amazed. and i don't think anyone has thought about it in the depths we ought to. thank you. yes? >> how are we a democratic country and yet to our government knows everything we do? the nsa or government can monitor anything we do? how can we classify ourselves as a democratic and preach to other countries have they need to be democratic when our own government it knows it every single thing every citizen can do? that is a very provocative question. it is a question i would like to see put to your senators, your representatives and so on.

that is how you hold people to account. this is what i was mentioning earlier. almost a nightmare, when everything you say or do is monitored. you lose your freedoms. -- not not onlyle is it is your own government that is capable of doing this. hack into were to your computer and take control of an or switch on your webcam to see what you are doing, they can. the technology is readily available. the government will do that on behalf of its citizens and the notions of social is a real question.

because a lot of people think it has gone too far. debate you should be putting to your senators, to your representatives. these questions we asking. because it is not going to stop. >> thank you for coming to speak with us. is it the duty of the citizens of the united states or the government of the united states to be responsible for our own cyber security? >> good question. was conceived but a good question. ms. conceived not because you the conception can't reflect nationstates. it cannot reflect physical

boundaries. it is not a geographical entity. to think of it in terms of protecting national cyberspace is nonsense. it is a misnomer. like trying to protect companies within national borders. we're seeing so many hack's, including 70 probably from north korea, very likely. the list goes on. ashley madison. we are not capable of policing. is not like defending national borders when you see an enemy across the border in can launch a weapon against them. there are both defense of an offense of operations. this is where you get into establishing rules of the game between nation states. russia, that

includes china to stop as me nausea against one another. you don't go after critical national infrastructure. you don't go after health care systems. you do not try to take flights out of the air and ground airline traffic. needs to be established for cyberspace. it is a very weak term in some senses. it is bounded in a geographical conception. is that ok? yes? >> i think this is a very sad for the world and sad for where we come from, because it makes distressed the west. the united states in particular, because we feel like since snowden is running to russia and to china, we feel like those are

the people we should be aligning with because it is terrible. we're question is, since seeing all those and we have heard all of the horrible danger that to our private life being poses, is there any good news? have you had any positive response from the people you talked to? is there any hope? believe it and hope so very much. it is not all doom and gloom. we certainly do not want that. the internet is beyond the printing press. thead the alphabet, then printing press, now the internet. it is precious. it is a great tool. it is one of the best things we have. it is just we need to recast our

thinking. it has grown so quickly. i don't have my cell phone in my pocket, but if i did i could communicate with anybody instantaneously. i never had that growing up. my parents and grandparents never had that. it is fantastic. that is hope for itself. from a practical point of view. we just need to think about where our private boundaries are. how far governments should be able to regulate and police. the chinese, the russians, the united states. it probably depends upon the political system. easy have never been the things to solve. there are debates in brazil at the internet government forum.

be part of the conversation. do it as individuals online, as url and title to or as a member of civil society. groups that deal with the regulation, deregulation, so on. be part of the conversation. the part of the political process. don't think you have been sidelined. i would hate to think that. i hope to god i have not given the impression that they are looking over your shoulder. it is not so much that. in a way, it is almost too big to be able to really control people in the way you seem to be indicating. i am a big believer in hope and and a billing. connectivity, technology, now and to come. but we also have more to besibility that needs refined and to be questioned a little.

>> thank you for taking my question. thank you for coming out to talk to us. before i feel like i can ask my question i wanted to restate something you said at the end of the questions you asked. you asked if i had never done anything wrong do i actually care about security and chickens on my life. what ii get into those, feel that asking those three questions defined was how you security.berty and from what i have learned and hopefully understand throughout the symposium is that right now it feels like there is a very proportion between liberty and security. it seems like once security goes up, liberty goes down, and vice versa. is there a world we can live and where one goes up in the other goes up as well.

in proportion. in order to be able to achieve that, would we have to look at the definition of it, to? >> good question. i will answer by way of anecdote. in thewas growing up shadow of the cold war of nuclear destruction, there were all sorts of conspiracy theories. old, 11 years old, all the way up to 18-years-old. the government seemed distant and there were people i never understood, talk to. i would never interact with in my life. i did not know how they were making decisions that affected my life. my liberty, my freedom, my survival. the time i was in my 20's and started to become an academic, it was one of the things where i got my phd.

weapons, i nuclear talked to the people making decisions. they seemed less distant. it seemed they were not cold, they were not calculating, they did have my best interests at heart. i might not have always agreed with them, but they were not bad people. that goes for people i met in the intelligence and security community and government now. the lawyers, the police, all of whom i talked to on a regular basis. they are not bad people. there might be bad people out there, but i do not believe it is them. at the same time, they and the elected officials who make policy still need to be held to account. we still need to have an informed public debate about aboutllance activities, how far we are prepared to go,

and in addition, how far private companies should be regulated. stopping interests of this, pervasiveness, things you are not conscious of. if you make an informed choice, maybe then they protect your liberty and freedom. if your choices uninformed in -- sense of, i salute you who actually reads 30 pages of terms and conditions? key elements of that need to be bettered. we need to be aware of what we signing up for. it is where the technology is 5, 10, 15 years. by the time your children have children themselves. look further over the horizon about laws and politicals and understanding needs to grow with it.

that is going to be a long and difficult road. during difficult than the cold war. but i believe in hope. i believe in it as a great to enable her. i believe in the future, i believe it is a good thing. that is another message i would like you to take a way. >> that is a good place to end. you can continue this stoddardion with dr. it tomorrow. thank you for your time. [applause] ♪ landmarkpan presents a vases, the book. casese to our landmark series which explores 12 supreme court decisions.

miranda versus vs. wade.d roe veteranitten by journalist tony mauro. and is published by c-span and imprint of sage publications. get your copy for $8.95 plus shipping. >> on the next washington journal, congressman of massachusetts, a member of the budget committees, talks about his forge wars in iraq as a officer.rps infantry willhow house speaker

change under paul ryan. plastic bags and went prohibitionists get wrong about them. washington journal's live every morning on 7:00 a.m. eastern. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. is only one, there person about whom i would write if i were to write a second biography. write that book and i thought, i am going to be standing next to the president speaking to 3500 of the most important people in the room it in d.c. i had the idea i might do that, i thought i will give them the books later.

the hotspot in the moment to be able to pull off the goofiness, i will do it. night, and author talks about his writing career and his crossover between religion and politics. >> i think it is important for everybody to take politics seriously, but never to make ant we christians would call idol of politics. there are people who are sort of worshiping that i don't rather rather than idol the god who would care up about the poor. it is something i talk about fairly often. announcer: sunday night on c-span's q and a. >> defense and national security

defenseit talking about and national security at the summit. >> please welcome back marcus. >> good afternoon, everybody. this is the last session of the day. thank you for coming. i think it is fitting that ro bert work is our last speaker. to travel of my job around and look at firms and see how they are approaching the

future. they are preparing for everything. we are seeing companies focus more of their research and development on a mix of traditional high-end weaponry and stuff that was more fit for the coin we have seen of the past decade. secretary work has closely looked at that. we have seen companies emerging and other acquiring one another, culminating with lockheed martin's recent purchase of prompted thethat pentagon to take the writers stance i've speaking out against an in a way and saying how they are very concerned about how there will be less competition down the road for major weapons. we have talked a lot about the budget today.

