because they're so much of talk about including heller clinton -- -- hillary clinton. thank you very much, the both of you, for being with us on "newsmakers." >> thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] month we are this showing book tv programs during the week in prime time. ourk tv on c-span 2 takes public affairs programming's and focusing on the leg is nonfiction books -- latest nonfiction book releases. the signature programs are in-depth with questions from viewers via phone, e-mail and social media. in-depth airs the first sunday of every month. afterwords is a one-on-one conversation with the author of the book and an interviewer with an opposing viewpoint.

it airs every saturday at 10:00 p.m. eastern. and we will take you across the country visiting book festivals and parties where authors talk about their latest works. the tv is the only network devoted exclusively to nonfiction books. 2, televisionpan for serious readers. >> florida holds primary elections tuesday in florida's 23rd congressional district. isocrati tim canova challenging representative debbie wasserman schultz for the party's nomination. we will show you a debate in a few moments. first, anthony man, a political writer with an over view on the election there. host: joining us from fort lauderdale is anthony man. he is a political writer for the "sun sentinel," focusing on the

23rd district between incumbent debbie wasserman schultz and her challenger tim canova. thank you for being with us. why has this become a primary to watch on tuesday? canova result of the money and he gave them credibility as a serious challenger and it allows them to open up a lot of offices, bring in a lot of nvasersincluding ca going door-to-door and it allowed him to be on broadcast television in the miami area med ia market for weeks. host: who is he and what does he bring to the table? >> he is a professor of law>> in the fort lauderdale area. political omer to

campaigns. he has never run for office. he comes from the bernie sanders movement. he was a big supporter of bernie sanders, and supported him even before sanders really took off in the presidential campaign this year. and that has really helped to fuel his candidacy. in many ways, it has been like a repeat of the sanders-hillary clinton campaign. a has run, canova has run campaign against wasserman schultz similar to the kind of campaign sanders ran against clinton. canova's charge that wasserman schultz is too much of a patron of corporate interests and just does what her contributors wanted he has really come at her from the left. h,st: up until last mont debbie wasserman schultz was also the chair of the democratic national committee only to step down the week of the convention in philadelphia. has that been a big issue in

this primary in fort lauderdale? >> it really has not been something that has gotten a lot of attention from voters when we "sun sentinel" did a poll found it was 100%, maybe 97% of people had heard about her resignation and had heard about the dnc wikileaks issue, but it does not seem to be something that is affecting the way people vote. it is not something you hear a lot about. now, the canova people have pushed that a lot and have used it in a lot of their fundraising e-mails that have gone out especially to bernie sanders supporters trying to get campaign contributions, but it is not something you hear a lot of from voters on the street. host: what has been the overall tone of this campaign and what to the polls show you? >> the tone has become increasingly negative from canova. he has been going after the incoming claiming as i said before that she's a tool of

special interests and he has been trying to hit her on parts of her record that he thinks democraticate with primary voters. he has been talking about things like payday lending and fracking and medical marijuana, things on. he senses weakness it has become somewhat negative. he has some attack ads on tv. she has ignored him. and finally, after a lot of calls for debates for months and months, she agreed to one early morning weekend's even debate. that does not mean she is ignoring him internally. they clearly have some concern and her site is working very hard and they are not leaving any stone unturned in trying to fend off this challenge are. host: you indicate that the district is overwhelmingly democratic so the winner of the primary will win in november.

others have said this is a district that has been tailor-made for debbie wasserman schultz. it is not a district that bernie sanders would have done well in a democratic primary. can you tell us more about the 23rd district? >> that is an excellent point. the hillary clinton got about 68% of the vote in the primary -- the democratic presidential primary here. about four percentage points than she did statewide. that really is hillary clinton kind of district. it is largely suburban. of browardn parts county, florida, and miami-dade county. to some extent, it is the democratic leftovers in a territory of south florida after congressional districts are erawn to ensure hispanic s ats and african-american seats and it's what is left over

carved into one district that makes up for miami-dade county in through south-central broward county. host: how big of a primary is this? how much attention is this getting not only by you but others in their regional media in southeast florida? >> it is getting enormous attention. there are couple of very hot races going on in florida, but and in south florida, but really this is the one that may be getting the most attention. as people begin to think that the u.s. senate primaries here are effectively decided with clear front runners, a lot more attention has been going to the debbie wasserman schultz tim canova primary. you: anthony man, thank very much for being with us. we appreciate it. of thea look at some campaign advertising in the democratic primary for florida's 23rd congressional district race. chair of the democratic

party she was forced to resign in disgrace. now florida voters are discovering misconduct at the local level. instead of working for you, she supports her donors, like predatory lender's exploit the poor and trade policies that ship jobs overseas. the democratic party was right to ask her to leave. now it is your turn. we can do better because integrity matters. >> i'm tim canova, i'm a democrat running for congress and i approve this message. live ine who do not florida, including republicans are spending outrageous amounts of money on personal attacks directed at me. and the attacks are just garbage, especially in a time focused ond i are stopping donald trump's offensive and dangerous campaign and preventing republicans were turning back the clock on equality and progress. i'm debbie wasserman schultz. as a lifelong democrat, i will never stop fighting for the values we share and that is why i approved this message. >> now a debate between the

democratic candidates for florida's 23rd district congressional seat. incumbent representative debbie wasserman schultz and her challenger tim canova. cbs miami's tv hosted. this is just over 45 minutes. four news, this is south florida with jim defiti. jim: welcome to this special live, one hour edition of "facing south florida." debate between congresswoman debbie wasserman schultz and her primary opponent tim canova. wasserman schultz is seeking her seventh term with the backing of president obama and the democratic presidential nominee hillary clinton. a first-timeis candidate and law professor supported by bernie sanders and his legion of followers who have

pumped millions into his campaign. at stake -- florida's 23rd district including parts of broward and miami-dade counties. for the first time, both candidates agreed to debate and it will happen now on "facing south florida." we're looking forward to it. i'll be asking questions of each candidate and giving the other a chance to respond. there is no clock, but i will interrupt a candidate if they avoid a question or try to monopolize their time. we asked each kennedy to keep their answer straight into the point. we will hit a high array of topics but i want to start with questions of character that each campaign is had to face. i want to begin by talking about the wikileaks issue. there are two things about the wikileaks/dnc e-mail release that call my attention. one was the e-mails related to bernie sanders religious beliefs and weatherma whether or not thn

