here are the numbers if you want to call us. this is from independents only. if you want to reach out to us on social media -- you can also send us an e-mail. polls the washington post from yesterday --

with that in mind, for you independents, especially if we want to get a sense of your view of the political parties, here's how you can call us -- the person behind this poll was

peyton craighill at the washington post, joining us on the phone right now. welcome. can you elaborate on what the poll found as far as how independents view political parties and their ability to talk to each other and not be partisan? guest: absolutely not. thanks for having me. whittaker really close look at not justs independent. we looked at partisans as well. we segmented them into a bunch of groups. that was based on their attitudes and opinions on policies and politics. what we found among the independents were four distinct groups. the first two are independents who lean to either the republican or democratic parties and don't really act so much as independents and act almost like partisans.

the other two groups are groups that we call detect and deliberators. reallyachdetached are not registered to vote and are not so interested. the deliberators are the true swing voters. the independents much more for compromise between the parties than having various leaders of the party stick with their positions. we asked what is more important, that political leaders stick with their politicalor compromise? under 1% of independents said they prefer leaders to compromise across party lines -- 71%. democrats -- a 3% said they would prefer their leaders to

stick to their positions. republicans, over 50% said they would prefer their leaders stick with their positions. -- 43% of democrats. host: what did you learn? guest: about one-third of all americans identified as independent caller. amongs , only 13% we identified as deliberators, which is 5% or 6% of all americans. that is a very small number of people. they are overwhelmingly dissatisfied with the political system. aligned with republicans on the big issue of the day and

seeing they want a smaller government with fewer services, but they bounce around as far as a variety of main issues in terms of the role of the economy and who they trust more on the economy and views on social issues such as gay marriage and abortion. but the key thing is basically split their votes between obama and romney. host: as far as anything else, before we let you go, what else was interesting from the survey that we have not talked about already? guest: the two big groups amongs groups, the ones that we call disguised democrats and disguised republicans, they make up the bulk of independences. what is interesting about them is they basically line up with

their partisan labels on their values, or their attitude toward policy, in their voting intentions. you would not think they would consider themselves independent because of all the ways they line up on these various issues. what is so interesting is we asked them have you always thought of yourself as independent or in the past have you thought of yourself as a democrat or republican? among the group that we called disguised democrats, 56% always thought of themselves as independent. similarly, the republican- leaning group, 46% always thought of themselves. themselves. even though they act as a partisan, they still have this sense of independence, of perhaps open mindedness in that they just don't want to align with that party label.

host: peyton craighill is the polling manager at the washington post. independents are the key, the store found on the washington post website. thanks very much. guest: you're welcome. host: where the you say you are a disguised democrat or disguised republican or identify yourself as detached or a deliberator, here's your chance to give us your thoughts on the political parties. we have divided you all by time zones. let's start with a westminster, maryland. john, good morning. caller: hi. my philosophy, being an independent, i came from a democratic stronghold steel town. then i saw all that's left under

a democratically controlled house and republican president, all that leaving. and on the social issues i lean toward conservatism. after being 55 years old and seeing the same policies being driven by both parties, they disagree with the other party, i ended up being independent. i have been around too long to see that four years later one party will advocate one principle and the other party advocates the same principle and the other party would be against it. host: how has your philosophy barrett out over who you have voted for president over the years? caller:i am more of a conservative than i am a liberal. i typically lean to the right, but not always. typically for the republican

candidate. what he said was very true. host: honolulu, hawaii, good morning, michael. caller: thanks for having me and thanks for c-span. it really helps when you have the public able to get their voice in. as far as david from the washington post, i think he left out a big thing that divides the nation right now. in my mind you have a lot of taxpayers, the people paying the government, would like less government and less taxes. then you have all the people who are benefiting from government, all the people on welfare and people who want government to help them, wanting more government because they don't pay any taxes. i think that is something that about much.ed istoo mu

the nation is split on the haves and have-nots. host: how does that affect your vote? caller: you always look for someone like a libertarian. i really am happy that paul ryan got in the picture now. he was nominated to be the vice president for the republicans. i think that really makes a choice for american now. we have to choose between a group that's going to try to get the cost of government down so we don't go on and on until they have to print more and more money. host: did you vote for president obama? caller: no, but i really respected him because he really had a campaign that seemed to really amaze me, where he beat

out hillary clinton and really captured the nation. it was good to see -- even though obama is half white it, still a lot of people think of him as the first black president and i think that was good for the nation, to have people of all races. i would like to see a japanese president in the future. host: that is michael from honolulu. president obama in nevada today and in new york later on for an event. governor romney is campaigning today as well. we are taking a look at independences' views of the political parties. dorothy, go ahead. caller: hello, i used to be a democrat, but several years ago when mitt romney was governor here i saw his push to put the

tax burden on the local communities rather than on the state. it was during that time that our town was not willing to cut back on their support of education, so the local property taxes went up. by now my property taxes are approaching $10,000 for a small house, 1600 square feet, an old house not renovated. so i decided that i would become what we call unenrolled, which is like independent. i was looking for an opportunity to vote against mitt romney in the primary. this year i took the republican

ballot when we had our primary election. i said i cannot vote for newt gingrich, but i saw jon huntsman on there. i knew he was the one who had not taken the grover norquist pledge, he was willing to negotiate, willing to perhaps raise taxes if we had to. i said that the person for me, so i voted for him. afterward i went to a friend's house and i forget if it was 72 people or 92 people here in lexington had voted for jon huntsman. she cannot understand it. i said i can understand it because i was one of them. people respect him for not taking the grover norquist pledge. host: when it comes to how you vote as an independent, is it just fiscal matters? caller: not necessarily. in fact, i saw mr. obama on the

television this morning talking about education for people that come from disadvantaged backgrounds. i really respect him for trying to help these kids from the inner cities and places like that to get a college education. so it has to do with education. it has to do with a number of issues. these are things that i think are very important for the country. host: all independents for the first 45 minutes, your views of the political parties, what you think of them as they currently stand and how you as an independent shape your vote. we had about five comments on facebook when we started the show --

one of the ways you can reach out to us and thought it was about your view. a couple of campaign-related stories. here's the washington journal from this morning -- -- the wall street journal --

long island, new york, patricia. caller: good morning. i have been watching c-span now for quite some time. i also want congress. watch congress. what i see i don't appreciate when the republicans don't agree to compromise. compromise is the main thing in life. everyone has to compromise to get things done for the american people. i am still listening and watching what is going on. i have voted republican before, however, i would like to see more compromise in congress. they're not getting things done for us. host: what is the one thing they should compromise on the top of your list? caller: the first thing is

people are out of jobs. if the president puts a job plan out there, they look it over and see what can be done about it, something can be changed, they should change it and go down the list. instead of the republicans saying no to everything. things don't work that way. ghost: have you always voted democrat or republican? caller: i have switched. i voted for democrats and i have voted for republicans before. like i said, i'm in long island. whenever i tried to read the paper i also look at c-span and listen to the republican station, channel 5, fox5, and listen to their point of view. i need everyone just a compromise. host: davis calling from florida. caller: how are you?

you looked dapper. host: thank you. caller: i would like to comment on this last lady's comments about compromise. how does one compromise with a glass of poison? do you only drink half of the glass? i see the democrats taking us on -- i see the democrats taking us on a high-speed rail to fiscal ruin and the republicans on a freight train to fiscal ruin. host: how have you voted as far as party is concerned, over the years? caller: [no audio] host: california now.

sorry about that. fed is on the independent line -- fred. caller: i am probably a pure independent. i voted against george h. w. bush the first time that he ran. i thought he was a great president and then i voted for him when he lost his election. i voted for bill clinton the first time he ran. i voted against him when he ran for reelection. i voted for george w. bush the first time he ran. i voted against him when he ran for reelection. host: what shapes this pattern, what goes into the changes? caller: a big thing is all my life what i have done is i have voted against the guys i did not like the most. so i don't really vote for anybody. i voted against the one i find most worrisome. if i happen to vote for one who wins, i'd end up with a buyer's

remorse. i thought about not voting at all this time. although i think obamacare is such a tragedy that i am feeling a little compelled to go and vote for romney just to try on the off chance that would help do something for us. basically, my opinion is this -- the democrats regulate the corporations so that they become too big to fail and then the republicans deregulate them such that they can wipe out all of their competition. what i'm seeing is just government and corporations are now just a consortium that. are the same that i don't think that we have representatives in congress, because we cannot afford them. they all seem to be appointed by whoever their donors are. so i don't see much of a difference between government

and corporations. i think that they basically have lined their pockets over the years by selling industrial capacity overseas. host: this from twitter -- that's one of the many ways you can reach out to us on your views of the political parties, on our twitter address. we have also posted the question on facebook this morning. if you go to our facebook page and you see a little of the discussion that is going on and people responding to each other and comments made on that, such as james -- and some others posted as well.