the pentagon finally has some budget of surety and ushered this. i am sure we will hear a lot about that from secretary of the -- bpb w -- bob work. work: well, i am shocked to hear i am responsible for everything. i thought i would give you just a 15 minute overview and have the remainder of my time for questions. it is pretty simple. measured in the number of people, the size of our budget, the size of our capital account, the bread and the debt of where the depthbreadth and

of where we operate. very simple mission. to organize, train, and equip a joint force that is ready for war and able to preserve the peace. how do we accomplish this simple, straightforward mission in the age of everything? we do it like we have always done it. we try to take our foreign policy and national security policy and balance them with the resources available to us by our national leaders, in and we try to come up with the best balance between what we have to do in the world to accomplish our mission with the resources available. heard today, have this balancing act, is becoming a more difficult and it is happening from both ends of the equation. both in terms of the engines as

well as the means. in my view, the cold war ended on may 12, 19 89. that is when president bush announced the department of defense would no longer view containment as the lens through which we would build our defense program. that changed everything in the department. the white house largely resourced grand strategy to the that pointom forward. the department of defense gradually stopped thinking globally and started thinking more regionally. our relative strength was enormous. our strategic action was largely unfettered. three canonical contingencies at the time. a resurgent in a rocket, the

chinese invasion of taiwan, and a north korean invasion of south korea. those were the three what if contingencies. transactionalut -- transnational threats, but proliferation of wmd's, weapons of mass destruction. we did not worry much about those three regional competitors because we were so far ahead in what was then called the revolution of military affairs, that essentially because we were way ahead in the battle networks and conventional weapons that deployed them. we did not worry about whether or not we could prevail against these regional contingencies. plan metricad a in which we0

believed we could seize the initiative within an adversary within 10 days ended defeat them within 30 days. take 30 days for a parade and repeat it again in a different theater. in other words, by 2000 one we were so confident in the overwhelming military capacity and livability of the department of defense, we would be able to win to conventional wars within 90 days. ance 2001, there has been change. we will look back from 2000 1-2015 and say well, but a change. the that 14-15 years, capacities and capabilities of uniformlyt allies at started to decline. the capabilities and capacities of our potential competitors all

began to rise dramatically. carter, who was deputy secretary of defense just two years ago, likes to say we used to have three contingencies we would worry about. i ran, china, north korea. now we have to worry about a potential contingency with russia, and article five defense of our nato allies. we got up from three contingencies to four contingencies in three short years and now we have a condition, a global terrorist campaign which is increasingly against isilghting in the middle east, and northern africa, and western africa. we have gone from three contingencies to four contingencies and one condition. on top of that, we worry about , as witnessmics last air when the president ordered the united states

military to be the leading edge of the national response against ebola. we also worry about the destabilizing effects of climate change. newberry about cyberattacks on the homeland. all of these problems are it. from a military point of view there are four conditions that are totally different than 25 years ago. almost all of the power of the united states is resident in the continent of the united states or alaska, hawaii, guam. the amount of forces we have based overseas in a ready-to-fight condition are much lower than we had in the cold war. one big difference. of thinkingnstead about forward it defense, we think more about a transoceanic defense in which we are swinging forces quickly from theater to theater. what that means is that if an ,dversary does want to attack

they can generally a time and place of their own choosing and will have an initial advantage of their forces. second, our adversity -- our adversaries are gaining plenty. -- t. -- parity. is harder for our transoceanic movement to get into a theater, that is the anti-access problem. once you get there, you are subject to immediate attack by a wide variety of guided munitions. they are going to hit the target they are aiming at. that is the area of denial attack. now, you have to assume you're going to be under intense cyber you and electronic warfare

attack from the time you move. than theuch different cold war. in and forth, with used to say we fight to say we fight away games in the department of homeland security. in northern command, they fight the home game. in this game, it is large stake competitors. the distinction between home and away games are starting to work. as we push forces across the ocean, you can be sure our adversaries are thinking of ways to attack the homeland to deter our advance. from three contingencies to 4 plus 1, plus this difference in the environment, if you think about it from an overall view, here is the big deal. a definition of great power is a statement that can take on dominant power and warfare as a

nuclear arsenal that can survive a first strike. we have two great powers in the world. one is diminishing, russia, and one is rising, china. whenever you think about hours, you have to rethink grand strategy. eraera of everything is the of grand strategy. it is taking all of the ends of what we have to do and balancing it with our means. we just got a budget deal. we know for certainty what our budget resources allocated to the department of defense will be for the next two years. that is a good thing. we applaud this. it is something we've been waiting for for quite some time. as secretary carter has said, we -- with this -- constant resource uncertainty,

a is keeping us from creating coherent program that stands the test of time. but, we are not done yet. this is the seventh year in a row with had a continuing resolution. 93% of every first quarter, we have been under continuing resolution for the past six years. the department of defense now is operating on a nine-month fiscal year. it is totally unsatisfactory. we cannot continue this. so, we applaud what congress has done. coming together in a bipartisan major. coming up with a budget deal that gives us clarity for two years. that is just the first step. you cannot see the rise and the that the department of defense is being asked to do and the resource levels of had to

contend in the best the-four years. yet have probably heard me say this before, how do you sleep at night? i say, i sleep like a baby. i wake up crying every two hours. the age of everything is a time of it grand strategy. trying to step back. of strategy is all resources are scarce. you must make a organization within your budget. within youration budget. that is we are charged to do in budget reviewal into the 17 would be reflected inour budget submission september. hopefully at the end of this date, you will have a sense on the growing pressure in terms of the ends and the backs that our

resources, while studying for the next two years, we all hope there will be a serious debate in the upcoming presidential election on what is the long-term solution after this two-year budget deal on better balancing the ends and the means. look forward to your questions for the next 15 or so minutes. marcus? sit over here? >> thank you, again. you have questions we're going to a paper with microphone spun around. i have one to get us started. to stay on the theme of the budget deal. for yous it do

immediately? how does it help you, you said it will inform the way you are looking at 2017. are we going to see more of a shift toward high-end combat? involving a russian likely have not in the past? prior budgets did not take that into account. they see a noticeable shift? >> at let me take the second part first. the most friend's thing i could possibly do at the department of defense is to have a conventional armed conflict against a bipolar or big state. those are the things of highest risk and the most impact on the global system. so, but the secretary has asked us to do is to make sure our conventional deterrent against these large state competitors is rock-solid. we can assure the spent we are as strong, as monday, as capable as i we can be and we

demonstrate these capabilities on a routine basis to underline our conventional routine deterrents. that is what we will look to do knowingly have this condition that we cannot ignore in the middle east. it is a bipolar approach. does for usget immediately it was on to any 16 it is a reasonable target press to hit. they not expect the budget deal signed and till december 11. we will be through the first quarter of the fiscal year and will start our nine-month fiscal year. if 2016 had been different than what we're planning, that would've been extremely disruptive. but we're happy to say it is an rage. they do not expect any 16 to be a major disruption. it will be harder and he, without question.

