would let the system to be under the control of the campaigns, and the political parties -- jill alluded to that -- he has publicly said that it would be better if they control the message. if the campaigns could control the message and take credit for it. when you have things like the president of the united states at a press conference having to answer for your ads, that is a unique circumstance. .

if you want more then that money, i made that up, participating. participating is not counter to what we're trying to achieve. >> we decided very early on we have a specific goal to fill in the blank. >> i am trying to address negative advertising. >> if we take that our role is to help answer questions, who is mitt romney? that leaves the president and mitt romney to tell their own stories. i think role of an outside group is not necessarily to take on

what the candidates themselves really would have to do. i think role is to engage in the election in a way that offers new information and helps voters understand the biography of those that are running. >> does that worry you with participation? >> it is very hard to prove a correlation between negative advertising and turnout. here is the secret of negative advertising. everyone condemns it, and people love it. and they consume it and did not reject it. it is like extramarital affairs. everyone condemns it, but a lot going on. >> on only you would say that purita. [laughter] >> i do not work for a campaign, so i can say whatever i want. the new campaign argument is i am right, you are evil. people go very quickly to the character attacks.

the result is after you win, what you have? i am not one of these people that is affected by negative advertising. independent campaigns, you love it because of a big cannon on your side. you were held accountable for it. that is a huge headache. the last thing i would say is i have to respond to buibill. look at the history. and we did not hear anything about fund-raising. this year was the reaction of they have unlimited money, we cannot let that happen. on citizens more money came in. here we are.

now we're hearing from the democrats. you guys will be able to because the money out of sheldon. it will spend the same amount. that was the only failure, we've opened up the gates. neither campaign is incentivize to spend less. and take ou>> there is a consene is no monopoly on political piety. charlie, your description of my column is absolutely right. i said everything and plead guilty. i think she was much more measured. pick up on some of these points. >> i think something we are ignoring it and talking about the super packs -- in talkign about themh about the super pace

are people that work directly for mitt romney or barack obama. all of these people are in the same sphere so the idea that they really are independent of one another icing is questionable. "the times" ran a great story about one expressed -- one address from alexandria -- alexander hamilton were they all have their own building. i think you can that oversee the danger. i do not think someone like bill burton is a completely trusted person by the about a campaign or white house political

machine. >> we agree it is not crushed a bowl. there are rules that exist and you follow the rules. i know there are insinuations to make a joke about it, but the truth is there are regulations in place. even that address your talking about in alexandria, that is a reflection of independent groups who are allowed to court and it with one another. >> you are right. this independence is really a fiction. >> that is not fair to say it is a fiction. you are exactly right. [laughter] >> they agreed. look out. they are both about to be fired. it would be very strange people

running organizations who did not have some sort of former relationship with those candidates and have credibility to go out and raise money and advocate for them of course we do. but that in no way means we aren't legally coordinating -- i do not think you said anybody was breaking the law, but you did call for a third to say it is a fiction. i do not think it is a fiction. -- but you did go father to say it is a fiction. you have rick tyler, newt gingrich spokesperson. they spend millions of dollars on advertisements attacking bain capital and iran these business expensexperience, and a lot of e

would say it is harmful to the campaign. i do not think speaker gingrich would take credit for those. >> your campaigns on freddie mac and fannie mae were affected. >> i agree -- [laughter] but that does not go to the point of whether i would have done them differently. >> i do not know that it would it discouraged it. >> they comply, but you will see some of the things -- you will see the same steelworker telling the same story in not obama campaign ad. i am not alleging they blow the compliance rules, but these are not unsophisticated people. they at least know how to join

in the chorus and hit the same notes without sharing in the sheet music. i do not think anyone is breaking the law, but it is a bandit sfit to see to say they t connected. -- fantasy to say they are not connected. i think they are legally separate and comply. >> there is enougfair enough. the idea of having someone as a campaign spokesperson who was on an obama campaign conference call and fully integrated with the obama campaign, at least talking and getting his message, then doing advertisements that are allegedly independent for the super pak is not something i

legally would have signed off on if it were on our side. >> might as well talk about it. with that, we determined very early on that we knew we would have less money than charlie and his friends. it turned out it was true. we knew we had to be efficient and how we spend our money. we decided to focus on mitt romney. we knew if he was quick to make his business experience central, we knew that is what we are want to talk about. we would go around and talk to people about what this meant for their lives. in the case of joe, he told his story. he told his story and a lot of different places. fairly easy to find these people. and >> but you only found one. >> a lot of the stories are sad and uncomfortable.

