>> good afternoon. we are going to get started here. i'm your moderator. , using republicans using republicans words to shut the whole thing down. there you have it. i'm going to introduce our panelists here. the president of american bridge. the powerful, permanent research arm of the progressive movement of democratic politics. they brought you the greatest hits of the laced -- last election cycle. reid.ked for harry

just macintosh, a director at emily's list. hopefully everyone knows emily's list. darian porton. working with pro-choice candidates all over the country to stock the republican -- top the republican -- stop the republican assault on women's rights. she has a great twitter feed. a.the right, james carter you may know him as the

researcher before the -- behind the 47% say. behind the 47% take. is consulting for media matters for america, the media watchdog dornan fox news'side. all the way on the end, amanda terkel, who is a reporter and editor at "the huffington post." fans, wehe seinfeld "terkel," because she is oh is beating us on getting scoops.

the first and want to do is run through the election cycle in research, and tracking. the greatest hits, if you will. with james,art off to give us a little bit of background on the story of the 47% tape. >> ok. research, doing this looking for videos about republicans saying stupid things , because it was fun at first. it went from being fun to being hobby more time-consuming , and now it is my job.

this is a gradual process. during that, i was doing a lot of searching on youtube and other video sites. i can across a video of what it said was a video of a private romney fundraiser talking about chinese sweatshops. i had held on a story about chinese whip shots -- sweatshops. besides it being a clandestine i'm taped video, the fact that it was something i had worked on before peak my interest. i dug into it. i was trying to figure everything i could about the video, try to track down the person. every time i would, with a lead, i would tweet about it, and get feedback from people. during this, i was followed on winner by a person whose

handle was the same as one of the various youtube accounts that had posted pieces of the video. out if thisgure person was legitimate, i follow them back and started messaging with them. didn't want to tell me anything about the video , which was a good sign. if it was someone who was faking it, they would've tommy stuff that was wrong. discussed, after i with him with a few days, i asked him to let me introduce them. , they cap me in touch, but it was a long negotiation process. the whole video came out and it made a big impact. >> that is an understatement.

a good rundown. are at the forefront of research and tracking, talking about -- what comes to mind from 2011-2012? in a lot of what we do, i go back to the election cycle before that, 2010, with sharron angle. i bring her up for a specific reason. you are seeing so many people work with video. republicans continue to become more and more to the right. i read some of the focus groups when senator reid was running

for reelection, and you would tell somebody sharron angle believes this. people wouldn't believe you. no one is that crazy. no one is that far to the right. it became one of those things --re it wasn't just someone it became an editorial tactic to show somebodies words. this is the footage. this is what they said. no commentary needed. do you really want this person in the senate? -- 2012.s us to 2000 mitt romney is a poster child for this stuff. i wouldn't have a job except for mitt romney.

there is him. the second was todd akin. to give you background on todd akin, what most people do not realize about that clip, the , he actuallype said that on a thursday. it was a pretaped interview. it is him and his press secretary, and the journalist he is giving interview to. no one in the room caught it. todd akin did not think yet said anything wrong. neither did the journalist. the journalist teases he has an interview with todd akin. a couple things come out. this is not one of them prayed one of them was something that he had said about voting rights. another one was getting rid of

the school lunch program. we are already licking our chops. this is great. this thing is coming out on sunday. we have trackers across the country. we are sitting at home on sunday morning eating cereal, watching this. todd akin says that. from there, the chain of events were he he sins that clip back to us in washington. no one is in the office. we are all online. we come up with a plan. a few different reporters. the first person -- probably an hour later, cnn picked it up. all the mainstream media piled on. by 6:00 that evening, the

pundits were wondering if you would make it through this. by 7:00, romney was saying this was not my guy. morning, john cordon said that todd akin should step down out of the race. the only thing i see about that is you talk about how that caught on wildfire. another thing fair member, it is , most of to remember , a people writing about this lot of people were home and were not doing anything. this is a nice, beautiful day. people were out.

>> you -- when you see the clip, or when you see richard murdoch the is stumble into territory of horrible things about women and rape, what is going through your head? how are you dealing with this? >> on that sunday, i was having a super lazy day. i got instant message from the reporters would been in touch with. he was like, i hope you do not have plans today. that was the end of my sunday. bringing in murdoch is interesting. you would think after eight again, the fierce and swift smack down that followed, everyone would have traded as lightly as possible.

then you have richard murdoch a couple of months later, weeks later agreeing with him and saying if women get pregnant as a result of ray, it is a gift from god. that led to my favorite headline of 2012. that encapsulates the entirety of the 2012 election cycle. "for some reason -- inh's comments not missouri." there is so much you do not know what to do with each individual one. they have not actually learned their lesson. i thought the lesson was do not say rape. you can say rape read you can watch a lot of testimony happening on sex assault happening right now. it is informative. it is what our lawmakers ought to be doing. the word is not a problem. the board is the belief behind

it. ed is why they cannot help themselves. two weeks ago, we saw eric erickson talking about how terrible was the woman were breadwinners. everything from hormones to porn was cited as why we see the sexual assault epidemic in the military. is the easiest way to get that stuff out. you wanted to be in their own words. as the holy grail. --you can put someone saying if you can see them say it, there is no way to unite as what they think and what they feel. i'm not go through your head when you hear this kind of stuff. when men turned out in historic numbers in 2012.

if there when to keep with the same playbook, so will we. we are looking forward to 2014. >> we have your video. ♪ >> how did america get so mediocre? became -- parents both parent started working. the mom is in the workplace. is liberals who defend this. they are very anti-science. look at the natural world. the male and a female in society, the mail typically is the dominant role. >> the air force base exchange,

sexually explicit magazines are being sold. they are awash in sexual activity. >> the young folks coming into each of your services are anywhere from 17 years old to 22 years old. gee whiz. the hormone level created by nature sets in place the possibility for these types of things to occur. >> you have got to laugh or you will just solve the whole time. we are trying to have some fun with it. we mock them.