a $14 billion delta in that given year than what they had planned. that will be harder to hit. we're working through that. the big thing is we no longer have to worry about fighting for 2016 and worrying about 2017. we know for both the 16 and he 17, we will be able to say here are the decisions we have to make and we can get on with our life's. breaking defense.com, on the subject of conventional deterrence, how was the of that strategy going? i know you're looking at new technologies and concepts, but interestinging any stuff that is regarding your mind in the minds of your

colleagues into raised the candidate better detour and prevail? and you can tell is that a seven to go to jail? assume the term has been explained today. the united states has never, in the matter of conventional deterrence, try to match our adversaries tank for tank, ship for ship, airplane for a plan. it looks were onsets, a way in toch we do not how -- have do that, but we can still underline our conventional deterrence. to eisenhower came aboard, he asked for the planning figures and we would've required 92 nato divisions to ensure a conventional deterrent against an attack of western

europe. the president said, there's just no way we can afford to build 92 divisions. was tactical nuclear weapons as a matter of policy and military strategy and tactics. we are going to employ nuclear weapons early and often to first all a soviet conventional invasion. a sovietall conventional invasion. by the 1970's, we could no longer underwrite our conventional terms with nuclear. because the threat of nuclear was just too high. we had two choices. a long-range planning program, we could try to make nuclear weapons more usable. neutron bombs, selectable yields, all of these things. or you could go after

conventional weapons with near-zero miss. decision guided munitions. you cannot to make nuclear weapons more usable. you simply cannot do that. you will always risk a nuclear exchange if you do so. in 1975, the united states made a conscious national decision to go after conventional guided munitions, battle networks that would employ them, and other supporting things like a stealth. the third of said, because the first and second only had one competitor. now we have four different potential competitors who worry about, plus we have this transnational regional terrorism that we have to worry about. it makes it more difficult. we also had a very steady, very stable competitive, long-term with the soviet

union. most of the innovations were coming out of the united states and out of the department of defense when they came to defense things. now, all of the innovation is global in scope and meaning went by commercial sectors. much more like the interwar band where everyone knew there were radios, tanks, mechanization. everyone knew there were airplanes. in only certain competitors them together and made it into and in the shop pensions tactical advantage. this is a very competitive advantage, ripe for technological surprise. in the third offset, real-time to figure out how to set ourselves up for this camp that of long-term environment and how do we make sure we have temporal advantages. they're no longer thinking about advantages for 40 years, what we're trying to do is public can

do to get advantage for five-10 years and then immediately start working on the advantage that would give us an edge in the 5-10. i cannot give you exactly what the third of said it is, the secretary will talk about it soon and you will see, when we the budget in february, the technological and operational bets were making to preserve our conventional edge. >> question? given the increasing importance of the cyber security and the cyber warfare, and giving it the fact of on the civilian side we are losing the battle against the bad actors, int is the plan for dod

terms of employing the required -- position for iot and to support the future of the internet? think you will remember that a challenge cyber warfare is causing us at all levels. the strategic level because it is a mean of homeland attack will live never had to deal with before, at the operational level, at the campaign level. it has in amazing and perfect on being able to get into your adversary process systems and blind them and things like that. can we have an effect on the way a campaign might play out. thehe tactical level, ukrainians found of, for example, the russians use it tactical and electronic warfare to gain advantage. ciber is playing out on all these levels. let me say that our national policy is.

strengthen our cyber deterrence and there are three components to that. ownfirst, to make sure our networks are secure. you are seeing that. you will see in a lot of different investments on what we are doing. from 1000 defend will fireballs to leslie and 200. all different cyberculture training to improve the hygiene of our networks. getng sure our networks can through an attack. the second component is taking a look at the national critical infrastructure. it electrical grid. water control. ics systems.

making sure those are as hard as they can be. the third was to have a means which offensive cyber security would deter attacks on us. fully developed on our theories. it is the wild west. as jim klapper will tell you, a lot of cyber security is espionage and it is difficult to establish norms for espionage. generally, if you are not cheating you are not trying on espionage. if you can get into somebody system and extricate data, that is good for you. not good for the one that has exfiltrate it. we have a lot of work to do on this. you mentioned the internet of things. that makes it more difficult when a potential adversary might be able to take over vehicles or

ships or airplanes. this is a an area in which you have a lot of attention and i believe, i can assure you, it is .rom the president on down we're looking at this very, very hard. >> one more question. hello deputy secretary work. complexity of a budgetary operations, what do you see is the way for the innovation that takes place in the private sector of the united states of a convergence of technology to provide solutions to those challenges facing the department of defense. >> that is a great question and something secretary carter has been paying a great deal of attention to. he believes there are too many departmentound the of defense and that ideas are

not trading as fully as he hopes they would. he recognizes, after spending a year and silicon valley, of the vibrant innovation going on there. so, he has pitched out and started an awful lot of different initiatives. the defensive innovation experimental units in silicon valley to provide a point of big innovation engines in the valley to come to the department of defense and say, we have a solution to some of your problems and for us to build them and say, they have a problem do you have solutions for us? we are experimenting with the a model that to the intel community did so successfully. it gets a some of the venture capital community. we have a $10 million pilot project going on right now. hopefully, that will be able to spur more innovation.

why have started a long-range research and development planning program. that is under the cognizance of -- undersecretary of defense for html and his acting secretary, steve. they are looking at innovative ideas and trying to change the paradigm so they can become more nimble in this competitive and biomed. we have something unique in the world, a strategic abilities office. this office looks at weapons and platforms have an existence right now and says how do you use them differently to will change the way they operate and provide affects. i know of no other operation in the world that does this. in february, will explain some of the things we're doing. some of the things will not. if you look back, right now say, still as part of the second set.

announceut we did not or show anything about stealth until 1989. they kept that as a black them because we thought the advantage it provided us was so great. there will be things like that when we submit our budget. see, other things we want to keep quiet. it is working with the industrial base which has a lot of innovation, working with the capital community, working with commercial enterprises and trying to become more nimble and creating newof operational concepts and offsets that will give us an advantage over time. this type of a forum, i want to

applaud marcus and defense one for setting it up. the four sided box called the pentagon -- does not have all the answers. -- the five sided box called the gun does not have all the answers. thought from everyone across the united states. to patch intent to try and can't touch all of the good ideas going on and hopefully see our way through an air which is quite challenging and terms of balancing our ends and our means. thank you for everything you do for our nation, and thank you, marcus, for having this summit and i wish you all the best of luck. god bless. you, secretary worked. [applause]

>> coming up on c-span, a donald trump campaign event in new york city. then charlie cook gives a preview of the 2016 elections. today the house foreign affairs committee looks at russia's involvement in syria. live coverage begins at 10:00 a.m. is turn on c-span three. air, about whom you next right? in i thought, there is only one about whom i would write if i were to write a second biography. i did write that book and i thought, i am going to be standing next to the president speaking to 3500 of the most important people in this room in d.c. how i will feel?

i thought i might do that. zpah ini feel the chut the moment tip of the goofiness, i will do it. on q&a,r: this sunday this author talks about his book. >> i think it is important never to make bread the questions would call -- never to make that -- never to make what we >>c sunday night to q and a. hristians would call an idol.

