you have finished your education. so we want to refinance the loans and then we want to make it more affordable on the front end so people don't ends up where you are. i also want to put a limit on the number of loans, at some point it is just counterproductive. we are going to help. thank you all very much. thank you. [applause] >> we will have more road to the way has coverage tomorrow night here on seas. former florida governor jeb bush lays out his foreign policy priorities at the ronald reagan presidential library in california. you can watch this at 11:00 p.m.

eastern. atafternoon hearing looks ways to prevent telemarketing scams directed at senior citizens. we hear from a number of citizens who testify. >> up next, a conversation on media coverage of the 2016 presidential race. from "washington journal", this is 45 minutes. >> we have 10 graham, director of the media research center media analysis program, as well of new investors. let's get your general reaction to the debate last week. what did you think of it, was it fair? i think a lot of people have a mistaken idea of what happened there. i think all the candidates got rough questions. i think jeb bush, -- rough questions.

people need to look at the transcript again. some of the questions were hard-hitting, sometimes they were sensational or personal. but it was a good show. i think they are right to suggest at some level, these are questions people might expect liberal media moderators to ask. some of them very hard-hitting questions. >> what did you make of that? the effort by the moderators, the fox anchors, to ask questions that many republican viewers were surprised by and disappointed with? tim graham: i know republicans want questions that are substantive, that would be good. everybody wants substance. everybody wanted to see trump get asked some questions of substance to see how he would deal with them. this has been the problem with the media coverage so far. they're covering trump as a tabloid figure, and all of the wild and crazy things that he says.

while trump dominates the coverage, the coverage says, look at how trump is dominating the coverage. i was hoping the debate would broaden out the coverage and allow some candidates some breathing room. host: is that the fault of the media? the moderators? the candidates? tim graham: i think it is the media. i turned on the tv last night, and saw, "trump dominating the news." it all feeds on itself on some level. i wouldn't say that coverage of trump has been positive, it has been largely negative, just like the coverage of hillary clinton has been largely negative so far.

i think the biggest problem we have is we don't get enough of it. we watch the network news,. you get so much stuff that has nothing to do with politics. yielding have a small hole for the campaign. the interesting thing about trump running is the amount of coverage of the republican race went up dramatically because they thought that people would find this interesting the way they like thunderstorms, mudslides. host: what is the media missing about these candidates and their campaigns, and the public policy issues? guest: there are a lot of things to talk about. i think one of the things that they are not talking about is just the way the obama presidency has gone. that is obviously a major issue. if you come in in 2007, and say, let's have a debate and not talk at all about what the bush administration has done, that would be interesting. during the bush years, it was always, every day, what is the latest bush fiasco? whichever president we have, how

they decide to use executive power, the way this president has used it is surprisingly noncontroversial. there is a lot more substance. i guess we can't always expect substance. i think the networks today just thought that the discerning viewer, who really cares about the issues who really wants to , see the candidates has lots of choices, they have c-span, youtube, all kinds of ways to get their news. so to make money, they would rather do stories that their consultants tell them will score with viewers. host: there has been criticism that the real intent of the fox news network and monitors was to whittle the field. and to narrow the field to candidates that are more mainstream. one of our viewers said that the

media wants us to vote for jeb bush, just like they wanted us to vote for mitt romney. tim graham: i think there is always that feeling at this in a point race. in some cases, it has been more dramatic than this. you get a little bit of that in the happy hour debate, the question was, "why are you running for president, you don't have a chance." i certainly would share that concern. that is not really a question voters need to hear. it's not a question of substance. it is still early, there are so many things to be discussed, why don't they just -- yeah, policy questions would be good. i think it's fine to say, why don't we asked the same question of 10 people. i think the concern there was it is not great television. in the republican debate, they thought maybe they would sound a lot alike on these issues. if they said, trade policy, go. that would not be very exciting. they didn't do what they did.

-- they didn't do what they did. we will obviously see if the candidates go onto the next debates, how it will be different. host: the progressive watchdog group, media matters, coming out next, had this on their website -- the real purpose of the foxnews debate, they say the fox chief knows the best way for fox to bolster the republican party in the long term is for mainstream journalists to trust fox. for the blindly loyal propaganda division to appear for one night as credible. propaganda doesn't work if you know it's propaganda. that wasn't the real fox news. tim graham: when you take a group that is basically -- hillary clinton boasts that she basically founded media matters. for them to discuss anybody else as putting out propaganda is pretty rich stuff. the reaction from these people is that it is all a charade, they can't really be this way,

this is part of an evil and nefarious conspiracy -- i just don't buy it. host: how is the media covering hillary clinton's campaign and the democratic nomination process versus the republican candidates and that nomination process? guest: hillary clinton, on the evening news, has the most amount of coverage. she has about 190 minutes of coverage, trump comes in second at 116 minutes. she has dominated the democratic race. all of the polls which show you that. if you look at a candidate that has gotten the most positive coverage, not the most amount, that would be bernie sanders. his coverage has been remarkably positive, about the size of his crowds, and his appeal. his crowds, and his appeal. the coverage of mrs. clinton has been pretty negative, a lot of that on her e-mails. i think what is remarkable to us is how she has decided to run this campaign, saying, she is not granting interviews or doing sunday shows like donald trump.

she will just run and not to much press at all. it is amazing to me that she can get away with that. the media did not have much self-respect when they were roped in on the street. tot: she response on twitter wherever the debate is happening, in washington, were out of washington, she will come to twitter. what do you make of candidates using that rather than the mainstream media? can be the most consultant driven material. it is not the same as the back-and-forth with journalists . she is running a very canned campaign. is exactly what she didn't in 2007. they were doing more immediate back then than what she is doing now. back then, abc had 45 minute

town hall meetings with the candidates. republicans never get that kind of airtime. host: we are talking about media politics with tim graham, the media analysis director for the media research center, he is also the executive editor of newsbusters and co-author of the ."ok "collusion barb.e up first, caller: thank you for taking my call. i have been watching c-span for years and years. i've what you call one of the old ones because i am in my 70's and have been involved in politics all of my life.

i worked for john kennedy, and also bobby. i have changed totally over because i've not interested in the media and politics being able to tell us what is politically correct. i'm backing trump because he is a leader. as far as the 10 up there, you part of his cabinet from them. they have some sharp ones up there. i'm also a backer of ted cruz, i would love to see him as vice president. c-span, we don't get people. that is open to ever anyonelly what thinks. we are not talking about what is really wrong in a mess right now in all directions. we have to get someone in there

who can change it and turn it around. i think trump can. guest: again, i think there's a lot of appeal in trump, and that is where the media comes in. with ross perot, there was this whole notion of running the government as a business. people love this idea trump because he can be either the guy who takes the nomination and the bull in the china shop, or becomes a third-party candidate .ike ross perot host: what do you make of barb sentiment is that there is this antiestablishment, and in that, against the established media.

it is not just what is happening in congress or the white house. it is skepticism and cynicism towards the mainstream media. guest: the media has a lot of power. one of the reasons we do what we starting with john kennedy, television became a big factor in who becomes president. now, we are at a point where the media seems to want to say who the president will be, but when they become president, the issues are too boring. toon't expect there will be much heavy coverage of the epa regulations. this is not the kind of story they like to do. they would rather have, what did trump say about megyn kelly's time of the month. to some extent, it is insulting, really, to the voter. they think, we have a lot of people in the audience who don't vote or vote rarely, so that is

not our concern, it is how many times can we get people to watch the red lobster commercial. host: what you make of the interest? guest: again, here is a figure, kind of a tablet figure, and what will he say next. you probably had a much higher democratic audience for this than you would normally have for a republican debate because they were looking at what kind of train wreck this would be. i was surprised at how large it was, it was probably twice as large as i expected it to be. we will see if that continues. this is one of the reasons why they are doing so much coverage fo of trump because they think he is good for their business. that is one of the stories you can find on the media research website. frank is a democrat in colorado. caller: i have a question.