>> there are these -- whoops. increasingly, there are these moments of lawmakers saying things in their own words. how do you pick what to report on? how do you resent it. what is the process when you are becoming inundated with this kind of gaps? >> if you are trying to pitch the media, if you go to your local members town hall and get a great clip, and think the huffington post will love that, if you send it to the media, one important thing is that you send as much of the clip as possible. i've had many people tried to pitch here are 10 seconds of a lawmakers saying something really crazy, put it up. i'm not go to put it up.

i have no idea if you're taking them out of context. as reporter, i do not want to see blue-black -- i do not want to have blowback and say you are taking out of context. in the wisconsin senate race in the gop primary, one of the candidates was a venture capitalist. he was at a speech. there were reporters in the room. he said that he is so sick of hearing some stories about poor people cannot get their food stamps. he wishes the media would stop covering this. and to cover more stuff about the debt and the deficit. that never gets covered. i was sent 10-15 seconds. i said i'm not going to run a break and won a big chunk of the speech. my source sent me the whole

speech. if i was accused of taking it out of context, they could see that it was clearly in context. i think that is very important. giving the reporter is much as didible can -- the campaign a smart thing. they had a tracker record everything joe walsh said. it was public. anyone can go see it. they didn't have time to go watch all of this. he did not necessarily find the nuttiest things he said. it was all out of reporters who had the time to go through. that was great. i would love every lawmaker put up raw video so you could find it. that was very helpful. i cannot get out to illinois. that, if a couple ways

you're an activist or if you are working on a campaign, you can have your favorite reporter that you send things to directly. do you trust the reporter to keep your identity secret, to write it up anyway that you think is going to be fair? you can send to a group like emily's left, because they have contacts in the press. they can get it out there. you can write up your own post. go to the huffington post blog and put it up there. those are the ways to disseminate. reporters like the glory. we want to know that you send it to us first. if you put it up somewhere else first, some reporters will say it is on an activist website, going to take it? they all have their downsides. you to look at how you want to

get it out there. the 40s & video is a very interesting case. ,nitially put out the videos grainy and blurry. with weird names. youtube,e upon them on and i didn't think they were real. some likely pursued it. he partially did that because he wanted to build up hype, build up service and ministry around it. it did work. it is tricky. you have run the risk of people not taking you seriously. you have to figure out, there are contacts who can get things to the media. if you and your community, if

you're going to town halls, take along a flip cam. do video. the reporters love video. >> in the context part it is interesting. video, -- the 47% -- what i want to get into, talking about opposition research, why do you think it is important? why is it, how do you sell it? why do you justify why we need this research?

>> i have a few answers for that. on the tracking case, we see things like the 47% tape. we think of that is tracking. effect of the matter is, over the the last election cycle, we had thousands and thousands of hours of video footage. they were not all are sexy as those three instances. if you're one to build your it,aign strategy around have your whole campaign hoping someone says something so horrible the media will take it up, you're probably going to lose. is theger part for me hypocrisy. base takes over we reallyican party, care had primaries over the last

couple of election cycles. , and the things they have said to get past the primaries has been their undoing. i'm sure there was a time where you could go to the rotary club on 17 town and tell them one thing, and then go across the town and tell another group something else. that is something you cannot do anymore. if there is anyone going back to to romney, anyone who sold american bridge better than i could, it was eric furnish him -- furnstrom. your guy said a lot of extreme things to win the primary. he's like, well, the voters are stupid. we can etch-a-sketch it all

away. no, you cannot start clean. is the more i think important thing. finding these people who talk about cutting social security, and the day of the election, talking at the old folks home. i think that is why it is important. i think the research and the tracking together are important. if you just have the video, isn't that context. one story, our favorite george allen in his last election, he , and this is how research and tracking work together. someone stood up, a father of a

son in afghanistan. buy bought herto it -- buy body armor for christmas. george allen said that is ridiculous. he said he finally consented, i'll make sure they have the equipment. it was nice and 20. some people applauded. we got the clip. the person on our staff who put together a research document on george allen said, this does not sound right. in 2005, during the senate debate on the budget, there are a slew of votes on body armor. george allen voted against funding for body armor. we sent it out to the washington post.

george allen had a couple of bad days. we would not have that if we deny the research and the video at the same time. >> how do you keep track of vista. you do the research. is in a vault somewhere? michael kind of like jackson owns all the sony stuff. we put together -- we have our website. a lot of our stuff is kind of in a vault for lack of a better term. a lot of these people that we track are going to run again. something that michele bachmann said during her presidential we said -- we used during her congressional run. we will do that over and over again. research and tracking are kind of innocuous until they are not greatly hold onto everything.

budget, it is for more storage. did we just spend a bunch of money on storage? video.re is more it is a good problem to have. flagship group during researcher. then on the other hand, we have researchu're a one-man machine. why did you do it? what on earth would make anyone want to go through his history on your own all the time? >> i didn't have much else to do. i was unemployed. from collegeeak doing, i had started

watching republicans talk full- time. i didn't have time for school anymore. [laughter] just becauseng it i enjoyed it. it was always a challenge to catch the perpetrator in the act basically. with mitt romney, it was fun. there was a lot of information already. the opposition research from the mccain campaign had been posted online. washallenge was the video out of the way he was keeping of what was going on every day. i pretty much seen everything he had done on video to that point. i started doing the nonvideo stuff, and digging into those backgrounds. my goal was to find things that

the mccain team didn't have. then, once i did, i would send it out to people in the press that i knew were interested in different topics or whatever. it was really just a challenge to myself that kept me going. >> that is a good answer. >> we all say things. -- we all say thanks. >> with this information coming in, how do you decide what to emphasize question mark what to tweet out to your many fans? the video is out there. the researchers out there. that is not the whole project. >> there is so much out there. they give you so much. americanwe have the

bridge, we have people all over the country you understand the technology and are able to capture it, and know what to do with it. there is a lot to work with. i think windows you have to let stuff go. there is too much going on. we ought to teach gender roles traditionally to elementary school kids, and i'm probably going to do something with that because he gets in with the larger narrative on the war on women and when to roll back the clock. if that larger narrative weren't happening, i might let that go in favor of something that fed into whatever the zeitgeist was. i think the stuff is the most effective when we can couch it in terms of the parties brand.

