hope you got a lot out of hearing for these two experts. if you have any follow-up questions, do not hesitate to contact the press office. thank you. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] >> a live look at the capitol on a beautiful sunday in washington were members of congress come back tuesday for legislative business. several items on the agenda including zika funding and federal spending. the house begin the week considering allowing the library of congress to collect video and audio recordings of gold star family's for historical purposes. also establishing certain rights for victims of sexual assault in federal criminal cases. the house meeting tuesday at 2:00 p.m. right here on c-span. in the senate, at three clock eastern military construction bill on zika funding. they vote to move forward on those items at 5:30 p.m. tuesday

, followed the senate live on c-span two. washington examiner says house democrats are worried republicans might take action against them for staging a sit in in june overcome legislation. the examiner reporting republican leaders are weighing anmal punishment and quotes unnamed gop that says it is being discussed but nothing finalized. >> at c-span.org you can what our programming any time at your convenience on your desktop, laptop, or mobile device. go to our home page, c-span.org and click on a video library search bar. you can type in the name of a speaker sponsor or event topic can review the list of search results and click on the program you want to watch. or, refine your search with many tools. if you wanted most current

programs, our homepage has medical and programs ready for your immediate viewing. such as today's washington journal or the events we covered that they. is a public service of your cable or satellite provider. if you are a c-span watcher check it out at c-span.org. >> with the president obama attending his last g20 summit in china this weekend with several other world leaders. this included a joint news conference earlier with british prime minister theresa may. the two were asked but u.s. u.k. relations, brexit, and combating terrorism. this is 25 minutes. president obama: good morning, everybody. saying what an by

pleasure it was for me to meet with prime minister may and congratulate her on becoming prime minister. before inen together other settings. this is the first time that i had a chance to address her as madam prime minister. i am glad that teresa and i could meet early in her tenure. the prime minister continues to be a steadying influence during a time of transition. there was a wide-ranging conversation, it began with the basic premise that even as the u.k. has an orderly exit from the eu, together we reaffirm the special relationship between the united states and the united kingdom. it will not simply indoor, -- lnure, but -- endure, but wil continue through time.

our two countries will be discussing ways in which continue to sustain and strengthen our trade and investment ties. here the g20 will continue to pursue an agenda of inclusive and sustainable growth. when it comes to security issues, under prime minister may the u.k. has affirmed its strong commitment to the transatlantic security architecture. we are nato allies. we see the world in the same way. we will continue to oppose russian aggression in the ukraine. he will continue to counter cyber threats. we will continue to work outgently to root terrorists networks and will work to destroy isil. the international order is under strain, i also emphasized the degree to which the united kingdom's leadership

on the world stage is essential. we are grateful for their indispensable role in achieving landmark agreement on climate change, issues of energy security and global development. --will continue to count on we will continue to count on being able to stand can together . to make sure that international norms and rules are enforced, and maintained. the bottom line is we don't have a stronger partner anywhere in the world than the united kingdom. the turbulence of political events over the last several months we've every intention to make sure that continues. i look forward to our partnership. this is my last g20, it is teresa's first. the continuity of the relationship between the united states and the united kingdom many decades.

it will continue for many decades to come. i am pleasedr may: to be here at my first g20 summit and have -- am pleased to meet you, barack. ally and a close friend, we share the same values of freedom, openness and tolerance. we share intelligence and technology. our troops train fight and recuperate together. together we do more together than any other two countries in the world. i think that is as true now as it is ever been. our discussions today have been wide-ranging. we focused on brexit, the situation in syria, and the migration crisis. i would like to say a few words in each of those. first, we have talked about the in's decision to leave the european union. the process now and what it

means for uk's relationship with our european friends and other countries. the u.k. has always been a strong partner for the u.s. and that will remain the case. economic thriving relationship. british businesses export twice as much to the united states as to our next largest market. it is the largest inward investor in with total american investment providing more than one million jobs. we need to build on that strong foundation. we are both strong supporters of free-trade. today, we discussed how to take consultations to ensure that the u.k. in the u.s. has the strongest possible trading relationship. this reinforces my belief that as we forge new global roles for the u.k. we can and will see the opportunity that brexit resents. -- presents. fromscussed the threats terrorism. u.k. and the u.s. have been at

the forefront to defeat daesh in iraq and syria. we must defeat them to give the streets of britain say. they're using territory and -- losing territory and iraq and s yria. in recent weeks, they have been forced back in libya, too. we know they are intent on destroying our of life. of one areathem out we must be alerted to the risk they will seek the safe haven elsewhere. we must work internationally to defeat to their ideology of hatred and murder. we need to support other countries in the region, helping protect them from the threat of daesh, and people home in britain. to strive forue political situations in syria, the goal remains a negotiated -- lement to bring

we welcome efforts to broker an end to the violence. it is vital that humanitarian -- gets to syrians in this desperate need. i would urge president to do putin to doent all he can. hopestinue to support for democratic peaceful and inclusive syria. finally, we discussed the global migration crisis. across the world, ther eare 244 20lion migrants,, and million refugees. this cannot be solved by the actions of one country alone. we need international approach which better identifies as refugees who most need support.

more to address the root causes of migration. this will be at the top of the agenda later this month. i hope he can make concrete progress to stem the flow of migration and help people in their own countries and regions. a productive meeting. it was an opportunity to discuss how we respond to some of the great challenges we face. other forward to continuing our discussions particularly on the global economy. we understand many of our citizens are frustrated by the pace of globalization and feel they not experiencing the benefits of international trade. we both believe this is an issue we cannot afford to ignore. we must all work together to spur economic growth and boost free-trade and build a fairer economy that truly works for all. obama: we will take a couple of questions. >> i had a question on syria,

first of all. it seems like a deal with the russians is within reach. do you not think there was a risk of another short-lived agreement that doesn't end the war, but allows russians to deflect criticism at the g20 here and the un's general assembly? second, what do you make -- you said i wonder if you could be more specific could you categorically rule out the u.k. staying within the eu? thank you. president obama: with respect to syria, we have long been interested in finding a way to reduce the violence, improve humanitarian access on the ground. as a precursor for a political transition inside of syria, it is a complicated piece of business. regime whichassad

has been killing its own citizens with impunity, supported by the russians and the iranians. you have a moderate opposition qaedanuously tried tothen you l on the ground as well. edit range of other players from turks and the gulf states to the kurds, trying to corral all those different forces into a coherent structure for negotiations is difficult. our conversations with the russians are key because if it were not for the russians, then assad and the regime would not

be able to sustain its offensive. these are difficult negotiations. we have grave differences with the russians in terms of both the parties we support and also the process. that is required to bring about peace in syria. if we do not get some buy-in from the russians on reducing the violence and easing the humanitarian crisis, it is difficult to see how we get to the next case. john kerry and his counterparts have been working around the clock, as well as a number of other negotiators, to see what whatever real cessation of hostilities look like to provide that humanitarian access and provide people in places like aleppo relief. we are not there yet.

given previous failures of cessation's of hostilities to hold, we approach it with some skepticism, but it is worth trying. that there are children and women and innocent civilians who can get food and medical supplies and get some relief from the constant terror of bombings, that is worth the effort. i think it is premature for us to say that there is a clear path forward, but there is the tosibility at least for us make some progress in that front. in addition, i should point out rep has un's special

also been coming up with a longer-term structure for a political transition. we are supporting his efforts as well and these two things can hopefully operate in tandem. the last point i would make is that none of this is slowing down are very aggressive efforts against isil. as we have seen in recent weeks, not only have we been able to clear out isil from additional territory inside syria as well as a rock, but we -- iraq, but we continue to go after their leadership, including the head of external operations, the second-most prominent person in the isil infrastructure. ane of this is slowing down very aggressive effort to go after what we all consider to be a principal threat that is emanating out of syria. to our visit here,

so far it has been extraordinarily productive. not for thehat first time when we come here there ends up being issues around security and press access. and part of the reason is because we insist on a certain our press pool, for example, that other countries may not insist on. we think it is important that the press have access to the work that we are doing, that they have the ability to answer questions, and we don't leave our values and ideals behind when we take these trips. -- itan cause of friction can cause some friction. it is not the first time it

happened. it has happened in china and other countries where we travel. as josh put it, the scenes are showing a little more than usual and terms of some of the negotiations and jostling that takes place behind the scenes. , when delegations travel to the united states, sometimes there are issues about our security procedures and protocol that they are aggravated with but do not always get reported on. from thehis detracts broader scope of the .elationship as we saw yesterday, president xi and i continued what has been a historic joint project to elevate climate change issues, that b. the bilateral discussions we had

yesterday were extremely productive and continue to point to big areas of cooperation. when i bring up issues like human rights, there are some tensions there that perhaps don't take place when president xi meets with other leaders, but that's part of our job. that's part of what we do. wouldn't rank the significance of it because this is not the first time that these things happen and it doesn't just happen here. it happens in a lot of places, including by the way sometimes our allies. sometimes we have a much bigger footprint than a lot of other countries. planes, at a lot of lot of helicopters, a lot of cars, a lot of guys. if you are a host country, sometimes it may feel a little bit much.

chortling among the brits. they probably find it a little overwhelming as well. thing i will say is that we do not make apologies for pushing a little bit harder when it comes to press access. that has been the case for my very first state visit here. we don't always get everything we would like to see, but we think it's important for us to at least stand up for those values. brexit does indeed mean brexit. the people of u.k. voted to leave the european union and the government respects that decision and we will put that into practice. there'll be no second referendum and no attempt to try to get out

of it. the u.k. will be leaving the european union. i think we have a question from "the daily mail." >> mr. president, you can to london earlier this year and spoke to british people not to vote for brexit. do you think you got it wrong on brexit or are you really going to punish us for taking that decision? -- i work forckly "the daily mail." [laughter] president obama: [inaudible] >> can i as quickly if you have got advice for the prime ?inister have you got any assurances about your place in his q

ueue? and can i ask about hinkley point? you said you would look at all the evidence. does that include getting the national security council to look at the potential security applications? pm may: on the first point that you raised, jason, we had discussions about the importance of the relationship between united kingdom and united states. as you know, i've been very clear that following brexit we will be looking to establish new trading relationships around the globe. i think there are real opportunities for the united kingdom and we will be seizing those opportunities. as i indicated in my own statement with some of the havees that i gave, we very strong trading relationships with united states and we will be looking to ensure that we can maintain that strongest possible relationship into the future. on the question that you asked about hinkley point, i will be doing exactly as you said indeed

in your question, jason, which is that i will be looking at all that evidence around this issue. the way that i worked is that i do not just take an instant decision. i look at the evidence, take the advice, look at it properly, and come to a decision. i've made it clear that i would be doing that and make a decision sometime this month. issident obama: it absolutely true that i believed pre-brexit note and continue to believe post brexit vote that the world benefited and or mislead for -- enormously from the united kingdom's participation in the eu, but also said at the time that ultimately this was a decision for the british people and the british people make that decision. i never suggested that we would "punish" great britain as you will recall.

if you were at that press conference, i was asked about the viability of immediately negotiating a separate trade agreement between the united states and the united kingdom. i think the notion was that the consequences of her exit -- brexit would be minimal and we would just go ahead and start lining up a whole bunch of free trade agreements separate and apart from the eu relationship. my simple point was that we put great priority on first the transpacific partnership, which now that we have an agreement, we want to put into force, but we are also negotiating effectively with the entire eu around the transatlantic trade agreement, and those negotiations are proceeding. and so it would not make sense

for us to put those efforts time, particularly at a when my working assumption was if, in fact, the people of the united kingdom decided to leave the european union, their first priority would be to renegotiate terms of trade with the economic unit that they sell half of their goods to. , i think, the is approach the prime minister is wisely taking, that in a prudent , well-informed fashion with consultations with businesses and stakeholders as well as her counterparts across the channel, they -- the prime minister makes a determination about how those

negotiations should proceed. and we are fully supportive of a that is as little disruptive as possible so that not just the people of united kingdom but people around the continuedbenefit from recovery and economic growth th. what i committed to teresa is that we will consult closely with her as she and her government move forward with brexit negotiations to make sure we do not see adverse effects in the trading and commercial relationships between the united states and united kingdom. obviously we have an enormous amount of trade that already takes place. te have o a lot of investme

between britain and the united states and that is not going to stop. we are going to do everything that we can to make sure that the consequences of the decision don't end up unraveling what is already a very strong and robust economic relationship and become even stronger in the future. but first things first, and the first task will be figuring out what brexit means with respect to europe. our first task is to get tpp done and that we move forward on the teeth of negotiations and we have party invested a lot of time in that . ok, thank you very much, everybody.

>> president obama holds another news conference tomorrow when the g20 summit comes to a close. watch it live at 10:00 p.m. .astern on c-span >> the c-span radio app makes it easy to continue to follow the election wherever you are. it is free to download from apple app store and google play. get up to the minute schedule information for c-span radio and c-span television, plus podcast times for a popular public affairs, but, and history programs. stay up-to-date on all the election coverage. c-span's radio app means you always have c-span on the go. [applause] >> libertarian presidential candidate gary johnson made a

campaign stop in iowa yesterday. his hope of being included in the presidential debates this fall and how social media was helping him attract supporters. this was at grandview university in des moines. gary johnson: so many places to be on a saturday afternoon and you're here. you honor me. thank you very much. wow. [applause] gary johnson: is this the craziest election ever? we know how crazy it is, right? i'm going to be the next president of the united states. that's how crazy it is. [applause] gary johnson: you know, people and it's gote time to be cool former governor. what's that like? in new mexico, i kid you not, people wave at me with all five fingers and not just one. [laughter] gary johnson: beyond my wildest

dreams, bill weld is my running mate. [applause] [applause] gary johnson: he has served one term prior to my taking office and then i got elected. he was known as the smartest governor in the room. everybody acknowledged bill weld as the smartest governor. brainy bill. gary -- thathonest is what we are going to try to apply our nicknames ahead of time. [applause] gary johnson: but the two of us coming together, to former republican governors that served two terms each and heavily democrat states, fiscally conservative, over-the-top, socially inclusive, i think i've just described the majority of

americans in this country. [applause] i would also like to add that i think the majority of citizens in this country also have a real skepticism about our foreign military policy that has us as of the world's policeman as opposed to, look, if we are attacked, we are going to attack back. we do have to have an invincible national defense and military superiority, but being the world's policeman has come at a great cost. i've always lived my life believing that if you tell the truth, you do not have to remember anything. it's really easy. [applause] and success in life is a really dictated by how we deal with failure. failure is something that presents itself all the time.

i mean, every single day we come up against it. , figuringsingle day that anything that could go wrong will go wrong, that is life. anything that could go wrong will go wrong. , declarel up in a ball ourselves victims? or do we get a smile on her face and realize this is part of the process and get up tomorrow and you wit deal with it? well, let's have a smile on her face, get up tomorrow, and deal with it because it's how we deal with success that ultimately determines failure. i have one bit of advice for everybody here today. and my advice is worth exactly what you are paying for it, which is nothing. [laughter] gary johnson: but my advice is that what ever it is you do, what ever it is that you know, rally.it entrepreneu

the will never be a greater reward than creating your own job or creating jobs for other. a role in can play reducing the barriers for you and i to be able to do that . right now there is one area in our lives that creates equal opportunity for all of us and that is the internet. we have the ability, each and every one of us, to compete with anyone in the world individually. i have to tell you right now that the government is poised to pass a whole bunch of legislation. they're going to pass legislation under the guise of the quality, but the reality is that it is going to restrict a lot of us from being able to do that. bill weld and i will stand up against that infringement on equal opportunity that will exist. [applause] i do think that the model of the future is uber

everything. ber electrician, uber dr., uber accountant. where the middleman is for you as a director of services to deliver those to an end user to is going to pay less for it. you're going to make more eliminating the middleman. i think it's really exciting and i think we have just seen the tip of the iceberg of the sharing economy. airbnb -- is there a better place to visit than iowa in the summer? no, not really. there isn't. two hot. [laughter] i'm thinking of the lakes. anyway, it is a beautiful state, but airbnb. i'm talking to a young lady in baltimore. she is 26 years old.

