wichita, kansas. >> it is the only remaining original structure of the 1865 to 1870 time. it was a very important building. it is a residence, it is also the headquarters of the land company that came down here to create the city. >> watch for booktv and american history tv in wichita. 2 and 3. >> in a few moments, how political campaigns use technology. we will be live from joplin, missouri 4 president obama's high school space. one of the deadliest and most destructive tornadoes in history struck joplin a year ago. speak. john paul studenstevens

and the future of the navy's combat fleet. >> from 1971 through 1973, president richard nixon secretly recorded his phone conversations and meetings. this weekend, hear more of the nixon tapes with conversations between the president and richard helms and fbi director j. edgar hoover. >> i ought to make a statement about freedom of the press and we're not trying to center them. >> you are right. >> i should stay out. what is your public-relations judgment on it? >> you should remain absolutely silent. >> you would. >> i would. >> listen at 91.1 fm and streaming at cspanradio.org.

>> a form on how political campaigns use technology and how that has evolved since the first computer was used to predict the presidential election in 1952. this is one hour, 15 masset. 15 minutes. >> election 1952 introduced a new word, univac. the computer became famous overnight. many people here may remember the mere word became as synonymous with modern computing in the 1950's as the word google is to modern web searching today and you can see that in our exhibition. election nights are the smallest part of how technology drives

the modern campaign. we are profiled by computers, where mobilized by tweets and hedden for contributions on facebook and mixed and matched in pools of big data. we have a great panel examining the state of the are in presidential campaigns and social media 60 years after univac. chris lahane was special assistant counsel to president clinton and legal political counsel to president and mrs. clinton as first lady. he was secretary for the 2000 presidential ticket of al gore and joe lieberman. sarah feinberg as director of policy communications at facebook. she was assistant to president obama and senior adviser to rahm emanuel. shi'a has served as communications director for the house democratic causes. tucker bounds was director of

rapid response for john mccain's presidential campaign. he served as deputy campaign manager and director of communication in meg whitman's campaign for california. he served as the western press secretary for the republican national committee. he is serving as manager of corporate communications. our moderator is the author of seven books on business, marketing, and management. he is also a trustee of the museum and the originator of the idea for tonight's panel. please welcoming our guests. [applause] >> thank you.

>> is this my gun? can you hear us? will manage to get on stage without tripping. this is a huge plus. welcome. i am richard. i get to wear jeans because i am on the board of trustees. i asked permission and received it. let me -- i am an historian by training. one or two quick words. pauling has been around for a long time. if you consider technology, the use of the technology of statistics in polling did not come on board until 1948 and then they didn't s. gallup -- the poles stop early because it looked like do we

would defeat german. that was the generation of the result of the famous headline that says "dewey debates german" and that was wrong. -- debates truman" and that was wrong. they took the poll by found. on the republicans were wealthy enough to have a phone in 1936. what we saw here is an inflection point in the history of politics in the u.s. and perhaps the world. which is the coming of television to politics. it has changed -- television broadcasting and the combination of that with computers and

selling -- scientific sampling has changed the nature of politics. and so we're fortunate to have as guests people who lived this life and know this world as i cannot personally. i do not get it. i cannot understand why twitter is going to change the world. we had a discussion prior to this meeting and i was told if i am lonely between now and election day, all i have to do is moved to akron, get a job in a good year factory and tweet, i am a white male and i am a factory worker in akron and i just do not know for whom to vote. if i just did that, i would have friends until election day. then they would all turn their

backs on me and that would be the end of it. i would like to start off by asking what we were just discussing in the greenroom. here we saw this big inflexion plight and the world changed with television. your world. in which you live and have to predict the unpredictable and deal with the unfair so many times. is the world going to change with the realization we now have facebook and twitter, we now have social media and if so, how is the world going to change? what is different and what is going to be different? let me ask you to start. >> thanks for having us and thank you for the introduction. sarah and i worked together and we could have benefited from univac in florida.

we were talking about this earlier. i am a little bit of the country and here. i do think that we're going to hit an inflection point. i am not sure if we are quite there yet. technology, the vehicle, they do exist. and to take a step back at what happened. television fundamentally change this strategic way campaigns are run. assuring in the so-called modern era of politics basically focused everything into a hub where campaigns were able to use electronic media, also a electronic coverage to walk in -- talk in a one-way conversation. prior to dekema campaigns have been much more of the hub for you had to depend on others to

be your messenger. what you are seeing happening now is the technology is having an impact for going back to the future. on steroids because the impact is moving as quickly as it can and as intensely. to have an interactive discourse back-and-forth with the public and the public can have a discourse among themselves in a much more of an active way than we have seen over 50 or so years but i am not sure if we have gotten to that transformative moment. this is a little bit of a flawed and algae. i will endeavor to make it. you saw in the arab spring. the pen in the form of a tweet

or facebook was more powerful than an ak-47. there was a real political market force driving social change, the confluence of technology that allowed that to happen. i am not sure this has happened in this country yet. i do say there are the vehicles out there ultimately on democracy because of the ability for the public to engage in a different way than they have historically. >> that is right. makes a good point that way -- we may not be as transformative i is -- as the arab spring. twitter has -- and facebook has done is transformed the way people consume media. there is a new world and the way people consume and the way that

you can take a advantage of that new platform to communicate without having to go on television or get a favorable newspaper story written. it has been transformative in politics. >> all three of us are spokes people and that is a disadvantage. i do agree. i think i would also point out there are different dynamics that social media is bringing to the way that the electorate will consume this election. we're going to see that technology tends to build every four years and you see an examination by the public in engaging in new technology to discover one of the most important decisions americans can make. aside from the way that news will be sculpted, since we have

worked with the media, that is something we will talk about more. also there is an additional component that will begin to see in 2012 and even more so in 14 and 16. the way that you communicate to each other and the way you are using communications to talk to the trusted friends and family you have. already and we are the belly of innovation in silicon valley. there is a startup turns your voter precincts where you may have been at in the past -- asked to go knock on doors and talk to your neighbors and friends about who you think you're going to vote for and why they should vote for that person as well. we have seen that happen on line. they're taking a precinct and making a virtual. even from the political at reach in addition to the media

and communications outrage, we're seeing technology have a profound effect on the way that elections and campaigns are waged. in that sense, it is an exciting time and we will see some cool things in 2012. >> what was the name of that? >> votizen. >> i have never heard of that. how do they make their living? >> it is a very early stage company. what they do is they allow you to empower your social network. people that you may be friends with on facebook or other social networks, you can reach out to them. and transmit your message and opinions about the election you are involved in. instead of walking door-to-door to me your neighbor's interested contact, you can do that from your computer. it is efficient and a trusted mode of communication.

the company is hoping they can leverage the power and help campaigns and elections in the future and this is the first time doing that. >> it makes sense. if you were a volunteer in west virginia we would ask you to come to headquarters and make phone calls or knock on doors. that does not really make sense. if someone called me and asked to call through a tree of numbers, if i need to contact people, why do i not just contact the on facebook or send them an e-mail? this is the abolition of a voter contact. it has abolitionize -- abolition -- evolutionized to facebook and twitter. >> in the old days of retail

politics, it was feet on the street. people knocking on doors. now you know the right door to knock on. secondly you do not have to bother. you can just tweet or something. what we just saw was broadcasting. now you're talking about marketing one to one. that is where we are heading. >> you saw elements of this by the obama campaign in 2008. tuckercomparison to what th talked about. you have people who are engaging with people in swing states and that is done over the phone. people are being given the list on e-mail and say, can you call these 10 people?

you saw the beginning of that. i think one of the elements, it is in the middle of happening. the challenge of being able to take a voter files -- people are flagged in certain ways. now what you have going on, people are intercepted a great deal on line where you're able to derive a lot of information about their habits. also -- ultimately depending on how that evolves, you are mixing and matching with voter files. also the capacity with social media to match it up with the

right people to have the right conversations with. you can talk about this more so than i can. those profiles [inaudible] you have all the data that people can generate by what people do. and you are getting those coming together. there have been efforts in the past. that is some of the stuff that is happening. >> is there going to be too much data? >> i read -- there is the filter. if all these people are quitting like crazy or putting whenever on their facebook page, there is a lot of information that did not used to be available. or supporting a ballot initiative. where is the filter?

do you find a sense of being overwhelmed by data? >> i think the filter is every individual on line. that is i think what we will see bear out over time. when you stand to your mailbox and you pick and choose as to what you are throwing away and open and consume. each individual online has that power. i think what is exciting about what is happening is you have a way to get a lot of different viewpoints and make decisions that are informed by people you trust. you can filter it about and making it about where the news sources are or the sources of information are that you choose to take with greater weight. i know that sarah and kristen and i were talking about this before. i think it is speeding ahead

some of the ways that campaigns will talk directly to voters right now. arbour tears elections have been traditionally been the mass media. that is something that some campaigns have had major challenges with. i need to work on all this. >> there is a time that will come when campaigns will be able to communicate and encourage supporters to talk to different supporters. >> do you osi the new world of social media as something in addition to the old world of mass media or something instead of? if that is going to displace -- in 1952, that was the first time a political party engaged

in an advertising industry. the agent -- it was like the eisenhower. by 1956, no one wanted to be left behind. that is broadcasting. you do not know who was getting the message. what -- is what you are describing, will that be additive? >> it is additive. i do not think it will be instead of. every moment will be bought. it will not be able to buy television anymore. >> this will be just fine. no one is taking television off

the table. newspaper advertising and advertising has gone down. no one is taking television off the table. i think this is in addition to. one of the things we were talking about is we are in a moment in time where people do not necessarily trust politicians and they do not trust the mainstream media and we saw that over and over again. there were going after the mainstream media. romney was an newt gingrich. i think voters are at a point where if they do not trust politicians, they do trust their friends and they do trust their neighbors and their colleagues. it is an additive way to reach voters.

it is in addition. >> i think we're in the middle in the evolution. use of the back to 1960. -- you go back to 1960. it was which campaign was more effective and turned out more voters. there was still the feed on the ground aspect. even though tv had been there. we are in that evolutionary phase right now. there is the [unintelligible] i go to zagat and go to a nice

restaurant and that was replaced by yelp. zagat is trying to catch up to what yelp created. that is a metaphor for the direction we're going in. that is something at the core of this which is the idea of authenticity and trust. i think that is even more so in online and social media at in terms of how people engaging and interact. we are in the middle of an evolution. right now, there is nothing with pay television. when it comes down to a

convincing voters who are not committed or undecided -- there's nothing that moves you like television. that has the potential to evolve. >> if i could add something. there is an important thing to consider. you mentioned is there something that will tip it to an on-line technology communication stream for voters to campaign? >> a lot of that has to do with demographics. the reason that will testify to the strength of television is you are able to buy time in local evening news. you'll have more people to vote. they tend to be an older demographic. those are traditionally people who are responsible about their

civic duty and are hitting the general election and they break differently. there is a science to where these markets exist. with the consumer of information that is the younger generation now as they continue to get older, you will see that forcing function for more of the investments by campaigns and elections to get into technology and technological advertising or online advertising than they are in local television and network news. that demographic is not going to be the leading consumer or the most active voter. >> when you are talking about the election of 1960, this was supposed to be the defining election. it was supposed to prove that marshall mcluhan was right. the media is the message.

the more people who saw the debates on television thought kennedy had won and people who heard them on the radio thought nixon had won. the words were the same so the medium was the message. and if i heard you correctly, you made reference to the disposition of illinois. that is what i have been told. my recollection is joe kennedy called richard daley during the election and said are we going to take illinois and daily said by the grace of god and with the help of some close friends and they were the graveyard vote.

>> i cannot testify to that. the reason i invoked that moment is richard nixon had a similar conversation with a powerful series of letters in southern illinois. what you had, what has been recorded on some of this stuff -- what you had it is southern illinois having a bunch of folks and you had the chicago area having a bunch of folks who may not have been alive voting. television played a very decisive role. you still had an impact on politics. >> if i do not want to be lonely

i can move to ohio and get a job in a factory or die. the graveyard boad is still going to matter. >> one of the things that strikes me is getting people together in san francisco and getting them to contact people in states that are in play. is this something people talk about? >> let me tell you why i am asking. because of the electro college which is a relic of the 18th- century constitution, this was a country of 4 million people hugging the coast line. we had something called the electoral college. this and french is me. i live in california. i have moved from massachusetts so it is -- it does not matter whether i voter not. does that matter? in the election of 2000, neither

-- either vice president gore took ford or he did not. maybe 35,000 jewish voters did vote for pat buchanan. there is no question that gore won on the popular vote basis. that does not matter because that is not how it is counted. correct me if i'm wrong. to a certain extent, you are imploring me as someone whose vote does not count. the new technology is enabling me to influence, in ohio or colorado or the 10 states that do matter where told in this election. is that true? >> not necessarily new but as long as we have had elections

that spa -- existed out of a single province, that has been going on. >> well the new technology make them more scientific? more efficient, more targeted. >> what did find out that i have a college classmate who works in cincinnati. if i went to san francisco, this company a talked about, would facebook or twitter know that and tell me to get in touch with him? >> there will be and there is targeted advertising and campaigns will be able to invest in that will be able to identify whether or not voters have [inaudible] on separate issues. if you are -- if your friend in cincinnati was to have strong views on a certain type of issue, they could be getting

advertising through the campaign to them. it is quite possible that there would be a campaign or organized enough to note that you should be reaching out to your friends that are weighing in on a specific issue based on direction they're giving you. you could get communication from a campaign that says if you have friends that have weighed on in this issue and, you should reach out to them and tell them the truth. that gets us to back where we were. how the media battle will be changed as a result of the on- line communication in social networks. starting two elections ago and in 2010 it became much more high profile. remember john mccain who is now one of the most prolific tweeters in the world did not

have the twitter account in 2008. we have seen an evolution. both will have great twitter followings and there will be weighing in on issues quickly. that rapid response moves through social media so people are saying content on tv or their watching and national news event and there will get communications from people they trust. >> a couple of thoughts. you'll get this segment of data. you can shift and move. it is conceivable that living in san francisco, you get a list of 20 connections trend be able to determine through databases.

i get an e-mail saying you have a relationship with 20 people and support this candidate. that is something -- [unintelligible] there is a company in san francisco that has created the technology where it is a dashboard and you can follow everyone who is talking about your candidate. it identifies specific individuals who are influential in social media. they have a large following in the demographic or matches up with the campaign you care about. you're able to target your engagement back-and-forth,

conversation with that person who is influential because they have a larger universe of folks to trust them. you'll get more and more of that type of technology coming into play and it becomes taxable tools for campaigns. >> the dialogue is the key. >> we're talking a dog. >> brings up an interesting point. he is talking about being persuasive on social media and four years ago, these candidates, one of the major nominees -- that is how much we have advanced and so it is exciting. every time we have one of these elections were people around the world will be focusing on this decision and new technologies will spring up and it will be exciting to see things like politeer. >> if this is going to be in addition to rather than instead of, are you telling us that

campaign will be more expensive because someone will have to pay for this? money will have to come from somewhere. >> it will get more expensive every two years or four years. the prediction that this year's election will increase spending by $1 billion. that is not helped by the supreme court who said that corporations can decide to play in these campaigns as well. engler's amounts of money flowing in. you have a super packed you can spend like crazy. we have no where near the become less expensive, right? >> to buy advertising on facebook is a lot more efficient and cheaper than it is to buy television. there is different metrics and

people on my side are trying to figure out, can we get the proverbial swing voters? bottom line is, assuming you can get to your targeted voters in a way that moves them, you are hitting your bull's-eye. we talked about pay television as a mallet. they have made up their mind one way or another. you can focus in on a bull's-eye target. every dollar is communicating to someone you want to talk to. >> do you think the obama campaign -- four years ago. it was famous, the president had a blackberry.

how much of a difference you think that made in that campaign? let me ask you and i would like to broaden out more generally. how much of a difference do you think it made? >> i think it made a huge difference. the obama campaign in 2008 was doing the most cutting edge technological voter contact, fund-raising on line, reaching millions of people than we have ever seen. if you took that couperin and did nothing but the same thing in 2012, there would be crazy. the world has changed that much. john mccain was not the only person without a twitter account in 2008. almost no one had one. there incredibly cutting edge in 2008. i am sure they're doing much different things in 2012.

