see local television here. i have noticed the obama campaign has a very clean and effective advertisement on right now. they are focusing on virginia. they show obama at the beginning where he says i have of the rest of this advertisement. that is a counter message. -- i have authorized this advertisement. >> this is ruinedit is anybody's race. i do think the metrics on the

economy are going to set the voter mood. they are probably the most important indicator. >> going to your point, we live in the washington d.c. area, we see local television here. i have noticed the obama campaign has a very clean and effective advertisement on right now. they are focusing on virginia. they show obama at the beginning where he says i have of the rest of this advertisement. that is a counter message. -- i have authorized this advertisement. that is a counter message. he focuses on the romney's record in massachusetts as governor. that is a very clean, affective advertisement. it is running because virginia is up for grabs. >> let's segue over and talk about congress for a couple of minutes.

i am not going to say anything. [laughter] >> i have some things to say. >> democrats need 25 seats to get a majority in the house. i am kind of skeptical. martin, if you want to make the case or if someone was going to make the case, what would they say? >> i am trying to give an independent view. [laughter] it is early in the morning. i think it is not impossible for democrats to take back the house. it is a heavy lift.

it is not just 25 seats. there are other seats were democrats are retiring. it is not impossible. if there is an anti-incumbency mood out there, i have felt there is more of that mood and we have seen in previous elections, there are more republicans an office in the house and democrats, i think the democrats can make significant gains. the important thing is that there are a lot of new republicans who have not established themselves. they have not been in long enough. they have not done what tom did. to go to of little league games and all the pta meetings. -- to all of the little league meetings. it takes a while to become a figure. there are a lot of new

republicans who are vulnerable. some of who were swept in by the tide who are going to lose. when you have a landslide election, just like you did in 1994, we knew who the accident took congressmen were. we knew someone not going to make it more than one term. the redistricting has been a wash. republicans thought they were going to benefit. it has been a wash. democrats will pick up some seats in california and illinois. republicans will pick up some in north carolina. it is not impossible for democrats because of the unrest in the country to take the house back. the most likely outcome is republicans will lose some seats and it will be much closer. it is not inconceivable democrats could take the house back. >> i will bet you $10,000. [laughter] >> i am standing up for martin. >> i would not take his money. >> we both went.

>> the republican problem is they over performed. they had the highest turnover since 1938. they have used the redistricting where they controlled more seats than at any time since 1920 to strengthen a lot of the seat. there are a half-dozen seats that are gone because of retirement. historically, when you look at presidential reelect, republicans lost seats, nixon swept 49 seats. reagan in 1984. [talking over eachother] 1992 is not a reelect. >> we gained a seat. >> not enough to take back the house. [laughter] that was because of republican

over performance. reelects, people and not that upset. they tend to re-elect congressman. take a look at history. it would be difficult for people to oust obama and have a divided congress. it takes the whole argument away. it is a much more difficult -- not impossible, but a much more difficult-. republicans are likely to lose a handful of seats. i think 25 seats is a way that i think is unlikely to occur. >> to talk about the senate for a minute. for a minute? a statistic that makes the point is that the postwar era, the party in the white house only gaining more than 15 seats more than once.

that was in 1964 with thelbj landslide. -- with the lbj landslide. in a presidential reelection, 25, that is a heavy lift. >> i do not disagree. i am saying, this is such an extraordinary year, strange things could happen. >> i have some thoughts about the sun. -- senate. some of the people have not figured out what is going on. while democrats have a three vote majority, the hill for the republicans is more than that. they need to pick up more than three seat. they are going to lose, there

will be an independent in man. that is four. if obama is reelected, the vice president presides over the senate. that is five. if we win either nevada or massachusetts, two states held by republicans, we could w one of those, that is six. the republicans probably have to pick up at least six seats. i do not think they can do that. i think there are a lot of closely contested senate races. some of those will break democratic. some of those will break republican. there are a couple of wild cards. democrats have a shot of maintaining control of the senate by one vote. >> let me make this observation. elections have become very parliamentary. although the last time the republicans over performed and they won a handful of senators, illinois, pennsylvania, wisconsin, that is the exception to the rule.

u.s. in very few blue senators in red states and red senators in ballistics. we have 23 democrats -- in blue states. we have 23 democrats up for reelection. 11 open senate seat. it could go either way. i think sometimes there is an exuberance to think we are going to take it. nothing is automatic. we have some democrats that one in 2006. it was a huge democratic year. they have to protect themselves. they are tough holds for the democrats. you have a number of these other seats that could go either way. i feel good about republican prospects and wisconsin, montana, north dakota, nebraska, missouri. >> that does not get the 6. >> that gets you five.

