize winner. he is a serious guy. when he attacks your work, it is not something you take lightly. >> what did he think you had done wrong? >> it is interesting. i have learned subsequently that burns had hung around generals before and had heard newsworthy things and did not report them. first he wrote blog about this in 2004 with the general george casey. he said, "do you think we can win in iraq?"

john burns had not reported. he had a commanding general expressing grave doubts about the war and did not report it. casey stayed in command for 18 more months. >> you know that for sure? >> he wrote it in "the new york times." burns did not report general petraeus sang "i think i'm going to quit." >> you also talked about the white house correspondents' dinner. i want to run that clip and talk about how you see journalists relating to people

in power. >> "rolling stone" has been doing great stuff. one of their functions is to not have to worry about things like that. we are able to go there. we do not have a table at the dinner. one of the things is that i talk to people at the pentagon all the time still. in the talk to me, not sometimes because they want to are they like me or my thoughts. they talk to me because they know it is in their interest to say we better respond to his e- mail even it is just to tell him to go have a nice day. >> you mentioned the white house correspondents' dinner. we cover it all the time. yet never been? >> no. >> would you go?

>> probably. i mean, that is a great question. i do not know. my idea is always to go see something i have not seen before. that also is counterbalanced by there's something i've never been comfortable with in washington. i've lived here twice. i did i get into that scene. >> you mentioned matt with "rolling stone." is this a generational thing? >> when the main reasons i wanted to write for "rolling stone" was because matt was there. he was doing incredible work. i think there is a generational

split in journalism and across the media as well. it can be divided in between those who get in and those who don't. >> what is it that you are getting that that others do not? >> this is off the topic. other media figures were taken by surprise by the social media, by the internet, by this rapid change in the media landscape. they do not know how to adapt to it. and they fail again and again. i witnessed it first. i witnessed " newsweek" having 26 correspondents to being sold and having two. i think you have that side of things. in terms of actual reporting, i think a guy like myself, you

know, or matt does this, i respect his writing. pushing the envelope further. what can you say? how can you say it in a way where you would get people to read it that is accurate? the great thing about matt and "rolling stone" is it is journalism. "rolling stone" is investing in its reporting. it is paying off. matt's humour is based in his reporting. the reason i can write a book like this is because i have been reporting. >> you wrote about a woman you lost in iraq. girlfriend? >> yes. >> when and how did she die?

>> she was working in baghdad. she was ambushed. her convoy was ambushed while she was leaving the iraqi headquarters in al qaeda. as a side note, recently there is an arrest warrant out for him. >> how did that first book go? >> i was so screwed up when i wrote that book. i wrote it as final love letter. i was angry. i was raw. it was about young love. it was about being in their relationship in your 20s and this strange time in this unique relationship where the person you are in love with

decide to come over to baghdad and join you. >> you have since married? >> yes. i'm fortunate. >> where did you meet her? >> she had also been in iraq. her roommate in college was best is with my aunt and uncle. they said you have to meet her. she was working for the government. they introduced us in washington, d.c. it was years before we started seeing each other. >> how could you been married? >> you're putting me on the spot. i got married in may. >> is a hard for someone like your wife to go back and read this book about a woman that was killed? >> we do not really talk about it. my wife is an amazing woman.

she understands that that is part of my life. it is a part of my life that made me who i am today. i feel very fortunate that i was able to find someone else to loved me as much as she does and that i was able to love her again. i did not know about is ever going to be able to be in a relationship again after that. >> did you read the book? >> yes. it was just when we were friends. >> some journalists blame you the future of the military. is that accurate? >> that is nonsense. it is overblown. the other thing i would say is what is our relationship with the military gained us? not very much.

i think this idea that media/military relationship is destroyed because of a "rolling stone" story is crazy. it is a healthy democracy, you probably want this relationship to the strains. the deck is stacked against us. 27,000 pentagon employees working against this, $4.6 billion. what is the budget of all the kabul bureaus? it is dwarfed. >> do we know what has really happened in iraq and afghanistan? >> yes.

the guys on the grounds have done an amazing job in very difficult circumstances to get the story. if you are reading, you get a sense of what is going on. >> what did you say to a young person that wants to do what you have done? what do you need? >> a buckle up. >> what does that mean? >> when people talk about michael harris and who will write the next dispatch, can i do that. >> you're talking about the new yorker? >> it is about vietnam. it is the book that all war

correspondents love. there's always this talk about two or write the next "dispatches." you don't. he writes something new and original. that is what you're going for. what i would say to any young reporter is to go to the big story. report the out of it. find your own voice. that is key. >> in this of the "wall street journal" piece, near the end of the review and the date was january 5t, like neil sheehan and neil sheehan he ignores the harm that reporting has cause to america's overseas interests. the firing of general mcchrystal took [unintelligible]

what is your reaction to that? you have harmed the situation? >> it is a revision of history. president karzai threatened to join the taliban twice. not only that, president karzai rejected mcchrystal's proposal. he cannot point to anything concrete about what mcchrystal's relationship gains from karzai. well, what did it get us? nothing. the book is called "the operators." our guest is michael hastings.

we thank you. >> thank you very much. >> for a dvd copy of this program call 1877-662-7726. for free transcripts or to give us your comments about this program, visit us at www.q-an- a.org. "q & a" programs are also available as podcasts. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> next, british prime minister david cameron at the house of commons. after that, wrote to the white house coverage continues in florida with campaigns by newt