>> here is our schedule beginning this weekend. massachusetts for the boston book festival. middle of the month, louisiana book festival in baton rouge. then, live oak for the 18th that year in a row for the miami book fair international. just some of the fairs and festivals this fall on c-span twos tv. >> republican presidential candidate donald trump held a news conference about his new book. also shared his thoughts on the latest buzz, debates, and his rivals. it is 35 minutes. [applause] mr. donald trump: thank you. i want to thank simon and

schuster, one of the most magnificent publishers. i have been tears, about simon and schuster being harvard,-royce, the the yale. they are a great one. thank you very much. you've given us tremendous support. we did this quickly and affect of. it has been an incredible experience. we both a book and the title, "corporate america, -- america," is very tough. america is crippled. very soon it is going to be $19 trillion in debt. we have a military that does not have proper instruction from leadership. we do not know what we're doing. were losing all over the world

with trade deals. never met them a country talk about, pick a name out of a hat. they are beating us in trade. we cannot go on like this any longer. i always mention as an example, sergeant bergdahl. a traitor. we get sergeant bergdahl, they get five people they wanted badly. that is not the way it is going to work anymore. we write about it in the book. they tell a lot of different stories of lots of different things and i think it is going to be very instructional. the deal, the art of one of the reasons it was so successful was that it was largely instructional. today when i speak, so many people hold up the book, the art of the deal, and the other books we have done. this is one that probably, not since the art of the deal, i have to tell this to louise at simon and schuster, have i

worked so hard unable. we wanted to get it out quickly so that it pertained to what is now. on right the moment of time. we got it done. david it did a fantastic job. really quickly so that it pertains to what's going on right now. the moment of time. we got it done. david did a fantastic job. where's david? david did a fantastic job. all of my people did a fantastic job. they help me so much because we are doing a couple of other things right now so this was not easy getting the sin. but we see by the lines to park avenue, they been forming last night and i'm going to be signing books starting at 12 o'clock, doing a couple of interviews and then signing books at 12:00 o'clock. that will be a very exciting very exciting time for me. we have fans who have bought the book and they just bought it and some have been online for 12 and 14 hours. i don't know how they do it, but they do it. they find a way. i'm looking looking forward to getting to the signing. does anybody have any questions?

>> yes go ahead, katie. >> well i think it's a different book. we just had polls come out in iowa where i am leading. you saw the new pope from iowa? you saw the new poll in new hampshire where i'm leading it. i'm leading in georgia, texas, all over the place. are doing well. if you add in that, were beating everybody by a lot. were beating the establishment. the establishment has let us down. i don't know. i don't know how his book is doing. i think my book is very hard-hitting. this is a different kind of a book and he is a different kind

of person. my book is very hard-hitting. it says it like it is. based on what simon & schuster just told me it's selling like hot cakes. we are very different people. we have very different qualities. we are extremely different. i'm different from all the other candidates. look, nobody can negotiate trade deals like me. we are going to take the $400 billion a year that we are losing with china and that's going to be turned around. the $75 billion a year that we are short on with japan, the $50 billion a year that we lose to mexico, and that's right there will be a wall built. a wall will be built and it will go up. people come into the country legally. i much different. you look at marco rubio, very, very weak on immigration. you look at ben, he's weak on immigration and wants to get rid of medicare. you can't get rid of medicare. it would be a horrible thing to get rid of. it actually works. you get rid of the fraud, waste and abuse and it works.

when a man is weak on immigration and wants to get rid of medicare, i don't know how he stays there. go ahead john. [inaudible] >> no i think that marco is overrated. frankly, had bush been a better messenger, he has a better message. that was me delivering that message, it would've been a much different story. marco doesn't show up to the united states senate. he is representing the people of florida, which by the way that poll came out today and i am way up in florida over everybody. but marco is a a sitting senator and he doesn't show up for the people. i don't think he should be doing that. bush gave a very weak message. it was poorly delivered. the facts are ultimately that marco will be hurt very badly. if you look at mr. singer, you have to see where mr. singer is coming from.

when you see where he is coming from i think people will say whoa, we didn't know that. look at marco's stance on illegal immigration. it's it's really trouble for him. i don't see how he can win. okay, yes, mark. [inaudible] >> marco rubio's personal finances are discredited #zero know his personal finances, all you have to do is look at his credit card. he is a disaster with his credit card. i'll tell you what, i love florida. i'm in florida all the time. for years i have been hearing that his credit cards are a disaster. i would think when you take a look at it you will find that. his credit card debt and his problems with credit card and what he did when he was running the party apparatus with credit cards, i've heard about it for years. you will have to find out. >> he has a very bad record of finances. if you look at what happened

with his houses, he certainly lives above his means. there's no question about that. i'll tell you what. i don't really care that much. i want a room, i want to podium. let's get going because i don't really care that much. a lot of the people that are candidates and i respect many of them, not all of them but many of them, they felt it was very unfair because hillary clinton was given all softballs. i mean she wasn't asked one tough question. they didn't ask about the foundation or any of the problems. they didn't talk about the email problem, when that came up bernie sanders lost his whole campaign. what he did was so stupid. in order to get a one minute soundbite and some a a applause, that's where he gave up his

campaign. people aren't going to his rallies. he's finished. unless something happens, she will easily be the candidate. i will say this. she only got softballs. that's all she got. if you look at the way we were treated, it wasn't the same way. with that being said, i don't really care. [inaudible] >> your name is? [inaudible] >> well i think the republicans actually are doing a pretty good job overall. they coalesced at the last debate because it really started with me, the guy asked me a question and i think he is probably finished as a credible reporter. he was a disaster. it was such a horribly put question and so obviously. the republicans coalesced around each other. it was actually pretty beautiful when you think about it. all we want to do is be treated fairly. with me, i don't care that much. just give me a podium. what i would say is this. the networks have made a fortune

because of me, not because of anybody else. they were saying that the last cycle they had 2,000,001,000,000 people in the networks didn't even want to broadcast because nobody watch. nobody wanted to watch. now they have 25 million people, 24, 24 million people, 23 million people and 16 million people. give me a break. somebody said how did they get there and actually variety and hollywood reporter do report the stuff pretty well. much better than the political press. they said solely for one reason, it was trump. i'll take the credit. i think a wounded warriors and our veterans should be given some of the ed enormous profits being made on these debates, enormous profits. by the way anything beyond what they envision. cnn was going to get $2000 for 32nd ad. they ended up getting 250,000. they went from 2000 to $250,000

for a 32nd ad. they are making a portion and i think they should give some of the profits to the wounded warriors and the veterans. that's what i want. [inaudible] >> i'm giving them away. i'm giving the profits of my book away to a lot of different organizations including the vet. >> who are you with? >> okay good. this is a new form of reporting. they used to come up with cameras. she came up with a cell form phone. speak fast. go ahead. [inaudible] >> i have been amazing with respect to the hiring of women. this building was built as the

head person who was fantastic, by a woman and that was at a time when you didn't see that in the construction. i have many, many executives upstairs and in different buildings that i have that are women. many at a proportion that is close to 50% or over 50% if i analyzed it. they get paid a lot of money and in many cases more than men doing the same job. women have always appreciated that about me. in terms of employment, i have really been stand out and i've been honored for doing so well with women. >> yes, go ahead. [inaudible] >> are you going to be voting? i don't think so so let's go. >> we don't have to worry about the french right now. go ahead. [inaudible] >> what jeb bush was saying at the last debate? i don't know but he didn't say it well. what is your question there, behind you?

