later, susanna goodman has the results of a new study on state election practices and whether they have changed since the 2000 quarter recount. washington journal" is next. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> are you better off than you were telling years ago? that is what the pew research center ask members of the middle class, and that is our question to you this morning on the "washington journal." here is the reuters results study.

host: those are the headline results of the pew research center poll of the middle class. are you better off? that is our question. here is that we have a lot -- divided over lines this morning. $39,000 and under, if that is your annual income, we want to hear from you on 202-737-0001.

our fourth line this morning is for those who make over 200 of $50,000 a year. 202-628-0184. you can contact us through social media. c-span.org/cspan if you'd like to make a comment on our facebook page. the candidates for president have been talking to the middle

class, as you well know. here is a quick montage of them speaking. >> on issue after issue, there is a choice. all these issues, manufacturing and health care, education -- all these things tied together because it is part of what not only makes up the middle class like but create opportunities for people to get into the middle class. that is what we believe in. that is what we are fighting for. that is how the economy grows. >> i have a deep desire to make a difference for the people of america, of the middle class, of all classes, that we love so deeply. this is a great plan, and we owe our people a brighter, prosperous future. that is what paul ryan and i will bring to the american people. >> it is all about trying to restore. the president and i came to office determined to make sure that we restored dignity to the

middle class. help them keep their homes and their health care. help them keep their child in community college or school, protect them from those risky financial schemes like credit of all swaps, collateralized debt obligations, and these other creative financial instruments. >> one thing we've got to get straight is, we are not growing this economy like we need to. we are not creating jobs like we can in america. that is why mitt romney and i have a plan for a stronger middle-class, to get this country back on track, get the country growing jobs again, and get us back on the path to prosperity in this country. host: the pure research report on the middle class, household income has fallen to 69 dozen 487.

it % in 2011 consider themselves middle class as opposed to 61% in 1971. we will begin with a call from pennsylvania. caller: i am coming close to $30,000 a year. i feel better about our president now that i will ever feel with mitt romney and his party. i want to tell you something, america. listen to your heart and your mind, not with your pocketbook. if you listen with your

pocketbook, remember [unintelligible] we are hurting for hunter, starving. if you vote for the millionaires and billionaires, you will not have enough to feed your family. host: you said initially that you feel safer with president obama. caller: he is taking care of the country. he keeps us in safe hands. we have more respect -- more peace with other countries and had with mr. bush. every time republicans are in, we get in another war. the poor are getting poorer and richer getting richer. i live this way and i don't want to live that way again. host: up next is steeg, who is a

member of the middle-class as defined by pew. caller: it is really not that complicated. 10 geithner and barack obama, not george bush. i get so tired of hearing that nonsense that bush did it. bush turned it from a low blow of 9/11 to prosperity. barack obama and tim director have presented -- have printed so much money that literally 50% of the value of the dollars i have left are less than what they are worth could have destroyed the value of the dollar. they killed 50% of mitt romney's , but that really did not help me. as far as barack obama, if you look around the world, there are millions and millions of people dying, and his environmental

policy is killing people. host: state, what kind of work do you do in haymarket? caller: i am in site development, and that industry is gone now. the valley of the money is down to zero or 50%. china has cut us off from lithium, so we are going to have to take middle-class kids back to afghanistan and protect in afghanistan to get lithium for this idiotic energy program this guy keeps producing. host: >> according to the research center, blaming the president is bipartisan. in the bush administration, 12%

of republicans blame the bush administration for the falling well of the middle class. 69% of democrats and 46% of independents. the obama administration is blamed by 63% of republicans caller: the previous caller seemed very confused. he said it was not bush, yet he is angry about afghanistan and lithium. yet the whole reason we are in this ridiculous the bottle between -- now that we are out of iraq, thank you, our current president. we were there because of george bush's overreaction to 9/11. host: that go back to the

question we are asking this morning. are you better off today than you were 10 years ago? caller: i am not better off. i am not earning as much money as i did 10 years ago. the answer to that question is no, i am not as well-off now as i was 10 years ago. but, you know, the cost of my health care is killing me, and i cannot wait for obamacare. i liked that name for it, even though it was meant to be derogatory. when it kicks in and i am able to take more full advantage of it, i will be very happy. but does want to end by saying that for people -- i just want to end by saying that for people in my income category and above to become cheerleaders for tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires on both democrats

and republicans, to be cheerleaders for tax breaks for wealthy people, is absolutely against your own self-interest, and if you want to vote your pocketbook, you vote your pocketbook in that manner. thank you. host: some tweets that we have been receiving. host: the next call comes from terry on our middle-class line.

caller: i am going to buck the trend here because i am doing much better than i was 10 years ago. i work for a major loan servicer. i work in the fall, and we are having mandatory overtime -- i work in default. people have filed bankruptcy in gone into foreclosure, all because of the obama economy. over the last two years, i have been able to pay off all my credit card debt. my my -- my 9-year-old car is still working very well. i have increased the amount in my 401k, but i would traded away for the good of the country and get this edie it out of the white house. host: this is from the hill newspaper.

joe biden strip to temple was supposed to coincide with the republican national convention -- joe biden's trip to tampa. host: audrey, where you stand financially? caller: my husband is 80 years old and he is still working. he just had a heart attack.

our rent keeps going up, up, up. as far as our lives are concerned, we are not worse off, no better off than we were 10 years ago. it is just very, very hard because of the cost of living. host: audrey, what kind of work does your husband do at age 80? caller: my husband is a barrista at panera's. he enjoys it. he gets to meet people. he is in charge of the dining room. and things do not go right, they meet him in the street and say, you know there was no coffee this morning. but it is very hard. host: who do you plan on supporting for president?

caller: that me tell you, i forgot his name, but if obama does not get in, we are going to make sanctuary in canada. host: please call back in 30 days and keep us up-to-date on what is going on with you. that is from oregon -- ted is from oregon. caller: this is a north course -- coast of oregon union plummer that remembers the sweet spot. we have talked before. i am doing ok, to be honest with you. i am 54 and i have been in union plummer all my days, and i am going to retire. even though i am leaving a 45% behind because i am going early,

they are still going to send me about $3,000 a month. this is the way i planned it since i was 18. i have never had a loan. i have one bill, and that is a house payment i bought on a va loan, being a veteran, $300 a month. i feel sorry for people who listen to the mortgage people. i am sorry they listened to the bankers. i am sorry they were not smart enough to see the viciousness of the big picture. it and my employer, i have not had a call out of his dispatch now in three years. every invoice that i send him, is the same people i have been plumbing for down here for 20 years, through several different contractors. anybody would really like to have me, because i have a client base on this coast that goes back 22 years. peter, i just want to say i admire your job, your tenacity. have a good day.

host: are you fully retiring? what you get a call from one of your longtime client? are you still going to be working for any money at all? >> audibled tell them to call a plumber in a story of, oregon. i taught at the school in astoria for nine years. i turned out a lot of good plumbers. host: so you are fully retiring? caller: absolutely. this is the way i planned it since i was 18. my father had a degree in electrical engineering. he taught me some very, very good tricks, especially since my grandfather lost every nickel in the great depression. host: who are you supporting

president? caller: i am going to be supporting president obama. there is nothing -- the last time i called then i got to talk znady.k azand i brought up the glasses the glass-steagall act. then you had an economist on and she said the glass-steagall act was very important. two or three weeks later, the architect for the financial supermarket from citigroup also brought up that glass-steagall kept us at bay for 70 years. host: we have to leave it there. we will talk to you again, i am sure. jamie comments on our facebook page.

those are some of the facebook, as we have received. the conversation continues all day and will be posted all day. the front page of the new york times this morning, romney in crisis.

that is the front page of the new york times. here is a picture of mitt romney in the hospital in 1968, as we take this next call from dennis in las vegas on our 118,000- $250,000 the year. dennis, are you better off in the past 10 years? caller: i would say 100% better, and i will tell you why. i went to college and graduated with a business degree, and realized there is a lot more money to be made in other work. so i went to nursing school and became an emergency room nurse,

and now i am a surgical nurse. people need to start getting into trade work or anything that suits them a little better, and they can have little more security in life and work in any state. it is really up to the individual to make their own way. the government does not control everything. if you work hard, you go to school, you do your work, and you can make it. there is still money to be made in this country. people keep blaming everybody but themselves. that is what bothers me a lot. host: dennis, where do you work in vegas? caller: i worked in a surgical unit at one of the older hospitals, at valley hospital. host: thank you for your input this morning. edward is on our $39,000 and

line.in caller: going back to the way they jump on obama all the time, we thought two worst -- we fought two wars. for years, the u.s. labor department is not prosecute people for discrimination in employment. we have people in public service supposedly. host: we appreciate your comments. let's go to our question, are you better off than you were 10 years ago? caller: i am not working anymore, but you cannot go to a place and washed cars. you have to have insurance to do everything anymore. you have to have a permit or licence to do everything.

the coats and regulations are not being enforced concerning grants or whatever it there is just too much chaos with the public service. they need to just clean house. that is what i feel is the problem, not obama. mitt romney could not fix the problem anyway, no matter what he did. people are saying let's make a jobs bill, they dropped the ball. will dothink romney fehr by anybody. host: let's leave it there. blanda is calling from new jersey. are you better off in the last 10 years? caller: i am. i just recently got a new job.