science andphd in said, i have these horrible student debts and i figured out a way to pay back the student debts -- airbnb. making enough money to pay back my student debt. guess what? the city of baltimore came in and said no to airbnb. this is politics. this is crony capitalism. this is when the government injects itself in the economy and unfairly takes away opportunity that you and i could have competing with others. believe me -- this presents itself all the time. as governor of new mexico, i saw this legislation that passed all unfaire that gave o advantage to those who had money and influence and it gave them more money and influence. bill weld and i are not looking to get elected king or dictator. we are looking to get elected president and vice president or

planning a partnership, really something unique, getting to for the presen price of one. i think it's a real positive, but what you can count on, us being president and vice president, is certainty. and it will be certainty when it comes to tax policy. the taxes will get simpler. we will always sign on to get making taxes simpler. [applause] we will always sign on to reducing taxes and reducing taxes is money out of your in my pocket that we could be spending on our lives as opposed to government knowing best. and then rules and regulations. contrary to what most people think, rules and regulations in those those -- benefit that are already in places of power and influence and dissuade those of us who would like to compete with them ultimately

. back to this equal opportunity level playing field. there are three scenarios in this upcoming election. let's see -- we elect trump. we elect clinton. [booing] does anybody believe that the polarity that exist between democrats and republicans today -- they want to kill each other. does anybody believe that's going to get any better given the election of trump or clinton? no, no way. now there is a third scenario. two former republican governors, libertarians, getting elected president and vice president down that big six lane highway down the middle, hiring a bipartisan administration, democrats, republicans. [applause] libertarians. [applause]

everybody is going to be libertarian leaning. bipartisan administration calling out both sides to come on and let's deal with the problems that this country is facing. scenario hasthird the possibility of actually succeeding. [applause] gary johnson: i agree 100% with hillary clinton's number one issue in this campaign. i agree 100% with donald trump's number one issue in this campaign. i would not vote for trump if i were clinton and i would not vote for clinton if i were trump. [applause]

gary johnson: libertarians -- common sense. keep government out of my bedroom. keep government out of my pocket book. and stop supporting regime change that has made the world less safe and not more safe. [applause] gary johnson: fiscally conservative -- why be fiscally conservative? why balance the federal budget? bill and i -- not dictator, but pledging to submit a balanced budget to congress over the first 100 days. the reason to balance the federal budget is for future generations. upgeneration has screwed it for those that are young and we have got to fix it. to balance the federal budget,

that is about the future. that is about dealing with the entitlements -- medicaid and medicare. neither donald trump nor hillary clinton say they are going to do anything regarding either of them other than hillary saying she is going to expand them. the only way we're going to six medicare and medicaid is to devolve those functions to the state, 50 laboratories of innovation and best practice, where there would be fabulous innovation that would get emulated, and i believe in my heart of hearts, having been governor of new mexico, if the federal government would have blocked granted the state of new mexico a fixed amount of money less for medicaid, then i could've drawn 's of eligibility, pass a safety net, and say that amount of money. the only way we could have saved medicare is to do the same thing, something that is currently in the federal government that devolves back to the state.

washington is incapable of one-size-fits-all. we cannot dig our heads in the sands either about social security. it is headed to insolvency. we have to address social security. it's not about cutting social security, but it is about reforming it so that it will be around for future generations and that means raising the retirement age for one thing. you could have a very fair means testing when it comes to social security. should you get back more money than what you paid in given a certain level of income? like i said, i think there could be a very, very fair means of testing. and you can't cut the government by 20% if you are not going to cut military by 20%. [applause] and that is not compromising the military.

we need to have an invincible national defense. we have to maintain military superiority, but the pentagon itself through the bright commission in the mid-1990's bragged that 25% of basis could be closed, but there is not the will to do that. bill weld and myself, neither of us have served in any other political capacity other than governors of our state. we did not know the sacred cows existed. and reallyng in starting over from scratch, creating budgets that actually accomplished things and scrapping things that didn't . when it comes to the military, why is it that we always adding and we never reevaluate because there is much excess in the federal government? immigration -- we should be embracing immigration in this country.

we are a country of immigrants. [applause] gary johnson: the wharton school of business -- that's where donald trump got his degree, wasn't? the wharton school of business did publish three weeks o ago in "the wall street journal" the economic impact of restricting immigration. it was going to have a negative impact on our economy. they analyzed allowing high skilled workers into this country, more high skilled .orkers the impact was going to be very slight positive on our economy. the last scenario was increasing immigration dramatically, which would have a very overwhelming positive impact on our economy . i am speaking as a border state governor. the deportation of 11 million

undocumented workers is based in untruth and misunderstanding completely. they are not taking jobs that u.s. citizens want. they are hard-working. they are the cream of the crop when it comes to workers. statistically they create less crime than u.s. citizens. you know, donald trump was watching the olympics very closely. how high do the mexican poultice go? [laughter] he is talking about how he makes sure there are tunnels underneath. look, these are hard-working individuals. if you or i were in the same position, which was that there are jobs across the border that u.s. citizens don't want, i want to take care of my family, but i can't it across the border to take these jobs because there is no line at all to actually be

able to cross legally. we should just make it as easy as possible for someone wants to come into this country and work to be able to get a work visa. and a work visa should entail -- [applause] gary johnson: should entail a background check and a social security card said taxes get paid. i do believe in free market. free markets is devoid of government interference. crony capitalism is government getting involved, picking winners and losers. unfortunately i think that the majority of americans have come to associate crony capitalism and free market as one in the same when in fact they are opposite. hillary clinton, with this pay to play thing, for the longest time i was wondering about bill clinton and the fact that he was getting these enormous speaking fees. alice thought that i was sort of

-- i always taught that was payola for him being president, to find out over the last couple weeks, that really this has been speaking fees that were tied to contracts that were literally signed the next day by hillary as secretary of state to grant preference. i speak to haiti specifically. look, this is not right. this is not ethical. term limits -- i do believe that term limits is a silver bullet. [applause] gary johnson: if we had term limits, i think we would do the right thing as opposed to whatever it takes to get reelected. term limits today, we would not have a $20 trillion national debt. i said earlier we are not getting elected king.

we are not getting elected dictator. if i could wave a magic wand regarding tax policy, i would abolish income tax. i would abolish corporate tax and i will replace it with one federal consumption tax. by the way, who pays for corporate tax? we pay for corporate tax. let's not kid ourselves. tax, tens ofporate millions of jobs would get created in this country for no other reason than zero corporate tax. i believe that 80% of washington lobbyists would get issued pink slips is that is why they are there -- to garner tax favors . [applause] what is needed when it comes to health care? by the way, president obama

affordable health care act -- i have to agree with chief justice roberts that it is a tax. my health insurance premiums have quadrupled and i've not seen a doctor in three years . it is a tax. what do we need to reform health care in this country? what we need to reform health care in this country is a genuine free-market approach to health care. something that, by the way, is about as far removed as it possibly can be from free market currently. if we had a free market for health care, uni would not -- you and i would not have a insurance to cover ourselves for oncoming medical needs. we would have insurance to cover catastrophic injury and illness and we would pay and go in a system that would be very, very informal. how affordable? i would guess one set of what it

currently costs. we would have advertised pricing. we would have advertised outcomes. we would have gallbladders are us. we would have stitches are us. we would have x-rays are us. it would be very, very competitive and government can play a role in really bring about competition. wellness to our health care system as opposed to dealing with the end result. right now when we go to a doctor, we have no idea what it's going to cost. the person at the desk has no idea what it's going to cost. the -- [no audio] >> you can't silence gary!

>> let gary speak! let gary speak! let gary speak! chanting] gary johnson: oh, there we go. [applause] gary johnson: so health care. [laughter] we have no idea what it's going to cost. when we get the bill, we know that nobody has asked going to pay that bill, right? libertarians always coming down on the side of choice. that you and i.s. as individual should be able to make choices in our lives that are going to

affect our lives as long as those choices don't adversely affect others. as governor of new mexico, i was more outspoken than any other governor in the country regarding school choice, that we should bring competition to public education. in my opinion, if we could unleash a million educational entrepreneurs on her educational system, i think it would have profound dramatic impact on our educational system. [applause] but what is the one thing that the federal government could do to improve on education? it would be to abolish the federal department of education. [applause] and it is all a dollars and sense things.

i think we think that the department of education was established under george washington. it was established under jimmy carter. the federal department of education -- iowa gives washington $.13. it is your money. you give washington $.13. bureaucratic washington dry cycle and iowa gets back $.11. when they give you back the $.11, they tell you that you have to do a, b, c, and d to get tor $.11 and it cost $.15 get $.11. why doesn't iowa just keep the sense in the first place and apply it to the classroom? more money in the classroom and i dare say that the students are always best at the local level. decisions are always best when and i thatd i -- you could be making those decisions. [applause]

so there are a couple of other agencies that come to mind. one is the department of commerce. i think that is all about crony capitalism, although there is intellectual rights and copyrights in the department of commerce. i do not know that requires an entire agency. there's also housing and urban development, which has completely outlived its usefulness. homeland security? why do we have homeland security in this country? wasn't that the fbi? could not be pulled him? homeland security vehicles on the road, you have to see a few of them these days. what in the hell do they do? i have no idea. do you have any idea what they do? i don't. [laughter] gary johnson: personal choice. marriage equality -- supporting marriage equality. i know that iowa really took the

lead on all that. [applause] how can there be a more difficult decision in anyone's life other than abortion? when i say anyone's life, i'm talking about the woman involved in her decision-making. who but that woman involved should be making that choice other than woman involved? marijuana -- let's legalize marijuana in this country. [applause] there are tens of millions of americans who are convicted felons that but for our drug laws would otherwise be tax paying, law-abiding citizens. we had the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world and i refuse to believe that we are any less law-abiding in this country./

it has to do with our drug laws and mandatory minimums. prisoner inegory of federal prison today is the individual who has sold small amounts of drugs on numerous occasions and been caught. let's bring an end to the war on drugs. [applause] gary johnson: let's first and foremost recognize drugs as a health problem, not a criminal justice problem. [applause] this --nson: let me say all lives matter. all lives matter. but black lives matter and here's why. blacks are being shot at six times the rate then if you are white. if you are of color, there is a

four times more likelihood that if you are arrested, your going to end up in jail then if you are white. we have had our heads in the sand over this issue. as the first one to have my head in the sand over this issue. we have to come to terms with this. we have to recognize that there is discrimination that exists and we have to end this discrimination in our country. [applause] i absolutely support the second amendment to the constitution, our ability to own firearms. [applause] but we should be open to debate on how we keep debates and discussion on how we keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill. we should also be open to discussion and debate on how we

keep guns out of the hands of would-be terrorists. as president of the united states, i would love to know what transpired between the fbi and the shooter in orlando. obviously the system worked up to a certain point, but then i broke down. i bet the fbi has some real suggestions on how we might move forward on that issue. the death penalty -- i've been asked many times, did you ever change your mind on a major issue? i changed my mind on the death penalty and here's the reason why. it costs more money to keep a person on death row or to sentence a person to death row then it does to lock themselves up for the rest of their lives because of the appeals that go along with being on to grow. -- death row. when you find out that someone is released because they are categorically proven to be innocent, what value can you put on attorney fees associated with

that? that value is limitless. there is estimated to be up to a 4% error rate in the death penalty. i don't know about you, but i do not want to punish one innocent person to punish 999 that are guilty, much less put together for for 96 that are guilty. when i was governor of new mexico, governor ryan of illinois ordered a review of 36 inmates on death row. over 20 of them were released because they were categorically shown to be innocent because of dna testing. as public policy, the death penalty is flawed as public policy. [applause] there was a poll among active military personnel three weeks ago on who they

favored for president of the united states. by the way, thank you to all veterans. thank you to everyone who has served this country in this audience. we have a debt to all of you. everyone of you. [applause] gary johnson: but in that poll of active military personnel, i won. i was first. [applause] gary johnson: i would like to think it is based on what i am saying, which is let's have judicious use of our military. if we are attacked, we are going to attack back. we should have an invincible national defense. we should demonstrate military superiority, but when we involve ourselves in regime change, it results in a less safe world. in my lifetime, i cannot think of one instance where we inject

ourselves in a civil war and it turns out for the better. we have regime change in iraq. qaeda, saddam hussein. now we have avoid that was created and as of two years ago, we had never heard of isis. along comes isis to fill that void. they exist in libya and syria. this is not intentional, but this is hillary clinton and barack obama. they supported regime change in both of those countries -- syria, libya. they went in and support of the opposition in both of those countries. the opposition, although not directly aligned with isis, both isis and the opposition were against the existing regime. we armed the opposition to the teeth. the opposition got beaten and all the arms ended up in isis's

hands. this is what we are dealing with right now. the biggest threat in the world right now is north korea and the fact that at some point these intercontinental ballistic missiles are going to work. we have 40,000 troops in south korea. imagine if there were 40,000 chinese troops in central america. if you're thinking, we have 40,000 troops in south korea because we want to protect against invasion from north korea, there is zero chance of south korea getting conventionally invaded by north korea. they have their own forces to withstand that and it's a no contest. if you are talking about them lobbying nuclear weapons over the border, we have got them covered with our nuclear umbrella and that is the threat. and that is a very real threat. do we really want to go to nuclear war with north korea? the way that we deal with this

is to join hands with china diplomatically because they understand the threat that this poses. in syria, the solution to syria, the solution to the syrian civil war is joining with russia diplomatically to bring an end to that. life ever been better in this country? we get along with one another better. we communicate better with one another. our kids are smarter than ever. we've got issues, but we have got unbelievable opportunity. and we are citizens of the greatest country on the earth. yeah, we're got issues, but we are going to deal with these issues. the future looks unbelievably promising. [applause] gary johnson: as president of

the united states, i'm also promising you that i'm going to be the most frugal president that has ever occupied space of anyone you have seen. [applause] gary johnson: you have got to lead by example and the fact that the president of the united states spends tens of millions of dollars to go down to walgreens because of the security involved in doing that, goes into large cities and and snarls traffic everywhere that he or she may go, that is something that i think needs to come to an end. bill weld and myself are promising to be very, very good stewards of this office and that starts with setting an example for spending and the role that the government should play. [applause] gary johnson: there is no chance, no chance that i have,

bill weld has of getting elected president or vice president without being in the presidential debates. the presidential debate commission says you have to be at 15% in the polls to be in the presidential debate. i have no issue with the 15% either, but here's the issue. there is not one single pole being conducted today where my name is in the top line -- not one. my name is and 50% of the polls and it is the third or fourth question down. and 99% of the media just reports the top line so that about 70% of america only thinks -- doesn't even know that i exist. exist, we are the only third-party candidate on the ballot in all 50 states. [applause]

gary johnson: so i want to ask all of you a favor and that is to push out what it is that we do from a social media standpoint. we had a rally in vermont. we had a rally last night in milwaukee. there was a turnout that was just terrific. as terrific as right here, right now, thank you very much. but from the time that rally ended until now, there have been more than 3 million people that have viewed that rally on social media. [applause] so this is very, very real. this is very, very real. the possibility exists to run the table on the selection. -- this election. for all the right reasons, you have to hear it all the time. you're going to waste your vote.