>> you talk to joe, and you know his story is true. we do not think this story should be off-limits just because there's that or uncomfortable. these are folks that understand what mitt romney's business experience meant in their lives. it has been a liability for him, and not an asset. it is in large part because of advertising that has shown the real impact of mitt romney's decision in business. >> how did you do it? did you shoot him same day, different cameras? i just want to learn the tricks. >> was separate times. it was filmed months ago. the messages are very different. >> which one was don' first firt

? >> it costs $8,500 to produce. >> win/win on that. >> we are having the conversation we want to have, which is his business experience an asset or liability? >> this is off the mark, but i think if anyone is here long as i am, i think lyndon johnson's famous daisy commercial -- did it ever run? it ran once. >> can i just comment that it does go to the point of independence. you may have met your strategic

objective, but it was widely described as outrageous, a new low. it got to the point where president obama had to answer for it and was asked questions about it. >> it is a conversation in a lot of different places. >> let me ask another question, and that is, in 1980 when ronald reagan was elected president, he ran on a very conservative platform, and he basically enacted or try to attack the entire platform. reagan as a kid it was almost the same as reagan as the president. -- reagan is a candidate the same as a president. does that at least a something about public confidence and the lack of the old system produced

less cynicism, whatever the flaws? >> it is a strong hypothetical. >> note, it is not. reag a lot of class warfare. to the>> i do not know who is te particular fat cat. >> this is not republican- centric. the hypothetical. if the justice department decides to drop the investigation of sheldon adelson, there will be all whole lot of stories if obama gets election and sides with the hollywood types. the same thing.

>> unions are the largest donors to build a super -- build a super pak, to my knowledge. they are going to -- and this discussion they announced earlier this year they would spend ordered it to million dollars on the elections. the wall street journal has estimated it will be a lot more than that. and when you have the president out stating that the private sector is doing fine, what we need to do is help the public sector, and it is public-sector unions that are arguably funded the campaign, i think that should be a part of the discussion also. >> i think the point is if there were different systems, there would be fewer questions. when sheldon adelson

investigation gets dropped, of course people well recommend that. there are such large contributions on both sides. this will get funneled into the large contribution fund. there is also a medium presumptions that -- >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> it is seen as contribution must be divided something. that is until proven wrong. often the contributions are about i do not like the other guy, i hope he loses. like the president, he wanted to lose. i do not think you want a casino in the mall of washington, dc. >> we do not know is the main thing.

i can't the system we are not talking about the law, i thought it was interesting that mitt romney said earlier today on fox news that if he ran for reelection, he would abide by the public funds for his campaign. in some ways i am tempted to ask bill whether he feels president obama opened the door to what we of this time, because it was obama's decision and a very different kind of campaign where money was literally raining down on you, mainly from t. he public system. >> after earlier saying he would abide by it.

>> mayor ron these campaign, was hilarious. -- mitt romney's campaign was hilarious. >> on president obama, the president did say there should not be super packs and independent organizations that support him. it is not because this is a new thought on campaign finance. at the same time, the president does not think republicans should play by one set of rules well he plays by another. >> that is not responsive to jill's question. >> in 2008, it was a very different time. the president did raise a lot of money, mostly from small donors. i did not think there is a direct analogy. >> he was the fresh general election candidate to say it --

it was the democrats who for started finding loopholes, and there are always loopholes, but barack obama was first to say i will not play by those rules. to g>> he was also the kennett o say the system should be in fundamentally reformed. >> i will not gain of any more. -- gang up any more. >> you are right to cite the loophole in the beginning, but the next campaign cycle you had george bush but senior to team 100, which was the loophole that came before.

that was the europe soft money, which in some ways is what we're talking about in this election cycle is just a different version of the same thing. money is the mother's milk of politics. big money always find a way. it is courted ofs cordoned off. big bunny finds a way. -- big money finds a way. >> one of the nifty loopholes that we do not have transparency for is what union spend on their own membership. very much unexposed. it is hard to get those numbers. one of my unions constantly e- mails me telling me to give

money to this or that to help save our industry by giving more money to nancy pelosi or something. the cost of those solicitations are not paid for by the people who are organizing reminding me to vote, they are paid out of my union dues. i would like to know what it is. show me the budget. that spending is totally off the books. >> overall it is mitch mcconnell talking. >> i think he is wrong and i am right. >> also, on the republican side, disclose contributions that are going to the 501c4's. the issues side -- >> public welfare. karl rove and public welfare.