be used against him in the campaign. there are senior staffers on the dnc that suggested this was an area that that could be used, atheist.e is jewish or i know you had not seen those e-mails because you are not on them, but would you agree that those e-mails were wrong? second, what does it say about your leadership of the dnc that senior staff fell comfortable to talk about persons religion and that way? rep. wasserman-schultz: first, let me thank you for the opportunity to talk about the important issues facing not only the people of florida's 23rd congressional district that of the united states of america. it has been a privilege to represent the people of this district for the last almost 12 years. i look forward to continue to ask for their support. on that question, specifically, not only have i condemned the exchange in that e-mail, i share bernie sanders' faith and would never condone anyone suggesting that we question or strategize

about questioning someone's faith. in that e-mail exchange, a staffer specifically said they knew the chairwoman would not be ok with that. which i actually would not have been. so, i absolutely condemn and condemned that e-mail exchange. and that person is no longer working for the dnc. jim: what does it say that they were able to do that, that they would feel free enough to send an e-mail like that? is that the culture you created? rep. wasserman-schultz: of course not. i'm very proud of my tenure at the democratic national committee. when the president asks you to do anything, it is a tremendous honor, especially when you have been asked by the president to watch his back, bring them across the finish line. i was a key part of helping president obama get reelected in 2012. the work we did to prepare for hillary clinton to be our nominee and then make sure that we can get her elected president is absolutely critical to advancing the issues. jim: i want to say and wikileaks for second -- rep. wasserman-schultz: let me

specifically say, let's remember what happened at the dnc. the dnc suffered a 21st century watergate. ussiane the victims of r espionage restore private e-mails and our data and then gave them to the organization -- jim: you are not suggesting they were just kept secrets, those e-mails would be ok? rep. wasserman-schultz: no. what i'm suggesting, like son who suffered the same fate -- like sony. we've had a lot of cyber attacks. there is no organization that when their private e-mails -- hit the spotlight, private e-mails are just that, private e-mails. but of course, let me just remind you, in that e-mail exchange, the staff on that e-mail said they knew the chairwoman would not be ok with. i would not have been. jim: we will hear from professor in a moment.

here is an e-mail exchange were still with your opponent. it does appear very clear that dnc staff from the e-mails were coordinating with your campaign staff in terms of monitoring your opponents' movements, even coordinating statements the campaign was going to be releasing run through and throu itshe dnc staff and advisors. is that appropriate? for you to use dnc resources to monitor your opponent? rep. wasserman-schultz: let's be clear. this is the seven-time i have asked voters to support my candidacy. i know how to run my own campaign. i did not need anyone to help me. we have been just fine. i've won every election where i have been on the ballot. i would hope that staff who i be interestedd enough, care about me enough and be interested in my political success that they would try to

be involved in a way, but at the end of the day, there were not rules broken but that kind of intangible effort on the part of -- let me finish my answer, please. u.s. the question and you need this answer. that type of intangible, incidental activity is completely legal. it follows all rules and there was absolutely no violation of the rules or the law. jim: i will give you a chance to respond. mr. canova: first of all, i would like to thank you for thankg this debate and t congresswoman for agreeingh to this debatee. the wikileaks e-mail disclosure show a pattern of monitoring the campaign. i appreciate with a congresswoman has said, that she has won every election. as she has never had a contested primary. a contested primary is a little unsettling. it is clear that there were dnc staff to monitor the

campaign. what i found most troubling in the wikileaks disclosures was actually the discussion about the e-mail from the congresswoman to chuck todd aking that morning joe give apology. nit is a pattern. on may 18, there were two staffers talking about suppressing a story on msnbc. i think this is not sure the commitment to free speech and open discussion. jim: i will give your chance to respond but then i want to come back to him and talk about his issues. rep. wasserman-schultz: the people of florida's 23rd district who i've had the privilege of representing, they know the issues that are important in this campaign, that will decide who it is and they'll decide and who it is will best represent them, focus on who they know will continue to go to bat for them on creating jobs, protecting social security, on making sure there is a strong voice standing up for israel. jim: we are going to get to all those issues. rep. wasserman-schultz: my

specific response is that we have an election that is going to be decided in the next two weeks. and it will be decided and should be decided not on the content of private e-mails but -- that were stolen by russian spies but on who is best suited and the most appear to has the most experience to represent this district. mr. canova: may i just respond and say that nobody cares about these e-mails right now? [laughter] [talking over each other] mr. canova: i want to agree and say there are much more important issues. jim: but i want to come back to you for a second. i want to talk about, a bit of an understanding of you. you've only lived in this district since 2012. mr. canova: i have lived in south florida since the 1990's. i'm down here in the

1990's for a teaching job at the university of miami. i've lived in south florida for seven years. my family has been down in south florida for decades. i have been visiting for many years. i would like to know how many years somebody has to be living in this district in south florida to be considered a floridian? jim: you have only registered as a democrat in the last year. you are running for the democratic primary in this case. why have you only joined the party and less than 12 months? mr. canova: let me correct you. i will say this. i have been a registered democrat for longer than debbie wasserman schultz has. i was working on capitol hill for paul's longest as a legislative aide when my opponent was still in high school. i have been a registered democrat for more years. it is true a registered independent for one election cycle. quite friendly, it was from dissatisfaction with his democratic party. a feeling, please. the congresswoman has spoken for a while. it was a feeling that the democratic party had moved away from me. it had become much more

corporate dominated. quite friendly, under the congresswoman's leadership of the dnc. the frustration of millions of people around this country have fell with the democratic party. i'm proud that i made a decision to reregister democrat and to fight for the democratic party. jim: you have raised $3 million, most of it from small donors. can you tell me right now, what percentage of your donors come from outside of florida? mr. canova: about 10% come from within florida, and we have far more donors in the state of florida in congress on wasserman schultz. jim: how many from within the district would you say have contributed? mr. canova: i have not broken it down and analyze that. jim: are you really just a vessel for the anti-basically debbieti-dev wasserman schultz people, the bernie that are so angry at her that they want to use you as an instrument to attack her. mr. canova: if i had a different

kind of politics, i would not get this kind of support nationwide. the fact is, i have had a career for many years, for decades, working as a scholar, an activist, and both writing and working for change within the financial system. i've got a national reputation in half for many years. jim: one ask you how will you know this district. you know that with the mayor's? mr. canova: no, i do not. i am not going to play the game. i know that southwest ranches was the site of a proposed -- thank you very much. my students are at nova southeastern university. for the last four years i have taught hundreds and hundreds of students. i've spent more times in this district than the congresswoman have. on her website, she has had 70 events since november. that is abouttwo events pro week. i didn't finish making a point about southwest ranches. you brought it up.