it was one of the first caught on video moments. it did some work exposing george allen's racism. it didn't explode all over the republican party like todd akin did. importantstuff was so because they were trying to legislate what he had said. he was in an outlier. yet cosponsored legislation to differentiate between types of rape rape when he said that, it was not a crackpot who should be allowed to talk anymore. it was the agenda of the party. that is why everyone got in trouble. 47% is will republicans -- is what republicans think. that is what i go for. things are infuriating, and i can semi-whole day getting outraged, but i try to go for the stuff that is not just an outrageous comment.

it is exposing an actual legislative agenda. that is the stuff that is really terrifying. it is fun to make fun of them for being out of touch, but it is more important to make sure that voters know what they want to do in office to you and your bodies, enter worklife. >> is it a to make that connection? two connect actual legislation? >> sadly, no. it is really easy. there are a million pieces of legislation. anytime someone talks a woman working outside the home, or set it -- or how sad it is, these are spokes people full -- or making sure that women do not make as much as men do. that is the easy comparison to make. they have thise many pieces of legislation to redefine break, but they do. it exposes something within the party.

>> writing about politics as you do so well, do you decide what you want to write about? you talk about what you look for , but is there an overload on how many of these kinds of moments? post" canffington never have enough videos of politicians saying something crazy. there is an endless appetite. people love the videos. we love those. people love them. some are very disposable. there are many of these moments over the past campaign seasons we will never remember.

they were popular for an hour. they didn't rise to the todd akin, 47%. talking, figuring out what to is pairedt, if it with good research, that is great. there are videos that cannot stand by themselves. you may think it is outrageous, i do not character. if you sent a reporter and say this contradicts what george allen said last year, here is a link to it, that is great. i will increase the chance that i will write that. that becomes a story. it becomes something related to policy. it is better if it is something that is happening currently in the senate or in congress. not armor, that is something i'm really covering right now. if it is having that the senate has been debating, that would be

fantastic. it gives you the extra hook. sometimes you may want to hold until you think that the senate will be taking it up. tots hold and send it whatever outlet and one we pray that could be smarter. getting the timing right can be very smart. save for a rainy day. use molly, a can be effective. i do not like when a group will send me someone talking with immigration. immigration is big right now. here is what my opponent said about immigration tenures go. and you send me a file. i'm not going to write about it. it is not a story. you need to give the reporter an actual narrative, an actual story.

use apple research smartly. that is all. with what weo do do for a living. i am always perplexed, and i'm sure others are, the videos that completely blow up and videos that fall flat or do not get the traction you think it would. -- howhave any sort of do you gauge reading something? a sauce over the that helps you blow things up? what do you think make something pop? >> that is the great thing about a lot of these videos. were while, the videos someone follows a candidate, and

you back to them with questions until he say something, those were popular for a while. that time is past. just getting candidates and using their own words has become a lot more effective. said.annot deny what they they have the whole speech there. if someone says and that is clearly false, that is different than what they are telling audiences, things that are offensive, those will always do well. they're always going to be a market for them. it is those videos in between that can be tougher. i think this is bad, or talking about a local issue that you were worked up about we are not. that is where those videos that are on the line, where you needed research or some sort of

near two to pull the reporter in. , whatuestion for james advice or takeaways did the two of you have for folks who are running their own campaigns out there, or who want to incorporate research and tracking at a state level or local level? things people can do, tools they can use. i have to imagine there are some pieces of wisdom from someone who knows this as well as anybody. for'm actually available opposition research work for campaigns. [laughter] twitter is a good way to get

in touch with me. that is my advice. [laughter] >> i endorse james. a lot of what we do is timing an opportunity. at the same point, it is about preparation. if you're going to have a -- i have always thought that research is the building block of your campaign. i understand there are campaigns that are wealthier, and some struggling for money. everything from your earned media to your paid media, to the mail you're going to do, to your narrative, you want to go after your opponent on education issues, but yet there is no research that shows that he has done anything wrong.

early in youring research and your opposition research is extremely important. it is the building block for the campaign. the same thing about the tracking. if you're one to track, then it shouldn't just be -- i apologize -- it should just be the intern tracking when he is not doing whatever else that they are doing is an intern. , what ever else they are doing as an intern. it should be a dedicated tracker who was there every single day following everything the candidate says, because you never know. it is all innocuous until it is not. until you actually need it. those would be my tips on getting started. , we doas far as i know not do our own inns -- in-house

tracking. parthis plays an important in the job you do. what do you say to folks that are maybe in a similar position, smaller organizations? >> that is an interesting question. what happens once it breaks? i think we need to be careful as part of an organization not ,o turn a legitimate, substance apolitical story -- story into a political football. when the todd akin thing broke thomas something that outrageous, you will find valid haters to be outraged about it who are not party, who are not the candidate you are working

for. so and so said x is a much better story than democrats pounce on so and so for saying x. there is a tendency in our world to get super excited when we find this stuff, and we go, yes, but do this now. i caution -- caution. watch, see where things go. see what things ought to be nudged in. do not estimate -- do not underestimate the power of sitting back and letting things play out. we have seen a couple times when folks have jumped the gun on these moments. this was not a video, but i am thinking of out the romney conference where he so clearly thoughts he had the vital, deathknell, he was done. terrible. all disheveled, smirking the