the comeback immediately is wasting your vote is voting for someone you don't believe in. that is wasting your vote. [applause] gary johnson: so to each and everyone of you, you rock. i cannot believe that you are here on a saturday afternoon, but you are here. thank you very, very much. let's make a difference in this election. thank you. thank you. [applause] johnson needs 15% support in national polls to be on the presidential debate stage alongside hillary clinton and donald trump. formert the press," president candidate bernie sanders gave his opinion on

threshold set for debates. >> do you think kerry johnson should be in the debates? sanders: if people reach a certain level and you can debate on what that level is -- what is it, 50%? >> you think that 15% is a fair metric? senator sanders: probably too high. >> for campaign 2016, c-span continues on the road to the white house. >> i will be a president for democrats, republicans, and independents. >> we're going to win with education. we're going to win with the second amendment. >> ahead, live coverage of the presidential and vice president shall debates on c-span, the c-span radio app, and c-span.org. sixth isptember the the first dozen children they -- monday, september 26 is the

first president of debate. then come october 4 is the first president o vice president shall debate. st. louis post the second , taking placebate at the university of nevada las vegas on october 19. live coverage of the presidential and vice presidential debates on c-span. listen live on the free c-span radio app or watch live anytime on-demand at c-span.org. joining us from new york is kellyanne conway. thanks for being with us on c-span. guest: thank you, steve. host: we are going to talk about politics, but let's begin with the personal. why did you agree to take on this job? inst: i very much believe donald trump and mike pence as president and vice president of the united states. they have the vision and

character frank. they have the issue set that americans are asking for in leadership. mr. trump's ascendancy in the republican primary and through the general suggest that people really do want a disruption. they want someone who will turn the tables over in washington. many people promise to do that and have been in congress for decades. it simply hasn't happened. we think after eight years of any party in power, we know that normally people want a change in election. they want a change in government , but i also think he has been able to ignite something that we are not seen in modern politics . rudy giuliani has traveled with donald trump to mike pence, his running mate. the same take away is that they have never seen anything like it. they have seen some of the people in the actual venue and then thousands more in the spillover arena or on the jumbotron. they just want an opportunity to be there and listen and be part

of a movement. it is incredibly exciting for someone like me, who has always been somewhat suspicious of establishment politics and that we just try to improve our margins a little bit here and a little bit there and never really put forward messengers who have a credible, legitimate way to connect with them and communicate with them through a nonpolitical in which. i also have to say that i have respect for secretary clinton politicalcidedly washington d c type of career, but at the same time, i've three daughters and a son. i cannot say to my three daughters that this is a role model, somebody who tells the truth and someone who is not completely honest. i'm always for a woman president, but not that woman. host: is donald trump a role model? guest: donald trump is a role model for many people. i have to say for me he has been

incredibly generous and engaged and respectful of me. he has promoted a woman to run his campaign, much like he has promoted women throughout the trump organization for decades. if you walk around trump tower, you see many women fully committed to his principles and values, whether it's on the corporate side or now on the camp inside. -- campaign said. i've had a respectful relationship with them. he's very smart, obviously a brilliant businessman. he's also a great listener and that is something we lack in politics. a lot of politicians just love to talk and not listen much. we hear from them every 2-4 years when it's time to run some .v ads if you see mr. trump on the trail, just in the last few days, on friday in philadelphia, he was engaging with african-american leaders, civic leaders, and business owners.

detroit, it was his first visit to a traditionally black church. hisop jackson and congregation were incredibly generous welcoming mr. trump and us there. he very much enjoys listening to people and getting outside his business deals and corporate stuff that has really been his stock and trade for decades now very successfully. you and i have seen many politicians over the years right, left, and center -- you lose some luster in that regard and connectivity with voters over time when you look at them just as voters and not as people. he has got tremendous joy on the job. think is just as campaign manager, heller clinton has many gifts and skills, but when i think of all the things that she is not and can never be as a presidential candidate, i see him responding to host: but when you talk about

the tone and being a role model donald trump saying that he had some regrets but he didn't give any specific examples of what he was apologizing for. was it the tone, things that he had said during the campaign that now continue to dog your candidate moving into the general election? guest: steve, when donald trump expressed regret for having caused quote "personal pain" for anyone the reason that it's nonspecific is because the minute that you start enumerating people and naming them it sounds like you're excluding others. so he left it so that those who felt that personal pain would receive his expression of regret personally. for them. and whether he speaks to people privately beyond that is another matter. but i can tell you that the donald trump that you see on the trail expressing regret, donald trump and governor pence running down to louisiana when they saw people in need, and saying no press, handing out diapers and

formula and obviously water and food for those in need, that's what leaders do. going into places where a lot of republican presidential candidates have not been willing to go before. frankly, you haven't even seen hillary clinton there lately going into black churches into the communities, speaking to communities of color where they live. and just wanting to engage with them. whether they end up voting for him or not he will have very much enjoyed that time because we believe that the president of the united states should represent all americans. and if you're going to represent all americans as he would as president, then you ought to be talking to all americans while you're running for president. host: let me follow up on some news over the weekend. governor mike pence telling meet the press he will be releasing his tax returns this week. do you see any scenario in which donald trump would release his before the november 8 election? guest: yes. if his lawyers and accountents

tell him that it's time to do that. he's under audit and they've made it very clear to all of us that he should not release them until those audits are completed. we have to defer to them. and i'm glad that governor pence will release his tax returns. he's not under audit. i think that governor pence telling chuck todd that he will be releasing his tax returns next week or so is really in stark contrast to the tens of thousands of e-mails that apparently were never released, were deleted by secretary clinton from her private server which of course is the big news , of the weekend. we have the secretary of state saying that she can't remember having classified briefings, she didn't know the c stood for confidential classified information, goodness. we all know that. that now there's 17,000 more so e-mails that weren't released. we already know the 33,000 that were deleted. it doesn't look good for somebody who is already seen as dishonest and untrust worthy. -- on trustworthy to 65% of

americans. host: do you think hillary clinton's health is in issue this fall? guest: well, i'm not a doctor and she is not my patient. so what i don't understand is the campaign strategy of the hillary tour from hollywood to the hamptons just shoveling in as much doner and lobbyist money as they can possibly do. and then up in the vineyard last night donald trump's detroit in a black church with the bishop jackson and his congregation and also meeting with others in detroit. and she's in martha's vineyard last night raising money. that's her right. but the american people also have the right to see what these two candidates are doing as part of their campaign strategy. so i can tell you the man that i work for in this presidential campaign, donald trump and also mike pence his running mate. their energy is unbelievable. it's very difficult for those of us who are younger than mr. trump to keep up with him most days. and that's just joy on the job. that's somebody who enjoys being out there and wants to fill the schedule up with as many

opportunities to touch the voter as possible. look at just this past week. the difference in the calendars, the difference in the way that hillary clinton and donald trump are scheduling their campaign events is pretty remarkable. she's raising money, not giving many speeches. and certainly no policy addresses like he did. in the matter of 24 hours he had been in seattle at a rally of again thousands and thousands of people. on a tuesday night the last week in august in washington state, then he jetted down to mexico to meet with the president there up the same day to gave 10-point speech on immigration, 10-point plan on immigration. and then the very next morning 9:00 a.m. back in ohio to address the american legion. so that's a candidate who actually wants to take his case directly to the people. you contrast the two and it has nothing to do with health. it has a great deal to do with strategy and how do you spend your days? do you spend your days with voters and in front of audience

s whose would like to hear your vision and specific solutions as president, or are you spending time in hollywood the hamptons and martha's vineyard raising money? host: now managing the donald trump campaign. she is in new york. a graduate of trinity college. earned her law degree from george washington university. long-time republican strategist. this is their national campaign. first let's get to your phone calls. ken in cincinnati. republican line good morning. , caller: good morning. the thing i think that will happen, i think donald trump will get a lot more african american votes than the mainstream media is the giving him credit for. if you compare his tax plan, which is to simplify it, compare that to hillary's which will more cumbersome and will increase taxes on the mick in -- the middle class in her own words. once people realize this and just based on that alone, there's no doubt that donald trump will get a lot more support from everyone from all

demographic groups. host: thanks for the call. guest: it's a great point that ken from cincinnati is making in the following regard. he has figured out what many voters are discovering. this is a true contrast choice election. i cannot think of a more stark choice on immigration, on the economy, on defeating radical islamic terrorism. on education policy. i want to do next with the affordable care act, also was known as obamacare. and to ken's point about trump and clinton's respective economic plans i would urge your viewers go and look at them for yourself. a couple weeks ago the detroit economic club, mr. trump unveiled his tax relief plan, middle-class tax relief rolling , back a lot of these regulation that is are really strangling our small business owners and deterring others who would like to the entrepreneurs and achieve their american dream. and the idea that people are only going to go to the ballot

box talking about style or tone and temperament and not facts and figures is folly. that is wishful thinking on behalf of the clinton campaign and her supporters. i always have my faith in the voters. that's been my business for 28 years, is what do voters and consumers think? what's important to them? and you know from looking at the polls voters say what's important to them are jobs and the economy, every day affordability, defeating terrorism here and abroad. education, health care, immigration, energy policy. infrastructure. you will hear mr. trump continue to give speeches on all the issues that americans care about. people go on the web sites and look at the different plans. or they can listen to his plan because he takes to the people. there's no question that she is calling for a massive tax increase, more regulation, no energy independence in this country. and when she talks about

"investments," that's a really long word for tax. host: former clients of misconduct newt gingrich in 2012 , running, worked for marsha blackburn governor mike pence and deman steve king. joe from massachusetts democrats line. go ahead. caller: good morning. thanks for coming on. do you think you should apologize to women for defending todd aiken's comment in 2012 when he said that if a woman was legitimately raped, that her body had a way of avoiding pregnancy? thank you. guest: i didn't defend him and i think that is the media just loved to take one negative thing about somebody that's not verified and not true. i did not defend him. i was his pollster, he won the primary. we did one poll and he won the primary and then we didn't work for him any more. i think the senate committee itself was not very helpful. i know that todd aiken, who i haven't talked to in years has asked forgiveness of many people and i'm sure from the lord and i hope he has received it from

whom he's asked it. but i never agreed with those comments. i don't agree with those comments. and it's just very unfortunate that in the age of instantaneous attacks and no verification that a comment like that could actually have legs. so thank you for raising it even if it was meant to be a negative. thank you for raising it so i could actually have a platform to clear the air for those who care about the truth. host: darlene from virginia beach, virginia. republican line, good morning. caller: good morning. my name is darlene quinn. and my mother lives in wilmington, delaware, and she passed away some 10 years ago. but during the time of all the publicications of mr. trump's books, she bought those books and she said, darlene, she says mark my words, he'll make a wonderful president if he ever decides to run.

so we were at taj mahal, one of the casinos and mr. trump with his entourage happened to be walking through the aisle and my mother always did the end slot machines. that man, mr. trump, took the time to stop and talk to her and acknowledge her. i will grant you that there was a lot of money that she spent on that, but she also won money. [laughter] my comment is that my mother is gone now, but my wish is that we give donald trump a chance and that we have an optimistic view just like him. i have the highest respect for that man right now because he is not increased our deficit, he has raised money for the republican party, and i'm looking forward to casting my vote with many of my dear senior citizen friends. i want to say that i have the greatest regard for him and i am looking forward to him taking over our country and using the

people that are running his campaign in the white house because everybody is making wonderful sense to me. host: darlene, thank you for the call. if we had time i would ask you how she won money in the casino. but that's another topic for another day. guest: i will tell you that it sounds like her mother in-law was right next to my two grand mothers at the slots no doubt. but i think the anecdote that darlene says is such an important one because it suggests, i don't know her politics and certainly her mother or mother in-law's politics but it shows you the crossover appeal that donald trump has is a cultural identity, and as a decidedly nonpolitical person. you've heard from his children and from other whose have known him for decades, certainly i witnessed it first-hand many times. he loves being with people. he loves stopping and talking to them looking in their eye generally interested in what they have to say. there's a great anecdote from when governor and mrs. pence had

come originally for a first meeting when mr. trump was talking to a few people who may be his running mate. and mr. trump found out that their daughter charlotte who is 23 had accompanied them and she was not at the dinner the night before between the two couples and he insisted that they have breakfast and just peppered charlotte pence, 23-years-old, with all kind of questions about her life. just a great example as is the casino example of how he genuinely enjoys being with people. i've seen him first-hand at the construction sites. i've watched him with folks at rallies. i see him taking the time when the plane is waiting and i'm sure that everyone's exhausted except him of course. and he just thrives on this and guess what? people see it and thy love it because they want a candidate to who looks who they want to be with voters who is not just

sequestered again with donors and lobbyists and handlering and consultants. so that's how he will continue to run his campaign. that's not going to change over the next two months. and i'm glad people like darlene see that. host: as you know during the primary donald trump said he didn't consider senator john mccain to a be a war hero. he won the republican primary last week. this is a headline from the washington post. john mccain win it is primary and promptly gives up on donald trump. not sure if you've seen it. but this is a new ad by the mccain campaign. let's watch it and get your reaction. [video clip] >> my opponent is a good person. but if hillary clinton is elected president, arizona will need a senator who will act as a check, not a rubber stamp for the white house. kirkpatrick will not oppose higher taxes. she will not oppose federal spending. she will not oppose increased debts.

the slow economic growth. she will not offer an alternative to trust in the innovation and industry of the american people and create jobs of the future. i will. mccainrom the john campaign. he arty is saying he was to be a check for the possibility of a hillary clinton presidency. are we seeing that in other states and are you concerned? guest: i'm not concerned. i think every senator or senate candidate needs to run if race they want to race. i would note that for all the hand wringing that people have that donald trump's dragging down these candidates. in some of these states we're actually running ahead of some of these candidates. so i believe they all have to run the race they want to run and i think that is where for people who have been in the senate for decades that they definitely need to find the message they think is most attractive to their voters based

on the fact that they've been in washington for a very long time and the top of the ticket has not been in washington for a very long time. in a field of 17 presidential aspirants on the republican side the one true nonpolitician with a great business background success in not outside of , politics, outside of washington, actually prevails. that's called causation not coincidence. that's what people wand. -- wanted. so i have enormous respect for senator mccain and that includes respecting the way he wants to run his campaign. host: let's go to mike and safety harbor, florida. republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i wish you didn't show mr. mccain prior to my ability to speak because now i have to go off my message. mr. mccain was wounded in combat

and did serve as a prisonner of -- prisoner of war. that should be commended. but his entire body of work is not necessarily one for the american people. if you want to go and google images, he will be seen leading -- meeting with the same people that are responsible for the creation of isis months later. that's out there. regarding mr. trump, now, i am a 41-year-old man. i've been a republican for the last four or five years. i was a democrat for all the way prior. never really thought much of it until obviously this past president whom i did vote for the first time. and then i became aware of the progressive agenda, which scared the daylights out of me. i'm actually a rand paul, ron paul guy. rand was my choice. but now going back, like i said i've been conscious of mr. trump for virtually my entire life. probably since i was in middle

school. he's always been a capitalist. he's always been an outsider who had to play the game. whereas someone like ms. clinton with her, "i didn't know what c meant," that regarding the classified, that right there is the epitome of not only her mentality and the way she would govern, but just her overall criminal mindset. i mean, the way that she has no problem. you can track the entire course of her life. when you look into mr. trump's background, you have all these stories of him going out of his way and helping. i was actually surprised because i was initially holding my nose and going to vote for mr. trump because of some of what i was getting from the media. because, again, they've attached on one thing he may have said without the greater context and ran with it. and it starts to work when it's constantly being shoved down

your throat. host: mike, i'm going to jump in. thank you for your call. your comment from florida. we'll get a response. guest: yes. thank you very much, mike. and steve, so he said a few things i'd like to address. the last point he made about if you hear something so often and so frequently in the media, then you start to believe it's true. because how could it be on tv constantly if it's not true? i remind everybody nobody's ever under oath when you're on tv. so people repeat things. conclusions in search of evidence. we've had many stories in the last couple of weeks alone, including a front page new york times story where basically journalists are now admitting that they have suspended all forms of objectivity. that donald trump, quote, "pushes the limit of objectivity" and some people feel duty bound to just stop him. even though they're journalistic integrity and obligation indeed are to cover the race fairly.