jim: go ahead. rep. wasserman-schultz: i have been a lifelong democrat. there has not been one minute since i have been a registered voter that i have not only been a democrat but a liberal democrat. the term progressive is thrown around and that is the popular term used now. i'm a liberal. i embrace the l word. and not only have i represented this community in the state house, in the state senate and now in the united states congress, i have raised my family here. i have spent more than 30 years in florida. and 30 years in -- jim: i want to -- mr. canova: i have deep roots -- rep. wasserman-schultz: i have deep roots in the community. i have not done thousands of doors. and that is a huge -- jim: i want to come to you. i want to get a chance to respond and say this, that hillary clinton lived in new york for very little time when she ran for u.s. senate. as far as saying that i have not

been cynically an-- cynically engaged, is an insult a teacher. president obama and elizabeth warren were both teachers before going into politics. jim: i want to move into another topic. [talking over each other] to talk about money and money in this election. au -- you have made as cornerstone of this campaign you believe she is tied to wall street money that has affected her views on payday lending and to opposingnches the extension of consumer protection board regulations. what is your evidence that you believe she is bought and paid for by wall street? mr. canova: it was political factions by the miami herald. the miamiecked by

hero. she has raised millions of dollars from the largest corporations and wall street banks. this year, she has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to political action committee. she has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars from the wealthiest contributions, $2000 or more. and she has got a super pac that is spending crazy, like mad on her behalf. she is very tied to these corporate interests. i do not have a single corporate, political action committee that has contributed to me. jim: do you believe they control her? mr. canova: do you know what i think? i think it is the culture of washington. episodeutes" had an that the average candidate spends $30 30 hours a week dialing for dollars. if you are dialing for dollars 30 hours a week, week in and week out you start to adopt their viewpoint. i think that is what is happened with the congresswoman. i think her politics have shifted a lot over the years. she was first elected many years

ago, to the state house, she was a much more progressive and liberal. now she is just liberal and not as progressive. rep. wasserman-schultz: i'm very that if the support have had, that i have been able to attract throughout my entire career. what i'm also very proud of is that i have been a strong supporter of public campaign financing for all campaigns for my entire career. i'm a co-sponsor of a constitutional amendment that would overturn citizens united, which was the worst -- i agree with president obama that was the worst supreme court decision handed down. it allowed it allowed far too much corporate influence when it comes to providing contributions for candidates, we should make sure the playing field is more level. and i think -- i consistently supported that view. run awaynt, wants to from the fact that over 90% of the support he has financially is for people outside of the state of florida. thise deep roots in

community. 24 years of a record of a competent and service to this community. in thised my family community and earned the support of my constituents again and again because they know me. they know i have gone to bed on the issues that are most important to them. jim: one of the issues that your opponent has raised, your support in 2011, i think we have the letter that you and senator bill nelson signed supporting the for-profit prison to be built in southwest ranches. was that support a mistake? rep. wasserman-schultz: let's be clear on what that center was. that was an immigration detention center. it was not a person. -- p rrison. there is a big difference between immigration detention center and a prison. jim: it was a for-profit entity. rep. wasserman-schultz: that was -- fought - by the town. and madesupported

the arrangement with that company to locate an immigration detention center. they had an agreement with i.c.e. and with the company that was going to build it. jim: they later came out a post to it, correct? rep. wasserman-schultz: let me be clear. what i always do which is when i have a municipality come to me and asking my help, of course, we take a look at that issue very carefully and we do it we can to facilitate their request. jim: was it a mistake? to send that letter, in hindsight? rep. wasserman-schultz: no, it was not a mistake to try to assist -- this was an important economic driver. has almostanches no commercial tax base. they only have 7000 people that live in southwest ranches. this was an opportunity for them to be able to generate revenue and also have a low impact -- jim: i need to bring him in.

rep. wasserman-schultz: a low impact facility like a detention facility. not going to house criminals. mr. canova: i would like to get a word in edgewise. it was a bad decision, and for-profit detention centers are not a good idea. florida leads in for-profit detention centers and prisons. permanentnot have a lobby that has an incentive to lock folks up. i would like to answer the question about where my daughters come from. i'm very proud i have a national donor base. wants a national donor base and has won herself your she does direct mail all over the country picture seems upset that suddenly i am doing very well at the game she was doing. as far as raising money nationally from small donors. in the reason i have had national donor base is because my opponent has been a leader nationally. and her leadership is a failed leadership. have theproud to

support of the american -- all over the country and these are working americans. jim: i've got to take a break. we are ready for the first commercial break. we'll be right back with more on this debate. ♪ jim: welcome back to the debate between congresswoman debbie wasserman schultz and law professor tim canova. essor, i want to talk about the issue of drugs and i want to get the marijuana initiative on the ballot. but in looking at your website, i see that you wrote something on their. -- on there, with regard to drug policy purity favored decriminalization of certain drugs and adults should make their own decision as long as they are not harming themselves and others, let states and their voters decide on their own drug policies." what drugs are you talking about

that you would be open to decriminalizing? mr. canova: certainly marijuana. that is one that is sweeping this country and some states. i do think voters should decide that issue themselves. jim: what about other jocks like heroin or crack. drugs should be treated as a public health issue. it does not make sense to take addicts and locking them up and not treating the list. jim: you would be ok if they wanted to decriminalize a hard drug like heroin. mr. canova: i think we need to have a national policy to make sure we have the funds to treated as a public health issue. this is been the trend in many states, not just to decriminalizing marijuana to try to start treating addiction as a public health issue. it does not make sense to lock folks up for this. yearsongresswoman, two ago you oppose and criticize the medical marijuana and initiative on the ballot. are you supporting the current initiative on the ballot? rep. wasserman-schultz: well, i

look at this issue as, from a standpoint of being a mom and a cancer survivor. a. i have three teenagers. so, i want to make sure that when we take a look at how we and with marijuana support i support decriminalization. i do not think we should be locking up people for small amounts of marijuana, certainly dealers. large amounts of drugs should face prison time. but we need to make sure that we are investing in drug rehabilitation programs and diversionary programs -- jim: medical marijuana, are you supporting? rep. wasserman-schultz: as a cancer survivor and i have talked to many cancer patients. my friend lost her daughter to cancer and she benefited from the use of medical marijuana. but i'm continuing to take a look. the last election, and i'm glad to see that the supporters

and the sponsors of that toendment have tightened i u up. we want to make sure the people who need it have the ability to get access -- jim: what is it you are waiting for? some people accuse you of not wanting to state an opinion before the election but your alienating -- those who came out against you. rep. wasserman-schultz: i vote d to make sure that veterans have the ability to get access to medical marijuana. i have a public position. i support the use of evidence-based medical marijuana. i am glad to see the obama administration made a decision to allow for more research to be done. i share president obama's opinion that we need more research. medical marijuana is evidence-based so we can make sure -- jim: you support medical marijuana. rep. wasserman-schultz: what i don't support is legalizing drugs like heroin. that is not responsible. it is dangerous. i think suggesting that legalizing hard drugs like h eroin and methamphetamines is

not a public health issues, by any means. mr. canova: there is a difference between legalization and decriminalization. and anyone who has been involved in the drug reform movement. it should not be criminalized. we should not be putting addicts in prison. that is different from same legalize the entire trade. jim: let's turn to the economy. hourupport a $15.00 an settlement wage. mr. canova: i do think there should be subsidies for small businesses. jim: tell me how we get there, as a member of congress, i think you'll have some opposition, how do you get that to pass?how do we get to that $15.00 minimum wage? mr. canova: there is a whole progressive agenda. it will take a lot of heavy lifting in congress. it will take a lot of people speaking up behind the scenes. so, you know, you tell me, how do you get to $15.00 an hour minimum-wage? every time, yeah, you have got to get it through committees.