virginia is a possibility. you get into second-tier, ohio, indiana. indiana is not clear. >> that is a republican seat. >> the polling is close. by the time it straightens out, it is likely to stay republican. it is not there yet. the feelings within the coalition. i think the senate is very much up for grabs. my gut is that if romney wins, it will portend a republican senate. if he does not win, it becomes much more difficult. >> it is interesting, i am from texas. i went to school in missouri. i was a journalism major. the missouri senate race is one of the most interesting in the country.

clear mccaskill is running for reelection. they have a late primary. they have three candidates. it is possible the republicans will nominate the weakest candidate. it is possible mccaskill could be reelected in a state that normally would go republican. there are a lot of things going on. the race in montana is a very interesting race. it is a republican state. he fits the personality of the state. do not forget, the old and a wild card, no one thinks has a chance -- the ultimate wild card, no one thinks has a chance, bob kerrey. >> right. [laughter] >> he is a very interesting

candidate. he is an unusual candidate. it is not going to be easy for him to win. not impossible. >> he has lived in new york the last 10 years. he is a badly flawed republican. the three republicans running, one of them is critical disfigured politically speaking. -- quarter thickly disfigured politically speaking -- horrifically disfigured politically speaking. [laughter] the other is more of a placebo. who is able to win the generic republican vote, i think that is okay. i think it was the worst outcome for carry. -- kerry. the only thing that jumped out is that i am not rush into a judgment on what is going to happen.

i think this is a guy who wants to stay independent. it depends on what happens in the other -- i say, we do not have 33 senate races, we have 32 senate races and one silent auction. [laughter] the thing is that historic plea they do not -- historical way they do not let it sit in the center aisle. you have to get yourself

committee assignment -- your committee assignment. depending on what happens to the other 32 states, i think this guy with love -- 1 part of his tenure as governor, the state senate was evenly divided. there was a power-sharing agreement. i do not know whether these circumstances would allow this or whether this would make things happen, lord knows it would be over harry reid's and mitch mcconnell's dead bodies. in his heart of hearts, he is closer to being a democrat than a republican. i think he really is an independent. if he can figure out a way to do that. he has said, i will do it as long as i can still be effective for maine. if it means siding with the minority party in the matter much -- no matter what, he is not going to do that. on a bad night, republicans picked up two seats. it would take them from 47 to 49.

a good night would get them to 52. odds of them doing better than that ended when olympia snowe retired. i did not want to get too specific. there are a number of places where republicans have not been able to get the optimal people to run. >> that is an understatement. [laughter] >> the best candidate is not likely to win. >> is prevented from running. >> virginia. or, let's say, florida. this is not likely to be an optimal situation for republicans.

missouri, martin is dead on. >> if she wins the republican nomination -- >> let me make a comment about and this king -- about angus king. >> they have an ankle on everything perry >> i have a daughter in maine. his aunt was mayor of ... andrea. --of alexandria. there is an angle. i did not dismiss his automatically democrat. i think he wants to be independent. he is going to represent people who are frustrated. >> main elected an independent governor who is very unpopular. i am not sure an independent

aligning himself with the republican party makes a lot of sense. >> i learned something interesting. angus king's first political involvement was as a driver. >> the current governor of maryland, you know how he got his start? he was a driver for gary hart. >> being a driver is an interesting thing. [laughter] >> it was one of my first two jobs. that and elevator operator. [laughter] i do not think otis was a run. >> to you have any idea? there were not that many elevator companies. anyway, that is a job that has its ups and downs.

[laughter] >> the messages of race is one of the most intriguing races. when we talk about people vote in parliamentary, scott brown is gearing his campaign for it independents. there are only 13 percent and republicans. elizabeth warren is not given her campaign towards -- during her campaign towards independents. he could pull this thing off. the other interesting race from a republican perspective is why. -- hawaii. the democrats have a very contentious primary. she was elected governor twice. carried every legislative district in the state.

obama, that is one of his home state. he is going to do very well. you get a bitter democratic primary, things can happen. usually when you see a trend, there are always one or two that pop up. >> the massachusetts race is interesting. obama is going to carry massachusetts by a large margin. the question is does a elizabeth warren gets swept in. this happened once before. people do not talk about it much. this happened in new york. bobby kennedy got swept in. these things can happen. i think that elizabeth warren has a problem. he will see how that plays out. it is such a democratic state. she could win it.