we're asking independents away in on political parties. we will take more calls. in a calls the representative todd akin, a decision made yesterday when it comes to looking at the future of his campaign against claire mccaskill. the st. louis post-dispatch -- joining us on the phone now is christopher ave with the st. louis-post dispatch, their political editor. welcome. give us a sense of what his strategy will be going forward? guest: thank you and good morning. representative todd akin has long relied upon sort of a tight-knit, relatively small, but very committed core of supporters. i believe he is expecting that this small group will step it up

and support him, replacing millions of dollars that he apparently will not see from the national party. that's a point to be a tall order for any group of supporters. but it appears that is his strategy. host: who composes this group? guest: the representative is a conservative christian and he is extremely open about his faith. as well as its political life. his faith and his political life are knitted together. he has attracted in the second district of missouri committed and peer support from evangelical christians, from white teavangelicals, fundamentalists, and some catholics who oppose abortion. he's very much an opponent of

abortion and has made that very much a part of his political philosophy. he does have supporters. when he won an upset in a primary in 2000 he said at that time that his supporters would come out in an earthquake. he is certainly experiencing that now. that is what he's counting on. host: is there polling to suggest where he currently stands? guest: i saw a poll that said he was virtually tied right now -- as of a day and a half ago, i should say, with the incumbent claire mccaskill. i would like to see how this plays out. people are not as instantly connected perhaps with every development as they will be. it's hard to say now. i think the main issue will be fund-raising, because it takes a lot of money to run a statewide

campaign for the united states senate. if he really is going to be cut off from both third-party nonprofit groups that can give unlimited amounts of money and the republican party establishment, i think it's a point to be very tough for him to wage a substantial campaign against an incumbent who has a lot of money. host: the amount that has been lifted as far as donations -- listed? guest: he has already sent out multiple e-mails requesting support. i got one from his wife last night because i'm on the list. his wife says that she's standing by this man of faith, this good man. then she immediately asked for money. his spokesman -- campaign spokesman has said that they are experiencing an uptick in

individual donations. certainly they are going to say that and that sounds good. there are no hard numbers yet on that. but it is really tough for individual donations to compete with the likes of crossroads gps, a third-party group that has already announced they will not be spending on . the party's behalf in on host: senator mccaskill's strategy going forward, on the front page of the paper this morning, the headline -- guest: yes, she did a somewhat clever and others might suggest she did a disingenuous thing. during the primaries to decided she would prefer to face todd akin, so she spent millions of dollars on an advertisement that , but itdly attacked him durin

served to boost him in the primary, because it called him a conservative. all of these tactics that attack at typical use or not there. it simply highlighted is extremely conservative positions in the republican primary in a red state such as missouri. that helps akin. so she essentially held to choose her opponent. now she is one of the few voices nationally who is defending him, decrying the party bigwigs that would suggest he should step aside. claire mccaskill does not want him to step aside. host: christopher ave with the st. louis-post dispatch, his political -- their political editor. thanks for being with us. it is independents only until 7:45, your view of the political parties. phone lines are on the screen.

twitter is active right now -- also, our countdown to the conventions, the republican convention about to start. you can find all the information you need on c-span. the republican convention is august 27 through august 30. the democratic will be september 4 through september 6. we plan to bring you gavel-to- gavel coverage on both of those. and go to our web page c- span.org. on twitter --

back to the phones. spokane, washington, dave. caller: good morning. i agree with a lot of things i heard you talking about today, specifically that most people lean heavily one way or the other. i am in the smaller group, the 13% that is a true independent. i voted for the first bush both times. i did not have a problem with him saying he was not one to raise taxes, and then he raised. raised i voted for the second bush and i was ok with clinton -- i did not vote for the second bush and i was ok with clinton. on the individuals, especially with the presidency, i vote based on character, because people t give because

president'soo much credit or blame for things that go on because the presidency of the weakest of the three branches. he can veto things, but the congress can still override. a lot of things that go on in the country are more directly associated with congress. the problem with our compromise is that too many people are not willing to compromise when it directly affects them. i was a major in the military and i have a lot of respect for everything military, but i'm also able to see that our military retirement system needs a little bit of a look. people's lifespans are longer, so you cannot have people working from 18 to 20 working until the age of 40 and getting paid 50 years of retirement benefits. host: we will have to go on to

another call, dave. homestead, florida, lakeetha. caller: good morning. i feel like the lastt caller.e much of too much emphasis is placed on the president. i would be willing to vote for even a third party that showed they had the entire country's interests at heart and not just one particular party is interest or one segment of the population and heart. i feel right now for the last four years i have just watched the republicans stonewall almost everything. on thate they just took attitude that we are going to make this president a one-term president. and it seems like, to me the

republican party is not the same party. there were a party of compromise at one time, but when the tea party got involved, everything changed. host: tells about your voting pattern over the years? caller: as far as the presidency is concerned, i have leaned liberal most of the time. as far as congress, i was originally from new jersey. i voted for republicans in congress. i voted for tom kane. host: st. stephen, south carolina, dorothy on our independent line. caller: hi, my name is dorothy. . i am . i have voted on both sides, with republicans and democrats. -- i am an independent. republicans have tried real hard

to slow down the president, to make him a one-term president, as mitch mcconnell said. i never in my whole life since i voting have i seen this much hate the way they're going now. the republicans used to be a about compromise. but now they are not going to work with this president. they said they are not going to work with him. they made that pledge. they are going to try to get mitt romney. i will vote democratic this year, because i do not have faith in mitt romney and ron paul. this seems to me they are two of a kind. they lie and they will do

anything they want to do. if mitt romney cannot come up with his taxes, let us see them and show that he has offshore investment accounts, i cannot vote for a man like that. host: governor romney came out with a statement regarding todd akin's candidacy, yesterday after the 5:00 p.m. deadline. governor romney said this -- representative pete sessions with the national republican campaign committee gave an interview, but before that he was asked about representative todd akin and what should happen

to his candidacy. [video clip] >> have they reached out to congressman todd akin or any of your members had a discussion with him about the role that he now plays in the house race? >> i think that the senatorial committee properly, along with former senators from missouri, have effectively made the case about not only where they stand about about what is in todd akin's best interest. i hope that he listened and acted very quickly. >> when he is still on the ballot. if he stays on the ballot and does run through the fall, is that it a seat you think republicans will lose? >> ? todd and the central committee are trying to make wise choices about ridding the race. i think that the winning the race means he would not be the candidate on the ballot. host: you can see that whole

interview on sunday morning at 10:00. you probably seen this newsweek cover featuring president obama -- a response to it has been quite piscivorous. this is from "the huffington post" --

and there's this washington post story -- if you go to convention coverage, remember that the republican national convention starts very soon, you'll probably seen a story related to hurricane concerns. this is from several stories and this one is from cbs news -- the august 13, 2004 storm was small get powerful.

a couple other stories related to the convention when it comes to delegates. ron paul's delegates, there's a story in the new york times this morning -- also, when it comes to delegates, newt gingrich -- one more convention-related story. this is about cost. in usa today --

you can see it at "usa today." don't forget, countdown to the conventions is our chance to give you gavel-to-gavel coverage of both conventions, starting with the republicans and the democrats. go to c-span.org for more informational our coverage. you can also listen to c-span radio. we want to get your view of the political parties, independents.

long island, new york, douglas. caller: thanks for taking my call. it's my first time. as an independent, i would like to tell you the way i look upon is toin independent callevoter sit back and look at it. believeot beat ever everything. you can look at what is not being said. by doing so, you can come down to a final conclusion on individual issues. once you get the issues trade, then you go for the man that best suits your political ideas. host: what that means for november for you is -- caller: right now i am truly interested in medicare, and the

affordable care act. i have been looking at the ball between the horns of the republican party. from what i can tell, all the money for both of these acts is still going to come from the general public from the taxes into the fund. under the republican program it, anybody under the age of 55 has choices where they can buy individual plans. these individual plans, however, have no guidelines. to guidelines -- have no guidelines. host: we have to go to david in las vegas. caller: i am an independent. i voted for obama this election. host: did you vote for him last time?

caller: i voted for obama the first time, too. i voted for ronald reagan in my first election and then i voted for bush the second time, and he lost. i voted for clinton the second time and he lost. i voted for al gore. i voted for obama and again obama. host: what's the main reason? caller: i vote economically mostly. i m socially a liberal. economy is mostly about supply and demand. i don't see the purpose of stimulating the supply when there's no demand. it just spreads inequality. there's trillions of dollars overseas. we need to stimulate demand. both parties are captured by the big banks, i believe. host: here is twitter --

miami, florida, edward, hello. caller: good morning, thanks for taking my call. i am so disappointed with the republicans being such obstructionists to the point where they are harming our country. i feel this is so irresponsible. i will definitely be voting for president obama this year. host: did you vote for him four years ago? caller: i did. host: have you voted for republicans ever? caller: never in my life and the way they are behaving now i probably never will. it's either republican or democrat. since the democrats are the lesser of two evils, i have to go with the democratic platform. they would not try to harm the

country in trying to get their political agenda across. but the republicans would. host: last call is no way, connecticut, sheila. caller: this morning, it pedro. the independence party should be changed to the people's party because the others are just two money parties. i am angry because they're not concentrating on the most important thing, which is climate change. what good is all the power and everything the two parties will get with the votes if they don't keep the climate going and not destroying it the way they have? they should get rid of the electoral college immediately. it is a setup for the republicans and is totally unnecessary, where redistricting is. in the eighth three are now, everyone out in the boondocks is kept up-to-date on what is happening in the world. if they don't have tv, they have

a computer. they should get rid of the delegates. what i don't like in kinetic it is they don't let independents gold in the primary. it's foolish. i would like a clear answer on that. host: we are out of time. today more thoughts from facebook -- again, thanks for your participation in this first 45 minutes. three platforms, if you are interested in turning into our convention coverage. the republican in august and the democrats in september. you can watch it on c-span, fall on c-span.org. and you can listen to it on the radio locally and on ex-im serius.-

coverage starts on monday, august 27 at 2:00 p.m. until 11:00 p.m. tuesday, august 28, 7:13 through 11:00 p.m. and we will have guests on this program talking about what's happening in convention coverage. go to c-span.org. robert rector, played a major role in crafting the 1996 the federal welfare legislation, will join us to analyze the current debate over president obama's move to give states more flexibility in dealing with welfare rules. and then the national editor of "vanity fair magazine will talk about business experience and u.s. presidents. we will be right back.