i think with the year for democrats, president obama had a message that spoke to the country. i do not think technology made the difference between him being in the white house or not. it made a difference in terms of fund-raising and reaching voters that would not have been reached otherwise. >> can any of you put your finger on an election where you feel technology did make the difference between a win and a loss. >> in -- technology works many different ways. we can talk about communicating with people through the social web or e-mail trace. campaigns are entering on technology in a lot of different ways, i and exciting ways.

the same equipment campaign -- whitman campaign developed a system to track in real time jerry brown's speech. when he had an appearance there would be someone with an iphone who would live streaming back to campaign headquarters so that the communications team could be e-mail link reporters responses to the actual charges that jerry brown was making in real time. it was the first time they were able to piece something together with that. now you're seeing campaigns at the state level doing that now. as to whether or not the campaign made the difference, and an unconventional way. -- in an unconventional way.

duke cunningham had been run out of town and that was seen as a bellwether as to how the 2006 house congressional elections would ultimately fair. -- fare. we were providing a lot of assistance. [unintelligible] was running against a candidate captured on tape and biting someone who was not a voter to participate. this was very controversial. that tape was moved to youtube and put on the talk radio stations in san diego and it was such a hotly contested race, a lot of people who were. dissipating looked back and said, catching that technology and moving it in a way for the media, it changed the election. there is the famous macaca

moment. candidates making slip ups and making mistakes. >> a blogger happen to get obama talking about pennsylvania. >> when he said they have their guns and their religion. >> the one -- >> could you tell the audience that the -- what the macada moment was? >> an early presidential type -- hype building around him.

he was popular in the state of virginia. had been governor of the state of virginia. he was caught on tape by phone making a statement that was a racial slur. it was not tolerated by the electorate and he was ousted from office. that was a turn of events that was made possible by his democratic opponent because of technology. there is a lot of innovations happening on campaigns aside from on-line communication. it is fascinating to watch. >> in 1992, i was much younger and quicker. one of my first assignments was to go into opposition events and then you would have to sprint to the nearest pay phone to call back whatever had transpired.

you will have a nano-drone -- all the president's men could have used a nano-drone and it would not have to -- that would not have had to break into the watergate. and remember being in a campaign discussion for a rival campaign and money kept rolling in. everyone kept reporting the number getting bigger by substantial amounts. someone said there is a ceiling to what you can raise online. the multiplier effect of what you typically have. >> it was the defining moment.

>> i worked on the other side. as important as technology is, the morning after that election, we woke up and went to the dccc. what we took away is not that our candidate had gotten beaten by sing something stupid while an iphone was running -- our take away is it had nothing to do with technology. we should have tied [unintelligible] to george bush. there is some big things that matter. if the economy is bad, the

president is not popular, if the country is frustrated -- >> [unintelligible] there is so much narrowcasting, there could be some fact out there that just gets -- >> to sarah's point, i will be the first to admit this. there are strong reasons why the economy was alternately the deciding factor. people i worked with on the mccain campaign said it was decided in the mail. the most effective mail that was sent to was everyone's retirement accounts when they showed up in october. the technology will make a difference. this will be a much closer election.

if things remain the same looks like a 50-50 race? >> we just heard is you did not tire of common to an unpopular president much. -- president bush. >> they polling data suggests that -- potentially, it looks like a 50-50 race. it is impossible to tell. i believe it will be a closer race that we experienced in 2008. when the margin closer,

[unintelligible] investments will be critical. both campaigns realize that. >> do you think this will be a close election? barring the unforeseeable. do think this will be a close election? >> i think, yeah. the president is very strong and he has an amazing record to run on. you have to approach every election like it will be very close. you always approached it that way and this is a country that is closely tied. barring something massive, i think we expect to see a relatively close race. the president is in a good position. >> you are right.

this will be a close race. think there are macro issues. where the incumbent is in a position -- the incumbent is strong because of the macro issues and bill clinton could have run against a combination of mother teresa. there were macro forces and there is a gray area. it is a 50-50 country or 47-47 country, 6% of the electorate up for grabs. that is what the election comes down. if gdp stays between 2% and 3%

and job growth is static, under that formula, the president wins because he has a decisive advantage on the trust issue. if you have gdp below 2%, it becomes -- [unintelligible] any time you get to that close of all level, every single tactic, the gore campaign you can look back in retrospect. it was that close. i do think technology if the election becomes that close it will have that type of an impact. there are some larger macro issues. >> we have a bunch of questions from the audience. let me read them. will web 2.0 lead to national

voting or issues on the internet? >> i love this question. i do think this is -- [unintelligible] that transformative tool. i do them on the progressive side. i am on the campaign to raise the tax on tobacco. the initiative was put in place to be a bulwark against major powerful [unintelligible] control of the state house. it has become a tool for

powerful special interests and used in any number of ways and progressive groups have gotten money and put it on the ballot. if you give the electorate to do this over twitter facebook. in the state and other states, there are 30 states that have initiatives. we will get the process back where it was originally designed and i think this will be a battle that will become more complex. and do other types of democracy online. those are ways that will be enormously transformative. earlier there was the twitter

debate and we talked about this earlier. you had romney and [unintelligible] whether they thought they broader public was responding. romney had a difficult debate where he was in the red. almost for the entire debate. that set up his negative story line. imagine if you're in a world where candidates will get constant [unintelligible] on an ongoing basis. you can have something in front of you that tells you how the public is responding. i do not think you are that far from seeing some technology used in that way. you can see it manifests itself in a good way. people have to be authentic and trustworthy. people can become good at how they can use that to their

tenants. i will be interested to see how they manifest themselves. >> you can see a world someday where a politician is giving a speech and he says yes or she says yes, and the screen turns green and the politician who says by yes i mean no and the screen turns red. >> people talk about singularity. imagine if you have something implanted in you somewhere. it can have communications. -- technology can liberate my inner bill clinton and help me understand and relate to people.

>> we should probably talk about to do that topic justice. we're moving toward a place where you will be able to make more informed decisions because people will be able to communicate and advertise in a targeted way. it maybe the most important issue to you is fisheries. i value it did not hear anything about fisheries in the -- a bet you you did not hear anything about fisheries. because of the targeting nature of political campaigning and advertising, there will be able to communicate directly to people who care about fisheries on what their position is on restoring wildlife and ensuring cattle are not destroying upstream fisheries. in many ways, there are going to

be technical and to go evolutions to the way we're communicating with the campaign that will help us make better, informed decisions as opposed to necessarily giving rapid response feedback to the candidate which the can conform to. you will know more about the candidates and feel better about the choices you are making. >> there is a question that deals directly with this. communicating about complex policy issues using conventional media is almost impossible. have you seen any examples of using new technologies to do a better job of engaging the public in a policy debate that goes beyond slogans and talking points? [laughter] >> i thought it was. what you were saying is 3 using

technology could get deeper into what people believe about what matters to you. that is what is being asked here. what do you think? >> liviu could talk about the cell phone example. -- maybe you could talk about the cell phone example. >> i was going to say something different. this is what goes along with what tucker was saying. campaigns -- they are able to be so targeted and focused on what individual voters want, you could give policy papers and speeches and constituent letters and everything targeted to you on an issue-specific basis which i think is probably the targeting would be the best use of the technology i could think of to answer that. >> a couple of examples.

there is the challenge of how that plays itself out. we did a challenge on-line for folks to come up with the best tv spots. we offered to run the winner which was based on a vote. the ad was better than any of the ads the campaign put together. it was a pretty good spot. we engaged a broad audience. they could look at the analytics. it was a great demographic. and i am sorry to bring this up randuring meg's campaign, i

i.e. we created something called megpedia. we had folks who worked at the bay -- ebay. a number of items that reporters took and tested out. that was an interesting way in crowd sourcing in a opposition research way. that might not be the most [unintelligible] but it was a tool and you may see some elected officials began to use those types of tools as they develop. the president has done it. with the town halls that he has done and the conversation he had was -- involved the public. i think as someone who runs for

office, there will ask their followers to create an ad. to come up with a policy position and maybe that person gets in office and is reflected in how they approach the government. there will be some kind of open source campaign. >> i have another one for you. will what is being discussed appear make as much as they push messages to voters? >> i was mentioning sopa before because i think it is timely and relevant. there was a debate about accessing the internet. there was a huge new story in the last month or so. i think that was an example

where these netroots, that is what they were originally called. they came out of the woodwork and people were communicating to congress in active ways with each of the individual members of congress. i think it goes back to an earlier point that sarah made. we can talk about campaigns and elections and there was so much information being put out to some many different people, but probably the most exciting things that are happening or with people -- what people better governing are doing a technology coming getting feedback on specific policy debates that are going on so you get a better idea in real time about what positions they should take into account. i don't think i am forsaking any confidence is that there are some individuals that came and

visited with us that work actively with the congress to explain that they had actually been able to determine that the traditional writing your congressman a letter and your congressman writing a letter back had decreased dramatically as a result of these books products. members of congress are on facebook and they are actively, every day talking about business they are taking up in congress and they are getting feedback from constituents a large amounts and they can communicate in the past and timely manner, so they are not getting a letter about a bill that they voted on three weeks ago and then sending a letter back. we are getting to a place where people can understand the government better. that is probably the back-and- forth conversation that people are benefiting from the most. >> do you think this is going to -- is this movement or this

set of technologies that are now available, and it seems like it is springing up all the country at a rate that those of us that are not in the business are not aware of. is this going to make government at the end of the day more responsive because people are going to find out more quickly about what they really care about? >> i think it will. to the extent that a voter or constituent or citizen is interested in what is going on in washington, in the congress with someone who is voting for office, to the extent they are engaged in paying attention and want to be involved, they will receive a dialogue back. everyone has a voice with the person who is running or with the incumbent and they get a dialogue back from that person. where the great things about facebook and twitter is that members of congress become real people. they engage with constituents on those platforms. they don't typically only talk about the vote that i just took on healthcare. they also say looking forward to

being in menlo park this weekend for my family barbecue, or looking forward to taking my daughter to college next week. they become real people and they interact with people and voters on a more normal basis and in dialogue. it will be more responsive and also more human. >> is that dangerous? when you become a real person and you put a lot of things in play -- none of us have perfect pass, and some of that might be best left out of the public's fear. -- of the public sphere. there have been a number of folks who have gotten into office and said there have been things they should not have posted. you are seeing the entire process taking place.

there is a whole cultural process going on. i think there is tension right now between house social media and technology are impacting the democracy. there are so many structural issues right now that are effectively designed for people not to find compromise from both sides and that are pushing people to go to the opposite end of the field. in terms of whether social media and technology can help alleviate or dress that, i hope that is the situation, but i think that will play itself out in a really interesting way. if you look at citizens united, it has created structural issues. you saw the speech last night from the candidate who beat dick lugar are in indiana who had no

interest in reaching the middle ground or compromise. that is the type of politics that are taking place here and in d.c. and all of the country, and social media and technology -- my belief is that the vast majority of the public has developed close circuit -- can social media be used as a tool and a vehicle to help cultivate that and provide incentive for people to give back to -- it back to reaching compromise and understanding that the election in and we have to deal with the issues. >> do you both feel that way? the fill that the public as a whole is actually less extreme than the representatives that are getting elected? >> absolutely. i think that what chris mention is exactly right.

you see typical i cannot determine what the relevance is in the political process, going back and forth in trying to be more bombastic. taking place, news vietor online, and i am getting news on my news feed and facebook and i can see people that i may not agree with on a political issue, or maybe i did not know they had that view on a political issue. it puts a human touch on it. i know work, she is a friend of mine. the reasons that are weighing in on that issue so strongly is because they have a strong view, and makes me think a little differently about that issue. it opens at my years to things i had not considered before i think as on-line communications and social media grows, think is a positive. >> that is another back to the future observation. when people gather around post offices in the 1840's and

1850's, waiting for a male or a newspaper, they talked. with the single exception of 1860, we have had transfers of power every four years without violence. there are very few countries in the world that can say that over a quarter of a millennium period. it has worked that well. the question is, is this going to make it better, is it going to make things more of the same? letter was really quite interesting. it was a five term senator from indiana, which is a land of steady habits as far as i am concerned. the idea that he would lose a primary -- four or five years

ago this would have been unthinkable, and yet happened because he lost it to an uncompromising opponent. uncompromising people are easy to admire because they don't compromise, but when you get to washington, if you don't compromise, you have stasis. we have proof of that. we are sort of in a catch-22. what role does technology have in getting us out of that? i don't know. >> i think it will serve as a way to elevate the level of discourse and make it more civil. know how it ist all going to play out. i think you have communities where people know each other and are having conversations with each other. you read an article in a

mainstream publication, and you go online and the vitriol in the comments were people attack each other -- it is fascinating in some ways, reflective of democracy, but the language can be pretty tough. >> you have to pay attention to what is in giggles years and eyes of a long. he's been an enormous amount of time on facebook and in conversations with your friends and family and co-workers about the issues of the day, you are probably hearing back and forth and having a civil conversation. you turn on cable news and they are putting a spotlight on the most obnoxious, the rudest person who is able to screen the loudest. then the next screen over is the person who can screen the loudest on the other side. when that is the 24-7 thing that is happening on cable, it brings

out emotions and everyone else and make people think that politics is like that. when you have media that rewards poor behavior and screaming and partisanship and putting a live television camera on events that they know will outraged people and bring about fights, like a church population of nine people in arkansas that is going to burn the koran. that is where we end up, when you put a spotlight on that versus the fact that people have a very civil conversations in most parts of the country. >> at the end of the day, as you touched on, the country has generally gotten this stuff right. sometimes we go through periods

-- i have great confidence that historically, sometimes we may make a mistake or two, but generally the country is good at getting it right. my sense is that we are going through one of those periods where we are feeling our way through the process, but ultimately, we will have a cultural understanding. in the future people will just discount those and not respond. hopefully as to get more and more people and broad segments of the population living their daily lives, in gauging will serve in that leveling process. >> we are running out of time. let me just ask the three of you an impossible question. let's say for a moment that i am mitt romney, and i call you up,

tucker, and i say i need some advice. i want to win this election. what would you tell me to do? >> that's interesting. [laughter] i would tell governor romney that he should probably check my track record and call someone else. [laughter] i actually think that some of the things we have talked about are things that the romney campaign won't realize, and they hopefully will avoid the temptation to drive people part and wedged different constituencies, and address the problem we are talking about, which is how toxic the environment has become in politics. say what you will about governor romney, he is an outsider to

washington, and i do believe he has been able to be effective, and he is a person that understands compromise. i know that is unpopular s.a., but i hope that he will go back to considering that of being -- that being able to agree on certain things and being able to disagree on other things. it is something the electorate is looking for right now. that sells just as well in ohio and florida and virginia and north carolina as it did in massachusetts. i am confident he will, and i think governor romney has a very good chance of being the next president of the united states. >> sarah, you heard tucker sang mitt romney has a good chance of being the next president. i assume you are talking about 2012 and not 2016. so i am barack obama. i have just heard this, the president watches c-span and we are going to be on it. i need your read by somehow

should run this campaign so i am going to be reelected. what would you tell me to do? >> i would say that the way you actually begin the way acted today is a perfect reflection of the president that people loved. i think one of those things people love about the president is held authentic he is, and he showed that today. i think the people appreciate that and voters appreciate that. one of the reasons i have so much confidence in him is because of his record, which i think he will run on. i also think he is an excellent campaigner, and no one is better in a one-on-one fight that he is. he approaches campaigns as they are important, and their decisions about the future. you don't go down in the campaign for not saying what you think or what you feel we are not saying what you think is the right track " -- the right way forward with the country.