you have got to make the arguments to other members of congress. you have got to galvanize support, including among working folks. i have got the support of big unions that want $15.00 an hour. communication workers of america, national nurses united, plenty of labor folks, plenty of working folks want this. it is overdue to have the $15.00 minimum-wage. you take a look at walmart, for instance. this is a company that. pays its workers so little that a big percentage of them are on food stamps where are they spending food stamps? the largest recipient is warmer. w-- walmart. while the walton family's superrich and does not get highly taxed. these are subsidies for wealthy folks. these are the arguments. i do not hear my opponent making these opponents a artemisinin. rep. wasserman-schultz: then my opponent has not been listening.

i have consistently stood up on behalf of the working people, stood b side-by-side with the working people of this district, which is why have the support of 50 labor unions. not only across this community and across the state but across the country. i am a cosponsor of the legislation that would create the $15.00 minimum wage. jim, what we need to do, you have my opponent, how do you get this done? he's not quite sure. this is how you get it done. you reach across the aisle. number one, you make sure we can take the majority back in the united states congress which is something i have worked on for every year that i have been in congress. and supported and invested campaign for electing other democrats, not just myself. i do not just focus on myself. i know we have to be in the majority. my opponent just become a democrat he year ago. i have been a democrat every year of my voting life. we also have to make sure that we are reaching across the aisle.

it is important and i made efforts to make sure that i can work -- jim: i do not too polarizing the figure to work with republicans? rep. wasserman-schultz: no, on the contrary. i have started a bipartisan dinner with my colleagues who i do not agree with, dan webster. and sitting down for no reason other than to get in each other better at dinner with republican -- jim: i have got to -- unionsova: the 50 labor my opponent has the endorsement sub, not a single one of them sent me a questionnaire. this is an endorsement process that is a great. a questionnaire. a screening process. has not existed. as far as growing the party, she has not grown the party. she can talk about reaching over the aisle and having dinner parties, it is real nice. under her leadership at the dnc, the democrats have had a stork losses. we now have to, i should said republicans have the largest majority in the house of representatives in 83 years. and it is the same pattern right

here in south florida. bluest we are in the district with some of the lowest voter turnouts. this should be a blue state. it should not be a red state. under her leadership, she dismisses the fact that somebody who is registered independent for two years, reregistered them at, does she want to grow the party? does she want to invite independents to cross over and become democrats? months, wet three have attracted thousands of republicans and independents who have registered democrat to vote for me in this district it and she dismisses that. this party has to grow. while she has been in office, it gets smaller and smaller and we lose more and more elections. i have not seen her pick up a finger and help local democrats running against republican incumbents in south florida. rep. wasserman-schultz: so, i think we should probably ask mader of the --the mayor or

or --coletta, or nan rich and to the county commission. there are countless democrats not only in broward county and not only in miami-dade but across the state of florida and across the country who i have spent my time, not only focusing on electing myself, but i have been in the trenches working hard to elect democrats all -- including and especially helping to reelect the first african american president barack obama who i'm profit have his support -- she is unable to talk about the stork losses in the house and senate under her chairmanship. jim: you have made social security and issue. you have the kuester -- and -- you have the kuester, my opponent refuses to support an increase in benefits for social security. what is the basis for that? mr. canova: i will say this. she put out a press release a

couple ideas ago putting to six bills and a house resolution she is cosponsored to raise benefits. i applaud her for that. she cosponsor these in june and july. six of the seven. five of the seven. the other one was in april. this is the truth. there is the supplemental security income program administered by social security. it helps the poorest, neediest struggling seniors and disabled folks all over the country. in self-loading, in miami-dade and broward county, that is 125,000 senior citizens and disabled citizens who live on $11,700 a year or less. she did not cosponsor that bill. i published a piece calling on the florida delegation to sponsor it can she still has not cosponsored it. excuse me, i have worked with folks in the, this community who have lobbied her office and

there were told that bill does not stand a chance in the house because of republican opposition. and that is why we will not cosponsored it. elizabeth course sponsored this legislation in the senate. my opponent still want not cosponsor it. bills she iseven trumpeting, she sponsored in june and july. rep. wasserman-schultz: the people who i have represented for all of these years, the 117,000 senior citizens, 90,000 of whom are on social security, many of whom only have social this argumentknow is silly. they know i had been on the frontlines fighting day by day, side-by-side against republican attempts to privatize social security. when george w. bush was president, that was the mandate he said he had after he was reelected. he made it his mission to try to privatize social security. i stood in the breach over and over with my vote and my voice. i stood again and again, and,

i've cosponsored countless bills, including a very important issue to o ur seniors, which is making sure that when it comes to the cost of living adjustment, -with so many- which so many of my seniors have been concerned about the fact they keep getting cut off from getting the cost of living adjustment, and that is because the formula. let me say this, please. the formula that as applicable to whether senior gets a cost-of-living adjustment is off. jim: i want to bring him back in. rep. wasserman-schultz: i'm a cosponsor of the legislation that would change that formula so that we could make sure -- mr. canova: we have researched it. she became a cosponsor in june and july of 2016. that is the truth. you can look at up. rep. wasserman-schultz: my record is very, very clear. mr. canova: her record is clear --. to 125,000 senior citizens. to 125,000 senior citizens in broward county and miami-dade

who are looking for an increase in her supplemental security income it's not a silly argument. we have been waiting for congresswoman wasserman schultz to cosponsor this purchase still has not done it. pieces ofsored five legislation. they put it up online. and patted themselves on the back. they should be thanking me for being a challenge to get her on the right side of that issue -- jim: let's take a break. we have more issues to get to in a debate between congresswoman debbie wasserman schultz and professor tim canova. ♪ jim: we continue our debate with congresswoman debbie wasserman schultz and law professor tim canova. awant to turn to israel for second. because i think there are some areas of contention between the two of you. you both supported a two state solution when it comes, th

