that in this society where people have to show identification to board an airplane, they should have to show identification in order to vote. it just makes common sense. they compare voter rolls to citizenship information. they deserve an administration that will not use the power of the justice department and department of homeland security to enhance chances for those who cannot legally cast a vote. thank you. >> professor johnson was introduced by senator testor, and he draft a brief -- he drafted a brief.

in a little state like mine, where unbridled corporate spending could overwhelm either a republican or democratic party in a state of 600,000 people, the professor at the universal -- university of montana school of law. please go ahead, sir. >> thank you. i was honored to serve the people of montana as the state solicitor, and i developed a deep respect for our democratic process. my final case for the state was a corrupt practices act. at the turn of the last century, the are of corruption in montana was so thick that it

extended to this body, and a committee expressed horror at the amount of money that had been put into politics in montana. montana recognized this corruption for what it was. democrats and republicans alike, including a republican newspaper editor, and that it be corrupt practices act of 1912. for one century, that required individuals to stand behind campaign money spent on behalf of their corporate interests. opinion so doubted the willingness to consider montana's willingness of corruption that they voted to deny review rather than participate in the extraordinary summary reversal of a century of law. what does montana's experience

tell us about this court? i would like to contrast that weapon -- contrast it with the crawford case. but citizens united and crawford involved the right to speak and the right to vote. supporters of campaign regulations defend it as preventing political corruption. supporters of voter identification defend it as providing -- preventing voter fraud. need a correction or fraud can lead to a solution, says states have developed different answers. to some states, the loss preserve the integrity of the democratic process with a simple filing of a two-page form. these laws preserve the integrity of the democratic process.

reasonable people can and do disagree about the odd in electoral politics and the remedies, if any. what should a court do when confronted with a challenge? in crawford, the court deferred to a legislative process in upholding the voter identification all. in citizens united, the court suspected congress in striking down the corporate campaign expenditure laws. as the court has done traditionally, it could decide whether to defer to legislative judgments depending on how well the put process seems to be working, how partisan the law seems to be. in these cases the court is applying a different double standard. in these cases the court the most direct of the to the relatively under representated individuals subject to the voter

i.d. law, while promoting the right to speak of the corporations subject the campaign finance law. the court costs decision whether to purchase these lots with efforts or suspicion is what matters most in the outcomes of these cases, not the legislative purpose, madeleine the constitution's text. the extent we can call this court one of its distinguishing characteristics is this double standard. mike mansfield was a professor of the university of montana. the act passed overwhelmingly. the historic accomplishment of the voting rights act are undeniable. the fact it was an act of conference and not a judgment of the supreme court facilitated these accomplishments. a per root legislation

strengthens rights -- legislation st strengthens these rights and their lives of the deceit. in light of the discussion, the issue is not whether these questions should be resolved, but where and on what basis. if the court invalidate the act, which should expect it to explain what the court has a better understanding of our constitutionally guaranteed voting rights than congress, which must directly speaks for we the people. the key for the opportunity to discuss these in questions, and i look forward to answering questions you may have. >> thank you very much. next, mr. michael carvin. [indiscernbile] 1 of the lead lawyers involved in the fight of the presidential election in 2000.

welcome, glad to have you here. please go ahead. >> this has provoked a lot of rhetorical excess and criticism, which i find quite puzzling because all citizens united it was reaffirmed the most basic first amendment principle, that congress cannot pass laws that ban political speech. this is the core of the first amendment. a ban on spending money to speak is the different than a straightforward ban on speech. you have to either rent or buy or build the broadcast facilities to facilitate your voice into the political process. . "the washington post" -- argument reduces to the strange

point that somehow there is a secret extension in the first amendment which against corporate speech and allows congress to do whatever it wants with respect to corporations. course, that is not consistent with the text of the constitution, which says congress cannot make any law abridging speech. it does not conform with reality, because the reality is the corporations that were predominantly silenced or the naacp, the aclu, and our right, citizens united, to come together to advocate of public policy in election issues. no one thinks they lost their first amendment rights because they join together to collectively enhance their speech. that does not make any sense. nor does anybody believe that for-profit corporations did not have first amendment rights. no one thinks you could pass a law prohibiting msnbc from

endorsing barack obama, even though its use to be owned by general electric and is still a corporation. everyone thinks corporations have free-speech and free press rights, so they need to explain why in this unique context they become the red-headed stepped-up of the constitution that is unable to speak. the insert wie here is they just got too much money. if they have too much money a are engaging in too much speech. as senator grassley indicated, the court said in buckley that the stomach any sense. you do not enhance free-speech by suppressing speech of certain people because you want to limit voices because the government has taken the notion that the policy is just too stupid or uninformed. they will get confused if you give them too much information. bill gates has the right to speak as much as he wants with

his vast wealth, and there's no reason that microsoft can be subjected to the same notion that you are just going to be too influential. my final point is this notion that corporations have drowned out corporate speech is completely unsubstantiated rhetorical nonsense. let's look at the real elections. running adsy see gm votin to vote for this cut or this guy? for-profit corporations are barely involved in the electoral process and are not grounded -- drowning anybody else. montana is being held up to us as a shameful place where you can buy votes, but the attorney general has done quite well in his election campaign for governor, and the people have tot drowned out his ability communicate his message. this makes no sense as evidence

of fact. turning to section 5, the basic point is congress can only enforce the 14th and 15th amendments. it has broad discretion to do that. for example, section 2 of the voting rights act is constitutional even though it goes beyond restrictions on purposeful discrimination, to reach an intentional discrimination with a discriminatory result. the reason section 5 is unconstitutional because there is no role it plays. section 2 is an effective means of eliminating these kinds of discriminatory measures without resort to the extraordinary procedures of section 5. there's no evidence that the covered jurisdictions are any worse shape than the non-covered jurisdictions. it was shameful of congress in 2006 to engaged in willful blindness. the congress said did not confuse us with a lot of facts.

we did not want to readjust our formula. we want to use the results from the 1960's to determine who is covered. that would have been as if the congress in 1965 it would have looked at president coolidge. >> we should give you the award of the highest level of sarcasm we have heard in this committee in a long time. [laughter] she is a leading voice in the fight to protect all america ns' rights to vote. >> thank you. today an assault on voters is sweeping across the country. state-by-state, this is one of the greatest self-inflicted threats to our democracy in our ifetimes root these llaws trend this silenced the voices,

the young, disabled, and veterans. since 2011 we have seen a huge increase in the number of new voter suppression lost connected at the state level. nine states have pass voter i.d. laws. four states have made it more difficult for groups like the league of women voters to register voters. five states have eliminated or short periods of early voting. what is disappointing is that politicians too often are imposing these restrictions on voting rights in order to manipulate the electorate for their own political gain. this is wrong and that real threat to the integrity of our elections. the accelerating threat to the exercise of a citizen's right to vote go against fundamental american values because so much of american history is the story of voting rights. where once only white male party owners can vote, now every american citizen over the age

of 18 has the right to vote. the right to vote is inscribed in our dna as americans and included to route the constitution which was established by we the people. mr. chairman, it would be difficult to exaggerate the importance of the judiciary and protecting our voting rights. but federal courts and state courts have invalidated voter suppression laws, and justice has applied the voting r ights acts. of the most widespread challenges we face is the position of richard tic requirements on eligible voters. proponents of the requirements say are needed to protect the integrity of elections, that if even one ineligible per cent of votes is a trait. there is little evidence of voter in person -- voter impersonation fraud. the greater threat is that restrictions block eligible

voters from voting. one example comes from tennessee where a person at voted and worked on campaigns for 70 years, but when she went to the tennessee department of voter -- motor vehicles, she saw a line of 100 people before her current she was unable to wait without sitting down and she departed without getting her photo id. when in general cannot elderly women in particular, are being harmed by the smase laws. they're required to obtain birth certificates in order to prove who they are. the catch-22, you need a photo i.d. in some states to get the purchase of the debt and a birth certificate to get photo id. in most cases, there are costs and delays involved with getting this evidence, especially if you are not living in the state where you were born or mary. our veterans have not escaped

from these requirements. in ohio, a retired or war ii veteran has lived in the same ohio town for four decades, but was denied a chance to vote because his newly issued photo id from the department of veterans affairs did not contain an address. in addition we are seeing an assault on independent voter registration drives. last year the florida legislature pass a law that imposed $1,000 fine on volunteers who failed to return completed registration forms to a supervisor within 48 hours the leak, and it would ask our volunteers to take this risk, discontinued a registration drive, and we sued pitt we know that organization is like a leak are critical to ensuring not only that every voter has a chance to register and vote, but a minority voter has access to registration. census data shows a 15% of african-americans and hispanics

have registered to vote as a result of the strike. the florida suit as it resulted in overturning the murder -- the law. are back to registering voters for the restrictions were in place for 11 months and so many eligible voters did not have an opportunity to register to vote. i have mentioned early voting, which has been cut back in many states. the legal purging of voters rolls have resulted in in the eligible voters being knocked off the rolls, including a 91- year-old world war ii to veteran or had to prove his citizenship in florida. he was born in brooklyn. , i thank you for allowing us to take this time give our evidence from the ground, and also ask

this committee and congress to support and encourage the justice department in enforcing our border protection laws, especially the voting right ac t. >> thank you. professor johnstone, at the time of the decision, 24 states had laws restrained corporate spending on elections. in the last term the court struck down montana's law in corporate spending on elections. this happened without even a hearing. you submitted a brief on behalf of 26 states. [indiscernbile] let me ask you, coming from a

small state, i am wondering in your experience with montana, also including a small state like vermont, do you believe that limitations on corporate spending in elections provide a protection against corruption that corporations will have much influence over our elections after citizens united? >> chairman, i defer to the judgment of the montana people, who called this restriction on corporate spending a corrupt practices act. they knew what they were talking about. now, in a record we develop, the record that the supreme court never looked at in our case, we had a bipartisan secretaries of state and legislators talking about exactly the problem in montana of large out-of-state

corporations mainly -- a problem he century ago, the problem to date -- overwhelming the people of montana in their discussion about campaign issues. it does corrupt. the people of montana so at corrupt. we will have to see what happens this year, the first in a century, where we do not have a statute in the law, but we have seen the effects of outside corporate spending in our state. >> you testified about a new double standard and how the court treats individual rights devoted versus a corporation's to speak in citizens united. is that a double standard as you see it? does it say about the direction of the court costs approach in laws affecting our democratic process? >> in the past the court's