[video clip] >> what do we not see when we looked at the dead at antivenom? eetum?i-du they described the bodies in great detail and then they would stop and say it is too horrible, i cannot put this into words. >> this weekend on american history tv, a harvard professor discusses the impact on the soldiers and the images made in the wake of the battle. saturday at 10:00 p.m. eastern. also this. -- [video clip] >> america will stand up for the

ideals that we believe in when we are operating at our best and who want to see this country perhaps above all else return to the path of peace. >> more from the contenders, our series that looks at the political figures that ran for president but lost and changed political history. 1972 democratic nominee and anti-war nominee george mcgovern, sunday at 7:30. american history tv this weekend on c-span 3. >> "washington journal" continues. host: robert rector of the heritage foundation, a senior research fellow. we are here to talk about changes that were announced when it comes to the welfare program, temporary assistance for needy families. what was done in 1996 when the program was enacted and what has been changed? guest: in 1996 we had a program called aid to families with dependent children. clinton got elected president on the grounds he was going to

reform the welfare system and replace the welfare system of 1- way handouts with one that would require work. we took the old program and turned it from a program that paid states more money if they put more people onto the rolls into one that had fixed funding. that is an important feature. the key feature of the act was to say that at least a portion of the able-bodied parents in that program would be required to work or prepare for work or at least look for work as a condition for receiving aid. when we did that and put that national requirement in, the caseload dropped about 50%. they had not ever dropped after world war ii. they immediately dropped 50%. employment spiked among these groups and child poverty year after year for the first years of the program hit historic lows at. it was a very successful reform, very popular with republicans

on. people don't remember half of the democrats in congress voted against it very adamantly. they saw to repeal that program and especially to eliminate the work standards periodically in the last 15 years. they have not been successful until about one month ago. caller: what happened a month ago? guest: the obama administration illegally and said that these core work standards in the program would be eliminated. they would say they would be waived and no state would have to comply with them. these are the work standards that i helped write. obama says they are gone. the states will devise their own standards to replace them, completely illegal. it is basically winning through a bureaucratic trip, a dirty trick, what they could not achieve in legislation,

which was to get rid of the work requirements. host: >> obama campaign put out an ad after criticism it received from the. romney the [video clip] >> i am barack obama and i approve this message. >> have you seen this? mitt romney claiming the president would end the work requirement? the new york times calls it blatantly false. the washington post says the obama administration is not removing the work requirement at all. obama is getting states to move 28% more -- 20% more people from welfare to work. clinton said it's just not true. get the facts. host: we start with the part that says 20% more than previous years as far as moving people to work. guest: i would rather start with the simple fact they eliminate the work requirements? the answer is yes. they said we are waiving the

work requirement. no state will have to abide by them. we will devise new standards, it's as. that is a pretty substantial change in law. these are some unknown standards that hhs will issue unilaterally with no possible input from congress. did they eliminate the work standard? yes, they did. what they might claim is that we illegally removed these standards, but we are going to put in really tough standards in their place, which is what they're trying to say. but anyone who knows the subject knows that is simply not the case. for example, what they will do is replace these standards with bogus standards. the current standards require about 30% of the able-bodied adults and a program to be engaged in some sort of work activity or job search activities in a given month. past the caseload at the present time does nothing but. but we have this minimal

standard on the third of the cav -- caseload is. they will waive that. they are deciding to replace that with universal engagement, which means everybody does one activity hour per week. if that is a completely meaningless standard. they also said want to count off the pace slowed. there is an automatic turnover rate. at. period do you -- at what. do you have the most exits off the caseloads? it is a completed sham statistics and it has been known. and why congress has never adopted the system stick. people are serious about work say this does not measure anything. it is a reverse indicator. the worse you are doing, the more you're caseload goes up.

it is essentially deceptive. it's as we're getting rid of welfare dependence when welfare dependence is going up. going to go back and try to bamboozle the public into thinking we are all about work, all about reducing caseloads and reducing dependence when fact the statistics are meaningless. host: robert rector is our guest. you can ask him questions -- you can send us an e-mail or a tweet. in the past, the federal government has given states a chance to do things or at least make changes that would apply better for their state rather than a federal mandate. why does that not apply in this case?

guest: the current law is very flexible. what it says is that you have to do something about work. all the current law basically says to a state is you have to have roughly 30% to 40% of work- eligible adults engaged in some type of activity and has to be 20 hours or 30 hours per week to account. then we give a range of 14 different activities ranging from a ged class to on the job training to supervised job search to subsidize employment to employment, a wide range of activities that count under that. it's very difficult to come up with something that does not count under this system. but the obama administration says we are going to change that. they explicitly said we want to lower those participation rates. it says we want to exempt people out. it only applies to a third of the caseload, so why do you need to and exempt them?

half of the caseload in this program now are sitting at home doing absolutely nothing. why do you need to make? this more make -- why do you need to make this more lenient? they said we will put in a vague things like universal engagement, which literally means maybe you assist your child with homework one hour per week. it's a complete sham and it's due to the fact that the left wing of the democratic party opposes workfare and since the nixon administration really has not changed. we used to say workfare is slavefare. they don't say that anymore because now most of the public believes able-bodied recipients ought to be able to work or prepare for work or at least look for a job as a condition for receiving aid. if you disagree with that, which

is what the left wing appointees in hhs disagree with that passionately and have spent their entire careers fighting against, you cannot say we are against it it. you have to say we are for work and by the way we are getting rid of the existing work standards that worked well and we are replacing them, but trust us that what we are replacing them with will be very tough. host: rudy is on the democratic clieline. caller: i agree with you about the welfare. everybody needs to get out and work. the only thing i would like for somebody like you to say is that this is not against any demographic group. everybody looks at welfare as either black, hispanic, minority nature. it really needs to be put out there that this is everybody. guest: absolutely. it's absolutely true.

the majority of recipients in this program and in welfare programs in general are not black or hispanic. they are white, non-hispanic. what we have to understand is this program is only one of 80 different programs that the federal government runs to assist poor people. 80 different programs. on those programs we are currently spending nearly $1 trillion per year. this does not include social security or medicare. of those 80 programs we have roughly one-third receiving benefits. it's a huge program. out of those 80 programs, only three of them have work requirements. it's amazing. but now it's down through two, because the obama administration has removed. the.

04. republican line. caller: why is it boil -- why is it so easy for illegal immigrants to get welfare, and why is nothing done to stop that? guest: illegal immigrants are not allowed to get welfare. he is not clear to extend the state's enforcement. -- to what extent of the united -- the states enforce that. under the law, children are treated as american citizens, and they are eligible for welfare. there are a legal immigrant families that get welfare on behalf of their children. incidently, those families are exempt from work requirements because benefits are only going to a child. the system is bizarre in the day

get more lenient treatment than u.s. citizens. host: when requirements are there as far as what their job back to the search has been and how was that documented? guest: that is up to the states. we allow the states to determine what activities, within a broad range, how they will record it. they have to keep track of what the individual is doing. sometimes, people say the tracking is excessive. maybe it is, but the obama administration could have changed that. they did not have to throw away a lot to change those things. it is a broad law. when i explain to people that in the program half of the caseload has no work requirement because the child is with a grandmother, an immigrant parent

that is not subject, so it is about 15% of the total caseload participating in work. most people say that as far too low, the we have is a change that will eliminate that standard and make it much more lenient so that people do not have to do anything. host: here is the acting assistant secretary. guest: i have heard that. i do not necessarily agree, but in any loss, there is the law itself, then there is regulations that implement the law. all of those reporting requirements are in the regulation. the obama administration has the

legal authority to change those regulations. if he is claiming reporting requirements are too tough, he could change them tomorrow. he did not have to strike down law itself to do that. the fact they chose not to change regulations concerning reporting but the law itself ish more bold objective in mind. they want to change requirements that say, for example, one-third of the work eligible people have to do some type of activity. that is too onerous for them. they want eight more lenient. host: is it too early to say what requirements could look like under these changes? guest: what it has conventionally meant is that the ostensibly everyone on the

caseload, work-eligible adults, have to do one our of work a week -- one hour of work a week. it is designed to sign hentoff to appeal to the 90% of americans believe -- is designed to signing a treaty to sound tough to appeal to the 90% of americans believe they should work. welfare bureaucracies are not the most dynamic institutions in society and they do not like being required to do anything. the reason the act was successful in its most vigorous form was it forced bureaucracies to get ahead and push people, and welfare recipients responded positively. when you say you cannot sit at home and get your check anymore, most respond very well. also, the number of people that want to come into the welfare

program goes down dramatically because they have other options. we should not be encouraging people to enter welfare if they have other options. host: robert rector, heritage foundation. los angeles. caller: the answer to who is eligible seems to be everybody and anyone. i believe we are over-populated. i wrote by senators years ago. we cannot continue to bring in immigrants that take well-paying jobs. we do nothing about illegals. they cost california $10 billion a year. they get free health care. they are very lenient with welfare. almost everyone is the welfare. they have no respect for our laws.

so, my question is, how do we go about a moratorium on illegal immigration. the country was built on immigration. that is true, but they were not greeted by the welfare system. we did not have it at that time, i do not think. they have to learn english, get a job, and they melted into things. it's called thank you. guest: well, you are right in the sense that -- host: thank you. guest:, well you are right in the sense that illegal immigrants get medical care and free education for their children. if those children are born in the u.s., they will be heavy users of welfare, so they received far more in government services than a legal immigrants could ever pay in taxes. the same applies for legal

immigrants if they have a low education levels. one third of all legal immigrants do not have a high school degree, and those families on average received $10,000 a year. they receive about two dollars of government benefits for every dollar they pay in taxes. $3, actually. they are very costly. you cannot import welfare dependents. when we had high immigration around 12 -- world war i, there was no welfare state. when immigrants come in, if they are legal in particular, the her natural recipients of the system, and it the heavy cost on the u.s. taxpayer. host: atlanta, and tortured. good morning.