>> the problem sometimes is too many chiefs and not enough indians. [laughter] >> oh. where is the seven second replay. [laughter] >> mass., a landslide for republicans would be 52%. he has no margin for error. i would rather be him at this point. let's switch. we want to get to questions. i want to go to the fiscal cliff and the end of this year. this is a sophisticated audience. you know all of the background. my best friend has written some good stuff on what may happen at the end of the year. let's see. who wants to go first?

between now and the election, lame-duck or sudden death, meaning after the first of january. >> i vote for sudden death. nothing is going to happen between now and the election. lame ducks are very unproductive. there are going to be a lot of lame ducks. it is going to be hard to do much. whatever happens happens in january or february. >> will whatever that happens, will it be preceded by a significant stock market sell- off? >> what they need is a market tremor to get them to act. the coalition -- the race is the primary election. it is the way lines are drawn. the senate, too.

you have blue and red states. they are worried about the primary. it does not allow them to act. compromise is not rewarded. the other thing i would note, if you get to the lame duck session, it is done in the concept of leadership election. i have one two caucus votes. the a secret ballot. when i call of members and say, will you support me? they say yes. you say, can i make the public? they say, no. [laughter] the only member you can believe it is the one who says he is voting against the. this is done in the context of caucus votes. sequestering, you have a report showing this could put us over

the financial cliff. two years ago, they did reach some accord. all they did was they added $800 billion to the debt. this time, they have to go the other direction. it is much harder. it is going to take a market tremor. you'll have the appropriation bills. i think it will be a big mistake to let those hang out there. if you are still doing appropriations, you'll not get anything else done. >> is the dynamic of you have to let -- there is an argument that you have to let the bush tax cuts expire so that republicans can vote for something that is not a tax increase. in other words, the brits have to jack up to the pre-bush tax cut level for them to come up with anything less than that.

>> that is interesting. [laughter] >> i have heard the argument. >> it is a good argument. i think what they like to do is lower rates but take care of a lot of special provisions in between. >> at least on the personal side, on the corporate side, that is its own set of issues, on the personal side, is that not so much easier said than done? we are talking about paying taxes on your health insurance premiums. that goes over big. you a talking about going straight to the marrow. it sums great until you read the fine print. >> this is tough stuff. if this were easy, they would have resolved this a long time

ago. none of this is popular. someone has to be willing to lose an election. >> you are asking two different questions. do you have tax reform that everybody says they are for? do you have tax reform that is revenue positive, that actually raises more money than the current system no matter how you change the deductions, actually generate some revenue that can be used to pay down the deficit? the parties are not even there. you may have revenue neutral tax reform at the end of the day, which will be a long time coming. that is very difficult to figure out. there is a shorter-term question, are you going to do something anytime soon about the size of the deficit? separate from the issue of overall tax reform. i do not think the parties are incapable of doing that between

now and the first of the year. there may be an external shock that will force them to do something. i do not know, this business of playing games, saying, but the bush tax cuts expire. -- let the bush tax cuts expire. it is not a tax increase because they are going to bring the 39.6% rate them. i do not think it plays very well. one of the bigger issues is the sequestration. that is a 50% cut on defense, on domestic spending that is going to happen automatically on january 1. i do not think congress is capable of acting between l and the first of the year to avoid sequestration.

the question is, how quickly can they act after the first saw the mitigate some of the problems? that is going to cause real problems in the defense industry. it is going to cause real problems on some domestic programs. i think congress will do something about that in the january, february, and march time frame. apart from whether there is some external economic problem, they have to deal with these automatic cuts. no one thought they were going to happen. everybody thought it would hang there. congress deadlocked and said, -- >> i think it is going to depend on the makeup of the new congress. if republicans take the presidency, the house, and the senate, they will wait to do something. they will do it their way. if you have continued divided government, they may get

together and try to get some of the stuff off the table. they will have to live with each other and of the two years. we will see. >> i am very skeptical. >> we need to open it up to the audience. let me clarify, do we have two or three votes for the single most likely outcome sudden-death million post december 31? >> i am a sudden-death guide. >> we have three votes for going into sudden death, with the emphasis on death. [laughter] let's open it up. but the road in microphones? -- are there roving microphones? yes. wave your hand and someone will come. >> the question i have is on the sequestration. the issue came out that if they

do go ahead with sequestration, the requirement is a notify the employees 60 days prior to the impetus. that puts it at early november. how much of an impact will that have? >> it could have some. it requires a 60 day notice when you are going to close a facility or decrease employment. that could have a chilling effect. i do not think congress or the president or anybody is capable of avoiding that. we will see what kind of effect it has perry >> they will be home campaigning. each side will get the talking point. i will tell you this, members who voted for the compromise are on the hook for. those who did not fort dodge vote for or off of hope. >> that is called -- those who did not vote for it are off the hook. >> that is called a turning up the heat.