trump is entirely a media creation. i was wondering whether you think having someone like donald trump, someone who is otherwise a reality show presenter with a , running a money viable presidential campaign, does that represent the end of our fair and true democracy and fair and true media coverage in america as we know it? calleri like the who is making the point that trump is being seen as a populist, not a lobbyist. that he gave money to hillary clinton to come to his wedding is what lobbyists expect. don chubb has the right to run for president. he has one of the things that

all the candidates want, he has a very high name. he has been the representative of the new york business community since the 1980's. he has been a route along time. you can see where that media would find him an interesting candidate. it is funny and away because i think journalist think he does it have any experience. he would probably need a lot of education as to how to be president, but they are just enjoying the ride right now and want to see where it goes. i think they all expected that he would not file his campaign finance disclosures. they are writing it -- riding it. host: houston, texas, a republican. caller: i think is really important that if you look at the indicator of 24 million watching the debate tells me what i have been knowing for at least two decades now, and that

with the media, and their propaganda for democratic and republican causes. i think we are starting to wake and are nowct rejecting anything that the media is doing, just to show them that we are sincere about what we will look for in a candidate. i will say that i would rather trump than any of the gop well-wishers, such as jeb bush. i think we have to stick together, and recognize that abc, cbs,turn off the nbc, and cnn, and start really listening to what our hearts are saying, we will find that this country is really going to go downward until we decide it is

time we've had enough of what the trees it is -- treasonous media has done. guest: i would not say treasonous, necessarily. again, the problem is -- let's take a look at something like the national debt. this is not a story that they do. you can look at all of the coverage of 200 2012 and look "deficit," and you will have a hard time. we have this remarkable trillion dollar deficit as far as the aiken c, and they decided it was not going to be an issue, not going to be on the table. that is something where you say, if the national media would like to represent itself as a referee for politics, it is missing a lot of the time. its main focus is always who is up, who is winning, who said what about who, and the substance gets lost a lot.

.ost: robert, an independent you are on the air. ? ,? comment?on or donald it is about trump. why didn't they ask the rest of the representatives have a businesses do you own, how many people are you hiding? butthey are doing nothing -- there is not one of them worth voting for except for .trump he doesn't want their money, he doesn't need their money, he is running his own campaign. he doesn't want anything to do with them. why in the world -- the american citizens can't wake up and realize that we need a man like

that in there that knows business, knows how to run business because america is a business.i but: we understand that, what you make of how he is being covered by the television networks, by the print media. caller: i tell you, they are all afraid of him. all of them out there are in the pockets of lobbyists, special isn't.ts, and trump the rest of them, all they want is whatever money the lobbyists and special interests can put in their pockets. guest: again, i find that completely mind-boggling that you would say, i don't like the lobbyists, i don't like the let's elect asts, special interest. it doesn't make sense to me. is obviously another

businessperson in the race, carly fiorina, who was ceo of hewlett-packard. you would have to think the next time when they do polling, she might end up in the first year of the debate -- first-tier of the debate. i don't think that being a politician somehow disqualifies them. there are a number of governors, governors are here in washington, but running governments and their states. i don't think that is a disqualification in any way. oft: what about the coverage carly fiorina? is she being propped up artificially? there have not been many questions about her business operations being guest: she has about her business operations. guest: she has to talk about being fired. when you get down there in the weeds, they are getting almost

no coverage whatsoever. i think this debate performance was one chance for her to get some air time. host: is the coverage of bernie sanders matching the amount of people that are showing up for his events? 12,000 in seattle. guest: i didn't see overnight how they covered him there. this to me presents the only time he gets negative coverage because these black life matters protesters keep showing up. republican voters just don't do that. they're very mannerly and well behaved. they don't try to interrupt your campaign. won'the news media do is look at it and say, this may be trouble for the democrats. some of useminds older people of the 1972 convention, not that i was very old at the time, but the convention was a mess because

they let people talk until like 2:00 in the morning. columbus, georgia, duncan, a democrat. good morning to you. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. , for the most part, hatredt mr. trump's comments and remarks about anyone who says anything negative about him. it is really sad. i was really saddened by the comments that he made in regards to miss kelly. as far as i'm concerned, it was a fair question. hatreds to say a lot of and very ugly things about people, i imagine just because he can. he is a rich man, and all that stuff. know, i am like a lot of

others, it is no excuse for the things that he says. that,azed by the people according to the polls, have fallen behind him. i understand politics a little it. i'm a 57-year-old man. i follow it just a tad. our politics has reached a new low with this derailment here with this gentleman here. he gets in these news conferences, and what have you, and in the ones i have watched, he is not saying anything. host: ok. tim graham? guest: this is the funny part, here we have trump, all over the sunday shows -- is some other candidates got some time to

talk, where is mrs. clinton? every time i see mr. trump take tough questions, and that was a tough question, a personal question, and i can understand as a candidate how that can be an upsetting question. other candidates got tough questions. jeb bush got the iraq question. the first thing i would say is where is hillary clinton getting tough questions like this? i think fox news would ask her these questions, if they can, but she is so afraid of the andrea mitchell of nbc who would give her and adoring interview, she is not even willing to do that. the dominant question i would ask right now as a media critic is why is mrs. clinton allowed to do this, to not speak? that should be a question that any self-respecting journalists should ask. host: and still get coverage? guest: i think there's a lot of questions that she could be and scandals.licy

you have some a scandals on her. we want to talk about women, there are lots of questions about clinton and women. and, there's a really hard question for democrats about land parenthood that she has not had to answer. host: we will go next to richard -- anndependent co independent caller. caller: people are starting to see the light. the republicans and democrats cannot and will not fix problems like securing the border, creating jobs, balancing the budget. i don't know how long we will be fighting over there in the mideast, and for what, sending troops to die for what? it is very obvious that the political parties have become a cartel. what the people want, their job

is to reject the people in the country, create the best .nvironment, create jobs they cannot do that and will not do it. trump, who has been a businessman, and does not seem like he is part of the political act, i think he can. a lot of people think he can. more power to him. from what i hear, it looks like 9-10 for him. party for the people, for the country, and for the world. we have been run by this oligarch of cartels for too long, and all they will do is create problems. guest: again, how can the news media cover a balanced budget?