one area they don't cover fairly at all is just the amount of coverage that donald trump receives relative to hillary clinton. and i know he's out there talking to voters and she disrespects your profession so much that she won't even gave press conference. we're up to 273 days now. so i know there's less opportunity to interview her but she's kind of boring and americans see her as dishonest and not trust worthy. -- trustworthy. so we get most of the coverage. and we're going out talking to voters. there is more to cover. but i would remind everybody that the media do have an obligation to be sort of more fair in the coverage but also more complete in the coverage. remembering there are two major party candidates running here. to mike's other point that he supported rand paul or any one of the other 16 republicans in the primary. and that he sees donald trump as somebody who succeeded outside of politics. that's really key here. i'm not sure all the polls completely capture people like mike in this because there are

many people still on the fence. they've decided not to vote for hillary clinton, they just can't bring themselves to do that but they're still looking for a reason to vote for donald trump. and that's why he's out there talking about issues, talking about substance, bringing his case directly to the voters. we're going to continue to wage this campaign based on the substance of the issues that people like mike and voters all across the country tell pollsters they expect and deserve to hear. and we'll hope that secretary clinton starts running a campaign that's similar to that. she gave one speech, two speeches in the last weeks. one was to the american legion , not very well received at all. and the one the week before she gave a speech about donald trump not about health care or , immigration or infrastructure. she gave a speech about zonled -- donald trump to some web sites. so we're very happy that people like mike are at least seeing donald trump as the job creater nonpolitician he's been who now as a candidate continues to take

his voice and his message directly to the voter. host: let me follow up on a quick point. you mentioned donald trump's trip to mexico city. and he told reporters that he did not discuss payment for the wall and the mexican president tweeted out that yes in fact the mexican president said we did talk about it and mexico won't pay for it. what happened? guest: well, they have a difference of opinion there. however, i think mr. trump made very clear in his speech in arizona hours later that he will build the wall as part of his 10-point immigration plan. he will secure the southern border, build that wall and mexico will pay for it. that's been his position. it's always been his position. he's been running against the queen of flip flop and he's been very consistent on this issue and others during this campaign. so we really look at the positive aspects of that meeting that really historic meeting with the president of mexico. very graciously accepted his invitation to visit for a few hours there.

and of course, look, i know everybody's very focused on illegal immigration and that is absolutely one of the major issues that mexico and the united states must address together. but there's also human trafficking. there's also drugs coming over the border. there's also the idea that a border protects the sovereignty of both mexico and the u.s. but let's make very clear that a prosperous and safe mexico benefits the united states. a prosperous and safe united states benefits mexico. i think that was the first of many conversations that these two leaders would have if mr. trump were president. host: we have about a minute left with our calls. crystal quick question from , pennsylvania on the democrats line. please keep it brief. caller: good morning. i'm just going to name a couple reasons why we'll never, ever vote for donald trump. one is the way he talked about the president throughout his presidency. another is the campaign manager.

another is steve who has been -- ailes who has been charged with sexual harassment. host: i'll stop you there. i think she meant roger aisle. guest: sure, so i respect the fact that you are a democrat and probably be inclined to vote for hillary clinton anyway, but that you're paying attention to the news stories. i have to say, steve, and to the caller that i respect every american's right to cast their vote or not to cast their vote to refrain from voting as they , feel fit. that's democracy and that's freedom of speech, freedom of expression. at the same time, when she talks about mr. trump and his talks about whatever he has said about president obama during his presidency, i would remind everyone to go back and review the tapes and the statements. particularly in those debates. some of the most severe criticism of president obama came from hillary clinton and have come from bernie sanders.

and he won 22 states and millions of voters as a result of that, senator sanders did. so there's plenty of criticism even from within his own ranks. but again, i would expect a registered democrat to be leaning towards hillary clinton. i would tell you that most voters do not cast a vote based on personnel. they base it on the candidate. the same on the democratic side. we have very troubling reports about one or two of the chief aides to hillary clinton, i won't mention their names because they're not on the ballot. but hillary clinton is. and the voters will have to say who will be better for my , pocketbook? who has called radical islamic terrorism by its name and who has called them determined enemies? who says that children who are in crumbling failing schools deserve the same trithes a -- rights to equality, education opportunity thereafter and for , school choice and charters and home schoolers and the public schools and the private schools?

and who frank is not? so i like the fact that people have a real choice and a contrast. and i will put your caller down in the hillary clinton campaign for pennsylvania. but i very much appreciate her perspective. host: the new york times saying it's the messenger not the message that's holding donald trump back. and his advice, seize the debates. how critical will they be for the trump campaign? guest: it's a great piece of advice from my friend and former boss. he was my boss for my first job in polling many, many years ago. always has some great advice. what neil is actually conveying there is very important. basically the issues that favors donald trump. you look at i think the weekly standard wrote a piece about a week or two ago, it was remarkable. it shows in the last 200-some polls taken on the affordable care act, and about three or four of those a majority of americans like it think it's working for them, approve of it,

have faith in it. the other hundred and something did not. and so the issues the idea that terrorism and national security has catapulted it to the top of the list voterser's concerns, the idea that free market alternatives to education, that mr. trump is talking about mick -- middle-class tax relief, rebuilding our infrastructure. we soon will be talking about child care plan. so all of that put together, he's saying the message is yours. and that these debates are going to be critically important because it will be the first time that people see hillary clinton and donald trump side by side. and they will have to decide who do i see as my commander in chief? who do i trust to tell me the truth as president of the united states? who has been in washington for too long? who is a total outsider? they will be able to assess them side by side. that is really with the choices. i think this election more than any i can remember is almost like people think it's a referendum for donald trum.

-- trump. like we're going to walk in and there's this huge lit sign of dommed trump's face and a big yes or no. and you have to put no. you're going to walk into the ballot box and you're going to see donald trump and hillary clinton. and down ballots and jill stine and gary johnson as well. but it's a very important point because this is not a referendum on donald trump. this is a choice election. and if people feel that millions more people in poverty and fewer people feeling good about their health care coverage and a lot of folks not being able to find well-paying jobs or quality education for their children, or feeling less safe and less prosperous is a great idea, you should vote for hillary clinton. but we are taking this debate very seriously. they are fun for us. we've got a candidate talking about issues every day. it is the best preparation for the debate. host: i'm going to stop you there because we're going to lose our satellite time. joining us from new york. thank you.

we always appreciate it. guest: thank you for having me, steve. >> washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up monday morning, u.s. news & world report corresponded can walsh who wrote the book "celebrity in chief, the history of the president of the culture it started" will discuss the 2016 election and how celebrity culture has shaped presidential politics. vicealberto fernandez, president for the middle east media research institute talks about u.s. strategy to counter violent extremist. thomas ryan, president and ceo for the american association for home care will discuss the growing field of in-home health care. and recent efforts to change medicare reimbursement rules for home health care. washingtonn's journal at 7:00 a.m. eastern on monday morning. join the discussion.

virginia's largest newspapers is endorsing libertarian candidate gary johnson ahead of the november election. the richmond times dispatch, which is endorsed a republican for the last 36 years released at editorial this weekend calling gary johnson a man of good integrity and sound ideas. the editorial board reportedly started to reach the conclusion several weeks ago after finding donald trump and hillary's and unable to meet the moral and professional standards americans should expect. read the editorial if you like at richmond times dispatch's website. now to economic advisers from donald trump's campaign. table talk about immigration, taxes and the housing policy. part of a daylong event held by the steamboat institute. it is just under an hour and a half. >> thanks so much for that very generous introduction. it is wonderful to be back here at this u-boat institute.

-- steamboat institute. jennifer did not mention my msnbc appearances that i would rather forget. [laughter] i am absolutely honored to be moderating this panel. it is a very esteemed panel. one of the finest minds in america. i will go from left to right starting with amity. multiple, author of multiple new york times bestsellers, including my favorite "the forgotten man: a new history of the great depression." [applause] you can buy it out front? no, she's a good capitalist. and. -- a and "agree greedy hand." she chairs the board of the calvin coolidge presidential foundation. she was the head of the 4% growth project, which is important for this panel.

and she was in a previous life a wall street journal editorial board member. thank you for being here. ceo ofright is andy, the cke restaurants that owns carl's jr.'s and other chains. he earned a jurist doctorate in 1978. he is not paying attention, that is good. from washington university school of law in st. louis. he started his career as a commercial trial lawyer. he is the author of "job creation: how it really works and what government doesn't understand it." electors frequently. an economic advisor to the romney campaign. he also writes for the washington journal op ed pages. last but not least, steve moore. a fellow at the heritage foundation. he is a senior economic adviser to the trump campaign. if anyone knows with donald trump is thinking, it is probably steve. he founded the club for growth,

and efficacy group that focuses on pressuring lawmakers to vote for free market limited government ideas. he was a member of the wall street journal editorial board. that iss for the team on the panel. our panel today is a call to unleash american prosperity. it's a very opportune time to have this particular discussion. i don't know how many of you turned on the news this morning and saw our annualized growth rate is now a whopping 1.1%. that is really an extraordinary thing to think about for a country that used average annual growth --, triple that after downturns. businesses are not investing. yet we have half of the country, maybe a shouldn't say half, we have the political left of the country saying don't worry about it. if the new normal.

we don't need to unleash american prosperity. growth is secondary. but we need to do is redistribute growth from the people who have it to the people who need it. if you remember joe the plumber, the answer he elicited from president obama in 2008 when he was then candidate obama. he said "when you spread the wealth around, it is good for everybody." but is it? if the basic question, a basic divide. it's an important divide because as we have heard from the other speakers it is provoking a lot of political on knees. we had a tea party on the right, occupy wall street on the left. we now have donald trump and hillary clinton. we have bernie sanders in the form of hillary clinton. let's dive right in. i want to start with a very basic question. amity, you are closest to me. is this the new normal? is 2% growth, the average of the

obama economy, the best we could hope for? is there something different about the time we are living in? >> 2% is the current normal. but it doesn't have to be the new normal or the future normal. senator wasd that talking about teaching kids and all kids should learn the rule of 72. how quick you can double your economy if you increase one of those two numbers. growth, you are double. if you were at 2%, that's a long, long time so you double your economy over 35 years. we can teach that to every fifth-grader for a start. they can do multiplication. to accept it is to cause that great sure fall, which the senator described at $75 trillion.

to cause it to be fact for sure or worse. some of the math is on something higher than one or two. of course you can change. i will let the dome and speak. probably the answer will not come from a policy solution cobbled together by policy experts. but also by a reset. reset, the taxi medallion cartel business. by an innovation that inspires people that a whole mindset of the country changes. we can talk more about that. it is still possible. unique policy people and you need innovative excitement. people a to give framework through which the think about this question. wet i hear from you is that need to unleash economic growth. butonly is it possible

there are other benefits that come from unleashing growth. fine. person, areiness you able to do that in this current environment? >> absolutely. the biggest problem we face is the government. we need rational tax policy, rational regulatory policy. we need an energy policy that gets us energy independent where he stops sending billions of dollars to the middle east because our biggest problem isn't global warming. is radical islamic terrorism. maybe we should stop sending money to the countries that sponsor it. and we could've we develop -- [applause] develop our energy. we need rational trade policy. trade is good. even donald trump says trade is good. i think he understands it very well but we don't need massive trade deficit. they don't need to be massive. we could have -- if we had better negotiated deals in enforce the deals we had, we would have a more rational trade policy. we need immigrants.

we need talented people in this country. we need educated people. we need seasonal workers but not sanctuary cities. we don't need of border that is porous. we need rational government policies. then we could grow. i think the problem you are talking about was a broader problem of what do we address? do we address the real underlying problem which is economic growth? economic growth would virtually solve all these problems. income inequality, wealth distribution. everybody would have a bigger pie and set of smaller and diminishing of a smaller pie. the problem isn't income inequality. the problem is a lack of opportunity. and too much poverty. if we had economic growth, we would increase opportunity and decrease poverty which is the way we really get around the issue of whether or not we need economic growth. we obviously need economic growth. the policies we see under the

obama administration and proposed by hillary clinton are problems that try to take the results of economic growth and produce them without any economic growth. they want to lift people up from the bottom, but they want to do it without growth. they want to take from people at the top. >> for we have countries that have done that. we were talking before about japan. this is a country that has not grown in 20 years. they are very happy redistributing the pie. hillary clinton would say that is fine, we should be happy with that. what is the counter argument? >> there is something we have in the united states you don't have a lot of in japan and that is success. since the 13 colonies broke from england, 13 backward colonies, and instituted democratic capitalism or free market system, within 100 and 10 years we went from nothing to the world's largest economy. it has driven growth worldwide.

american capitalism across the globe over the past 20-30 years according to the imf and the oned bank have relieved billion people out of poverty. we have gone from a huge percentage of people in poverty, 55%, down to about 21% living on poverty wages. this is due to american free enterprise. this is other countries like china adopting red capitalism and leaving their militaristic socialism. leaving eastern europe and lifting the lies of all those eastern europeans. it is india opening of its markets and seeing incredible growth. this is something that can lift everybody worldwide. it started in the united states. we show them how to do it. if we stop doing it, i fear not only for our country but the world. i want to see my children have the same opportunity i had. america orclinton's japan, they don't have it. [applause] has the right lost the

argument for economic growth? >> i think the left has lost the argument. if you look at what they promised they would produce and what we have had, there is no question. you mentioned the news this morning. the economy now officially has grown by 1% over the last six months. we have downshifted from 2% growth data 1%. i don't know if you are the other news this morning. streisand,i, barbra alec baldwin and michael more have promised that if donald trump wins this election they believe the country. [laughter] [applause] i know you have been skeptical about from. i thought that might put you over the top. we have had 1% growth. the left has a lot of explaining to do. and iy i put this, brought a couple of quick charts to show you. can we put these -- that

powerpoint up? while i am waiting for this come up i wanted to show you the problem. here it is. what i like to do is compare the record of reagan versus the ragged -- record of obama. it is a nice experiment. both of these presidents came in during terrible times for the economy. rates mortgage interest and double-digit inflation under reagan. >> i would argue that the worst period for the u.s. economy since the great depression. and the economy was imploding under the malays of jimmy carter. it was cut tax rates, get inflation under control, provide stability in the currency, reduce regulation. in one sentence i would say the reagan philosophy was government is not the solution -- the

problem, government is the problem. that is what the reagan philosophy was. obama came in during a period of incredible economic crisis. the housing market crashed, the stock market imploded. 7 million lost jobs. both presidents came in and look at what obama's agenda was to fix the economy. they took every page out of the liberal playbook. the hundred $30 billion stimulus bill for things like food stamps and unemployment. then we had obamacare. then we had three tax increases on the rich. family had a trillion dollars over the last eight years. more underrowed barack obama and regard from george washington through george w. bush. we had three minimum wage increases. there is not much left they can do. they tried everything they thought of. the results are shown.

