way they have been conducted is to freeze out the possibility of an independent candidate in other words, the candidate who wants to achieve status as an independent or third party candidate today, has a hurdle to overcome, by simply virtue of the fact that they will not be in the presidential debate. they are an essential part of the campaign, just like the nominated conventions. well in advance, we know already that an independent candidate cannot be part of the debates. they will not be treated as a serious candidate by journalists, contributors, or activists. we are asking that the system be opened up, not because i am dissatisfied with my party, but because i think the help of the political system depends on it. host: you are a republican, advising jeb push. ross perot's presidents on -- presence on the stage hurt

george bush. guest: there is dispute on that. this is not about rigging the system so my candidate wins the under -- or the other candidate loses. this is about the health of the political system. i did not vote for ross perot, i voted for george h w bush. but is it illegitimate to say that perot could not articulate the issues he cared about? those are important issues that millions of people care about. i do not agree with those americans that ross perot should've gotten their vote. but to say that person shouldn't be represented is not good democracy. you said, we do not want a clown show. can you elaborate? guest: one argument made, that undermines what we are talking about, is to allow everyone running to be in the debates. we have all sorts of minor

trivial candidates who have no chance whatsoever of being elected president. we don't want that. we want a voice on the podium to articulate the views of the large bulk of americans. we do not want to simply open it up and let everyone come in. the republicans and democrats at that point would say we are not going to participate in this. but if you have a system that allows a candidate to earn her or his way into the dsr podium we think that affords the system a better opportunity to hear a third voice. we think it would be good for both parties and for the country. let me make this point. we have a two-party system in this country, it has produced wonderful things in terms of stability for our country. i am aware of all of that. i like all of that. but the strength of our system has always included an element of a safety valve, or and not -- and i'll let for people who are dissatisfied with the parties. sometimes it has been very important. at the turn of the last century, the progressive movement

required a third-party effort by my home state of minnesota. the farmer labor party was a dominant party in minnesota. they put major issues on the agenda. this ultimately is important to the two-party system. i understand the republicans and democrats do not like to think that, that they just think you should choose my party and not look for the third party option. but the health of our two-party system has always been greater because we have a viable third-party option that has kept people invested in our local -- our political system. people do not express confidence in the political system. they do not express optimism for the future of the country. there are a dozen things we should be doing to combat that. one is to open up the debate. host: our guest spent 12 years in congress. we will get your phone calls and -- in a moment as we are talking about politics and the debate, including next fall, let's talk about the most immediate debate in august, the first in a series

of republican debates in cleveland, the site of the 2016 republican convention. two pieces this morning. first from the weekly standard editorial. is fox news limiting the number of participants in the first debate? this is separate from what you are talking about. it is the issue of who should be included or not included in the debates. guest: that is a different issue. we are talking about the presidential debates in the fall of next year. this is about how the republicans will conduct a debate leading up to the caucuses and primaries next year . it is an important issue. i understand the controversy. the chairman of the rnc is doing a great job. he is trying to grapple with the very real problem, which is, we will have 15 or 20 candidates. how do you have meaningful

dialogue or debate involving 15 or 20 candidates? it is not going to be workable. there are difficulties with the solution. the solution that the networks are coming to is that we're going to cut it off on a basis of polling. the top 10 candidates will be included. that makes a certain intuitive sense. but think about where we could be on this. i urge my friends on the rnc to think about this. just in terms of resume, the most qualified executives running for president right now are rick perry, four term governor of texas, george cotati, former governor of new york. they could be excluded from the debate. are we going to have a set of roles that exclude the two people who have the most executive experience? the primary in ohio we could , conceivably see john kasich, the former chairman of the house budget committee, and great governor of ohio, and excluded from the debate in his own

state. i think you'll see a lot of pressure the debate in his own -- i think you'll see a lot of pressure. the republican national committee shows that he cannot have 20 candidates on the dais and watch, but they have find a different system for whittling it down. we have one kind of idea, which is we need multiple debates and random selection of candidates to participate. over time, the polls will whittle it down. host: let me go back to kathleen parker limited room for , debate. she says, imagine for president -- imagine running for president of the united states, which requires narcissistic propulsion pathological ambition, and knowing at the start that not only are you not going to be president, but you will not be allowed to play with the big dogs. guest: that is a serious indictment of the process.