-- atlanta, georgia. good morning. caller: intelsat and what you're saying, but when i am competing to find a job, and people who are trying to get work, if they do not have the education, how do they get a job? with so many things cut, particularly in the mental health, just pushing them out there and say work, work, work, these people are mentally not able to. it is not the one to sit around and not do anything. i agree that we should the be giving our money to the legal immigrants, but what about a 62- year-old grandmother, or a 73- year-old grandmother, when work requirements should be it -- sheet -- what should she be

required to do? i work with women out of jail in california. so many have mental health issues that are not addressed. there is no money out there to help them. we are giving tax cuts to the wealthiest americans who are supposedly job creators creating jobs overseas where people work for pennies, but not in this country. host: we will let the guest respond. guest: with respect to the grandmothers, they are not subject to a work requirement that all. in half of these cases, the child has been placed with a grandmother. those relatives, even the aunt not be subject to the work requirement. that is half of the caseload. where there is a parent in the home, the work requirement applies to only one-third of

those. the state can send to therapy or anything like that. in the 1996 law, one of the reasons people were against it on all left was these people were not ready for employment, and that was demonstrated not to be the case. we require people to go to work, and we found the overwhelming majority of the caseload could move into jobs, and that was the best way to increase earnings, rather than sending them off to prolong the education, and things like that, though a state could do that under the law if it wants to. i would also disagree that we do not have enough money in the welfare system. we have increased spending on the poor, which is called means- tested aid, by 30% over the last year. the total spending this year was $927 billion.

one-third of the u.s. population gets paid, and that comes to around $9,000 per person, and these figures do not include social security and medicare. it is an enormous system and under obama's plan it will get larger in the future. host: how did president clinton and the upside in the legislation? guest: he vetoed it twice, and going into the election against bob dole, the republicans passed it again, and he was a device that if he were to do it again, -- he was given the device that if he were to do it again, he might lose the election. he signed it. most of his cabinet urged him not to sign it. within his administration, he was probably the only one that was philosophically attuned with

the idea of works, but most of his party was not. half of the democrats on the hill in 1996 voted against every version of this bill that was passed, and they have never changed their mind. the democratic party has shifted substantially to the left since 1996. because the public likes the fact, the democratic politicians will never say it is a bad thing, but if you go on the hill, liberal democrats trash this bill. they dislike it. they attempted to repeal the entire act in 2002 and replace it with something completely different, and it would have had no federal work standards. again, because their position, which has not changed very much , thatthe 1997 -- 1970's

position is very much at odds with the public. we have to have a flimflam of trying to do away with the work requirements quietly, as obama has done, and at the same time beating your chest, saying how tough you are. host: what was your role in crafting the legislation? guest: i was an advisor, and i corrected these work standards for them. i think they were pretty good. i am biased, but they worked pretty well, particularly after the passage, before they were watered down. they are not perfect, but again, they are fairly flexible. all the standards say is roughly one-third of work-eligible adults have to do some type of activity, 20-to-30 hours a

week. we do not allow people to go to college and, that as a work activity. host: what was the economy like back then? guest: it was much stronger, and that is an important point. the work requirements combined with a strong economy that brought these caseloads down between 1996 and 2001, they have continued to go down, but not as fast in part because of a weakening of the work standards, and in part because of the weak economy. when obama came into office he suspended the work requirements because of the recession. that was not an unreasonable thing. i did not perfectly agree with that, but that was not utterly unreasonable. this change that they are proposing is a permanent one. it is not temporarily because the economy is bad and there are

no jobs. this is a permanent change that does away with the law and replaces it with something new. it is completely illegal. they have never even made a pretense to demonstrate that this is the intent of the law. everyone involved in writing the law said you cannot do that. we clearly said you could not do that in the law, and there is nothing in the historical record that would ever indicate that they have this right. the law has been there for 15 years. nothing has ever suggested they had the right to get rid of these work standards, and all the sudden they came up with this shifty loophole. when they were caught, they said we are not really changing anything. if they did not want to change anything, why did they decide to override a law?

host: bonny, florida. caller: thank you for educating us on this issue. i am a small business owner. i have eight employees. please bear with me. i am a republican. i voted for obama west time. i would like to make that clear -- last time. i would like to make that clear. it is not about democrats or republican, but about change that never happen, in my opinion. that said, my business is down since obama took office, which is not all his fault, 50%. my employees, not one of them make less than 14 hours the $14 an hour. with welfare reform, -- $14 an hour. with welfare reform, larger

chains like wal-mart can hire employees for minimum wage, which they are entitled to do, and people still collect welfare. my question is about large corporations. if i can pay a livable wage to an employee and still make ends meet, how is it that we can not change the minimum wage for everyone to move them off of this system? guest: while, you have a very productive business, apparently, they you are able to pay that high level of wage, and you must have fairly skilled workers there. not everyone is capable of contributing that much to a business. if you artificially raise the minimum wage, although many people gain from that, one of the clear consequences is the

lowest skilled people in society are put on the shelf because they cannot earn that wage. we do have a welfare system that supplements those wages. we have the and the income tax credit that basically says if you have a low wage and you are a parent supporting kids, we give you up to $6,000 a year. we give you a general -- we have a very generous system, but what we are trying to do is say that within the system those programs should encourage works, and courage marriage. -- encourage marriage. there are no work requirements now. there is no work requirement in housing. these programs would work much better for the taxpayer and the recipients if we simply stepped to the principle that if you are in a bull-bodied adult and you need -- if we simply stood by

the principle that if you aren't able-bodied adult and you need assistance, we will give you that assistance, but in return, you should look for a job. why could we not apply that in food stamps? not throw anyone off of the roles, but just apply the principle? the reason is the left is opposed to that. they regard welfare recipients as victims of social injustice and requiring them to work as a type of punishment, which it is not. host: here is the annapolis, maryland. independent line. matt. caller: i appreciate the talk on the subject. i have three points i want to make when you take away the work requirement for any type of aid, food stamps or whatever,

the problem you run into is the lack of motivation to get out there and do anything. when you put your hand out there and people give you something, there is no motivation. my wife is a school teacher in anne arundel county. she teaches at five different middle schools. she is amazed at the difference in the attitudes of these kids. some are less fortunate. some are not. she asks the kids what they want to do for a living, and their response is i'm going to collect a check from the state. it is taking away the motivation that has been going on for years now. it will take a huge effort to recover from. host: make the other two points, please. caller: i am just trying to say there has to be a work requirement, and it is

beneficial. guest: i think that is exactly right. you do not want people growing up with the idea that life is about a handout. they are not all that generous, but their larger than people ordinarily think. you basically and the cutting people off or multiple generations from productive but as a patient in our society and real success -- productive, and basically you are cutting off multiple generations from productive participation in our society or real success. by the time they get into it, they feel a reward, because now they are taking steps to it leased to to give more to their own well-being. they have pride in that. their kids learn something. i am not saying it is a panacea by any stretch of the

imagination, but it is a much better system. again, we should apply to every single one of these welfare programs. if you have an able-bodied adult, he should be required to do something. in the food stamp program, for example, there are more than 4 million, a build-bodied adults that do not have kids, i usually young men, that get checks, and they get about $2,000 a year, and they're not required to do anything. that is simply not a good message. you should require them to come in and look for a job. if you require them to come in to the welfare job and look for a job under supervision, most of them will get off the rolls because they have alternatives. host: earlier this month we had a discussion about this with an anti-party advocate who

supports the obama administration on this, and he asserted that welfare basically does not exist anymore. i'll show you what he had to say and then get your response. [video clip] >> there is an unspoken assumption that there are millions on welfare that want their check and are dependent care the fact is welfare barely exist anymore. -- dependent. the fact is welfare barely exists anymore. it is ironic that this is the white poverty has gotten into the campaign, -- that poverty has gotten into the campaign, with an attack from the right. as i said before, in half of the states, less than 20% of the children in poor families are getting help. in this recession, there are 6 million people in this country will only have food stamps

because cash assistance is not available. their entire income, 6% of our population. guest: he is playing a trick there. when he defines as welfare is the temporary assistance to needy families program, but the income tax credit, public housing, so forth, they do not count toward the welfare system is best the larger than it was in 1996 reaching the do not account. the welfare system is vastly larger than it was in 1996. 100 million people get this aid. they get a least one benefit of this program. it is an enormous system. if you took all of this system and converted into cash, it is five times the amount of money needed to eliminate all poverty

in the united states. it is simply false to say the welfare state has shrunk in any way. what we did is there are fewer people getting cash, there are more getting the earned income tax credit, getting more unemployment insurance, food stamps. the amount of resources that the taxpayer is putting in to care for the poor is dramatically up and is at an all-time record high, and under obama is scheduled to go higher. host: mrs. off of twitter -- you just made the statement that when people work, welfare payments drop drastically. guest: that is not true. when you attack the program from 1945 to the present, we have many good -- when you look at the program from 1945 to the present, with many good economic

times, and the caseload did not fall, but the only time it fell was from 1996 to the present time because of the change in the system. you need good economic times, but you need a work requirement. it is the two of those things put together the cause of the behavioral change that we want. it is not that welfare recipients sit back and do nothing whatsoever. you have a set of incentives were under the traditional welfare system we sent a check, and you sat at home and collected a check. if you do something else and say this is not for your best interest or anyone's best interest, and we will teach you how to do a job interview, where did the job training, the response is positive and you get -- or give you a job training, the response is positive. host: robert rector from the

heritage foundation is with us for a few more minutes. hampton, virginia. democrats line. caller: i have a problem with this mean-spirited conversation, primarily because we are a nation of immigrants, and we sit here and we talk about jobs. when did the republicans help us get the jobs bill passed? the jobs that are out here, when they're sent overseas, after the unions are destroyed, we'll be working for less than minimum wage. how will these statistics do for the people trying to get off of welfare? there are no jobs. tell me about that. guest: it is true that there is a huge amount of unemployment right now, and that is a problem, but we are talking about the long-term nature. the changes the obama administration put in are not

for one year. they are forever. what we will see as the economy begins to recover is that jobs will begin to open up. i would also say that even in bad economic times it is important to seek people to go out and get work. i was at a meeting with various welfare state directors, and even in bad economic times if you have a positive requirement for people to seek work, more people will obtain jobs, and that is good. the rule here is not to say we will throw you off, go find a job. we will continue to give you aid, but we do not want you to sit home and collect a check. come in, and it least look for a job and do preparation for getting a job, and even in bad economic times, the outcome of that is better than doing nothing. host: peter off of twitter asks the question, and says it isn't

state rights what we want? guest: now. the reality is there is a confusion here. when we look to the means-tested spending, and 75% of the money is federal money, so when you look at the remaining part, this is 90% federally funded. it is not federally -- federal laws and to collect money in washington and dump it on the states. that is a recipe for a really bad system. let's collect money at one level of the government and hospital for the offense to someone else. that is not -- and give it to someone else. that has never been a conservative principle. what we have said, and it is an important distinction, he should not be trying to control what states do with their own money,

but if a state receives federal money, we have a responsibility to make sure the money is spent in a responsible way. work requirements are extremely flexible. they allow wide variation the question is whether you will have word -- variation. the question is whether you will have work requirements at all. host: the republican national committee put out an ad looking at the welfare topic. [video clip] >> the new bill restores america's basic bargain of providing opportunity and demanding in return responsibility. if this bill will help people go to work so they can stop drawing a welfare check, and started drawing a paycheck. >> i was not issued supporter of the plan designed in 1996. -- i was not a huge supporter

of the plan designed in 1996. >> the republican national committee is responsible for the content of this advertising. guest: i think that is exactly right. remember, half of the democrats in congress voted against this act, and barack obama was the most liberal senator. this guy is perched out on the left wing of the democratic party. i set around and been screened at about work requirements for decades -- i have sat around and been screamed at about these work requirements for decades, but i am shocked that they changed the law. this is a system of government. it is not a one-we dictatorship, but the left wing of the democratic party has never liked these work requirements.