[inaudible] >> your with telemundo, go ahead. i like telemundo. i'm suing the other company for 500 million. go ahead. because the country is doing so poorly. the country is doing so poorly. go ahead. [inaudible] that's good. they will have some demonstrations. oh good because it will get even higher ratings if they do that. i think it's fine. look, i think they should demonstrate. ratings will go even higher than they are going to be. it's going to be one of the highest rated shows ever and they are very excited about it. i have a great relationship, as you know from telemundo with the

hispanics. you treated me very fairly. i won the pole recently in nevada and other polls. i think i got 37% in nevada and leading everybody. i've got a great relationship with the hispanics. i have, working for me, thousands of hispanics. i've had tens of thousands of people over the years working for me. i am job machine. one of the things that does come out of every single pole and survey is that nobody, for the economy, nobody is even close. i am two, three, four, five times greater than anybody else. you almost say it's about the jobs, it's about the economy and how will anybody be trump in all fairness question i've had a great relationship with rutgers and jobs and with the hispanics. i protect i will win the hispanic vote.

i think i will win the hispanic vote. i predict yes, i think i will get the nomination and i will win the white house. i think eating hillary clinton is going to be easy because her record is so bad. okay. go ahead. [inaudible] >> that's the question i like. how am i preparing for my and out. i'm meeting with lorne michaels in a little while. after here we are going to sign, i have thousands people in line, but we are going to sign and later on this evening i'm meeting with lorne michaels and will start the whole thing. we'll pick this gets and we will have a fantastic show and we will all have a lot of fun. my jab impression? no i don't want to do that. i don't like to show a person sleeping at a podium. tom is asking, can jeb make a

comeback? i think it will be very hard. not about money. i think i came up with the energy. we need tremendous energy because we need a person that has tremendous personal energy to get us back on track. you can't do that when you don't have that. i think marco is highly overrated. highly overrated. he doesn't have it. all you have to do is look at his stance on things. jeb, he lacks the quality that you need. were talking about everybody in the world is ripping us off. you need a very strong person with strong energy. thank you very much folks, i'll take the job. but, by the way, ben carson does not have that energy. we need somebody with tremendous energy to straighten out the military, isis and our horrible trade deals, to terminate obamacare and come up with

something better for far less money. you need someone with tremendous personal energy. we have a president that doesn't have energy. you think obama has energy question he has no energy. he's been a horrible president. we need somebody with great personal energy so we can make great deals and do well in every other respect. certainly jeb bush does not have that in my opinion. i'm the guardian, oh, they treat me very nicely in scotland. go ahead. good, thank you. well we just went over that, honestly. it's only going to make it hotter. another question? ahead. [inaudible] >> state again.

you will see what we are going to do. the whole thing with anchor babies, i turned out to be right. a person has a baby, lives in mexico or asia or many different places, has a baby, walks across the baby and has the baby walks across the border and has the baby here and now were responsible for that child. i don't think so. they were right, i was right. they were wrong. if you wanted to do that in mexico or few wanted to do that in any other country where you have a baby in that country in that country has that person for 85 years, including all of the cost of that person, they would laugh you right out of the country. you would be laughed out of the country so fast. that turned out, i was a hundred% right.

were going to take care of it and it will be done in a very humane way but we are going to bring back our country and have a wall and mexico is going to pay for the wall and you know why they're going to pay? and i have great relationship with mexico. phenomenal relationships with the mexican people. they buy apartments from me, they work for me by the thousands. phenomenal relationships, but let me tell you, we lose so much money with mexico in terms of trade imbalance. $45 billion last year. plus we give mexico billions and billions of dollars. they will pay for the wall. it will be very interesting. you know what, people will come into this country but they're going to come in legally. go ahead. can you talk louder? nobody can hear you.

i know a lot of european countries are going to build walls to stop immigration. walls work. all you have to do is ask israel. walls work if it is properly constructed. not the walls that these politicians who are running our country who are a disgrace, all talk no action. they build a wall this big made drive a a car through. walls work. all you have to do is build a wall that works. go ahead. [inaudible] >> we need pop and circumstance. good question actually. our country has no spirit.

our country doesn't feel good about itself. the primary reason is we have no victories. where have we had a victory? where have we had ah aq victoryd trade question where have we had a victory as an example, this horrible deal that was signed with iran where were giving $150 billion and we lose everything. we lose everything. it's a laughing stock. worse deal, worst contract i've ever seen. we have no victories. i do write about it. we need some pomp and circumstance but we need spirit. we need a cheerleader. i thought, seven years ago when obama got elected, the one thing i thought that he would be a great cheerleader for the country. he's not. he's he's been a great divider for the country. he has been one of the great dividers of all time. i'm not saying dress. it has nothing to do with stress. it has everything to do with the

fact that he is very divisive. he has been a great divider and that should not have happened. >> yes. [inaudible] >> i will go anywhere they want. i don't care too much about the debates. i'm the one who gets all the nasty questions anyway. nobody else gets the really nasty questions. in a way maybe they're defending me, but i don't think the doing it for that reason. i think it's irrelevant. i think i like the debates and i've done well in the debates. every single pole set i won all the debates. i don't know if i did or not, but i certainly didn't do badly. even cnbc pole set i won the debate. i like the debates, i think they're good for me, but we have to be treated a little bit fairly. as an example, hillary clinton, no tough questions. why didn't they ask about bill. why didn't they ask about all

the different things. no tough questions. now that was staged by the democrats. frankly, they did a very smart thing in the way they staged it. while we are going to stage something properly also. as far as i'm concerned, i really don't care that much. i just want to debate. i think debating is a good thing and it's healthy and it gets everything into the open. but you don't want people who read a question, in my opinion his careers probably ruined or threatened. you can ask about anything you want. hillary had only softballs. all night long. it was like this, here hillary, hit this one over the park. yeah, go ahead. [inaudible] are you from russia? >> alright i think our relationship with russia will be very good. vladimir putin was on 60 minutes with me three weeks ago.

they have one of the highest ratings they've had in a long time. i'm going to give him total credit. we will have a very good relationship. i think with russia. maybe we won't. but i believe we will have a very good relationship with russia. i believe i will have a very good relationship with vladimir putin. go ahead. [inaudible] sounds okay to me. go ahead. [inaudible] lie think there are a lot of economic issues. we didn't talk about trade. we didn't talk about devaluations, right. we didn't talk about corporate inversions which by the way, none of the other candidates, they don't even know what it means. but we didn't talk about corporate inversions where companies are leaving our country, massive openings

because they can't get their money back and because they get lower taxes elsewhere. they are leaving and taking their jobs elsewhere. the corporate inversions syndrome is a very important thing to talk about. these are all things that weren't talking about at the debate. instead they talked about fantasy football. it was a big question, fantasy football. i'm saying saying what about corporate inversion. two and a half billion dollars, at least, i think it's probably twice that much, it's in other countries wanting to come back but because our system is so corrupt and terrible, they can't get the money back to invest in this country. they don't talk about corporate inversion at the debate, they talk about fantasy football. go ahead sarah. you have to talk louder now. i was against the war in iraq very early on. i'll give it to you. yes i have it upstairs.