i think he will go in with guns blazing and he will be the campaigner we have seen for years. i think he will be the authentic president that we have seen for the last three years and i think he will be quite successful and do just fine. >> what do you make of the to comments you have just heard. >> i think it was very self- effacing. he is one of the best in the business and we were all very excited when he moved into the private sector. [laughter] as someone who wants to see the president get reelected, i hope sarah will take a vacation from the pilot project from the private sector and move back over into the campaign. -- i hope sarah will take a vacation from the private sector and move back over into the campaign. >> i think it will be a

competitive election and the candidate that does the best job will be in a strong position. sarah hit it right out of the park. anyone on my side of the island and an interim police the country is in the next kegan a better place with barack obama being reelected has to be thrilled with the step he took today. >> i have absolute confidence in john and i would like to ask him to come up and let me personally thank the three of you. it is awfully nice of you to come here and educate us. >> keep your seat for a second please. please join me in thanking the panel. [applause] i think no one of my favorite quotes about the museum was given to me a member a couple of years ago. he said this is the switzerland

of silicon valley. swift we've had a very but very provocative and wonderful panel tonight. thank you all for being here. have a good night, everyone. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> we are going like now to a high school in joplin, missouri. president obama is giving the

commencement address. a year ago, a high school was destroyed by a tornado. he will be speaking to seniors who were taking classes in a converted department store. >> foreign nation to push forward, accept reality, and blaze a trail for the classes that follow. however, it was not until may 13 that it hit me, that are probably ought to put something on paper. you guys remember paper, don't you? as luck would have it, i picked up the joplin globe and read the guest editorial written by a joplin sr., taylor campbell. it wasn't accurate and positive description of this incredibly unique year. it was awesome -- it was an accurate and positive description. i wondered if anyone would notice if i just read that as my

message. i could not do that. that would be plagiarism. class of 2012, you have defined this year as awesome, crazy, scary, sad, loud, and cozy. but awesome, to me, seems to be the right word to be awesome is defined as wonderful, impressive, and sometimes frightening. this year has been all that, a year of anything and everything. a year it took great pleasure in announcing graduating. 2012, you have done things this year that most people can only dream of. spend time reflecting on the schurick family and friends. reflect on the awesome as of at all. it has been a privilege and honor to serve you this year.

i wish god blessings on you and the lives you touch. thanks. i am not done yet. [applause] class of 2012, let's take one last opportunity as joplin high school students to show our eagle pride. are you ready? please rise. [chanting] [cheers and applause] >> at this time, it is my pleasure to introduce to you the

superintendent joplin schools. [applause] >> thank you. i can tell you right now, i cannot talk that. i can also tell you, this whole lot easier to give a speech in a room by yourself than to stand in front of all of you. it is not scary, i can promise you. i am very proud. graduates, today we celebrate your accomplishments in the presence of family, friends, and loved ones. today we are also joined by millions who will follow you

every single step of the way. each of you have won the hearts of an entire country by doing what you do best, just being you. granted, you have been supported greatly by bids americans from across the country and around local, but you have given back as well by being an inspiration to us all. today, we celebrate you on a job well done. congratulations. [applause] we each need people in our lives to inspire us and push us forward. just because in of the minute she will be walking across the stage, don't think for a second that kind of love and support will come to an end as you begin the next chapter of your lives. i remember on the night of may 23, after my first ever interviewed on a national television network, getting a text, data it that simply said "just saw you on tv.

we are so proud of you. now, show them what you can really do." as an insurmountable as the challenges seem to be at that time, a simple text message reminded me of this important fact. i have people in my life, my family and friends, who love me and believe in me, no matter what. like me, each of you have people in your lives who have supported you to get you where you are today. parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, teachers, pastors, and friends. people who love you, people who encourage you, and people who believe in you. uf also been greatly blessed by an outpouring of support by our new extended family, a global family, the army of volunteers who have given all that they are to make a difference in your lives and the lives of fellow students this school year, and you accepted their support with humility and sincere gratitude.

let's not forget that you have done your part, too. on august 17, 2011, you came to school and you went to work. mr. president, governor nixon, i present to you the class of 2012. like the people of joplin, who have shown an unprecedented result, this class has come quite simply, been amazing. -- this class has, quite simply, an amazing. [applause] in this class, there is a u.s. constitution team that took first place at the state and represented us at the national we the people competition in washington d.c. for the second year in a row. in this class, there are more students who took war honors level courses and scored higher in those classes in jhs history. that is worth some applause. in this class, there is a group

of students who took first place out of 49 schools with 1100 competitors at the missouri southern state university for language state competition. -- foreign language state competition. there are 68 seniors graduating with honors, 40% more than the previous record. [applause] and in this class of 2012, they are closing in on $2 million in scholarships to higher education institutions of our realm the country. this is some class. [applause] if i could have picked a model for this class, it simply be this, no excuses. class of 2012, you have shown amazing leadership and character in the face of overwhelming diversity. you have shown the world not only that of which your cable, but also that of which you are

made. on august 17, 2011, the nation was here to cheer you on. whether you realize it or not, on that day, joplin high school had become america's high school. today, you are america's graduates. [applause] believe it or not, 25 years ago, i sat in the same seat you are sitting. like many of you here today, i was uncertain about what my future held. as you move on to the next exciting chapter of your lives, i will conclude by offering new these two important pieces of advice. number one, if at first you don't succeed, do it like your mother told you to do in the first place. [laughter] number two, never, ever forget that no matter where you are, or

what you do, you are joplin family loves you and believes in you. we are so very proud of you. [applause] now, get out there and show them what you can really do. thank you. at this time, i have the privilege of introducing a man

who has had its roots on the ground in joplin since day one. i cannot express my appreciation enough for a governor who would take the time to share the resources of his office to support the joplin schools revealed efforts. he understands clearly that the future of joplin is in the hands of the children reserve today. please join me in welcoming a friend of the joplin community, a supporter of your joplin schools and a compassionate advocate for the students we currently serve, governor nixon. >> thank you and good evening. over the past year, the dublin schools have faced and overcome -- joplin schools have faced and

overcome many obstacles. with unwavering courage and resolve, he has led the joplin schools for. he has been an inspiration to us all. i am proud to have worked in partnership with him and proud to call him my friend. mr. president, ladies and gentlemen, please join me in thanking one of missouri's, one of america's finest leaders and educators. [applause]

accept blame one year ago -- exactly one year ago today, i stood on the stage to address the college graduates. it was a time of optimism. at a time to market major milestone. the time to look ahead of bright horizon with full heart and soaring hopes. changed everything. the next day changed us all. what a difference a year makes. and tonight we gathered together as we have so many times in the past year to celebrate another joplin milestone. the class of 2012, congratulation. we're so proud of you.

all that you have achieved reflects your strength of character, hard work, and high aspirations and also reflects the character of this community. this is a community of optimism. this is a community of believers. this is a community of fighters. this is a community that never gave up. never gave in and with hope in its heart and steel in its buying has come back stronger and better than ever. = = o -- in its spine has come back stronger and better than ever. your fight has shown the world that the spirit of joplin is unbreakable. joplin lost many things in the

storm but it never lost its heart or soul. the schools are the heart and soul of joplin as they are across our great state and great nation. our schools are unifying forces, a source of identity and pride. there citadel's of shared ofues -- they are citadels shared values and hopes. education is upon not only between students and teachers, it is a bond between generations, between its leaders and the children who will one day carry-on their unfinished work. -- carry on their unfinished work. joplin became the rallying point. with each passing day, as the storms of spring gave way to the army of summer, joplin's gained ground and became a

rallying point for much larger community, a community of people so inspired by your remarkable story that they needed to be part of it. they came by the thousands from all faiths and all walks of life. from alaska to florida, sweden to japan. brick by brick and board by board. joplin rose from the rubble. the son rises and sets on a rises and sets ons and a better place. the schools were opened as promised on august 17. [applause] that is the spirit of joplin

and each one of you as part of it. this class, the school, and this community will forever stand as a symbol of the best in our nation and the best in us. tonight, we look toward the bright horizon stretched for the class of 2012. with full hearts and soaring hopes, we celebrate the parent'' and grandparents', the aunts and uncles, the of brothers and sisters, friends and neighbors who have loved and supported the class of 2012. the faith and values to have instilled in these young adults are the bedrock they will build their lives on. that foundation cannot be moved. we celebrate the faculty, staff, and the administration. in a year like no other, you put your personal needs aside and always put your students first. for your abiding compassion and

devotion, will forever be in your debt. -- we will forever be in your debt. you give so selflessly and worked tirelessly to ensure a bright future for your children. you know, they will carry on your unfinished work. most of all, we celebrate you. joplin high school class of 2012. the world will never forget what you achieve your trade have been tried and tested and are stronger for it. -- will never forget your achievements. you have been tested and are stronger for it. become a doctor or a dancer, a soldier or a scientist, an engineer or an entrepreneur. you have learned, perhaps too

soon, that life is a fragile thread that binds us all together. never take a single moment for granted. you know because he lived it. from grade diversity -- great adversity, great blessings flow. with tenacity and the grace of god, all things are possible. class of 2012, congratulations. [applause] >> a few days after the tornado

president obama came to joplin. he spoke with many of our families. folks who had lost everything. he prayed with us, remembering the courage of those who gave their lives protecting others and asked the lord to look over and died as in the days ahead. the president pledged our country would be with us and stay with us at every step. as joplin recovered and rebuild and he has kept that commitment. -- rebuilt and he has kept that commitment. [applause] as a true partner and true friend of joplin, please try me in welcoming back to joplin the president of the united states of america, barack obama.

[applause] >> thank you. thank you very much. thank you so much. thank you. have a seat. a few people i want to acknowledge. first of all, you have an outstanding governor in jay nixon, and we're proud of all the work he has done. i want to acknowledge senger miscast all -- senator mc caskell, representative billy lowell, your mayor, somebody

who does not get a lot of attention but does amazing work all across the country including here. the head of fema, who spent a lot of time here helping to rebuild. superintendent huff, the to the faculty and the parents, family, friends, people of joplin. most all, the class of 2012. [applause] congratulations on your graduation and thank you for

allowing me the honor of playing a small part in this special day. the job of the commencement speaker primarily is to keep it short. they had given me more than two minutes. the other job -- as i look out at the class, across the city, what is clear is that you are the source of inspiration today. to me, to this dstate, to this country, and people all over the world. last year, the road that led you here took a turn that no one

could have imagined. just hours after the class of 2011 walked across the stage, the most powerful tornado tore our path of devastation through joplin that was nearly a mild wide. -- a mile wide. it took hundreds of homes and businesses and 161 of your neighbors, friends, and family. it took a classmate, will norton, who just left the auditorium with a diplomat in his hand. and by now i expect that most of you have probably relived those

32 minutes again and again. where you work, what you saw, -- where you were, what you saw, first contact, the first phone call you had with someone you loved, the first day you woke up in a world that would never be the same. and yet, the story of joplin is not just what happened that day. it is the story of what happened the next day and a day after that. and all the days and weeks and months that followed. as your city manager has said, the people here chose to define the tragedy not by what has happened to us but how we

responded. class of 2012, that story is yours. it is part of you now. as others have mentioned, you have had to grow quickly -- up quickly. bellard we cannot always predict what life has in store -- you have learned cannot always predict what life has in store. life can bring some hard? -- heartaches. at some point, life will bring loss. but here in joplin, you have also learned we have the power to grow through these experiences. we can define our lives not by what happens to us but how we respond.

we can choose to carry on. we can to estimate the difference in the world. in doing so, we can make true what is written in scripture, tribulation produces perseverance. perseverance, character. and character, h ope. -- hope. of all that has come from this tragedy, let this be the central lesson that guides us, let it be the lesson that sustains you through whatever challenges lie ahead. as you begin the next stage in your journey, wherever your going, what ever you are doing, whenever you encounter greed and selfishness and ignorance and cruelty, sometimes just bad

luck, you will meet people who tried to build themselves up by tearing others down. you will meet people who believe that looking after others is only for suckers. you are from joplin, so you will remember, you will know just how many people there are who see life differently. those who are guided by kindness and generosity, by service. you will remember in that town of 50,000 people, nearly 50,000 more came in to help the weeks after the tornado. a perfect strangers who never met you and never ask for anything in return. -- perfect strangers who never

met you and never asked for anything in return. one of those was one man who traveled all the way from japan. because he remembered that americans were there for his country after last year's tsunami and he wanted the chance, he said, too. ford. there were americorps volunteers who left their homes and chose to stay here until the work is done. and there was the day the football team rolled into town with an 18 wheeler full of donated supplies. there were assigned to help out laces, theyl p [lace

were assigned to help out on avenue. -- kansas avenue. they met a woman named carol mann who had left -- lost the house she lived in for 18 years. she works part-time at mcdonald's. she struggles with seizures and she told the players that she had even lost her change purse that held her lunch money. so one of them, one of the players went back to the house, and dug through the rubble and returned with the purse with $5 inside. sister said so much of the news that you hear is so negative, these boys renewed my

faith that there is so many good people in the world. that is what you will remember. because you are from joplin. you will remember that half million dollar donation that came from angelina jolie and an up-and-coming actor named brad pitt. you also remember the $360 that was delivered by a 9-year-old boy who organized his own car wash. you will remember the school supplies donated by our neighboring towns. you will remember that laptops that were sent by the united arab emirates. when it came time for your prom,

melissa blake donated 1000 prom dresses and cupcakes were donated for the occasion. they were good cupcakes. [laughter] there are so many good people in the world. there is such a decency. a bigness of spirit in this country of ours. so class of 2012, you got to remember that. remember what people did here and like that man who came all the way from japan to joplin, make sure in your own life that you. ford. -- forward.

as you have learned the goodness of people, you have learned to the power of community. you learned from the other speakers how powerful that is, and as you take on the roles of co-worker and business owner, neighbor, a citizen, you will encounter all kinds of divisions between groups, divisions of race and religion, ideology. you will meet people who like to disagree for the sake of being disagreeable. it will make people who prefer to play of their differences instead of -- you will meet people who prefer to play of their differences. but, you are from joplin, so you will always know it is always possible for community to come together when it matters most. after all, you could have spent

her senior year scattered throughout different schools from home. dr. huff asked everyone to pitch in so school can start on time. he understood the power of this community and he understood the power of place. these teachers worked extra hours, coaches put in extra time. that mall was turned into a classroom and the food court was turned into a cafeteria which may be some of you thought was an improvement. [laughter] the arrangements may have been a little noisy and improvised but you hunkered down and you made it work together. you made it work together. that is the power of community. together, you decided the city

was not about to spend the next year arguing over every detail of the recovery effort. every citizen was handed a post- and asked to write down their goal for joplin's future. more than 1000 notes cover the wall and became the blueprint that architects are following for this day. i am thinking about trying this with congress, giving them post- it notes. [laughter] [applause] together, the businesses that were destroyed in the tornado decided they were not about to walk away from the community. -- the committee that made their success possible. even if it would have been easier, more profitable to go someplace else. and so today, more than half the stores that were damaged are up and running again.