whole time. it was way too early. he turned a very substantive issue everyone was paying attention to into political theater, which turned off anybody who might have been predisposed to be on his side even. --re was a rush in our world because we are political people in that is what we do. to lean back and things go. also, sometimes tapes are wrong. tapes are edited. tapes are doctored. tapes that are not coming from credible sources like my fellow panelists. then you end up with the shirley sharad situation. .> one more question then i will go to you guys, so start thinking. the research -- and really the tracking world seems to be changing now that everyone can take video on the iphone. a bartender at a private

fundraiser can capture the republican presidential nominee. how is this changing the approach to all of this, this whole world, when anybody can -- >> everything is on the record now. >> i'm going to start with amanda. as a reporter -- your thoughts? >> i think it is great. there is so much out there that never gets covered just because there aren't enough reporters or there aren't enough trackers or what ever there is. but there are people at these events. local council meetings, a townhall for a congressman, a meet and greets. it is all on the record now. there is a lot that goes on at the local level. theerent messages than national level. i think it is great. it is harder, i guess compote

-- it is harder, i guess, for politicians. citizen journalism. i get a lot of this sense to me by readers. maybe i was watching my local news and sought an interview with the candidate. they just send it to me. that is great. i cannot watch every news station. i remember there was a gop primary debate and all the candidates were asked what the federal minimum wage was. a sittingm was congressman. none of them knew. which was ridiculous. someone flagged that for me. i would not have seen it otherwise. i think it is fantastic that there are more out there. candidates are cracking down. they say, you cannot bring your phones in. you cannot bring your cameras and. that is bad and we should west and why they are doing that, but it is fantastic that there is more access. a

- am watching the mitt romney barack obama debate, but what i cannot see is what is going on at the ground level. and many times that is what we are most interested in. >> everything being on the record -- this also plays a really important role in grooming candidates, finding good candidates. is it a good thing? does it make your life more miserable? >> it is a good thing. you have to have message discipline, but it has to come from a truthful place. you cannot come in and recites talking points you do not believe and leave the townhall and be the jerk you are in real life anymore to go someone will tweak that you were rude to a waiter and they saw it or they tweet your testy exchange

with a voter. it will improve candidate quality. you have t have people who live the stuff that they preach. which i think is good for democracy, good for america. yes, i do spend more times with candidates the king sure that they know there are no unguarded -- making sure that they know there are no unguarded moments anymore. there are some things you do not want tapes because they are yours, they are personal. that is bad because you lose those moments. but then you say what you believe and then you are going to be consistent. record, everyone is a tracker. the world we live in? >> that is what created my job for me basically. there is so much video out almost notthere is enough people to watch at all. one of the most

interesting things to me was i never considered before this process that me, not having an actual job with an organization that does this kind of thing, could be sitting at home and watching videos on youtube and catch something no one had been no one had seen before. i was able to do that several times. it became less surprising every time, i guess. there is so much stuff out there. that is why amanda needs people to send your videos. she can't watch it all. neither can the rest of us. there is too much for almost any of us to watch. the more eyes we get on its -- it's not just the camera lens. the camera has to be on it first, but there has to be eyes to watch it later to find the things in it. i think the more people, the more cameras, the more eyes

involved with the process, the better it is for everything. >> i think the idea, and not just the idea but what is happening with citizen trackers is extremely important. i look at it also from the sense of the media's role in this. what is the great thing about jiss being on enemy was -- emily's list now or any of the work that we do with american bridge. withi started work american bridge, if you did not get someone at the times or the associated press to write your story -- it was very much a trickle-down sort of thing. if you did not get a major news organization to run your story, your story was never going to get hurt. a heard.r going to get

it is no longer hear down. it is circular. it does not particularly matter where your story starts. if it is a good story, it is going to make its way around. i think that is great. that really jump on quickly. i know we are looking at local newspapers and blogs all day long for really good stories that have not gotten up to the national level, give the local outlets a lot of press. but local outlets are seeing things that we are not. if you get it in the local press or the local log, it will rise up. we may write that if it has not been picked up everywhere nationally yet. at the same time, you can get something in a national outlet -- maybe your state outlet has an interest in it. for us, if we are interested in

it, we will publish. they will say, the huffington post or whichever outlet shows national interest in what our local congressman is saying and then the state and local press will cover it. so, yes, it is very, very circular now. >> great. we will open it up for questions. this gentleman here has had his hand up for a long time. we have a microphone -- please wait to ask your west and -- your question. >> is this being recorded? [laughter] >> you are live, saturday night. >> exactly. trackingthis is about candidates. but what about taking the same techniques and using this to track other types of april? are there any efforts going on to do that so that when the candidates are expecting these things --

what about other types of people? maybe the corporation heads who are driving a lot of these things? i have trained a group of senior citizens in florida to ask the questions of the head of a restaurant chain about paid sick leave and using those kinds of videos to illustrate an issue that is very importance. .- very important i appreciate what amanda says, which is we did not start off waiting for something. i actually designed a narrative i wanted to get and i went out and sent the senior citizens out there to ask the kind of questions that would elicit a response. kind of any of that action about the tracking, recording, and pushing up the narrative that you know is oring on in issues and/

focusing on corporate heads versus candidates? >> i will start off. on the issues peace, yes, but it is shrouded in politics. like the nra convention or a tea party convention where you have politicians but then you have people in the movement. we have tracked things like that. what we have found -- i am all for it. the one thing we have found that has been kind of a pain is -- at least with politicians -- they have public schedules. so, we kind of have an idea where they're going to be and when they are owing to be. and it comes to corporation heads, they just don't have it unless you know that they are having a public event. and they do not have nearly as many. notve heard a story, it's my story. i think it was -- they were doing something. they were doing this coke