>> i do not know how they are capable of solving the problem. this is what they came up with. it is going to be a good. -- to be ugly. i did not see it anything where they could find the offset. you have to find a cut somewhere. we know where a lot of money is, in entitlements. nobody is going to touch that. i have maps i is that show the counties and countries that get the highest percent getting medicare. they are republican counties. these are rural areas. you start messing with the benefits you watch voting patterns change quickly. >> i think the only way this happens before the election, i have talked about the stock

market, it has to be the equivalent of attaching electrodes to sensitive body parts and crank it up the electricity. [laughter] i think that is the only way you are going to change behavior. if that sounds chris lee, -- grizzly, yeah. [laughter] >> let me make one more point. i am somewhat optimistic that if the president is reelected, it is still an of. if the president is reelected, he will show real leadership in the second term in terms of resolving these problems. without presidential leadership, these things do not get solved. >> when has a president had a successful second term? >> bill clinton had a reasonably successful second term.

we have had some president to did ok. -- presidents who did ok. i think bill clinton did pretty darn well. >> 5.5 on a 10 scale. >> impeachment. >> who else have we got? >> since both of you are creatures of the house, let's assume the election gets closer without picking a number, what is your prediction on leadership of the house? >> let me jump in and modified this question. on the republican side, how many seats could republicans lose before john boehner gets in some difficulty?

if you would like to take the fifth amendment. >> i was there. that is how i got elected to leadership we took a five or six seat loss. that was enough to get the balance shift. i'd be linda who was campaign chairman. -- i'd beat linda who was campaign chairman. it is managing expectations. it is probably nonsense. [laughter] it is probably not within the realm of high probability. i think it would take a 15, something in the range of 15 to 20 seat loss. they come to town right after the election. they do this on purpose so no one can organize against them. they elect the leaders.

then they elect the committee chairman's in january. that is what it would take. if the democrats were to lose seats, that would be a different issue. >> i want to go back to something that tom talked about. the secret ballot. when i was elected caucus chair, i won by seven votes. when tom-a was elected democratic leader, he won by one vote. it is unpredictable. you never know. what happened in 1998 is gingrich -- it is interesting, linder was on the right side. he did not want to make impeachment an issue.

i was chair of the democratic side. linda and i were on tv. he said, we are not going to make a big issue about impeachment. he was overruled by gingrich. the republicans lost five seats. that was the first time the president's party had gained seats in the sixth year of an eight year term. gingrich was in disgrace. he had a lot of other problems. i cannot predict how the republicans will be john boehner. if the democrats picked up a lot of seats, he could be in trouble. >> i think he is going to be fun. >> -- fine. >> are you convinced policy is going to seek reelection? >> i did not know. i do not know.

if the democrats close this gap substantially, my guess is she does try to stay around. if democrats did not pick up many seats, there probably would be a lot of interest in such a democrat -- inside the democratic caucus. she has turned out to be the right leader. the republicans made her an issue in the 2010 election. she has been exactly the right person in 2012. she is a great fundraiser, she is enthusiastic. it was the right decision for her to say, the caucus will have to make the decision after the 2012 election. how this thing turns up. -- out.

>> i am with at&t. we know each other. i have a question which is the vice presidential sweepstakes. do vp picks matter? the think it will matter in this election? >> let tom start on that. >> i think it matters. the old rule is first do no harm. it can matter in picking up a stake. for romney, it will be the first window into how he makes decisions. putting his imprint on things. i think most people vote for president. you do not want to do any harm. if you can add a state or two, so be it.