greatest moments are when it stands for a groups of people when they did not have a voice in the political process. these decisions that history backwards by stepping out for well-represented organizations. that is the double standard that is such a departure from what we understand the court to do, to give a voice for those who did not have voices. no one is denying that corporations have a large voice in both american and in montana politics under the corrupt practices act. >> now, what i find interesting, your state, mine, a lot of others, and we have had a lot of hearings on these matters. we have had hundreds of hours' of hearings, both republican and democratic chairs in the house and senate, but to strike down

montana's hundred-year-old law without a hearing, and without any consideration of what these legislatures and congress -- that strike you as odd? >> chairman leahy, is an extraordinary exercise of the judicial power. some commentators have said you have to go back to 1968 to find a time where the court had summarily struck down a state law on such thin reasoning, just the aircraft. i believe strongly in the states and i believe the states deserve equal respect before the court, and i am afraid the states here, including 22 other states, that pleaded for a hearing, did not get that respect in this case. >> interesting, a person in my and state who is a very conservative republican, other comment to me was that was pretty arrogant. ms. macnamara, talk about a 91-

year-old women who for seven years could not get a florida id law. in our state, we do not require a photograph on your driver's license appeared either one of them would have had a photo id -- [indiscernbile] that me in your view -- just ask you a philosophical question and you can answer or not as you see fit. the these kinds of things, do you think, affect the confidence of americans in our democratic process? >> senator, anything that affects or impacts participation undermines the confidence of voters in the and the and these smlaws

risk and are demonstrating can very seriously impact the participation, particularly of mr.rs ofms ms. lassiter or carroll in ohio, who are now being called to go to quite extraordinary lengths to prove who they are in order to get an idea to go vote. we do not see that there is any justification for these laws, that they're not -- that they are doing much more harm than good. participation and our process is key. our whole history has been an expansion of that participation, particularly over the last 50 years, and these laws run the risk and stand in the way a full voter participation. our problem is not that too many people are registered. our problem is too few people

are registering and participating. >> senator grassley? >> i missed mr. carvin's subtleties, but i did hear him say that corporations have not been spending money on this candidate or that candidate. i cannot speak about what they have spent under citizens united, but i have been following corporations and unions, who did they give their money to for a long period of time, and i find unions to be pretty intellectually honest from election to election, giving about 95% of their money to democrats and 5% to republicans. i see corporations as political prostitutes give about 55% of their money to republicans and 45% to democrats. then, when they see someone like in the 2008 election, there's

going to be a short winter by the name of obama, they gave a lot more money to him than they are doing right now. they got to be fair to everybody, you know, so i do not worry so much about it. i wish they just had a little bit more political backbone than what they seem to demonstrate. we heard earlier from the professor that he thinks the supreme court has created a double standard with different outcomes in cases dealing with voter i.d. and independent expenditures. the cases i heard him mention or crawford, which was a case under the voting rights act, and citizens united, which we know was a challenge under the first amendment. what was your response to the argument that these cases represent the supreme court,'s application of a new and unjustified a double standard? >> with all respect to the professor, i think his analogy and his allegations of double

standard is fundamentally flawed for three reasons. first, the cases are not comparable. in citizens united, you had a ban on speech fit in the voter i.d. case, in crawford, nobody was banning anybody from voting. they were asking you to prove who you said you were. the analogy would be requiring corporations to confirm that our corporations. on the one hand you're talking about a band, and the other hand you're not talking about a ban. the analogy to would be to have reporting requirements trip we have disclosure and non-core nation requirements. the burden is not remotely comparable in either case. the second distinction is that the government's role is not comparable. governments run elections. they cannot run people speaking in elections treat the cannot tell you you cannot speak about a candidate unless you register

where you have to do it here. - everyone' role - agrees that date set the time, place, and manor perry chose the we are not fraudulent. the third reason, and this might be debatable, but i believe it, which is the evil that the two laws addressing is different. everyone agrees that somebody voting a product under a false identification is corruption of the grossest sort or the evil that is prevented in citizens united is more speech into the political process. i have said about why that cannot be a problem, it is a much more ambiguous problem than one is at issue in that pig is it unfair to justice stevens, the author of the crawford opinion, and the court to suggest they have some animation to hurt poor people and help rich corporations because the comparison is apples and oranges.

>> also, i voted to reauthorize the voting rights act. i did so because i believe it is constitutional. i still believe that. one thing i've learned recently is courts are interpreting the voting rights act in a way that is having the effect of protecting white democrat incumbents rather than minority voting rights creek would you elaborate on how courts are interpreting the act to improve their reelection prospects of white democratic candidates rather than enhancing the rights of minorities. >> the recent texas decision emplifies this. you had a bizarre decision in texas where a white democrat in a district that was 9% black and 25 percent hispanic overwhelmingly could not be affected in his district because are these -- because

minorities supported him in elections. we have gone to a system where every time that minorities, although they are a minority of the relevant jurisdiction cannot support one political party, and the judiciary has to intervene on behalf of that political party and elect its fortunes. that is unconstitutional, and shows that section 5 has little to do with protecting the unequal opportunities against racial headwinds and has turned into a partisan preference scheme. it has outlived its usefulness. >> mr. chairman, could i ask one question of ms. macnamara? you testified that voter verification and purchased are "far more likely to disenfranchise properly registered voters than to correct errors." you have not addressed the

danger of diluting eligible voters by allowing eligible votes. i have adopted a procedure by verifying eligibility it that provides a high level of due process before someone can be removed from the rolls. this transparent process enjoys strong bipartisan support, including our lifelong democrat attorney general bubba be stating that protects eligible voters while rooting out of it in an eligible voters. what evidence do you have that i walked's procedures disenfranchise proper voters? >> >> apologize i am not familiar with the specifics of the iowa stat sheet. i can only address the general evidence we have seen, which is that these purchases are not necessarily based on a very good data and we are seeing eligible voters that are being stricken

from the list or being asked to prove that they are who they are, usually within a prohibited time before the election. the league supports the integrity of the system. we want these lists to be accurate. we believe existing laws adequate to address any issues if properly used in the proper time frame, antitrust officials to be able to do that. >> could i ask you to respond in writing and look at the iowa situation and respond in writing to that? >> surry. >> they give. >> -- thank you. >> thank you. it is also the concern of where the money comes from. we have a discussion of "the washington post" endorsing somebody, do they have the right to do that? of course they did.

we have a right to know who they are. when we see huge ads, the committee for holiness and light and could clean air act that is really run by a corporation of polluters are us, it can be -- give you a different view. one of the reasons a number of us want to disclose act at least we will know who is paying for it. who is paying for these ads that we hear all the time. it might make a difference. senator? >> thank you for calling this hearing. this today i had the chance to host the chief justice of a supreme court who is risking his

life for judicial reforms to ensure free elections in kenya picked this is a reminder of how uncertain the path towards democracy is in other places of the world. in the 92 years of the league of women voters, you have done remarkable things to secure the franchise to americans. i found your testimony compelling, striking, and the range of incidents and details you put the. i was struck by quotation, "is little evidence of voter impersonation fraud, which and i d requirement might block pick the greater threat is that restrictive requirements blocked eligible voters from voting, and there is clear and widespread evidence of that problem." i have constituents who tell me every day that a voter in person

mission fraught is widespread, a major problem. to what the you attribute this fundamental misunderstanding about the facts, and in florida, what evidence was there that the florida voter registration law was an attempt to combat fraud, against the evidence that the law was preventing the expansion of the franchise? >> to answer the last question first, before the restrictions, there was no logical reason to insist that third-party registrars or volunteers like members of the league of women voters returned completed forms within 48 hours straight it was the 48 hours that was triggering whether or not fines would apply. very costly fines, if you're thinking about a voluntary

organization. the courts have overturned that requirement and restriction, and have allowed organizations like the league to get back into the business of registering voters trade we can be in place and at times that make it more convenient for eligible voters to register, and is part of our mission to make sure every voter is registered. for 92 years, we have been seeking out or research and laws have made it difficult or less difficult to register and vote, because we understand on our own history but it is like not have a voice and our democracy. in terms of impersonation, i volunteer pressed our volunteers are in all 50 states treat we pay attention to the way elections are run. it is something that is of great interest to the leak. it is something we have studied and are familiar with for many years.

we have sat -- we have seen little to no evidence of this kind of voter misbehavior, or have any studies that we are familiar with confirmed that there is any kind of a widespread problem. it is on that that we base our opinion and our testimony that the greater threat, the far greater threat, the ambit democracy is we're going to prevent eligible voters from being able to vote. >> thank you. professor, your testimony points to at tension -- points to attention. what do you think explains the difference in approach, and in the voting rights act in the context of white sheet you think

the court would not be poised to show great deference when congress reauthorize the betting at rights in 2006? >> senator, i think the double standards go both ways, and it is nothing improper. i am not accusing them of having a double standard. the question is what reasons did they give for applying those standards, and they have not yet they reasons for why might defer to underrepresented people and be suspicious of law w that represent well-service and the people. i think with the voting rights act you have the perfect example of an extensive actual record developed here, overwhelming approval, not just by congress, but majorities of everett delegation of states.

if that process cannot be trusted to express constitutional values to this article one body, intended to express at, i do not know what would. if that act is subject to suspicion, it is hard to understand when congress is acting within its authority to develop facts and request -- reflect the judgment ofhe american people. but in the context of developing facts and the value of a factual record, the court did not provide montana with an opportunity to show how its history with corruption might have given rise to a sufficiently important governmental goals that might have justified some limitation of the fundamental free-speech right of the state. could you offer that today? >> we have offered its in its history.

one of the problems with montana's of practices act is that they are effected. we have not had this widespread racial discrimination in voting rights. we have not had the corporate cup corruption for a century. because people and montana got it right pick when you have a court that is suspicious of that process come for a state that has enjoyed the benefit of its wall for a century, to try to explain what is going to happen next. i think now we will find out. >> thank you, professor. >> thank you. next we will go to the -- written testimony from dennis lieberman, two former members of the board of elections in montgomery county, ohio.