brothers documentary. and they went up to one of the ' many houses. they knocked on the door. i am not going to call them a butler. someone who worked at that house came up and they said, they were here to do this stuff and whatever. they close the door. then a couple seconds later someone much bigger came out and said "you have to leave now." within 20 minutes of that happening, every single one of ' houses hadhers been alerted and were at devcon five. 5.at defcon it is harder with "private citizens." but they do have the kind of fame and no variety that, in my

mind, would allow them to be tracked. but it is logistically problematic. >> i think where you have been seeing a lot on issues -- and this is still talking about politicians -- gun control. during recess, they had people go to these local town halls. senator kelly was probably the most publicized one. families of gun violence victims confronted the senators about why they did not vote for background checks. they also had these families write letters to the senators and ask them, did they want to sit down and talk about background checks over dinner, come over to their house? none of the senators took them up on it. the kelly story got publicized widely nationally. they were also publicized in the state press. i think in many ways, they were

most happy about getting that state press. they were on the front page of the arizona republic, having that town, and having people push back and the confronted. they have the national stories tying everything together. i think that is where you are seeing a lot of this sort of on issue-based advocacy. -- really>>, i wrote last, i wrote a story fall. but romney ran some stories on welfare, that president obama was gutting the work to welfare requirements. and affiliates that does research -- an affiliate that does research not on candidates, but on think tank types, the quasi-academic source of this ad which was in the news and going all over the place, basically the biggest poverty denier conservative academic in

america. which i thought it was a good story. wasas useful because it going at the source of the information. if you have a campaign and the other side is putting out some information, it is good to get some information on where it is coming from. i quoted people who said "we do researchthis guy's at all." maybe that is another side of it. next was to and? -- next question? 10 years or so, how has tracking and opposition research changed with regards to tracking and disseminating its? mean, 10 years ago we did not have anything even approaching what we do now.

there would be discussions from people on the ground. they would radio win. i remember people holding their cell phones up while we gathered around the landline to listen to what -- [laughter] celloming in through the phone and that was more or less tracking. they were not accepted at all, to aou could not go in partisan rally. they would throw you out. today that would be a story. if we were not allowed to videotape a public event by republican congressman or candidate, that an -- that in and of itself would be a story. five or 10 years ago, there was and tackle dance. your biggest staffer would stand in front the dude with the camera. it was silly. do not say anything that

terrible or hypocritical and you will be just fine. it's a people a long time to figure out. they had people rough up trackers or be rude to them and then the media would jump on it and everybody would be wondering thisare they hiding before became part of daily campaign life area the last cycle that i work for candidates and not an organization,, we became quite friendly with our tracker. he was a decent guy. he worked for the wrong team as far as i was concerned, but we totally like tim. you expected to see him there. he became part of the campaign team. that was all will because he trusted us, more or less, and if we told him we had no more events that day, he would go home. he was not very good. [laughter] has evolved aat lot, is what i'm saying.

that we allthing understand is part of the process. flex -- >> on the tracking of course, i think it is definitely the technology. people remember 2006. even before that, there were a couple trackers in 2004. now everyone has the technology to do it. everyone has the technology to receive it. on the research, and i am pretty sure one of the godfathers of opposition research, michael michael gurkey -- oh, he is there. he has been saying since 2004, research is not a static thing. someone would do a research book

and it would sit on a shelf. i think at american bridge, we are forever updating these research books because there's always something new. i think that is one of the bigger innovations and research. it is a constant updating of the research. it is not a static, you know, book. i think that has been helpful. >> more questions? gentlemen in the front in the blue polo shirt. a couple years ago in alaska, ,he tea party senate candidate joe miller, had just questioned whether the unemployment insurance was authorized by the founding fathers. the day after a reporter from the alaska dispatch, which had dispatched him with the story, shows up at a miller event and

he is promptly detained by the miller securities service and had to be liberated by the anchorage police. in a way, i suppose progressive sensitive. they sometimes say things they should not and so on. i would be interested, based on what you have learned from the opposition, what advice you give to candidates on the progressive side, particularly how to handle trackers, how to handle your words, and how to prevent this sort of outlook meltdown we have seen with miller, murdoch, and a can -- akin? >> i do not think we have the same distrust of the press that they have on the republican side. that would never happen with the democratic -- it just wouldn't. i can't think of a time or a candidate who would detain or assault a reporter -- i mean,

that's -- right? security is usually some scrawny 22-year-old who was also the driver. there is no idea that we need to keep everybody protected. i think our job is easier, i think, then there's. -- theirs. we are the pro-information people. that means we are less scared of there being information. >> the advice i would have is believe what you say and don't believe crazy things. [laughter] >> the red shirt right here, third row. you said the you tube and all of the various video allows people to the caught being rude to waiters. i happen to be from .ew jersey

and being rude to waiters would be posted by the government's own people. [laughter] i would just look to your comments as to how this can create a cult of personality as well? >> you have a special case. i do not know anyone who is as lauded for being our rent is fully as your -- being our rent this bully as your governor. it's like larry david for portions of social issues. i cannot think of another politician who does what christie does in terms of the evening rude and obnoxious and generally taking on people in sexist ways -- theycan think of to, but are no longer congressman. joe walsh and alan less. >> why is christie better at it? it is new jersey.