>> let's ask each person to do something. pick three people that you think would be considered and what percentage chance of each one of getting picked. >> as the outsider, let me start on this. this is a republican issue. i think that romney, a cautious politician, will make a conscious choice. portland, polenty, i do not know who is third. i think he picks portland. it makes the most sense. romney is a cautious politician. i cannot see him making an out of the box choice. who knows? we will see what happens. tom is in that party. he may have a different view. >> i do not know what he will do. i hesitate to take a choice. i have so many friends. [laughter]

everybody has some strong attributes. they all have some negative factors. >> for the record, i was thinking portman at 35%, pawlenty at 20 or 25%. i would put mitch daniels really high. i do not get a sense that he is aggressively getting a look at. i would put him there. after that, -- >> you have to put the governor of virginia in the mix. >> of the wife is on his cabinet. [laughter] i think he would be a great pick. i also think rubio would be a good pick.

he is hispanic, he helps you in florida. generationaly. he solidifies your tea party base. i think he would be a very attractive choice. >> i was at a small breakfast last week, 20 reporters with rubio. a smart guy, smith. i think he has a terrific future. i would not pick him this time for a couple of reasons. one, the subtext of your candidacy is that we should not have elected a guy last time who had never run anything before. you put on your ticket someone who has never run anything. you undercut yourself. 41. to me, republicans, the argument is, that was a mistake.

we should not do something remarkably similar. then there is the latino argument. if republicans need help with cubans, we should shut the alexian down. [laughter] the idea of going after mexican americans with a cuban, that is like saying, i need to set up to the irish, i will pick and englishmen. [laughter] >> you are all the talk and the move in a couple of points. i think he would help. -- you are only talking about moving a couple of points. i think he would help. >> if he suddenly has a gray streak in his hair, he is a serious candidates. [laughter] >> do we have time to squeeze out a couple more? we will go with whoever has the microphone.

>> you all have talked about how the republican brand suffers among hispanic. one thing no one has mentioned is women, particularly, women who are not into republicans. has the damage to the republican brand healed since primary season? if it has not, does it matter in the congressional or presidential election? >> i am going to start on this. i am mystified by this issue. my initial reaction, when you had all of this come up about the health care bill and contraception, that this was a real blow for republicans among women, the polling has not shown that. i do not understand. republicans should be having

problems among female voters. they made before the election is over. the current polling does not show that. >> if you looked at tracking polls at the time, you cannot find where that happened. you can make a great reason why it should have. it did not. what i have started doing is when i talk about the obama campaign, independents, 18-29 year olds, latinos, african americans, people started saying, what about the women go? -- vote? when you are talking about 52% of the electorate, you were talking about a big group. they are not all alike.

this is the first four months of the president's approval rating. the first four months combined. president obama approval rating among single women was 63% and. 63%. among divorced women, 52%. among married women, 44%. what about women? which ones? [laughter] >> and hell about white women and black women? >> white married women with kids, romney went by 18. non married women without kids, obama w -- white, obama wins by one. you get it. >> we have not talked about this.

the interesting thing is the catholic vote. i think obama has taken a hit among catholic voters. i am for obama. i still think he wins the election. i am not catholic. [laughter] i do not think this issue was played very well. i do not know that he could have headed off all of the opposition from the catholic church. i think this is a potentially harmful to them -- him. >> one last question. i would like to remind online view is they can participate via twitter. we have an on-line question for you. there are two big phenomenon in this election, media and the rise of the super pac. which has more of an impact?

>> super pacs. >> super pac. tom davis and i both spoke out against mccain-fiengold. what we said is this was going to force money. it is taking money away from political parties. it is going to force money into the fringes. everyone ignored us. everybody. that is exactly what has happened. it is unfortunate. you are going to have to amend the u.s. constitution. it is very hard. the people who drafted our constitution knew what they were doing. they made it hard to ever change the constitution. >> this is a huge variation from four years ago. you did not have super pacs. he did not take the federal

match. 3-to-1. this time it is going to be maybe advantage republicans. do not underestimate the effect that can have perry >> back to you original question. we need to recognize the obvious. we have guys who we are not collectively 175 years old, but getting to that general area. [laughter] we are not the right people to be asking about social media. >> you are exactly right. asked my granddaughter. >> unless it is for. detainment purposes -- pure entertainment purposes. in 2004, the bush campaign used state of the m articro- targeting.

it was before social media. the obama campaign is doing that. but they are going to use it very effectively. my guess is the romney campaign will probably do a competent job. the obama campaign will be better at it. will it make a difference? i am on the edge. i am not wild about the idea of super pacs. if you are going to say spending is a form of free speech, that is the slippery slope that led us to this. when you have democrats getting torqued up about this, i did not notice a lot of them getting upset when two people were writing big checks not that many years ago.