can you put that chart up? look at this. the black line is the obama record for recovery. i can carry economic recoveries. we had nine or 10 recessions since the end of world war ii. the black line is the obama recovery we have grown 15%. that does not include the latest quarter numbers where he grew by 1.1%. the blue line is the average recovery. i look at the last eight recoveries and said what is the growth at? even relative to an average recovery, this has been have to growth rate. here is the killer for liberals. look at the reagan growth rate. look at the difference. 36% growth in the first seven years under reagan versus 15% under obama. if you are a liberal, how do you explain that? they don't have much of the next one nation. the number you see at the top, $3.1 trillion.

that is what i call the growth gap. that's the difference between where we should be if we had a reagan-style expansion versus where we are today. i would submit to you, to all of you that is why you see a middle-class america that is so frustrated, and raised with both parties. the trump voters don't like barack obama at all, but they are not too happy with happen under george w. bush either. i think most of you -- the more important statistic than these growth rates is what is happening to wages for the average family. for 15 years the average worker in america has not had a pay raise. that is a killer. if you're a liberal, how do you explain that? i thought this was supposed to be an agenda for the middle class. i will turn it back to you. you nailed it with some of those policy prescriptions you talked about. the starting question with can we get the 1% to 4% growth? yes.

i will strictly kelly how to do it. you mentioned energy policy. i just read a book. in the an opportunity next five years to take america from being an energy import country to being not only energy -- i was here two years ago and i said we could be energy independent in five years. i will say not only kennedy energy independent, we can be the energy dominic country in this world. we can produce more oil, gas and coal than any other country in the world. [applause] that has huge applications for our economy. think about the millions of jobs. we would have to import $200 billion. to be sent told these terrorist countries that want to kill us? hillary believes, she actually believes that somehow we're going to power and $18 trillion economy with windmills. that's the stupidest thing ever heard. waking raise growth rates i went

percentage points -- by one percentage point through -- system almosttax every economist lee's we get a nicer percentage point of growth. the third i would say is they regulatory burden. >> you are taking the question right out of my mouth. sat on the trump leadership council. people like andy said on that with people in the restaurant business, people in the manufacturing business. people in finance and banking. it is so interesting sitting and and listening to these great and women. taxes is a big problem. they say the red tape and the regulations are even worse. you get rid of that regulatory burden, i told donald trump just two weeks ago when you are elected president, we will put

50 executive orders on your desk. you will sign the first hour in office. repeal every illegal obama executive order. [applause] >> we have established that growth is good. we have established that historically we have grown much faster and we have in this recovery. steve has talked about some of the reasons why. it is interesting that when he listed all the things obama has done, he did not list. frank. -- dodd frank. andy i want you to talk about this and i will go to you -- amity, i will go to you next. how much of the regulatory burden accounts for this lousy growth that steve put up on the screen? >> there are a lot of studies out there about trillions of dollars that american businesses have to bear.

it's like a huge tax. . is a silent tax. since the end of the great depression that amity understands better than i do we created this huge fourth branch of government. the president controls it through appointments, directives, influence. you may not like hearing me say this but barack obama has been if not the most effective president in my lifetime tied for most effective. everything he wanted to do he accomplished. when he lost control of congress he went to the fourth branch of government. obamacareed to amend on numerous occasions, something you would've thought you had to go through congress. that has been devastating for american business. even though he delayed things, they delayed down because it did not work in now it's collapsing on it self. then you have got the department of labor which is not issuing overtime, which is

very hurtful to the franchisees and makes it difficult for them to run the restaurant. >> how exactly? >> if you're working or managing a restaurant and making $45,000 a year, you can make as much is your salary in your bonus. you can make $90,000 a year. however we now can give you a performance-based bonus. we now have to pay you over time. you can't pay overtime. you will pay one or the other running a business. you will not give a guy -- when you hire a general manager you hire him to run the business i say on the business. which is why you give them this incentive-based bonus based on performance. it is a job well done and a job taking as long as it takes to do it. you have gotten off the line. you are no longer in the crew. you work your way up and 90 have

to ask the guy above you if you can work more than 40 hours a week. >> the so-called devil wears adaduct regulation -- pr regulation. you basically have to take an employee after $48,000 to be exempt from paying overtime. that means you can't hire promised because it always too much of your business' money. it's a way of separating young people from their employers and making it impossible to go through that journeyman learning stage when they are in fast less productive. i wanted to say two things before we move on. mary has it in hand and his right. how did we get here? we all talk about tax all the time. tax to not resonate a year ago. we would've been debating a child credit mattering for the

candidates' campaigns. it apparently does not matter. two republicans or democrats as much as other things. otherwise we wouldn't have the candidates we have. in my analysis the thing that has changed and the thing we have to look at is the bailout of 2008. [applause] the bailout of 2008. why is that? the government has to promise henceforward it will not bail out specific banks. too big to fail. we just can't have that. we can't go siting it in saying everything ok and capitalist are on their own, but we always bail them out. it was a bipartisan error. case- no one can make the with aow caps gain rate

straight face until we promise we will not be there to bail him or her out, the government, at the next liquidity crisis. the got -- the voters are not fools. they note business generates growth. but they are not likely to support low capital gains rates or other taxes. the bailout discussion in the future must know before the tax. >> there that also allow the left on the narrative of the crisis and in the prescription? >> absolutely. >> you could blame the banks consider government. >> what is the difference between parties that they both fail out to such a large extent? that is what i would suggest next time around. there is an amnesia among young people. history seems kind of boring.

history tells it all. change,nts may technology may change, but human nature does not change. when you study what they did back then what happens, you have a better argument for your child and your child has a better argument or what might be done for the policy recommendations. i want to say one thing about the great depression, which i gave 10 years to of my life. it is such a great thing to study. we talk about the redistribution recession. that is what mary is describing. a redistribution recession. the great depression was a redistribution depression. it need not have been great. it could have been a short recession, painful perhaps, but it may not have been 10 years of double-digit unemployment which is what it was. the reason it was bad for so

long and scarred us all and gave collective is president to act was the government intervened too much. that is the symbol. in every field, even agriculture. wanted -- i the man don't know what to feed his animals, his brain on his property and the federal government said that is interstate commerce. we must regulate you, mr. wickard. this was in the middle of world war ii, but it was part of the new deal. think it is incumbent upon us to make history less boring for our kids so they can see the record, which is the redistribution never yield strong growth. and never advances opportunity over the mediam for very long. >> i agree with amity completely.

it is a crime in the neck of a lot of american to look back at the 2008 period and say republicans were supposed to the party of limited government. you bailed out -- i get so frustrated with my friends who are push people. i can't vote for donald trump, he violence by conservative principles. you were part of the administration that violated the great conservative principles of all time. the bailouts. the bailouts were a complete violation of everything that we believe in as free market economists. i think you're right, amity. i think a lot of voters will not trust republicans again until i want every republican to run for house, senate, dodge catcher president to sign a pledge, i , will never ever bail out a private company or bank again. never again should we do that. [applause] one other quick point. if you haven't read amity's book it's a must-read. , it's one of the most important economic --

>> it is for sale out there. [laughter] >> and what she points out, you know, is that all of these programs that f.d.r. put in place are a complete failure. they prolonged -- but the reason i bring that up, hillary believes in that and obama believes in the kenzie and model heartedly. what is hillary's agenda? more taxes and a massive new infrastructure program, more shovel ready projects. if you look at the two periods when we have very rapid economic growth, it was not during periods of not when government expanded but when government contracted. does anybody in the room know the biggest period of government contraction? it was right after world war ii. spending went from 45% of gdp to less than 20%. it was a massive, you know, demobilization of the military budget and so on. and all the kenzie and economists said this is going to

cause the greatest depression instead of a massive expansion. post-world war ii america was a massive expansion. government spending fell, private sector growth went way up. the other time we had big economic growth was in the the 1990's, clinton era. clinton was saying we can create all this economic growth. but what happened? administration was a disaster. -- the first two years of the clinton administration was a disaster. but when newt gingrich came in as speaker, we put in place the biggest reduction in government spending. it went from 24% down to 18% of gdp. as government spending fell, private growth went up. what we need o do is put government spending on a leash, not increase it. then we will get prosperity. >> yes, i agree with that. [applause] >> we're in vigorous agreement as you can tell on this panel. that's all well and good. but what we haven't talked about in terms of the crash is it was driven by government policy,

-- >> that is the big thing. >> housing policy and the left owns that narrative. they said the problem is the banks not the government telling banks to lend the people who can't afford homes. those institutions are still -- >> what newspaper warned for 10 years that this was a problem? "the wall street journal." you were there, i was there. you were there, amity. people say fear-mongerers. here is a amazing statistic that we have to get throughout in the trump campaign. one of the people who blocked housing finance reform, reigning in fannie mae and freddie mac, who know who it was? hillary clinton. she took hundreds of thousands of dollars to her foundation and to her campaign from who? fannie mae and freddie mac. we tried to pass a fannie mae and freddie mac reform bill that "the wall street journal" was in support of in 2005, 2006, that hillary clinton was part of the filibuster in the united states senate to block that.

so when she brings up the housing crisis there's nobody in america has dirtier hands than hillary clinton. >> the only two people that may have dirtier has would be dodd and frank. > dodd-frank was passed presumably to regulate these big banks. they're the only banks that can afford to comply with the regulatory frameworks. community banks are dying slow deaths every day. we're down to 6,500 banks which is a depression era level. andfranchisees, carl's jr. they depend on to open restaurants that create jobs and small businesses across the country depend on. that's what the country depends upon for growth, those small businesses an they're losing their finance source because of this ridiculous law or the guys that help bring us the depression in the first place. >> did you see that hillary in her small business agenda that she put out this week, she said we have to make it easier for small businesses to get financing?

of course, that is true. but how are you going the get small business financing when you're shutting down the community bank? jimmy stewart wouldn't be able to start the community -- >> just to review, growth is good. we've had much stronger recoveries. we're in a redistribution recession which has happened before in history. and we need to shrink government. have i got that right so far? [laughter] >> good summary. >> one other thought that keeps crossing my mind. i will give a talk to some bankers to the clearinghouse which was the fed before the fed.i will give a there was a fed before the fed. the york clearinghouse now national.

and the question they've asked is basically, should banks talk back. how could we talk back and say this is wrong? and the answer is, you know, generally in history banks have been pretty intimidated by government because, of course, they get those billion dollar fines or they just die slow deaths, the smaller banks and what i noticed when i studied the great depression in preparation for that is that the banks began and the economies began to talk back. they began to speak a little louder even the head of the chamber of commerce speak truth to power. and it was a real relief once people like you began to speak big companies people with banks, people who know banks. there was a palpable relief this week. did anyone notice the university of chicago put out a statement about political correctness where they said there's no safe spaces kinder at the university of chicago. here, here, great noncoastal -- great noncoastal university,

right? hear, hear, how chicago spake where stanford, yale and harvard dared not. hurrah. they said we don't care about trigger warnings at the university of chicago. and it made us all feel better. well, it will feel better too when more businesses like andy pozner and others speak out, yet more not with anger but just a firm no that in the -- anyway, i'll just stop and say that intimidation is a factor here. since you are right, you need not be intimidated. >> well, part of that

intimidation though -- yes, let's clap for that. i'll clap for that. part of that intimidation is that the government is very large. and as andy explained it's in every single part of a person and a few people's lives from their workers who they employ. is the government so big that it can't be pruned back? we still have import and export banks. we still have fannie mae and freddie mac. and export banks. we still have fannie mae and freddie mac. >> i've been talking to steve about this and the trump campaign people. i have a thee row on how we can do this. we need to eliminate all the executive orders like steve said. number two, we need to do what ever person says we have to do. get rid of all duplicative regulations which nobody does. everybody ignores that. i think we should do what a c.e.o. would do. i think donald trump's in a perfect position to do this. every agency said list your regulations from most important to least important. the bottom 10% are gone.

the next 10% you're going to have to explain. and if that doesn't cut it enough we'll do it again next year. his is what c.e.o.'s do. because there's no other way to take this down. you're not going to get it through congress. you've got to go in as president and say we're going to reduce the regulations. the criticism you want drty water and you want rat poop and baby poop. no, we're going to take the bottom 10% taking into consideration public safety, the environment, and we'll just -- we'll direct the agency heads to do it and get rid of the bottom 10%. now, he did -- in his speech on the economy, he did touch on this thanks to steve kind of pushing this idea for me. it's something that i would like him to come more strongly on. we could take the bayem down if we could implement this policy

that would get rid of all this junk. >> would that more of a factor or impact on the economy than say tax reform? >> no, i would not -- we need both. when businesses informs this comes as a big surprise to everybody. that's when you can get a return on your investments. if you don't invest that's when you spread the wealth around. goes your after tax income down because taxes go down then you're less likely to invest. if minimum wage goes up, you have to pay overtime to people because you have to comply with various environmental regulations because you have to curb cuts 50 feet down the street from your your restaurant is because the city wants them. if you're incurring all these expenses it makes your return lower. they don't open businesses. the hardest part is to prove what doesn't happen. this is a big problem we have on the right with conservative

economic policy. a good example of that was wal-mart. al-mart promised to open three wall mars in washington, d.c. they opened one. when d.c. took -- threatened to take the minimum wage up and they took other employee benefits they went into the city council and said we're not going to open the other two. and we may have to close the one that we opened because we can't -- we can't stay in business. and this is -- this is the kind of things that because they committed to build the restaurantsers we now know that we didn't get that growth. nobody commits, you don't commit to build a restaurant or a wigit factory or a tig guard factory. when energy cost increases, when people aren't buys because they didn't get raises businesses don't invest. >> so top of the reform -- >> let me give you some kind of another example. it's an amazing trint to

merica's business owners and c.e.o.'s that they're able to grow. truly i don't know how you all do it. one of the things that could be repealed on day one is something called the clean power plant rule. now, everybody's for clean power plants but ladies and gentlemen this is a rule that has shut down coal plans across america. it is one of the most sinister thrules is almost inhumane. what is happening across america. i live in virginia. i think colorado is a coal-producing state as well. i don't know what's happening here but i can tell you what's happening in my home state. there are towns that have been third, fourth generations coal towns that have been eviscerated by obama's regulations. shame on them for not standing up. [applause] you go to these towns.

it is hard breaking. trump should take his cameras to these towns and show people what is happening. where you once had vibrant towns, now there are unemployment lines. and democrats say we care about working class people. they don't give a damn about working class people and the first executive order would be to rescind that law and put 50,000 coal miners in the united states back into their jobs. [applause] three of our five largest coal companies are now in bankruptcy. and that -- look, we believe in creative this is not creative destruction. this is an intentional design by they left, obama told us, i'm going to put the coal industry out of this mess. scary iss this very -- that they have put coal out of

business, now they are coming after the oil and gas industry. >> executive orders causing 10% of regulation. the clean power act. i want to mention something you may not expect, immigration reform to skills-based immigration? as opposed to family based? >> i notice awful when someone comes from somewhere else and use of their place as an example, in this instance, i will, i'm for the midwest. i observed in new york the change in new york from bad to good. particularly the change in queens which was a middle-class borough of nice people who already wait and became a crime-ridden neighborhood. then can the immigrants who were more skills-based. they were here for economic reasons. --y got on this one trying

train and read to their pharmacy class. then they read to the job. -- rode the their job. there were 16 ladies who were all going to school. before they went to job. people who go to committee college and have the job. these people eventually had enough money to buy the depressed houses and depressed price environment of queens and made it a vibrant community. everyone says, why did new york get better? it was mayor giuliani and his tough crime position. it was important. more important the hope and opportunity of these immigrants who came from all over the world, but heavily indian and caribbean and asian. they said, we are here to work. we're here to build a city.