how does the news media cover immigration? remarkably slanted coverage of immigration. they don't really want to have a discussion about the negative impact of immigration, whether it is crime by illegal aliens, or the burden on our systems, work if we have issues where people are concerned about culture and whether people speak english language. what you may call a conservative agenda on immigration, the talking points, they will avoid all of those. where we have gotten in coverage of immigration is very sympathetic files of illegal aliens. that is usually where everything starts. a republican from new jersey, go ahead. caller: as someone who lives in a state with very little, if not if not no,ence --

influence, white should i watch these debates? the media pretty much decides , andirst major candidates then the nomination is all about wraps up on super tuesday. the way the media covers this, why should i care? ones: again, they are the running the show at this particular point. obviously the candidates have their own plan. it is true. theeresting things -- interesting thing about all of this is you have 17 candidates, and you ask how many will still be on the ballot at the iowa caucus? i guess about 15. will drop0 of them off after two votes. that is a frustrating thing. the voters really don't get much of a right to decide. we don't have these long drawn

out primaries. obviously we did in 2008, but that was because people runrstood that obama would anyway. they were really concerned in the obama camp of losing. t an instrument leave for people before they even get a roll. i could see very much where you say that i will not have a real input as a voter as to where this thing goes. maybe you have to be a media critic to make media change the way media is run. let memummy babs -- bounce this headline off of you, "hillary clinton begins taking risks and landing some punches." taking anyis not

right now. and get knows that. she covered her at the state department and covered her as a cheerleader. grew inmight her legacy, whatever her legacy is. , and thereound a lot are still a lot of questions about benghazi that haven't been answered. that is another one of these issues that congress is investigating, and the news media is try to ignore. the clinton scandals, for most networks, they are not interested in covering, though, scandal, the same thing. politico had this recent story. the media summer fling with joe biden. his moving personal story and a

desire for a more competitive coverages to favorable . asst: that strikes me democratic nervousness. i don't think any of them -- if you really look, did joe biden run impressive campaign and 1998 or 2008? no. the idea that he would somehow be doing better than jim webb here, except for the fact that he is vice president of the united states. i think the thing that we find most amending is the way -- joe hisn puts his foot in mouth about twice a week, and the media says "charming." host: "washington times," there two failed -- presidential bid could haunt

biden. robert, your next. caller: thank you. i would like to relay what is going on in the political arena today to what was going on in rome. they built an amphitheater and ew in animals, and people cheered. fox news is just giving yahoos what they want. guest: again, the great thing about the debate is that it actually let's other candidates talk. it would have been better if all of the candidates have gotten equal time. some of the backers of the candidates were tweeting, where is ted cruz, where it's been crews? carson? is ben without me candidates, that is the risk, that some get lost in the middle. there was one statistic

that moderators spoke 31% of the time. guest: that happens a lot. they know that short questions are probably better, in terms of being a hard ball question, the shorter, the better. thatgraham was upset candidates didn't answer the questions. obviously, this is something the politicians do, and the consultants tell them, you get your talking points out, whatever the questions are. host: my low in iowa, what do you think of media and their coverage of the 2016 campaign? caller: good morning. i would just like to remind trap gott believe that that questions -- actually, i thought every question asked in the debate of every one of the candidates was tough. if the folks think that mr.

trump got some hard, tough questions, if he gets the nomination, i would like to remind him that the liberal ll will behea unleashed on donald trump if he gets the nomination. the ammunition that he is giving them right now -- i mean, if we thought was that with romney, this will exceed anything. right now, and there's a gentleman the called and earlier about the treasonous media, which i'm sorry, i have watched a really great attention, especially over the last six years, and i totally agree. it is really a bad name on journalism. it is too bad that is how it is. mr. trouble have a very hard time if he is the nominee. guest: i think i would put money on that prediction as well.

if nestor trump -- mr. trump is the republican nominee, and doesn't run for an independent they waited until mitt romney was the nominee for the party to run a story. he was the only plausible republican candidate who didn't lay inattack until that the race. in our book, we talk about how every republican candidate, who rose to the top of the polls, got hit with an investigative journalism thing. the paintedwith rock. rick santorum's wife lived with an abortionist. i think it is likely that we get all kinds of story from trump's

life if you were to get the nomination. host: isn't that the role of the media? as they rise, they let the potential voter know that this is the other side, things that could be caught rishel for you. guest: this is where the pick and choose comes in. these are not the stories they will want to do about the clintons -- how is bill clinton is not a story they will be out there searching to find. what hillary clinton with the law firm records is not as interesting as what mitt romney did with the scissors in 1955. the democrats get a different ,tandard on personal behavior on scandals, on policy positions that republicans get. for example, the michele bachmann piece.

a gay activist group sent a adden camera in, and abc did huge story on it. they have a very demanding double standard on what they decide the new should be. is it because republicans run on morals? guest: that is part of it, but the question you would ask mrs. clinton is .unning on feminism it is just as much of a moral issue in a different way. the clinton's massive wealth building, the massive speaking fees, these are the kind of stories -- doing them,rs are but the networks have not been not interested in those stories at this point, or those angles. republicans are going to use that against mrs. clinton to

say, "we're populist? how much money do you have?" host: welcome to the conversation. you're on the air with tim graham. caller: my question is, have any news reporters looked into the possibility of hillary clinton half campaign people being -- hillary clinton's campaign people being behind the #blacklivesmatters' disruptions at bernie sanders' rallies? clinton's people are behind it, because he is gaining on her. he has more people that turn out for his rallies than she does. and i firmly believe that her

people are behind the #blacklivesmatters disruptions at bernie sanders' rallies? guest: i suppose what we need to disprove that is a #blackli vesmatter process at a hillary clinton event -- protest at a hillary clinton event. i think the #blacklivesmatter movement -- first of all, that's a very insulting hashtag. then when you say "all lives matter," they get very upset. if you're going to run for the democrats and say, elect us for president, we think all caps are murderers --are that's not going to play.

again, this kind of truth is a racist narrative, then we are going to ignore it. then you don't get news. host: dave, a democrat in michigan. good morning. caller: good morning. tim, obviously, you have appointive -- a point of view. may ioint out first-- point out first that your comparison of what happened to bush in 2007 to 2008 is just off skew. back then, we had record home foreclosures, record job loss, a six-year war that was supposed to last weeks months. you wonder why bush wasn't taking heat? the stock market was falling. my last point is, with bernie

sanders, why isn't the so-called liberal media just covering bernie sanders? the media seems to not be covering him at all. host: we will take both of those points. bernie sanders is getting covered. they are trying to figure out whether he represents a real threat clinton -- misses clinton -- real threat to mrs. clinton. they have this nervousness, can she do it? they had the same nervousness around bill. these stories are stories they don't want to do. but bernie sanders has gotten a lot of coverage. again, nobody is going to ask the question, like, so the democratic party is a socialist party? these people say the republicans are extreme. the death threats seem extreme if they are running as self-described socialists, as

the phenomenon drawing attention and building large crowds. doesn't that say something about perhaps the democrats are out of touch? this is a capitalist country, last i checked. host: good morning, howard. caller: good morning. the question i have is, for the media, do some research on the good old boy concept in washington between the republicans and the democrats. it doesn't make any difference how much wrongdoing, how many mistakes they make, or whether it is negligence, like hillary in benghazi. they just use them for talking points. they never filed any charges. like the irs, there are no charges filed. or there are no charges filed against hillary. as far as trump, if you will read almost any book on how to be successful, it tells you do not associate with failures.

associate with successful people and they will help you become successful, and trump is the most successful one of the bunch that is running. and god bless him for exercising his right free-speech -- his right for free-speech. host: all right. guest: the question i wanted in that was the bankruptcy. again, the populists into this populists answer the question, yeah, i use the bankruptcy laws in my favor. most americans don't do billion dollars bankruptcies. that's where you do wonder. the assessment of his business record is going to be something that will get more in the media. host: tim graham and others at mrc.org and newsbusters.org. you can follow tim