>> the texting group. absolutely. to g>> if you could quickly idey yourself, that would be great. to have a question? -- who has a question. >> [inaudible] i am the republican national committeewoman. that is ok. i would like you to answer what president obama would do to reform this. we have this all the time, and we do not give details on wh he would do. >> go to the white house website, and you will see it. in the democratic member, you will see it. it is called the disclosed act. it would limit large contributions and have transparency for everything. the president has said there should be a constitutional amendment.

very specific performance the president wants. mitch mcconnell is blocking those in the senate right now. >> anyone else want to pick up on that? who else has a question? we will bring the microphone around. this is not a shy group. >> [inaudible] ron ball, ky. i am a guest. my question has to do with the advertisement that was discussed several minutes ago, the one that was called disgraceful and a lot of people objected to. i want to have closure on that. i would like to know whether it did try to find people that had good experience or does look for people who had bad experiences. i would like to get the logistics of how those decisions

were made to run that. >> what we did is we talk to a lot of folks. we talked to 18, but the number was larger. people just told their story. we talk to them about telling their story with a larger audience, and they were happy to do it. i want to tell you something about the advertisement being disgraceful. i know the theatrics people fell into talking about it. in all of the facts in the advertisement are true. if you look at the context of where we are right now, mitt romney has an advertisement is personally approve that is on the air that every single fact

checker has said is a lot about welfare reform. charlie's group ran an advertisement in the primaries talking about that one child policy in china, basically implying he supported forced abortion. that is obviously not true. back in 2008 people think sarahr a family when a family member gets diagnosed with a terminal illness, he did not have health care that was promising. we're choosing a president of the united states of america and having a hip -- having a sense

of whose side he is on is important. >> the only person here who was a grandson and a son-in-law of the united states, david eisenhower. >> i think we are equating advantage with more expenditures. to what degree do more expenditures afford an advantage in your experience? is there a lot diminishing returns, and at what level? >> how high can this go? i am impressed by the arguments that national campaigns for the amount of news they deliver are really inexpensive. where is the fair market value for campaign expenditures, and what advantage is someone who is outstanding have over others? >> that is a very good question. first of all, the one footnote to the numbers i gave earlier is

most of the campaign advertisement is focused on nine or 10 states. that is not unimportant thing. that is why people in northern virginia or columbus, ohio, are the where-. -- are dilutiged. inside campaign, campaign consultants know that spending most of the time, if everything else is working, can have an aggregate effect to be very helpful, particularly against other resources, which is time. it is very good to pound it all summer long when they may not have as much general election money.

it is not the key, but one of the tools. there is a place where you will start wasting money, but campaigns would always rather have the extra 500 media time and extra media market or expand a map of the electoral college. the final incentive is commercial. statewide races, sometimes consultants are very incentivize to keep this been going. >> one of the great political of borders of all time, right here. jeff greenfield. [laughter] >> call me. i have the script. i would like to know whether you'd think there's a distinction about how much money is spent and how much is raised. is there a distinction between $100 million that comes from 1 million people giving $100 and 100 people each giving 1 million? if so, given the supreme court current money of speech

velocipede, how in heaven's name do you change that? should there be a distinction legally between how that money is accumulated? >>bill, left or right. >> well, maybe i am not answering your question right, but when people give contributions to priorities, we are very clear about we will make decisions. >> is there a difference between 1 million people giving $100.100 people giving $1 million? you end up with the same money. to go probably -- >> the concern would be the appearance of influence based on the largeness of the donations. >> from a mechanic standpoint you do not end up with the same money.

1 million people giving $1 as a much higher fund-raising costs. >> that is a technicality. >> [inaudible] >> you could argue that both ways. and let's play at your example of the sheldon and nelssheldon . she was totally innocent, you could argue the obama campaign was paying him. you could argue that both ways. it goes to my earlier reagan example, if it were 1 million people giving $100, no matter what the justice department did, you would not say it is a political fix.