you have to be consistent. my theory has been that there is a law of diminishing returns in politics. for obama, he raised and spent $700 million total. half of it went to win the nomination. he outspent mccann better than two-to-one. he was going to spend $750 million to $1 billion. what of the number he is going to spend, it is going to be into the law of diminishing returns. i think romney will spend a similar amount. beyond that point, i am not sure each additional dollar is going to have that much of an impact.

my hunch for the super pacs is the congressional level. i do not know that he will be at a point where, the presidential, both sides, it will have more money than they know what to do with. extra money on one side, what is that going to do? that is not always going to be the case at the congressional level. >> certainly in senate races. some of the democratic senate candidates are going to be outspent. the house chris gets harder. candidates are better known. where the money could have an effect are in some of these battleground senate races.

>> next question. >> i am susan. i have a question about the supreme court decision on health care, how does that affect the election? >> supreme court, health care. >> window that normally the supreme court handles the hottest days. i assume that is what they are going to do. it cannot predict that. if the supreme court strikes down the individual mandate, it becomes a non-issue for the rest of this campaign. congress will have to figure out what to do. how to put honda dumped it back together again, assuming the law will continue. if the supreme court were to totally invalidate the law, it becomes a real issue.

a lot of parts of the lot are very popular. it gives democrats an interesting issue to run on. i do not know what the republicans do if the supreme court upholds the law. >> i think we continue the narrative. it is not a popular bill. that is not me speaking. if they uphold the law, it is the issue we are going to come in and repealed. if they knock it down, i do not see any legislation coming forward. whatever you put out there, somebody is going to attack. >> my hunch is that in october, november, we are not going to be talking about the supreme court decision. what say the decision comes down next week and for three weeks you are going to have

over cabinet people -- over- caffeinated people on cable television say this is the biggest thing in the election. these are the same people who said that contraception was going to be the biggest issue. then they said sam sex marriage. it is this same group of people. we will move on to something else. i do not think it is going to have a huge impact. is there any other issue that has been so thoroughly litigated in the court of public opinion and health care reform? i think no matter what side you are on, you are not likely to switch. it is factored into the stock price for and against president obama. it had a huge impact on his numbers. it is one reason he is in the

gym he is in. i do not think it is going to change because of what the supreme court does. i am not a lawyer. i had an interesting theory that a friend of mine and listened to the recordings of the first two days of oral argument. he thought, they will probably throw out the individual mandate. he listened to the third day. if you throw out individual mandate, can you take that part out? he cannot at the very end of thinking, you know what, i am not sure they are going to do this after all. one of the things he said was, roberts desperately does not want a 5-4, bush-gore political decision. that is what his tenure will be remembered by.

just as the previous chief justice, it was bush-gore. he thinks that justice robert is going to want a 6-3 decision. when you had asked malia -- justice scalia asking, are we supposed to go through all 2700 pages? can you really do this? this guy is guess was that -- justice roberts turned to anthony kennedy and suggest for him to write a majority opinion of 6-3, what would turn up to be 6-3 in terms of upholding the law. i thought that was a very

interesting theory. >> i had the wonderful experience of clerking for a federal judge. it was a district court judge. based on that experience, i would never try to predict what a federal judge is going to do. i think just leave this alone. we will see what the decision is. >> the most important metric is where is unemployment going to be? >> i would say personal disposable income. >> the numbers are not good. again, i want to go back. this is going to be fought

state-by-state. what is important in some of the midwestern states, that may turn this election. >> on behalf of national journal and united technologies and greg ward, thank you all for coming. thank you guys. you are awesome. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> both of these gentlemen are available for speaking at your corporate of vince. -- events. [laughter] >> coming up, your calls on

"washington journal >" then, "newsmakers." first, carol i sent -- darrell issa and eric holder talking to reporters. then a house meeting on the contempt citation. >> how do you approach a book interviews differently than news reporting interviews? >> i think a book interviews as gathering history. a native interviewing when i'm working for the new seddon as gathering contemporary information. how difficult is it to remain impartial and not get caught up in one campaign or another? >> i am willing to try to give people as will an understanding of what is happening in this campaign. it is not that difficult to put

your biases to the side. >> how social media changed your line of work? >> twitter is now a primary new source for anybody who covers politics and anybody who pays attention to politics. it did not exist years ago. >> tonight, a purdue university students interview "the washington post" chief correspondent. tonight at 8:00 p.m. on c-span. >> today, an hourlong discussion with alfonso aguilar and maria cardona. then abby philip will discuss then abby philip will discuss