i got a substantial raise. you cannot listen to what the media is saying. you have to think for yourself. you have to go out there, do what you have to do to be able to pay your bills and maintain. you have to take personal responsibility. you cannot rely on the government for everything. you cannot listen to what people in the news are saying. cannot listen to the media. you just have to pay attention to your situation and do the best that you can in your situation. host: thank you for calling in this morning. this is from the wall street journal --

this is by james freeman, assistant editor of the editorial page. i will come back to this article. i've lost my place. houston, texas, robert, under $39,000. please go ahead. caller: i am doing better, and

the reason is i retired in 2005. i lost half the money in my 401k shortly after obama took over, but i had faith in the person and got all my money back plus more by staying in. i used to live in utah, and there is a philosophy in the mormon church, you control the money, you control the people. host: that was robert in houston. next up is gavin in new york city. are you better off? caller: i love your show. it is so nice to get people talking. we are worse off. we are very fortunate for the

amount of money that we make, but the reality is, i am a junior attorney in new york city. my wife is also a professional. we both have graduate degrees. there has been massive tuition inflation, and most of the people we work with are just buried in debt, and they don't have the job -- we don't have the job opportunities to meet our debt payments. i cannot say i am better off. part of it is the economic situation the government has caused by the government's student loan programs. host: do you live right in this city? caller: yes, we live in the city. host: $118,000-$250,000, is that

a lot of money in this city? caller: in the context of new york city, that is not a lot of money. host: what does that mean, a junior lawyer? caller: generally is someone who has been out of law school for less than five years. host: as the economic situation heard the hiring at law firms? caller: there is no question about that. i was very lucky. i was considered the last graduation year before the lehman collapse. we had robust hiring, but everyone had a significant fear of the ability to make lateral moves between firms. the kids graduating year behind me, our school went from almost 70% employment upon graduation

to about 30% unemployment upon graduation the kids that graduated a year behind me are really, really hurting. there have been all kinds of programs to get these kids jobs and mentoring -- i should not set kids, these young attorneys. all sorts of opportunities that were never even considered necessary three or four years of graduation ahead of me, because everybody had jobs almost automatically. host: what kind of student debt are you sitting on? can you give us an estimate? caller: i think within the realm of our peers, we are sitting on about maybe $160,000 to $180,000. host: who are you supporting for

president? caller: i am supporting mitt romney. host: thanks for calling in this morning. texas calling in on our middle- class line. hello, joseph. who is on line five? this is tom on the middle class lines from ohio. caller: i am worse off. i was in the top category until i got forced into retirement. i worked for delphi as a salaried employee and took early retirement. subsequently i lost all my benefits and over 40% of my salary retirement, while the hourly workers retained their full benefits and their full

pensions because they were union members. so as far as i am concerned, president obama is picking winners and losers in the hourly employees. host: what kind of work are you doing now? caller: unemployed. because of my age, i have not been able to find work. i am 63 now, but at the time that happen, i was 58. i am between akron, cleveland, and youngstown. host: thanks for calling in. stephen law talks about how to be president obama.

it is about two-thirds of a page in the wall street journal. this is killeen, texas now. joseph, are you doing better or worse than you were 10 years ago? caller: about the same. i would like to see c-span bring in an economist and explain in a

very simplistic fashion the definition of supply-side economics and demand side economics, leaving out the politics, just the facts. i think if we do that, people will understand what is really happening. host: do you think we can find that person who would leave the politics out? caller: if you just give the facts, forget about what party did what. just explain the models unless the people pose the questions. host: but idea. -- good idea. what do you do? caller: i am a letter carrier. the work hours have been cut back and carriers are forced to carry more. host: that was joseph in texas.

this is the wall street journal --

carl in bombay, florida. in the last 10 years, how are you doing? caller: in the last 10 years, have been quite disabled. i have what could be considered

a broken back. i have five disks that are just no longer there. i am unable to do the physical work that i did as a young man. i was a volunteer firefighter for 15 years. you know what happens to volunteer firefighters when they get hurt? they get told thanks allot, and goodbye. but that is not really what we are talking about. we are definitely worse off now than we were 10 years ago, because some of the programs have been slashed and burned. community development block grants have become unavailable, something i was counting on, something i was promised last year at the city level. unfortunately, the city did not get any federal block grant money this year. i don't know why that is. nobody can explain it to me on

the town level, and i am hoping to try to get hold of someone next week at the federal level to explain to me why there are no federal block grants. host: that was carl in florida. some tweets on this issue. a couple of florida newspapers this morning. the tallahassee democrat, and

the same headline in the miami herald, a state of uncertainty. there are tropical storm warnings out all over florida at this point. they are leading with the apple- samsung settlement.

that is just a little bit from this article, in case you are interested in reading it for yourself. it is in the new york times business section.

that is just a little bit of this column, too, in case you are interested in reading that. the next call is from columbus, ga.. you are on the "washington journal." good morning. caller: i am feeling more pessimistic than i was 10 years ago.

one daughter has graduated college and one is still in college. i am concerned about their future, more so than me. i did 22 years in the military, so i will be okay. my wife and i have been married 27 years. we know how to make it, but my kids, i am very pessimistic for them. my wife is a nurse. we are not doing as much as we used to. the price of gas, anyway you cut it, we are paying twice as much for gas blast and three years. hurts the bottom line. host: who are you supporting

president? caller: i give obama a chance. i was so proud to see a man like that in the white house. i am going to go with a professional this time. i have to. i have to go with someone who knows what they are doing from the first day. host: you mentioned in your wife was a nurse. are you working at all, or are you on a pension? caller: i am retired master sergeant. you still have to work. host: thank you for calling in this morning. this article has absolutely no public policy whatsoever, but it is the center column in "the wall street journal." here is defense secretary panetta with his dog.

chesty is the marine corps of bulldog, and they met. it was not good. corporal chesty got promoted to sergeant. two weeks before his promotion, the marine corps a mascot, had a run in with rob lowbravo. he spotted the larger dog at the end of a parade held in honor of the pentagon chief. he barked and ignored his chain of command as he went nose to nose with bravo.

that kind of breach of decorum could have been courier ending for most marines. chesty weathered the controversy and came out with a new stripe on his uniform. flint michigan, debby on our $39,000-$118,000, middle-class as defined by the pew research center. caller: good morning, i love this show, and no, i am not doing better. we have 15 days a year that we don't get paid for. they raised all of our costs. the few people i have heard this morning that are doing better, they are doing better because they got their education. the value of our home, my home

has gone down 60% in value. my mortgage company does not want to talk to me about refinancing because i have never missed a payment. i had more cash flow when i work for pizzeria when i was 17 years old. flint, michigan is like a war zone. we have shootings almost every day. the cops are trying to get it under control. we have help from the state police, but people don't have anything to do, and they are going to drink and fight and everything else. host: do they make any cars in flint anymore? caller: yes, but without obama, we would have no industry here whatsoever. pitbull hold obama responsible for the fact that congress is

full of obstructionists. if they elect romney and ryan, they are obstructionists. that is why he never got anything done. he got some things done, very good things, but nobody wants to talk about those. host: are you supporting the president for reelection? caller: absolutely. so are my parents, my siblings, and every friend i have. host: a couple more facebook comments --

if you want to continue the conversation, you can go to facebook.com/cspan. you can make comments and communicate with some of the other viewers of c-span. coming up in a few minutes, we will be looking at the foreign- policy the president obama and the foreign policy proposals of mitt romney and comparing their foreign policies. then we will look at the history of conventions with thomas whalen of boston university. we will be talking some history with him as well. our final segment this morning is with common cause. we will be looking at the voting system throughout the country. i want to show you the front page of the detroit free press. a picture of mitt romney.

we want to show you a little bit of the mitt romney event from michigan yester day, and representative todd akin met the press for the first time since ape remark.ate righ [video clip] >> no one has ever asked to see my birth certificate. everyone knows that this is where we were born and raised.

>> apparently some people have trouble understanding our message. i would like to be clear on that. we are going to be here through the november election, and we are going to be here to win. there may be some negotiations, but they don't include meat. >> hour countdown to the conventions continues until our gavel-to-gavel coverage of the republican convention, and the democratic convention starting september 4. every minute, every speech, live. featured speakers include former florida governor jeb bush. this monday night, new jersey governor chris christie with the keynote address tuesday. congressman paul ryan delivers his eyes presidential acceptance speech wednesday, and thursday night, mitt romney.

create and share video clips, add comments, and connect with other viewers all access c- span.org/campaign2012. host: now on your screen is josh rogin. we want to talk to about foreign policy and campaign 2012. overall, how would you say policy is as a campaign issue right now? guest: conventional wisdom -- pitbull rarely go into the voting booth and think to themselves, what did mitt romney say about syria, right before that pull the lever? if you want to be president, you also want to be commander-in- chief of the armed forces, and

principal in the mentor of america's foreign policy. we call that the commander-in- chief test. americans want to know that the person in the chair will be able to manage the military and manage the complex set of relationships that the u.s. has around the world, and to do all the things on the international stage that represent american national security and economic interest. it becomes of increased relevance as we get closer to the election. mitt romney and president obama have different foreign policy visions. as we get toward the debate, we will see foreign policy come to the four. host: mitt romney just said something on syria. he said he could see u.s. troops in syria. guest: while mitt romney has presented a more muscular, chest beating rhetoric on foreign policy, when you get down to the specifics of his foreign policy prescriptions, they don't differ

all that much on the serious issues than that of the president. on iran, mitt romney want to pursue diplomatic options until it becomes unsuccessful, and then keep a military option on the table. on f. evans -- on afghanistan, he wants to adhere to president obama's 2014 withdrawal time line. what he said yesterday was that in the case that the syrian regime or to use some of its chemical weapons, which is the worst case scenario, it would be within the realm of possibility send in u.s. troops. he said that a few days after president obama said the exact same thing. even in that statement, he is tracking the obama administration policy. from the advisers will say a run the presidency would have been more successful in implementing these policies because they would have done them better, faster, more efficiently, etc.