>> i do not assume every contribution is a political fix. most of the donors i know, it is not a political fix. they didn't want ideology but not things. -- they want ideology, but not things. is there a moral standing difference between bid the million people giving $1.10 person giving it to million dollars? there is. we have to change the laws to do it? money is speech. i believe that. billionaires' get to do a lot of things. >> if money is speech, my $50,000 offer to a congressman, affected speech? >> that is the belief congressmen are all for sale. it is bribery. it is a crime. i get $50,000 and it is not a crime?

>> what if you offered to write an op-ed on his pet issue and use your mouse at megaphone as a newspaper -- massive megaphone of a newspaper to support him also? to go this is why i think the money is speech statement is so simplistic. in the ultimate extension of money is speech is the same thing here. but my way. i will spend $50,000 on your campaign or by you a house. -- vote my way. >> i have been in a million fund-raisers. i have watched the checks go across the table. in the republican world, nine out of 10 times, in federal offices, if some guy build a

plastic bottle factory cries a little and as free enterprise -- and saves free enterprise -- >> what jeff is talking about is the one out of 10. >> bribery is illegal. it is an uncomfortable subject, but throw this back on the media. sit down and discuss your issues in the return for favorable op- ed in news coverage in the paper. is that bribery? >> first of all, when they meet with the editorial board, the news side is not there. it is nothing to do with favorable news coverage. i do not buy their is a difference between very big donors to give for ideological

reasons and do not big interest reasons. i think in almost every case there's a confluence of those things and the kochs are a great example. they have a defined set of beliefs and also had regulatory issues. and issues related to the energy issues that are at the center of why the industry's became so big. i do not think it is one or the other. >> i thought you were going to use the example of solyndra on the energy issue. >> there is a front-page story about exxon. in in 2008 they gave president obama very generous contributions. the article did not go -- we did

not know of any specific government action that had been a gift, but we did find out that the representative had an unusual number of meetings with people high up in the administration, and many times that is what money buys. money buys being heard. >> i think excess is good. make your pitch. >> tubing the persons access should be different if they have money than the person who does not? to gum i represent comings diesel company and jill is representing the editor of the new york times, more access, more influence. to >> more questions in the audience. the microphone right back there.

>> i would like to ask charlie in bill to go further on the question of where you hit the point of diminishing returns were backlash on negative advertising. charlie you pointed out there are people in the newt gingrich campaign that think rick tyler advertisements on bain were counterproductive firm mitt romney. >> you guys very relentlessly measure the impact of the results of what you do. where do you bring the boundaries are? have you found the boundaries yet? have you seen anything in the general campaign that you have data suggesting has been counterproductive? >> i am guessing we will have similar answers and that we're both doing our best to

independently attempts to help the canada we are supporting -- candidate we are supporting. it is hard to judge what was affected and what was not. we can go back and forth over the suspect advertisement. this may not be helpful, but i do not know how to in real time answer whether it is helpful or not. >> one quick thing on the newt gingrich advertisements. the problem with that is he lied. people forget where those advertisements ran, he won. he won south carolina pretty definitively. they ended up getting smoked in florida, partly because they had so much money. one point of diminishing

returns, the republicans have so much money on the independent group side. obviously you would rather have more money, but there are all these different messages. i think all voters are getting -- if you are in toledo or richmond, a tax on it from matt. the romney campaign is doing the welfare reform. there toriesh cash behind them that it is hurting the story of who may run the is and the stories of to president obama is. every single one of our advertisements has been about the impact mitt romney would have on the middle-class that,

combined with what is happening on the democratic side, is why mitt romney has such a disadvantage. >> bill's message in charlotte next week is to not give us any money. we will pass that on. >> i like the example you presented is for the past six weeks you have had $150 million of-attack advertisements run by the obama campaign. -- of negative attack advertisements run by the obama campaign. now, the example bill gave, groups on the right have been able to respond and protect it from me to do not have as much primary election money left. -- and protect mitt romney who did not have as much primary

election money left. >> it is hard work. >> will we not see a torrent of negative advertisements for president obama? >> we alredady are. >> if this were john mccain, there would be no ability to respond. you would just have 10-1- advertisement coming from president obama. this time you have groups on the right that were able to come in and pushed a counter message. it is still balance out. >> addressing your question, which there is still over killed. and when you are running a campaign and go too far, you run the hat that kills you. you run a super pak, it makes a big mistake. that is why there are not gop's behind it.

then you can say that was bill burton and we barely know the guy. bill can say on to the next topic. the incentive to slow down the advertisements from going really far are not the same as the campaign. >> a except for the fact that it running as an advertisement right now that he is personally approved for welfare reform. the money how many newspapers or tv reporters report on it or talk about it, it is still on the air. >> what i think is the broader point, i went out to do -- i went up to do an article in 2007 and they had more money by tenfold >> how much of that was from the state? >> very little.