>> washington journal errors every morning on c-span. more on a media coverage of the 2016 presidential race. >> "washington journal" continues. are back this morning, continuing our conversation on media and the campaign 2016, how it's being covered. joining us from new york this morning is eric boehlert, senior fellow for media matters. let's get your reaction to the foxnews debate last week. was it fair? were the questions fair? guest: i thought it was a misrepresentation of what fox is the other 364 days of the year. they ask some tough -- they asked some tough questions. it would be a pretty boring debate otherwise. to besked some questions

expected of a presidential campaign. where some may have misunderstood is, oh, "fox is up to mainstream debate." that does not include what fox is the other 364 days of the year, including megan kelly -- megyn kelly. you are supposed to ask interesting questions. that's what you get paid for. host: did they ask the right questions? guest: in general. i didn't hear anything about climate change. hear anything about other issues that you could almost guarantee would come up in a debate. i thought the early round of questions -- that was the first debate, the jv debate. the first line of questioning, why are you so unpopular, why are you here, then they got into more substantive questions. so, i thought the questions were

ok. i didn't hear a lot about the economy or climate change, but they do have six or seven debates. i assume they will get to topics like that which are of rising interest -- of pressing interest. host: we were just talking with tim graham of media center. he said, at least those candidates on the republican side are answering ashton's desk questions from the media. where is hillary clinton -- answering tough questions from the media. where is hillary clinton? guest: she pretty regularly takes local questions. the dnc has announced half a dozen debates that start next october. i think that meme has kind of evaporated. she is taking questions. bernie sanders is taking questions. if you look at just the politics of it, often if you are in the front, you don't rush out to get a lot of media attention, for

better or worse. these republicans, people like chris christie or ted cruz, are desperate for attention. the 2012ey during campaign, during the height of the primary season, did not take questions for 35 days, but we did not see this sort of constant media attention. when is mitt going to take a question? i understand the press once questions answered. i think there is -- the press wants questions answered. i think there is a slight double standard when it comes to hillary clinton. host: are you an arm of the hillary clinton campaign? guest: no. we have been doing this 10 years. hillary was a senator when we started, john kerry was running for president. media matters was instrumental asdebunking such folks

veterans for truth. i love this conspiratorial talk. if you are a progressive and you stand up to the media, if you do fact checking, if you push back on this information, you are immediately part of this conspiracy. conservatives have been doing this for 40 years, and nobody thinks they are attached to a campaign for anything like that. democrats and progressives got tired of being run over by the press. al gore -- "the washington press press washington essentially declared war on his candidacy. he did not have infrastructure to fight back. now there is. posting video, posting transcripts. that's what we've been doing for 10 years. host: what do you see your role in this campaign? where is coverage missing or wrong? guest: sure, it has gone wrong in a couple ways. going back to my comments about actions at the debate -- about

questions at the debate, to say there is too much horse racing would be the understatement. we don't really see policy debate, policy agenda. i know you were talking at the end about bernie sanders coverage. to me, most of the bernie sanders coverage is, how does he affect hillary? what does hillary have to do about bernie sanders? instead of treating bernie sanders as bernie sanders. he is an incredibly bright, articulate, veteran legislator with interesting ideas. bernie just cover sanders? why does everything have to be in the context of a horse race? on the hillary clinton side, i'm not the first to suggest there is something going on between the president and hillary clinton. -- the press and hillary clinton. very antagonistic. i think it would be great if the press dropped the feud coverage and just sort of coverage desk

covered what she is saying. covered what she is saying. what sort of president would she be? early on, we are going to see a lot of pointless coverage. when she ordered lunch at chipotle and that was a news story for three or four days -- that does not need to be a news story for three or four days. host: howard is a first in california, a republican. good morning. you are on the air. caller: good morning. good morning, sir, to you. miss the chance to tell you how great of a job you are doing. i can remember a few years ago when you started out. a bit on the nervous sigh. -- side. but you handle the politics of either side so well. always fair and always with a smile. thank you so much for your

effort. i really appreciate it. i know c-span -- i'm a political junkie. let me get your guest. foxnews handles the news 364 days out of the year, and maybe right onhey got it the debate. i have two questions. how would you describe msnbc's news broadcasts as compared to fox content-wise? the second question is, you know, the story that really sticks out in my mind with secretary clinton is a story answerednever been yet, and i'm sure it will before

the election, and that is how she thinks she could have a private server in her own home in the state of new york. host: ok, howard. we will take those. guest: the first question, by the people always likes to say that msnbc is the liberal version of fox news. i think there are a lot of differences. is hostedrning show by a former republican congressman. i don't see any democratic congressmen on fox. fox news has taken over the republican party. look at the debate. roger, the night before, went over the polling and decided who was going to be invited to the debate -- the main debate and who was going to be invited to the second debate. has chronicled for years how, essentially, the

republican party has handed over its branding and marketing to ask news -- to fox news. media matters calculated that they devoted 40 hours to interviewing republican candidate. msnbc does not run the democratic party. msnbc does not essentially regurgitate 24/7 republican talking points. so, that's one key way. the server story is interesting. when the state department decided they were going to have this review and they wanted to get all the e-mail from former secretaries of state, they contacted hillary clinton. she said, i have these private e-mails. i will hand over 30,000. 30,000 are private. i'm not going to hand over those. they also contacted secretary connell. he said, they're all gone.

there seems to be something of a double standard. hillary clinton has done what her predecessor did, except she actually handed over tens of thousands of e-mails. host: chris christie was on fox news, asked about the coverage of the clinton e-mails versus controversy in his state over that bridge. here goes. [video clip] a lot of attention on hillary clinton and the referral to the fbi. did you see as much coverage on not as you did -- on not as you did for the bridge gate -- on that as you did for the bridgegate? mr. christie: i'm waiting for the story. we know it is completely biased, unfair, disparate treatment. the fact is it should be looked into against hillary clinton. there should be fair coverage of

it. instead of overblown, biased, unfair coverage. with her, they give her a pass. [end clip] host: eric boehlert, your reaction? guest: that's an interesting four months of a pass. if he wants to find out the articles and 80 segments -- and tbv segments that have been done about the e-mails, he will find a pile. the idea that the e-mails are to some kind of conspiracy. nothing remotely close to this came true after years of investigation of obama with benghazi. the idea that we will truly see the character -- we will see the

true character of hillary clinton, we haven't seen anything like that. megyn kelly referred to a criminal indictment that might be pending against hillary clinton. there is no such thing. the fbi is following the law. people in the information services will -- it will follow up on questions that people in the information services had about security. you turn on fox news and she might be indicted. thehris christie thinks press has gone easy on hillary clinton, he kind of hasn't been paying attention for the last seven months. host: kevin is next in iowa, a democrat. caller: thanks for taking my call, greta. eric, thanks for media matters and for your service. i do watch fox news as a democrat and i kind of laugh at the media research center when they go on there. mr. graham, he didn't say --

when romney was on there in 2011, the fox news went after .im after an interview mitt romney was complaining after the interview. he wasn't too happy with the interview. could you comment on that, please? guest: i do remember it. i happened to be doing some research and came upon it. mitt decided to have a sitdown interview. very rusty -- he was asked normal questions about his policy. romney was facing battles about flip-flop. he was asked about his health care plan in massachusetts. romney got very flustered and said "this is a very unusual interview" and things like that.

this is the fox news that, 12 months later, a short its readers that mitt romney was going to run -- assured its readers that mitt romney was going to win in a landslide. mitt romney did have that someone uncomfortable interview in 2011 with fox. news wasfox essentially the marketing arm of the romney campaign. host: ohio is next, bonnie, an independent. go ahead. caller: hi. you know, the media almost had me convinced to vote for trump in this primary, although i really can't because i'm an independent. ohio doesn't allow you as an independent. successful,e, he is he is in business. mind, i'mk of my thinking, didn't he go bankrupt? in the debate, yeah, he went

bankrupt four times. but the needy is not emphasizing other people like hasek -- kasich, who did not go bankrupt. governing inhe is manner, but also in a non-republican manner. he cares about all of the people. i'm just saying that the media when it comested to trump. it is sad that people are buying into the trunk who doesn't -- the trump who doesn't really care about the country. he cares about himself. host: what did you make of the governor's answer on gay marriage? that's getting headlines, that reveals a that he change in the gop views of gays.