statee i want to go to this from your website professor canova. any peace settlement must respect and safeguard the human rights of both israeli and palestinian people. this would require difficult compromises by both sides." byant to start with you asking, what specific compromises do you think israel needs to make? i think both the israeli side and the palestinian side will have to decide for themselves what the compromises are. i do not think it is to be foisted upon the israelis by the united states government. jim: clearly believe there needs to be some compromise on the part of israel but you do not know what that would be? mr. canova: i have got my ideas but i would not -- i would not foist it upon the israeli government whatsoever. jim: you want the u.s. to use its power to pressure the israeli government. mr. canova: those are your words, not mine. i have spent a lot of time in israel. i grew up in a blended family. stepdad.jewish

i have lived in israel for many months, worked in israel, traveled around the country and traveled around the region. and i've been there have a dozen times. i have studied there. it is a complicated situation. i would love to see a two state solution but it cannot be forced upon either side. jim: congresswoman? rep. wasserman-schultz: i'm proud to be the first jewish woman to represent florida in the united states congress. i take that responsibility very seriously. i believe that we need to make states-t the united israel relationship remains strong and that the united states goes to bat to do do what we can to protect israel and stand by her side. jim: he is saying or nice to be concessions on the part of israel. do you believe that israel needs to get more? rep. wasserman-schultz: a two state solution needs to make sure it results in a strongly secured you a shot and democratic state living side in peace with the palestinian, an independent palestinian state.

tmostis of o importance is security. my opponent has been anything but certain when it comes to his position on israel. he has taken three positions in the last 8 months. you can look on his website, he supports disarmament in the middle east, including for israel, which anyone who supports israel understands would jeopardize israel's security. i have been on the appropriations committee. on the state foreign relations appropriations committee -- i spend every day. mr. canova: i don't appreciate words being put in my mouth. i've said my website that i support, i support disarmament actuallyegion and i never nursing about israel whatsoever. i would not be talking about israel is a problem. rep. wasserman-schultz: israel is in the middle east, last time i checked. mr. canova: excuse me, saudi arabia is the fourth-largest military budget in the world.

i'm specifically speaking about saudi arabia and iran. the cycle of violence is coming from. it is not coming from israel. it is coming from the sunni-shi ite divide. everythings. must do this power to reverse the militarization of the region -- including a general disarmament for the entire region that includes nuclear missile and conventional arms reduction." to my knowledge, israel is the only state in that region that has nuclear weapons. i will say categorically that i was not referring to israel. i'm a strong defender of the state of israel. i have been critical of the iran nuclear agreement for specific reasons that it does not help israeli security. jim: let's talk about the iran nuclear agreement because i am confused on your position with regard to that. you, as did you, would you have voted for the iran nuclear deal of voted against it? mr. canova: when the question is asked is a hypothetical, what i've seen classified information, that is what i

said, who knows? but quite frankly i will say right here that was not agree agreement -- a good agreement for a couple reasons. first of all, iran is biggest funder of has the law and h -- of hezbollah and hamas. million dollar right away is unsettling. my position is the same of dozens of other democrats who voted against the agreement. "ind you set up a flyerim challenging times, israel needs to friends true friends in congress." separates and we have got it on screen, debbie wasserman schultz on the other side. what i don't understand is how do you criticize her for her vote if you're not willing to say you might've ended up voting the same way, given what she knew? mr. canova: first of all, her vote has been condemned by an awful lot of folks who think she was not looking out for israel security. that has been my position the entire time. rep. wasserman-schultz: you know

-- mr. canova: may i say this? the democratic national committee, she held up a letter of support of that agreement. she stopped her from going out for weeks. as thesserman-schultz: head of the democratic national committee, i led the charge to make sure that we had the strongest por-israel -- pro- israel played in our history and language toi- dbs make sure the democratic party's position was very clear that we strongly stand with israel. let's be clear. my opponent has been mealymouthed and waffling about his position on israel from day one. israel needs certainty. israel needs somebody who has stood resolutely with her. the flamer het does an set out, referring to my colleagues and friends, who support my election who spoke out against him and asked him to stop using their name in his

materials because they know i have been a strong and staunch supporter. iran nuclear deal will provide $1.8 billion of assets for iran the u.s. will transfer back to iran. $400 million of which has just been delivered in a cargo plane. can you sit here and guarantee, can you guarantee that none of that money will end up financing hamas, the taliban, and strikes against israel? will not that money end up hurting israelis and american soldiers in the middle east? rep. wasserman-schultz: forgive me for correcting you, but the $400 million was a result of a court case that the united states lost and that we were required to return by the court to iran. that had nothing to do with the deal. it's, it's what it is, is that those were monies that were iran's monies. they were not allowed access to

as a result of the sanctions being levied to make sure we could keep them from becoming a nuclear state. the iran deal allow the release of those funds, and iran sinc e the finality of the agreement, has been fully compliant. i wanted to make sure and voting for that deal in which i spent more time researching, and sat in the white house situation room, met with mour ambassadors and made sure i knew that agreement and understood it backwards and forwards, that we put iran from being two to three from nuclear breakout to now 15, 20, 25 months. jim: can you agree that $1.8 billion will not be used to finance terror against israel? rep. wasserman-schultz: what we never- --you can guarantee anything. no, you may not. what we need to do is make sure we continue to strongly watch over and make sure that agreement remains fully implemented, which it has.

iran now there are nearly 25 years from breakup. we have to make sure now we can turn our attention and what the deal has allowed us to do is turn our attention to going their terrorist activity. when they engage in ballistic missiles. mr. canova: i will repeat what i said earlier, this is a region that needs disarmament. yet, i support -- i support the memorandum of understanding for a 10 year military system program for israel. there is a house resolution. my upon has not cosponsored it. democrats have. i support that. no one is more committed to the state of israel security the knee. i have literary works there. i had friends and had been killed there. anyone.ow bow to that language was directed toward saudi arabia and iran. jim: we only have a couple

minutes. mr. canova: my frustration is that this deserves an hour-long debate. frustration with this debate here is that there are a lot of things we do not even get near touching. the southern christian leadership council and e largest latin american outlet in south florida have already today made indentations for further debates between us. he african-american and hispanic community makes up 50% or more of this district. challenge my opponent to debate again on these issues. these are constituencies that have been all but ignored in many ways by my, our representatives here. and i think there needs to be specific debates that address their issues. as a law professor, i have to deal with students every day that are graduating deeply in debt emma facing a tough job market and paying high interest rates. they are graduating into one of the lousiest job markets around th. generation, 18-30