>> 1 campaign adviser said sit in your hotel room from 7:00- eleven o'clock. you would have 47 different advertisements and an hour. outside groups were coming in. at which point you thought it is like underlying every page in the book. i am wondering if come october that both of you may have -- they may have more money, but both of you have lots of money. i am wondering if it will have far less impact it is commonly supposed? >> i do not think anyone will know the answer until election day. >> i do think what matters is to lay out their vision. there is a window for compelling positive messages. >> when is that? >> i am hoping for mitt romney's

if speech. and when in doubt, follow the money to the station to the rating points. that is the story their money is telling. a question for the mitt romney campaign, can they break through to tilt the election forward? mitt romney has to go from third to first. >> i have to call on my editor for life, norman pearlstine. >> this is allegedly a conversation about politics and the media. it may be unclear how much candidates benefit, but pretty clear the immediate benefits the lot. while many of us may be grateful for the advertisements, i am curious whether the amount of advertising and media in any way affects either the coverage or editorial positions of the places where your advertising? >> great question.

still trying to decide -- [laughter] just kidding you. i bet there is some place in america, a small-town newspaper barely hanging on, with an editor it was also a publisher that it helps. no one will limit it, but in the media, i think if procter and gamble, the largest advertiser in america, would call the tv network and say why is your tv news really beating up on us, i am not sure it would happen, but it would be a great conversation. i do not think it is systemic at all. >> i have been told by three or

four bullet tore candidates over the past four or five cycles that are stations that do not cover them when they do not take any advertising. i have been told that by three or four from each party. i do not think that is far fetched in this day and age. >> local news because they have debt payments and all the modern problem, they shrink the band with. if you're in a big market, consultants will say we of the candidate with a 3.0 economic plan, or the hamster and water skiing, they will go for the hamster plan. the new space is not used to be. >> you may find a hamster that was laid off by bain capital. >> because we're talking about

the interchange between new media and old advertisements, i was wondering if you could talk about the interplay between the advertisements you put on the air, and what you hope the free media does in terms of how it plays the advertisements, talks about them, and rebroadcasts. >> i think that experience political reporters have caught on to the game that earned it media, so releasing the advertisements for renting them out in one state, you will get a lot less coverage and not treated as seriously as of massive by behind it or treating it as a serious strategy. you can get away with it once, but i do not think most reporters get away with its most of the time. >> the media is a sucker for

prospects. i had a bet with a democratic consultant friend of mine that every year the media has a different magic group. soccer that spirited reinvented one called upwardly mobile latinos. we spread it around. we of the secret lab on the latino votes. whoever gets in the new york times first, would win dinner. there is always a need for a hook for some new gadget like that. whenever you do an advertising campaign, you try to target your bigger message through that. the media loves post-modern deconstruction and the story behind it. >> is that us? >> i think that is a cynically

portrait of the media. i do not want to sense it beautiful foresight the founders of the importance of free press, but really why we cover advertising and negative advertising in the money behind it is to study what affect it has on people and what voters think about them and how they're influenced by them and the times still sends many political reporters to talk to them and find this out. it is not just that we covered manipulation as some sort of game that is entertaining to cover. to good you cover manipulation because you think it is the story. we do this to cover it so you will cover the larger story. you want the sophistication. >> i think we want to know

something like bain and what the facts were in what the deals were. who benefited and who did not, and to try to give a balanced and fair view of that, not to do what advertisements do and by the most extreme case, but to really try to bring the facts to people. the important part of his record will be talking about this at the convention, and the role of the press is to look beneath the rhetoric and beneath the cynical advertisements and try to eliminate -- eliminate the issues of the campaign and help boaters reached the important decision. >> one of the things we do is study the youth vote. today we heard is young voters get their information from a different source. i am wondering about the tv advertisements. the famous advertisement did not