11 more plan on joining them. every time a company reopens its stores, people cheer the cutting of the ribbon that bears the new slogan, remember, rejoice, and rebuild. that is community. i have been told, class of 2012, that before the tornado, many of you could not wait to leave here wants high school was finally over. so the student council president, julie lewis. she is too embarrassed to raise your hand. she said, "we never thought joplin was all that special -- seeing how we responded to something that tore our community apart has brought us

together. everyone has a lot more pride in our town." id is no surprise that many of you decided to stick around. -- it is no surprise that many of you decided to stick around. going to community colleges that are not too far from home. that is the power of community, the power of shared effort and shared memory. strongest bonds are the ones that we forge when everything around seems broken. even though i expect that some of you will ultimately end up leaving joplin, i am pretty confident that joplin will never leave you. the people who went through this with you, the people who you once thought of as simply neighbors or acquaintances, classmates, the people in this auditorium tonight, your family

now. -- you are family now. they are your family. my deepest hope for all of you is as you begin this new chapter in your life, you will bring that spirit of joplin to every place you travel, to everything you do. you can serve as a reminder that we are not meant to walk this road alone. we are not expected to face down adversely by ourselves. -- adversity by ourselves. we need god, we need each other, we are important to each other and we are stronger together than we are on our own. that is the spirit that has brought all of you to rebuild this city, and that is the same spare we need right now to help rebuild america.

ankiel, class of 2012, you are going to help lead this effort -- and you, class of 2012, you're going to help lead this effort. it will build an economy where every child can count on -- you will build an economy where every child can count on an education. [applause] you will make sure this country can find a job for anyone who puts in an effort and supports the family. you are the ones who will make sure our country controls our energy future where we lead the world in science and technology and innovation. america only succeeds when we all pitch in and pull together. and i am counting on you to be leaders in that effort. because you are from joplin, and

you have already defined -- defied the odds. there are a lot of stories here in joplin of unthinkable courage and resilience over the last year, but still, there are some that stand out especially on the stage. by now, most of you know quentin anderson. he is already looking embarrassed. someone is talking about you again. i will talk about you anyway. quentin's journey has been joplin's gerjourney. he was across the street from his house. the young man who found him could not imagine quentin would survive his injuries. he woke up in a hospital bed three days later and it was then that his sister grace told him

both their parents have been lost in the storm. quentin went on to face over five weeks of treatment including emergency surgery but he left the hospital determined to carry on and live his life and be there for his sister. over the past year, he has been a football captain who cheered from the sidelines when he could not play. he worked that much harder so he could be ready for baseball in the spring. he won a national scholarship for the national football awards and planned to study molecular biology at harding university this fall. [applause] >> he says that his model in life is always take extra step. and today, after a long and

improbable journey for quentin, and for joplin and for the inquiry -- entire class of 2012, that extra step is about to save you from whatever future you will for and whatever dreams you save in your hearts. yes, you will encounter obstacles along the way. i guarantee you will face setbacks and disappointments but you are from joplin, and you are from america and no matter how tough times get, you will always be tougher. and no matter what life throws at you, you will be ready. you will not be defined by the difficulties that you face, but

you will be known by your strength and commitment to others. langston hughes, a poet, civil rights activist who knew some tough times, he was born -- yesterday, a night on thing, a son down in, and dawn today a broad arc above the road above we came we march. to the people of the cost of toward the 12, we have the road tomorrow, so we marche we march together and you are leading the way because you are from joplin

may god bless the class of 2012. may god bless the united states of america. [applause]

>> i think this is one of those markets that i think people vote for -- don't vote for the party. i think this is a city in which they vote for the candidate, even though it is heavily republican, midwest, which is dynamic and this is great. but i think you have seen more of that in recent years in the midwest. they are voting a little bit more for what the person stands for. >> american history tv explores the heritage of wichita, kansas. >> this is the only remaining original structure from the 1865 through 1870 time frame. it was a very important building

in our history in that it is a residence, but also the headquarters of the wichita county land company that came down here to create, shall we say, the city of wichita. >> watch it on june 2 and third on c-span2 and 3. >> former supreme court justice john paul stevens on monday criticized recent court decisions in redistricting cases. he also commented on the court's decision that ended the floor every count in the case of bush vs. gore. he was nominated by president ford in 1975 to the supreme court. he retired in 2010 and is the author of his supreme court memoir. from the american law institute, this is a little more than half hour. [applause] >> justice stevens is, in my mind, the very perfect justice

to the supreme court. but let me tell you why. because his life experience is so broad, his compassion is so deep, and his intellect is so very far-reaching. let me tell you how i first met justice stevens, because i think it offers insight into the kind of human being he is. many years ago, in albuquerque, new mexico, justice stevens and his wife applied to play in a bridge tournament. one of my partners at the time invitee he, his wife, and i to dinner. i could not imagine meeting a justice of the supreme court, let alone having dinner. we had a very incredible dinner, which justice stevens told us all about what it was like to be a justice of the

supreme court, go to a bridge tournament, and have no one cared anything about except what you had just played. [laughter] they felt quite free to tell them what -- to tell him what they thought of what he just played. [laughter] at the end of the evening, there was an uncomfortable silence. he finally said, gregg, don't you want to invite me to come to your firm to meet your law clerks? of course, we could not imagine having been bold enough to ask him to do that. so, in albuquerque, new mexico, in the summer, in a law firm of 21 people. -- in a law firm of 21 people, our firm thought we were the smartest human beings on the planet. what happened was even more remarkable. when justice stevens sat down in our very small conference room in the old bank building, which had been most famous until

that moment because the movie the muppets take manhattan had taken place in that conference room, he spoke for a few minutes. and then he said, but i have questions to ask you. and he spent the rest of almost two hours asking people what it was like to practice law in albuquerque, new mexico. what it was like then to be a law student, come to a firm, what things people were worried about, what was important to them, what they saw as important for the life of the law. that kind of desire to continue to understand what is going on in the lives of all kinds of people is, when combined with his great scholarship, combined with his great intellect, combined with his great compassion, has made him, to me, the very perfect person to sit on the highest court of the

land. justice stevens, it is an honor to have you here and we thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. before i read you my prepared remarks, i have to acknowledge what a nice introduction that was. i remember that occasion very well, too. parts of the reason i was very happy to be privileged to park -- to talk to the american bar association when roberta was the first woman chairman of the association, and it reminded me, it is not particularly relevant, but it reminded me of the fact that i sort of specialized in talking at the bar association occasions honoring first woman president. [laughter] i had previously talked to the bar association in chicago in the 1970's.

she was then the first woman president of a major bar association. of course, roberta followed up. i was told at the time, she was going to have a sensational career, which, of course, was obviously a correct prediction. but this afternoon i thought i would make a brief comment about bush against gore. because there has been so much discussion of the remedy issue in that case in which a majority of the united states supreme court issued a stay that halted the recount of the florida votes in the presidential election of 2000. the significance of the courts opinions reliance and the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment has been generally overlooked.

as you may recall, in the 2000 election, florida used of voting machines to count ballots on which the voters had use a stylus to punch a hole in a small circle opposite the preferred candidate's name. of voters who successfully followed the written instructions punched a complete hole in the ballots and their boats were accurately counted by the machines. the voters whose votes were not counted by machines fell into two categories. over votes and under votes. the over the boat category included ballots on which the voter had tried to vote for two or more candidates for the same office. the under vote category included

ballots in which the voter had designated just one candidate, but had failed to make a complete hole in the ballot. there were two subcategories of under holes -- hanging in chad's and a dimpled chad's. [laughter] in the hanging chad category, the punch out peace remained partially attached while the temple chad contained an indentation or an incomplete call. the florida supreme court ordered a manual recount to be conducted according to the voter standard established by florida law. that did not require a recount of over votes, presumably because a re-examination of those ballots would seldom revealed the identity of the voter's preferred candidate. the question, which first week -- with respect to under vote's however, was whether the voters intended to support for any presidential candidate at all.

in the typical case, either a hanging chat or a dimpled chad opposite the name of one candidate would both identified the voters preferred candid and indicate his or her intent to cast a vote. during the recount election, officials differed on the question of whether to count both deviled chad's and hanging tads, or just of the latter. in other words, those which could be seen through the edge of the chad. in palm beach county, for example, officials began to follow a 1990 timeline that true distinction between hanging and dimple chad's. they ended up counting both subcategories of under votes. in its opinion, the supreme court described that change in a way that gives of the reader the impression that the officials had engaged in a standardless endeavor.

the opinion stated, palm beach county, for example, began of the process with a 1990 guideline which precluded completely unattached chad's, switched to a rule that was considered a vote to be illegal if any vote was seen to the chat, switched back to the 1990 rule, and then abandoned any pretense of a rule only to have a court order that the county considered dimple chad's legal. the paragraph is misleading in two respects. first, what it describes as switching to a new rule, was, in fact, on a clarification of the original rule that consider only hanging chad's as a valid of votes. byrd's new rule was a hanging chad was one through which any light could be seen, that evidence that the chat was not completely attached. second, with the paragraph

described and said changing back to the 1990 rule was just a continuation of the practice of not counting dimpled chad's. of most significance, however, is the fact that the county ended up treating temple chad's as valid votes before the united states stream -- supreme court ruled. while the court opinion is misleading in other respects, for example, the implicit suggestion that the failure to order a recount of the estimated 110,000 over votes was in error, despite the lack of evidence or argument suggesting how one could tell which candidate the voters intended to support, the principal point i want to make this morning provides the absence of any

rationale supporting the reliance of the equal protection clause. the equal protection clause requires states to govern impartially. it has a particular course in in that -- in prevent -- protecting the right to vote. there must be -- a price -- including groups of individuals that are defined by race, by political affiliation, or by the residents in a particular location. one-person, one-vote rule, for example, prohibits states from giving greater weight to votes in a rural area than two votes in densely populated cities. if residents of palm beach county, or perhaps members of the democratic party, were more likely than other voters to produce a dimpled chad's rather than hanging chance, there might be reason to hold that

counting the two subcategories differently would violate the protection clause. there is no claim by anyone in the case that variations and the method of accounting under votes had any systemic significance. the mere possibility that accidental and random errors would not establish any intentional discrimination against a pre-identified group of voters and would not even establish any unintended disparate impact on either candidate, and surely there would be nothing even arguably discriminatory in applying a rule that counted dimple chad's like hanging chad's. it is the supreme court part -- opinion in ordering a recount is flawed because the double chants, as well as hanging chats, should be counted as valid votes.

that omission was a flop. it could have been remedied by quoting two sentences. the objection that to be counted the chad should be fully punched out, or at least it should be a hanging chat on the outside of the bout would set too rigid a standard for determining whether the voters intended to vote for a particular candidate. many voters to be disenfranchised, without their fault, if, for example, it indicated the voters intent to vote. i have never thought the supreme court's opinion was flawed, however, because it seems obvious to me that the

intent of the voter standard on which the florida supreme court relied was sufficiently clear. my principal purpose in calling your protection -- in calling your attention to the clause in bush against a gore is to emphasize how that would invalidate the hideous political behavior that remains popular today. surely, it must follow, that the intentional practice of drawing desired boundaries of districts in order to enhance the political power of the dominant party is unconstitutional. in recent cases, however, members of the majority of the supreme court have written opinions that concluding the absence of standards precludes judicial review of even the most obvious manners. several separate opinions, including one written by justice lewis powell in 1986, as well as several of my own, have

identified such standards that even a majority of the court has applied manageable standards in cases involving racial issues. to recognize those standards is less a category of intentional discrimination against the voters, so long as the discrimination is predicated on the basis of political party and about race. for example, just last year, 83-judge district court rejected the challenge to maryland redistricting plan because it had not shown that they moved african-american voters from one district to another because

there african-americans, not simply because they're democrats. even though the plaintiffs claim that democratic politicians had drawn district lines to reduce the number of republican held congressional seats was, in the words of the court, the ec's -- the easiest claim to accept the fact julie. the court declared it the weakest claim legally because the supreme court has declared partisan jurying non judgmental. i will refrain from repeating the arguments i have made on this topic, but it seems appropriate to remind the members of this distinguished audience that both legislatures and courts have adequate power and should recognize their

responsibility to curtail this insidious bracket. the tools for doing so, as a judicial matter, have already number of separate opinions by members of the court discussing political issues. thank you for your attention and continued efforts to improve the law. [applause] >> and justice stevens, i think election law project. -- it is tomorrow that we go to our election law project. we'll do so with some serious

words in mind. justice stevens has said he might answer a question are two. i told him there might be some reluctance of people to raise their hands, having listened to oral arguments on at least the radio. but if there are people who would like to ask questions, please stand at one of the microphones. and identify yourself. yes, sir. >> good afternoon. my name is paul. i am from chicago. did you see this morning that the supreme court affirmed the decision in the legal voters of women in illinois, there was another partisan gerrymandering case. is it >> is there a follow-up question? >> all i can say is it is news to me. [laughter]

>> more bad news. >> yes, sir. >> could you speak up a little bit? >> justice stevens, since your analysis of the supreme court's opinion in bush obverses gore indicates how seriously flawed that opinion was, do you think that politics played a part in the majority's decision? >> did i think politics played a part? i do not know. [laughter] [applause]

>> well, if they are quick questions, there are three microphones. 3, 5, and a 4. >> john oakley, from davis, california. for nearly 40 years since the 1974 decision, the supreme court by a 5-4 majority, no matter who seems to come and who seems to go, has great difficulty getting the sovereign immunity right. you famously said, in your dissenting opinion that the court's 11th amendment law eliminates the character of an institution. i have always wanted to ask you to expand on that analysis. [laughter] >> well, i have written a great deal on that issue. i do not have much to add. i would really recommend that you read a book called the five chiefs. it has a lot to say on the issue. [laughter]

>> yes, sir. >> good afternoon. from baltimore, maryland. i was wondering if you have any thoughts about the direction jurisprudence is likely to go or how it might be looked at in the coming years. in the supreme court. >> of course, that is a very difficult question. it depends on the attitudes of who is sitting on the court. i really think that, with regard to the death penalty, which i'm sure is at the back of your mind with this question, i'm not sure that the democratic process won't provide the answer sooner than the court does. i do think there is a significantly growing appreciation of the basic imbalance in a cost versus benefit analysis.

it does a lot of harm. it does very little beyond the imposition of life without parole. it includes the continued risk of an incorrect conclusion by the jury, the death penalty having been rejected in michigan on the basis of the fact that two men had been executed and later it was established there were innocent. i think the public generally will come to realize that there is a tremendous waste of resources in administering the death penalty and they will, on a stage-by-state basis, reached the conclusion. >> thank you.

[applause] >> michelle fields, from washington, d.c. can i diskette your thoughts on the supreme court's in pending health-care decision? [laughter] and whether you think it looks bad or good for the administration? >> i have not read the brief period [laughter] -- the brief. [laughter] i make a conscious effort without trying to decide a difficult issue without hearing both sides of the case. [applause] >> i wanted to tell you that i finished reading "five chiefs" last week. i hope everyone reads it. it is not only the perfect book for people who are not lawyers, it is an amazing explanation of the profound importance of the court's decisions in our country. it is so important because some people have never read the united states constitution at the end.

i give it a five-star amazon review. [laughter] ladies and gentleman and the justice stevens, what an amazing event for all of us to have you here. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> we are honored to have among us, at least two of justice stevens former clerks. >> in 1973, president richard benson secretly recorded his conversations. hear more between the president

and the cia director, and hear more with j. edgar hoover. >> many people think i ought to make eight this -- a statement about freedom of the press and that we are trying to send to them and so forth. i think i should stay out. the what is your public relationship? >> you should remain absolutely silent about it. >> in washington d.c., listen at 90.1 fm, nationwide on xm channel 119, and streaming at c- spanradio.org. in up -- next, the future of the navy's combat fleet. then the campaign's use of technology. then the president's speech tonight to graduates in joplin, missouri.

and former supreme court justice john paul stevens. several live events to tell you about tomorrow. the energy and natural resources committee looks like -- looks at energy and conservation. also, the head of the security and exchange commission mary shapiro as well as gary against other testify before the senate banking committee about the recent losses at j.p. morgan. and the road to the white house presidential campaign coverage continues with a new hampshire speech on the economy by vice president joe biden. you can see that live at 1:45 p.m. eastern. >> people look at what happened with j.p. morgan and say, here is a company that made a stupid decision, lost money, did not

collapse, five people are responsible. this is the way market is supposed to happen. why did government need to play a role? >> that is true, but to some extent i take responsibility for it. government needs to pay -- play a role. two years ago, if this had happened then, you would have seen much more concerned in the economy. what we did through legislation is to require these things to be much better capitalized. you have to have more capital than you would have otherwise. that helps to give people assurance. >> congressman barney frank spoke about the over $2 billion loss by j.p. morgan chase, as well as the state of the u.s. and world economies, the dodd- frank blye and gay marriage. watch it on lawn -- on-line at

c-span/videolibrary -- c- span.org/videolibrary. >> next, combat ships intended for combat close to shore. up next, the cato institute on the multiple designs for the new ships and their effectiveness. this is a little more than an hour and a half. >> thank you, everybody, for coming, and welcome to those who are watching on c-span. my name is ben friedman. i notice on the web description, it said the senior fellow, so i accept the promotion and assume it comes with a raise. we're here to talk about the navy and the surface fleet in particular.