they feel, for example, when you impose work requirements, there are a substantial number of people that can not need them and they fall into need that is not met, and even if they wanted to do work requirements, they're reluctant to do it. they view these things simply as punishment, so they have always been against them. the reality is that what we saw in 1996 is most welfare recipients can respond in a positive way, and they end up gaining from it. the taxpayer in gains, too. one thing i would say is that the republicans did a disservice to themselves and the taxpayer by over-selling this 1996 reform. there are 80 programs. they reform one of them. there was no substantial reform too soon stamps, public housing, -- to the food stamps,

public housing, medicaid. they pretend they changed the welfare system, but you have to look of these together. host: it should of been done as a package. guest: exec to. there are no work requirements in food stamps. -- exactly. there are no work requirements in food stamps. the earned income tax credit has been weakened. we need to look to all these rules, not to throw away the welfare state, but say look, we are here to help you, but we expect you to take steps to help yourself, and we will all benefit if we do that. the other thing that is important here is to recognize the growth of single parents, with 42% of children born out of wedlock, and that happening predominantly among women that have a high school degree or less, that is a major cause for this welfare assistance, and we

need take steps to repair the family structure as well. where can marriage will help people be self-sufficient. who agrees with me on this? lyndon johnson. when lyndon johnson launched the war on poverty he said he did not want to just address the symptoms of poverty, give people handouts. he wanted to address the causes of poverty, and what he meant his he wanted people to be prosperous without government assistance. johnson said he wanted to turn the port from tax eaters to taxpayers. that is harsh rhetoric, but he meant that. by that standard, we have spent $19 trillion on our welfare system, and we are far worse off than when we started. we need to turn this around and we need to turn this around by saying able-bodied people all to work to their benefits. host: robert rector, heritage

foundation, thank you. coming up, our spotlight on the online magazine series, todd purdum from "vanity fair koko will join -- "vanity fair" will join us. later on, amanda terkel from "huffington post" but first connected from c-span radio. >> were this morning from misery -- missouri congressman caught eight men, who insists he is in the race to stay, and says this is not about his ego, but about the voters of missouri. he says it is not right for party bosses to override the motors of misery and confirmed that he was urged by vice- presidential candidate paul ryan to stand aside, but says he is

not abandon his race. meanwhile, paul ryan says in his words, i am not apologizing for the fact that i am pro-life. more reaction from the obama campaign. "politico" reports said a new e- mail ties mitt romney and paul ryan too controversial comments from todd akin about legitimate rape, saying they tried to distance themselves from the remarks, but there in lockstep on the major issues of our time. all the candidates are on the campaign trail today. president obama meet with teachers in las vegas, and mitt romney campaigns in iowa. paul ryan heads to virginia and north carolina, and joe biden speaks at a high school in detroit, michigan. you can hear that event live at 3:00 p.m. on c-span radio or

watch live on c-span television. those of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> i am not in the habit of breaking the promises to my country, and neither is governor sarah palin, and when we tell you we're going to change washington and stop leaving our country's problems for some of multigenerational to fix, you can count on it -- some of my key generation to fix, you can count on it. [applause] >> we have a record of doing just that, and the strength and experience, and backbone to keep our word to you. >> you have stood up one by one and setting off to the politics of the past. you understand that in this election the greatest risk we can take is to try the same old politics with the same old players and expect a different result. you have shown what history teaches us.

in defining moments like this one, the change we need is not come from washington, the change comes to washington. [applause] >> c-span has aired every minute of every major party conventions since 1984, and our countdown continues was less than one week to go before our coverage live on c-span, c-span radio, and strained online at c- span.org, starting next monday with the republican convention and the keynote address by chris christie, and also john mccain and jeb bush. democratic convention speakers include julian castro the living the keynote address, first lady -- delivering the keynote address, first lady michelle obama and former president bill clinton. >> "washington journal" continues.

host: this week's spotlight takes a look at the pages of "vanity fair." todd purdum, national editor for the publication talks about his story, the hiring of a president. can i have you expand on one of the sentences. you say the greatest presidents -- notable business failures if they have business experience at all in. guest: mitt romney makes the argument the business-like thinking is what washington needs, but the only problem is we've never had a successful president that is a successful businessman. we have head successful businessmen that the president, blood stated not turn out -- but they did not turn out to the president's -- successful presidents.

host: for example? guest: herbert hoover, the first president bush. host: the president's not good business and good at president? because there were a number of them, from abraham lincoln, to harry truman. abraham lincoln had a story in new salem, ill., that he incurred what he calls national debt. the skills that make a great ceo are not necessarily the skills that make a great politician. we think of charismatic ceo's like jack welch of ge, for example, in many ways that is not typical model. the typical model is more collarless, works long hours, messieurs a certain set of tasks and to them over and over again. the things we think about as

important in politics like charisma, been able to motivate people, they turned out to be not necessarily important qualities in ceo's. >> host: our guest talks about the hiring of the president, his peace in the pages of "vanity fair." if you want to talk to him about the business test of president, here's your chance to do so. you talk about the skills that a ceo has, the u.s. to talk about the people that work for a ceo and you say there is a difference between the people that work for a ceo and work with the president in the white house. guest: yes. you have some board and instead you can record and it. when you're a president or a governor, you have to work with

a cover. --n governor ann romney's governor mitt romney's father was the governor of michigan, he said it was like being the quarterback of the opposing team. that is not a skilled businessman acquire. they get to do work in private. their word is law. they do not have to persuade a constituency in the way a president or a politician does. of course, the bottom line is a different matter in government than it is in the private sector, and it does not always involve profit and loss. it might involve the intangibles like the common good or general welfare, constance we enshrine in our founding documents. that is a different document. host: you gave an example of outgoing president harry truman, an incoming president eisenhower, and what he said

about eisenhower pulled the term. -- eisenhower's term. guest: he said he will say do this and do that, but he was under-selling eisenhower. he rose in the army because it was a brilliant politician and he also saw -- studied dramatics. he had a good sense of how to play the political game and he rose quickly in the heat of world war two to the highest levels of command from having been a colonel at the beginning of the war. host: it does senator on governor mitt romney. what did you learn as far as history is concerned? guest: he would have a deep learning -- learning curve, and it will not be like bain capital, as the view from the oval office is not the same as the view from the corner office. the evidence so far is when he

was governor he did not like dealing with legislature, getting to know people in the back rooms, or taking them all and stroking them. he likes to say he did not inhale in politics. he spent one term as governor. he would have a lot to learn about washington and politics in general. he has proven to be a quick study, and part of his ecoterrorists as a consultant at bain capital was to get in there, as ross perot used to say, open the hood, but the problem, and diagnose the problem. i've no doubt he would apply the techniques he is learned in business to define the problems, but the question is how effective he would be at persuading other people to share his view. host: todd purdum of "vanity fair" joins us for discussion on the hiring of the president. jacksonville, florida. jonathan. democrats line.

caller: i have a comment and question. first, i believe that a president's doody is outlined to be very general, and each president is trying to promote what they wanted to be for a particular time, four years. i feel people care about more than one issue and they stick to one thing they want us to vote for them for. i was wondering if you come to a come had any idea if there could be a system where it is more than just two people, and they're just shooting each other down in presenting one idea? guest: you mean more than two people competing for the presidency? caller: yes, party is putting behind -- party is putting their efforts behind more than one candidate.

guest: everybody keeps thinking that politics are in such a state of dysfunction that there would be room for a third-party candidate. nobody has emerged in this cycle. the last time we saw one was ross perot, and he made a difference in 1992, and arguably ralph nader made a difference in 2010 we seem to be stuck at the moment in a two-party system -- 2010. we seem to be -- 2006. host: are their present -- lessons from ross perot? guest: we saw that he self- destructive a little bit in the heat of the campaign, and his streak of paranoia came to the forefront. i think he is probably in-in that what you would not want to have a -- a negative in what you

would not want to have a business person did. host: republican line. caller: i'm sorry. i was getting groggy as i heard what you're talking about. this guy, look, i am a republican. i was really excited, and can you hear me? guest: we hear you? host: let's move on. edison, new jersey. independent line. caller: good morning. i agree with the guest there. i do believe that it does take a bit more to be a president. you can not be a business man mitt romney is counting his business experience, but the presidency involves a cross- section of business, religion,

science, diplomacy, charity. in a corporation, you're basically dealing with numbers. in the presidency, you're dealing with numbers, and people's lives -- welfare programs, setting people to war. -- sending people to work. i do not think mitt romney has it. obama has been there. he is been a senator. he has a wider world view, growing up in other places. he has experienced another world view. he has been in the presidency for four years. host: let me back that up from twitter, saying do ceo's not have the skill sets to adapt to their environment, including a change in management style as they climb the ladder? guest: i think that is true, but the caller makes an excellent

point in that there is really no preparation for the presidency that is completely applicable. it is such a unique job. that is why former president stick together in the world's most exclusive club. you could argue that the best indication you have is our president has performed, and certainly president obama dinh four years has learned a lot about how to him -- in four years has learned a lot. host: you wrote that there have been soldiers, teachers, farmers, ranchers, and one professional taylor. guest: the professional taylor was johnson, -- and he was acquitted just as president clinton was. one of the extent things i found

in the research of this case is the most successful presidents have all undergone and overcome some kind of adversity of one kind or another. abraham lincoln's mother died when he was very young. he had no formal schooling. even fdr, a rich set of privilege, suffered paralysis, and it gave him some the deity had never had before. john f. kennedy was sick for much of his life with warble elements and back problems. -- with horrible elements and back problems. he underwent a lot of testing under fire. one of the interesting things is the most successful presidents, by and large, have something like that in their resume. mitt romney has been pretty lucky with a straightforward life. host: president obama?