but that is looking backward. looking forward, he is not proposing we established a no- fly zone in syria or do anything drastically different than the obama administration is doing now. host: mitt romney recently travelled to israel. is there a difference in policy support? guest: that have tried to draw distinctions between their vision and the obama administration. he has said that he believes jerusalem should be the capital of israel. host: is that a hot button thing to say? guest: for certain members of the community it is. it is a touchstone issue. the problem is, it is very hard to implement once you are president. it is hard to put into place. he said he would not allow the space between the israeli

government and the american government. the obama administration has been criticized for seeming to put pressure on the netanyahu administration. mitt romney would take a different position. he would align himself with the israeli government and began from there. you could have a whole debate over whether or not that is likely to be more successful. all we know is the obama administration approach was not successful, but no other approach has been in the last 60 years. who is to say that really work or not. host: if romney were elected, would we see a shift in policy on afghanistan? guest: that is a great question, and somewhat unknown. romney made a gaffe in the

debates. he said we have to get our troops out, and republican national security establishment rebelled against that and criticized him heavily. he changed his position and said we have to listen to the commanders on the ground. he has come around to somewhere in the middle. his current position is, we should adhere to the 2014 timeline. he would not have announced that time line because he thinks that it signals to the enemy that there is the date we are going to with straw, and that is not helpful to the mission. what was super interesting is that a couple of days ago at a public rally, he said if i am lucky enough to be elected president, at that time i will talk more about afghanistan. is this in this, i will tell you when i have to.

the romney campaign does not want to commit themselves to a lot of positions that might have to change later. the bottom line is, he basically agrees with the administration policy. but he says if he had been president, he would have done it better and more efficiently and somehow would have succeeded better. >host: where are the differences in the bush administration and the obama administration foreign policy, and where are the similarities? guest: foreign policy factored very heavily into this, in the 2008 election. john mccain was a war hero, the head of the senate armed services committee contingent, against barack obama, a relative unknown with less experience in

foreign policy. barack obama campaigned on his policy to end the iraq war. it was not going well in 2008. at that time there was a clear difference. while president obama fulfilled his promise to withdraw troops from iraq, a lot of other things he did around the world works different. he did not close guantanamo bay, as he promised. is executing of drone strikes in six or seven countries around the world. he has a very muscular foreign policy. the bush foreign policy was more neo conservative. how does it plain do what we are doing this year? the republican party is totally split on this issue at this

point. it does not get talked about a lot because they don't want to highlight the fact they are split on foreign policy. realists and conservatives totally disagree with each other, and mitt romney has tried to please both sides. he has said the nation is a war- weary, and we should come out of afghanistan, but with iran, we should have a strategy that we might have to use. he does not want to make a choice. the republican party does not want to make a choice. traditionally a strong party, they want to maintain their edge, but it is interesting that barack obama leads in foreign policy by about 10-to-15 points. host: josh rogin is our guest.

you can see the numbers on the screen, divided by political affiliation. you can also send us a tweet or an e-mail. we have this tweet from cedric mohammed. please speak on romney's africa policy. emphasis on the sudan seems more of the same. guest: there are two policies. there is the one that his senior advisers are pushing, then one that a team of foreign policy advisor in washington. these parts of the campaign and not necessarily communicate or get along or agree on

priorities. africa policy has not been a prominent part of mitt romney's foreign-policy agenda thus far. that does not mean he does not have the team of people that care about this issue. what they say is there should be an increased focus on human rights, a confrontation with the sudanese regime and did the president, who is an indicted criminal. rich williamson, a former assistant secretary and a former special envoy to sudan under the bush administration, told me that in the run the administration there would be an increased focus on human rights and defending people in sudan and darfur.

host: in your old publication, they have some of mitt romney's key foreign-policy advisers, beginning with the former secretary of the navy for reagan, richard williamson, as you mentioned, roberts kagan, perkins now, and carry healey. what can you tell us about them? guest: these are not the four people i would have picked. the former navy secretary focuses on defense sequestration, what they call the hollowing out of the navy did to a lack of ship building. williamson is the human rights

guy, the africa guy, the u.s. -- de ungeithner. bob kagan, his book is about how america is not really in a decline. this is interesting because the romney team accuses obama of the presiding over decline, but kagan says it is up to us. in a way it reinforces the scene that there is a risk of decline, but also obama, the decline is not happening. and, heale was not -- awas healey was the lieutenant governor for mitt romney. host: if she a valerie jarrett

type? guest: yes, but what can and experience. i should mention other foreign- policy advisers like robert zoellick, the former world bank president, who was appointed to be director of mitt romney's national security transition, the guy that will be choosing officials if and when mitt romney is elected. that is an important position. host: quickly, and the obama side, vice president joe biden, secretary of state clinton, leon panetta, and tom donilon. guest: the beauty of a sitting president is he has a national security team in place. he has thousands of people working on national security.

we should mention that hillary clinton will not be returning. in foggy bottom, at the state department, they are planning for that transition. how long leon panetta will last is anybody's guess. tom donilon it is probably in for the duration. we do not have to speculate on how obama would ship national security because he has been doing it for three years. host: josh rogin is our guest. detail. new mexico. democrats cried. caller: -- democrats line. caller: i would like to hear comments on the four deferments of mitt romney during the vietnam war, and why are we having the same foreign policy riders that the bush

administration had, and third, it seems like mitt romney is going to promise two wars right off the bat. guest: i think those are excellent questions. mitt romney spent some of the time they're in vietnam as a missionary in france for the mormon church, and he actually disparages france in public remarks. barack obama did not serve in the military either, but because he was too young. people will say mitt romney has no foreign policy or national security experience, and that is just the case, and neither did barack obama, which is also the case. mitt romney is not running against a 2008 barack obama, but the 2012 barack obama who has been commander in chief for 3.5 years. it is a totally valid point that

mitt romney received deferments, and so did george w. bush. the last military guy we had running for president was john mccain, and we saw that working out. as far as it been the same as the bush a demonstration, it is totally true. we have these two camps of foreign policy establishment groups and they're basically the same and rotate back and forth. as much as any single president wants to inject it with new blood and new life, he has to fill thousands of national security positions, and there are two staples of people that rotate. a lot of obama people worked with bush administration officials. i would say that what they are building all is a broad national security team. they are not taking into ziad. they wanted a large -- they are

not picking and choosing. they want a large body. they're not trying to exclude anybody.'ve -- and i do not think mitt romney is going to try to get this into two wars. he is clear that the nation as war-weary, the troops should come home and he is against military intervention in the middle east. does that conflict with his promise to have a credible military threat against iran and use it as necessary? some people say yes, but a war with iran and syria would be primarily an air war and not a ground war. host: just to follow upon one of your interest, here is michael. it appears that josh rogin has a low opinion of the ground with

the foreign policy advisers and their position papers. guest: i do not have a low opinion. i am an objective reporter. for covering the team, in 3.5 years i covered disputes within the obama administration and that a lot of people disagree on important issues and the process is often a mess. now, a lot of people in the mitt romney foreign policy team disagree with each other and the process is a mess. that is objectively true. campaigning is different than government. he could be a great steward of national security policy when and if he were elected policy -- president, but the only clue we have is to look of the management team. i think all people would say all campaigns are not meant to get into the specifics of solving

issues, but to be a forum for ideas were advisers jostle for positions for jobs, and this is exacerbated by the fact that the romney team has not prioritized foreign policy and focused on the economy. attempts by reporters like me and others to get them to specify foreign-policy issues have failed. that is their strategic position. it has a good effect in a bad effect. if a good effect is getting people focused on the economy, and a bad effect is the foreign policy team is a mess, history will judge whether that is a good idea. host: cedric mo koyfman followed up on your answer. thank you for a -- mohamad followed up on your answer. thank you for your it's repaired it seems like rummy will continue obama's current militarization of east africa.

guest: that is exactly correct. the obama administration has continued the bush militarization of our african presence. this includes special operations, drones, all sorts of counter-terrorism activities in africa that we do not know about. i have not seen any indication that the mitt romney of administration would increase or decrease those efforts. they tell me there is an increased focus on human rights and confrontation with bad actors. again, we will not get too far ahead of them because they have not figured out what it means, so for me to speculate what that means would be a bridge too far. host: randy is a republican in mississippi. thank you for holding josh rogin is our guest on "washington journal."