i can say that. i'm from new jersey. there are certain places in the ,ountry, iowa being one of them i think that that would become grating. i think people on the east coast have a thicker skin about some of these sorts of things. this is just my personal opinion based on pending time in other parts of the country. there are places where that plays. if i -- i think if he were to do the iowa caucuses and call someone up on stage and a grade -- and the grade them the way he does in new jersey, i do not think he would go that far. with joeare instances walsh and allen west -- if the media put up a clip of joe walsh or allen west saying something silly, their opponents would be really happy. but they would also be really happy because it allows them to the mainstream media

is all against me. and it does sometimes get the base riled up. they can fund raise off of that. they are considered conservative heroes taking down the lame stream media. it could benefit your opponent as well. in the media, if people are sharing your story, it is fine and you do not care who is sending it out as long as people are posting it. at [laughter] >> over here. >> at the top. mic, sorry.on >> i do research for credo. this is a process question. we have done all video all the time. i wonder if there is room anymore for the traditional, nuanced, process to actually get

that said? as an example, it took quite a while, we had this piece around kagan where he was feeding his family for hundreds of thousands of dollars and it got no play. taking his family on junkets to europe. i am mystified about that. any comments? well -- >> i think that's, first of all, i'm a very big proponent of the long-term research stories. i think there are a couple things. one is reporters, as i mentioned before, there are not a lot of investigative reporters. that is first. reporters want small, bite sized content. a tacticalom standpoint when i wake up in

the morning, especially when you are in an election cycle, i just want to make sure the opponents, who ever it is, is having a bad day. if it is a small thing, it is a small day. and small things can become big things. we tried very hard to place think weories, and i talked about this before. i hope we never sent you all opposition book and said, here, publish this. if we did, i apologize. the idea is, we will send out a press release or bullets, and we quote,ve the greatest be witty, pithy, and the chance is it will not get as much pick extremely creative video team create something.

people like watching video. i am with you on that. there are great investigative stories that are written. i do not think you see as many, especially on the local level, because those teams are the first positions that are cut in newsrooms. a place's definitely for those. that is one of the reasons that i like working at huffington post. we do those little bite pieces, but there was a piece that we did that shockingly did really well and people were very interested in its. there are often times when stories like that are picked up. if you pitch that to me, as a reporter, i am going to look at candidate or a lawmaker i'm interested in? is this an issue that i am following? if it is something about a candidate and there is a history of corruption or history of drunk driving charges, something like that, i tend not to be as interested in

those. if it is something where he is, i don't know, railing against subsidizing food stamps but he is getting all of these government subsidies, a clear place -- a clear case of hypocrisy. it's very subjective. a lot of it is finding out who is the right reporter to pick it up. it definitely is harder. you have to find that right order. it was very interested -- i was very interested in covering wisconsin stuff. if you sent something to me, i probably would have written it, just because i was interested and covering wisconsin. these are very gratifying stories. dive deep. you haveeel like gotten something when you read it. you feel like you are eating your old rather than taking the can -- the candy.

please keep pitching those sorts of things. those are great. reporter time is limited. you just have to find the right thing. >> one or two more? this lady right here. >> i think one of the things that does not get talked about a lot on the 47% video is it broke on a liberal outlets. you go back and forth in politics. an outlet,k it in you get to talk the frame you want versus a more traditional outlet that may get more eyeballs. can you talk about that tension and advice for those who do this kind of work? >> in that specific instance, the reason why i gave it to david koran is because the part of the video i saw was about

chinese sweatshops and i worked with him on that before. at the 47% part was a bonus. that was great. i did nott wasn't -- have the 47% tape and decide to break it on "mother jones." one more piece of advice i would have about something like that -- reporters have things they are interested in. doing wisconsin for a while. i know that her blog is a great lgbt to send things about things. every reporter has stories they like to do. so, having relationships with reporters like that is t and choosing the one that you think would be most likely to do it. also, he if you get a

relationship like amanda at the huffington post and are not interested in it, but you know someone at the huffington post is, you can go through amanda, i assume. you have someone that covers whatever it is, will you send it to them? and i think getting it referred from another reporter gets you more a chance of it being taken seriously and looked at. >> speaking to the breaking on progressive or left leaning media outlets versus a traditional media outlet, it is more about how the piece is written and getting the story right the first time rather than getting it under the new york times masthead. which is new. years ago, if it was not on the wall street journal or ap, it would not be considered legitimate.

the stories were stories and they were great and they were really well written. and i think having that first meansbe perfectly done it's going to have a greater reach than having the masthead be the biggest and most, you know, very down the middle. but progressive -- progressive leaning -- i don't even know how to say this. they are not partisan allies at all. there is no chance i could call up someone at mother jones or huffpo and get them to kill a story that would be bad for democrats. they would be mad at me. the journalism is absolutely solid and not slanted at all and i think that is understood and expect it by other journalists to work at outlets who do not have that reputation. so they are happy to read those

stories and know they are well thought out and well done. i do not see that as being as much of an issue as it would have been a few years ago. >> if something is in your local or state blog and i see it, it does not mean i will not pick it up. if there is a full video, that helps, rather than a 15 second clip that looks to produce. what helps is if you send me a link. what often happens is i will it. report it -- re-report it is fine getting things on the smaller outlets where it might be easier. just know that if you send it to a reporter, they may be a little more skeptical and take more time to check to see if it is accurate. at >> one more probably. >> [indiscernible]

>> this lady in the front in the purple. >> my question is about the next level down. i think it is clear that the things like 47% were legitimate rate have the power to -- legitimate rape have the power to affect votes. but things like etch-a-sketch, things that are not from some in turn, but not from the candidates themselves. obviously we got a great kick of etch-a-sketch and things like that. but i wonder is that something that is great for those who like the inside baseball kind of stuff or do the kind of surrogate next level down from the candidate, to their comments actually have the ability to make much of a dent in things? i think it depends on who the surrogate is.

foster freeze goes on television and says back in his day the idea of birth control is putting aspirin between a girl's needs. people are going to pick that up. also, with a lot of these things, it is death by a thousand cuts. we were talking about this before. there are so many we have forgotten. we put together so many videos. the ones we're talking about , because those7% were the ones that resonated. but there are things that came before the 47% on it romney. everything from when he was asked about -- he said he made 370 thousand dollars in speaking fees and call that not a lot of money. "i like to fire people." " -- haemployed right now ha ha.