four-year-olds, these folks are more likely to be living home with her parents then starting families on her own and living on her own. hispaniche worst and and african-american communities. this is a jobs crisis. it needs to be addressed. jim: rep. wasserman-schultz: he is asking for additional debates. when it comes to the african-american trinity, i am proud to have the support of the congressional black caucus. they know and support me because i have gone to bat on the issues that are important for the african-american community on civil rights and civil liberties and fighting for justice, on making sure that we can expand, not constrict access to the vote. making sure that when it comes to criminal justice that we have reverse the mass incarceration that so many african-americans have faced. as having additional debates, i'm thrilled to have the opportunity to spend time talking about the important issues today, but we are two weeks from the election and i'm looking forward after today to continue to reach out to voters

across my district. jim: we are going to stop there. when he come back, closing statements. ♪ jim: we are going to now go to closing statements. the coin, thef professor will go first. manyanova: there are so issues we never got to cover. i talked about my opponents support from big corporate interests. she has taken money from wall street banks and supported predatory payday lender's. we never got to speak about that. she has taken a lot of money from big sugar companies. she has not done much to solve the problem of the blue green algae. there are some issues that need to be discussed in the people of south florida want more debates. election is really not

about debbie wasserman schultz and not about me. it is about the kind of democracy we want to have in the future. i'm very proud of the campaign we are running. i'm very proud of the fact that we have got so many donations from all over the country, but also from all over the state and the district. you have more donors here in the state of florida than she does. she can talk about inside endorsements, but we have got the people on our side. debbie wasserman schultz is for corporate interests. on for the people. thank you. woman?ngress rep. wasserman-schultz: thank you for the opportunity to join you this morning. i want to thank the people of florida's 23rd congressional district to i had the privilege of representing for 12 years. it is the greatest professional privilege of my life. i am so proud to represent our community and the your voice in our nation's capital. to have lived and worked in this community and raise my family here.

seeing so many of you on my son and daughters ballfield. in public, making sure that we can stand up on the issues that matter the most to you, creating jobs, protecting social security, expanding access to health care for 20 million people. as a breast cancer survivor, making sure that young breast cancer survivors have the opportunity to get the information they need. i'm proud to have the support of president obama and hillary clinton, our next president. i look for to the privilege of continue to represent you and our nation's capital and ask for your support on august 30. thank you so much. jim: i wanted thank both candidates. important dates for you to remember as we count down to primary day. election day stay white is tuesday, august 30. early voting begins tomorrow august 15 and continues through sunday, 28th. early voting begins in broward next saturday, august 20. but also runs through sunday, august 28 as well. you for more information,

can turn to the florida primary or anything else, go to a miami.com/campaign 2016. if you missed this debate, it will be posted online. it will also replay today at noon on our sister station my 33. i think i've got about one minute. a quick bonus round. just 30 seconds. do you favor lifting the embargo against cuba? mr. canova: i favor incremental lifting of the embargo, only to the degree there is -- rep. wasserman-schultz: i think a relationship with the united states should be earned and cuba needs to engage in a lot more human rights reform before we take that step. mr. canova: we are in agreement on that. jim: you're both pro-choice? you both have equal pay for women. you both support, i have got a holistic rep. wasserman-schultz: immigration reform. jim: so those are important things. a sickly the issue of --

basically the important of where the money is. yours comes from small donors. rep. wasserman-schultz: a massive difference in experience and roots in the community. mr. canova: what you call a massive difference when you have a president who has a background like i did. jim: a banld you both support on fraking? you are open to it as a possibility in florida? thank you very much. it has been fun. i like doing these things. we will be right back. see you next sunday. ♪

announcer: now the latest on the 2016 presidential campaign including president obama's role in it. this is about 30 minutes. steve: we want to welcome back alexis simendinger. thank you for being with us. i want to begin not with a particular headline but an observation. this is this morning's "washington post" -- what do you learn when you listen to donald trump voters? this is from the "new york times," one of five op-ed pieces focused on donald trump. the "dark history of straight talk." and "say anything: the gaps in words of donald trump." you cannot find an equivalent with hillary clinton.

alexis: it is really interesting, the clinton campaign is becoming aware that it is getting more challenging for her to break through in the media to talk about her policies and initiatives. even though you would suggest that this array of stories is dissecting donald trump in less than a positive way, one of the things that is challenging is he does, still, suck up all of the oxygen in the room. and i do not know about you at c-span, but at realclearpolitics, we are getting a lot of e-mails lately. there has been coverage recently, writing about whether the media should be covering these candidates with what people object to as equivalent. that they do not deserve the kind of media equivalent in which we are trying to be fair and balanced. that has become a hot debate, which is interesting in journalism circles. steve: you will hear from them in just a moment. we will get our calls and tweets lined up.

we should point out that these pieces are not all positive, but they are focused on donald trump. if you other examples. this op-ed in "the washington post." and this piece from veterans of republican administrations dating back to the nixon white house. "for the gop, start thinking 2018 and 2020." i want to share with you what they wrote this morning. they say now is the time for the republican party to take decisive, perhaps desperate, measures if they are going to survive. republicans must look past the 2016 campaign and look at 2018 and 2020 comebacks. here is a four-point plan for moving forward. i'm going to read one of them. "every major indicator and poll shows hillary clinton winning the presidency. so be it. there is not a snowball's chance that donald trump will stop his bombast and preening. if he is in trouble today, just bet that it is going to be worse tomorrow. it appears a political landslide will sweep the country. that is not all bad. the larger the margin, the greater the chances a clinton

white house will overplay its hand." alexis: there are two things to talk about there. one of the things we started to hear right away at the nominating convention of the republicans was the array of republicans who were looking ahead to 2020, believing they were going to lose in 2016. we have also seen in the republican party, and at the republican national committee, that support either house or senate candidates, are eager to encourage the leadership to cipher money away from donald trump and put it towards house and senate races. so there has been a vigorous debate among republican circles. you just read from very seasoned lobbyists from washington, d.c., talking about "it is over, let's look ahead to 2020." but we have been hearing about that since summer. the other thing that is

interesting is the question about "landslide." there is a very vigorous debate about whether this election will be a landslide. whether america is so polarized and it divided that we could even imagine there would be a landslide. there are lots of predictions among political analysts that we probably will not have a landslide. but there are lots of suggestions to say we need to keep watching that. it would be an extremely rare thing in modern politics. steve: and whether there is a landslide depends on turnout. many people are saying the turnout will be far lower because many people are turned off by the candidates. then you have the equation of gary johnson and jill stein, the third-party candidates. alexis: at realclearpolitics, we , like lots of other news organizations, keep an electoral college map. we keep them fresh with polling. i checked them this morning before i came in. we have an array of eight states in the tossup category.