here at cato, we are what i call relative navalists. this means we want to have a smaller military and fewer wars. we would like to give a bigger portion of the defense budget to the navy. i will introduce the speakers in the order they are speaking. if you see our first speaker, ben freeman, quoted in the newspaper, assume that thanks to the strange likeness to me, i was planning to tell him there was not enough room for the both of us in d.c., but he does good work at the project on government oversight, so i allowed him to stay. he specializes in the department of defense personnel issues, weapons procurement, focusing on the littoral combat ship. he also looks at the impact of

lobbying on u.s. foreign policy, and there is a book coming out on this soon, right? he got a ph.d. in political science at texas a&m. then we have eric labs, who has worked in the congressional budget office where he is a senior analyst for naval forces and weapons, specializing in procurement and a sizing of the department of navy. he is used to the cameras from his vast experience in congressional testimony. his reports on shipbuilding and programs are required reading if you want to be up to date on the navy. he got his ph.d. at mit, where he was part of the world's

finest securities studies program. then we have robert work, who has been undersecretary of the navy in the obama administration. he served 27 years as an officer in the marines, working at the secretary of the navy's office in the clinton administration. he worked for the office of strategic and budgetary assessment. and these positions he worked on defense strategy and programs, dod transformation, and produced a lot of writing that ended up in my piles. he has a master of science and systems management from usc, other degrees from the naval postgraduate school and the johns hopkins school of

advanced international studies, which gives him one fewer masters than normal cato speakers. we made an exception. last we have christopher preble, vice president here at cato. he is the author of three books recently. he has another book that he was lucky enough to co-author with me. before joining cato, chris taught at st. cloud university, where he got his ph.d. in history, and he was a commissioned officer for the navy and served on the u.s.s. ticonderoga. with that, i will turn the microphone over to ben freeman. >> thanks, ben, and thanks to

cato for having me, too. i have been investigating the littoral combat ship. it's been asked to represent 1/3 of the surface combatant fleet. so it is a good issue to talk about today. we found some issues with the first mature role combat ship, the u.s.s. freedom. it was recently learned about equipment failures and design issues. some issues had been previously reported, but many, like a stern door with a large gap underneath, or the ramp with corrosion, threat the interior of this ship. the navy called these class issues. these should have never been

issues in the first place. the ship builders told us this is shipbuilding 101. we are confident that the officers will and support this investigation. i hope this will clarify questions i have been asking about the program. when i first began looking at the ship and working with these whistle-blowers, i learned about so many problems that one of the first questions i asked was, do you think the navy should use this ship? the answer was no. it was an emphatic no! now with the pushback to singapore in 2013, they're not

convinced that is a good idea. the ship continues those issues and cracking problems. equipment failures continue to plague the ship, including engine failures. the question that i kept asking was, we know the other version, the general dynamics. we know that has problems. there are a lot of core issues. which variant is worse? initially the plan was to do it as a down-select plan, have two ships built, pick the best ship.

i have not gotten my hands on other whistle-blowers, but based on information, i think the lockheed variant is the weaker of the two. we're not sure dod knows. their office says they have not received foundation reports, formal, from the program testing office. the navy says they are working on the reports. we know we are buying a lot of these ships without knowing what we are getting. a fellow panelist said we are not sure how it will operate in the fleet. the question i asked him then and one i would like answered is, why do we have to procure well under contract if we do not know that testing results?

another question is should we be purchasing two very different variants? it is better for lockheed and general dynamics, but for taxpayers, and the cato crowd, i am not convinced it is a good idea. if you're concerned with readiness, i am not sure it is a good idea. for the first time we are seeing these two ships side by side. that is pretty cool to see them out there. when you see them side by side, you really see how different these ships are. it is hard to imagine two ships that do the exact same mission looking more different. we have lcs1, and then lcs 2, a very intimidating looking ship.

they do exactly the same thing. the differences go far beyond the appearance. they are very costly down the line. the crews of one may not be able to operate the other. your spare parts and other those supply chains will be different. there may be issues with compatibility of the mission modules. this drives up costs and can decrease readiness. if these ships can do the exact same thing, why should we pay more for two? another question is whether not lcs is a combat ship. even though that is its name, i

am not sure. it will only conduct independent operations. why do we need it at all? i would like to believe the navy keeps the seas safe. near the iranian coast, it will not be in a low-threat area and it may not have a superior strike group there. the lcs is not prepared to fulfill the mission. the development of the module has been slow at best. currently we are looking at a mine hunter that cannot see or stop mines and we're looking at a sub hunter that does not have torpedo detection.

i would like the lcs to do a lot of things. it just cannot do a lot of things well. with that, i will hand over the rest of my time to the panel for the rest of the surface combat fleet. >> i want to thank ben for inviting me today. at the outset, the views i expressed here are my own and not those of the cbo or congress. i would like to frame my remarks with these three questions -- is the navy buying the right ships? can the navy afford these plants? if there uncertain answers to their questions, are there alternatives? the short answers to the question -- can the navy afford the plans? probably not. can the navy afford its plan? for the last 30 years the navy

has spent $16 billion a year on new construction, refueling of submarines, delivery, everything. the navy's 2013 plan proposes to spend on average over the next 30 years $16.8 billion a year for new construction alone. when you add in all the other things, you're talking about $18.5 billion a year per year over the next 30 years. of that money, a lot of this will be loaded beyond the fit- up. the cost of this is $13.7 billion a year.

we do not know how the sequestration is going to play out, but regardless, it seems clear whether we get a change in the budget, that may have a further impact on the amount of funding available. is the navy buying the right ships? the navy's plan has been making changes to the service combatant forces. it truncated a program, canceled another, it has restarted another line, it is proposing to modify a line as the economy exists with an improved radar. it has maintained 55 lcs in that program.

a recent report raised questions whether the 51 flight 3 is the right program for that future. it is a long report. some of the bottom-line concerns are that it may cost more than the navy thinks and there are questions about whether it will have a margin of stability and growth and power that a ship of its type is going to need to have. it is supposed to last for 40 years. lcs, that ship has been taking a lot of raps these days. i am not going to talk about the construction species. this is because i do not find them conclusive for the class as a whole. the concept of the lcs is an innovative one, being a mother ship.

we did have a long discussion, but that is probably the future of the navy. i would be hesitant to cancel a program that has pursued the first excursion down the path of the mother and remote systems. the navy is going to have to prove this concept at sea in an operational environment. a few observations about the mission. at the outset, the navy did not justify the ship in waters. the navy did not do an analysis ahead of this program. it performed what my counterpart has called an analytic version birth. it is not clear why it needed to be 40 knots in terms of its speed. it has a limited range at high

speeds and has an average range when operated at slow speeds, and it was justified as a critical wartime asset. over the past two years the navy's destination has evolved more to peacetime missions, maritime security, engagement with allies, exercises, sanctions enforcement. it will free up cruisers that currently do a lot of these missions because it is less intimidating to work with. even the cno said he would be hesitant to send it into a robust environment in wartime, but would be more inclined to keep the lcs because it will help prevent the war because it will be performing in this exercise-type niche, build a robust set of alliances, and reassure allies that --

are there alternatives? one would be that it could be cheaper is that if you think we are right to be buying 24 total, occurring right now, and for we have already appropriated 20 lcs for the navy, which has to come to its next decision point, and if it is like to be using these exercises, you could get a joint high-speed -- you could put some weapons and combat systems on that. you could come up with a ship suitable for those missions that the lcs is going to be doing for less money. that is one possibility. that is a cheaper option. another would be looking at the coast guard security cutter.

in a report, the undersecretary made the argument that he would buy nine frigates for these missions. in that report he wanted to buy that 55 lcs's that were part of the plan, but he found that nine frigates and exercise- building, sanctions enforcement, would be a useful contributor to the fleet. this is not a cheaper option. the national security cutter is a more expensive ship and the lcs, even before you make changes to the cutter that would make it more suitable. it might be a better fit because it has three times the range and endurance the lcs.

in terms of the large surface combatants, if you do not find the 51 flight 3, is that a good story, there are not lot of alternatives. you could use the 1000 hull, which would have everything built into it already. it will be a more expensive ship. where does that leave us? here is what i call that iron triangle of navy shipbuilding. if you find you do not have enough money, you have three choices. you can spend more money, buy cheaper ships, or buy fewer ships. the spend more money often is not viable. the navy has gone down the path of buying cheaper ships. the contract price for the lcs gets you a $550 million ship. you go back to the question of whether it is the best fit. the result will perhaps be buying fewer ships, and then we

need to talk about, how small a fleet is too small? whenever we discussed today, this should be the question that for the background -- if we are going to a smaller fleet, how small should it be? thank you very much. >> good afternoon, everybody. it is a pleasure to be here to talk about the future of the u.s. navy surface fleet, and the lcs.

you have to understand the fleet design. this is a radically different fleet design. i want to take a couple seconds and what you the different generations before i talk about the lcs. there is a myth that today's fleet is nothing more than a smaller version of the cold-war fleet. nothing is further from the truth. from 1945 on, the navy went all into the guided munitions region, in which most munitions being fired at sea would be guided weapons. as a person said, one of the best technicians the navy has produced, all this is about is about a new weapon, a well- aimed missile to take advantage of our sensing and communication technologies and

vice versa. the first generation had a specific operational problem. everything is about going after guided weapons, but each of the generations came a little bit differently. the first generation we had 6500 ships in august, 1945. within five years we were down to 634. a lot of those ships were decommissioned, but a lot of them went into the reserve fleet. we could take a ship out of the reserves if a korea popped up. what you needed was to keep the soviet bombers away from the group, so you need a whole bunch of radar pickets.

we feared the soviets, like us, got copies of the german submarine which was revolutionary, and made obsolete all our destroyer escorts. we had to cope with large numbers of those. the parity was to develop guided weapons and go after a couple things. in this generation, we only built for the new combatants, -- 40 new combatants, and they did not have any guided weapons, with the exception of homing torpedoes. there was a giant depth charge gun and the five-inch 38. we had 67 conversions of world war ii ships. the second-generation was we are now faced with nuclear-

powered submarines and anti-ship cruise missiles coming en mass. the focus was to get more aaw capability into the fleet. 121 new constructed ships. and they would have gone in under the high intensity combat? of course not. you had 16 conversions where we took old cruisers and we put missiles in them. and we took 148 destroyers and we put them through a big thing called the fram and tried to make them capable. third generation now we are

focused on war at sea against the soviet union. high intensity warfare. there was going to be a collision of battle networks. we built 106 third generation chips, 55 combatants at the high end, and 51 for protection of shipping combatants. you never ever buy a ship to go into battle. you cannot afford it. it is not worth it. you do not need it. we did a couple second- generation ships, the new upgrade where we make those ships a lot better. we are going to all digital combat systems. we introduced all sorts of new combat systems. this fleet is all in the guided weapons regime, asw, and aaw

warfare. >> over these three generations, the navy lost interest in the small combatant. we built 74 p.t. bodes. we had steel-hulled submarine chasers. we were a small combat apt navy. a very small percentage of our 6,700 ships at the end of the world war ii were small combatants. we found out they can't carry the weapons they need to carry. the second generation we tried something smaller. the asheville gun boats. built 17 of them. their average years of service

was only eight years. there just wasn't a need for them. >> high speed, low-drag shims. highly armed for their size. they had an average years of service of only 11.5 years. what i am trying to tell you is we come to the fourth generation, thend of the cold war, and the navy has essentially decided that the smallest combatant in the fleet should be about 4,000 tons. that is the size of a small frig ought. the key operation now is land attack. it is all about rapidly defeating an enemy's invasion. what you need is a lot of capacity for a lot of guided missiles. you want to connect to the joint battle network because in generation three we were doing everything independently at

sea. we divested all combatants that didn't have the egis combat system on it or the vertical launch system. we standardized everything. it was enormously beneficial. same propulsion train and combat systems throughout the feet. we improved our battle networking. we gradually said we are going it to go even bigger. we were going to get rid of all frigots. we built 13 coastal ships, but we turned out not to need them. we were going to go to a 14,000 ton destroyer so that the smallest feet, we were going to 116 combatants. the smallest ship in our force would have been about 9,000 tons. it would have been excellent at bombing an enemy or stopping an invasion. but it was really a one-note navy. so the fifth generation, here

is where we are. key operational problem is we are now faced with land-based anti-access, area denial networks that have knaval components, and you have to fight your way in to do what you need to do. you want to maintain cost effective force presence. how do you solve those two problems? we go to a high-low mix. our cruisers and destroys with big vertical launch missile cells, high capacity. they are focused on the big, big fight. those are multi-mission ships. they carry all their capability with them. then you go after smaller, multi--role shims. i like the swiss army knife, but this thing does it better. it is a multi--role system. every single ship in the fleet is self deployable.

we used to have sifrlt dunks, but everything is now self deployable. we have an improved battle network and improved second systems. u.u.v., u.s.c.'s. so the the surface fleet supports our fleet citizen, which is a total force battle network, which is just a serious of capability containers from small to extra large. multi-role at the low end, and multi-mission and multi-role at the high end, extremely versatile. you pour any type of capability you want into the shims. that is our fleet design. now, i say we have second stage systems. a lot of people look at the

l.c.s., and i will break the people who don't like the l.c.s. down into three general grooms. the first group are people that just don't understand the complete design. it is different than the navy has ever had. they just don't get. they don't accept what i have just told you. we can debate that. we are confident that we are on the right path here. the second once -- ones are the ones who focus on the second part of the program. we know we had a problem. it was a disaster when we took over. there were auto sorts of problems in the way we produced and designed the ship, but we think we are well on the way of getting it on track. there are people who don't like the ship itself, the design flaws in the ship. some of the people in the group, the people who don't get fleet design, they want to see a frigot. we don't need them. if we needed one, we would

build one. other people want to see gun boats. we just had the contract for the mark vi patrol boat. it has four remote weapon systems on it. you can put anything on this thing you want. 80 -- 40 knots, 80-foot. it is a second stage system. everything we are putting in it is either self deployable or we order it. let's talk about the lit combat ship, and then we will have some questions. the lit combat ship retchts the small combatant. there are whistle blowers. there are so many people who believe if you are not in a frigot, cruiser or destroyer,

that it is not a warship. they are dead wrong. it is about 3,000 tons. and i believe seeing clark was will yant when he picked this -- brilliant when he picked this size. small combatants don't survive in this navy. it has to have the margins to do something well. 3,000 tons. emphasizing second stage systems. it was so different that we built these two shims on r and d money. these are r and d platforms. of course there are problems in it. we built them to identify the problems. >> we are now working the mission modules. we just had a successful test on the mine warfare module. it will do better right now than the m.c.m.'s that are in the fleet. when we go to the spiral two and spiral three, it will just

get better. area anti-surface module is designed to fight the small boats. people who don't think this is a war ship are nuts. on day one in the gulf, this ship will be fighting against the threat underneath the air defense umbrella of the broader fleet. enengage the surface engagement zone out to the limits of its 47 millimeter cannon, about five nautical michaels. it has an unbelievable engagement system. then you have helicopters and the muscles from the ship. we lost the missile. it was terrible. it would have been a great system. but the beauty of this ship is you don't have to redesign it. we will just pick another missile. that takes time. that is causing us a problem. i admit it. in the outer zone you are going to do air. this ship is designed to fight as part of the flee on day one. it is designed to sweep mine

mines on day one in that environment. it has unlimited growth potential. you can make any type of module you want. so if survivable? if it goes up against a frigot or a cruiser destroyer that has a lot of askoms on it, no, it is not survive. ask the admire when he found himself up against -- in a destroyer because he was against battleships. did he turn away? no. he turned into the fight. and is that exactly what commanders in the l.c.s. will do. there is nothing else out there that can match the cost of the ship, end of story. if you can find a ship that can do what this ship does for a smaller price, we would be buying it right now? why should we buy when we don't

know what we are going? oh, my goodness. we built 13 delies and 14 clawed jones without knowing if they could go the job. they didn't. we stopped building them. we sent the s.g.s. 26 radar to sea before it worked. you put the stuff into the hands of the fleet. they tell you how to fix it, and then you do it. you say what do i want this ship to do? you design it for a mission. can it do the mission on day one? not necessarily. every single ship we have ever built eevoffers, and this ship is made to evolve. finally, y-2 times. we are going to have about 27 of each type. think of the leheig and the other crewsers. one was a double ship. one had air-to--- surface to

air missiles on both ends, whereas only had one. we only built nine of each. 27 ships in a class is more than you need to gain efficiencies. let me tell you what we are doing. we are going to single down to a common combat system so that any sailor can go to the combat system of the other. we are singling up on the same kind of communications. the communors will be able to go to the other end. mission module guys can go on either end of the ship. they don't care. this is going to be an extremely effective platform for our fleet. do we know everything about the vessel? no. are there going to be problems? yes. the problem that ben was talking about that pogo and aviation week came up with, they identified 62 things. we went into it. we actually created a matrix.