i don't know, i'll give it to you upstairs. while you know, you have to understand, i was a developer. a lot of people didn't care about my view in 2003 or 2004. there is a writers article taken from a magazine about my stance in 2004, i i believe in july 2004, and it talked about my stance on how i felt about iraq. i felt very strongly about what will happen. you will destabilize the middle east and iran will take over iraq. that's exactly what's happening. they will take over the oil reserves which are among the largest in the world and in addition other bad things will happen. the other bad things or are ices. i said that in 2004 and that was an article that was taken from a magazine previous to that. i felt that way for a long time. [inaudible] >> that's the best question you've ever asked me.

finally sarah you're asking me this great question. sarah, from cnn, terrific person. do i think that it is time for some of the other republicans in the race that are registering zero in a couple of cases, they have zero with an arrow pointing left which i assume is it a mistake because that's less than zero, do i think it's time to have some of the other republican candidates drop out? yes. there are too many people. i don't want to get personal, but you can look at the poll numbers. if a person person has been campaigning for four or five months and they are at zero or one or 2%, they should get out. like, look at me, i go to florida and look at the numbers that just came out of florida. 37%. georgia, those are real numbers. these numbers that these people have, and i often ask myself, i asked asked mark yesterday, what are they doing? i happen to think it is very bad for their brand.

i think walker did a good thing. i think the way walker saw it wasn't happening, it wasn't going to happen, and he just got out quickly. he was favored, don't forget. i know it was before trump was going to happen. he was favored for a period of time. they thought he was going to win. what happened is he got out. i think the way he got out was great. i think he did a really smart thing for himself. frankly other people should get out. i would like to personally have more time to talk about the problems of the united states. more importantly, how to solve the problems, because we can solve the problems. that's great question. people should get out. yes. [inaudible] eva. they just said said one of the biggest applause lines, is when i talk about my daughter of anke. she was just at fortune magazine

for something like woman of the year. just say hello, hello, okay. she is going to be very involved and malan is going to be very involved. they will coming out very soon. she is going to iowa. when are you going to iowa? >> very soon. >> good question. i would say, i don't see threats. whatever it is i have to do. he said one of the top threats to your candidacy? who knows. you are in a crazy world of politics. people change their minds. i'm going to make america great again. nobody else will do that again. i'm going to do it. i'm going to make it, in my opinion, better than ever before. i think that's awfully tough to compete with.

one of the reasons that in my book, actually put financials in there, i show some of the developments and i have many, many more because you can only, at simon & schuster schuster they kept me 28 or nine pages but i show some of the great developments i have done that our soul successful and incredible and financially good, i show my financial statement from about two years ago. now it's even better but we didn't have it certified yet. i do that, not in a ragged oceans way, but i do that because that's the kind of thinking our country needs right right now. we are run by people who are incompetent. i hate to use the word stupid, but you have to use that word in less than have bad intentions, which i don't believe they do, but we are run by incompetent people. we have incompetent leadership. there are so many things, like i mentioned corporate inversion. the democrats want the money to come back. who doesn't want it.

the republicans want the money to come back. for three years the democrats have said we want the money to come back. in three years, the democrats and republicans agree, 100%, you have a vast majority, maybe everybody for three years. guess what. they haven't done anything. they can't even get along when they agree. so here's the thing where we can take trillions of dollars and bring it back into this country, rebuild big parts of our country with it. companies can spend that money in our country. we have everybody agrees it should be done for years and they can't do it. that's part of the problem. there's a lot of controversy with mr. singer. there are those people who probably wouldn't want him to back, back, but we'll see. i'll talk to you. go ahead. [inaudible] >> oh they will agree. they just didn't want to go through the unfair questions because they weren't questions,

they were statements. you see they were asking, they were giving statements in a sarcastic disgusting way. by the way, i think becky is terrific. i think carl is terrific. i think john harwood is not very good at what he does but i think becky and carl are traffic. john was disgrace to cnbc. well it's really an interesting question. the question is should the fed raise rates? they are not raising them because obama has asked them not to raise them. in my opinion he wants to get out of office because we are in a bubble and when those rates are raised, a lot of bad things will happen or potentially could happen and in my opinion, janet yellen is highly political and she's not raising rates for very specific reason because obama told her not to.

he wants to be out playing golf in a year from now and he wants to be doing other things and he doesn't want to see a big bubble burst during his administration. she's not doing it because the administration and president obama doesn't want her to. you've seen it. when there's a talk of raising it just a little bit. one of the problems we've had is our currency right now is not competitive with other currency. if you look at the devaluation of china and japan and many other countries, they're making it impossible for our countries to compete with them. don't do that, if you do that, we will put a big fat tax on you. if you said that, they wouldn't do that if you had the right message. how about one more russian. howard you have another question?? i love him.

he always treats me so nice. really i'm focused on one very important election. there are some good elections but i'm not watching any of them in particular. we will be out voting. the election that i am watching is the election for the presidency of the united states. in my opinion this will be truly one of the most important elections we've ever had in this country. we are so far behind. we cannot go another four years with incompetent leadership. >> okay, what else? one more question. go ahead. that's a good question, okay. so simon and schuster came up to me. they wanted to do a book. they wanted it to do on success

and how do you do this and how do you build it and that's what the book is largely about but we talk so much about the country. i settle do it but we have to talk about the country. what happened is they sent this incredible photographer up to do a book cover, to do a picture. he did some some great, almost as good as you, he did some great photos. i'm small smiling and happy and everything looks good. then he took one where i wasn't really think about a photo and it turned out to be a nasty picture. then the book was written and the title was given and the only really terrible picture i had was that one. it's a terrible, horrible, nasty picture but when you're talking about crippled america and you're talking about all the problems we have, i can have a big smiley face up there so that's how we picked it. we picked the worst photo taken of me. i would have loved to have had a

beautiful smiling picture but that doesn't go with the title of the book or the context of the book. simon & schuster agreed with me. said again. what? are the other republicans afraid to debate? while some of them should be. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] \ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, >> every campaign event we cover is available online at www.c-span.org. on the next "washington journal "washington --

journal," congressman luke messer of indiana on upcoming fiscal deadlines and how has republican leadership will change under speaker paul ryan. later, our spotlight on magazines feature capturing many more on plastic bags and what prohibition gets wrong about them. you can join the conversation with your cause and comments on facebook and twitter. live coverage begins at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. c-span percent landmark

cases, the book. a guy to our landmark cases series which explores 12 historic supreme court decisions, occluding marbury versus madison, brown versus the board of education, aranda versus arizona, and row versus wade. the book, pages introductions, backgrounds, and the impact of each case. written by veteran supreme court journalist tony morrow. landmark cases is available for 8.95 plus shipping. preview the 2016 presidential election tuesday. he named the candidates he thought might make it through the primaries and talked about

chances of retaining the senate. this is 90 minutes. over the senate. >> thank you for coming out. united technology has sponsored these issues and i was holding out for a helicopter but you sold the company so i have to hold out for an elevator for the house or something. but anyway, and the great people at national journal for putting this together. great crowd. i want to put in a plug quickly. the brand new almanac of american politics just came out. it is an amazing 2084 pages. it is sort of everything you

needed to know. i bought my first copy in 1972 when i was a senior in high school in louisiana. i bought everyone -- were you from louisiana? we went to the same high school. that is right! anyway, so -- wow, see this is a real story. i didn't make it up. just anyway, it is now at bookstores near you and amazon and all kinds of great places. there is an 18-page introduction essay i wrote at the beginning. just remember i wrote it over the summer. cut me some slack there. what i am going to try to do is talk a little bit -- if you feel confused about the 2016 campaign so far join the club. elections are like fingerprints.