go up on tv, but a lot of you tube views. how does this work reaching out to younger voters who are not watching local news or tv for that matter anyway? to go i think these questions are related. -- >> i think these questions are related. the traditional tv advertisement still commands the most about attention. for a lot of voters, especially 18-29, they're not getting any information from tv. if they are watching tv, they're asking the same advertisements. figuring out ways to create content compelling enough for them to not to seek out but also to pass around is important. media coverage is important. if they can start a conversation, or people will get their eyeballs of that

advertisement. one advertisement is a stage. that did not go up on tv for three weeks. by the time we put it up, it has gone to million views. that is not just because without the media manipulated into covering it. it was because the advertisement itself was compelling. the media was covering it because it is an important part of you he is and his story. it gets a lot of attention, because if you do not go to the places where people are getting information, you will not be able to get the voters with you. one thing i learned this year is the americans as a whole watch tv live about 67% of the time. in the hispanic committee it is 93% of the time. -- in the hispanic community, it

is 93% of the time. >> charlie, would you like to pick up on his comment? >> back to the post-modern messages. you have to watch out for the youtube views trick. what we like about broadcast television, it is forced. it is there and watch it. in the younker demographics, you're right, they are all there. when you see 1 million watches, that is a choice to go watch it. -- in the younger demographics, but you are right, they are all there. but, can be very exaggerated, and they're very hard to get. >> one more question for mike

riley. >> certainly we all believe there is no coordination between you guys in the campaign, certainly. let me ask, what is the effect of the money we're spending on the air to the decision making inside the campaign on what they are spending money on? in other words, how many dollars are you freeing up for them to do things other than commercials? >> we spent $20 million specifically focused on mitt romney's business experience. for six weeks we are the only entity focusing on it. >> do you think that affects obama's decision? >> my point is the campaign does not have to do that thing work so it is money they're saving. >> i think it is case by case. during that same time, the obama campaign spent $150 million for a similar message.

i do not know that it affected their spending at all. i think when you have disparity because of primary election money in general, we -- i would certainly hope our being on the air provided some air coverage for the mayor ron the campaign that they did not necessarily have the resources for. i do not know that they thought it was affected. >> if the premise of your question is totally correct. without coordinating, the campaign spent a tremendous amount of energy and effort having very detailed information about who is by what media and where. >> we agree to wrap this up, but i want to ask the three of you one question. -- we are going to wrap this up. >> what commercial or

advertisement of the other side to say i wish i could've done something like that? >> statewide race? >> i was doing flay gordon's comeback race. nobody remembered much about senator gordon. the capitalized the essential thing people knew that they did not like this guy. then they busted all holder of a negative attack point. we beat him and eventually, but i thought it was extremely effective advertisements. >> president obama was running a positive campaign on open change and there were very uplifting advertisements about the change, and positive vision for the future. i personally like those. >> well , i think charlie's

advertisements on the olympics was pretty good. i think they had a real challenge intel in mitt romney story in a way of not using footage. that is probably where they spend money that the campaign did not have. >> i could not possibly summarize all of this, but i feel so much of this discussion has focused on money and advertising as accumulation of clinical stratagems, and what i think is important about both of them is, november, what has the tone of the campaign bay? what has the effect been on the electorate? -- what as the tone of the campaign been? this could be a lower turnout

than four years ago. we do not know. i guess it is just distrust of me as he as all of this seen asa game. the fact is that this is more money than we have seen in a long time filtering through our system. what ultimate effect is on the way voters viewed the leadership of this country is really important. it is overlooked, and covering it as game change. >> that is a terrific story. i want to thank all of you. [applause] two quick things. i want to invite everyone to

stay for a reception now, which we will have at our posh but not overly ostentatious place here. and to tell you in the next couple of days, and particularly, if you need a place to come and get out from the cold and rain -- >> they have food. >> we will buy you back here. we will do other forums. you are all welcome whenever you come. please stop back. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> all this week, gavel-to-gavel coverage of the republican convention. next week, democrats meet. every minute, every speech live here on c-span. coming up today, "washington

journal." live coverage of the republican convention. first, the afternoon session with the roll call of the states and adoption of the party platform. later, the evening session with speeches by mitt romney and chris christie. >> all week c-span will bring you live guest from political breakfast. replied at around 8:00 eastern. we will bring you the national journal daily briefing in conversation with republican pollsters. "washington journal: begins at 7:00 eastern. and-- washington journal" begins at 7:00 eastern. after national journal's daily briefing, we will talk to dennis backswin