1000 like the death of cuts. there were a lot of people that were like, i bet mid romney would say something that. it was already in their minds. i think they are important. i do not think there is one ha! video. you have to keep going and going and going until you get to the point where people will believe when something big comes on. credos is a nod to the folks. joe walsh -- i wrote up some of these videos and the only one that really comes to mind was him questioning tammy duckworth, a double amputee war veteran, her time questioning in the military. it was pretty egregious.

, he wasme he went up saying something. it was almost like he was doing it on purpose. like, look at me. i am going to one up myself or something. that just felt like an accumulation of things. snowball toed and the point where you got the sense -- you are heard from people like this guy. be loping was, what is going on? thing was, what is going on? what is wrong with this guy? there was not one big bang moment. >> if it is a staffer or surrogate, it has to be part of a larger narrative. i had never herd of foster fries when said that, but it was so perfect and then it became a big thing. worked aromney had not

day in her life comment -- they tried so hard to turn that into a thing. there was no narrative about democrats belittling work at home. do anything except become a temple instead of a dense. if it is something like etch-a- sketch, if you are already thinking, dude likes to revise his history, and it has to be the chief strategist. someone in the room. and that guy says that. and you know he has been in strategy sessions. it does matter. it still helps. , we will stop with that. thank you for the questions, everyone. we really appreciate it. [applause] have a good day. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> on sunday, discussions from this year's netroots fundraising conference. participants include naacp president ben jealous, the greenpeace executive director bill radford, and oregon senator jeff merkley. that begins at noon eastern on c-span. >> next, a discussion about the future of the republican party and then some of the challenges women face in political campaigns and in office. after that, a chance to find out how recent campaigns were affected by candidate statements caught on tape. needs a strong

partner, and honest partner more than the american president, in whatd and cocooned harry truman called "the great white prison." that is what i concluded after five years and hundreds of interviews through those presidents with raid spouses who were willing to speak hard truths, those presidents have a distinct advantage. let me give you an example. had pat nixon been able to cut through her husband's paranoia, watergate might have been avoided. but she had long since given up on that i the time they reach the white house. they were living virtually separate lives as you will see in my per trail of this saddest of all presidential couples. "i do not give my husband , "ice," pat nixon wrote

because he does not need it." >> the discussion of presidential marriages and health first ladies shaped american history. monday night at 9 p.m. eastern on c-span. theow a discussion on republican party's future. aspen ideasal festival. this is about an hour. a [applause] a trustee of the aspen institute said that we are spending a little much -- a little bit too much time on patter. anyway, it is a delight to be with everyone here to talk about the future of the republican party. a friend of mine said "well, that will be a short discussion ." [laughter]

that is not our view. i could not be more delighted than to have three of my friends who represent some of the best inking and the republican party or the right of center movement and the country. i think you know all of them. elaine chao, the former secretary of labor and fellow at the heritage foundation, mike gresham was the speechwriter for former president bush and currently writes for it the washington post and appears on the lehrer news hour. and your name was? >> [indiscernible] >> to be introduced as a strategist for the republican party when karl rove is on the platform is a little daunting. i think we all know karl. he was just talking about the last election mainly. he clearly is the premier republican strategist of my

generation or our time. about theant to talk last election particularly. that is obviously relevant. i do want to talk a little bit about the challenges our party faces going forward, mainly from a policy perspective. then you can go to the audience and you can ask anything you want. it seems to make, the question about technology, the question about demographics, all of that is very important. the question about whether candidate recruitment was right, whether mitt romney connected with voters was right. but the future of the republican party, it seems to me, depends on whether there is a policy rationale that is compelling for the hardy. i think there are serious challenges and i want to address different hearts about with each of you if i can. like to all, i would

start with mike on something that i think is the most significant development for the party today. get to it andnot your panel. it has gotten overwhelms a lot of supreme court decisions in the last couple of days, that we will talk about later, i'm sure. has beene phenomena the emergence of rand paul is a serious national figure. i served with his father in congress. liked him. he was a smart guy. i do not think he ever went into an election with anybody -- he was proselytizing for an idea. by that standard, he made quite a bit of traction. his son seems to have a different ambition. the polling that i see shows it is being taken seriously and needs to be taken seriously.

a republican nominee, but maybe even as a potential president of the united states. we will get into foreign-policy later. but my experience over the decades really -- you have been one of the most topple articulators of a communitarian vision of conservatism. you talked a lot about that over the years. is rand paul's libertarianism consistent or compatible with communitarian conservatism, even the kind that ronald reagan emphasized with family, work him a church. are the is compatible in your mind? >> yes. [laughter] >> all right. would you elaborate? >> i think it comes to fundamental matters of

governing issues. they work themselves out in the primary process. this has been dubbed the libertarian moment and there's a lot of truth to that. rand paul is a very effective politician. .ery different from his father rand paul really represents libertarianism without the edge of looniness. [laughter] he is very effective at speaking to a vent to support a very strong ideological perspective. there are a lot of events now that are conspiring in the libertarian direction. everything from exhaustion with global commitments, which i think are probably shared by most americans. moving into the middle class with ees, which i think has been a traditional libertarian pursuit with money. we have had recent events that

seem to be conspiring with conspiracy theories, whether it is the irs or the nsa or the fbi and the mastic thrones. that is the thing. it is widely overblown -- it is widely overblown reaction, but if it's the libertarian narrative. the question is, the policy problem that the republican party needs to solve can develop more. but i think the republican party has a serious problem with working class voters in an economy that is continually stagnant for them, no matter what the situation is in the broader economy, and with new americans who are concerned about social mobility. one of the this extraordinary facts that came out of the great recession was in the worst stage of the great recession people with a four-year college degree had a 4.5% unemployment rate. people with just a high school