25 of those 62 are flat wrong. they are incorrect. and not one of the other issues that were highlighted by ben or by aviation week and space technology we were unaware of, and we don't have a plan of action. the crack in the l.c.s.-1. we noticed that. there was water coming through the crack. it has already been fixed in l.c.s.-1. this is a learning navy, and it is also a navy that is unafraid to say we made a mistake. as we take this ship to sea, and we see what works didn't doesn't work. we will fix it. if we can't fix it, we will stop building it. from my perspective, the fleet design is an awesomely capable design. the l.c.s. is just the ship that we need to fit this design. there are a lot of skeptics. this ship, first it is a small combatant. so almost everybody in the navy

is going to be skeptical of it. new manning scheme, new maintenance scheme. we have to prove it. we have to do the mission modules. but ladies and gentlemen, i will tell you right now that this shape will sale in the fleet -- sail in the fleet as a war ship. i guarantee the sailors who fight this ship are going to be glad they are on it when the time comes. i look forward to your question. >> thank you for attending. those of you watching online on c-span and cato.org. and charles will tell you that i have been wanting to do an event, something, paper or both on the navy for a long time. i am pleased with how well this

came together. i can't think of anybody who is more qualified to speak on these issues other than undersecretary work. i see a number of familiar faces in the audience, including a couple of my classmates from the george washington university nrotc unit. it is true, i am a navy partisan. i will admit it. i am from maine. this is the home of bath iron works and naval shipyard. by the way. my name is preble. if the cards were stacked in a certain direction from the beginning. i am not going to pretend otherwise. i am a navy partisan. i think it is particularly important for those of us who care so deeply about the navy to have this kind of a discussion. because if we don't scrutinize every one of these decisions,

and yes, i admit we are making the under's job harder. that is what he gets paid the big bucks for. that is what it is all about. we need to have this kind of a discussion because if we as navy partisans don't have that discussion, others are going to have it for us, including people who don't have the same kind of commitment to the surface fleet that we have. that is how i come to this issue. the l.c.s. has had problems. we know about this. look, i know a think are two, a few things, about deploy on a first in class ship. when i reached the ticondaroga, the boat had been in the water a couple of years, and we were still working through problems. i understand this can take time. they have responded to these

issues. they believe they have addressed these issues, and they believe they have a plan for getting this program on track. i just want to dorrell for a minute -- i don't want to dorrell on the specifics of what was raised on the l.c.s.-1. i want to look past that. there are alternatives to the l.c.s. in that respect, i disaagree with the undersecretary. we think there is an alternative that could achieve a similar mission at less of a cost. but i think i have seen a bit of a change even in just the last few months. we are in the minority. there are many in the surface community who had a lot of skepticism about this program all along because it was small and they wanted a big ship with big guns. a lot of people are coming around to the position -- this is what commander sal meander wrote last week.

the sad truth is we are well past killing this program, though we will bemoan the opportunity costs for decades, this will make it to the fleet. the big questions are, one, how will we manage to optimize a sub-out optimal platform in a manner that gives fleet commanders the best possible platform giving its limitations, and how do we deploy the platform in a manner that doesn't unnecessarily emperil or say lors. i am the one yapping from the cheap seats. are there aspects of the l.c.s. program that deserve a second look? i want to amplify a point ben raised. do we really need two different types? should we revisit the decision to go with two very different designs and not a down select? it was supposed to be a down select, a competition.

then at the 11th hour, the navy decided otherwise, and congress affirmed that. i want to emphasize, i am not opposed to a dual-buy-in principle. i was on one of those shims. when i was on it, and another aegis class ship pulled it behind, i didn't know whether it was a bath ship or engels ship until i worked on board. the same thing goes for the ddg-51's. if you haven't memorized the hull numbers, can you look at two of those side lie side and say that is a bath destroyer or an engels zroish? anyone who knows them knows these are different ships. what does that mean? i will tell a story here.

i am getting ready to go on deployment. i could walk down the pier to any cg-47 class, didn't matter. walk down the package way, unbolt from the -- passage way, unbolt from the bulk head the things that i needed. the statute of limitations of doing this. i admit i wasn't supposed to do that. i was responsible for getting the ship under way. i cannibalized new construction valves once to make sure my ship was ready to deploy. those kinds of advantages of a dual buy, yes, but the same ship. another case. there is the training pipeline. when we got ready to deploy, i

had two second class petty officers in my division. these are two of the finest enlisted men i have ever dealt with. one made senior chief and i think the other made chief. they came from a destroyer. they qualified as a watch officer for about a week. they are an i think nearing officer of the watch about midway through that first deployment. never on a tyco. the training pipeline below the waterline was identical. some of the training for the other systems, of course we had the same guns as they had on the destroyers. yes, this is a problem that you can solve with more money. there is going to be some training that is unique to the vessels, and i want to commend. i am sympathetic to the idea of having multiple crews assigned to the same ship. i under that. it makes sense to me. but how does the training

pipeline support that? can you truly deploy a guy that starts on l.c.s.-1, to l.c.s.-2, to l.c.s.-6 as opposed to five orate. manning has been raised. these vessels are supposed to be minimally manned. as i understand it, a core crew of 40 was the original design. as i understand it, we have learned this from operating in the fleet. it is under manned. now my understanding is the navy is considering increasing the core crew by 50%, to 60. some are looking at increasing crew size far more than that. when you do that, you start to trade away some of the core advantages, including the ffg's. my bottom line is we are trading dozens of small warships, i am not opposed to

small warships at all, in lieu of the f.f.g., the mine sweepers and the b.c.'s, with a vessel that has a single mission in mind, not a multi-mission. modular, yes, if the modules work the way they are supposed to, and less survivable on the combat end. undersecretary work made a case for the mix. while we are on the subject of trade-offs, a trading one vessel for another, i have to say it. we have made this decision to build very large aircraft carriers. at least $14 billion to build the next one. i would be shocked if it came in at $14 billion. that is about 28 l.c.s.'s? am i doing the math right? is that about right?

opportunity costs aren't just in the surface fleet. we have an opportunity comes of sxbnx. we are planning to build 12 of the new ballistic missile submarines with a target average cost of $2.53 billion. two months ago the naviest maded it would cost $11.7, and the c.b.o. estimated it would cost $13.3 billion. that number looks pretty daunting. why do i dwell on this in a forum that is supposed to be about a surface fleet? these are opportunity costs. if we invest so much in that ssbnx, we are giving up. the budget is unlikely to increase by 50%.

we have to weigh the costs. i say this not because i am a swo, or that i have something against submarines. i just don't think we need 10 or 12 to have a credible deterrent. we are talking about moving from a nuclear triad to a diad. if it turns out we don't need all three legs of the triad. i don't think it is obvious that these boats need to be nearly as expensive as current projections. let me close with a bigger picture beyond what has already been said here. i want to say a few thing about the navy surfleet's mission. it is an age-old question. are we going to remain the policeman? the key component of that mission is reassurance. discourage other countries from defending themselves and their

interests. they arery assured, they are secure, they do not need to do these things. here in washington there is this notion it is generally better to have more than one country providing the services because another country may not do it as well as we should. so look at how this works in practice. we have a recent case in the south china sea between the philippines and the chinese. the fill pinos expect we will defend their territorial claims. the u.s. navy will also do this for taiwan, brunai, malaysia and others. they are not worried because the u.s. navy has their back. in the context of the surface fleet, we are building a coast guard cutter for other people's coasts. that is what in is. and other countries are choosing not to build anything

at all. now, they have grown accustomed to this. they have sheltered under our protective umbrella for a long time. they have become didn't on the u.s. navy, and they are comfortable. a lot of people in this town like being the world's policeman, or the global force for good. if others are less inclined to defend themselves and their interests, that's ok as far as many people see it i see things differently. we doubt that the benefits of global primacy is worth the cost. it depends on a single superpower to police the commonts and enforce the rules. we here at cato it would not be a bad thing for others to

contribute to global security, but we don't think they will do so as long as the u.s. taxpayer is picking up the tab and the u.s. navy is potentially on the front line of every dispute. we are lonely but not alone in this fight. polling data says most americans want others to shoulder the burden of their own defense. one poll found that 79% of americans think we spend too much money defending others. >> he proposed a 1,000-ship navy. they would be the preeminent power. he envisioned other countries

would have neafs and would contribute to the navy. our current plan seems to be headed in the opposite direction. i would hope it isn't too late to revisit that decision as well. thank you. >> before we get to questions, which we will do at the hour, ben, you were very brief. do you want to say anything in response to all the other comments briefly before we go to questions or safe it for -- or save it for then? >> we will save it for questions. >> i am going to ask a couple of questions. number one, this is for bob work. alternatives to l.c.s. were mentioned. if the navy were forced by the congress to not buy l.c.s., or the buy was stopped

prematurely, what would be the navy's kind of first choice as an alternative? >> well, if we were told to truncate the l.c.s., the first thing we would do obviously is to continue buildings arley burke line until we could under exactly what we wanted to do. the national cutter, when i wrote that, as eric labs said, i was writing it as if you could afford it, you could do it as a presence sheet or what i called a national fleet station ship. but we can't afford that type of nish capability in the navy. the national security cutter is not the ship. it can't operate the mission modules of an l.c.s., and it would be good for sailing around. but the l.c.s. is very good for sailingthe national security cus not a viable option. there is the frigates that we

could build up. let's assume you could build a good frigate for $750 million. all the costs overseas, they do not put in the robustness in a combat ship as we do. it would take several years to design, several years to build. if we were told to stop the lcs now, it would be disastrous for the u.s. navy. make no bones about it. the size of the fleet would surely shrink drastically. we do not see anything on the market better than what we are building now. >> second question. there is a theory that future of the surface maybe is to become the below surface maybe because of the marriage of ballistic missiles with better

surveillance technology, meaning big metal objects on the surface of the water will be driven toward the shore. i am interested in the navy's view on that. >> when i was looking at the plan, that was one of the things that jumped out to me. if you look at the plan, the submarine fleet is getting smaller, shrinking, whereas more surface fleet is increasing marginally. a lot of the issues he said come to mind. we have the chinese with some of these guided munitions that look at our big carriers as giant

targets. if we are meaningfully talking about projecting force, projecting subs, for taking out subs and surface combatants. i would like to hear more from the navy about why the decision to go away from subs. >> eric? >> i have nothing. >> there are different schools of thought. the threat to surface vessels, any navy vessel, is going up. supersonic cruise missiles are proliferating. that threat is going up. there is one school that says submerge the fleet. that is great if all you want is a fleet good for war fighting. if you want a fleet that sails the oceans and operates to promote the peace, a submarine is not good to do that. you take your packets of

destroyers and atomize them and buy 300 or 400 smaller ships. that is good in principle. were we going to design a fleet, we might be able to do that. we are going that way but in a different direction. we're going after unmanned systems. then there is the people who say go unmanned. if you go there, these threats are manageable but we are probably two decades away from something like that. the u.s. navy's position is you go after networking and you try to make your fleet more powerful through networking and allow it to compete. also will after directed energy weapons ultraman and where did magnetic weapons -- and electromagnetic weapons.

we think we can pursue that fourth path until this time to make a second move but we don't think we're there yet. we have not gone away from submarines. we have a requirement for 48. in the 20's, they start today but that is a reflection of does not building a lot of submarines in the 1990's. we cannot build our sub-fast enough to replace the 45 that will retire each year. we're committed to 48 and will get there. we will go through that trough. each of the fleet has a problem. the summer on this -- the summer and has a problem in the 20's and the 30. the amphibious ships are hurting right now. when you are trying to figure out how everything works together with in a constrained budget, you cannot have everything you want and you make trade-offs. we are very committed to

submarines. we just will go through a trough as we try to get out of it. >> to audience questions -- please wait for the microphone so that everybody here and on tv can hear. on surname and affiliation and try to end the question in a row? rather than giving a speech. who is first? in the back, middle, yes, sir. >> this question is for the undersecretary and i will not ask you about the lcs. you said we do not need frigates. there is some indication that things could change that with the next five or 10 years and do you concur and if there is a decision with the environmental

change that we need frigates, we won't have them, what do we do and that contingency? with the asia-pacific pivot with the vast size of the water that you need blue water, long endurance ships that the lts may be can fill that role as a frigate. with the soviet model and a global seapower inventions, we see that model clearly with china with an aspect of maritime congress that could be interdicted with china with their energy independence. we may be see another indicator that we might need to interdicts chinese merchant shipping or protect our own, is coming for the region. with the lesson of history, protection of shipping were critical missions and we had to develop ship class is pretty fast. with decentralized operations

over a vast area to counter the chinese capabilities, it seems these indicators are leading to an area where we may need for guess. if we get to that point, what will we do? >> this goes back to fleet designed. the way i think of ships in the world -- where it on the guided missions regina and you count the number of battle force missiles that are carried by ships. cruisers, destroyers and things like that, forget, are hard to delineate what it is. we have decided to build what i call large and network battle command -- combat combatants. with large muscle cells. not too many other maybes do that barry we have overcapitalized. the 600-ship navy, we were building to that. that was a signpost for the mid-1990s. at the high point of the 600- ship navy, we had 73 cruisers,

guided missile cruisers and destroyers. today we have 84. we have said we will have a big top end and that's where we put our money. if you're going to build frigates, i would argue that if you drop down to 75 big boys, cruisers and destroyers, and you wanted frigates, you would not buy them out of the lcs tonnage. you buy them out of the big boy topnnage you'll get about 48 missiles. what you need is some thing to escort your combat logistics' for ships. the lcs with the original design for its anti-submarine or model as a barrier platform. it was going to drop sensors and sit there on the line and go after enemy subs. we looked at the ship in the

pacific and we said we need to be able to escort our combat logistics force and now the lcs will have a terrible death so more with a multi function totwe array and torpedo alert system and a helicopter. it will be every bit as good of an asw escort as the fg-7 ever was. if we need anti-air warfare capability, the ship at 3,000 tons as the margin to put on more missiles. we have a lot of flexibility here. if we want frigates or over what escorts, we probably build up from the lcs-line. if we want frigates, we republic bill down from the cruiser line. you can mix and match any way you want. the real key about designing a fleet is having on ramson of france. -- the real key about designing a fleet is having on ramps and off ramps

we can do all sorts of things. you want to have multi-role sheds and on ramps and off ramps and right now, we just don't need for it. >> there's a question of range. in the early stage, 1 &2 we were trying these things out. can you speak to the range of what you expected the ships -- the opera -- a normal operational mode, how long these things can operate independent and how you are addressing that early vulnerability? >> this was a design that was made to the high speed of the ship. there is a healthy debate within the fleet as to whether you need a ship without high speed when you have helicopters and small interceptor boats you could shut out of the back end.

that decision has been made. on the normal speed reg propofol, this ship will be operating on the soles less than 15 knots. with that, it has more endurance then a fg7 because that has to light of a guest turban. -- turbine. a gas turbine. it is when you have to go 40 + knots that should burn fuel fast. it depends on how you do this. admiral part d said i really want this ship to be able to close with a carrier strike team. that means the speed of a defense has got to be about 16 knots. lcs-3 which is the follow on from lcs-1 has a six-foot extended transmitter and can get at least 60 knots. it should be able to keep up with a carrier strike group.

it has 21 days' worth a presence on board it will go out for about 21 days. it can get into very small ports all over the world. we think they lcs it will operate four. we could not base four frigates in singapore. we can base for lcs' and they will operate out of singapore with a 21-day endurance and they can exert enormous amount of presence and influence in that area. we're looking for other places we can base forward. you have to think that it takes 4.56 ships to get one for under a single crew system. think about that for a second. yo the gentleman inu have to buy nine ships, cruisers and destroyers, to keep two forward

at any given time. the lcs is designed for everyone out of two ships to be forward. we have to prove but we think we can. i think the point on crew size is right. this reminds me of the example of the amount of sailors. 50%on't think it will be bump thought i am certain the corporal the ship will be slightly larger. one of the key things we're thinking about doing is increasing the bunk size. it was designed to have three bombs but it is only designed for two right now. - three bunks. we're working that the middle right here.