guest: you could argue via dislocation. he grew up fatherless. in a stable support system from his grandparents and went to excellent schools and a privilege in that sense, but he knew when it was like to pay off student loans and had a normal life until about 10 years ago. at the 2000 convention in los angeles, barack obama had no reason to be there. he was an illinois state senator. he showed up. his credits card was maxed out. he did not have credentials did he could not give in, and he left after two days. eight years later he was the democratic nominee. that suggests something. host: battle creek, michigan. kevin. democrats line. caller: thank you.

first of all, being a regular person and being a millionaire, it seems more americans are not millionaires. more americans do not come from wealth. it just goes against logic to elect a president that is a millionaire, wealthy, and does not have the type of view of most american voters have. two, the covering of the campaign seems that the media is being intellectual liars. they want to make it seem like mitt romney says a bunch of lies, and republicans say a bunch of lies, but the democrats do it, too, and you have to say one side does it more than the other. i feel the republicans lie more than the democrats, but there is some truth to that. people elect rich people. i guess my main point is people

electing rich people would be counter-intuitive, or it would just go against everything that we believe in. why would us, as regular people, working every day, you let someone that comes from wall and is not -- wealth, and does not strive to work hard in his life? guest: he makes a good point. president johnson used to say when he was a teacher and was in college, he always one of the ham and egg sandwich, but he always ordered the aide said which because it was cheaper. some of the president's -- a decision which because it was -- egg sandwich because it was cheaper. some of the president's that been the most sympathetic have been rich. i thinking it's an interesting point about the two parties. i do not know that i would say

the republicans lie more than the democrats. that is a hard case to prove, but i do think the republicans are more willing to fight dirty because they do not believe they pay a price for it. the democrats, always having jiminy cricket on their shoulder, thinking they will get in trouble if they did not play by the rules, and i think we've seen in campaigns the republicans are willing to throw harder punches. host: north carolina. jim. republican line. caller: good morning. although i have not read your article yet, -- are you still there? host: go ahead, sir. caller: although i have not read your article yet, the general thesis based on what you have said so far seems to be that just because a candidate claims

business experience based on the history of other presidents does not mean it will be a great presidency. however, having said that, since he chose paul ryan as his running mate, which clarifies his position on the role of government somewhat, and would you not agree, or would you disagree, that the current moment in our nation's history, if we ever needed a president with a wide range of business experience, now is the time? guest: i think it is fair to say that we are at a moment in history where we need a person with a clear-eyed view of problems, a willingness to get down to the numbers and deal with the data. those are qualities business people have. a person who is willing to face a problem honestly, was the best business people are also

probably willing to do because they know the market will punish them if they do not in a way. what i think is interesting is governor mitt romney has not particularly shown those qualities in his political career. he has tried to stand down his views when they became politically inconvenient. you cannot argue that he is taking a strong stance for or against almost anything. that suggests he might then be as decisive as he would portray himself to be. his collection of congressman paul ryan, who was in some ways a serious person and a washington player of note, it suggests to me that he would be responsive to come were beholden to the segment of the congress that cumbersome paul ryan represents, the extremely conservative, tea party-fuelled group of people that simply believe there is no reason to raise taxes for any reason going forward, and everything that has

to be done about getting our fiscal house in order as to be done by cutting the budget. i do not think either party thinks that is possible. host: how do you factory in the olympics? it is a social event, a business event. guest: it is all those things, but what he does not like to talk about in his stewardship of the saw light olympics is how much support he got for -- from government -- stewardship of the olympics is how much support he got from the government. it is not like to talk about that. host: as to a larger issue of skills transferable to the president? guest: that is a role that might be more applicable then governor of massachusetts that would suggest he could manage diverse constituencies, operating in the public glare. i think it is probably one of

the better points on his resume. he does not like to talk about it because of this other reason. host: lee. independent line. lafayette, louisiana. caller: good morning, guys. i went to ask a question about leadership. -- i wanted to ask a question about leadership. how can a leader be an effective leader, when no one is willing to work with them, and how can they get them to work with them, it to refuse to work with them? another common todd akin two i was waiting on the phone, in -- another comment, that came to me as i was waiting on the phone, as the republican party goes more and more to the right, and the democratic party goes more and more to the left, does this climate not seem to drive up

another party, such as a moderate party that would simply just be created on its own? host: caller, thank you. guest: you think that it would. he within people would be fed up with extremes and won a common- sense -- you would think people would be fed up with extremes and what a common-sense approach, but it is pretty hard to imagine a president in either party getting bipartisan support in congress for complicated problems. governor mitt romney, i'm sure tom would hope that he would have majorities in both houses, but we have seen as president obama struggled in his first two years, the does not a good recipe either because you would have to deal with strains and stresses in your own party and he would be trying to placate his conservative base in a way that might hurt him with the broader public. he make a good point. we all keep hoping and waiting

for a reasonable caucus to emerge, and it does not seem so. host: this e-mail from mike -- what about their advisers, we elect the man, but advisers make a big decision. guest: that is true. governor mitt romney would be dependent on an ally on the divisors he would have, but it is hard to say who it -- rely on the advisers he would have, but it is hard to say who those advisers would be. i think that is a big question about caller: the statement was made earlier that president obama was rudderless. as the first black president of this nation, it has been

characterized by a number of people that social psychologically, and a genetically, the fact that he is black has been taken away from him. sir and people have been endeavoring to take that away from him. i find that very insulting. i have never seen a president assault of more than this president has been. i believe it has something to do with his race. i really do. it is really getting very bothersome to me. guest: i agree with you very much that he has been insulted and often been in trouble because of his race. i did not need to employ an insult myself -- i know it did not name -- i did not mean to imply that he was fatherless.

i meant to say that he only met his father one time in his life when he was 10 years old around christmas time. otherwise, his father was an absent figure in his life. he had a stepfather and his grandfather but he grew up in the same way bill clinton did without a strong day to day male presence in the household. i think that left him with certain scars. he said it was something that probably protected him because if he had grown up with his father and a house, his father had a lot of problems, like drinking, he might have had more turmoil than he did by having his father 3,000 miles away. your point is well taken that this president has endured extraordinary insults'. i don't think he has been in any

doubt mentally about his own identity. there is a reason that he went to chicago which is the capital of the american black diaspora. he married a black woman and is raising two beautiful african- american daughters. he is a pioneer in every way. host: here is st. louis, republican line, go ahead. caller: all the rest of the callers are insane polemicist. they want to make crap out of nothing and say how everybody is extreme. we need to work together. both of these parties have always been in favor of the interest of the american people. the history of the parties are diametrically different. one party can about as a result

of 1792 and thomas jefferson and andrew jackson and the other one came about as protest african- american, pro labor, pro civil rights in 1854 in wisconsin. we need to go back and the republican. we need to go back to that europe -- we need to go back to that era. i believe the party i am a part of is not the party of theodore roosevelt and more. if there was a progressive, it was a republican. guest: that's an interesting point about the history of the party. the republican party has a lot to be proud of over its long history. it was the republican party's support for civil rights that made it possible to pass the

landmark law. many scholars and commentators have pointed out that that part of the party technically began to die in 1964-1968 and has dwindled since then. there is really almost no such thing as a republican moderate left in congress. the caller is right about the history. it is not too encouraging to think we will have that kind of moderation anytime soon. host: what about the reference to mitt romney's time as a mormon missionary in france. guest: that account gives him membership in the club of having gone undergone adversity. he does not have much in his resume that can say to people he

has firsthand experience of what it is like to be pork or even ordinary. there's nothing wrong with having a privileged life. the first president bush had a privileged life as did the second president bush and many people have had that. it is just that you could argue that having a lot of adversity teaches you things that you cannot learn in the same way. host: los angeles, independent line. caller: hello. a did not realize i was on. i have a couple of questions. first, he made a reference to how republicans fight stronger than democrats. democrats have the conscience

-- the jiminy cricket on their shoulder. did the cricket on their shoulder tell the democrats that mitt romney was a felon? mitt romney's skill set is far more experienced than what barack obama has brought to the plate. guest: i did not say the democrats never play hardball. they did not quite called governor romney a felon. it was said that if he failed to actively disclose sec forms that could have been a felony. it is different than saying he might be a felon.

i try not to have a fix to view. i try to keep open minded. president obama has now been president for four years. you can say he has learned more about the president in the last four years than when he got there and i don't think he and governor romney share the idea of what it takes to be president. host: pennsylvania, democrats line. i have a few comments to make about politics. i am one that tries not to get between the two parties. i am a democrat but we are all americans. we all should work together because there are people out here that need help. this has been known for a long

time. having carter or presidents past, it seemed like every president we have had in office, as you said, todd, do you mind if i call you taught? todd. a few callers have mentioned about mitt romney not having the ability to take on the presidency. you said he was more privileged. i wanted to get your opinion on this -- i read your book and read president obama's book about his father -- and he does come from a family, and existence that was very

difficult for him. host: what is your question? caller: do you think after writing your book and everything, do you believe our president right now would be the one to run our country with his background and knowledge? guest: as a general practice, i don't endorse but i think it is fair to say that president obama has shown himself in the face of extraordinary circumstances to be an effective leader who has gotten things done. republicans think he has gotten too many things done whether it is health care or welfare reform. i don't know what kind of president governor romney would be. the only think ithat's fair to

say is the public has an idea of what president obama would be like as president because he has been president. in the next four years, obama should know more about how to handle the office. host: has a been effective? guest: he has succeeded in almost everything he has done. he has had a career of extraordinary success. i would not bet against governor romney because he is very determined who has a record of succeeding at what he sets out to do. host: mesa, arizona, republican line. caller: i did not know this magazine was still being made but i have never seen such a hit job on one man in my life.