everyone is unique and they have different dynamics and circumstances. this is obviously about as weird as they come. kind of interesting dynamics on the democratic side and a lot on the republican side. i am going it try to put sense into what is going on and why and look at the democratic nomination side briefly and spend more time on the republican side and talk about the general election to the extent we can without knowing who the nominees are and then talk about the u.s. senate finally.

in terms of why this is a weird election and what is making this a highly combustable and gumbo of different factors -- that is the southern part of the state. not where we are; the easternmost suburb of dallas. i would argue the factors are ideas, economic anxiety, p populism, the culture wars and pervasive anger at politicians. let's talk about the ideas for a second. i don't think there is any question that the democratic party is a heck of a lot more liberal than it was when bill

clinton left office 15 years ago. at the same time, the republican party is a heck of a lot more conservative than it was when george bush left office seven years ago. this is manifesting itself on congress and party primaries and the like where what we are seeing is that the people who were conservative, moderate democrats are pretty much gone. in terms of the electorate are gone. so the parties are more cohesive. there is a lot of sorting taking place. that means the conservative democrats that were the balance keeping democrats from going off into a ditch, this is your left, they are gone. and the liberal moderate republicans, the ballot sort of

kept congressional republicans from going into the a ditch on the right hand side. they are gone as well pretty much. it reflects what happened in the primaries as well. just simply democratic primaries are more liberal than they used to be and republican primaries more conservative. so the primaries moved to the extreme and the centers of gravity moved to the extreme. the people, members that don't reflect that, have been purged out sort of, in primaries. and then we have a median environment that reinforces all of that whether it is fox and talk radio and the internet on the right or the prime time shows on msnbc and a little talk radio and a lot of internet on the left it is just intensifying this idea to a point that wasn't there 5-10 years ago. there is another dimension. it used to be more when people,

when you disagreed with someone, you just have different views. and increasingly, and this is true on the left and right, anybody you disagree with must be evil. they cannot just be wrong. there is something more than that that has taken place. it has taken on a real edge. and the whole idea of balancing competing values has gone out the way. enough of the essoteric stuff. i would say jeb bush and hillary clinton are caught in time warps. i turned 62 today. today is stew rothenberg's birthday so if you run into him. my birthday is later in the month. jeb bush is 62. just a touch older and hillary

clinton just turned 68. if you think about hillary clinton, when her husband was president she was perceived to be at the far left of her husband's administration and she is scrambling like mad to keep up with the party that moved considerably to the left. and look at jeb bush. he was one of the most conservative governors in america and now the primary difference between jeb bush and clinton is bush demonstrated ideas to moving over with the party. he hasn't moved over to keep up with it as comfortably and having lots of problems. so this ideaology is a big

factor. second thing is economic anxiety. you know it is very interesting is while we came out of a recession in 2009, we were seeing polls even earlier this year that were showing a majority of americans but we still were in a recession. and if you think about the last two years of looking at economic growth it has been a yo-yo. it has been about 3.24 percent. over the last two years, for the quarter, starting 2013, 4th quarter, gdp was at 3.8 -- that is good. then it dropped down to negative .9 for the 1st quarter of 2014. then it jumped up to 4.6 and stayed at 4.3 and dropped to

2.1. so that is below where you want. then it dropped down to sixth tenths of a growth rate and then up to 3.9 and only 1.5 percent for the 3rd quarter. this is, you know what we have is an economy that is getting buffeted. it is so fragile it is getting buffeted by things like droughts in the west or west coast dock strike or what is going on in china or the euro zone or greece. it is continuing this anxiety that really never ended after the recession is over. when you get down to it, if you look at median, real household income, half the families and half the households have done better/half worse, household income hasn't gone up since 1999

when you consider inflation. we have had two terms of democrat presidents since 1999 and two terms of republican presidents since then. we have had democratic majori majorities in the house and republican majorities. no matter who was in charge, real median household incomes haven't gone up. that is so that people have this feeling that well the economy may have recovered but my economy hasn't recovered. and that is sort of adding a new degree of angst. all of this led to populism. whether that is the occupy wall street on the left and elizabeth warren and bernie sanders, two of the hottest people and personality in the democratic party. or the tea party movement with trump on the right side this rise is causing tension within each party. the tension in the democratic

party between the building construction unions who wanted the keystone xl pipeline and the environmentalist who didn't want the keystone xl pipeline. or look on the republican side. the export/import bank is creating tension on each side. then you get to the culture wars. where you have one piece of america that is desperately trying to protect what they see as the historic values and culture of this country. and the other side believes the culture that values should move and change with times and should keep up with the change in society. it is manifesting in things like the most recent planned parenthood fetal tissue research issue, same-sex marriage, and it is like one country wants to

watch father's knows best and the other wants to watch modern family. it is creating another tension out there. and then finally, think about what conservatives and republicans, but mostly conservatives tend to value. they tend to value freedom and liberty. liberals and democrats put a higher value on justice and equality. it is like two different value systems. it is like the men are from mars and women are from venus or whatever the book is. different value systems driving wedges through the political process. that leads us finally to the anger at washington and career politicians. there is a recent poll that asks people do you think most people in politics can or cannot be trusted. can be trusted, 23%. cannot be trusted, 72%. wow. do you think the current political system in the united

states is basically functional or dysfunctional? functional, 33%. dysfunctional, 64%. these are very, very deeply held views but there is a party difference. they asked people what is more important to you: someone with experience in how the political system works or someone from outside of the existing political establishment. overall, 56% of americans said they preferred experience. 56%. and 40% preferred an outsider. if you just talk to democratic voters, 69% experience and only 27% outsider. but just republican voters it was 60% outsider and 36% prefer

experience. when you think of republicans, and this comes into the presidential a little bit, is that republicans tend not to be early adopters. historically they have been people that like to be comfortable with things. they want -- you know, they have been small seat conservatives. we started seeing the changing sum in 2012 and 2014 a great deal. so there is a difference within the two parties between the two. i am mad as hell and not taking this anymore. it really is that strong and toxic. these are the five factors i think created this instability we are seeing in the political process. let's talk about the democratic side first.