they were fired for trying to maintain early voting on the weekends, to provide greater access to thousands of individuals who because of their jobs and family responsibilities might not have been able to vote during the workweek. i commend them for standing on the principles. >> fake you for holding the support hearing. let me follow up on what professor johnstone said. i am of the view that the citizens united decision was an epic error the supreme court, one that will probably have a similar reputation in history as lockner vs. new york.

senator mccain called it uninformed and nikes. there are innumerable things that i think are problematic about it, the policy of independence between the so- called independent expenditures and the campaigns, the fallacy of disclosure that people would know who is behind this, boats that have been made apparent since that decision. there was an apparent oversight in the decision, and that was to forget the threat of corruption that can happen when you have these massive potential expenditures, which do not need to be made in order to have any effect. the worry i have is the special interest that comes into a member congress and says here is the ad we're going to run. here is our 30-second spot that trashes you.

immense amount of coverage that has done since citizens united has been negative advertising ecause you can hide becaushind the-screen of an organization. the real person has to pay the consequences of negative advertising. you have this complete trashed- at any say to the member, i can put 5 million bucks behind this ad in your next election or not come or not, and depending we do will depend on how you vote on this bill. see you later. no trace of that, no reporting trace, no ad, and on the air, potentially, to trace, and i worry about the danger of corruption. i particularly worry about it in the context of the fallacy of disclosure, because one of the

things we have tried to do is say if you're going to spend $1 million in elections, which should know who you are, the public should come so they have a sense of what their motive is .er if you insist on being secret about more spending, the reasonable conclusion to be drawn about the motive is it is not a good one. i will ask each of the witnesses, what is the value of secrecy? live posit we will have to for a while under the citizens united rupert of unlimited corporate spending, unlimited billionaires' spending adds. what is the value of that being done secretly, and what is the balance in terms of the harm to the public of not having the information, of knowing who is

in fact behind the spending? professor johnsonte first. >> disclosure is almost everything in these laws, and it puzzles me -- proponents of voter i.d. laws in these theories about what is going on in secret behind there, simply to talk about a few hundred votes out of a few hundred million votes that might be fraudulent. they did not focus on exactly the problem you are talking about the money not spent because it does not have to be spent. i would say the polarization and factionalism asian of our politics and the inability to solve national problems is a far greater problem than a couple of close state or local election's going the wrong way because they are tied.

the problem, when the court steps in to change the law, is it cannot predict the consequences. when the justice kennedy said we now live in an era of disclosure, he forgot what mr. carvin talked about, about knowing who was spending. we do not know that now i cannot know to the corporations because of the shell game they can play. and that puts us in a difficult position without robust disclosure or form of even understanding how deep the problem after citizens united now is. >> that mean by the other witnesses to make their answers for the record so if they care to do that. >> certainly. >> i would be happy to yield

some of my time so the other witnesses and make those statements now, because i think --ator white hhouse >> that would take it out of my time, not yours. [indiscernbile] you can follow up on what senator white house has question. >> taking. there is confusion about the disclosure requirements. citizens united upheld the disclosure requirement as consistent with the first amendment. it struck down up ban. the decision did not engender secrecy. super pacs -- >> it was mistaken about whether there was a machine for disclosure. they were playing wrong actually

on that. it was a factual error and has been proven by the results since then. >> you are referring to the 501- c4. it is important to keep our facts straight. >> what it present was there would be disclosure, and they were wrong. they did not understand how this would operate in practice. >> they did not make any factual presumptions one way or the other. they noted the law required disclosures by corporations engaging in independent expenditures. there are other entities that make disclosures better not corporations, super pacs, and as we have seen corporations are not giving to super pacs. >> what is the value secrecy to a million dollar contribution? >> c4 organizations engaged in

public policy did not need to disclose their donors. those are the only entities that do not. that is because they are principal -- their principal purpose. the senate was right in not reports requiring disclosures. i am not sure what we're talking about here. if the senate wants to change the law that has existed since c4's have existed, and require disclosure, it is constitutional under citizens united. the policy argument against doing it is the same argument the supreme court noticed any different buckley decision, and when states have tried to require people who are collecting petitions to disclose their names, and the id is they can be subject to intimidation. i am not taking the view on that

because it is not a constitutional matter. there has been a campaign of intimidation against any corporation that gives to our organization that engages in politically incorrect activity, most notably corporations that support candidates who are against gay marriage. we saw death threats for people who have given money to the proposition 8 campaign in california. i will leave it to this body to decide how to weigh the virtues of disclosure against the- intimidations -- >> are agnostic about whether a million dollar contribution to political election should be disclosed? >> as i understand at -- >> me go on to ms. macnamara. >> we die you secrecy. -- wheat value secrecy.

-- we value secrecy. we have supported disclosure for some period of time. in terms of the impact, we are concerned about the impact of this money because of the negative and often misleading advertising that it is purchasing. anything that discourages participation, and we believe this onslaug of advertising has been shown to discourage participation, undermines confidence in the system. americans should have confidence that their election systems, are free, fair, and accessible to all. >> me thank my colleagues for allowing that extra time. i appreciate it very much. >> thank you for having this hearing, which is not only profoundly important, but also very pertinent.

ms. macnamara, you're very compelling and powerful remarks about the impact of the voter you characterize them correctly as the greatest self-inflicted threats to our democracy in our lifetimes. i would differ only in feeling that they are not only threats, but very likely injuries and wounds that we will see shortly, and a disproportionate impact of those voting id laws are disenfranchising, not only to the individuals and groups, the elderly, the poor, racial and ethnic minorities, young, disabled, and most egregiously, our veterans. they have fought and served as

sacrificed to preserve those very freedoms that now we are perhaps inadvertently denying them, which i think is an outrage. i would like to asked mr. carvin, d you believe that these -- do you believe that these voter i.d. laws are needed to prevent fraud, if so, where would i look for the documented evidence that this threat or fraud justified these very serious potential infractions on the right to vote? >> i think it is a serious threat when somebody votes and somebody else vote twice, because after all -- >> entry with that, but where is the evidence? >> i would have to agree with

jimmy carter on the carter-baker commission which said this is -- >> i apologize for interrupting, but where would i look -- i know about other opinions on this issue. where would i look for the empirical evidence, studies that show numbers, mentions the moscow, magnitude of the problem that just defies on a rational basis this kind of threat? >> in terms of the sources, carteret-baker would be a starting point. there is also an excellent book. i think the essential point to recognize is you will not have documented incidence of fraudulent voter i.d. because he did not meet ask for voter i.d.. the analogy is if this congress wanted to check all banks coming

to customs, and somebody stood up but said there's no evidence that people are smuggling, the answer would be that is never -- >> or are examples that smugglers are apprehended, and one would presume that voter fraud also would be detected, apprehended, and prosecuted at least to an extent on a massive scale that would justify these infringements. >> the only time is in a close recount an election. whether it was a congressional race in los angeles, every recount show there is at least a thousand or more, all certified votes. senator grassley said there are over 9000 non-citizens voting in

iowa. every time anybody bothers to look, there is a lot of fun qualified voters voting. for that is an example because people both in new york once and vote in florida again. whenever you dig below the rock, you find this problem, and the problem is no better digs deep. if it is not a close election. >> you are saying the evidence comes from predominantly those close elections? >> i do not know what your margin of victory was, but nobody will check to see who the voters were. there is documented instances when it does look like -- >> one would presume if there were conspiracies or movements or plans to vote and numbers fraudulently, which presumes an intent to violate the law, just

mistakes that occur when somebody puts down the wrong address or votes in the wrong district, that those kinds of plants or intentional violations of law would be in some way detected, even in non-close elections. >> i do not know if conspirators say they committed a felony. when half the time poll watchers are just as much involved in a fraudulent scheme as the people casting of false bids. you may have a different experience in connecticut. >> let me ask a different question. i differ with you as to the extent of the problem. do you agree with ms. macnamara that the impacts of these laws

fault this for herschel elite heavily on those groups that have been mentioned, the elderly, poor, racial, ethnic minorities, veterans? >> not really. if you look for example, the most recent texas litigation, the court that struck down the voter i.d. clock found there was no evidence that it fell more harshly on hispanics and blacks treat such carolina, the distinction was 1.6%. they found no disparity of any kind every one of ms. macnamara's examples occurred in a non-coverage jurisdiction, one that is not subject to section five. this is another example of why section 5's misguided focus on the states they have does not reflect these problems very or just about all of her examples related to states that were not covered by section 5. >> i want to thank you for your

answers to my questions. i disagree with you, and thank you. >> thank you. i was not aware that 50% of the voting in cook county is fraudulent, which half the people, half the supervisors are involved in cook county of such conduct. >> may i correct the record? i did not to suggest that half the people in cook county. i was using the example of the 1960 's. >> i was going to provide u.s. attorney's office that they should immediately move on their perry >> incorrect information or an incorrect interpretation of my statement. >> incorrect interpretation. you would know this better than

i would. i just could not keep up with your 50% referents. -- reference. i'm just a small town lawyer from vermont. 50% we think it usually does being half. i worry part of the corporate spending of elections, new barriers to voting, will affect the voting of individual i worry whether it is corporations, unions or anybody else paying a lot of money, but i would worry a lot less if we knew exactly who was paying the money. you come from a small state, as i do.

if you have an issue that involves anything from the safety of a nuclear power plant to the location of a development in what had been formed area, it is so easy to spend a few hundred thousand dollars for a different name than a company that's going to benefit from this. if people don't know who is spending it, and it looks like the grass roots and that worries me a great deal. i worry about how people like my parents with some of these a voter i.d. lost, how they would even be able to vote. people could a vote in new york and then vote in florida a second time. i have not seen reports of that. i'm taking your word for it that you should have empirical evidence that is happening.

if that is happening, report it to the authorities because it would be criminal. i know we are spending millions of dollars on fraud and i worry it's being spent and not because there is crime but to stop people from voting. republicans, democrats, reveals, i want to see them get out and vote. we have had elections in my state, have dead adds urging people to vote whether they are voting for my opponent or voting for me. but they get out and vote because it's the right thing to do. i appreciate the time everybody has taken and thank you very much. i will keep the record opened

should be interested to add anything to your testimony. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> it tonight, a focus group with virginia residents who are either undecided voters or those who could change their minds before november. we will follow this focus group with remarks from political reporters. plus your phone calls, comments and tweaks. it's conducted by hart research associates, life here at 7:00 eastern on c-span. >> in his state of the union address, the european commission president called for the european union to evolve into a federation of nation states. he talked about ways to fix the financial crisis and outlook --

outlined long-term goals to promote growth and stability. this is his third state of the union address before the european parliament in strasbourg, france. this is 50 minutes.