caller: i am a republican, but i can honestly say that i voted for president obama. i thought there might be a change. it did not happen. i could also say that the last few years of george bush was not very happy either. i get aggravated some times when people say that president obama did not have much foreign affairs. i look at it like you did. i do not think that if mitt romney is elected that he will try to drag us into two wars. that is ridiculous. nobody wants war. i just think that in order for him to get a fair shake, it should be put out there that,

you know, president obama, has he said, has followed the same suit george bush did. he did not close guantanamo bay. he is still over there in afghanistan we are still in the midst of stuff. lewis to say that mitt romney wins -- who is to say that if mitt romney wins it will not carry on? guest: the bottom line is if mitt romney gets elected, his job will be to be reelected, and the number 1 mission will be to fix the economy, and expensive, the debentures military endeavors abroad are just not a good way of -- adventures of broad retreat and adventurous military endeavors abroad are not a good way of doing that. my sense is he says we will

avoid these entanglements if possible, but with iran, he often talks about the need to a nation-building at home the same thing that obama often talks about. you also said that obama is the same as bush. i do not think that is the case. he had an ambitious and her foreign policy vision, where if we opened up our hands to the worst actors, they would unclench their system and he pursued that with iran, russia, head of engagement with china, and i had mixed results, at best. i think every administration -- that had mixed results, at best. i think every administration tries to be ambitious, then the next year reassesses. there is a learning curve. i do not think that would be different in the run the

administration. they would try to do both things. a lot of them would fail. then they would settle back into a basic steps that we have now. aircraft carriers, baker turned slowly. if they turn slowly. host: john, independent. detroit. good morning. caller: there is the old saying that if you do with you always did, you will get what you always got. i have read different figures on how many military bases we have overseas, and the last figure was in excess of 700 bases overseas. when we are broke and have a federal deficit to the extent that it is, should we be sending $1 trillion to our military in bases overseas? if we said half that, a portion

of that, on infrastructure here, jobs here, i know that does not always cured the problem, but i would assume we would be better off trying to spend it here than building empires overseas, at influencing people politically and economically overseas. would you not think in these trying times it would be a better approach to think outside of the box? i highly doubt people are going to attack us when we have tens of thousands of nuclear warheads. is it in our national security interests to have our military all over the world? should we not think more of a defensive nature rather than empire-building? i appreciate your time, gentlemen. guest: share. i think you made some good points. over the last, let's say, 70

years, the u.s. military presence has expanded gargantuan lee, and now we have this system where we have this region where we are the guarantors of security -- where we are the guarantors of security in so many parts of the world. it has been hugely expensive it hugely consuming. it has some of ancillary benefits. countries that lived underneath the u.s. security umbrella are allies, and they do help us in other areas. there is an argument to be made for that. have we over-extended? sure. is that costly? yes. what you are advocating is that we reversed course and start to roll back presence overseas. that is a legitimate position. as a reporter i do not take a position, but i would say that

is shared by a strong contingent of the republican party, and that was shared by ron paul in the presidential debates. it is a debate the republican party is have impaired people arguing for retrenchment are losing the debate. the traditional stance is the more muscular, unilateralist, both listed stance, and that is the way it has always been, and the obama administration has actually building more bases. they have more bases in australia. they have a plan to increase ship-building. this is part of their response to the charge that they are not strong national defense. i do not see either party changing this 70-year trend despite -- despite people like you would argue. i would also suggested bases at home are a problem. we have thousands of pieces that

are outdated, hold shot -- trucks and ships that will never be used, and we cannot retire them because of politics. every time we try to do a round of base-closing, it is a huge mess, a huge problem. we could save money by rolling up bases abroad and at home, but whether that happens in the short term is doubtful. host: the next call for josh rogin comes from willie, a democrat in jacksonville, florida. caller: good morning, gentlemen. mitt romney does not have the foreign policy. his foreign policy is-not barack obama, and whatever he did i would -- i am not barack obama, and whatever he did, i would have been done.

-- undone. he would argue that if we are economically strong at home, that is our best foreign policy, but he does not tell us how he will do that. yes, he does. he has paul ryan on this ticket and they will double down on reagan economics, trickle-down economics. host: i think we got the point. i did not mean to cut you off mid-sentence. guest: i think to make a good point. as we mentioned, this is a conscious, strategic decision not to get too far into foreign policy specifics. it has its benefits and disadvantages. one of the disadvantages is people like you and me say tell us more, one of the benefits is it keeps us focused on the

economy. he always says that an economically strong country is more powerful abroad, and that is the point that everybody makes because it is obvious simple, and it is a way to enjoy it avoid -- obvious and simple, and it is a way to simply avoid dealing with foreign policy issues. both sides do that. the obama administration as an economic statecraft agenda that is based on using our economic power and initiatives to bolster security. everybody engages in that. your basic point that his point is he would do it better than obama, that is what he is saying. he is not proposing drastic new national security policies. he is saying he would have done it more competently or quickly. hindsight is. there is no way to go back in time -- is. there is no way to go back in

time. host: why does mitt romney nor obama consider cutting our best we military spending in half? guest: this is a great way to get in the issue of defense spending, something both campaigns have engaged in a lot. this is based on the fact ending january 1, according to the budget control act of 2011 -- that in january 1 -- january, according to the budget control act of 2011, mandatory budget cuts would go into effect. this is one issue. mitt romney is promising to avoid these defense cuts. barack obama is promising to implement them. the basic point that neither

side would cut the defense a demonstration in half, but barack obama and his administration did cut the defense budget over 10 years by 400 set reported $87 billion. that was controversial. -- $487 billion. that is controversial. we're not cutting the military budget, but we are keeping it from going up and up. it is a numbers game. it is a shell game. it is a lot of smoke and mirror image of smoke and mirrors, basically. . the obama -- smoke and mirrors, basically. mitt romney is using that against him, and we will talk about the next round of cuts. people on all sides of the aisle, barney frank, ron paul, and others say we should cut a lot of the u.s. military budget.

we spend more on defense than the next 12, 13 countries put together. the process is broken, and billions of dollars are wasted every single day. that is a fact, and a problem nobody is approaching, and not barack obama, not mitt romney, not congress, certainly not the defense industry. there are a lot of things we could do to discuss and debate fixing national security spending. none of those things are going to be done or discussed before the election. for the purposes of the campaign, we'll talk about sequestration, and that is about it. host: the next call comes from brooklyn, new york. gabrielle, and our republican line. caller: a in a disenchanted republican. -- i am a disenchanted republican. i have heard enough on foreign policy.

israel is itching for a fight, and mitt romney only went over there and told them what they wanted to hear. he cannot afford a flight with iran right now. host: josh rogin? guest: sherer. mitt romney's trip to israel was notable for the fact that he promised not to put any space between the u.s.-israeli position. he defended the right of israel to strike iraq unilaterally without american permission or notification. that has serious implications for our national security because it would most likely result in a counter attack that would roll in the region, including hundreds of thousands of u.s. forces in the region. that is the consensus position

of the gop foreign policy establishment. mitt romney is doing this also because he is close interests financially with big donors who led the cavies positions. again, it is not clear -- who advocate to these positions. again, it is not clear he would implement those policies. once you are president, you have a responsibility candidates do not have. as president, he would not want to be in a war with iran. it is a downside risk no matter how you look at it, but it makes sense for him to appear like we are about to attack iran, and of course, there is the stream of thought that says the threat will prevent the war because iran will come to the realization that we are serious and reverse course. that is the argument that a lot of when the advisers may, we have to threaten to -- romney his advisers make, we have to

threaten to attack, because that is the only thing that will convince them. if that is a circular argument that a lot of people do not really buy. host: this tweet -- we are no longer respected around the world since barack obama broad week, paul chamberlain apologist style, lead from behind policy. guest: we lost a lot of power when we attacked iraq. a lot of people around the world, especially in allied countries, disagreed with that decision and it effected our ability to do things on the international stage in a range of ways. barack obama campaign and spent his first year trying to repair those relationships. he gave a huge speech to the

muslim world in cairo, the huge speech on nuclear power in prague. you could call that an apology, because he was essentially disemboweling the bush should administration's foreign policy, or you could say he was tried to fix it. it is a rhetorical debate that has no real policy or substantive value. i do not think he is an apologist for america, but on the other hand he feels bad about the fact that we attacked iraq. that is a wash. are we more effective now? that is debatable. the plan to fix the relationship with the moslem world, it did not really worked out. the muslim countries were excited for the most part, but then felt he did not follow through. if those countries are not much better. the same thing in europe. they are disenchanted with the obama administration for a number of reasons. it is a mixed

it is a mixed bag. america's standing in some ways is better. his position is based on the the position america will not be able to do what it has done so we might as well buy into a multilateral organizations. that strategy is something some disagree with. host: the last call for josh rogin comes from raleigh, north carolina, andy on the independent line. caller: i was surprised to call the differences between romney and obama a wash. obama has been president for four years. compare that to mitt romney's lack of experience. even if you want to go to the past, obama did not have a war

going on in his generation. romney did. avoided the war and went to france. kerry was injured in the vietnam war. it is ironic in 2004, kerry was painted as a french candidate for some reason. at the same time, you had mitt romney in france supporting the war. no one seems concerned about that. a caller said mitt romney would not be looking to start a new war. i would not be sure about that. we know the previous administration was determined to invade iraq. i would be careful about assuming these candidates do not already have specific wars in

their sights because previous administrations did. guest: i think the generational thing, you are right as categories in -- categorizing mitt romney coming from the vietnam generation and obama coming from the generation trained by the global war and terror. that shapes their thinking and how they make decisions. in the end, barack obama was a candidate that came up during a time when he opposed a major war going on. he campaigned on that. he ended that war. it forms his identity. it is something he thinks about. the thing about france, and did not mean to say it was a wash and no difference. the difference is france is used as a punching bag by republicans and has been four years.

they think there are days gets riled up by the mention of europe in a disparaging way. experience in france, you could throw them onto the pile of his experience with being governor in massachusetts and other things. we do have to do different candidates with your different visions of the world and america's role in the world. we have more evidence of how barack obama would implement that vision and less of how mitt romney would. when the voters go to the polls, they will be able to choose between a president who has run american foreign policy based on a multilateral envisioned rooted in diplomacy and a candidate who has a more muscular rhetoric based on more unilateralism and peace through strenght.