i think if we do not handle this in a way that all of the candidates feel is fair to them, and gives them an honest shot, the whole process will break apart. we will find people organizing their own debates, other media outlets will be challenging, and the established ones, and we will find a loss of control in the process, which is exactly what the republican national committee does not want. host: john, joining us on our republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i do not know where to start. the dnc and rnc election process has been rigged by the mainstream media for so long. we do not have a choice. there's really one issue. that is the trade and banking sector. we had 340 people in congress

who wanted to audit the fed, and it was killed by the senate. this is really the only main issue. we are getting into crony capitalism and we have given up on competition, and the american people that have been listening to the mainstream dialogue about things, there is a lot of americans out here that don't feel that the government helps us. in doing anything. host: based on your concerns, do you think that this country would embrace a third-party, or a third-party candidate? caller: i think that the dnc and rnc are basically criminal organizations and i do not think the american public listens to, or is informed enough. host: we will get a response.

what about his concerns? is the system rigged? guest: the dnc and rnc are full of good people not criminal organizations. i agree with the republicans more than the democrats, but i think they are all good people. he has raised serious questions about the nature of our political system. you find people on the left like elizabeth warren and people like rand paul on the right, raising the same questions. is the system rigged in favor of wealthy interest and policy -- powerful interests? that goes to campaign finance and other things. i happen to think that there are legitimate problems with the issues that the caller talked about. for instance auditing the fed. auditing the fed sounds like a simple thing. it is audited, by the way. we are talking about an assault on the independence of the central bank. i do not know how you conducted -- conduct a modern economy without a central bank, but that is a reasonable debate to have rated the caller is legitimate to raise it. host: democrat line, good morning. caller: good morning.

host: thanks for listening. go ahead. caller: i think what is happening right now today, the goal for the independent party would be, the way the liberals see it, the voting is so stacked up with gerrymandering and all these things that test voting rights, it is very clear that if you vote for anything else [indiscernible] guest: most of my republican friends think the opposite. if you're viewing this proposal to include independence of the -- independence of the presidential debates as a way of bringing the system in favor of your article i can see other party, then you are doing the wrong thing. that is not my intention. my intention is to look at the strength of the political system, where we find records

numbers of people dissatisfied with republicans and democrats and see if there is a way of reforming the system to instill greater confidence in our political system which is important, not just for us, but around the world people look to america as an example of how to build a democracy. no small task. across developing nations of south asia and africa we find , lots of countries looking to us for some example of how to build a political system that resolves issues peacefully and has the confidence of the public. when we see record numbers of people saying they have no confidence in the political system we have to take that seriously. not as republicans or democrats as americans. that is the way to look at this proposal. if it is not a good idea for the system, we should not be doing it. but it should not be looked at as an attempt to rig the system for or against either party. guest: how -- host: our guest is it former

representative vin weber republican from minnesota. currently a partner in mercury a public strategies firm in washington dc. mike joins us from michigan. good morning, welcome. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: perhaps a painful and embarrassing question for you mr. weber. during mr. bush's governorship of florida, he participated and implemented himself in a personal family matter called the terri schiavo case. guest: i remember. caller: he took unprecedented moves to have emergency sessions brought before the state legislature, all for political posturing for his base , and really embarrassed not only himself, but a lot of republican legislature in the

state of florida. i would like you to please go into detail, and let the listeners know what exactly occurred during jeb bush's governorship and involvement with the terri schiavo case. we need to hear this. guest: i think we remember the terri schiavo case page flip it -- painfully. it was a painful chapter for all involved. i understand people on both sides felt very passionately about it. keep in mind what governor bush was responding to was the heartfelt pleas of her immediate family that she not be allowed to die. i fully understand people on the other side, her estranged husband wanted to disconnect life-support, but her immediate family did not, and governor bush took efforts to preserve her life at the request of her family. it was a difficult situation, i do not think that any decision would have been an easy one.

but i respect governor bush to listening to the family and trying to protect life. host: why are you advising jeb bush? guest: i think we have a lot of good candidates on the republican side. i think governor bush is the best qualified and best able to beat hillary clinton and win the election. he has talked about the american economy in ways that i think is very important. we have a settling in of the notion that america's best days are behind us, and it is not just a pessimism, but the notion that we are in a bad economy and the rest of the world is growing, and we can't achieve the kind of growth rates we did in the past. governor bush has taken the notion head-on, and talked about restoring high rates of growth and have a third american century. he has policies, reform policies that address that. i think that is an important thing to internalize. his path is caused -- call the right to rise path, which is the

notion that we have seen stagnation of middle-class incomes for 30 year now. those are important issues for us to talk about. democrats want to talk about redistributing income. that is kind of accepting the fact that we will not be able to grow anymore as an economy. governor bush takes that idea on very directly, as do other republicans, but i think governor bush has taken it on more effectively. he is a great record as governor , and is the best candidate and will be the best president. host: let me get your reaction about atlantic magazine saying, "barring some ripped from space-time consortium, hillary clinton will be the democratic nominee in 2016. she should be an easy target. but the one republican least able to attack her is jeb bush, who shares almost everyone of her vulnerabilities.