>> members, may i ask you to please take your seats now. please be seated. i would like to open today's meeting. ladies and gentlemen, please be seated. welcome to everybody. just to remind you that the first program on the agenda, the statement on the state of the union from the president of the

union will take place. but before we go to the order of the day, i think it is worth while noting that for today, it might well be decisive for europe, and i'm sure will be decisive -- you won't be surprised if i say to you that the public of the world, everybody has their rise on the european union, particularly in germany were the constitutional court will be taking a decisive ruling. they will be looking to the elections in the netherlands, looking to elect a new parliament, and i think you will agree with me that this will have wide ranging affects in general. the world's public is looking at us today and scrutinizing us. it is looking to the president's statement as to the state of the union.

so before this, as the president of the european parliament, let me to say at a few things -- developments over the last few months have been of great concern. above all, when it comes to de- parliamentizing europe, if i can put it that way, i'm sure the president will put it that way -- people say parliamentarianism is too slow process. parliaments are obstacles in building a new and necessary structures. these arguments are in the air, but i don't think you can do anything in europe without involving european parliament. if you argue that you can do without the parliament, will have to decisively reject that argument. [applause] ladies and gentlemen, this

morning, i think we will hear proposals for new instruments. but what ever is set up, the euro is to be seen as europe's currency. parliament is the parliament of the union. in that same train of thought, the parliament of the euro, the european parliament, and anybody who has any other ideas in their head will crop up against our full opposition. i say full opposition because parliament is a strong institution. thank you for listening to this particular points. i give the floor now to the president of the commission. on the state of the union, please.

>> mr. president, president of the council, hon. members, it is an honor to stand before you today to deliver this third state of the union address at a time when your opinion continues to be in crisis, financial and economic crisis, a social crisis, but also a crisis of confidence. at its roots, the crisis results from irresponsible practices in the financial sector and sustainable -- unsustainable public debt, and a lack of competitiveness in some of our member states. on top of that, the euro faces problems of its own. its architecture has not been up to the job. -- imbalances have been cut. this is now being corrected, but it is a painful, difficult

effort. citizens are frustrated. they're anxious. they feel their way of life is at risk. this sense of fairness and equity between member states is sometimes being eroded. without equity, how can there be equity between european citizens? over the last four years, we have made bold decisions to tackle the crisis. but despite all of these efforts, our responses have not convinced citizens or markets. why? because time and again, we have allowed out to spread. doubt over whether some countries are really ready to reform and gain competitiveness. doubts over whether other countries are willing to stand by each other so the euro and the european project are irreversible. on too many places, we have seen

a vicious spiral. first, very important decisions for our future are taken at european summits, but the next day, we see some of those very same people who took those decisions are undermining them, saying either they go too far or they do not go far enough and then we get the problem of credibility and a problem of confidence. it is not acceptable to present these european meetings as if they were boxing events, claiming a knockout victory over a rival. we cannot belong to the same union and behave as if we don't. we cannot -- this, hon. members, reveals the crisis of confidence. if you're a's political actors don't act by the rules that set

for themselves, how can they possibly convince others they are determined to solve this crisis together? mr. president, hon. members, a crisis of confidence is a political crisis. the good thing is, in democracy, there is no political problem for which we cannot find a political solution. that is why i one to debate the fundamental political questions -- where we are now and how we must move forward. i want to focus on the political vision that must inspire our decisions. you are receiving the letter i addressed to the president of the european parliament and sets out the commission and its priorities. we will discuss and review the program later in autumn. my message to you today is this -- europe needs a new direction

and that direction cannot be based on old ideas. europe needs a new thinking. when you think about the crisis, and we all think about the crisis, have we drawn all the consequences for our action? when we speak about globalization, have we considered its impact on each of our member states? the stopping point is to draw all the consequences of the challenges we are facing and we're fundamentally chasing our world -- and in changing our world. the fundamental point is to stop trying to answer the questions of the future with the tools of the past. since the start of the crisis, we have seen time and again interconnected global markets are quicker and more powerful than the fragmented national political systems.

this undermines the trust of citizens and it is fueling populism in europe and elsewhere. the reality is in an interconnected world, europe's member states on their on are no longer able to effectively steered a course of events. [applause] but at the same time, they have not yet equipped our union with the instruments needed to cope with this new reality. we are now in a defining moment that requires a decision. yes, globalization demands more european unity, more integration and more integration demands more european democracy.

in europe, this means first and foremost excepting we are all in the same boat. means recognizing the commonality of our european interests and embracing the interdependence and demanding a true sense of common responsibility and solidarity because when you are on a boat in the middle of the storm, absolute loyalty is the minimum you command from your crew members. this is the only way we will keep up with the pace of change. is the only way we will get the scale of efficiency we need to be a global player. is the only way to safeguard our values. in the past century, a country of 10 are 15 million people could be a global power. in the 21st century, even the biggest european country runs

the risk of falling between global giants like u.s. and china. history is accelerating. it took 155 years for britain to job -- to double its gdp per capita. just 15 years for china. but if you look at some of our new member states, the economic information going on is no less impressive. europe has faced much more than previous generations have faced. we must mobilize these resources together. it's time to match ambitions, decisions and actions and it's time to put a stop to piecemeal response is an muddling through. it's time to learn the history from -- to learn the lessons of history and write a better future for europe. what i demand and what i present

to you today is a decisive deal to protect our values. a deal that combines the needs to keep our social market economy on one hand and the need to reform them on the other. a deal that boosts the gross and restores competitiveness and it establishes confidence between our countries, member states and european institutions. between social partners. the decisive deal for europe means we must leave no doubt about the integrity of the union. the more vulnerable countries must leave no doubt about their willingness to reform, about their sense of responsibility. but the stronger countries must

leave no doubt about their willingness to stick together and their sense of solidarity. [applause] we must all leave no doubt that we are determined to reform and reform together. the idea that you can't grow without reform is simply false. he must recognize we're in this together and we must resolve it together. this requires the completion of a deep and genuine economic union. but let me start with europe's economy. first, we need stable growth. growth is the lifeblood of the european social market model. it creates jobs and increases our standard of living. it could only create growth if you are more competitive. at the national level, it means

undertaking structural reforms that have been postponed for decades. modernizing to vacations', reducing wasteful expenditure. insuring the stability of social systems. at the european level, we need to be more decisive about breaking down barriers, whether it is physical, economic, or digital. we need to complete the single market and reduce energy independence, promoting competitiveness in sectors like energy, transport, or telecoms will open up fresh competition, drive down prices for consumers and businesses. the commission will present a single market at, permitting the market to prosper. the commission will continue to be firm in the defense of its competition and trade rules.

let me tell you frankly that if this was left to the member states, they will not resist pressure from big corporations. we need to create a european market and make as easy -- we need to be much more efficient. we have to be much more ambitious about education, research, innovation and finance. europe is a world leader in key sectors like aeronautics, automotives, pharmaceuticals, and engineering. with global market share is about one third. industrial productivity increased by 35%. today, 74 million jobs depend on manufacturing. every year, startup firms create over 4 million jobs.

we need to build on this by investing in our new industrial policies and encouraging entrepreneurship and supporting small businesses. this means making the environment simpler for businesses and more effective for investors. we also need a proactive trade policy by opening up markets. this is the potential of europe's economy. this is the gold mine that is yet to fully be explored. fully implementing the growth project could take us a long way. we could go further with a realistic yet ambitious budget scheduled to investment, growth and reform. let's be clear. the european budget is an instrument for investing in europe. the commission and this parliament indeed, all courses

because most of the member states support our proposal. let's now stand together in support of the financial framework that will take us to 2020. with our proposed system, it will give a great boost to the economy. their agents and researchers, the people who seek employment, it is a budget for growth. it is a budget between member states and within member states. it is a budget that will help the market by bridging gaps in energy, transport and telecom infrastructure. it is a budget for 8 modern culture capable of combining food security with sustainable

rural development. it is a budget that will permit europe through 2020 because we need this european scale for research. it a test of credibility to many of our member states. i want to see if the same member states speaking about the need for it growth will support the budget for growth at a european level. [applause] this budget is the tool to support europe 2020, our strategy for growth that we need more than ever. europe 2020 is the way to modernize and preserve european social marketing. our agenda requires a major adjustment effort. it will only work if it is fair

and equitable because inequality is not fair. we're seeing a real social emergency in parts of europe -- rising poverty, massive levels of unemployment, especially among young people, that is what -- why we must strengthen the social communion that distinguishes us from other models. some say because of the crisis, the european social model is dead. i do not agree. we need to reform our economies and modernize our social protection system. but an effective system that helps those in need is not an option -- not an obstacle to prosperity. is an indispensable element. is precisely those european countries with the most effective social protection

systems and must develop social partnerships that are among the most successful and competitive economies in the world. [applause] fairness and equity means giving a chance to young people. we are already doing a lot. the commission will launch a package that will establish a use guarantee scheme and for mark to facilitate vocational training. that means creating better and fairer assistance, stopping tax fraud and evasion putting extra billions into the public trust across europe. [applause] this is why the commission will fight for an agreement on the revised savings and negotiating tax agreements with countries. it their completion will be a major source of tax revenues.