that is a pretty clear distinction. mitt romney has carved out a vision for the future of america and the world. voters can make a choice based on those decisions. host: josh rogin, china, are there differences in policy? guest: the u.s.-china relationship is the number one bilateral relationship in the world in the 21st century. the superpower and the regional power. barack obama's policy has been to do a pivoting or rebalancing toward china that is mainly diplomatic process in military shift of resources from the middle east towards strengthening relationships with dallas and building a system in

east asia to deal with and manage or oversee the rise of china. mitt romney's problem is the same approach in terms of increasing our focus but with a more aggressive tone. he has promised to confront china on their currency manipulation. he has promised to be stronger in support of taiwan and human rights. this is a distinction that is a difference. it is not a wholesale or version of our privacy. republicans and democrats have agreed our foreign policy should remain on a steady course for the stability of both countries. it is another administration of where the romney administration -- it is another example of where the romney administration can say they would do the same thing but better. host: coming up, we have two

more segments. we will look at conventions with boston university historian thomas whalen. following that, susannah goodman will be here to talk about voting systems. those are our two test segments. before we bring mr. whalen out, we want to show you our "newsmakers" this week. it will be with the congressman from texas, chairman of the national republican congressional committee. we talked with him about their efforts to retain congress or the house for the republicans. we also talked to him about paul ryan being selected as vice president. [video clip] >> what advice are you giving

candidates? are you telling them to distance themselves from the republican national platform? what would you tell them when the asking for political advice in those districts? >> it is clear to me each and every one of our candidates are proud of our record as republicans and the direction we're headed. i believe the selection of paul ryan will be a boost to every one of our candidates. we're talking about the problems that face america. we're not just looking at next year. we're looking at a few years over the horizon, where we're going to position america to lead well into the 21st century. every single one of our candidates would want to be seen with mitt romney. they may be running in districts, you mentioned some. perhaps the president will be a favorite son in some. i believe moderate democrats

will seek our plans are robust and help job creation, as opposed to the president who ignores and obfuscates a frocks and is incapable of telling the truth about what republicans stand for. i think everyone of our republicans would want to be seen with mitt romney. i know a huge number of democrats that do not want to be next to president obama. they avoid their appearances and want to distance themselves from many things they stand for. >> are you giving them any advice to keep their distance from the ryan budget or any policies the ticket is mincing? >> not at all. i believe our policies move the $700 billion directly back into medicare. we have a strong plan to make sure seniors can trust republicans. we would not vote for taking

$700 billion out. we have run campaigns on these issues and ideas. we understand how to effectively speak of them. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us from boston is professor thomas whalen. we will be talking about political conventions, presidential history with professor whalen. thank you for joining us from boston. i will start with a question that media folks and others like to ask every four years. do conventions matter anymore? guest: i think they are like dinosaurs that you can put in a room with a camera with the nominee's speech.

these are just overblown infomercials of this point in time. host: why are they still big media events today? guest: inside each party is the feeling this is what brings the race together. it is also good for racking up dollars in terms of getting donor money to the campaign. i think they are viewing it as more of a campaign funding exercise than reaching out to voters nationwide. host: win is the last convention that really matter? -- when is the last convention that really matter? guest: you have to go back to 1976. gerald ford was the incumbent. he was appointed to the vice

presidency and succeeded nixon when he resigned. going into that convention, he did not have the needed majority of delegates to win. ronald reagan at the convention said he was going to pick a moderate senator from pennsylvania to be his running mate. this ticked off enough conservatives it moved the nomination to gerald ford. that was a close call. four years later went reagan won the nomination, he was trying to decide who is vice president would be. he considered gerald ford. gerald ford had a set of demands. he wanted to share equally in the presidency with ronald reagan. they could not come to terms. reagan chose george h. w. bush. that was a real turning point in history. if george h. w. bush does not

give the vice presidency in 1980, he is just a footnote in history. host: doom uc conventions surviving another 50 years -- do you see mentions surviving another 50 years? guest: not in their current form. i could see evolving into a podcast. i think it is on its last legs. i think the ratings reflect that. i think you can get more eyeballs with "american idol" menu wealthy democratic or republican national convention. host: what is your favorite convention in history? guest: that is a tough one. in terms of sheer drama and excitement, the 1968 convention in chicago. you saw everyone unbridled, the anger and tension of that year

in american history. you had richard daley screaming at abraham from connecticut in the middle of the broadcast. outside, protesters of the vietnam war were being beaten by chicago police. that was the conviction that is the most memorable. in terms of inspirational conventions, i think you have to go back to 1932 and 1936. in 1932, fdr announces the new deal rejecting decades of republican conservatism saying a new day has dawned and we have a rendezvous with destiny. he used the "rendezvous with destiny" in his 1936 acceptance speech. host: 1960, talk about the

convention. guest: kennedy maneuvered his way through that. he gave a speech laying out his priorities. he does it at the l.a. coliseum, a big open-air event, just like president obama four years ago. he announces the new frontier. he says i am not going to give a bunch of promises. i will give you a set of challenges. that deviated from the standard political playbook up to that point of time. it is interesting how he differentiated himself from his opponent richard nixon on the republican side. they came up together in congress. but he represents ideas as old as well in -- as william mckinley. are represent the 20th century. i think he did a good job in terms of contrasting himself with the opponent in the general election.

host: if you would like to talk with professor whalen about political conventions or american history, we have numbers for republicans, democrats, and independents. you can also send e-mail or a tweet. professor whalen, what about 1952. talk about the significance of the 1952 convention. guest: the republican convention is the one really changes history. going into that convention, like eisenhower, the hero of world war ii was trailing before barry goldwater, he was the leader of conservatives in the republican party. during that convention, there

was a massive fight over the seating of delegations, particularly from texas. eisenhower forces were able to rally around the fair play a minute to seek the disputed delegates. they want and -- won on an open convention vote. that allowed eisenhower to overtake taft. felt they had been betrayed and there was a double cross. what is interesting is dwight , whenower's floor manager he came back to massachusetts to run as senator, he was defeated because a number of republicans and conservatives supported the democratic candidate. that democratic canada it was john f. kennedy. i like to tell people conservative republicans are responsible for the kennedy dynasty. that was the race that put the

kennedys in the national spotlight. host: on the other side of the coin, adlai stevenson was not even the candidate in 1952. guest: right, as a desperation move on the democrats' side. that is kind of the last of the old school conventions in the sense it was decided in the back room. adlai stevenson was the choice of then-president harry truman. he later lived to regret his backing of at least in some. he considered him ineffective as a leader. host: thomas whalen is a professor at boston university. he is our guest on "washington journal." the first call for him comes from myrtle in temple, texas. caller: my response is he is

looking at it as a professor or author. i disagree with him saying conventions do not matter. it stimulates the grassroots and gives 61012 people at the grass- roots level to let them know what the issues are. many times they do not watch television. he is looking at it as a professor. that is all. guest: i look at it from a generational point of view. if you are under 50, you are not going to be spending all your time watching the convention coverage. we're going to be doing e-mail, twitter, other types of communication to keep up-to-date on the world around us. i think people over 50 rely on television as their main source

of information. i think it is a generational divide. has the greatest generation retires or moves on, i think you will see greater use of the new technology. i think it is going to more or less make conventions' obsolete. they are frankly not needed. host: when was the first convention and how have they changed through the years? guest: it was back in the 1830's. i think the first on what was the anti-masonic league. i think the first one was the anti-masonic clique. the democrats followed shortly thereafter. they basically were a response to the politics of the common

man that andrew jackson brought to the forefront in the early 19th century. prior to that, it was a rich man's club. if you are going to be president, you have to be a member of the virginia dynasty. jackson made it possible, the idea the u.k. in -- the idea that if you came from modest roots, you could rise to the top of the political system. that jacksonian revolution resulted in the political conventions. these were very raucous affairs where nominees would be picked after several debates. sometimes it would get close to violent over who the next nominee was. there was a lot of political retailing taking place. host: the next call comes from renee in brownsville, texas, on the independent line. caller: i have a question.

right now provided the given circumstances in the economy and tensions in the middle east, can you relate this to any other presidential election that we can compare the 2012 election to? guest: you think back to the 1930's. i think back to 1936. franklin roosevelt was going for his second term. at the democratic national convention, he went all out assault on his conservative opponents. he called them economic royalists. he set up the democratic party as the party of the people. he said republicans were the

party of the big businessmen and bankers. he was emotional and strident in his attack in a way president obama could not be in the present-day because he would lose political support among moderates and independentss. it was a similar situation or even worse. in 1936, the unemployment rate was higher than it is now. the economic indicators were much lower. in a bad economy, you see real hard-edge debate between parties. even inside the parties. on the republican side, how do you go against someone like a franklin roosevelt? how are you going to respond to that? we see that in the modern day. how are we going to respond to president obama's stimulus policies and medical reform program? the republicans have mitt romney

as the nominee. they seem to be embracing a lot of initiatives from his vice presidential nominee. they want to reform medicare and social security and changed the entitlement system. in times of economic stress, we see these debates of issues. in democracy, i think that is healthy. host: professor whalen, how closely will you be following this election? guest: i will be following it like the super bowl. it is the best of all sports to watch. i am utterly fascinated by the political process. i am a political historian, so you can understand why. host: how has social media changed the business of conventions? guest: it is a 24/7 news cycle.