as a mormon, i am offended. you should hear this stuff they say about us. he said he had to take federal money for the olympics. that was right after 9/11. i have never heard such dirty stuff come out of one person's mouth like what they did to bill clinton, calling him a racist. in his book, he tells about his mother fighting health care and that is shown that it is a lie. there are so many things about the president. the kennedys have lots of money and you never -- and you democrats are so liberal. everything you have said about mitt romney, he is a bishop and the people he has taken care of

and counsel. few people make fun of our church like that is nothing. if you looked into the mormon church, you would see the number of people he has helped. guest: i can only say that i don't want to get into an argument about everything you said. i have high respect for mormons. i grew up in illinois 20 miles from where there was a lynching. there happens to be a large mormon community and my home town. i know a lot of mormons and my admiration for the talent and generosity of that denomination is great and i would make no comment about governor romney working with the church. it is clear he is extremely generous and i'm sorry you seem to feel i am such a person. i do not share your view that i

have done anything but respect his mormon faith and his work. host: here is milwaukee, wisconsin, and are independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call and good morning. i'm a 24-year-old veteran. if i was to vote last election which it did not, would have voted for obama. the upcoming election, i am leaning more toward mitt romney. my biggest question for you is how can you say you don't think mitt romney has enough experience as far as leadership ability towards or running a company when we are a capitalist society? we're all slaves to their jobs.

how can you justify saying that he cannot turn around our deficit better than obama? guest: i have not set any such thing and i do not know what mitt romney would do as president. he cites his business experience as a qualification for the presidency so often and with such intensity and to assume it is a given that that would make a good president and it may be true it will. up to now, we have not seen anyone who has. we have not seen a successful businessman who was a successful president. wasrnor run the's business a particular kind of business. he was not running general motors. he was not running a company that made things. he was running a company that took investments that were highly leveraged to make money for the investors in his company.

sometimes he probably create jobs and sometimes he probably cut jobs and sometimes he exported jobs and sometimes he created something new likw. his business was making money for himself and his investors. it was not creating a product or service. it was making money. he was an investor. those skills are not necessarily the same as the skills of running a large enterprise or running something where the bottom line is nonprofit. host: there's a texas story -- it talks about governor romney's business experience. guest: president obama has his

trouble and some severe ones. his efforts to fix it have not been very successful. a left criticize president obama and said he is way too cozy with big money people and he did not go nearly far enough to try to reform the way american business works. he cannot be both things. it cannot be an ideologue for private enterprise and be a tool of wall street. i think he is somewhere in between. host: you can find the work of todd purdom in "vanity fair." what is your next piece? guest: not quite sure. host: we thank you for your time. coming up, we will highlight our series on online media outlets. this week, we will be joined by annterkel of the huffington

post. this is a live shot from tampa bay where the republican national convention will begin. this is a live shot of the media boot. this is where the folks will depend on getting the coverage that will take place. a couple of features about the convention center, it will be used to post media and serves as a media workspace for the 43rd super bowl. 56,000 people are expected to come to tampa and that will include delegates and international media and tourists. as far as media, you can expect about 13,000 members of the media to be there as part of what will take place at that site at the tampa convention center. cspan is where you can go for live coverage on the conventions.

we will start with the republicans from august 27-30 and go to the democratic national convention in charlotte from september 4-6. we will be a front seat to both of those conventions. the coverage will begin monday. you can see nightly events starting at 2:00. we will provide coverage from 7:30 until 11:00 in the evening. go to our website, c-span.org, for everything we have planned for convention coverage starting with the republican national convention on august 27. we'll take a look at our online media series and we will be right back. >> what do we see when we look at the dead of antietam? they described the bodies in great detail.

often stopping in the middle of that detailed description and then saying it is too horrible. words cannot convey this. >> this weekend on american history tv, antietam paused dead. the impact on the soldiers and the images made in the wake of the battle saturday at 10:00 p.m. eastern. also this weekend -- >> america will stand up for the idea that we believe and what we are operating at our best and who want to see this country perhaps above all else returned to the path of peace. >> more from "the contenders," our series that looks at key political figures that ran for the presidency and lost but changed political history. george mcgovern this weekend sunday at 7:30 p.m.. that is on cspan 3.

>> [video clip] >> "washington journal" continues. host: we continue our series about online media. on friday, will be joined by the reporter for talking points memo. today we have amanda turkel from the huffington post guest: i and the senior political reporter and managing editor for the political team. we have about 50 people there with a mix of editors and video people and people who do reporting. i have been there about two years. host: how can you explain what the huffington opposed does? guest: right now we are the largest political outlet on

line. you can see entertainment news to business news, political nose, everything. we try to be a gateway offering original reporting. host: as far as how you do your job, how does this differ from traditional media we be used to? guest: it is very similar. we have people on the hill and go out on the campaign trail. we try to call up people and get stories and a lot of it is very traditional news gathering. the difference is we try to incorporate a lot of multimedia. we. huffpost live which is an online streaming service. we discussed all sorts of topics and it allows people to talk back to us and allows us to talk to them. host: we're looking at your

office in washington, d.c. what do they do as far as providing political coverage? guest: we have about 50 people which has grown in the last two years. we have people covering but hill, covering the campaign trail, people who cover the unemployment crisis, the housing crisis, people to cover women's rights and all sorts of other issues. we have been valuable people make our website run and make sure it looks great. host: the information can be found at huffington post.com. tell us about the editorial take that up imposed -- the huffington post takes. >> ♪ callerguest: arianna huffie founder, says we are beyond left and right. we fact check people and make sure we are holding people accountable.

we try to cover a lot of stories that are not being reported as much. one reporter is covering people who have been hit by the economic crisis. his job is to talk to these people and report on what is going on with their unemployment benefits and food stamps every single day. host: we will continue our series looking a online media sources. calls on the telephone lines -- you can send us a tweet. you can send us an e-mail as well. as it stands today, what is the most important story politically

that your organization is covering? hguest: we are watching congressman todd akin of missouri and his belief that it is a nearly impossible for women to be raped to become president. that has shaken up everyone from mitt romney to paul ryan. paul ryan t has worked paulodd akin. we have the republican platform which is being formed. it incorporates his views that the republican party does not support access to abortion even for rape and incest. that story has been shifted the talk from the economy over to social issues. host: as far as your organization, how you cover this differently? guest: one of our reporters

yesterday did a story about a woman who had been raped and had become pregnant from that rate. she talks to her -- she talked to her and got a personal story out of that. the news organization of missouri that broke the story had a woman that called into their news organization and said she had heard the comments on the news and was so upset. looking at those stores of these people who are personally affected by what politicians say is really interesting. one whoo you have some covers the race specifically? guest: we have someone down in tampa and i will be going down this weekend. we have all been watching this and many of us are surprised that todd akin decided to stay

in the race. senators and former senators have called on him to resign so we will watch that. if republicans stay out of the race and the titans up and they throw money to help him, many republicans say if he can close it out with claire mccaskill, they are not sure they want him in the senate. host: michigan is up first, democrats line. caller: hello, i am a fan -- i love barack obama but i also love the vice-president. i heard last week that they were having a fight. they said they wanted him to dump the vice president and have

mrs. clinton take the job but they don't think she would anyway. can you tell me anything about that? baryon huffington was such a republican for so long and then she switched and it has been a while. -- arianna huffington what made her switch? guest: i heard those rumors you were talking about that the president wanted to switch hillary clinton out for vice president joe biden. they seem to be just rumors. there is no evidence of that. from the white house or hillary clinton supporters or joe biden supporters. for now, there's nothing to worry about. it looks like joe biden will stay on the ticket.

over time, arianna huffington was republican and conservative. she realized it was not in line with where she was. she likes to say that the website is beyond left and right. there are issues like the housing crisis and the war in afghanistan which are not democratic or republican issues. we go for the issues that unite us and said of divide us. host: your publication and others said that the vice president will visit during the republican national convention. guest: people would like to see hillary clinton as vice- president or president. joeublicans enjoy seeing

biden speak because he speaks of the cup. that's what a lot of democrats like him. i think people like seeing him make things more human and sort of funny. host: this is the republican line, hi. caller: good morning and thank you for having me. your guest demonstrates the hypocrisy of the huffington post. she has misquoted mr. akins and what he said and he apologized. the uproar is incredible joe biden made a racist remark saying y'all will be put in

chains and nothing is said. not a peep from anyone and no one calling for him -- he has not apologize. please explain this blatant hypocrisy. guest: i take issue that was not covered at all. the fact that we have noticed it, it was out there quite a bit. we cover the controversy around his remarks as well. the difference is that vice president joe biden was building off something that a republican said that was similar. the difference with congressman akin was that he was saying something that doctors and scientists say is not true about the female body. the theme of body cannot shut down the whole process when she

is being raped and not become pregnant. it worried many republicans who questioned if this is the man they want joining them in the senate. some of the loudest critics you heard against congressman akin or his fellow republicans. he then mitt romney started to say it was perhaps time for congress on akin to drop out of the senate race. host: arkansas, independent line. caller: thank you for cspan. i am a disabled veteran. i don't speak very well so bear with me. i have been thinking about mitt romney's taxes. if he can prove he paid 15% taxes, what reason would he have for not showing them?