the commissioner will fight will -- will fight for a fair financial sector to ensure taxpayers benefit from the financial sector, not just the financial system benefits from taxpayers. now that it is clear that agreements can only happen through the corporation, we will do all we can to of this ford rapidly with states that are willing. this is about fairness and fairness is an essential condition to make the necessary economic reforms socially and politically acceptable and because of fairness is a question of social justice. mr. president, hon. members, the decisions have been taken across europe and financial backstops are being put into place and european institutions have consistently shown they

stand by the euro. the commission is very aware that the member states to the most intense of reforms, there are hardships and painful and difficult adjustments. but it is through these reforms we can come to a better future. they were long overdue, going back to the start and saying it's simply impossible. the commission is doing what it can to support those member states. for the -- for instance, the reprogramming of funds. let me say a word of greece. i truly believe we have a chance to come to the turning point. if greece banishes all doubts about its commend to reform and also if all of the other countries banish all doubt about their determination to keep greece in the euro area, we can do it. greece's stance by its commitment, it should stay in the euro area as part of the

european family. [applause] securing the stability of the euro is our most vital challenge. the european central bank cannot and will not finance governments. but one monetary policy channels are not working properly, the commission believes it is within the mandate is to take the necessary actions in the secondary markets of sovereign debt. [applause] indeed, the european central banks has not only the right, but the duty to restore the integrity of monetary policy. it is to determine what actions to carry out and under what conditions. but all actors should it respect the european central

banks -- is not sufficient. we must go further. we must complete the economic and monetary union. we much -- we must create a federal union and respond with mechanisms. today, the commission is presenting proposals for a single european supervisory mechanism for the eurozone. this is a stepping stone to the banking unit. the crisis shows while banks became transnational, rules and oversights remained national. when things went wrong, it was the taxpayers who had to pick up the bill. over the past four years as the banks -- but coordination is no longer adequate. we need to move with decisions

within the euro area. the single supervisory mechanism proposed today will create the reinforced architecture for the european central bank and the banking authority which will restore confidence in the banks in the euro area. will be a supervision for all euro area banks. we must be able to look everywhere because systemic risks can be everywhere, not just in systemically relevant banks. this needs a system that fully engages the supervisors. the package requires to legal packs. one of european central bank and one on [inaudible] it is clear this parliament will have a crucial role to play. this is a crucial first step in the banking union that i first proposed in june.

getting the supervisors in place is a top priority now because it is a precondition for the better management of banking crisis from banking resolution to deposit insurance. in parallel, the commission will work on reforming the banking sector to make sure it is playing its role in financing the real economy. that means improving financing, it means rules on preference industries so that we do not again see the manipulation of bank interest rates affecting companies. it means regulations to ensure banks give a fair deal to consumers as it will look at the structure of banking activities. the role of parliament is essential. the commission endeavors to working close partnership with europe. but there is a second element.

it is the move toward a fiscal union. the case for it is clear. the economic decisions of one member state in fact the other so we need stronger economic policy coordination it is the only way to prevent and balances. while much has been done here through the recommendations, further steps are crucial to provide a specific conditions with specific incentives to make the monetary union sustainable. to deliver lasting results, we need to develop a fully equipped community together what they fiscal capacity. we do not need to separate institutions or create new institutions for them. quite the contrary. for this to be effective is to

work through the existing institutions. and overseen by the european parliament has a parliamentarian representation and over time, steps for that resumption can take place. economically with a german and monetary union, these are engines to get the boat moving forward. the commission will publish a blueprint this autumn. this blueprint will be presented to this house because these questions must be discussed with and by the representatives of the people. at the same time, i will inform the debate to be prepared by the report that the president of the european council, a self, and the european central bank is asked to present.

our blueprint will identify the crucial instruments and present options for legal drafting that will give effect to them from policy coordination to fiscal capacity to that reduction and, when necessary, as in the case of several guarantees for public debt, it will identify the changes necessary because some of these changes require a treaty. it represents a blueprint for what we need to accomplish not only in the next few weeks and months, but in the next years. mr. president, hon. members, ultimately the credibility of the economic and monetary union, the credibility of our currency depends on the institutions and the political construct behind it. this is why the economic and monetary union raises the question of a political union

and the european democracy between it. if we want it to succeed, we need to combine improper sequencing and take concrete steps now to treat the political union as the horizon. i would like to see the development of a european public space where issues are discussed and debated from a european standpoint. we cannot continue trying to solve european problems with national solutions. this debate has to take place in all societies and among all citizens. but i would like to make an appeal to european thinkers to join the debate. we need them. i also make this appeal to you -- this is european democracy. we must turn to hit at a european level this cannot be

done without strengthening the european political parties. indeed, we often have a very real disconnect between european parties here in strasbourg. [applause] this is why we have to recognize the political bates is cast all too often as if it were just between national parties. we don't see the name in the ballot boxes. we see a discussion between national parties. this is why i am proud to announce the commission has adopted a proposal for this. an important means to deepen the debate, a presentation by european political parties for the post of commission president in 2014.

this can be done and this will be a decisive step to make the possibility of european choice even clearer. i call on the political parties to commit this that to further europeanize the european elections. [applause] mr. president and hon. members, a true political european action union means we must concentrate european action on things that matter and must be dealt with at the european level. let's be frank about this. not everything can be at the same time a priority. we need to be more selective and some of self criticism probably will apply. proper integration is about taking a fresh look at where is the most appropriate level of action.

it is an essential democratic concept that should be practiced, but the political union means we must strengthen the foundations on which area is built. in recent months, we have seen threats to the legal fabric and some of our european states. the european parliament and the commission were the first to raise the alarm and play deciding role in seeing the way this development is brought in to check. but this situation reveals the limits of our institutional arrangements. we need a better developed set of instruments, not just alternatives between the soft power of political persuasion and the nuclear option of article 7. our commitment to upholding the rule of law is behind our intention to establish a european office as foreseen by

the tribute. mr. president, hon. members, a clinical union means sharing sovereignty. that means the more sovereign in a global world. size matters and values make a difference. that is why the message must be one of freedom, democracy, rule of law and solidarity. our values. european values. more than ever, are citizens need an active intellectual europe. a europe that stands by its values and stands up for its believes that human rights are not only for the developed world. they should be seen as universal values. the appalling situation in syria reminds us we cannot afford to be by standards -- to be

bystanders. we have a dry responsibility to make this happen and work with those in the global order that need preparation for that goal. don't world needs a euro that has the development of leadership in humanitarian assistance, that stands by open economies and fights protectionism and leads the fight against climate change. a europe capable of deploying military missions to help stabilize the situation in crisis areas. need a comprehensive review of european capabilities and to begin defense planning. we need to have a common approach to these matters. because together, we have the power and scale to shape the world and to a fairer whirls --

world based place. mr. president, hon. members, a genuine economic and monetary union. this means ultimately that the present european union must evolve. let's not be afraid of the words. we will need to move toward a federation of nation states. this is what we need. [applause] this is our political horizon. this is what must guide our work in years to come. today, i call for a federation of nation states, not a superstate. a democratic federation of nation states that can tackle our common problems through the sharing of sovereignty in a way that each country and each citizen are better equipped to

control their own destiny. this is about dealing with the member states, not against member states. in the age of globalization, sovereignty means more power, not less. i said on purpose a federation nation states because i think in this turbulent time, in these times of anxiety, it would be a real mistake to leave the defense of nations to the nationalists and the capitalists. i believe in a europe where people are proud of their nations because they're probably european am proud of our european values. creating this federation of nation states will ultimately require a new treaty. i do not say this lightly. it has to be well prepared. discussions on a treaty change

must not delay s from doing what can and must be done today, a deep and genuine monetary union can prosper under the current treaties but can only be completed with changes in the treaties. so let's start it now. let's have the horizon and our future presence today. we must identify the policies we need and the instruments to implement them. only then can we decide on the tools we select and the way to remedy that. there must be a broad debate over europe that must take place before a convention and then igc is called, a debate of a truly european dimension. the time of european integration -- europe cannot be technocratic are bureaucratic. europe has to be ever more democratic.

that is why european elections in 2014 can be so decisive. before the next european parliament election, the commission will present its outline for the shape of the future economic union and we will put out explicit ideas for treat change in time for a true european debate. -- treat the change in time for a true european debate. the powers and instruments to make it more effective and a model to make it a union for the people of europe. i believe we need a real debate and the best way to debate is precise elections at the european bubbles. mr. president, hon. members, this is not just a debate for the euro area and its present membership. let me be very clear. in europe, we need no more walls

dividing us. because the european union is stronger as a whole in keeping the integrity of a single markets and its institutions, no one will be forced to come along and no one will be forced to stay out. but the speed will not be dictated by the slowest or most reluctant. this is why our proposal will be based on the existing union and its institutions, on the community matter -- let's be clear there is only one european union, went european commission, one european parliament. more democracy, more transparency is not created by proliferation of institutions that makes things more difficult to read and less capable to act. this is the magnitude of the decisions you need to make overtime. that is why i believe we need a

discussion between the citizens of europe about the way forward, and also the possible consequence of fragmentation. because what happens sometimes is to have fragmentation that we do not want. also about what we can achieve if leaders avoid national provincialism, we can achieve together. we must use the 2014 election to mobilize the european forces. we must not allow the nationalists to set a negative agenda. i expect all those who call us europeans to stand up and take the initiative in the debate because even more dangerous than skepticism of the anti-europeans is the indifference of the pessimism of the pro-europeans. mr. president, hon. members, to sum up, what is needed is a decisive view and a commitment

to a stronger european union. we should start by doing all we can to stimulate europe and make sure it grows in europe as a whole. we present proposals as we have started today to create a banking union in line with current provisions. secondly, we present the blueprint on keep monetary union, including the political instruments and this will begin this autumn. we will present all proposals of line with current to provisions and where it cannot move forward under existing treaties, we will present explicit proposals for the necessary treaty changes ahead of the next european parliament elections, including elements for reinforced democracy and accountability. this is a project that is step by step, the big ambition for

the future because the federation as the origin for europe. many would say this is too ambitious. that this is not realistic. but they've have unanswered questions. is it realistic to go on like we have been doing? is it realistic to see what we're seeing today in many european countries? is it realistic to see taxpayers paying banks to give banks back the houses because they cannot pay their mortgages? is it realistic to see more than 50% of our young people without jobs in some of our member states? is it realistic to go on muddling through to try to accommodate mistakes without unconvincing responses?