caller: if you know somebody who is gay, you're going to love that person. i believe in traditional marriage. i'm not a pro gay person. but i can understand. you lovedy is gay and that person, you are not going to change your love. you might change her attitude toward them, but you are not going to change your love for that person -- change your attitude toward them, but you are not going to change your love for that person. host: sorry, i didn't mean to cut you off, bonnie. eric, what do you think? fad,: it was just "he's a no one is going to take him seriously." then five days ago, pulling at 30% in the republican polls, oh, maybe we should cover it seriously. the beltway press lost touch with the republican base how far to the right and, frankly, how

radical to the right a lot of those voters have become. a dominant theme was "trump is a fad," and now they have to recalibrate. i hope there will be more substantive coverage of what he thinks, what kind of president he would be, and, certainly, his business background. it is a little tough. the doesn't seem to indicate what kind of president he would be -- he doesn't seem to indicate what kind of president he would be. it has been celebrity coverage, much the way they cover hillary clinton. they sort of treat her as a celebrity. hopefully, we will get beyond that with trump and get down to basic campaign coverage. host: as joe biden jumps into the race, what will it be like -- what will coverage of him be like? bloomberg observes, "the

irresistible narrative of a father running to fulfill his cancer stricken son's deathbed wish" would all but guaranteed "many -- guarantee "many weeks, if not months of soft coverage." thinking of what hillary clinton -- guest: thinking of what hillary clinton has gone through, i'm not sure about the biden story. that was with an anonymous source. "the new york times" treated that as news, and they jumped all over it. if he got in, it would be more bad news for hillary clinton, meaning the campaign coverage would be awful for her. the clinton will is -- clinton rule is kind of all news is bad news for hillary clinton. it would be great for the press.

they were kind of historical that clinton might get a coronation. now bernie sanders is running. up in armsis not about that, in part because he runs a positive and pain -- positive campaign. but they are desperate for a horse race. they would love joe biden in the race. it has been eight days since and it hascolumn, been absolutely nothing to suggest any of it is going to happen. host: the washington times -- "the washington times" headline, "two failed presidential bids goocould haunt biden." caller: i want to say this quickly. i like lincoln chafee and jim webb. we don't need another clinton, nor another bush.

my other comment is about the governor. we used to have a good steak in new jersey -- good state in new jersey. everybody i know can't stomach chris christie. i'm proud to say i've never voted for him. nobody watches fox news. what the heck? where is jon stewart? that made me sad. and then bruce springsteen performed for him. frank pallone is our congressman. host: an independent scholar -- caller. did you want to say something, eric? guest: i want to talk about chris christie. i think it's ironic. if you look at the d.c. press, two or three years ago, they peered over the landscape and said, chris christie is going to be a superstar.

he is authentic. we love it when he screams of people -- screams at people. they could not have been more wrong. points in his approval rating in under two years. fema likely leave office with approval ratings in the low -- he will likely leave office with a low ratings in the low -- with approval ratings in the low-20's, high-teens. host: what you make of how the media is covering the public policy debates taking place in washington at the capital? guest: it is kind of depressing. media matters has written extensively on the topic of climate change over and over. the lack of coverage, the lack of serious coverage. economic news, the lack of serious coverage. the problem with the press is,

particularly with the obama administration, they have not come to grips with the radical obstructionism of this republican party. you talk about the issues being debated in washington. essentially, there are none. the federal government sort of ceased to exist years ago in terms of legislation being crafted, people debating, bills being passed. the republican party on obama's inauguration day decided "we are going to try to stop everything." and the press, for years, blamed obama. why can't he figure out mitch mcconnell? why can't he get republicans to come across to his side? it's because they decided they weren't going to do it, period. there are no -- few, if any policy debates anymore. and i think the press has kind of given republicans a pass. they adopted this radical obstructionism, unlike anything we have ever seen. look, george bush was essentially when it president --

essentially appointed president by the supreme court. the first thing democrats did was help him pass no child left behind. i think the press has missed the story for going on seven years. host: fort lauderdale, florida, independent. you are on the air with eric boehlert, senior fellow at media matters. caller: i want to say thank you to c-span. i appreciate the craft. a few minutes ago, i was feeling like throwing my shoe through the television screen. this goes to show that you guys support.both sides my question or comment for mr. boehlert, and it is what prompted me to call in originally when mr. graham was on. the lady called in about how the movement hastter

been giving bernie sanders trouble. she said she had no proof, no evidence. but she came up with "i think hillary clinton is promoting this." mr. graham instead of saying, this is crazy to even be talking this way, used this as a way of going off on hillary clinton. this is the problem with these crazy right wingers and their press defenders, guys like tim spoutingat keep left-wing press, left-wing press, when it doesn't exist, and going off of beliefs rather than facts. and when someone comes up with rings, -- things, don't run with it. host: i believe she was a bernie sanders were order -- sanders reporter, right? caller: i think she was a republican.

my point was, out of nowhere, she comes up with really clinton -- with hillary clinton is the one causing this, sending these guys after bernie sanders, and the graham freak ran with it instead of saying "that's absolutely asinine." host: all right, eric boehlert. guest: the clintons are a magnet for conspiracy. there are rules that apply to the clintons that don't apply to other politicians. one of them is "every fantastic claim should be treated as true until proven otherwise." i'm not sure this claim in particular is going to be treated as true by the tsipras, but it will certainly -- by the d.c. press, but it will certainly be treated as true by things like rush limbaugh. they are of mandate for kind of wild conspiracies and always

assuming the worst. host: cape coral, florida, bob, a republican. caller: thank you for the great format. i have been watching a couple years. wintersto florida two ago to take care of my disabled siblings. it has been tough, but florida has been nice. it is hot. host: you are listening to you, bob. caller: my issue -- we are liste ning to you, bob. caller: my issue -- i think trump is a great catalyst for facing -- for the issues facing this nation. everyone i know is suffering and struggling. i think that trump is right. we are being pitted against third world immigrants in our economy. i think at some point we have to come together and realize this is a travesty. i think it is time for the

bush-clinton era to end. the media is really way off-base. they haven't got caught up with the people. the people will -- kasich was good. i'm a gay american, too, by the way, and a republican. kasich is a great guy. that even elizabeth warren comes out of -- out a head of the career criminals in washington. thank you. host: eric boehlert your thoughts -- eric boehlert, your thoughts? guest: i think on trump and immigration, the people will decide. he seems to be on the harsh and hateful rhetoric. in terms of integration -- immigration, the views have changed away from where from is pithere trump is trying to

people against one another. host: a republican. hiter: the guy from florida on a lot of what i was going to say. i would like to first think c-span -- first thank c-span. if you are turning on the news to fox news or msnbc, you are lying to yourself and begging to be like to -- be lied to. when you are seeking opinions instead of facts, that's you thethe lady -- people flike lady from ohio. i would like to point out that hillary clinton is probably the most savvy candidate. the media has been hounding her and bill clinton since 1992.

they made a little bit of money on health bill. every, single thing. they can't have something for dinner without the media scrutinizing what it was, literally. i think right-wingers are just seeking to be victimized by the media. they say, oh, the media is not covering this or that, like benghazi. well, obamaas, didn't call it terrorism. well, he did. four americans died in benghazi. rthey -- they did. more americans died in the anthrax attacks in 2001. george bush claimed there had been no more attacks, -- in 2011. george bush proudly claimed there had been no more attacks, despite those five deaths of the anthrax attacks. host: ok, jon.