everything is instantaneous. in the old days, someone said something at a convention and it would take several days for it to develop as a story, to get out to the rest of the nation. now is instantaneous. people can find out right away. people will be twittering responses to the nominees in their party's, what they think of their speeches. i think that is a healthy thing. these conventions have gotten to scripted -- too scripted in recent years. with social media, we will get to see what the rank-and-file think of the platform and nominees. host: at c-span.org you can see a lot of video from past conventions we have covered. we have been gavel-to-gavel

with conventions since 1984. you can see we have a a lot of archival video as well. you can find that at c-span.org. this is our convention hub. it has launched. this week, it is the republicans. next week will be the democrats. we are following delegates' tweets and all sorts of others. you can go to c-span.org and for all theat convention news you will ever need. keith, thank you for holding. caller: how do these political conventions value themselves across the political spectrums? guest: could you repeat that?

caller: how do they value themselves? guest: how do they position themselves? they are like photo spreads for magazines. they will try to present themselves as the biggest family value supporters since the donna reed show. family values will be on display. both parties pushed this image. in this election cycle, it will be different. the issues are so clear. it is all about the economy. whether a person is a nice guy or not will not matter. what people are interested in is jobs. however my going to pay my mortgage and send my kid to college? -- how am i going to pay my

mortgage and semi kid to college? we like to elect presidents we respect who support the same values as us. in this election, it is different because the economy is so bad. host: gary tweets in. can we anticipate street demonstrations close to the magnitude of 1968? will we ever return to a time when conventions matter? guest: i do not think so. i remember the boston convention in 2004. it was so tightly controlled that they cordoned off areas around the convention. security has gotten very sophisticated since 1968. i remember a small barren area they call the free speech zone. it is kind of ludicrous you cannot get near a convention hall if you are carrying a

protest banner or will cause mischief. they will spot the right away. i think we will never return to the days of 1968 and the street protests we saw then. host: the democratic convention in denver in 2008, hillary clinton and barack obama. was that convention import? a lot of hillary clinton delegates at that convention. guest: >> it was a contingent where president obama successfully was able to broker a deal -- it was a convention where president obama successfully was able to broker a deal. that is what conventions have traditionally been used for. you bring together your base support. if you go into a general election without base support, it is over.

if you look back to most conventions where there has -- have been major arguments outside of 1952, usually the nominee is not going to win the general election because you need the base to win. you cannot be fighting members of your own party if you are going to be successful. it back to 1980 where ted kennedy fought -- think back to 1980 where ted kennedy fought jimmy carter. even though carter won, kennedy did not show enthusiasm for carter. at the end of the convention when the leaders went on the stage, ted kennedy was not smiling. he was barely alive for the cameras. the message he sent to his supporters is do not support jimmy carter.

jimmy carter later suggested the reason he lost in 1980 was because he did not have the full support of ted kennedy and his supporters. host: we have also talked about the 1976 convention on the republican side. in that sense, conventions could matter again. we have talked about two relatively recent conventions that did matter. in essence, they could be very important again. guest: they could, but what has changed is the supreme court decision, the money used in future campaigns. i think they will be wrapped up sooner. by the time you get to a convention, he will not need to have such a great effort to bring the party together. everything will be more or less bought and paid for on both sides. i think that is the danger the

citizens united decision has brought the table. it will take democracy out of our presidential selection process. i do not think that is healthy for the nation. host: toni is a democrat from l.i. -- long island. caller: i have been a lifelong democrat. i have never seen as much divisiveness in the party. i am so disgusted. i will tell you the truth. i like hillary clinton. i voted for president obama. romney has his own negativity. the democrats are used to know like the reagan democrats and the kennedy democrats, they are so progressive now. it is no more in the middle.

they are so far left or right. it is so vicious. they hate each other. it is horrible. i am going to vote for romney because i think he stands for better ideas. the professors said romney wants ryan's plan. if he is president, he will not change a thing. you can read the bill on line. host: we will leave it there. anything to add to what she has to say? >> i think that is common among many voters. the center is not holding. we're seeing extreme elements taking hold of the parties. we do not have been moderate consensus anymore.

that is not a prescription for our political future. host: florida, suzy. caller: i was wondering if you can talk about the iowa delegation rule change. it seems like they are screwing ron paul on delegates. i will be voting for him. to me, romney is just like obama. i think ron paul is the person that brings in a lot of people. i am not one of the young ones. the claim is only young people. i am 49. many of us will be voting for him. guest: 49 is not old. host: what about the rule change? have you been following this? guest: a little bit. i think romney and his supporters are playing a

dangerous game. you do not want to tick off paul and his libertarian supporters. they might march out of the convention. you do not want to have a similar effect as 2001 ralph nader was so fed up with the democrats that he set up a third-party candidacy. he siphoned off enough votes that he made the election in nightmare for al gore. the republicans want to avoid that kind of scenario this time. host: throughout the conventions, we will be interviewing delegates. you will be able to watch these on line. they will also be on air. we talked to delegates yesterday. one was a ron paul supporters at the convention. he is a delegate from north

carolina. you can watch that online at c- span.org. you can see all of the different twitter accounts we are following if you want to read tweets. this tweet asks if we're going to cover the ron paul convention. if there is one, we will cover it. we will be live on sunday from tampa at the ron paul rally being held in the tampa area. that will be live on c-span tomorrow. you will be able to watch that. guest: you go back to 1912 where you have a situation in the republican party or the progressive wing was very upset with the conservative wing. president taft was the nominee.

he was challenged by his old political mentor, theater roosevelt, who also served as president. roosevelt and the conservatives left that party and created a bull moose party. theodore roosevelt beat out robert taft for the number two spot. democrat woodrow wilson won in 1912, mainly because the republican opposition was divided. you do not want to divide your base going into a general election. host: the last time the free speech zone outside convention was practically in the next county. the next call comes from tina, a democrat in alexandria, virginia. caller: what is the difference

between the two conventions? i do not need to learn from him which family is beautiful and which one is not. i just need to know the difference. we already know that both parties have beautiful families. thank you. guest: i think a cholera is spot on -- i think the caller is spot on in her observation. what differentiates the two parties is what their platforms are. people who are watching at night at these conventions on television, you are not going to hear a lot about the platform. that is beside the point. all you look at is the main speech or possibly the vice presidential speech. that is about it. in terms of the dynamics or how they are presented, there is not

a lot of difference between the two parties in terms of how the conventions are set up these days. host: jan ness tweets her sister and her boyfriend were at the convention and had to flee the state. nancy you are on the air with professor whalen. caller: i am hoping to see some indications from one party or the other or both that they will work hard to repair and rely on the fannie mae and freddie mac programs that have been so damaged. guest: unfortunately given this political cycle and the partisan

dynamics, you are not going to see anyone address that issue. it is the third rail of american politics. it is like trying to pass another stimulus. it is not going to play to the audience at this point in time. that is probably unfortunate because that is an issue that needs to be addressed. it will fall by the wayside, unfortunately. host: gregory tweets in that conventions are just political theater. do you agree? guest: i do. i think of the late great arthur miller who wrote "day chris schauble." he said political reporters have devolved into a theater critics. -- who wrote "the crucible."

host: what economic benefits do conventions bring to the host cities? guest: they can bring a nice economic uptick. if you are in a battleground state and want to make some inroads were bought for donations to supporters, having the convention in a key battleground state is the way to do it is legal. it offers high visibility. it allows you to put boots on the ground in a state you might need desperately in november. caller: a want to ask the professor if he thought the third party, like ross perot's platform, how would that be

involved today in this election? guest: you look back as early as 1992. candidacy changed the dynamics in the sense of what was being talked about. going in, it was the same common blather. ross perot made it a referendum on the budget deficit. third parties can do that. despite what the other parties might think, they can steer them to issues they think are important for the nation as a whole. we saw this with the populist movement and with the progressives in the early 20th century. we saw that with ross perot in the 1990's. you could argue that led to

policies of unprecedented prosperity in the 1990's. -- josephs week from ro ramirez. true? guest: i would dispute that. it is clear what the constitution says about freedom of speech. i do not think the founders had in mind we should rope off a certain area and say these are people upholding their constitutional obligations to express themselves. i think that is nonsense. host: lubbock, texas, go ahead. is this gadfly? please go ahead.

caller: yes, i would like to speak with mr. whalen about the usefulness of political conventions from a historical perspective. i think conventions are a historical marker. it tells us about things we do not know. he mentioned earlier about how kennedy would not have become president if not for what happened with henry cabot lodge. it tells us about the truth and deceptions and things we do not know about the past. in a democracy, it gives us a platform to speak to the truth of history so we can make better decisions for our future. a red -- i read and empire rises and falls from lack of information of the truth of the

past. would you think conditions as a historical marker would have continued usefulness in our public conversations? guest: i would if they follow the historical trajectory. they were a true platform or exchange of ideas where people could represent themselves and debate ideas. it has not become that way anymore. it is of prepackaged like the reality television show. -- it is all pre-packaged like a reality show. due to the money, there is no drama. going in, everything is settled. i do not see how it is relevant anymore. the television networks have caught on. they are not going to devote a lot of resources to covering these events.