we're not here to fight. >> did they come from mexico? >> some came from mexico. new york is in the cut of ideas an opportunity. ecca for ideas and opportunity. it took about one generation. that is what the u.s. would look like if we had a skills-based immigration program. that?ld trump embrace pro-reform reform -- immigration. it is dumb for trump politically and toxic to use the word deportation. let's stop talking about that. we're not going to deport 11 million people. i know c-span's washington is. we are not go to deport 11 million people. we are all pro-immigration. american people are angry about illegal immigration because both

parties for 25 years have said they will do something about it. these trump voters are angry about that. politician should keep their promises. i think to get the kinds of reforms, we need to do something. most of us agree that we want immigrants but we want them to come into this country lawfully. [applause] that is what we need to do. there is no reason that donald trump cannot win back a big percentage of the hispanic voters by saying i want your vote. we will not deport you or your family members. people have to come and legally. we going to build a small. -- this wall but we are going to have big gates. shortages.big labor >> what is your view on this? >> this e-verify system has an wonderful us -- frustrated we

used to have in place at the restaurant and someone would announce that ice was coming and according percent of the voters -- workers would not comport. -- come to work. now we have it. e-verifyo back and former employees because there are a lot of them and and it's expensive. and you don't want to look like you are discriminating. we're using e-verify. we are hiring a population that is here legally. >> what exactly is e-verify? >> it is a system where we can send information about somebody to the government. they say, yes, this is a real person and that is a real number. people as it may seem to that have not run small businesses, you cannot do that for-five years ago. could not do that 4-5 years

ago. these are very hard-working people. i'm not saying that people would not work in the restaurants. we have restaurants all over the country with all ethnicities. worked very hard. they do a good job. if we have jobs for them, we should allow them to fill those positions. workersarly seasonal which is not part of our what we do. >> your argument would be both skilled and unskilled. it if the proxy for saying that citizenship or opportunity should bere earned by people who love the american ideal. the problem with family-based lyndon johnsonch give us as an afterthought in

the 1960's was that it is all about compassion, not opportunity. compassion is fine. opportunity gets results that are compassionate. if you make it about earning your way, a lot of our ancestors came here with these goals. earning your way for with an emphasis on the acquisition of those skills and the knowledge in this economy, you have to have skills instead of being , let's help with entitlement. of course we want to do those things. but we can't always afford it. to build a society that can, we have got to focus on the skills. growth is good. other recoveries have been stronger. business you to speak up. shouldnda going forward be executive orders, cutting

regulation, skills-based immigration reform. what about that three letter word, tax? is all tax reform equal? on,ur plan that andy worked we have a great team of people. trumpur of us with donald , you have a pretty good lineup of economists. [applause] we are going to put in place a tax reform the puzzle that at the heart of the plaintiff civil. we have the highest --can you put up my charts again? this is important for people to understand. this is important about what is wrong. this is comparing trump versus hillary. she was to raise every tax. she was to raise the small business tax, the capital gains

c forbes had it right, there ought to be a policy that says that taxation without respiration. wants to raisey them. this is hillary's tax form. [laughter] they are coming after you, and y. here it is. this is very instructive. this is published in their wall street journal. the red pillars -- the black line is the u.s. business tax rate. we are at 37%. we had not changed that in 30 years. look at those red pillars. those are the countries that we compete against.

france, italy, spain, china. look at what they are doing. they are practicing reaganomics. they're cutting the tax rates to bring more capital and business into their countries. now have a situation, this is a disgrace. the united states has the highest business tax rate in the world. we're supposed to be that when of the free. we are at close to 40%. the rest of the world's half of that. that is not work anymore. you write about this all the time. walgreens, pfizer wants to leave. why are they leaving? they tell us why. our corporate tax rate is so high. we can't do this anymore. or plan is to take that rate from 40% down to 15%. we're going to go overnight for being a highest tax rate country to the lowest.

i guarantee if you do that, businesses will come back to the united states. tot 15% tax rate is going not just be available to our corporations like general election and apple, every small business in america, 15% tax rate. [applause] we often talk about the corporate tax rates and individual rates for their other taxes and tax or that would help unleash american prosperity. what about things like expensing? how about repatriating money back from abroad? >> the repatriating money from abroad is a huge point it would be held so much by the tax plan we tried to come up with trump. isve touched on it, what important about these inversions is that if you are a german company and you make $100 billion in germany and you want to invest in the united states,

if you bring it here, you don't pay anything. if you're an american company and you make $109 in germany and you read here and you pay 35% tax. whether you got to do with the money --what will you do with the money? you do not bring it back. companies are leaving because of the tax rate. not because they get taxed on their american income. you will get income tax were no matter -- no matter where you are located. the problem is in this competitive world market, the ability to use cash to generate when he is huge returned to complete. pfizer wants to move out of the country because they cannot compete with the other large drug manufacturers who can invest here when they can't invest their money here. is, what approach is best? the hillary clinton, big government approach. she has seen no problem that she

does not think your government can solve. what is bigger, telemarketing companies, if you lead, we will punish you and force them to stay and prevent them from bringing money back here or to say, how about we will reward you for staying here. if you bring money back, we will not over tactics they can remain competitive. obviously the approach that steve once to take is the right approach. take is the right approach. doing ang pfizer from inversion, the way to prevent it would be to give them a tax break to stay here. >> you have looked at the capital gains tax cuts, what about that? >> i want to say that mr. trump is lucky to have these gentlemen .

[applause] how can we get to 4% growth? what would bring that? gains taxour capital to 5%, we would have 4% growth. >> why? beacon tod be a invest here. sometimes international copies don't pay taxes. -- companies don't pay taxes. if we cut our capital gains rate to 5% or 2%, we would have 4% growth or stronger. then we can be linked social security. we can pull around with the entitlements. -- fool around with entitlements. it is not rocket science to get to court percent growth. it is a political exercise.

i do think it starts with a commitment to government being smaller including no bailouts. the command has to be there -- commitment has to be there. >> the donald trump have that in does donald trump have that in his plan? >> by the way, we have not mentioned obamacare. we are going to repeal obama care. one of the features of obamacare that is so evil is that they finance it would be 3.8% investment finance tax. it tosed -- they raised 23.8 percent with a surcharge. we're getting rid of that surcharge. when you cut the corporate rate, you areucing -- reducing the strain of the double taxation. thing, i learn

this at the wall street journal -- learned this at the wall street journal, if we go from 1% growth to 4%, everyone percentage point increase -- every 1% point increase reduces the debt by $2 trillion. conversely, i don't care how much you cut, you can cut everything the program, you are never going to get to a balanced budget with 1-2% growth. you have to get up to 4%. fromany people are here the great state of texas? you have the right economic model. if you want to see how to grow 2013, formy, from 2007- six years, the lone star state under rick perry, texas created

more jobs in the other 49 states combined. how did they do that? we have got to make colorado a right to work state. that is the basic right of every cannot join a union if they don't want to. ofas has a light rate regulation. no income tax. make america look more like texas and less like new york. [applause] that is how you grow the american economy. >> what steve said about spending, remember, the democrats talk about, we raised

income tax return the clinton administration and there was this growth. they don't tightly that they cut capital gains tax. where did we get the tax revenue? from capital gains. spending -- down, cap look down and the economy boomed. -- capital gains was down and the economy boomed. >> now obamacare. reformablertable -- ? >> it hurts businesses and the economic assumptions are -- you cannot defend them. that you tell people don't have to have insurance and expectet sick them to buy insurance before they get sick. you have all these healthy people who you want to buy insurance to offset the cost of

insuring people who are unhealthy and it is not happening. united health care is pulling out of obamacare. >> the lefties at the ixia is to a signal pair health care provider. >> they sent up -- set up 23 co-ops. these nonprofit insurance 16 of themun by -- are out of business and 16 of them are in serious trouble. they got $2.4 billion from the government. they lost it all. it is not make any profit. they're out of business. they did not make profit. they're out of business. on august 2, the journal of the american medical association, they proposed we put a public option into obamacare. a public option would be a

government run nonprofit that would compete with the private insurance companies. it will drive them out of business because they have to make a profit in the public option does not we will be left with one government system. it was barack obama who wrote the article. economic assumption under obamacare. it cannot work. it will never work. it doesn't make sense. we need to get rid of it. we need to repeal it. trump has a seven point plan that outlines where he would go. it needs to be flushed out. paul ryan has a really good plan. john goodman has a good plan. we can do this, we just need to elect the right president. obamacare is not releasing american prosperity. you say that donald trump has a plan that i've only heard him say, let's get rid of state resections -- restrictions. that is kind of it. is there really a plan?

>> a couple quick things. if you just want one question -- sentence about how affordable it is, we provide people incredible incentives to buy the policy, and we are clubbing them over the head with penalties if they don't buy the policy, and they still will not by the policy. they are so bad. the big problem for hillary right now, liberals are frantic with worry that this is going to pull apart -- fall apart. >> so does that mean he does not have a detailed health care plan? >> what he would do, you allow insurance companies to buy insurance across state lines. hillary will not do that. candle forr hold a any of these insurance companies. they are the ones who gave us

obamacare. the other thing you do is, you move towards a system. the problem with obamacare's people. there is no competition and you have these mandated plants that everyone has to buy. after by the same plan as andy. let a thousand flowers bloom. let's have 1000 plans out there. yes, we are to cover everyone in america. we can do this. you're a rich country. -- we are a rich country. there is a detailed plan. i'm an article coming out next week that talks about this at the end. go across state lines. malpractice reforms. ask any of your doctors. [applause] would use and ryan

tax deductions and tax credits to make it easier to purchase insurance policies. insured more people are that we have obamacare. 90% of them on medicare. we did not need all the penalties or mandates to expand medicare. >> half of those people don't have access to doctors. >> both of them were turned medicare administration over to the state. there is a detailed plan. there are a number of factors that trump and ryan -- ryan's plan is more detailed. i am hopeful that trump will adopt that. or john goodman, he has a similar plan. there are plans out there to replace it. it is a disaster. you can pass something on a bipartisan basis that never gets vetted.

not work. does not work. it is not going to work. we need to replace it. there are plans out there to replace it. free market principles that will increase competition and improve patient care. >> having missed anything on the agenda -- half we missed anything on the agenda -- have we missed anything on the agenda? >> some of this release alden the next 70 days, and one that it will not. we are grateful to you for the commitment to longer-term discussion for reform, and longer term look at political philosophy. some of us would like to see it all fixed by november. it probably will not be. if we can bring ourselves to commit to education, i think we will be well satisfied with the longer-term investment as well. >> that is an aspect to end.

will go to q and a. if you're interested in asking a question, we have microphones in the back. your name,e affiliation and a question. the statements please. >> when we talk about universities and how corrupt they are, a shout out to what you have done. two, you and the purdue university president, i would do this, hillary's idea of giving college free to everybody, dumbest idea ever heard. do you think college is expensive now, wait until they given away for free. i have two kids in college now. it is costing me $60,000 a year

per kid. america'st scam in how much universities and colleges are charging. if i were trump, i would say this, we're going the going to give -- only going to get federal aid to college president reeze tuitiono f for five years. get rid of bad professors. and down the cost. get rid of tenure. this is a big issue. they're graduating with $100,000 in debt. >> obama nationalized the student loan industry. audience to let the asking their questions. >> we are not done. [laughter] >> name, affiliation, and question. razor hands. -- raise your hands.

>> chairman of the colorado republican party. [applause] my question is, at some concerns about monetary velocity for the economy. and getting lower. we have to fix that? policy.monetary >> i'm not a next on monetary policy. what we want from our monetary system? --do we want from our monetary system? a stable dollar and payrolls. we have put through joint dollars in the economy that has had no effect on growth. i want trump to put someone in here who will follow a price role. -- rule. our problems are monetary.

i think they are regulatory. this went like it we're putting over businesses. if you solve both problems -- monetary problems and policies are not ideal. 1979 when we had 14% inflation. >> i would be a little more cautious and say maybe our problems are monetary because the prices don't seem to accord with what the government is saying. higher andn price is we are told that we have no inflation, that is confusing and we need another data set. days, your family banks would have not spoken of inflation. they would have spoken of credit or credit tightening. lexicon works better to explain the bubbly feel of the economy now.

that thes believe federal reserve policy has a lot to do with the stock market increase. maybe companies are not doing that much better. it is just the next bubble. instabilityof that -- stability. andy, you run restaurants. how much pricing power to have? what are your hamburgers go for? >> there is so much pressure on labor that we are having a difficult time lowering prices. wage has caused labor cost to go up. all of these different drive the policies cost of labor. while normally you would have seen mcdonald's, or king as

commodity prices came down, because cheaper now than it was a year ago. as commodity prices came down, he would have seen restaurant prices down as well. $.99 offers and a dollar 29 offers. $1.29 offers. -- you are seeing them stay steady. home -- grocery stores reduce their prices. eating at home has gone like this, it eating at restaurants has gone like this. what is happened to sales? sales at know that restaurants have been terrible in the past six months. >> why is that? >> because people can eat less expensive we at home than they

can and restaurants. they are making their own food because labor costs are forcing us to keep our crosses up -- prices up. >> raising minimum wage to middle bullet --$15? >> i could go a whole hour on minimum wage. [laughter] please.question and local elected official from denver and a small business owner, my question is for steve and andy regarding entitlement spending. we talked about how to get out of our system and growing the pie. we also have to get in title -- entitlement spending under control. republicanut the one who said he's not going to touch entitlement spending. help. what can you do?

fix it. trump's position is we will not cut medicare and social security. personally, i think it is a political loser to talk about cutting medicare and social security. republicans think there's something virtuous about talking about cutting social security and medicare. nancy pelosi run these ads about republicans throwing grandma over the cliff. trump has made a wise decision. we will not allow her to do that. i do think that the single most important entitlement reform other than getting rid of obamacare is we should let every young person in america take their 15% or 12% payroll tax and put it into a private aire account in the latter compound interest.

if you do that, you have a nation of millionaire retirees and 40 years -- in 40 years. [applause] >> did you get them to accept the deal argument. -- could you get them to accept the rubio argument? can you not get them to say that? ofthis is the third rail policies. this is the death rail. even paul ryan, the most rational, since you got in the country, he goes on talks about entitlement reform and he is pushing a woman over the cliff. the problem is that until there is economic growth, we will not reduce the debt and people are going to these entitlements like they are light saber -- lifesaver because they are. if people have money and feel optimistic about the future, not only will we be able to reduce the debt, we will be able to

address entitlement reform. you can address it because people are scared to death. and they should be. it becausedress people are scared to death. and they should be. >> a lot of this entitlement grows with growth. decision decided not to talk about this until the election, but it does have to be reformed even after growth. it might be easier once you have other cash around. why can we not have this conversation? what is wrong with us? it is true. if you keep saying something is a third row, it is. had to get a mandate to reform if you don't talk about it -- how do you get a mandate to

reform if you don't talk about it? kids inget high school economics class do it. it is not that hard. [laughter] we all respect the political necessities and realities. it will make kids happier if they know they can change it. medicare is harder. social security is not hard. grandfather the grandfather that has promised you will get what you that you will get. you can grandfather poor people and reduce increases for the middle class. we can have this discussion, we are grown-ups. part of the problem through immediate is it is a third rail.