mr. boehlert. guest: i think he makes a lot of good points. the clintons have an unusual relationship with the press, as he says. they have been the topic of endless scrutiny, more so than any other political couple. and yet, instead of coming to the conclusion that they have been vetted or this is their career or they have been extreme and successful or this is their agenda -- they have been extremely successful or this is their agenda, they are convinced there is something that is going to take them down. i wish they would cover the clintons, specifically hillary clinton, fairly. no one is asking for any breaks. just cover her as the democratic front-runner. both have" fox --

written articles about how the press' goal is to take down hillary clinton. and that statement did not create any uproar or push back. that's an extraordinary ace to be to have the campaign press -- extraordinary place to be to have the campaign press dedicated to taking down the front runner. you don't see articles about how the press can't stand scott walker or jeb bush. this is a uniquely democratic phenomenon. by definition, it is not fair. that's what people are looking for, a little fairness. , can hillaryehlert clinton contribute to this coverage when she has something like a separate e-mail system wasn't giving the state department access to those e-mails so that they could keep them? did she contribute to it with a lack of transparency and not having sitdowns with media,

doing interviews and taking the tough questions? how do you respond to that? point,i understand the but the e-mail story was a story. that was back in march. now it is incorporated by republicans into the benghazi committee. it is now morphing into a hillary e-mail committee. we have been leaking information to the press. let's talk about the biggest mistake, the biggest blunder, the biggest embarrassment of this campaign season. campaigngh it wasn't a article, per se, it was "the new front page going with a false accusation of hillary being the target of a criminal investigation. they had to walk it back even before people picked it up. they hosted it -- they posted it online thursday night. they had to walk it back friday morning. nothing in the article turned out to be accurate. i think it was based on the fe

vered attempt to try to take down hillary clinton. that article was obviously resting. -- rushed in. he did not have good sources -- it did not have good sources. it did not get any democrats for comment. "the new york times" is still desperately trying to turn it into a criminal investigation, july going to august, that's not really in proportion to the story. obviously, they embarrassed themselves usually. anwas called "a travesty," institutional failure that you just don't see this often. it is this breathless pursuit of the clintons that you just don't see. host: good morning. go ahead. caller: why isn't there any coverage of the jonathan

pollard, the israelis by, -- the israeli spy, in the news? host: there was a headline recently about him getting out of prison in november. caller: yes, but that's the only coverage there was on it. given at that he is pass? why is israel was given a pass when it comes to the news? host: eric boehlert, do you have any thoughts on that? do you think there is a bias there? guest: i don't all about bias. i was surprised -- i don't know about bias. i was surprised there wasn't more coverage. it was kind of overshadowed from the larger debate about iran -- the iran nuclear agreement. it certainly got overshadowed by the trump media mania.

i think it was undercovered a little bit. host: molly, california, a republican. caller: good morning. i'm looking forward to what this gentleman is about to see happen in a total and complete repudiation of the progressives in america and his channel, and i wish him luck with his eight viewers. host: what are you talking about? we are talking with media matters, the watchdog group, and their website. media matters -- mediamatter s.org. she isn't there anymore. an independent in new york, you are on the air. question or comment? caller: i had a comment. i've listened to quite a few colors. -- callers. donald trump speaking about how america is not great anymore and how he is going to restore things. by any statistical analysis, it

doesn't make sense. economy.$16.5 trillion it sounds to me like the people who aren't doing well in this country don't understand how capitalism works. i'm a bernie sanders supporter. they are searching for a demigod to solve problems -- demigogue to solve problems. the average american does not understand the problems in this country, that it's institutional. guest: i think you've hit on a point in terms of -- you look into the conservative media. hasobama administration been a disaster, the economy is awful, we don't have a future. at media matters, we talk about the bubble, life inside the fox news bubble, life inside the echo chamber. chamber, america is

truly on -- in the echo chamber, america is truly on its last legs. 34% of republicans still think obama wasn't born in america. pundit after pundit told them romney was going to win in a landslide, because fox news and rush limbaugh had just spent four years documenting how obama was supposedly this monster and trader. none of that -0- and traitor. none of that was accurate. demagoguery i think is a good word. it is supposed to run counter of the conservative values that describe the republican party. host: a democrat from pennsylvania you are on the air -- from pennsylvania, you are on the airway eric boehlert. -- the air with eric boehlert.

caller: my question is the unfairness of -- with trump, it is unfair, i jumped right they on him about what he said about women. the next thing was about hillary. they aree it comes on, talking about hillary. you have to start at the beginning. i was in the service myself. you can't just put it on hillary. you can't go to the end of the horse race. you have to start at the beginning. host: ok. eric boehlert? guest: i think the trump coverage has been a godsend for the rest, -- press, but also very problematic. it looked like it would be a

rather dull summer in terms of the campaign. he delivered this godsend of a story, but he has provided them challenges again. they initially said, he is not important, we are not going to pay attention to him, and now he is the republican front-runner. they have to start looking at the substance. they have to start taking a closer look at some of the other candidates. i talked about the hillary into an coverage -- the hillary clinton coverage. we've seen, time and again, her favorables go down a few points. a poll yesterday had jeb bush falling to sixth place. it did not get much news coverage from what i saw. trump has eviscerated a couple of the republican ended its -- republican candidates. we see a lot of shoulder shrugging in a way that we don't on the democratic side. host: a republican from texas, go ahead.

caller: my comment is, i think the republican party, what they object to is to get rid of donald trump. that's why megyn kelly and chris went at him so hard. they want to get rid of him because they are afraid of him. host: eric boehlert, what do you think the agenda was for fox? eric boehlerguest: i don't know. fox has a very complicated relationship with trump. the got the most coverage for two months -- he got the most coverage fror two months. interviews.awning some of the hosts personally vouched for him, he is a great guy. is roger trying to take him

down? no one really knows. it goes back to our first call. no channel running the democratic party the way fox news is running the republican party. in 2011, they joined forces with donald trump to launch the birther charade for several months. they gave him a national platform. the republican party at that point could have said this is so out of bounds, we want nothing to do with donald trump, he doesn't reflect the republican party, but they went all in because fox led. there is no off switch. they've created this kind of chaotic campaign. now it seems to be beyond their control. the republican party seems to be paying a very deep price. once you start this demagoguery, it is hard to turn it off. now what is fox going to do? i don't know. but fox is running the

republican party. host: for more on how the media is covering this campaign, you can go to mediamatters.org. >> on our next washington journal, gretchen morgan's enjoins us. she will speak about the shortcomings of the federal government's home loan program, which was set up to help homeowners who are struggling to make their mortgage payments. then, susan carlson on fetal alcohol syndrome, about a new study examining tricking and drug use among pregnant teenagers. after that, john jackson talks about endangered species and big game hunting. plus cover your phone calls, facebook comments, and tweeps. washington journal live each morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> this sunday night on q&a,

institutes for policy studies fellow and antiwar activist for policynett on since 9/11, the negotiation with iran, and the war on terrorism. >> who is isis? what are their origins? why are they so violent? important,t's more because it is something we can do something about, is what is the u.s. policy regarding isis? why isn't it working? can we really go to war against terrorism? are we doing the war wrong or is it wrong to say there should be a war against terrorism? i think those are the questions that in some ways of the most important. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's "q&a." >> the republican-led congress bring up legislation to try and block the iran nuclear deal on september. up next, a conversation on the iran agreement.