there are light trade shows. i think that should tell you what the world is going forward in the 20th century. host: do you agree with the networks not covering mrs. romney's speech? guest: as a republican, that would raise an eyebrow with me. this is four years later. budgets are tight in the television industry. they are going to do bareboned coverage. it comes down to economics more than any kind of partisan plot or support for one party over the other. host: we will bring you every second of the republican and democratic conventions, to your

television sets, laptops, iphones, etc. gavel-to-gavel, just like we always do. we have done this with third- party is for several cycles -- we have done this with third- parties for several cycles as well. guest: c-span is the real free speech zone when it comes to politics. guest: the next call comes from west palm beach, fla., jeff. caller: i am glad i got in. i want him to discuss the 1964 republican convention. i stayed up all hours of the night since it was in san francisco. i think the republicans did the convention late so people in the east would not be watching it.

i thought scranton and rockefellers were ashamed -- shamed. i think the network correspondents had to be carried off the convention floor. it was quite a disaster, that convention. host: mr. whalen? guest: in 1964, barry goldwater day one of the most memorable speeches. he created a conservative movement. it did not serve him well in the general election. but it helped to sweep reagan and other conservative presidents to power. his line was extremism in defense of liberty is not a vice. his words resonated with the conservative backers the party and gave a rallying point to

what had been a demoralized party. it provided an organizational base to control the party in the decades ahead. we all know the result of that. host: have been talking about the history of political conventions with professor whalen. thank you for joining us on the "washington journal." we have one more segment coming up. we will be talking with susannah goodman about voting systems. that will be coming up in a minute. i want to finish this segment with this tweet. , conventionsin make me sick to my stomach. if you want to know anything about conventions, you can go to c-span.org and our convention hub.

video, tweets, interviews, everything you could possibly want about conventions and campaign 2012 is available at c- span.org. this week, it is focused on republicans. next week, it will be focused on democrats. james, said she will not be going to the c-span hub, you can go to -- since you will not be going to the c-span how come you can go to c-span2 and c-span3. 24/7 book tv for the next two weeks. if you are not a convention person, go to c-span2. two weeks of book tv. on c-span3, history.

you can watch our american history programs 24/74 the next two weeks. sorry, james, but we're going back to the conventions for a second. all week long, we have been showing pictures of tampa, where the convention will be held. it is right on the water downtown on the bay. we have been showing you pictures from inside the big convention hall. we want to show you the backside. it is often more fun to be on the backside of all of this. this is where our technical operations center is. you can see a lot of the equipment we use to bring you everything going on. these are the hallways leading into the actual convention center. everybody has been in some sort of coliseum or arena.

you know what this is like. a lot is still being set up. this is the backstage area of the tampa bay times forum. on monday, this will be well- organized. a lot of work is still going on. about 50,000 people are expected to be in hotel rooms in the tampa-st. petersburg area for the convention. there are only 2900 or so actual delegates who actually do the voting. about 50,000 people are attending. currently, the republican national convention is the second-largest media event in the world, behind the olympics. we will see where the democrats come in when they finish up next week. this is behind-the-scenes footage. she is our crew chief directing

a lot of coverage of the convention. of course, gavel-to-gavel coverage beginning monday. it begins at 2:00 on monday and runs through 11:00. we will bring you all the different events happening around the convention in tampa, including the ron paul rally tomorrow. we will be taking your calls after that. hopefully, isaac steers to the left so everything goes smoothly. there is the podium as our camera person walks inside. there's still a lot of work being done. it will be all set up by monday. that is a live look at the tampa bay times form where the convention begins on monday.

we have one more guest coming up. we will be right back. >> i think our job is not to ask questions -- >> she first covered candidate barack obama in 2007. she became bloomberg's white house correspondent in 2009. >> it is trying to get fair answers out of him. that is how i approach my job. i am not looking to catch when jay carney -- i am not looking to catch him. it is trying to get information to inform people. >> more on sunday at 8:00. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us on "washington journal" is susannah goodman

from common cause. she is the director of their national campaign for election reform. common cause recently did a study. what was the study and what did you find? guest: most of us vote on voting machines. we go in and cast our ballots on machines. you and i know that machines. sometimes. -- machines break sometimes. we looked at the backup systems if the voting machines break. host: you mean software, computers, modern-day equipment. guest: everything. i mean, what happens if there -- what happens if they will not boot up. what happens if there is a software problem and the votes are counted incorrectly? what happens if there is a problem with the way the votes are tallied?

we know there are a number of best practices put into place to make sure the account is accurate. these are practices the states are already doing. we looked at the five best practices and asked which states are doing all five and which states need to rent it up. host: explain the different colors and what they mean when you say vulnerable systems at the polls. guest: that map shows some states are in really good shape. they have excellent contingency plans if the machines do not boot up. they have an audit so you are making sure the machine tally is accurate. host: are those the green states? that says paper ballot or punched cards. guest: this amount -- map, i am

not sure what you are looking at. host: is this not a common cause map? i apologize. where do you see danger signs? guest: there are about five states at the bottom of the barrel. that is because they do not have a paper ballot back. if the machines break, there is nothing to be recounted. we are looking at states that do not have the ballot counting and reconciliation practices. do the election officials reconcile the votes and aggregate it up the food chain? do they have those good

practices in place? what are the contingency plans if the machines break? the states that could use some improvement in that area are delaware, louisiana, mississippi. those are the bottom of the barrel states in terms of the equipment and procedures. host: do all states -- who decides what kind of voting machines someone has? guest: that is an excellent question. the machines are expensive. states will spend millions of dollars. it is a state decision. it can be state or local depending on the state. some states will a wholesale by a voting system and used across the state. in some states, the decision is left up to the county. we have very decentralized

elections in this country. that is a good thing in terms of local independence. it is harder in terms of uniform standards. we do not have those. host: our states still using paper ballots -- are states still using paper ballots or punch cards? guest: one state is still using punch cards. most states use paper ballots. we like those. it is clumsy. the problem is computers -- paper ballots create an automatic backup. voters mark them. then you have something on paper that can be recounted. if you remember the senate race

that was incredibly close, it was recounted. razor-thin margin. they counted every single ballot. they put some of them on the internet. the voters felt empowered because they could scrutinize as well. if the ballots are all inside the computer, there is no transparency. there is no way for citizens to have confidence in that. there needs to be a paper record for every vote cast. host: given 2000 and florida, how house florida changed? guest: florida is in pretty good shape. it has paper ballots. that is a big thing. some counties have backups in

the sense that voters vote on the terminal but it prints out a paper record of the voter can and should review. they mark a paper ballot. that is scanned and tabulated. florida also has an audit that counts the votes on the paper ballots and texting against the machine tally -- checks that against the machine telling. in palm beach county, there was a problem with the software. because florida has an audit, they were able to go back into a hand count of the ballot and make sure the right person was installed. that kind of check is what we want to see every state have.

software glitches, malfunctions happen everywhere. there are bugs in these machines. if we have the right check in place, we can catch them. host: there has been talk in the past that ohio has some problems. where does ohio stand? >> ohio is a swing state. or the things that we looked at -- we are machine focused. this is not for other states. with machines, ohio is in pretty good shape. they have paper ballots, they have on this, they have pretty decent reconciliation practices. there are a number of states that are allowing military folks to e-mail their ballots.

that sounds like a convenience but it is right for fibers -- poor cybersex -- ripe for ciba security attacks. we are talking to cyber security -- cyber security attacks. at this point, we do not have a secure enough way to transmit ballots over the internet in order for those ballots not to be corrupted. that is a problem. that is something we looked at. host: we are talking about the national campaign about a new -- we are talking about a new common cause study and which systems are vulnerable and which ones are not. jeff, a democrat. caller: c-span, thank you. i have been waiting for someone to publicize the problems with

our voting systems. i will say this in laymen's language. computers can be calculated just like a las vegas stock -- slot machine to get the results you want to get. we did a study out here in arizona and the first one they calculated, it took them three minutes. after they knew what to do, they could set them up any way they wanted. we need a federal law -- here is the whole thing. you can not validate the election because there is not any physical evidence of what the computer gave you. it is and in ballot election. -- an invalid election.

there should be a federal law that they have to be able to validate the election or they should be -- or it should be considered invalid. guest: i agree. there should be a federal law requiring a paper ballot for a federal election that can be scrutinized and an audit for that paper ballots. you and i should have confidence. we have been working for years to get that passed. half my life i have been working for something like that. we have been going state-by- state, making sure that states have paper ballots records and that states can do on this of those records, comparing random samples of the ballots to the machine counts.

there is a wonderful technique called the risk balance on it. that is something we need to have. i want to thank this caller for pointing out. we need a federal law. host: two tweets. the vote machine software is business proprietary, secret. what a surprise. how you account for the highly partisan ownership of the companies that maintain and many factors these machines used by the states? guest: the fact that the software is proprietary is a problem. it should not be. our elections are a public good. because it is proprietary, that means we need transparency on the back end.

we need ballots. the ballots are not proprietary. we need those ballots to be able to be scrutinized by the public. the process needs to be transparent. thank you for your tweet. i agree with you. that is a serious problem. in 2004, there was a lot of concern because at that point, there were vote machines produced by ziebold and the president of the company was a republican, a vocal republican supporter. that absolutely affected voter confidence in that election. what we are trying to say is, if the processes are in place, if they are open, if they are transparent, its citizens can participate in the scrutiny of counting the ballots, it does

not matter who owns the company. there is always going to be people -- people own companies and a registered for parties. we need the process and the process and the companies -- process and the companies to be transparent. host: does diebold still own the machines? guest: vote machine manufacturing is not profitable. they do not get to replace much. it is a tough business to be in. vendors face continuous challenge is to make the state of the art. we are looking at voting systems that are much cheaper, that uses office software.