media is it is a third bro. i deeply people understand this. we have written that more young people believe in extraterrestrials than the social security being there for them. [laughter] they know something is wrong. we can talk to them. it does take a political investment and time. >> you are ready for the gotcha commercial of throwing grandma out the window. right here in the back. >> my name is kelsey alexander. i'm affiliated with a whole bunch of things. liked ending the bailouts. in may be using that

terminology, if you lower entitlements, you are endin bailouts. they are not just big banks, they are to lots of other things. can you give us some talking points that we can use to go out and sell the idea? ink what happened greece. goodies away people's and they ride and don't vote for you. -- riot and don't vote for you. >> that is why starting with the banks is good. we will start and take away from the banks or the big companies. probably bailouts are not good. we have done that quite a bit. culturet a no bailout and try to reduce. nodoes not have to be --

bailout for big banks. but try to reduce and move towards a no bailout standard for the rest of us. we always need a safety net. this idea of bailing out everyone, that is a problem. about allwas talking the rescues, the next obamacare is definitely the universities because university is becoming an entitlement. we have to get to the young people and talk to them about earning your way, not being owed your way. steve mentioned governor daniels where investors made by equity in students, they can bet on a student. you can get a share of that students income later. a student who earns his way through college instead of borrowing his way.

that is a cultural shift. you earn your way through college. what broke price was the camel's back with health care. the press became untenable. -- price became untenable. therefore, we should go to socialism. we cannot let that happen with education. if we drop the price too high, the next answer will be socialism. drive the price too high, the answer will be socialism. i believe in young people. scholarship merit that paid for a full right to any college. -- full ride to any college. we said, this is a merit scholarship. have earned it and you can use it at any college. we do not advertisement we had

12,000 kids sign up for the process. then we had 2300 barristers applicants who wrote a full college application. they got the recommendations and transcripts. pool.ere a fantastic most of them wrote i would love to have the money because i don't want to be dependent on my parents. and in anotherd generation i would have enlisted pay myant to get the -- own way and fafsa does not allow that. these are the people who are the future for the left. i want to earn my own way. we had a final applicant pool that was better than the average

iv candidacy -- ivy candidacy. a lot of them would win the full scholarship somewhere else. but we want to win on merit. here's what i did in high school, this is why deserve this. this is where i'm a loser and why will always need entitlement. will always need entitlement. it is the signal we send to the mertiabout marriage -- that will shift -- merit that was shipped the discussion. -- shift the culture. this is a country of opportunity and merit even if you are not the brightest. , ofhe culture of fear course you are to hold onto whatever been in a you get.

-- banana you get. if they are giving out computers, i better run and get one because there may not be others elsewhere. you want the environment where there were always be computers and maybe i will be able to buy one. the culture of fear and concern entitlement -- and entitlement is the problem. >> my name is jim. i'm a citizen, veteran and businessman. areink we agreed that we desperately in need of reform tax policies and arguments have been debated. tax legislation has to originate wethe house and given that have had republican majorities in both houses of congress, why are we not seeing any tax reform? >> one of the things that i ,hink people should recognize

if you look at the political latin america today, the republicans control 32 of the governor ships, most of the big states. they control two thirds of the state legislatures. .ontrol the house, the senate if donald trump wins we will nominate the next head of the federal reserve the next president will have probably three supreme court nominees. what am saying is, whether you like donald trump or not, this is something that we as republicans and conservatives have waited a lifetime for. we will control every single lever of political power. the democrats understand this. they know that if hillary loses, they lose everything. the reason i say that is, inc. about what we can do if we have these levers of power.

think about what you can do with tax reform. with 80%d our tax plan overlay with paul ryan. i believe we could implement within the first 100-150 days the most sweeping overhaul of the tax system in 35 years. republicans will control -- i agree. obama told us the formula. you go in there and you do everything you possibly can. you pass your agenda. unfortunately, he got it all past. -- passed. we can do that to them now. we can pass an agenda in the back and truly transform america into a free enterprise country. >> that is a great place to leave. i know we are out of time.

everybody, please thank me. [applause] >> more now from the institute with political analysts talking about strengths and weaknesses of donald trump and hillary clinton. they will also talk about the role of undecided voters in the future of the two-party system. this is one hour and 15 minutes. [applause] >> i'm going to introduce my wonderful candidates. they are very brave to participate in this conversation. this is a very divisive election-year. strong feelings about both candidates. so we have a diversity of opinions. the goal is not to change who you vote for, it is to let you understand the discussion that

is going on right now. so with that, we have ted of a national consulting company. he serves on the board of a ton of nonprofits. the third gate -- the third way citizen engagement board. and i hear he is an incredible rooftop garden or and has a knack for crawling things that don't normally grow in colorado. next to him we have james toronto. an editor of the editorial board. you probably have read his best of the web column. he makes his entire living based on critical thinking and he has a taste in cigars and probably is single-handedly responsible for -- and we have kelly. she is the executive director

director of compass, colorado. and she has a pet wallaby. it is the cutest thing ever. i am a little bit obsessed. so i thought we would kick this off by laying out what we think about this election. >> i want to say thank you to jennifer and rick. a special thank you goes out to bob and claudia. i hope you shall do, being the resident liberal, i feel like a circus animal. much, i am happy to be here. this is something i was looking forward to. so, when i look at the 2016

election, i think it is important to frame this in the context of what is happening in terms of the evolution of how we do politics and what is happening in terms of the evolution of our parties. there is such a level of disenfranchisement and trust. it is more than i have seen in the last 10 or 15 years. and that is why we ended up with donald trump on the republican side, and that is definitely why we had bernie sanders on the democratic side. and to my democratic friends, i say listen -- we have to pay attention to the far left. because what happened to the republican party will happen to us if we don't figure out how to address it. we now have a process where the width do electoral politics has overcome the way we do policy politics. i am the first person to say

that as long as it is legal, i will do it in a race. that is what we have been doing in colorado for a number of years and it is why we have the resurgence of democrats that is here. the one thing that we do here is when it comes to policy, we do it together. it is easier to poison a well then dig one. we have too many people handing out poison and not enough people handing out shovels. so in this election. the bottom line for me, it is far too soon for hillary clinton to win. we should be watching the rise of gary johnson. because that number now is north

of 15. i think this could end up being a competitive race due to the unfavorable at a levels of hillary clinton. that is the frame for me starting. i want to come back to the numbers that steve mentioned earlier. >> first off, thank you to the institute. i think we all attend a lot of these conferences and i see a lot of familiar faces in the room. one of the things we do often is that we will set it a room and surround ourselves who think like us and we all know it and we talk about the fact that it is the apocalypse but we haven't really taken a lot of time to have real, in-depth, honest, tough conversations with our liberal counterparts. -- is an evil genius. he is largely -- has anyone in here read "the blueprint."

it is a great book about long-term political infrastructure and why it is so important. and that was largely created and published by tenant. so i think having this conversation this year, when we are all coming forward and disagree but in good faith to talk about what is an unprecedentedly ugly election is something that we all have to face. we have never, in the course of what i remember in politics -- and i look like i'm 20 but i'm not.

i have been working in politics it while. i have never had a year clear both candidates are so hated by everyone. and frankly, the donald trump people will say that hillary clinton sucks and the hillary people will say that hillary's sucks. both of them think the other is going to bring down the apocalypse. gooden't yet heard a coherent and consistent forward thinking positive argument. based on voter to engagement, that tells us it is time to rethink how we do politics as a business moving forward.

we continue the way we have done so far, people will continue to be disengaged. we can be forward thinking and we can think about what a shining city on the hill for democrats and republicans can look like. it? >> i want to take thought i was going to be the one taking a contrary view here. most of the pundits who analyze the election argue about whether or not hillary clinton is going to win. i guess i assumed everyone would be in the same view. i reject the premise that the election has been decided.

to put that index -- into perspective, you will find that'slities based on people are making. this is people risking their own money on the outcome of the election. there is no state in the united --tes that allows bedding on allows betting on political races. breaks it was a four to one underdog. the figure for trump is just about 20%. sounds like a very small chance. if i were to roll a pair of dice and guess what i'm going to roll, your best guess would be seven because that is the best combination. the odds are about one in six, little under 17%.

you wouldn't say there is no way you are ever going to relay seven, just give it up. based on that i think they have a shot. doesn't workn because the dice is pure math. politics are a much more complicated system. what you are measuring is uncertainty. let's talk about some of the sources of uncertainty. one is time. we have 74 days until the election. a lot can happen. ted raised the possibility of a terrorist attack. other things like if there is another attack on police were things we may not anticipate. the known unknown is the debate. one may have assumptions about how the debates will go. trump is unpredictable. sometimes assumptions about how donald trump has done in a

debate not even pan out. i remember an analysis of the first republican debate. everyone did well except trump. they did focus groups and the voters said trump won. it may be that pundits don't always anticipate what trump is going to do. also, the polls, you mentioned gary johnson. him a lot of these polls consistently show clinton in the lead, but quite a few of them show a large number of people undecided or voting for one of the third-party options, gary stein -- i'm sorry, gary johnson or jill stein.

i guess, maybe they will start including the sky, whatever his name -- this guy, whatever his name is. the conservative alternative. third-party candidates tend not to do as well in the actual voting as they do in polls. john anderson in 1980 was polling 26% at one point and ended up getting less than 7%. the one exception to that is ross perot who got almost 19%. he was a businessman, political amateur, had a tendency to say crazy things. he was running on a platform of skepticism about trade deals and immigration. a lot like donald trump. [laughter] maybe what we have this year is 1992 if perot had gotten the nomination. who knows how that would have worked out? that is my take on the election as things stand now.

>> it is well known that these are the two most hated candidates in american history. 53% of americans had an unfavorable view of clinton. 61% unfavorable view of trump. i want to know from you guys, how did we get here? do you think that american voters get the politicians they deserve? are they really that bad? >> first off, to talk about hillary. if you have spent your entire life having dumpster diving going on in your alley and people try to dig up dirt on you and it's written about you try to tear down your character and make something you are not, and for a while, a media machine that was going after her as well, of course you numbers will be down.

of course she will be defensive. i can't sit up. on donald trump, i think he is more of an example of the distrust and disenfranchisement. people are pissed. if we don't pay attention to the fact that they are, we will continue seeing something like that happen. that is driving more of the negative numbers on hillary and -- than it may be on questions about her or her character. >> i don't think that her numbers were that great in 2008. she was also the inevitable the democratic nominee. it was a little different because you had a talented young politician come in and actually beat her. the anyone but hillary vote on the democratic side was a grumpy old socialist.

no one thought bernie sanders was going to be serious. i would echo your point earlier about how this is going on in both parties. i attended both conventions. i was struck that ted cruz got booed for declining to endorse the party nominee. it was my understanding that the people booing were his supporters. bernie sanders got booed for endorsing his parties nominee. sanders people were more bitter about the outcome than the from -- trump people. i was in the hall for trump's acceptance speech and clinton's speech. clinton was interrupted by hecklers at least a dozen times. you could tell they were these random chants of hillary.

>> they were to cover up. >> they were trying to drown out the hecklers. republicans get hecklers also but they are outsiders. their delegates to the convention -- they are not delegates to the convention or whatever. i recalled trump being interrupted twice. he handled it very well. the moment i remember most of what was a rather forgettable acceptance speech, he said instead of encouraging people to go after them, he just said, isn't cleveland wonderful? he is learning. >> this is an example of the level of disenfranchisement and distrust, that took off later on

the democratic side than on the republican side. had that started earlier, it would have been a much more competitive democratic primary because when you think about it, this is someone who passed one bill his entire career. spent most of his career as a independent. describes himself as a socialist but does not get what that means. ignited a base of people that really outside of his rhetoric don't have any real connection with him. what that says to me is it is less about the policies he's talking about and more about the rhetoric and the passion he was giving and people were attracted to that. that is the same type of dynamic we saw happening with trump. >> not just that he did not spend much time as a democrat, before this year he had never run for office under the banner of the party.

>> this goes back to a theory i have, which is that i think the democratic party is two-three cycles behind the republican party. i remember the 2006 caucus, 2008 caucus. i remember -- i was setting up a caucus and i had gone through historical data trying to figure out what is the highest number of people who would show up for this caucus. we were blown out of the water. absolutely wall to wall people who had glommed on to these new libertarian, ron paul revolution. they just came in and took over our party structure, kicked out the establishment rino's.

took over this resurgence. it was before the tea party. we saw the same thing in the caucasus this year in colorado with bernie sanders people. just absolutely came in, blew the doors off democrat caucuses. beat hillary at the caucus and then took over at the precinct level, the county level, and we will see what happens at the state level. i think the actual core of the democratic machine in colorado is fundamentally different than what we saw a year ago. >> what i'm hearing is there is a lot of division amongst the parties and it is important that they unify. what does that path look like? >> speaking as a democrat, i

think we are having a better shot at getting some of the unification. i don't think folks are going to run left. my concern is will they go out to vote. particularly with younger voters. making sure we figure out some type of connection. i do want to take off on one point that kelly made. this will be controversial. i think a lot of what the republican party and you are facing today is the result of seeds that you sowed. with the tea party movement and afp, thinking this could be a way to reform the party, that took off more than i think some of the people initially made the investment thought. if i were you, i would be somewhat upset because a lot of the people who funded this effort are now hands off. trump is not our problem. we will not do anything about that. i would be ticked off because you are getting to pay to clean

it up. >> i got a column earlier this week asking if the republican party can survive a trump lost. the basic assumption of a political party is to come after the competition is over and after the nominee has been chosen, to unify behind and nominee. everybody remembers the rosie o'donnell moment. is there anyone who will not pledge to support the party's nominee? asking for a show of hands on a negative question. only trump's hand goes up. this made republicans nervous. so they went out -- i don't know who initiated this -- all the candidates including trump in

september of last year were induced to sign a pledge to support the nominee. fast-forward to march when it is down to trump, kasich, and cruz. all three of them say they no longer feel bound to the pledge. kasich said it was silly of us to sign in the first place. cruz said, i'm not in the habit of supporting people who say outrageous things about my family. trump says the rnc has been mean to me. in the end, donald trump gets the nomination and kasich and ted cruz have refused to endorse them as has jeb bush and mitt romney and other elder statesman of the party. it seems to me that if one of trump had been the nomination and then refused to endorse the nominee, he could've run as an independent, i think the party could've recover from that.

they would have said, this guy was never really a republican and approves it. the real republicans can get back together and rebuild. at this point, donald trump was the choice. the people who are real republicans, jeb bush, ted cruz, john kasich did not support the nominee. does this not set a precedent? so if ted cruz and john kasich have a bitter battle in 2020 assuming donald trump loses, why should either one of them feel compelled to support the nominee? let's say it is some young firebrand who challenges kasich and comes in a close second and sees ambitions for himself in 2024 and thinks it better suited purposes if the party remains divided. how can the party possibly

continue to function if they can -- can't unify behind the nominee? >> two points. number one, i want to respond to ted's controversial comment. the rise of things like afp and infrastructure, much of that has been a direct response to stuff that you made in the state of colorado and have franchised all over the country. very successfully, by the way.

i tend to think that a lot of this is a function of, i'm going to get nerdy, a function of campaign finance reform and a function of the fact that through campaign-finance reform money has moved from the candidates themselves to pieces of infrastructure like afp. voters can no longer be -- can no longer hold the candidate themselves responsible for speech. they can say i did not say that, afp said that. progress now said that. without that voter accountability, without somebody looking at a ballot and checking a box and saying that guy was a super jerk, that has removed a lot of the response ability and has made the rhetoric worse. i want to start there. also, you want to talk about holding your nose and voting for somebody. i think john mccain is a great guy. i'm grateful for his fabulous service to this country.