if you look at where we have the two candidates in the electoral college, which is where we 272ct presidents, we have for hillary clinton and 154 for donald trump. if donald trump won all of the tossup states, he still would not have enough to win. steve: we covered donald trump yesterday. he was at senator joni ernst's ride and roast yesterday. here is a portion of what donald trump had to say about polls and the media. [video clip] >> many people have said that the establishment media assaults me. and they have set it. that the establishment, media meault on may has been -- on has been the greatest they have ever seen in the political history of our country. i feel it. i know it. even today, some major papers

failed to mention how strong our poll numbers have become the -- over the last two week period. and we are doing well in iowa. we happen to be leading. [cheers] >> but they refused to print it. they refuse to put it down. we are doing great. they, too, are part of a rigged system. bbva is totally dishonest. they are-- the media is totaly dishonest. they are a rigged system, trying to deny people the positive change their looking for and deserve. they take phrases and statements, chop them up, take them out of context, then discuss them for days and days. always trying to demean and belittle. just whatever they can do to demean and belittle our great movement. we have a movement. one of the greatest movements in our country.

many people have said that. steve: first, alexis, your reaction to what he said about media and the polls? alexis: first, why is donald trump in iowa? it is because among the battleground states, it is the only one where he is at head at this point. he is eager to show that they hope to do well in iowa. on the media, this is a strategy that other republicans have used and donald trump has capitalized on it all the way through the primaries and into the general election, which is that his supporters are eager and willing to bash the mainstream or major media in the way that donald trump encourages them to do. in fact, we have seen at some of his rallies, my colleagues who have covered trump rallies, were talking about reporters are corralled into an area by the trump campaign, and then his supporters will turn on journalists in the pen and

emulate donald trump in their criticisms or attacks and boos. it plays very well to his base. he will keep on doing it. because he can keep pointing to areas in which he can argue that, in the future, he may say, that this election was stolen in some way. he is already leading into this argument that somehow the election is being rigged. steve: let's go to the battleground states. the full surveys are available online. we shouldnt out -- point out this is the average of a number of polls. it is not one poll, it is four to six polls, right? alexis: absolutely. steve: so in pennsylvania, she is up by nine. in michigan, seven. ohio, five. florida, three. iowa, one. wisconsin, nine. and north carolina, just over 1%.

alexis: it is a stunning end of summer record for her. every way hillary clinton is campaigning now is to try to keep that lead in those battleground states. what is interesting is that the clinton campaign is trying to argue it can expand its own map. that the kind of contrast she has drawn with donald trump, her criticisms of donald trump especially on issues of race and ethnicity, she is hopeful that can encourage educated, moderate republicans, independents to crossover to support her. that is why then when they talk , we areat is happening talking about maybe a re-shaped map. we thought virginia and colorado would be part of the battleground mix, but she is pulled money out of virginia and colorado because she is doing well in those states. steve: the fact that georgia is doing dead even. georgia is typically a republican state.

alexis: it is. barack obama in 2012 was hopeful they could turn georgia blue. we have seen the demographics in to say thathange there are more voters of color. so they may be doing better in states like north carolina and georgia because of issues that hillary clinton can really pound home in these final months. steve: it is late august. it has been more than 270 days since a very clinton -- since hillary clinton has had a news conference. she was in reno, nevada last thursday for a speech she covered. i want to share with you a story from realclearpolitics. hillary clinton enjoyed some chocolates but refused to take questions from reporters. [video clip]

>> oh my gosh. really good. >> now is a good time for question, right? [laughter] >> i would like to offer to all of the press there. so wonderful. so cooperative. so hard-working. they all deserve a piece of chocolate. >> any questions? steve: reno, nevada last thursday. your reaction? alexis: we have seen hillary clinton do this a lot. turn to the reporters and say you should try the chi tea. president obama sometimes does this, he will stop and buy food. goesll make sure the food back to the reporters. it is a tried and true political way to change the subject.

in hillary clinton's case, the most annoying thing among republicans and clearly among the press tracking her and spending thousands of dollars to keepsh her is that she them walled off and declines to answer many questions. we saw a call in this past week, but she is still not doing broadly open news conferences and i doubt she feels she needs to. steve: one of the big concerns is that this would carry on to a clinton white house. inaccessibility. alexis: can we tell how long we have cover the way has together? steve: a couple of presidencies. alexis: the clinton administration. one of the things we know from one thing i know

covering the white house full-time with bill clinton and all the way through, one thing we have seen is each president tries to figure out what the definition of transparent he is and how much can they control the media. hillary clinton is trying to do that and adapt, especially with what barack obama has done in 2008 and 2012. most expectations are that she will try to adapt from the obama control, almost state run media in a critical ways, and use all of the tools available to her to broadcast her own message. steve: your calls and comments, jerry from new jersey, our line from democrats. we have alexis simendinger alexis simendinger from real clear politics. caller: i do not know where to start. i am beside myself listening to this. even the way alexis says when hillary clinton does something, she smiles and everybody thinks it is funny, but when donald

trump does something, it is dire, so serious. i'm noticing that a lot of people are not covering the crucial things. the state department will hold back these e-mails to protect hillary clinton. i do not see a big outpouring about that in the media. the other thing is they just had a ku klux klan grand marshal support hillary clinton, but you do not see that on the media. cnn, msnbc, if they ask her questions -- it is amazing. they gush, they just gush. there is no seriousness here. they try to protect her and it is a shame. but donald trump, a democrat, i promise you he will win the election. thank you. steve: thank you for the call.

alexis: i'm going to guess some of the things you just described, you learned not from the media. things are being covered. i am smiling because i am with my friend steve. it has nothing to do with fairness or unfairness in the media. steve: we are joined by brian in illinois. go ahead. caller: let's be honest, the dominant force in political media is television. all my criticisms are directed at the television media. it is like your whole conversation so far, all about the process in the horse race and nobody is talking about any of the issues. we have hugely serious issues occurring in our history right now. $20 trillion in debt, the immigration problem, radical islam, it goes on and on but we

are not talking about any of the issues. we talk about personalities, and that is driven by television and its desire for ratings. and most americans do not like either candidate. i despise hillary clinton and i think donald trump is a buffoon. but yet with the television process we have, that is who we end up with. so, the problem is tv media and lazy americans. and that is all i have got to say. steve: a fair point, especially watching cable 24/7. alexis: my reaction to his comment is a couple of things. one is he is right about how television has tried to amplify personality, a personality driven race. but one thing as a journalist that i have noticed in covering some focus groups, listening to some focus group discussions,

was with either undecided or leaning voters, they have a similar complaint, that this is not enough coverage of the issues and they complain the candidates themselves are not really dissecting the issues in the depth they would like to see. one thing i would like to say in defense of the media is that, in general, all the media are trying to dissect what the candidates are saying about issues, whether it is health care, taxes or immigration. there is a lot of television coverage of immigration because donald trump's visions, his platform on immigration especially deportation, has shifted and changed in the past month. there has been an effort and television to pin him down and his new campaign advisor down. but hillary clinton as a candidate has shared frustration that you described, which is the media is not delving deeply enough into issues.