through them and next. >> this discussion reminded me of my early days in the navy. the prayer was a magnet. someone could suck up the cat -- captains attention and life could go on. lcs has become a magnet. the argument against lcs are different. why is the navy's hat -- having such a problem getting lcs behind it? >> i want to start out by answering the question. i think that maybe he has a messaging problem right now. on the one hand, bob says the lcs will direct it to go into combat on day one but i heard he will not send it into a

robust environment which is -- which means it is not going into combat on day one. the navy has gutted messaging problem with this issue. the lcs'are built to a level one survivability. there are three levels of level one has been logistics ships, level 2, amphibious ships, and laboratory york cruisers and destroyers and aircraft carriers. lcs bill to level one, it would export ships would not normally send into a combat environment even though bob says we will send them into a combat environment on day one of the conflict. i would really back to get bob's enter to this trade and tourism serious? -- disconnect between different parts of the navy and how this ship will operate in a wartime environment. >> both of the comments are spot on. this ship is so different than

anything we have ever put to sea. that is why the skepticism of the ship is so pronounced. you have to prove it. on the waterfront, is in the missouri friend of mine, you have to show me. the sailors to run the ship, if you go out there and they say what you think about the ship? we just sent admiral raodne to lcs1. they sat down with the crew to tell them everything that was wrong and for them it was crew size. they thought it should be bigger. the one i horizon-range weapon, we want one, too. there is a lot of skepticism in the fleet of the way we will man it and maintain it. this is healthy skepticism. we have to be able to show the fleet. in the past, it has been the c &o, the navy and civilian

leadership that is been trumpeting the show. we have two at sea and they are starting to see a change on the waterfront. they are saying okay, if we do this to the ship, we can do best. that is what happens whenever we go in. we are not over the hump yes paris of a domestic problem. one of them is what the c &o was talking about, he was at a specific question about the western pacific. he was saying you cannot send the lcs into the western pacific. it would be operating as a combat logistics' ship escort tourists away would still be in combat but it would not be in that high end system. we will have eight lcs'in the gulf. if the war goes down on that date, they are inside the environment.

they would go out and start seeking fast attack craft or sweep mines. they will be in the fight. it is a level one + survivability ship. it has more they come back -- combat logistics' force ship. if it finds itself against an opponent that outguns it like any ship ever since the navies have been born, it will of the problem. for the three missions as currently designed for, fighting against fast attack craft and fast in short tech craft and against the diesel submarines and minds. it will be more well-armed that any of the ships currently doing and mission now. you have to look at it in terms of fleet design and what the ship brings to the fleet. >> let's go in the back in the middle, on the isle.

>> regarding the affordability of the ship, the navy wanted as much as commonality in its warships and we moved away from that because we allowed contractors to do more which is why secretary winter complained about subclasses of ship having different components in the supply system and how much stress that was putting on it. how will we not get into a situation -- two distinct class, two different -- two different sets of machinery? are we going to get into position where you have independent class guys and where we had a mcm? >> this is a learning navy.

if you take a look at our history and you see some of things we bought and said that was not the right thing and we are more than willing to say we made a mistake. one of them is of having two in production now is that one of the two ships turns out to have more problems than we expect, you have another option. both ships will be able to perform a mission well. the lcs1 is our swartm killer./ you could put a 76 millimeter on the steel hall and you have all sorts of different options. we like having two options right now. if we build two, 27-ship class is, that to be more than not to suggest -- sustain the class as we have now.

usually don't have ship class is bigger than 27 per to focus on combat systems, commonality, c411 systems commonality, weapons systems, halladay once you get that, the only thing you are looking at is the whole machinery if differences. it may turn out it will be better to single out the one that is not our plan now. >> let's go right in front, sir. >> i think is fair listen to the panelists this morning that there is a view that there is not an alternative to lcs. if that's the case, and i believe it is, what should be

made -- what should be navy's priority be on lcs/ this is a ship the navy will buy, what should be the priorities going forward with respect to lcs? >> i would certainly probably agree will have a bunch of l c s'around. the navy will have another decision point. they will be wondering how to continue to test of programs. people did not realize that the navy has gone through multiple swings and the elks es program. it was opposed to war is to be a down select in the early 2000's and then there were going to keep building two types to increase competition and a change the acquisition strategy and in suits -- in summer 2010,

there were two ships that were so attractive to the navy that they decided to change syntactics. the navy has a wide set of options. i don't think necessarily necessarily has to continue s -- with the budget problem, at that point. they will need to find out of the do something else after experimenting with a the lcs. do they need to do a whole new design? a free gift-sized chip will not be cheaper than an lcs

my hope is that the answer would be that they don't know. they have to get out to work with ann c. howard works and what they can do and what they can't do and make appropriate changes were different or four ramps to the future. that is my view. >> i don't take it is true that i have resigned myself yes. -- myself to this. i have been concerned about the dual by strategy of two very different -- this is two 27- ship classis, not one class. it is on a reasonable for those of us concerned about the cost to question why the down selector is not etched -- executed the way was supposed to be.

we need to revisit that. is that their intent to to single out but that may be an option the future. i think that would be wise statement as well. is a question as to what point you choose to single out and what criteria do you use for assessing which of these two ships -- they have different advantages. if you single off which advantage which a privilege or the other and what would you build in lieu of, the other vessel, when i talk about an alternative, it says eric and bob both agree that for its size should is cheaper. i'm not entirely convinced of that but i will accept that. midi and not a partner at a

free of size ship. might be the size of a corvette is so on popular in the navy initially but have had trouble dealing of his more warship. the fleet is adaptable and the fleet can be convinced of the merits of a smaller vessel is the alternative is a less capable vessel that is twice as acts -- as expensive than twice as large. i am not giving up on the question. but it is still worth asking the question -- can we develop an alternative? in the meantime, could we experiment with keeping the remaining frigates and service/blogger and extend them and spend a couple of hundred million dollars even and keep them in service a little order to buy up time to develop an

alternative? that's what we talk about in the proposal a report on the table. >> did you have anything, ben? >> yes, in spite of my criticism of the elsie yes, i am a fan of this mission, of going for it. of getting into this entire access areas. the content for my criticism for that. i am not opposed to this mission. i think there would agree with chris that the dual by a single issue. i am not convinced that we need two different areas to do this mission that half it is an important mission. we have issues with iran in the straits of hormuz. these are incredibly valuable areas we need to make sure we have access to those areas. i'm a fan of the mission bfi m

and an ardent critic of the ses in general. >> for the longest on, we convinced ourselves jsf program was one aircraft with three different missions and the got ourselves into trouble because it is three different aircraft. the-35b is as different from the a model as elsie s2 is for one. they look more the same but that is an entirely different aircraft. yes, from lummis time we and contain how we singled out britain may lcs 2 becomes the pacific ship with long legs. there is a huge aviation capacity. maybe that will be the specific pacific ship.

it is a great swarm killer and very maneuverable. you can upgrade the steel hulls. having these two different ships right now, we believe is a tremendous advantage. i say that 3,000 tons next the she pushed -- make the ship more susceptible to the fleet. this was the smallest ship that could operate the helicopters. that was the limiting design. if you want this ship -- what you need in the literal? robert, and little boats, and helicopters. that is what the ship brought to the fight. if you need upgun irt to qa frigate, it can carry bigger guns easily. 300 tons was dilemma of the mission we wanted but it also made it easier to sell.

the first thing we have to do is address issues that have been brought up. there are 62 issues and we think we have answers to every single one. there will be more issues we find blood whole lot and get those fixes into the production line, first thing. second thing is get the court criticized right. we're probably too low and yet to figure that out. 3, single out the combat systems. if you do that, you know become interoperable with him decide the fleet. four, make sure the mission modules work. as things fall out or we fall you can make the changes relatively quickly. you have to prove to the guys on the water that the maintenance -- will be able to do that until we get a couple more in the fleet. let's not just talk or think about that three mission modules

the ship has now. let's think about all the other mission modules that it might be able to carry on board. think of it more as an evolutionary, two-stage system. forget those right, then the navy is going to go all in. but get only for the like, there will be a lot of skepticism. if we did none of the right, we are not going to build a ship. we are confident we can solve most of these things but we have to prove it. >> i think the key oversight issue for congress is the mission modules. in my mind, that is the number one question which needs to be addressed. when are they going to be delivered, how much they going to cost, what is the capability, are they interoperable? can you take one of these and put it on lcs2 and vice versa? we talk a lot about the baseline cost of the structure but you

have to factor in the mission model. i would agree with all the other five, but that is the critical one. >> let's grab three questions and then we will have quick answers. we will go over there, the judgment in the middle, and the rest of you unfortunately will have to ask after. >> we had a lot of talk about the navy. what about the other way around? it will have to-own independent logistic system, looking at leveraging stewardship of u.s. taxpayer dollars. one not buy into the navy's training system and get more bang for your dollar that way?

>> >> to follow up, you brought up the example of the jsf. resources are the main factor, how will you saw the issue overnight if you don't have the resources to purchase what is necessary for the requirement? >> and finally, right here. >> following on that issue, -- all have said the navy doesn't have the money it needs that it has put forward. the question is, what do you really need to bite, if it comes out to be several billion

dollars short? >> i will take a shot at the question and refer to the others on the other two. a couple of years ago, the circumstances would suggest to the coast guard would not have been interested because it would allot more expensive and would not have the range and endurance of that program. it might be worth a look from the coast guard's point of view. you can get yourself 6000 or 7000 nautical mile range, which is what the elsie as would have. i think it would be worthwhile for the coast guard to reinvestigate the question.

>> i will defer to allen. >> i think the coast guard is struggling to get there seventh and eighth national security cut into their budget. they haven't even more difficult time right now than we do. then have what is called the offshore patrol cutter and the medium security cutter. i don't know what it is called now. they have that decision facing them and it may turn out that the elsie yes --the lcs is an option for them. they have a very tight budget. the 10th ship coming off of each of the line is going to be an extremely cost-effective ship. if you only had to go up 27

not, it would give a lot of range. it is up to the coast guard to make that decision. on the resources, we just went through one of the biggest strategic changes, in my view, some people look in the 1990's and i think there is nothing like this since 1953 or 1954 when president eisenhower came in, needed to get out of the war to balance the budget, and he made some major changes. if you look back on what we just did, the prioritization that is implicit. this is the most maritime friendly national security strategy document since the 1890's. that is my view. if you read this national security priority, you cannot execute the strategy without a strong navy and marine corps team. if the resources are cut dramatically from where we are,

you would have to look at the assumptions we made. we will get to nine cruisers -- 90 cruisers. we have 62 right now and we will be able to bill the other 10 between now and 2016, not an issue. we have 22 that will probably take down to 15. we will have 90 of these big ones. lcs is in zero production. we are going to get to 300 ships by 2019, and a matter what. if questions are, what happens over the long run? people say how do you sleep? i sleep like a baby. i wake up crying every two hours. i cannot look out and say what of about this is going to happen? all i can say is we are prioritizing, starting to break away from the one-third split.

it is a higher priority in national security strategy that has been in decades. if we take more cuts, and would expect more prioritization to occur and the department of the navy to be able to build its 300 ship navy. i could be totally dreaming. what would we buy? i am telling you right now, we are buying the right stuff. we have the best cruiser and destroyer in the world, and it will be better when we get the it bans missile defense radar. lcs is going to be really something. lpd 17 is the best amphibious ship, hands down. you take a look at the ships we are building, every single one of them are the best in the

world. what would i buy? i would continue to buy what we are doing. i could come back and say we have to have a different plan. the surface navy has a very bright future. a lot of people like warships. i think we all would, but the plan we are on right now, we think we can afford, and we think it is just what the nation needs. >> thank everybody for coming. please join me in thanking our speakers. lunch is upstairs, up the spiral staircase. >> i think this is one of those markets that i think people vote for. they don't vote for the party, the city of wichita boats for the candidate. we are seeing a lot more of that. even notice heavily republican,

midwest, i think we are seeing more of that in the recent years here in the midwest, boating more for what the person stands for. >> june 2 and third, we explore the heritage and literary culture of wichita, kansas. >> i want to show you the munger house, the only remaining original structure. it was a very important building in that it is a residence but also the headquarters of the which atoll town and land company that came down here to create the city of wichita. >> june 2 and third on c-span2 and 3. >> in a few moments, a forum on how political campaigns use technology. in an hour and 15 minutes, president obama as commencement speech tonight to high-school

graduates in joplin, missouri. then former supreme court justice john paul stevens. later, we will we are the discussion on the future of the navy's combat fleet. on "washington journal," we'll talk about the 2012 campaign with democratic strategist jamal simmons could we will look at the government's role in housing market and discuss middle east diplomacy but martinsburg, who was ambassador to morocco in the 1990's -- will discuss middle east diplomacy marc ginsberg. eckstrom 1971-1973, president richard nixon secretly recorded his phone conversations and meetings. this weekend, you are more of the nixon tapes, saturday at 6:00 p.m., with conversations

between the president and cia director richard helms, and also j. edgar hoover. >> i am going to make a statement about freedom of the press. my inclination is not to say so. [unintelligible] >> she should remain absolutely silent about it. >> we are straining at c-span radio.org. >> null form on how political campaigns use technology and how it has evolved since the first president critics and the first computer was used to predict the presidential election in 1952. this is an hour and 15 minutes.

>> election 1952 introduced a new word, univac. the computer became famous overnight. many people here may remember the mere word became as synonymous with modern computing in the 1950's as the word google is to modern web searching today and you can see that in our exhibition. election nights are the smallest part of how technology drives the modern campaign. we are profiled by computers, where mobilized by tweets and hedden for contributions on facebook and mixed and matched in pools of big data. we have a great panel examining the state of the are in presidential campaigns and social media 60 years after univac. chris lahane was special assistant counsel to president

clinton and legal political counsel to president and mrs. clinton as first lady. he was secretary for the 2000 presidential ticket of al gore and joe lieberman. sarah feinberg as director of policy communications at facebook. she was assistant to president obama and senior adviser to rahm emanuel. she has served as communications director for the house democratic causes. tucker bounds was director of rapid response for john mccain's presidential campaign. he served as deputy campaign manager and director of communication in meg whitman's campaign for california. he served as the western press secretary for the republican national committee. he is serving as manager of corporate communications. our moderator is the author of

seven books on business, marketing, and management. he is also a trustee of the museum and the originator of the idea for tonight's panel. please welcome our guests. [applause] >> thank you. >> is this my gun? can you hear us? we managed to get on stage without tripping. this is a huge plus. welcome. i am richard. i get to wear jeans because i am on the board of trustees. i asked permission and received

it. let me -- i am an historian by training. one or two quick words. polling has been around for a long time. if you consider technology, the use of the technology of statistics in polling did not come on board until 1948 and then they didn't s. gallup -- the polls stopped early because it looked like do we would defeat german. that was the generation of the result of the famous headline that says "dewey debates truman" and that was wrong. they took the poll by found. on the republicans were wealthy enough to have a phone in 1936.

what we saw here is an inflection point in the history of politics in the u.s. and perhaps the world. which is the coming of television to politics. it has changed -- television broadcasting and the combination of that with computers and selling -- scientific sampling has changed the nature of politics. and so we're fortunate to have as guests people who lived this life and know this world as i cannot personally. i do not get it. i cannot understand why twitter is going to change the world. we had a discussion prior to

this meeting and i was told if i am lonely between now and election day, all i have to do is moved to akron, get a job in a good year factory and tweet, i am a white male and i am a factory worker in akron and i just do not know for whom to vote. if i just did that, i would have friends until election day. then they would all turn their backs on me and that would be the end of it. i would like to start off by asking what we were just discussing in the greenroom. here we saw this big inflexion plight and the world changed with television. your world. in which you live and have to predict the unpredictable and deal with the unfair so many times. is the world going to change

with the realization we now have facebook and twitter, we now have social media and if so, how is the world going to change? what is different and what is going to be different? let me ask you to start. >> thanks for having us and thank you for the introduction. sarah and i worked together and we could have benefited from univac in florida. we were talking about this earlier. i am a little bit of the country and here. i do think that we're going to hit an inflection point. i am not sure if we are quite there yet. technology, the vehicle, they do exist. and to take a step back at what happened.

television fundamentally change this strategic way campaigns are run. assuring in the so-called modern era of politics basically focused everything into a hub where campaigns were able to use electronic media, also a electronic coverage to walk in -- talk in a one-way conversation. prior to the campaigns have been much more of the hub for you had to depend on others to be your messenger. what you are seeing happening now is the technology is having an impact for going back to the future. on steroids because the impact is moving as quickly as it can and as intensely. to have an interactive discourse back-and-forth with the public and the public can

have a discourse among themselves in a much more of an active way than we have seen over 50 or so years but i am not sure if we have gotten to that transformative moment. this is a little bit of a flawed and algae. -- analogy. i will endeavor to make it. you saw in the arab spring. the pen in the form of a tweet or facebook was more powerful than an ak-47. there was a real political market force driving social change, the confluence of technology that allowed that to happen. i am not sure this has happened in this country yet. i do say there are the vehicles out there ultimately on democracy because of the ability for the public to engage in a different way than they have historically.