is it realistic to read the confidence of markets -- to me, it is this reality that is not realistic. this reality cannot go on. the realistic way forward is the way that makes us stronger. realism is to put our ambition at the level of our challenges. realism is to tell our youth that yes, they hope if we stick together and let it be a bias for hope. we should be proud to be europeans, proud of our rich and diverse culture. in spite of our current troubles, our societies are the most human and free in the world. we do not have to apologize for our democracy or social market a call it -- social market economy. [applause]

with high levels of social collusion by, our respect for human rights and dignity, equality between men and women, respect for our environment, these european societies with all its problems are among the most decent societies in human history. we should be proud of that. in our countries, two or three girls don't go to prison for making criticism of their countries. people are free and proud and people understand what it means to live in freedom. in many of our countries, the most recent member states, they have recent memories of will was a dictatorship and totalitarianism. future generations will overcome challenges. it is for this generation to show we are up to the task. now was the moment for all

europeans to leave business as usual behind and embrace the business of the future. the european union was built to guarantee peace. today, this means making our union fit to meet the challenge of globalization. that is why we need new thinking for europe, a decisive deal for europe, why we need to guide ourselves for a european union. europe, i believe has a soul and this still can give us the strength and determination to do what might we must do. you can count on the european parliament because we will build a better, stronger, more united europe, a citizens union for the future of europe, but also the future of the world. thank you for your attention. [applause]

>> in about five minutes, we will take you live to fairfax, va., with residents who are either undecided voters or who could change their minds before november. it is conducted by hart research associates. to hear more about the event, here is a look. >> thank you for being with us. >> my delight. >> let's talk about this focus group and focus groups in general. what is the goal and how are they different from traditional polling? >> focus groups are entirely different from polling because polling is aimed at a quantitative cross-section of americans to understand how people are voting or reacting to a certain proposal. what we're looking for is

qualitative. how do you go beneath the surface to find out what people are thinking down in their gut? this focus group, we are taking a group of swing voters who are more open and more persuaded will and we are trying to find out what it is that will move them and we will ask a series of questions that are very different from polls that say do you rate someone as excellent, good, fair or poor? we will probe underneath that to find out what i the images and thought about these people. >> who will be in the room? how many in attendance? how were they selected? >> we will have a dozen respondents in the room. we selected them because we wanted to look at people who are not hard partisans. those who are strong republicans backing mitt romney or strong

democrats backing barack obama. instead, people who have found themselves softly is leaning toward one candidate or the other with a certain amount of reservations and also some undecided people so that they will come into this room and why. we chose a virginia because it's a key battleground state and what we are looking for are those kinds of people in a key battleground state who have been watching the race, but at the same time have not really reached a firm, fixed, final conclusion. >> you are behind polling with nbc news, but what kinds of questions can our audience expect to hear and what do you want to clean from that? >> what i'm trying to learn is where people are coming from. and likely to ask them about what they see happening in

america, not simply do you see things headed in the right direction or off on the wrong track. instead, i want to get their feelings about this. how much confidence do they have in america's future? what are the things that have changed in their opinion about where the country is that? i may talk to them and ask them to give me a weather forecast in meteorological terms to understand what is turning down there. instead of asking who they are voting for, i really want to understand what does this election come down to for them? what they hoping to find out? finally, i want to get a sense of how they see each of these individuals. i want to look at met romney and i want them to look at paul rim,

at joe biden and that barack obama. to find out if this person is this person where a neighbor, what kind of paper with baby -- what kind of neighbor would they be? i think running for president is the single most personal vote americans cast. what i want to see is how much comfort, how do they relate, not only are they for somebody on an issue, but do they feel comfortable having the person as the president for the next four years. >> this is the latest in a series of focus groups in conjunction with the annenberg center of public policy. you have done one in ohio and wisconsin and other states. you personally, what do you take away? >> of what i take away is a tremendous sense of what people go through. one of my most recent focus

groups was in milwaukee, wisconsin. there was a marvelous respondent, a woman about 38 years old with two younger children, probably under 12 years old. she lost her job harley- davidson. she underscores the struggle people have been through and what it means. as she looked at this election, there were lots of things she did not like about mayor ronnie, but at the end of the day, for her, -- lots of things she did not like about mitt romney, but at the of the day, it was easier for to take a chance on it romney then proceed with what she perceived as the status quo. you would not normally put that kind of person in to the romney camp. but when people went through all of their various problems on the issues, they often wind up in a very different spot than what you would expect. then you want to see how they reached it and how important it

is it to them. finally, the one other thing i want to do tonight, is show clips from michelle obama's speech and from ann romney's speech and from mitt romney and barack obama -- see how people react to them and what the date -- what did they take away from it and how did add to their feelings of the candidates. he tried to get a whole picture coming out of it. >> peter hart from the annenberg center of public policy. thank you for being with us. >> coming up in just a few minutes, a focus group with voters supporting president obama and met romney as well as a number of undecided voters in virginia. a battleground state president obama carried in 2008. afterwards, he will talk to

political reporters about their impressions of this focus group in fairfax, virginia. >> while we wait, next, a look at the congressional agenda. an update. > >> talk about the romney

campaign, some internal struggle going on. is there likely there could be a shake-up? >> it is unlikely you will see one. my colleagues with the palace intrigue story within the romney campaign, where the dissenters wait for the ship to go down to preserve their future careers. they're behind by a couple points, and everybody is trying to take down stuart stevens. the complaint that he has been taking on too many roles within the campaign. he has been the speechwriter. the strategist. also, he has too much of that and the eclectic style. people do not have the same kind of faith in his discipline. >> what folks told mike and jim

is mitt romney bears responsibility for the functioning of his campaign and the way that his top aides are working or were not working. .> this morning, a story >> the odds are long like the redskins whinny yesterday after the final whistle sounded. the leaders have to say to their donors, that they have a chance to win the house, because if they do not, all the money will dry up, and the outcome will be worse for them. when you talk to democrats privately, they throw a bone to the idea that they could still hang on to it that house, but it is usually changing the metric of success >> let's listen to

nancy pelosi. momentum is very much with us. we are the messengers. we have money and mobilization and an excellent chance to take back the house. host: an excellent chance of taking back the house. guest: nancy pelosi is a better political strategist and i and a better communicator and spinner. they do not have an excellent chance of taking back the house. there's no independent oddsmaker who thinks democrats have they have a very, very, small chance. the republicans would essentially have to fall off a cliff. host: there is this fiscal cliff coming.

congress was in last week and now what's on the agenda this week? guest: not much. they have to pass the continuing resolution in the senate that will fund the government through march. so that has to get done. otherwise they could have problems at the end of the year. the government would shut down. you have the jobs bill making its way through the senate. the house has a host of suspensions, lesser bills going on. >> we are leaving this now to take you to fairfax, virginia, footer's who could change their minds before the november elections. charlie? christina? a.j.? susan?

and david? welcome. thank you very much for being here. this is a focus group, and i am delighted that you hear. what we will do is talk about the 2012 election. this is being done for the annenberg center for public policy at the university of pennsylvania. my name is peter hart, i have been doing these sessions for about 12 years now. they are only meant to be a discussion. it is meant to look at the election. we have had several of these already. we had won in milwaukee a month ago. we have had them in ohio, and had them all across the nation. i figure as we are getting close to the end, what would be a better place than virginia? can you think of a better place? i cannot think of a better place either. that is the purpose, and that is

what it is, and the will to start talking and go through things. let me say there are not any right answers or wrong answers and we're not here to persuade anybody. your point of view is the right one. let me go around the table and the table and start with ben. give me your name. tell me what you do for work, if you are married, have kids, and i guess the at the thing i would like to know is who you are voting for for president. how committed are you? if you are totally and this died it, say you are totally undecided at this stage. if you're committed, let me know. i want to know i am voting for someone, and you are either open or you can be wooed or can be convinced by someone. ben, welcome.

>> i am a geologist. i just graduated from virginia tech. right now i am leaning for mitt romney. >> i am pamela, director of communications for a company called human circuit. but we do is we integrate, which is another word for implement and install, vital media products, teleconferencing, a.v., studio equipment, etc. i am divorced, a single mother with two boys who just graduated college, and i am totally undecided. >> ok, great, and for the future, we will not name our companies because i do not want somebody to say i had a terrible experience, i got to get a hold of them. only good experiences. >> i am rich, and i work for a

company that is a sales distributor. i have four kids and and mary. right now i am leaning toward obama. >> i am mary parker, retired after being a school principal, and i am married and have one son who is launched, hopefully, and i am leaning toward obama. >> ok, good. >> i was laid off four years ago and my contingency plan i started a business, which has 1/2 yearg on fo thror 3/ s. i am taking me -- i am technically meaning for obama. >> i am still on the fence. >> great.

>> my name is charlie, and that working at a web company. i got one child at home, and i pretty much undecided. >> ok. >> i am christina, a coastal engineer. i am engaged, so i will be getting married soon in two weeks, and i am leaning toward barack obama. but great. and congratulations. >> my name is a.j., a computer geek, ridiculously happily married, no kids yet. i am leaning toward obama with some reservation. >> ok, great. >> i work in commercial lending and credit union. i am married, and i leaned

toward romney. >> i am dave, i work in alternative education, a teacher, mary, and i have two children who are no where near being launched. i am currently leaning toward president obama. >> ok, good. the president of a biotech company, and i am leaning toward mitt romney. >> good, great. i would do a quick show of hands root we also have a major united states senate race here, between tim kaine and george allen. and many people if the election were today say i am with tim kaine? one, 1 1/2, two, 3, 4, 5, 6?

who is with george allen? ok, great, i wanted to get that one of the way so we could take a look. that we start and ask you to give me a word or phrase to decide how things are going in america. our things going, christina? >> tepid. >> because? >> i think things could be better, but i think things were worse in the past, and here in d.c. we have a skewed view of what it is like outside of this region. things seemed tepid. >> improving. >> raj? >> b-plus. >> scary, there does not seem to

be in the way of agreeing in congress. the good old days when they would go out for a drink after being on the floor and figure it all out, does not seem to be happening. >> ben? >> things could be better. optimistic. things could be better. >> pamela? >> things got pretty down there for a while, so i am feeling like things are optimistic as well, because i do believe we have reached our bottom and a number of years ago. >> what is the optimism for? >> where does it come from? , is more complex than just saying something more flip like it did not get any worse. i think this country and our current administration is faced with some real challenges, that are global, not just our country, a global affairs, a

global environment, and things are just crazy all over the were pared that is affecting us, but we are maintaining, we are sustaining, we are climbing out of the black hole. >> a.j.? >> i think we are mired in a bowl of stupid. the dialogue, that i can easily recall when i was growing up through the reagan years and to the clinton years, which seemed to die off after slick willy left town. there was lucky to and fro from both sides that would sit down at the table, and we as a people would go out after work and have drinks and discuss things. it has turned into a camp war. >> richard? >> i am concerned, a global

issue, and no easy solution to fix it. to get together and figure out how we can get there. >> at me use this little wine -- and everybody has a pad in front of them. what i am trying to do is represent how you are looking at the next four years, not up where we are today, but if you look toward the next four years ahead to, do you think we're headed up in a pretty good path. barely had it up, absolutely that evening, headed down slightly, or down strongly to write down the letter which you think best describes what you sort of see as the next four years. ok, how many people say a, we are headed up?