you know there is some precedent to what we are seeing in the terms of the democratic party initially behind the frontrunner and the frontrunner has the lock on the nomination but then a challenger comes out and makes it a little interesting for some period of time. think of walter man mondale with the challenge from heart. or al gore and the challenge from bradley. each got interesting briefly and then got a little less interesting. in 2000 things were different with the left getting further to the left and to the left of where hillary clinton had been. and then this anger at politicians, career politicians, anger at washington or the established order of things created more edge to it.

the real story with hillary clinton is when you think about when she left office as secretary of state she had terrific numbers overall. republicans and conservatives all hated her but hated her as long as they have known anything about her. but if you look at her numbers along democrats, liberals, moderates, independents, hillary clinton's numbers in january of 2013 were good. the truth is they were probably unsustainably high because there was a period of time where she was not seen as a politician or a presidential candidate. she was above politics. so her numbers among non-conservative and non-republicans road up to an unsustainable level. when she left office, they started picking up her running

for president, you saw this slide down in secretary clinton's positive or favorable numbers coming down but it was good. it didn't pick up the steam until 2014 when she became seen in more of a political context. she didn't help herself with a couple remarks. my two favorites were in january of 2014. down in new orleans speaking to the national automobile dealers associate and she finds the need to sort of volunteer that she hasn't been behind the wheel of a car since 1996. you know, you watch that and go, what in the hell would you say that for? was this your way of sucking up to a room full of car dealers? why would you say that?

she talked about my husband and i were dead broke when they left the white house. we know about the legal fees from the white water and the impeachment. yes, of course. but anybody that can get a seven-figure book deal and six-figure speeches is not what most of us think of as dead broke. it was different. but again, it is still -- hers were still pretty good until this e-mail thing started catching. early on i blew off the e-mail thing. you use work e-mail for work stuff. but you are not paranoid about

people being out to get you. i would not have done it and she would not if she could do it again. but then you hear there may have been classified information in some shape or form flowing over. whether it was classified before or after the fact or marked classified or not and things started getting more complicated. the republicans were as healthy

and having the lead to not having a lead or within the margin of error within people like donald trump. when you look at the polls, i talked at a peter heart who has a new poll coming out last night/this morning, and peter makes the argument that clinton is perceived as smart and competent by most people but they don't have this warmth. a lot of them don't like her or feel any kind of comfort with her. they don't necessarily trust her. it is not a competence thing. it is a personal thing. that comes into play in a general election. but in a nomination environment, you know, it is kind of hard to see how she could possibly lose the nomination to bernie sanders

barring some catastrophic event. could sanders win the iowa caucus or new hampshire primary? that could happen. it is observation changes behavior. you could argue they have been observed a lot and it changed their behavior some or in the primary caucuses out there. but when it gets to primaries, non-new england primaries, the demographics don't map up. if the fbi finds things and decide to pursue it and the decision is up to the public

integrity justice department, a group of career politicians, but if they do a recommendation up, that is going to put the attorney general and the obama administration in a really tough position. you have a huge mess on your hands. if you think of this as getting overplayed, think for once, did sandy berger who was clinton's first advisor expect to be prosecuted for mishandling

classified information? what about john doych who stepped down already? or david petreus while director of national intelligence tr not appropriately handling classified information? this is something where there is a chance they decide to pursue this, directly or indirectly, that could cause her real, real problems. to the point about the public integrity section, tell me about the bush white house. i don't think they wanted to do that. they are faced with a situation of how do you turn it down? it was a garbage case that was discredited after senator stevens lost the election and

was dead. or do you think the obama white house wanted david prosecuted? a close advisor to the president. heck no. do youngstown -- do i think this is going to happen? no, i don't. there is a chance it knows to the dark side. if it did, and i think we are talking about 1-6 chance, if it did, i think you will find democrats again looking on the wall for the in case of fire break the class option. before getting in the nuts and bolts of handicapp handycap p a

think of every republican nominee with the exception of goldwater, everyone of them has been a sitting president, former or current vice president, runner up of the previous nomi nation, related to the probe hazardo -- previous president or a commander in the war. republicans are not early adopters. we started seeing different behavior in 2012. when you saw michelle bachmann win the iowa republican straw poll or herman cain shoot up in

the polls, where republicans considered nominating inconceivable people that was totally against their stereotype of doing this. in the end, they nominated mitt romney who was the runner-up but that was only after pursuing every possible option and they were all discredited. what we saw in the republican nomination fight was a little forshadowing of the situation we have seen since then. one other broad point, if you think back to 2008, what is something you heard a lot of republicans say in the 2008 general election? well, it is a lousy idea to nominate young freshman senators. okay.

and there is a sort of feeling among a lot of people in both parties that well you really want someone that maybe somebody who has been a governor of a state, that executive experience is a better skill set than someone who came out of congress. so you have this over here. but there is another thing that is also important. if you did a national poll and asked people what is the most important facing the country today or what do you want the next president of the united states, what do you want them to focus on, if you ask democrats that question what they will tell you is the economy, jobs, and a certain con dproup of issues. republicans say terrorism,

america's place in the world, completely different issues which are not governer oriented. so the republicans have a dichotomy of what they want that is separate from ideas. how should we look at this race? i am sort of a simple-minded person. i like to hyper-organize because i am adhd i tend to hyper-organize. things. i look at it like ncaa brackets. you have the brackets over here that is the conventional establishment republican party that nominated eisenhower, both bushes, reagan, dole, mccain, romney -- that republican party. and then there is this other republican party that is more of an outsider wing. ronald reagan would have been an

outsider by '76 but by '80 the establishment embraced him by then. then you have this other outsider other wing that is unorthodox. it is a malgam of four groups. you have the tea party, the faith-based conservatives, then you have libertarian, and then you have people that are just really, really, really, really, really -- five really's -- conservative. i would argue what is happening and the weird things happening on the conventional side are different from the weird things happening on the more exotic side. on the more conventional side, i think what we see is if someone told us two years ago, jeb bush is absolutely positively going to run for president, what would most of us assumed?

he would lock up the conventional half of the republican party, and it is about half, he would lock that half of the party up almost immediately and have a very good chance of winning the overall republican nomination. so there is the bush thing. and scott walker would do well with this. what was going on here? first with bush, i think you could say first that the bush brand has been kind of dinged up some. this is not the brand that dad

left in 1992 or that w inherited in 2000. i wrote a column a year or so ago where i likened it to jeb bush is the teenager whose older brother wrecked the car just before homecoming or something. it is not your fault but you have deal with the consequences. there is that. but closely associated with that is the bush brand, that was once terrific in the republican party, but it is also, w not withstanding, it is associated with conventional, historic traditional republican establishment and that has taken on a bad sheen. we talked about the part where the republican party moved over to jeb, dad's right, jeb's right

and moved way over. i also think there is one other factor here. i hardly know him. i hardly met him with a couple times. but jeb bush has always struck me as a smart guy and an honest guy, he is not a chameleon in any shape or form, and he is being asked to take changes in what he feels is important on substance issues and take on a rhetoric i think the guy is uncomfortable doing. conversely, hillary clinton was more than happy to go ahead and move over on keystone xl pipeline, and trade and things like that. but bush is showing a lot of