>> that is right. makes a good point that way -- we may not be as transformative as the arab spring. twitter has -- and facebook has done is transformed the way people consume media. there is a new world and the way people consume and the way that you can take a advantage of that new platform to communicate without having to go on television or get a favorable newspaper story written. it has been transformative in politics. >> all three of us are spokes people and that is a disadvantage.

i do agree. i think i would also point out there are different dynamics that social media is bringing to the way that the electorate will consume this election. we're going to see that technology tends to build every four years and you see an examination by the public in engaging in new technology to discover one of the most important decisions americans can make. aside from the way that news will be sculpted, since we have worked with the media, that is something we will talk about more. also there is an additional component that will begin to see in 2012 and even more so in 14 and 16. the way that you communicate to each other and the way you are using communications to talk to the trusted friends and family you have. already and we are the belly of

innovation in silicon valley. there is a startup turns your voter precincts where you may have been at in the past -- asked to go knock on doors and talk to your neighbors and friends about who you think you're going to vote for and why they should vote for that person as well. we have seen that happen on line. they're taking a precinct and making a virtual. even from the political at reach in addition to the media and communications outrage, we're seeing technology have a profound effect on the way that elections and campaigns are waged. in that sense, it is an exciting time and we will see some cool things in 2012. >> what was the name of that? >> votizen. >> i have never heard of that. how do they make their living?

>> it is a very early stage company. what they do is they allow you to empower your social network. people that you may be friends with on facebook or other social networks, you can reach out to them. and transmit your message and opinions about the election you are involved in. instead of walking door-to-door to me your neighbor's interested contact, you can do that from your computer. it is efficient and a trusted mode of communication. the company is hoping they can leverage the power and help campaigns and elections in the future and this is the first time doing that. >> it makes sense. if you were a volunteer in west virginia we would ask you to come to headquarters and make phone calls or knock on doors. that does not really make sense. if someone called me and asked

to call through a tree of numbers, if i need to contact people, why do i not just contact the on facebook or send them an e-mail? this is the abolition of a voter contact. it has evolutionized to facebook and twitter. >> in the old days of retail politics, it was feet on the street. people knocking on doors. now you know the right door to knock on. secondly you do not have to bother. you can just tweet or something. what we just saw was broadcasting. now you're talking about marketing one to one. that is where we are heading.

>> you saw elements of this by the obama campaign in 2008. -- in comparison to what tucker talked about. you have people who are engaging with people in swing states and that is done over the phone. people are being given the list on e-mail and say, can you call these 10 people? you saw the beginning of that. i think one of the elements, it is in the middle of happening. the challenge of being able to take a voter files -- people are flagged in certain ways. now what you have going on, people are intercepted a great deal on line where you're able to derive a lot of information about their habits.

also -- ultimately depending on how that evolves, you are mixing and matching with voter files. also the capacity with social media to match it up with the right people to have the right conversations with. you can talk about this more so than i can. those profiles [inaudible] you have all the data that people can generate by what

people do. and you are getting those coming together. there have been efforts in the past. that is some of the stuff that is happening. >> is there going to be too much data? >> i read -- there is the filter. if all these people are quitting like crazy or putting whenever on their facebook page, there is a lot of information that did not used to be available. or supporting a ballot initiative. where is the filter? do you find a sense of being overwhelmed by data? >> i think the filter is every individual on line. that is i think what we will see bear out over time. when you stand to your mailbox and you pick and choose as to what you are throwing away and open and consume. each individual online has that power.

i think what is exciting about what is happening is you have a way to get a lot of different viewpoints and make decisions that are informed by people you trust. you can filter it about and making it about where the news sources are or the sources of information are that you choose to take with greater weight. i know that sarah and kristen and i were talking about this before. i think it is speeding ahead some of the ways that campaigns will talk directly to voters right now. arbour tears elections have been traditionally been the mass media. that is something that some campaigns have had major challenges with. i need to work on all this.

>> there is a time that will come when campaigns will be able to communicate and encourage supporters to talk to different supporters. >> do you see the new world of social media as something in addition to the old world of mass media or something instead of? if that is going to displace -- in 1952, that was the first time a political party engaged in an advertising industry. the agent -- it was like the eisenhower. by 1956, no one wanted to be left behind. that is broadcasting. you do not know who was getting the message.

what -- is what you are describing, will that be additive? >> it is additive. i do not think it will be instead of. every moment will be bought. it will not be able to buy television anymore. >> this will be just fine. no one is taking television off the table. newspaper advertising and advertising has gone down. no one is taking television off the table. i think this is in addition to. one of the things we were talking about is we are in a moment in time where people do not necessarily trust politicians and they do not trust the mainstream media and we saw that over and over again.

there were going after the mainstream media. romney was and newt gingrich. i think voters are at a point where if they do not trust politicians, they do trust their friends and they do trust their neighbors and their colleagues. it is an additive way to reach voters. it is in addition. >> i think we're in the middle in the evolution. you go back to 1960.

it was which campaign was more effective and turned out more voters. there was still the feed on the ground aspect. even though tv had been there. we are in that evolutionary phase right now. there is the [unintelligible] i go to zagat and go to a nice restaurant and that was replaced by yelp. zagat is trying to catch up to what yelp created. that is a metaphor for the direction we're going in. that is something at the core of this which is the idea of authenticity and trust.

i think that is even more so in online and social media at in terms of how people engaging and interact. we are in the middle of an evolution. right now, there is nothing with pay television. when it comes down to a convincing voters who are not committed or undecided -- there's nothing that moves you like television. that has the potential to evolve. >> if i could add something. there is an important thing to consider.

you mentioned is there something that will tip it to an on-line technology communication stream for voters to campaign? >> a lot of that has to do with demographics. the reason that will testify to the strength of television is you are able to buy time in local evening news. you'll have more people to vote. they tend to be an older demographic. those are traditionally people who are responsible about their

civic duty and are hitting the general election and they break differently. there is a science to where these markets exist. with the consumer of information that is the younger generation now as they continue to get older, you will see that forcing function for more of the investments by campaigns and elections to get into technology and technological advertising or online advertising than they are in local television and network news. that demographic is not going to be the leading consumer or the most active voter. >> when you are talking about the election of 1960, this was supposed to be the defining election. it was supposed to prove that marshall mcluhan was right. the media is the message. the more people who saw the debates on television thought kennedy had won and people who heard them on the radio thought nixon had won. the words were the same so the medium was the message. and if i heard you correctly, you made reference to the disposition of illinois. that is what i have been told. my recollection is joe kennedy

called richard daley during the election and said are we going to take illinois and daily said by the grace of god and with the help of some close friends and they were the graveyard vote. >> i cannot testify to that. the reason i invoked that moment is richard nixon had a similar conversation with a powerful series of letters in southern illinois. what you had, what has been recorded on some of this stuff

-- what you had it is southern illinois having a bunch of folks and you had the chicago area having a bunch of folks who may not have been alive voting. television played a very decisive role. you still had an impact on politics. >> if i do not want to be lonely i can move to ohio and get a job in a factory or die. the graveyard vote is still going to matter. >> one of the things that strikes me is getting people together in san francisco and getting them to contact people

in states that are in play. is this something people talk about? >> let me tell you why i am asking. because of the electoral college which is a relic of the 18th- century constitution, this was a country of 4 million people hugging the coast line. we had something called the electoral college. i live in california. i have moved from massachusetts so it is -- it does not matter whether i voter not. does that matter? in the election of 2000, neither -- either vice president gore took ford or he did not. maybe 35,000 jewish voters did vote for pat buchanan. there is no question that gore won on the popular vote basis. that does not matter because

that is not how it is counted. correct me if i'm wrong. to a certain extent, you are imploring me as someone whose vote does not count. the new technology is enabling me to influence, in ohio or colorado or the 10 states that do matter where told in this election. is that true? >> not necessarily new but as long as we have had elections that spa -- existed out of a single province, that has been going on.

>> well the new technology make them more scientific? more efficient, more targeted. >> what did find out that i have a college classmate who works in cincinnati. if i went to san francisco, this company a talked about, would facebook or twitter know that and tell me to get in touch with him? >> there will be and there is targeted advertising and campaigns will be able to invest in that will be able to identify whether or not voters have [inaudible] on separate issues. if you are -- if your friend in cincinnati was to have strong views on a certain type of issue, they could be getting advertising through the campaign to them. it is quite possible that there would be a campaign or organized enough to note that you should be reaching out to your friends that are weighing in on a specific issue based on direction they're giving you. you could get communication from a campaign that says if you have friends that have weighed on in this issue and, you should

reach out to them and tell them the truth. that gets us to back where we were. how the media battle will be changed as a result of the on- line communication in social networks. starting two elections ago and in 2010 it became much more high profile. remember john mccain who is now one of the most prolific tweeters in the world did not have the twitter account in 2008. we have seen an evolution. both will have great twitter followings and there will be weighing in on issues quickly. that rapid response moves through social media so people are saying content on tv or their watching and national news event and there will get

communications from people they trust. >> a couple of thoughts. you'll get this segment of data. you can shift and move. it is conceivable that living in san francisco, you get a list of 20 connections trend be able to determine through databases. i get an e-mail saying you have a relationship with 20 people and support this candidate. that is something -- [unintelligible] there is a company in san francisco that has created the technology where it is a dashboard and you can follow

everyone who is talking about your candidate. it identifies specific individuals who are influential in social media. they have a large following in the demographic or matches up with the campaign you care about. youre able to target engagement back-and-forth, conversation with that person who is influential because they have a larger universe of folks to trust them. you'll get more and more of that type of technology coming into play and it becomes taxable tools for campaigns. >> the dialogue is the key. >> we're talking a dog. >> brings up an interesting point. he is talking about being

persuasive on social media and four years ago, these candidates, one of the major nominees -- that is how much we have advanced and so it is exciting. every time we have one of these elections were people around the world will be focusing on this decision and new technologies will spring up and it will be exciting to see things like politeer. >> if this is going to be in addition to rather than instead of, are you telling us that campaign will be more expensive because someone will have to pay for this? money will have to come from somewhere. >> it will get more expensive every two years or four years. the prediction that this year's election will increase spending by $1 billion. that is not helped by the

supreme court who said that corporations can decide to play in these campaigns as well. enormous amounts of money flowing in. you have a super pac you can spend like crazy. we have no where near the become less expensive, right? >> to buy advertising on facebook is a lot more efficient and cheaper than it is to buy television. there is different metrics and people on my side are trying to figure out, can we get the proverbial swing voters? bottom line is, assuming you can get to your targeted voters in a way that moves them, you are hitting your bull's-eye. we talked about pay television as a mallet. they have made up their mind one way or another.

you can focus in on a bull's- eye target. every dollar is communicating to someone you want to talk to. >> do you think the obama campaign -- four years ago. it was famous, the president had a blackberry. how much of a difference you think that made in that campaign? let me ask you and i would like to broaden out more generally. how much of a difference do you think it made? >> i think it made a huge difference. the obama campaign in 2008 was doing the most cutting edge technological voter contact,

fund-raising on line, reaching millions of people than we have ever seen. if you took that campaign and did nothing but the same thing in 2012, there would be crazy. the world has changed that much. john mccain was not the only person without a twitter account in 2008. almost no one had one. there incredibly cutting edge in 2008. i am sure they're doing much different things in 2012. i think with the year for democrats, president obama had a message that spoke to the country. i do not think technology made the difference between him being in the white house or not. it made a difference in terms of fund-raising and reaching voters that would not have been reached otherwise. >> can any of you put your

finger on an election where you feel technology did make the difference between a win and a loss. >> in -- technology works many different ways. we can talk about communicating with people through the social web or e-mail trace. campaigns are entering on technology in a lot of different ways, i and exciting ways. the same whitman campaign developed a system to track in real time jerry brown's speech. when he had an appearance there would be someone with an iphone who would live streaming back to campaign headquarters so that the communications team could be e-mail link reporters responses to the actual charges

that jerry brown was making in real time. it was the first time they were able to piece something together with that. now you're seeing campaigns at the state level doing that now. as to whether or not the campaign made the difference, in an unconventional way. duke cunningham had been run out of town and that was seen as a bellwether as to how the 2006 house congressional elections would ultimately fare. we were providing a lot of assistance. [unintelligible] was running against a candidate

captured on tape and biting someone who was not a voter to participate. this was very controversial. that tape was moved to youtube and put on the talk radio stations in san diego and it was such a hotly contested race, a lot of people who were. dissipating looked back and said, catching that technology and moving it in a way for the media, it changed the election. there is the famous macaca moment. candidates making slip ups and making mistakes.

>> a blogger happen to get obama talking about pennsylvania. >> when he said they have their guns and their religion. >> the one -- >> could you tell the audience that the -- what the macaca moment was? >> an early presidential type -- hype building around him. he was popular in the state of virginia. had been governor of the state of virginia. he was caught on tape by phone making a statement that was a racial slur. it was not tolerated by the electorate and he was ousted from office. that was a turn of events that was made possible by his democratic opponent because of technology. there is a lot of innovations

happening on campaigns aside from on-line communication. it is fascinating to watch. >> in 1992, i was much younger and quicker. one of my first assignments was to go into opposition events and then you would have to sprint to the nearest pay phone to call back whatever had transpired. you will have a nano-drone -- all the president's men could have used a nano-drone and it would not have to -- that would not have had to break into the watergate. and remember being in a campaign discussion for a rival campaign and money kept rolling

in. everyone kept reporting the number getting bigger by substantial amounts. someone said there is a ceiling to what you can raise online. the multiplier effect of what you typically have. >> it was the defining moment. >> i worked on the other side. as important as technology is, the morning after that election, we woke up and went to the dccc. what we took away is not that

our candidate had gotten beaten by sing something stupid while an iphone was running -- our take away is it had nothing to do with technology. we should have tied [unintelligible] to george bush. there is some big things that matter. if the economy is bad, the president is not popular, if the country is frustrated -- >> [unintelligible] there is so much narrowcasting, there could be some fact out there that just gets -- >> to sarah's point, i will be

the first to admit this. there are strong reasons why the economy was alternately the deciding factor. people i worked with on the mccain campaign said it was decided in the mail. the most effective mail that was sent to was everyone's retirement accounts when they showed up in october. the technology will make a difference. this will be a much closer election. if things remain the same looks like a 50-50 race? >> we just heard is you did not tire of common to an unpopular president much. -- president bush.

>> they polling data that -- potentially, it looks like a 50-50 race. it is impossible to tell. i believe it will be a closer race that we experienced in 2008. when the margin closer, [unintelligible] investments will be critical. both campaigns realize that.

>> do you think this will be a close election? barring the unforeseeable. do think this will be a close election? >> i think, yeah. the president is very strong and he has an amazing record to run on. you have to approach every election like it will be very close. you always approached it that way and this is a country that is closely tied. barring something massive, i think we expect to see a relatively close race. the president is in a good position. >> you are right. this will be a close race. i do think there are macro issues. where the incumbent is in a position -- the incumbent is strong because of the macro