you're very optimistic. >> i am, because things are starting to work, people are starting to get back to work, to say that things are good right yet, but they are moving in that direction. >> anybody say e, i think we're going to be headed down in the next four years in a dramatic way? nobody . how about b, we will start to slipup? nine people. almost everybody else. why do you feel that way? >> i think this has been an opportunity for people to become introspective. i thought i was safe in my position, i raise money and my salary, and when i got the notification i was being let go, you're kidding me? but i was comfortable, and it

made me get off my tail and start a business, something i have been dreaming about four years, and now i am thinking, wow, i can do this. >> mary? >> i would agree with what charlie said, only not quite the a, in the thinking that the housing market is improving slightly, and i think general awareness, people see where we have to go. >> ok, good. anybody else? >> i am in the c-plus, in the editing, the partisanship is really just -- it brings us down and a lot of ways. i do not like currently right now we cannot find any common ground. you look on any tv show where commentators, you know exactly where the station is coming from. you cannot watch one show and get both sidesrade i feel there is no where where you can go to watch news and get a good idea where the country is

because everyone has stepped -- has taken a side. >> i am a b-plus. i'm a little more than slightly optimistic, because it is a deep hole where climbing out. as cardenas said, and lot of us, myself included, had to be forced out of our country for snowe to look at what is going on and to be concerned. not just show up and cast a vote. actually ask questions cannot be interested, participate, look for similarities, not differences. nk thes where i this thin solution ultimately die. >> i was in that age group that was dropped out of college in 2008, or are we going to go, and see a lot of my friends struggle with careers, in unemployed,

entering college with the hope that everything is going to be great, but now i can start to see my friends buy homes, and we are all starting to gather on a better footing. >> >is anybody a d? , and the rest a's and b's. tell me something. , what gives you confidence in america's future? >> the amazing intellectual pool, inexhaustible, intellectual talent, which is what the future is all about, and no one can compete against that. >> along with the intellectual pool, natural resources we need. >> rich? >> that we do not give up as a

country, we try to improve. people start the own business, come out of college. >> ok, good. it gives you confidence? >> american spirit. you do not go down easily. >> what is the thing that scares you the most? charles? what worries you, as you think about america's future? >> this was all set down by the other questions. [laughter] the discongruity in congress. our leaders need to think about the country instead of being

elected. the first thing most politicians think about is how is this done to affect my reelection chances instead of what is good for this country, and that is the biggest problem we have. >> biggest challenge? >> i think the biggest challenge is there is still a lot of people out there that feel they are safe, and i feel like i have hit the bottom and i am on the rise, but i just had a conversation with a neighbor who just lost their jobs, and for her, her safety net is shaking. i do not know. >> mary, what concerns you? what scares you? , the whole economy, how do we get out, and i do not see any candidates really having a plan and giving direction. >> pamela? >> i am 54, and i am concerned about my social security's. i am concerned about medicare,

health care, and i have not heard anything that makes me feel solid or on a good footing with regard to what is down the road with me in 10 years. i'm going to have to work until i am 95. >> and that is how you feel, that your front have to work? and you say you're going to stop working? >> no, and as a single mother i did not have an opportunity to save or invest. just to keep a roof over my head and put my kids through school. here they are done, and now i am literally starting all over again at age 64. all i have as security is my social security. i do not have assets. i have not been able to accumulate and keep -- so i am a

little worried about that. >> mary, tell me your story. you used to be a school principal, and now you are retired. >> i was very fortunate. my husband was a principal as well, and the county and worked for, where we live in, has a very good retirement plan, and if you stay in, it is like the golden noose. if you leave, you lose a lot, but if you state income of the benefits are fantastic. >> you feel secure in the opposite way pamela does not pick this anybody feel in security in terms of where they are in your position? >> i do, and to go along with go with part b with education, this is what we were told we were right to get with retirement, and states are pulling back on that. they will not be able to financially fulfil the

retirements that they have promised. we have worked for -- we did not work for the money, but it would be nice to have what we have been promised when we retire. >> ok, i will do something. we will go around the room quickly answer with charles and go clockwise. charles, you get to prepare your answer. give me a word or phrase to describe how you feel about that 2012 campaign. write it down, and we will go quickly, a word or the phrase to describe how you feel about the 2012 campaign. ready, charles? >> extremely important. >> how do you feel about the campaign, christina? >> removed from it. i'm ok. >> very negative.

>> negative. >> a potential, for eyes. >> normal. >> and happy. >> -- unhappy. >> contentious. >> no specific plan. anybody want to talk about the way you feel about this? confused? >> yes, i feel confused because you read one thing cannot hear one thing, and then it is contradicted shortly thereafter, and you try to read further into it, and you hear different people you think you can respect, and then you are all paul some of the things that they are saying. -- appalled at some of the things they are saying. >> concerned, that there is nothing to be a path.

they're set on one pack that they are veering off. >> the body else? >> i said negative, but i feel is reactionary, with the way social me the is. -- with the way social media is. isfore long, someone jumped on to something. just a couple days with libya, it bothered me because i would like our leader to think about things. >> susan? >> at times it seems very ambiguous and confusing, mostly negative, and also the sound bites tried everything. i agree with everything being set so far. >> what most disappoints you

about this campaign? >> i think talking points. i am so frustrated with talking points, and i am frustrated with the media where if you are going to ask a question, then make sure the question is answered. did not let them allow you to mow you down with a talking point. >> i'm not frustrated. >> ok, good. >> because? >> being still young and the politics is still new. this is only my third presidential election, so everything seems like it should be going, and nothing seems out of the ordinary, nothing seems bad or good in that respect. >> charlie, i do you agree? >> i am not frustrated by anything.

i disagree with the whole campaign seems to be about sound bites, but i am not frustrated. >> is anybody else disappointed? >> politics is normal, and part of it is this election and in the future, more of technology and the media is going to play a role in it. we are at a paradigm change. >> ok, ok. i feel like pamela has something to say. >> i loathe agrology. in preparation for coming to this event come i decided to do some homework so i did not make a fool of myself by saying something stupid with a lot of our politicians seem to be doing these days. in doing the research, i got totally overwhelmed by the amount of information out there and how things are contradictory, you're depending

on the media outlets or the stance they take, which, because of all this information, is hard to filter it, sift and out come and come up with a decision, and that is why i am undecided. i have now got too much information. i cannot win for the debates. i cannot wait for some serious answering. >> that is not a bad place to start, because i would love to pick up. mary, why are you undecided? >> because i want mitt romney to release his tax returns. >> is that important? >> when i was looking at how he was vetting as applicants for vice president, he made them 10 years'n years' -- the tax returns, and i feel bad

as unfair. little things i have read, like that in particular, stick in my mind. >> it sticks in my mind and it gets to be because? >> because it seems like it is not fair. but not fair because? >> because what is good for someone on one side should also be good for someone on the other. he should have to sense that he is going to ask his vice- president released 10 years' worth. >> anybody else feel the same way? >> no. >> let's see hands up. >> i do not think he should release any tax returns. i have my tax returns done in my favor, under the rules. the rules are made forever but, but to have to release his tax

returns for the prior year's summit that has no bearing on this. >> and mary has one point of view, charles have a different point of view. how many of you say charles is right? four people. good. ann, tell me what your thinking. you are undecided. why? >> in the discussion of the social meeting, it is hard to know what is being put out by the candidate come up because you have these commercials and sound bites from pacs to do not have to vet what they are saying. other people are coming forth, and i am concerned about not getting to hear just the

candidates' sides. ears too much of it. -- there is too much of it. >> you cannot authenticate it. >> how will you decide? >> by going to the sources that i feel -- and there have to be some out there still -- that are looking at both sites and trying to sit down to truly what the plans are. >> any one issue or area where you say this is really a make or break issue for you, or is it broader? >> a little bit broader. education one of my big concerns with the federal government making its way into and perhaps bullying its way into making school systems and states follow what the feds want

to do. about all politics is local. education used to be local as well. >> who else? charles? why? >> i am waiting for the debates. i am disappointed in all the sound bites hope the debate will give us more debt and meet as to what the true plans are of the candidates. >> what puts you in the middle rather than leading toward obama or romney? >> i do not have enough information. i would hesitate to make any decision because of a lack of information. >> if there were one question that the candidate had to enter that would help you, what would be the question? >> the plan for the economy. >> you're undecided, why? >> i cannot feel like i have enough information. it is vague now, like rhetoric,

like i am hearing, canned, a in some cases, but we are getting a can. it depends on how many times they go back and that becomes their position, but i want to know who their advisers are going to be. >> you are saying you are leaning in the most gentle way toward obama. is up for grabs? what is happening here? >> until a week ago i was completely independent, and i anstill am. i have a real problem about what went on in the last week. too reactionary. one thing that is important is that our president is seen well around or, is it the leader of

the free world, and that is the way i grew up. i grew up with ron reagan and bill clinton, and they work great. both in their different way straight it is important to me. i am only leaning toward obama because, although he is great on the stump, i have not seen it in the policies and in the other things. >> to help me out, when you say a reactionary last week, i was bothered, spell it out for me or for somebody who may not understand what you are talking about. >> with libya, when the ambassador was killed in libya. the reaction that came out from mitt romney, and it was so quick and he was grabbing on to something to the lake of the, like, he screwed up again, and wait, that is not what i want. take a moment, you know, think