we will hear from the former ambassador to syria. the middle east institute hosted this event. thank you, mark, and thank you will for coming to this event today. it seems to be over boxes -- sorry we don't have enough chairs. certainly there is a lot of interest in this very important manual -- in this very important matter. goiously it still has to through congress and there are still some obstacles here and there, but we are really looking at the regional dynamics, the regional repercussions as the deal moves forward. we have an excellent panel. are alld to say that amniotic people to help us understand the thinking, the repercussions on iraq, and help

us get it handle on the very complex repercussions. i will introduce them and they will speak in the order they are seated. they will make additional remarks, then i will engage them in a bit of cumin day. -- a q&a. to my immediate left is alex batanka. he is a senior fellow at the middle east institute. he is of iranian origin and covers iran and iran's foreign-policy. he writes regularly and american international press. [no audio]

author and journalist for several decades. he was also former bureau chief at the washington post and is well known in that capacity. he has a book coming out in early 2016. he will be sharing with us his views and how he sees the gulf countries, saudi arabia, and others reacting to the deal. he will be followed by the

founder and director of the center for turkish studies at the middle east institute. she is also an adjunct professor at george washington university. many of you are familiar with her writings and appearances within the turkish press and the international press. she covers domestic and foreign policy affairs and we are very happy to have her. to help us understand the turkish reaction interest policies in relation to the steel. to her left is ambassador robert ford, who does not need introduction. he is currently a senior fellow but he has had a very long and illustrious career in the u.s. state department and was the last u.s. ambassador to syria.

he has extensive experience in iraq and syria in the middle east in general. he received a presidential honor and wasr his leadership recognized in 2014 with the distinguished service award. he is a frequent writer and appears on the hill as an are very happy to have him with us to walk us through his views of the possible repercussions. let me start with you, with and to runnderstand so far. been the spectrum of

reaction and how will this impact to radiant politics and foreign policy? mr. vatanka: that you very much. -- thank you very much. i took another the fact that you said five minutes and no more and so what i will give you now is a set of let points and i hope we get to talk about the bullet points that might be of interest. each of these bullet ports will give you a -- what points will give you a taste of what's happening. let me start with the most important bullet point that i have put at the top of my list. reformist moderates, intellectuals, most of the iranian media, and public opinion is in favor of this deal. obaman i hear president talk about hardliners, i have to scratch my head and look hard to find those hardliners. that is my headlight in terms of

the overall landscape. the atmosphere in th iran has changed since the deal was signed. there is a big difference now if you compared to before the deal. before the deal being signed, you couldn't really talk about the nuclear program -- it was a taboo issue. now the so-called hardline -- there are a few that exist in a very loud and criticizing the isl, for what they have done opened up the entire debate about the nuclear program. if we look at the course of the tot 13 years of us having deal with this nuclear issue, this is probably the peak moment where you actually have something that looks like a serious debate in th iran. people are asking the questions that we have avoided. actually the cost of this program? nobody knows. but the fact that it is being

debated publicly tells you that things are changing. i don't see any credible hardliners they can do anything to stop this deal. what might happen is that stages will fall apart, but that's not something you can expect the hardliners being party to, that is something that will come as a result of the license that we have not been able to continue on the path of implementing this deal from the 14th of july. the iranian supreme leader ayatollah has been vague, and i know there are press reports and analyses in the u.s. that talk about this vagueness, and assumes the vagueness means he is opposed to it. i don't read it that way, and i think if you look at the course of this man's role as iran's supreme leader, it is very rare that he comes out in favor of anything in black and white terms. he keeps his options open and

wants to see it unfold, but if you listen to the people closest to him, a 17 year foreign minister veteran and she foreign-policy advisor, he is out there in immediate defending the deal. if you listen to people like the personal friend of the the joint chief of staff, he has been defending the deal vigorously. i listen to people around him and take into account that he, given his position in the islamic republic, is not going to be the type of person that you might have expected. he is not going to be ahmadinejad. that is not the guy's character. let me say something about the revolutionary guards, because they are the third key interest .arty in the islamic republic

they have not come out against this deal. what they are doing instead is coming out instead and giving speeches about whether we have to make these tactical retreats but the strategy is still in place. what they are doing is keeping themselves relevant in an area --t may soon be upon them there is a team in the rouhani administration, most of them are educated in the west, most of them have known each other going back to the 1980's, most have worked in the administration from 1989-1997, and then again in 2005.

these are not people that suddenly by accident showed up and are joining the party. there is a cohesive thinking on their part in terms of where they like to take the country and i think that is their strength. so far they have been able to go over to the supreme leader and say look, you need to sign this deal because without this deal, it is going to unravel from within. cliche,want to use a but certainly they seem to have something like china in mind, and that we will talk about political reform later. and obviously we will talk about where regional policy fits within it. we have seen a lot of movement on this front. you seen the europeans, the french foreign minister's first visited 14 years. the italians have been there -- there is a lot of movement that is probably going to be used by the rouhani of ministration.

one thing i say about the rouhani team, and if you listen zharif, i spend my mornings going through all the iranian press and all these names are just in my head, but if you listen to the speech of the iranian foreign minister last week in tehran, he was pretty open about what he thinks they need to do. bring stakeholders from the west, tie their money and investments in, and make this nuclear deal sustainable. it's about have any big corporations have come in here and will go back to the capitals . that is the thinking -- whether that will work out as a whole different matter. the supreme leader is ok with economic reforms and he has so far said nothing about these

great headlines we are hearing from tehran. investmentn worth of in the next five years in the arabian -- in the iranian oil and gas industry. that brings us to the mainstream and what i think you need to watch out for -- if i was an american analyst watching this, i want to know how are the people in the rouhani administration going to square this and go back to the global , with the assistance or economy, which is to say that we are going to become a dumping ground -- we have to stand on our own feet and learn lessons. rouhani is very cautious in what he says.

the art saying just forget about everything we've done in terms of sustaining our economy, he is very careful. he says we only deal with the europeans when it makes sense from the point of view of resistance economy. i make this point because this whether thederstand supreme leader's office is going to come against this plan at any point in the future. armitage onike operativ -- is the one who's driving this thing forward. the nuclear deal was what rouhani wanted to happen and i suspect the same thing will happen in this major economic plan. i've noted something here which i'm not going to get into, but perhaps in a q&a we can talk about it. intention for this nuclear negotiation? was it to prevent war, to remove sanctions, or to make friends?

clearly a lot of people have question marks. you look angry. [laughter] i have so much more -- let me start here and hopefully we can get to the other points later. i'm sure people have a number of things -- let me quickly ask you. in the u.s. it has to go through congress. any institutional obstacles -- when do we know that this is officially accepted? on the iranian side. a. vatanka: they can play different ways -- they can go out there and say it has been approved, and once the congress rejects it, the iranians have a stronger case to say, we have been dealing with the americans for the last two years in good faith and this is how they treat an agreement. so they will look like the good , but we shouldn't lose

sight that the iranian parliament in the context of iran is not a key decision-maker. they want to control the atmosphere politically, how much of a hard-line voiced would want to have. they are making sure that the right candidates get into parliament in that is one of the key issues to look out for. iran will have parliamentary elections february of next year. if you see a lot of this so rouhanites being rejected or dismissed by the media friendly to the ayatollah, that is assigned to watch out for. one way of putting obstacles in the path is to make sure that they don't get too many supporters. the iranian parliament is not the key actor in this.

the nuclear negotiations are going to be verified by the iranian supreme national security council. some members of the parliament are also running. mr. salem: we are not used to political theory. [laughter] mr. salem: tom? let's turn to you, across the pond, the gulf. the positions of the gcc in general, the different players? what is your reading of how saudi arabia and others have agreement?his are there any nuclear arms race issues related to this? what are your thoughts? mr. lippman: thank you, paul. i look out at this audience and see so many friends -- i think doing this too long.