diploma had it 24% unemployment rate. we are a society increasingly , skills,d by class education, family structure. the question is, are republicans livedto speak to the experience of the many americans they need to appeal to on the economy? i do not think libertarianism speaks to those parents -- to effectively if the republican party is going to expand and change its face. rand paul's approach not only also into question the obama agenda and obamacare, but the great society and the new deal and maybe the lincoln administration, quite frankly. [laughter] with the role of government. and republicans are going to have to find an active, but ofited and positive role

government in promoting social mobility in this country. the traditions that speak to that are the linktone he and traditions of protecting entrepreneurship and economic progress. the catholic tradition which talks about mediating institutions and solidarity with the poor. the evangelical reform tradition, the wilberforce tradition. all of those are more promising when it comes to appealing to the actual groups that republicans need to appeal to then libertarian ideology. [applause] >> thank you. go ahead and applaud. elaine, that leads to a question -- again i want to focus on policy rationale for the republican party. if i were a democrat, i will listen to all that and i was a,

-- i would say, that's as good as far that goes. but we had a collapse of the economy under a republican administration in 2000 and eight. theave recovered through stimulus program under president obama, the fed quantitative easing. doesn't this all proved -- now the economy's growing again. we are adding jobs. the stock market is rising. doesn't this fundamentally his economice republican policies? and if the answer is not a different republican model, it is go to the democrats. i don't think so it all. >> oh, good. i do not agree with your initial supposition. i do not think the republican model is discredited.

it is being questioned, yes. there is no dispute about that. i also dispute that the economy is coming back. the unemployment rate is 7.6%. the net jobs created in the last month are well below the jobs that need to be created every month just to keep even with population growth. the unemployment rate, at 7.6%, as high as it is, masks the fact that the labor participation rate is quite low. from the year 2001 until 2008 8, the labor participation rate was , with ae d 7.7%. now higher unemployment rate, it is .7%.lly 53 we have a lot of discouraged at american workers who have left

the labor force, who cannot find jobs. given the sharp decline in the economy in 2008, given all the fiscal stimulus, why has the economy not oust back more quickly? and all past recessions when there has been a deep rock in the economy, he bounced back has been sharp and >> and we are not seeing that. quick.p and and we're not seeing that. the question is, what is holding back the full recovery of the national dynamism of the economy recovering? you can have a lot of discussions about that. from my point of view, it is a tremendous amount of taxation. in the present and in the future. that is casting a pall over employers who are concerned about the health care, the affordable health care act, frank, that has been

proposing tremendous restrictions on banks and freezing liquidity, and also this huge avalanche of regulations emanating from every single federal agency in this administration. too much taxation, too much regulation. in fact, i will show you the result on an economy that is not bouncing back as quickly as it should. --karl >> oh, great. >> we have mike saying that the republican party needs to address the social problems of a stagnant income and social mobility and that rand paul's libertarianism is not consistent with those aims. it lane the problems of the economy -- elaine says the problems of the economy are too much regulation, taxation. address that. agree with all, i both of them. i think mike is right. if there

is attention the kind -- there is attention to between the kind of libertarianism we have seen and a healthy future for our party. i welcome the libertarian influence and the party. i grew up in the west. john my mentor over here, cora logos. every republican has a healthy dose of libertarianism in them. the question is whether this will be the prudent leadership of the libertarian movement? school choice. something that mike would acknowledge is the libertarian invention, if you will. that is a good thing and a good part of the republican message. what they tended to do on -- what- what the grover norquist calls the leave it alone coalition, there are people who want the government

out of their lives. will we say, no, we want to repeal the affordable care act. or do we want to say, no, we want to replace it? joinwe have people together and pool the risk so they can get the same discounts that the big boys get? libertarian have a flavor, but it will require prudent leadership among republicans. we have most libertarians who say, if i do not have 100%, i will vote no. the most liberal republican is justin mosher of michigan, far more liberal than any other republican. why? because the rest are one percent purist libertarian. if it is not perfect, i am voting with nancy pelosi. i am voting no, because unless my side at something perfect, i

am voting with the bad guys. on elaine's point, i agree with elaine that we do have a message that i think is fundamentally being questioned. but i think it is fundamentally sound. we pay attention, and we need to look at the other guy's problems. the democrats' have an economic program that simply has not gotten the support of the american people. the job approval of the president on the economy is 38.58%. -- we'redable care act doing all these great things. it has reached its lowest approval rating since it has been passed. this is not an economic or brand that has done a lot -- we're in the first republic in -- in the first economic recovery in which the median

household income is in decline. we have the most anemic recovery in the history of the united states. you look at the last 12 months, and we have created 177,000 new jobs each month. it will take until december 2014 to get back to the number of people, at 138 million, working in america that we had when we went into recession in december of 2007. we have created just over 3000 manufacturing jobs over the last year. at the current rate, it will take us 41 years to get back to the number of people working in manufacturing that we had in december of 2007. it ain't going to get worse. it's going to get better. the workforce will have grown to 12 millionn people, depending on which economist you're talking about.

some mom will reenter the workforce, kids are off to school and she reenters the workforce, no jobs available. some people come from the military, and there are no jobs. both parties have economic challenges and both parties need to have a robust debate internally about what they propose to do about it. i think mike is right. it needs to emphasize the lived experience of most americans. the idea that this has been settled by what has happened over the last five years -- don't believe me. go read about jim messina going to be president in march and april we talk about the stimulus and people bar of. we talk about economic recovery and people say what recovery? we can't win on the basis of your record. we have to take a fifth and go eradiate mitt romney and we call it the grand bet because if it doesn't work we have ner