you go to a mormon church and you ask for prayer, the first thing you ask is if you have paid your tithes. mr. romney could not explain he did not pay all these tithes, that's the only reason he would not release his taxes. if he had legal deductions, why hide it? he could not explain this to anybody in the mormon church and that's why he will not release his taxes. guest: the caller brings up an interesting point. why is mitt romney and not releasing his taxes? that is something that democrats are making sure they bring up as much as possible because it raises doubts about mitt romney

and portrays him as very wealthy. it brings doubt in people's mind of why won't mitt romney released his taxes. i had not heard that theory before but there are other questions about bank accounts. senate majority leader harry reid said he heard from bain investor that he has not paid taxes on the last 13 years. mitt romney is not releasing his tax is to shut his tickets -- to shut up his opponents, makes it worse than what could be on the documents. it does not look like he will be releasing his tax is any time soon. it doesn't seem like democrats will stop bringing up the issue but aitken -- it could continue to be a problem for mitt romney. host: he released two years of

taxes but no more. guest: the democrats said we wanted 10 years but how about five years? they continue to lower the bar and mitt romney still says no way. i think it raises more questions. host: maryland, republican line. go ahead. caller: one thing is disturbing me. they always say paul ryan is a deficit hawk but where was paul ryan during the bush administration when the government was spending more money? where is his plan for the tax cut in the bush administration? this is troubling me so much. guest: paul ryan really didn't

become the republican superstar and deficit hawk until later in his career. for a while, he was going along with the republican party policies. he went on the house floor and voted for the bailout. that is something more conservatives would be unhappy about. most of the work he has become known for in terms of trying to change medicare and his budget policies, those came much later. host: minneapolis on our independent line. caller: as a black, i was appalled by vice president joe biden's comments.

it was like we know bette for yoyou blacks. i was amazing how the media watched that away. -- watched that away. tavis smiley stated that when president obama was elected, the media did not give them a thorough vetting process. do you believe the media is passed that -- is past that? guest: and not familiar with that comment but i think media did a good job of vetting president obama and senator mccain who was well known because he had a longer history of public life.

the media should be doing a good job in terms of digging into the candidate's past and looking at their policies and try to give the public a better view of what they will be getting if they elect a person president. online news has helped by growing quite a bit. you have twitter and people posting tidbits of what they find on facebook and sharing it with our network. then you have blogs as well as traditional news outlets like the cable news. the more media that pops up i think is better. u.s. citizen journalists out there. the more you have out there is good. something could be happening or what the candidates could have visited your local town and that is something the national media will not know about and you may remember it or have photographed. you can put them on line and they will be found by online

sites. that is healthy and i love that since i entered journalism. host: as part of our online media week, we have featured a variety of guests. silver spring, maryland, republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have two short questions. the first issue is about governor romney on foreign policy. i was wondering whether you think the governor will lean more toward being a conservative administration. when the you think will be room for foreign policy moderates? could we see more of a centrist

policy? my second question is about the new media and the huffington post in particular. it seems that many of the new media outlets are driven by zero opinion journalism. it seems conservatives tend to breed conservative outlets. i was wondering if you think there's any correlation between that and the extreme partisan gridlock we have in washington? guest: i think those are two excellent questions. policy,mney's foreign- that is a question a lot of people don't know about. he has embraced people like former bush ambassador to the

united states and john paul to and who is a new conservative but he has also embraced people like condoleezza rice who is less of a neo conservative. he has not really clear up what is foreign policy is. foreign policy magazine did a great story an interview the top republican senators and asked if you could clarify what mitt romney's policy is on afghanistan. they said we would love of you could tell us. the voter attention is focused right now on the economy. foreign policy is importance is the president is also commander in chief. during the primary race, mitt romney tended to hawkish on afghanistan and other republicans said may wish to start withdrawing troops and mitt romney was simply saying

the present time line is fine and telling the world about it helps our enemies. he has not gotten into a lot of detail yet. that is something beat reporter should explore more. to your second point, new media does what they want. you are lucky to get any national newspapers. you might read the opinion page. there is simply more information out there. there is a natural tendency for people to search out people they agree with. at the same time, i talked to many people on line and i have discovered so many more sources than i would ever have seen. we can look a conservative blogs or liberal blogs and information is out there.

that has caused more partisanship or the other way around. host: strasbourg, pa., on our independent line. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. like the remarks by senate akins about pro-life and abortion, the subject has been going on for 40 years. how much time will we spend on it stacks we have this economic crisis now. if you're not from san a tour he says he ist,

representing his people. i have lived in the midwest and i was in the military. the people i met were pretty religious and very pro-life. guest: richmond akins won his primary -- congressman akins did win his primary. he has a base of support and i think there are probably some people in missouri rallying around him. i dunno if it will be enough to beat claire mccaskill. it is chaka and we're still debating these the abortion issues. people said they want to focus on jobs and the economy and end up talking about abortion and i don't think anybody wants to

talk about this issue. host: you've covered politics -- guest: we have a couple of people who focus on that specifically. it is important when we have mitt romney as the nominee. who has experience in the private financial sector. congressman ron paul did a lot to elevate these issues starting his presidential run. his supporters got into the republican platform. it is a plant that calls for auditing the federal reserve. that has to be voted on by the full convention delegates. host: is there heartburn

between new school journalists and old school journalists? guest: i have felt some heartburn. it is a changing industry. at some point, i will have heartburn because it will change again and there will be holograms that i don't know how to operate. whenever an industry is changing like the news industry, there will be hard burned. there will be people who want to do one thing and people who wanted to another and people who cannot adapt. the news industry sees that but i think people are still devoted to quality news gathering. host: if i'm a reporter for you and i have a story, what is the editorial process? guest: our collaboration happens

on the front and. we have a tight knit office shouting out ideas all day long. we are constantly in collaboration. it is a really great environment. i might have an idea and i will find someone to copilots it. we go out and do the news gathering and file our story and it goes through the editing process. if it is a feature-length article, it might go for a more extensive editing process and goes on line. it is the traditional process you would think of it is the internet and need to get things out quickly. host:

what you think of those interviews as a way to put information out there? guest: i have no problem with that as long as that does not mean that they are talking to the press corps. we love hearing what president's favorite song is and things like that but that should not be in place of what he wants to do on medicare or people elected to a second term. those are things that entertainment tonight and people magazine probably will not ask about. i can understand why the president can do this because he is trying to mobilize voters who are not stuck on c-span and cnn all day long. he wants to reach other voters. he is trying to go to them

rather than having them come to him. after he got a lot of this criticism and the president visited the press room, it was short, and a reporter said come back soon. caller: i may c-span junkie and a news junkie. my primary source is " the new york times" and "the washington post." obhof imposed is what i go to first thing in the morning. my 16-year-old daughter was in college for the first time and she read thehuffpost, too. you should be proud of that. the apartment complex she is in has thousands of kids.

i think you got an important link of there. guest: thank you so much. that is wonderful to hear and we try to make sure we are writing contest for a broad audience. we have individual web pages for college students and parents and people over the age of 60 or 65. in addition to political coverage, we try to reach as many people as we can. we now have huffington post in other countries. host: what is the age of your average reader-guest: i actually don't know that. host: independent bloc hi,. go ahead. caller: i have a question. we talk about mitt romney's taxes but obama paid taxes on

$711,000. what happened to the other $800,000? guest: i don't know the details on his taxes. he has released them. the issue is that mitt romney has not released the full two years. democrats are trying to hold a month to a standard that his father started. he was governor of michigan. he was a respected businessman the oil industry. his father said he should released 12 years of his taxes. anyonemney's father and has called his son on this issue. host: democrats line is next. caller: how are you all?

i am a citizen who has been struggling, trying to find a news source that will provide quality news. i stumbled upon huffington post. i thought i had found it. i think the contrary. i find huffington post to be the same tradition as traditional media. i would like for it to dig deep into the stores and give his in depth discussion and backgrounds on these stories. i would like to know more about mitt romney's capital venture experiences. i would like to know more about mitt romney outsourcing companies. i would like the huffington post to discuss bain capital and

outsourcing jobs. host: what could be found on those issues you could not find currently a caller:? i have not found stories the huffington post has done which have the in depth. guest: i'm sorry you feel that way. i would encourage you to check andpieces byzqa zac carter others. we have a lot of content on our site. we have a lot of content on the side so i would encourage you to dig deep into the site. we put a lot of our quality content to ride on the front page. we put a headline on there that we think is driving of the day.

we try to highlight our investigative work. i encourage you not to give up on the site. host: just launch a live venture? guest: we are experimenting with streaming online. it starts at about 10:00 a.m. each day. it goes into the evening and there are lots of little segments. we have full-time folks dedicated to the project. we also bring in many other political commentators, people directly impacted by these stories. there are individual viewers that want to take part. while the segment is going on, there is a sidebar where you can check your comments and those are relayed to the people who are reporting.

it tries to incorporate as many topics as possible throughout the day. so far, it has been great and fun. host: north carolina, independent line -- caller: i want to know about immigration. they backe doord it of course and will not charge them with anything. they are getting a pass on it. the tax thing with obama and what ever -- if he broke pilaf, why haven't they charged him -- if he broke a block, why haven't they charged him with anything? whyf th he brokee law,

haven't they charged him with anything? guest: it is not necessarily that people believe either candidate has a t brokenhe law with taxes which is why i want to see them. people just want to get a better idea of how these candidates have made their money. there is a lot of rhetoric put forward. how they conduct their personal finances. and immigration, i'm not sure what you are referring to. there is a pass to citizenship for young people who are brought here as some people by their parents and are now trying to earn a college degree or go into

the military. they did break a lot technically when they came here without papers. if you come over here when your two years old, you don't really have a choice. people like the president and many republicans have said that it is not their fault that we should not be punishing them. if we support them back to their country, they might be in a language where they cannot speak. they are not given a test of citizenship. they are getting the ability to get permits to work in the country. host: out as huffington post differ from the media in the two conventions? guest: i think a verjuice saying there will be 15,000 people there?

we are trying to send people don't normally cover conventions. we will have people outside the convention. they will cover was happening around the town and looking at who these people are, the janitors, the menace people, what do they think of all this and how are they being treated? we'll have people there covering the hard-core stuff. we hope to have some other context and coverage. we will also be talk about being a sponsor at the convention. if you are there, you should stop by and on the wind. host: tells about your own media reading habits. what do you followed guest:? i try to follow as much as

possible. i love blogs either liberal or conservative. i try to read traditional outlets. increasingly, what might st all day long.m host: who is your favorite blogger? guest: the national review has done great work. i think they are doing good reporting. thinkprogress is doing great work. host: thank you for your. time you can see the previous segments on online media c- span.org. that's a "washington journal that's a "washington journal