i know when the television news cable networks have done town hall kind of style questions and answers, when you actually ask voters to participate, they do ask about topics like taxes or health care or the military, terrorism, and there is an ample amount of discussion about that from the candidates themselves. i do think if interested voters search through and look at major media outlets, they will find discussions of the issues and certainly comparisons of where the two candidates stand. steve: formally with national journal and now with real clear politics. i want to ask you of a congressman who is supporting donald trump. he said, if you're going to run and try to become the president of the united states, you will have to open up your kimono and show everything. your tax returns, your medical records, you're just would track to do that. it is too important.

alexis: this is an interesting debate. to have a republican weigh in -- and that congressman has been a stern interrogator of hillary clinton and all the elements of her e-mail and fbi discussions. what is interesting about his pressure on donald trump is that transparency has to be a two-way street. he is arguing if he and republicans are pressing hillary clinton to be more forthcoming , whether with e-mails or the administration, he is feeling the pressure that they have to be concerned. in this particular case what he is saying is that all presidents after richard nixon released their tax returns and the donald trump has refused to do it. so this is an area in which hillary clinton completely pressure donald trump. she has argued this in interviews and ads.

so far, donald trump has been able to consistently argued that as long as he is under audit, he does not feel that he needs to release his tax returns and the new campaign advisers say they agree with him on this. this does not look like something he is going to move on. steve: he said, so, both candidates, donald trump and hillary clinton, should show their medical records and tax returns, absolutely. that part of a statement on cnn, republican, joining us in north carolina. good morning. thank you for phoning in. caller: i have two quick comments. one thing is on the drug issue, there are probably hundreds if not thousands of people from detroit to go over to canada on a bus. they are mostly 60 or over. they have been doing this for years and years whether it is

legal or not and then they come back to detroit. after 9/11, i do not know how strict it is, but two quick comments. steve: hold on on that line. we were talking about the epipen earlier. how big of an issue is this? alexis: it is a big issue. i hear again again in the polling and certainly in focus groups. health care is a broad issue in which the electorate remains very animated. that is part of the reason why the epipen pharmaceutical cost issues that have come up in the headlines on the business pages have penetrated the electorate. the issue of that crossing over to purchase medications for less expensive prices in canada, this an issue that we have been hearing about in washington for

a long period of time. donald trump has not engaged as much on health care in detail. this is not a denigration of him, it is just that he has not about it in as detail. former secretary clinton has talked about this and argued she would like to see legislation in some future way in which drug pricing would come back into the discussion. but what she has done as a candidate is try to call out the drug manufacturers and she did this with the epipen question. steve: joe is the senator from west virginia and the father of the ceo from the mylan corporation. alexis: it is an uncomfortable situation. he is a conservative democrat from a state the democrats would like to keep, west virginia.

even the senator had to speak at and said he talked to his daughter about this and he has not defended what the company is doing. steve: let's follow up with your next point. when the democrats call no --e they say there is i live on the borderline north of south carolina and i know for a fact people went from south carolina into north carolina. they voted again. were voting in charlotte, north carolina with no id and they keep saying there is no voter fraud. that is ridiculous but they have not caught it. number two, really quickly, if you go out to arizona, once you get away on the border wall and you go out maybe four miles, you will see there is nothing there, no border patrol, there is just

a little small building. when it rains there is no one in there. the trucks go in and out, in and out. people can walk into this country from mexico and they have been doing it for probably 30 years. you can go back to nixon, i don't know, but when people think this stuff is not going on, they want to fool themselves and live in a delusional state, they are are completely out of their minds, especially the democrats because stuff is going on. i'm not for clinton or trump but at least trump is trying to do something about immigration. thank you. steve: let me take his two points and turn it into a question. on the issue of immigration donald trump is looking to at at least explain what he is going to do. he may be moving towards the position of jeb bush. is he changing or evolving his views and what impact, someone

who stays here, would do to the support donald trump had on the primary? alexis: seems to have worked through a tough stance on immigration critic lately with deportation. the base of what he is saying in his policy is enforcement first. what has happened though recently now that he has gone into the general election, he has hired a new campaign advisor and she is a pollster. one of the things she has underscored to him is the harsh rhetoric about mexicans and about immigration and the idea of expelling or deporting masses have note deportations gone down well with a broad segment of the electorate that donald trump would need to capture if he hopes to in any way either catch up to secretary clinton or potentially to win.

one of the things of the things that donald trump has said himself is that he is working it through, he is evolving. he has talked to hannity about softening his position. he got a lot of blowback from the pundit class. that he tough and up his stance again and made an interview on cnn with anderson cooper and said no, he would be compelling undocumented to leave the country, that he could once could come back. one of the things that is up in the air is -- steve: that almost sounds like the self deportation line by mitt romney. alexis: it also sounds a lot like jeb bush, his primary opponent, who had developed a more nuanced position and donald

trump last week sounded a little more like jeb bush and then he reversed himself. no amnesty. no legalization. all i can tell you is as a journalist, we are trying to follow and track what the campaign is saying and figure out whether, does donald trump feel he has to answer these questions? this he feel before the debates coming up in late september that he needs to iron out all of these details or does he think he can straddle the fence and be vague about it? so far, he has gone in both directions. ♪ announcer: c-span's washington journal, live every day. ,oming up monday morning columnist for the washington examiner and republican pollster. she joins us to discuss the work of a pollster and her book about millennial voters. director of urban policy initiatives for the urban institute will talk about the latest threat to affordable

housing in cities and locales around the country in ways that cities are trying to preserve and expand affordable housing. us, director of management and national preparedness issues at the government accountable the office is on to discuss federal funding efforts when it comes to federal disaster preparedness and disaster fitness. be sure to watch beating live at 7:00 eastern monday morning. join the discussion. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] c-span radio at make a easy to follow the election where you are. it is free to download. get audio coverage in up to the minute scheduling information for c-span radio and c-span television, plus podcast times. stay up-to-date on all the election coverage. c-span's radio app means you always have c-span on the go. " with laurence leamer

. then what westerners can learn from islam. after that, you look at the future role of the u.s. in the middle east. ♪ announcer: this week on "q&a," author laurence leamer talking about his latest book "the lynching." , you areurence leamer now an owner of 15 books you have written. why did you do books? mr. leamer: i cannot do a living writing magazine articles. i tried. i cannot write fast e