[laughter] mr. lippman: in all the years i've been living in and writing about the middle east, i recently learned a fact -- a random fact. in islamic law, it provides for the exist for attacks that is -- for tha tax levied on non- -- one of his first acts upon consolidating his control over arabia back in the early years of the 20th century by abdulaziz was to levy it on shia. to me, if you want to understand the collective saudi attitude about shia, that tells you what you need to know. keep that in mind as we go through the rest of this discussion. i attended several

institutions. basically, all of them said the same thing. we in the united states have an unshakable, no doubt about it anditment to the security protection of our friends in the gulf. you will find it in all our doctrines, in the posture statements, in whatever you want to read. the quadrennial defense review -- all these documents are churned out in washington. this was the gospel according to us. you would have thought at some point we would be talking about israel. this was general dempsey saying you can take this to the bank. it became a sort of famous quote.

the next a i went to a different panel at which most of the participants were arabs from the region. it became apparent that they had heard all this. they had heard it over and over and they didn't believe it. it was a fundamental cognitive dissonance between them and us over an issue that mattered and which we saw in different ways. that was when abdullah is still king of saudi arabia. saudisalso when the and others in the gulf were indeed apprehensive about the way things were going, and the possible course of the discussions with iran and what it was going to mean to them. opinion, what has happened now is that the gcc members anthony ily, and dr. am waiting for you to shoot me down. they have decided to believe it. whether they really do are not,

what they tell each other over coffee at 3:00 in the morning, i don't know. they aren't going to tell me anyway. david,inning with camp the camp david gcc summit, you can see that the gcc leaders have made a collective decision that the iran deal is going to be done. they were not going to do a full bibi on this. they need us more than we need them. i think that's clear -- especially because of the new realities. but not only because of the new realities in the oil market. there was the joint statement of all the participants at camp david -- this is from the second week of may -- saying we all recognize that a well-crafted agreement with iran could be beneficial to the security throughout the region. and that is why the statement

that they issued, last week or recently when secretary kerry was there, was not a surprise. now that the deal is done they simply reiterated the position that they had taken knowing it was going to be done. i think now -- what it seems to me what happened is that the gcc countries have decided that the issue is behind them. they are going to take the united states at its word to all these new security arrangements that we have committed ourselves to, of which the first manifestation was the patriots are to saudi arabia -- the patriot sale to saudi arabia. they are going to work with us as best they can and better with each other to try to confront some of the problems throughout the region. how do we see this? are feeling, saudis much better and they that are the most. they are feeling much better about yemen.

i don't know whether they really turned the corner, but that deadly, destructive stalemate that followed the onset of the bombing campaign in marchto have ofn broken with the retaking the big air base of the north, return of president ah adi's vice president. you can now see the possibility of at the very least finally getting back to the negotiating table in yemen. you also see it in the reinforced attitudes about syria . -- you are all familiar with the link he provides between the gulf and iran. i don't know what they said. he got that any 20 years ago. -- it was a sudden

full of airplanes going here and there. describeee -- i would it as a collective waking up. the iran agreement, for better or worse, is a done deal. therefore we have to look for other things and we have a lot of problems -- so let's work with the americans and with each other to a dresser, whether they can get their act together. they are certainly going to have the military equipment and keep abilities to do what they think they need to do. the american commitment -- i just read this morning in the iranian press -- it pulls all the stuff together. -- one, let me just say of the arguments painted about an united states during the discussion about the iran treaty -- mostly raised by people who,

in my opinion, don't fundamentally understand the gulf area -- was that the treaty would set off a nuclear arms race in the gulf. i don't believe for one minute that that is true. i have been writing this until people are bored with my rating in for more than a decade and my reasoning hasn't changed. yes, it's true that the gcc countries have a stated commitment, which some of them are acting on, to create nuclear power in their countries. there are two plants under construction in abu dhabi. they have very ambitious plans. frankly, they need nuclear power, because the saudi's are burning as much as 30% of their own oil. they can't afford to go on doing that. basically would raise this argument -- you heard what my colleague was saying about the iranian economy. in saudi arabia, the country that matters most on this law, thethe first

first rule, the first guiding principle for the rulers of saudi arabia, is self-preservation. preservation of the saudi state. they have decided, recognized, that they can't do that as a confrontational state in which they feed the people, bread and circuses, and don't fill their aspirations for better life. the house has committed itself to a future of full integration with the global economy. there's a reason why the biggest operationsplants, in saudi arabia last year were those of alcoa and dow chemical into ge, to say nothing of mars candy company. afford to be and

don't want to be the north korea of the gulf. they understood perfectly well that their position as a full partner in the world economy in their commitment to surpass germany as the world's leading exporter of chemicals, cannot be fulfilled if there are nuclear outlaws and they won't do it. mr. salem: thank you very much, tom. we also cater the phrase -- came out with a new phrase, doing a full bibi. let's turn to turkey. obviously, there is a lot going but focusingders, a bit on the nuclear deal with iran, what is the spectrum of opinion there? how does the government see it, what are the pros and cons, how might it affected turkish government policy? dr. tol: thank you, paul. mentioned -- if you

want to understand saudis, you have to understand their fear of shiites. and if you want to understand turkish politics, domestic politics, the fear is the key to understanding their behavior. i think it plays a part in the iran policy as well. deal, turkeyuclear shares western objectives on the around nuclear program -- on the program, but it has a different boat of engagement. it has been against sanctions, back in is why in 2010 the old days when turkish foreign ministers -- turkey wanted to play bridge between the west and iran. in 2010, they voted against iran sanctions. turkey is happy about the iran

nuclear deal for two reasons. the first reason is economic. iran is a huge market for turkey and it is anets, essential trade agreement. as close energy ties with iran. this is a big opportunity for turkey, and turkey has been mobilizing turkish businessmen to start investing in iran. that is a good opportunity for turkish business. but also what turkey has objected to, a nuclear iran. that could change the regional balance of power in favor of iran. that has been turkey's policy, and that is why all political parties, ngo's and business organizations, pretty much everyone in turkey is quite happy about the nuclear deal,

and the lifting of sanctions. but turkey's strategic. it has three strategic concerns and the first one is the rising influence in syria and in europe. turkey has always argued that the stronger iran is, it will have more power and step up its support for the shiia in iraq, which will be a destabilizing factor in iraqi politics. that is why turkey has been a gainst influence in iran. similarly in syria, they are on opposing fronts, and rising influence in syria is undercutting turkey's policies. closerond concern is ties between washington and iran at the expense of turkey.

turkey and washington, they haven't been on the same page in syria. they have had conflicting priorities and objectives in syria. turkey has been quite upset with the obama administration's policies in ira as wellq. turkey think that if washington cultivates closer ties after this because of the nuclear undercutn they could turkey's syria policies. mainly turkey has been supporting the coupling of the assad regime from the getgo. turkey011, it turkey -- has been supporting the syrian opposition, in turkey has become an operational hub. invested. that is turkey's strategic

number one in syria. and yet the united states is a threat. that is why there has been a lot of tension between washington and o .etween washington and ankara they are upset that they are not fully on board. toil recently, they refused open of the airbase in turkey for the coalition airstrikes. allieser western complain that not enough was done to the crossings of foreign jihadis. the countries have not seen eye to eye.