about it, just do not think about politics. let's look at what happened here, and see what we can do as a country to better our place in the world. >> anybody else have the same reaction? let me hear from carlina. >> that was the same thing that happened with me. i was not sure, because my position with obama has been if he walked in openly confident that he could get everything he wanted done done, and he found out you cannot change with him not being able to get his policies passed, this is a contingency plan? with mitt romney, not only are you not giving us specifics, what will happen if you cannot get anything passed? >> but you are reacting off

date, and what was the point that they've made that you are reacting to? >> i was watching cnn the back rent, and he came on, mitt romney, and he started talking about how upset he was at how the president did not show leadership, and we should not be apologizing. i thought, wait a minute, wait, i am flipping channels between trying to figure out what is going on and then it came out that individuals had died. at the time that from facebook, -- at the time mitt romney spoke, that was such a knee-jerk reaction that i do not know who gave him advice, but i felt you are not the president for me right now. >> ok, good. ann? >> that is not the only

incident, but that was the most local incident that we had, where we have got to remember they might be candidates, but we want to see what they look like when they are presidential. >> that whole series of events me to lean away from obama, because the plane descend on a movie that has been out or six months, when this incident happened on 9/11, and obama is being apologetic about the video, that goes against being an america. we should not be apologizing for free speech or for the exercise of that. we should not be apologizing for our behavior. >> i want to hold you right there and then coming to you, raj, i want to hear from christina. we hear a lot of ideas and thought, and did this last week

have any affect -- effect on your thinking, and as you hear this a round table, what is your reaction? >> i think the situation over there is so delicate that obama was correct in a waiting a second and being as close as he was in his statement before deciding which way to handle the situation. at the same time, it showed me that -- it reinforced the fact that mitt romney does not have foreign policy experience. i do not think the way he jumped in was necessarily appropriate and that he should have recognized the situation as still to bobbling, and some things are still so delicate over there that he should just wait. >> susan, let me get you into this discussion. there are different viewpoints around the table.

what did you think of the last -- leaning? [laughter] i promised i would bring in an interesting group, so we are back not just nailed down. ok. tell me as you are listening to this and what you thought in the last week. what is going on? >> one of the first things i heard was that the president was apologizing for this film, and i was, like, you kidding me? i have a stepson in afghanistan right now, and all the news that comes out there is -- is why use the words carried then i read a little bit more about the sequence of events, and it did not seem to be as ridiculous what mitt romney did -- depends on what you read, actually.

it seemed like he was standing up for our country and there is no reason that you all should have done what you did over there in libya. it showed strength. >> it showed strength, sought out of last week you got a strength of running and that was good? -- you areh romney with romney? >> i'm independent. leaning. this is the election season, the ins are different. we should keep in perspective that it was the embassy that put out something about which is the mouthpiece of the administration, so it reflects what the administration thinks. you cannot this about that. looking at that, they were wrong to do that. there should not be somebody

tweeting on behalf of an embassy when such a sensitive situation has arisen. that could be considered inappropriate or may be wrong or a reflection on the administration. and the other hand, mitt romney may be came out too soon to say that, and you could say that was wrong. obama should not have apologized for this film on behalf of whoever made it, and romney should have waited to reflect on his comments, and what he said was not something disastrous. i do not see a black and white thing here. i think it is great, and it is a political season, and they would not be saying any of this if they were president. >> now everyone is worried about winning elections, and they are not thinking about what is right or wrong. what makes you look good.

the timing, who said it, everything else, and that is what drives me crazy that you are not getting an honest picture out of anyone. >> anybody else want to add in? >> i think that is part of the problem, that is treating this as the election, and whereas when people die and people are killed in a terrorist attack, you have to put aside politics for a second. you cannot just speak out at the other end, and that is what bothered me more than anything, that you could not put it aside for one moment and just warner for the loss of people. >> nicely said. >> i never saw the president apologized. -- apologize. had there been an apology, i would have been offended. i never saw that.

>> i think it was. >> i never saw an apology paid >> but you were saying because it was from the of been -- because it was from the embassy. voting for romney? he has your vote because? >> when the economy is down and all the things that happening now, the best thing to do is not to go to a politician who will say, it should go to a guy that turns around businesses. you need to cut the fat and sometimes people get laid off, it's things for this individual families, but you have to worry about the country as a whole, and when you do that, i think the country will benefit, and i think mitt romney as a better way of going about it because he

has that business background. >> moving quickly because i want to catch up. i'm a little behind. that we ask anybody, as the selection or the the position of vice president, either paul ryan or joe biden, at any effect on anybody here, and more positively or more negatively? a couple people, 4, 5, 6. >> with regard to romney and ryan, he is a numbers budget business guy like romney is, so that was a real plus. >> charles? >> on the matter of succession, it would scare the heck out of me to have biden as president. >> i am from delaware, so joe biden i grew up with, but the second part is paul ryan i have

heard is the most conservative vice-presidential pick in history, even compared to the most liberal v.p. >> any affect on you? -- any effect on you? >> positively, paul ryan paid >> i was the other way. i do not like pandering to a base, and i think brian was a move to the bay spirit -- i think ryan was a move to the base. >> everybody gets 10 seconds, even you, charlie. finished this sentence -- when it comes right to thisit, selection is about the -- >> economy.

>> health care. >> economy. >> economy. >> egos. >> economy craig >> economics. >> economy. >> economics. >> is the biggest difference between the economy, in economics, jobs? what is the biggest difference between that two? is betters tax plan to create jobs and businesses, protecting both the big business to create more jobs and small businesses to support themselves without having to worry about the health care taxes. >> romney and ryan are more likely to take that hard choices of cutting the fat. >> romney and ryan make me more

in the middle, because they are stronger on the economy. >> me, too, more in the middle, because of the economy. >> why? >> you look can mitt romney's success in business and economics, and the same with paul ryan, and they are number- cruncher's. >> i think romney will make the economy -- will affect the economy from the private- industries than poor, whereas obama will affect the economy from the government's standpoint. >> i feel like obama once our country to be loved and romney once our country to be respected. >> anybody else? >> i think we are going to be dictated a lot by outside forces that we have less control from.

>> it is not up to them to make all the changes. >> anybody else? >> we are talking about the leader of one branch of government, of which there are three. the direction is not going to move tremendously in one direction or the other. >> if barack obama as i said, my single biggest concern is -- >> it will historically be the second term, nothing gets done. >> my biggest concern if obama is reelected is -- >> we will have to deal with obstruction in congress. >> my greatest concern? >> he will look like he did not

do anything again. >> might greatest concern is? >> same thing, a stalemate with try to get things passed. >> they will have to have plan b to get things moving. >> i greatest concern, pamela, is? >> i am in agreement about the bottle making that seems to be going on. >> mary? >> more of the same. >> my greatest concern is we continue to focus on what is going on in washington, d.c., and not looking at the rest of the country. as a midwesterners, concerned about what i am seeing happening in those states. >> ok, and, charles, are you undecided or are you still leaning? your greatest concern about obama? >> there will not be any

restraint on him. he has nothing to lose. >> let me change, if i can pick greatest concern about electing romney? >> lack of foreign-policy. >> gridlock in congress. >> i would agree about the lack of foreign policy. >> ben? >> nothing i can put my finger on right now. there are reservations but no great concern. >> pamela? greatest concern about romney? >> the foreign policy weakness. >> mary? >> the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. >> ann? >> that with all this cutting their to stunts seem to be

anybody on the ticket that has sympathy for the rest of the country pa >> we have now covered the first seven minutes of my out line. the next part we really have to move on. let me move on, since this is a lightning and helpful. great job, thank you get, everyone picked a whole bunch of people, either national figures or state figures. i will ask you to go quickly, lightning round, i want a word or phrase to describe your feelings about some of the. -- about somebody. if i say barbara bush, did not say former first lady, i wonder feelings, what you are thinking about each of these people, a word or phrase quickly. tim kaine? >> he took a pay cut.

>> confidence. >> can do the job. >> i do not know enough about him. >> business. >> i have no opinion. >> held the democratic national committee job while he was governor. >> like bob mcdonnell. >> i will not vote for him again. i cannot express how disappointed i am. >> i do not agree with some of the things he has done. >> not fond of him at all. >> concerns me. >> useless. >> useless. >> bill clinton? >> barn-burning speeches.

>> i like him. >> i like him. >> charismatic. >> arithmetic. >> entertaining. >> a winner. >> compromises prix. >> still got it. >> willing to work the other side. >> do it again. >> mick romney? >> the evasive. >> company. -- uppity. >> evasive. >> confiden >> stiff. >> strong. >> experienced. >> like a used-car salesman. >> businessmen. >> joe biden? >> good at making people feel at

ease. >> good guy. >> good guy. >> kind of an idiot. >> liability. >> loose lips. >> emotional. >> michelle obama? >> down to earth. >> smart. >> role model. >> strong. >> role model to women. >> a liability. >> strong. >> asset. >> asset. >> hopeful. >> george allen? >> for that. >> confident. >> 0. >> loser. >> squandered.

>> joke. >> do not like him. >> no pinon paid >> barack obama? >> overly confident. >> passionate. >> strong. >> unrealistic. >> arrogant. >> unrealistic. >> hollow. >> getting there perry >> respected. >> good talker. >> who said hollow? >> he speaks a good thing, but i want to see the action behind it. he had the entire congress behind him for two years, at what happened he had it. >> good communicator. >> paul ryan?

>> needs to get his facts straight. >> pathological liar. >> smart. >> partisan. >> smart. >> good debater. >> math guy. >> smart. >> almost embarrassing to say we graduated from the same college. >> ann romney? >> too impressionable. >> a fighter. >> supportive. >> strong. >> survivor. >> no opinion. >> survivor. >> respecter. >> perfect wife. >> not a step further wife. belmont good.

-- not a stepford wife. >> good. i will start with that from may. if you were a relative, if he were a relative in your family, any relative that you can think of, who is mitt romney has a relative in your family? who is that romney, mary? what position? >> i do not know. >> brother. >> local. >> why? >> a lot of talk and just listen. >> he tells stories all the

time. you listen but did not believe everything. >> he is the creepy uncle you did not want to hang out with. >> who is he? >> my dad, because he is a little aloof, but smart. >> ok, christina? >> cousin, removed, and you hear about him, but he is not a major part of your life. >> he reminds me of my knees. >-- neice. >> my dad, willing to try it out, and not the best communicator, but he has done