we are trying to pare down the complexity of voting systems so they are simple and cheap and they do not have big companies associated with them. host: a tweet to you. asked why voting machines would not be made factored with auditing our diagnostics in the event of failure-tampering? guest: taxes are audited. why is there no federal law mandating the audit of these floating systems. -- these voting systems? it is an excellent question and one that we are tackling. i invite your callers to join us at common cause and push for a federal law that requires paper ballots and audits of all of the voting systems.

if there is no law like that in your state -- we have new ways of auditing that are cheaper and cost effective. thank you for your comment. host: monty says the problem is not the machines. get rid of the electoral college. from florida, bill on our independent line. caller: traditionally, paper ballots have not provided birth liable paper records. how can you square that with tradition -- verifiable paper records. how can you square that with tradition and with vote buying? guest: we consider a paper ballots to be something that the voter can verify. as you are marking the ballot,

you can be looking at the ballot and verifying it. that is the ballot that should be used in the audit. we do think that states -- i about half of the states use paper ballots. -- about half of the states newspaper balustrade we think they are in good shape. host: from oregon, kyle, a democrat. caller: in oregon, we have mail in ballots. what is to prevent a non-profit organization that collects your identification information from using that to obtain mail in dallas and voting for you? is there any way that a voter can check to see if someone is voting in their name without being charged $160 to get the vote rolls with who voted in the

last election? with the obama health care bill, they spent billions of dollars toward nonprofits recently created. what is to prevent them from using that as a large pool of three voters to swing an election? guest: one of the things we look at -- this is not covered in our report -- is the security of the voter registration database. i think that is what you are talking about. how can i protect my name and my registration from being hacked or being misused in any way? if you are not being checked off at the polling place and if you are mailing in a ballot, making sure the ballots sent in is yours and that is reconciled with the voter registration.

there are a number of tax in place and one of them is your signature check. that does not mean the sick -- the system is free from all kinds of vulnerability -- vulnerabilities. people are looking at the security of these voter registrations. you are not the only one concerned about them. the california voter federation has done work on protecting that. as things go on line, it is more concerned. voter registration databases are different. you can look up your voter registration status. that is not secret. when we all ted online, we are separated from our ballots and we have to hope it is -- when we vote online, we are separated from our ballots and we have to hope it is minister correctly. we say yes to online voter

registration -- have to hope that it is registered correctly. we say no to online voting. host: that takes care of this week -- tweet. does she think we will ever get to online voting? guest: i think there will be some kind of electronic voting, especially for military folks who are in harm's way who only have a laptop for security purposes and do not have electricity. there are two big problems with internet voting. if somebody had to into my bank accounts, i can take my bank statement and i can say, something happened between yesterday and today.

it was not me and it was in kansas and i was in new york. that kind of thing can be reconciled. there are laws in place to make us whole. banks will pay a point to lose money from online attack. it is the cost of doing business. the ability to reconcile the ballot -- your bank statement is there. we have a secret ballot that is important to protect us from tyranny, voter suppression, anyone looking over your shoulder trying to influence the way that you vote. we need the secret ballot in this country. if we have to vote online, we cannot verify that that balance is what was received on the at and and was tabulated correctly. host: does voter identification health fraud? guest: it is a different issue. voter id at the polls does not

help much because they have done a lot of studies. people do not do in person voter impersonation. it is very, very very rare that i will wake up on election day and decide i will pretend to be my neighbor and commit voter fraud. that will not swing an election. it is retail voter fraud. we focus on what we think is the real problem. which is, at the flick of a switch or software being program incorrectly, thousands of votes can be switched. if he did not have tax in place, you are in trouble. you will not catch those wholesale types of voter fraud. not even thought because that implies malfeasance.

we are talking about bugs in the software, programs put in incorrectly and things like that. host: mike murphy twwets in, all voting machines should have verifiable paper trails. let's make them tamperproof. from mississippi, peter on our republican line. caller: will you give me a few minutes to explain something about elections? all elections are stolen by the democratic party. secretaries of state are the most important persons in any election in any state. in minnesota in 2006, the secretary of state in minnesota stole that election. in the state of washington, in

kane county in seattle, greg oire, they stole the election of a democratic governor of that state. host: if you could conclude why you are saying this, we need to move on. caller: she is talking about elections. secretaries of state are important. host: we are going to have to leave it there. guest: one thing i agree with and one thing i disagree with. i agree with the critical role of secretary of state. he point out something that is concerning. that is an elective position and a party position. you have an uncomfortable situation where the person running the election is affiliated with a certain party. in most cases, they are just going to do their job.

they are sworn into office to protect the constitution of that state and they are going to do the best job that they can even if it means the other party wins under their watch. that means the election is run well. it is a difficult job with minimal resources and a lot of oversight is involved. the partisanship of the chief election officer in every state is concerning. i will disagree with the caller. on the franken race and the washington state race, there was a paper ballot for every single one of those votes cast. that was one of the most transparent recall processes. the secretary of state made that process transparent. he also said that win that race -- that race was so close. that is a nightmare for a chief

officer of the state. he went to democrats and said, help me. they all went to his aid. that is a community who knows how tough it is to win and the election. transparency in that process and paper ballots in that process will only help public confidence. host: a tweet, congress went as far as it could with the help america vote act. what was it and do you agree? guest: it was passed in 2002 in response to the disaster in florida, the bush-bore recounts an. -- bush-gore fiasco. i think congress did go ver far with that legislation.

-- very far with that election. -- that legislation. they should mandate on this and we can have voter confidence in the process. host: do you advocate a uniform system of voting as well? guest: i think that is less important. there is value in the states being able to innovate and create their own voting systems. there is competition. there is room for innovation. we have one system across the country and you deal with monopoly issues and servicing. i do not think the uniformity of the voting system is so important. there should be standards just like there are safety standards for automobiles. there should be security and auditability processes.

host: a tweet. i pray we do not have to go through another hanging chad blago. caller: -- chad debacle. caller: you mentioned the al franken vote. there was auditing on the election and that there were convictions. voter fraud is an issue and it is a concerning issues. guest: i did not mean to minimize the concerns of people voting should not be voting. i suppose in a close race, that

could be a problem. my expertise is voting systems. thousands of votes can be added with a single malfunction, thousands. unless we have good auditing and good balance reconciliation practices in place, you are not going to catch those. that is different band 1, 2, or three people came when there -- than one, too, or three people voting when their registration is taken away because they are a convicted felon. when people have served their time, their voting rights should be restored. host: new haven, connecticut. chris, a democrat.

caller: thank you for taking my call. i have seen that the elections from the past. the lbj-kennedy elections were really fraudulent. what really bothers me is that local officials seem to have control of most elections. here in connecticut, we have an ex-governor who is an ex-con and one mayor who is a kind. these people are corrupt and they run our elections -- one mayor who is a con. i was disappointed that you only listed three of the five worst offenders. have a great day. guest: connecticut, in general, i am aware of the situation there. we at common cause understand.

in the wake of those convictions that you are talking about, there was a sweeping campaign finance reform in the state. having good voting systems in place does not get rid of the corruption. there is a lot of money in politics these days, especially with the citizens united supreme court decision that lifted the ban o corporate giving. there is room for illegal corruption, bribery seems to have been made illegal. the fact is, connecticut, itself, in terms of the machinery of democracy, at least has paper ballots and has an audit in place that needs improvement. they have a pretty good ballot reconciliation process. that does not mean, caller, that you should lose 1 ounce of your busy lives. thank you for continuing to stay up at night -- lose 1 ounce of

your vigilence. host: a tweet says, i would rather get my finger painted purple. caller: i am concerned about -- i was born and raised in chicago. the dead do vote. they did for many, many years in chicago. my brother died. how can i be sure my brother will not voted this year? guest: the voting roles are public. you can scrutinize those roles -- rolls. those are public records. if your brother is still on the rolls, need to bring that to

someone's attention. host: a tweet, should have a voting system so that people can verify who they voted 4. another tweet. in austria it, you are penalized for not voting. in the u.s., you are suppressed from voting. guest: voter suppression has always been a problem in this country. there are a number of laws that have been put in place that makes it much more difficult. they have cut back early voting hours in ohio and many other places. emergency room doctors and police and people who have long shifts that really need early voting are going to be challenged. they put in these boulter -

voter -- voter id laws that make people have to go down to the dmv to get a specific kind of identification. those are in place to deter voters and it is concerned. i love this country very much. i really hope we can change our processes of inclusion. we need to reduce barriers to attain, not increase them. host: do you agree with mandatory voting? guest: i have not thought about that a lot. i generally do not agree with mandatory voting. if you are a person who is so distraught with the options you have, if you do not want to vote, that should be your right. i do not encourage that. i encourage voting.

i do not believe the free exercise of something -- speech, association, voting -- should be mandatory. host: we have been talking to suzanna goodman from common cause. if people want to read your report, where can they go? guest: you can find it on commoncause.org. i would like to thank my colleagues who contributed to this report. host: thank you for being done "washington journal -- being on "washington journal." thanks to all of the callers who called in today. our coverage of the two conventions began on monday, all

day, gavel-to-gavel. tomorrow, we will kick off talking about politics and money. we will talk about finding political conventions. after that, the well-known president of citizens united will be here to talk about money. and from 9-10, we will be talking about unregulated money in this year's election. that is tomorrow's washington journal. all about money and campaign 2012. c-span.org, our convention hub is the place to go for all continues. anything you want to see, go to c-span.org. if you just cannot stand this convention stuff,