i think mccain-feingold was one of the biggest affronts to the first amendment. we don't talk about it a lot because it is nerdy but it is changing our political landscape. when i think about donald trump and that many people in leadership are choosing not to endorse him, i look back to colorado politics because colorado tends to be the microcosm of things that happen nationally. anybody can remember dan maes? anybody? no. really? he got the nomination of the republican party here in colorado. a lot of people decided once they got to know him that was not the path for them and so another guy comes, a former congressman, he joined the american constitution party and ran third party.

he created almost a crisis in the state by creating a different balance with what was considered a major party or not. i would like to remind everybody in this room that after dan maes, we got cory gardner. we have the ability to pull together. maybe not on trump. i think there is a path to trump. we should be continuing to have those conversations and be pushing back on those people. our polling says that 20% of republicans, and where the chairman is, his number said about 5% of republicans haven't yet decided how they're going to vote and probably won't until october. that is a base that if donald trump wants to win, must turn out for him.

there is a path for him. there is also -- if the incoming apocalypse does happen, there's also hope on the horizon. >> i want to challenge you. dan maes in 2010. you said people learned about him and decided he was not really their cup of tea. you cannot really say that that is what happened with trump. jeb bush and john kasich and ted cruz and some other minor ones, including the guy from south carolina they all signed the pledge after having gone through at least one, probably two debates with trump. everyone knew what they were pledging to. they signed the pledge on the theory that trump won't win. we had kasich in for an editorial, he said i don't take

donald trump seriously. they signed this pledge knowing that what they were pledging was to support donald trump if he became the nominee. you can't say they did not do it with the eyes open. >> it is not a perfect analogy. but i'm try to be forward -- trying to be forward thinking saying that we have in the state suffered pretty close to an implosion at the top of the ticket. there's a senate candidate with as close to an analogous situation. ken buck. he was running for senate at the time against michael bennet. it is a similar situation where there were a lot of unhappy people and yet, we managed to pull it together and put somebody on the ballot later that a lot of people got behind

and eventually we prevailed , despite the fact that colorado has been swinging more and more to the deep dark blue-purple side. >> i have to say one thing. i probably should not say this. a large part of the reason why dan maes lost is we played in the primary. he played heavily to go after scott because we did not want scott, a former congressman to , be the one to run against. >> right. that raises an interesting question. the left came in and played in a race where they tried to help handpick the gubernatorial candidates that they thought was the weakest.

then turned around and did it this last time as well running krato ads and we turned it around and highlighted it and turned it into a liability. the question is campaign-finance. campaign finance reform means it is much harder to track the money and harder to track who is responsible for what message. >> i'm all for hearing that -- there a large percentage of undecided voters. i have a question for james. you can chip in. for the voters that are uncomfortable with trump what is , the strongest argument you have heard for not voting for trump?

what is the best answer to it? >> the strongest argument for not voting for trump, the argument that the democrats made at the convention which is, he is a mentally unstable lunatic who will start a nuclear war. [laughter] >> that is pretty much it. >> i think the strongest argument against that is it is not that easy to start a nuclear war. [laughter] >> he has had incredible success in business over the years. he is never been known to engage in physical violence as an adult. this image that people are painting of him is probably a false one. >> the same question about clinton. >> sure. the arguments to not vote for her. >> what are the strongest arguments for and undecided voter, and what is your answer to it? >> i think it is worry for undecided voters in determining

whether they will vote for her or not is the trust issue. i would love to say that is not the issue, but it is. as much as the -- our side can go after character and trust, it is difficult because the e-mail situation is not going to end. there were so many of them. just statistically, there will be a couple issues a week paid -- so we might as well just hold on and it used to it. when you do a comparison of qualifications of trump and hillary, i think it will be a strong argument for undecided voters, and i think it comes back to very similar with what lbj did with barry goldwater and the mushroom cloud advertising. i don't think we should go that far. that is probably overstating the case. all you have to do is show a clip of donald trump talking and

that takes care of it. the other thing i want to make a note of, this is what i find very frightening about his candidacy and the strategy, the only way he can win is to drive up blue collar white voters. he has to do that in pennsylvania, ohio, michigan, wisconsin. and hopefully have some shot with florida which will not happen because of the hispanic vote. in order to do that, the things he has to say, when you listen -- for me as an about liberal, listening to his speech at the convention, i was fascinated and horrified how he took the police shooting incidents and turned that into law and order and then you accused the president as to doing the race baiting. i know you will all disagree.

[laughter] >> i'm just try to crank this up a little bit. -- trying to crank this up a little bit. >> to that point, the blue-collar vote is important. to what extent do you think the democrat party has embraced that divide by embracing environmental agenda. the pro-anti-trump division based on immigration and other issues. is there an issue that you see that it gels on? how could the democratic party handle that differently? >> there are two responses. you look at hillary's numbers for nonwhites and they are , extremely high. we are starting to see numbers higher than they were for the president. the second piece, i think you have to be careful to make this simple correlation or to say

that blue-collar voters are going to be more inclined to vote no for hillary because of as you phrased it the environmental agenda. when you poll afl members and some of the more trade oriented union voters, they don't necessarily make that connection. there will be pockets of that. particularly in pennsylvania. i don't think overall you can make that assumption. >> one point, i don't think that hillary clinton is doing a good job of alaying those fears of anyone. if you saw in this week's wall street journal, there was an article about the fact that hillary clinton, although they announced early on the clinton foundation that bill and chelsea would be leaving and they would

no longer take international and corporate donations, they have changed their stance on that. it looks like chelsea can stay. we can take international and corporate donations for the health initiative because we are clintons. that does not help when they are telegraphing that there will be these new rules following clinton and then walk that back when it becomes convenient. it becomes hard for people to feel like they are rule followers and grow the trust that is so desperately needed from her. it just doesn't seem like they really care that much. >> this is my frustration on the issue. we should be embracing -- i know you will not like this.

for those of us on the left, we need to embrace the great things the clinton foundation has done. [laughter] >> seriously. hiv-aids in africa, so what if they took a political approach to fundraising and brought it into the c3 space to do good? thank god. thank god someone took that approach into the space and have an roi on the money we are spending out of the foundation. if you take a look at money on foundations, that number keeps going up and up and up and when you look at the type of problems, ones that are a function of money, they continue to prevail. we do not think about having this money spent with a return on investment perspective. >> do you disagree that that creates a conflict of interest?

>> first of all, chelsea clinton can remain at the foundation. given the places where the corporate money comes in, i think there are good arguments to be made. does that look optically bad? of course. i have to be honest. one day they are not going to be on the board and the next day was above the full. of course it is going to look bad. think they do themselves a service by modeling it up as much as possible. week we areed last no longer going to take foreign

and corporate donations. been following this, you learn that the clinton foundation has been taking corporate donations. going to stop it when she becomes president. then mrs. clinton comes out. she says in an interview this week there is a lot of smoke here but there isn't any fire. look kind of thing is that to say? the expression is where there is smoke there is fire. what it really means is mrs. clinton is not very good at this. she has a certain lack of political skills. you is what happens when become the presidential nominee through nepotism, by being married to a former president.

one big disadvantage is she does not have a lot of political talent. trump weirdly enough does. >> that was a larger systemic or societal issue. i think if poll numbers were tighter, if hillary were less comfortable, it wouldn't have walked back on chelsea, and they wouldn't have walked back on foreign and corporate donations. we have michael bennet telling the denver post that he doesn't despite the fact the white house paid a $400 million ransom for hostages in iran. the white house said it was leverage, which i'm pretty sure is another word for ransom. aren't tight,es when people feel too comfortable, the people who lose

out are the american people. because when races are tight and they are competitive, that is when we get the best outcomes as citizens. i feel like this is my stalking horse, but back to campaign finance reform. we are in a position right now where these races are not as tight as the american people deserve. >> ok, so let's get back to the issue of the american people. going to the democratic national convention, i heard an extraordinary amount of frustration with lifelong democrats. all of my millennial friends are very frustrated with the republican party right now. everyone who does not like these candidates is upset with the voters.

what are the voters trying to tell us? >> one, what it says is that the way we do political parties will have to change. >> a third-party? >> i think it would be great. it would add some additional competition, but the challenges way the system is set up today, particularly and caucus states, is going to be very difficult to do. in terms of how people were talking about the dnc at the convention, it was true. you look back and see what debbie wasserman schultz did and the rhetoric and she used, i can't sit here and defend that. when you see that in your party's institution, if you are not upset about that, then you have a problem about being a democrat or the party you are in or you are just blind and don't have a soul.

seriously. >> on the third-party question, we have had a two party system in this country basically since 1828 when the democratic republican party split up. i don't think a three party system or a more than three party system has the possibility of being stable and our system because there is so much power in the presidency that if you had three parties, unless they were exquisitely well-balanced, one would emerge as the dominant party. there is a need for two parties in order to have any sort of competition. even if a third party emerges, the result would either be quickly received or one of the existing parties would within a few election cycles.

that is a broader political science point. on the question of whether we should have -- if you want to have contempt for the voters, you are entitled to. i'm entitled too. i tend not to. i like the voters. some of them are my readers. [laughter] >> i try not to have contempt for people with whom there is a significant overlap among the people i count on for my livelihood. i think for my fellow panelists here working in politics and politicians and people who are interested in persuading voters that they should not have contempt for voters. they should try to have an empathetic understanding, the better to persuade voters to do things their way. >> with that, what we are seeing in both of the parties is a deep dissatisfaction from a significant contingent.

what do these parties need to do to fix that? are we seeing a fundamental shift in what the parties platforms are? is the party being redefined? what changes do you think this election is telling us that is not a feature of other past elections? >> on the democratic side, i would say that a lot of what these folks are saying is you can be liberal, he can be proud to be a liberal, you can talk about it loudly and it still win elections. it will be in competition and in disagreement with 90% of what the folks in this room believed. the more vigorous debate we have, the better policies we get in the end, and power is going

to go back and forth. on the democratic side, the voters are getting frustrated with wishy-washyness. have a damn position. >> that would be consistent with my observations of republicans. i did not take trump seriously at first for about the first two months or so. i started taking him seriously earlier than most of my fellow conservatives because i had an occasion to talk with trump supporters. one was the night of the first debate. i was asked to provide commentary on the debate at the women's national republican club in new york, and i really the not have anything to say about it. instead, i started to act as a discussion facilitator or whatever the jargon term would be. i asked for a show of hands to see who supported which candidates. too much of my surprise, trump was the most popular candidate in the room.

i asked, why do you support trump? the lady in the back of the room said because i'm in favor of freedom of speech. what do you mean by that? he is not politically correct. then a few months later, a young woman i know, i was talking with her and she turned out to be a trump supporter and she said, none of these other guys really excite me. i think it is time for someone who fights. the same spirit. we're tired of being pushed around. i think the other thing that we have learned from the republican primaries is that conservative ideology as it has been traditionally defined is not as powerful as -- it does not have as wide appeal to voters as perhaps conservative thinkers and commentators and thought it did.

a lot of that helps explain the bitterness of the never-trump conservatives. >> i think the inverse is on the democratic side. >> but i would just add to that, we sort of should have figured that out. neither john mccain nor mitt romney was anything like a movement conservative. somehow the conservative opinion leaders were able to more or less for the most part to get behind them. i think the difference there was one of attitude. trump really didn't care about whether he was consistent with movement conservatism. he showed that contempt and that was perhaps part of why republicans who were movement conservatives found him appealing. if he will fight with ted cruz,

then he will fight with hillary clinton. >> i differ with ted. we can still be friends. i think that what we are seeing particularly with young people and in swing states like colorado and many others is that more and more people are kind of backing away from any type of label, whether it is republican or democrat. we are seeing all kinds of polling and focus grouping that everybody does not want to identify one way or the other. i agree with james' analysis that it ultimately has to be a two party a system unless we figure out how to divest a whole bunch of power back out of the executive branch. i think that is a constitutional crisis, but i digress.

the thing is that we have more and more people who just say i'm not a democrat, i'm not a republican. don't put a donkey or elephant on me. and so, i agree that, yes, we need people who will stand up and are not wishy-washy. however, we also need to figure out how to nominate people who take a strong stand, but can appeal to people who are in the middle. the ever-growing majority of people who now don't identify as republicans or democrats. donald trump has managed to tap into this river of frustration that i think has started with the crazy culture and all the safe spaces that have been identified and written about. people are just feeling more and more oppressed and controlled.

that is one of the things about donald trump, is that he may not speak for me on all the issues is what voters are saying, but i like the fact that he says things. whatever he means is not really scripted and he is out there in front of people. in a society where people are more and more scripted, more and more buttoned up, are afraid of making any kinds of declarative statements. like, i like chocolate ice cream. then all the vanilla people will not vote for you. you can't say anything anymore without turning somebody off. donald trump is like, i will turn everyone off and they will like me. it has worked. it has worked. so we are in this very bizarre place in our society. frankly, there is a lot of opportunity.

>> at both of the conventions, one of the things that that was interesting was the appeal to patriotism. democrats bringing out the parents of a fallen soldier, bringing out generals. then again on the other side, the resonance of trump's make america great again. this is an election where there has been a discussion about patriotism and nationalism and that being a potentially dangerous thing. do you think there is a difference between patriotism and nationalism? and if so, what is the difference? how concerned should we be or happy? >> i think there is a difference. one is pride in self, and the other is pride with the exclusion of others. i think we can all say that america is exceptional.

i think we can all say that. i think this is a unique and exciting and awesome place to be. i think that even though we are sad, we are on the precipice of so many technological advances. pull out your phones. those things are like magic. can you imagine 10 years ago, 15 years ago, having a smart phone where you can video call your family? there are so many things i'm excited about that america has brought us. and yet, i think that a lot of the discussions about nationalism and to the exclusion of others and saying america's exceptional does not mean that you dislike or are hating on anybody else.

i feel like that is what democrats are trying to telegraph on to american exceptionalism. >> i say there could not be a more stark difference between donald trump and hillary clinton. it is in part because there is a huge difference between patriotism and nationalism. nationalism, you can be a patriotic nationalist of course, but the sense of patriotism that our culture is embedded and how we think about it is very different in my mind than a lot of the nationalistic rhetoric that you start hearing from trump. i think it is very dangerous. this kind of isolationist, let's withdraw from the world, yet when we want something, talk about the world.

to even say that he is anything like ronald reagan is such an offense to reagan's legacy. i have a lot of things to say about what came out of reagan that i thought was bad, but there are a lot of good things that came out of him. probably one of the most important was restoring this kind of sense of pride and patriotism in the united states and a sense of pride and patriotism for the united states around the world. i am fearful that this nationalistic rhetoric, he will say he is patriotic, this nationalistic rhetoric is going to undermine that legacy that reagan left us. >> i'm not sure about the difference between nationalism and patriotism. i was reading an article somewhere a month or so ago which was trying to draw the distinction. the distinction this article was drawing was a patriot is someone who believes in the goodness of his country. a nationalist is someone who

wants to, who not only thinks his country is good, but wants to to impose his ways on others outside of his country. you justify nationalism as meaning in part isolationism, the opposite of what this piece was arguing. i think that nationalism and patriotism are roughly the same thing, but one of them has a positive balance and one has a negative balance. i'm not sure how useful it is to get into the question of definitions. this does lead me to think of an observation that occurred to me during a senator speech earlier. -- he said, you completely miss the point. he are busy believe in american exceptionalism.

i think there is a more charitable reading of obama's answer. if you ask what countries in world history or western civilization have made a contribution comparable to america's to political philosophy, the list would probably be limited to britain and greece. so it is possible that he chose those countries advisedly. finally, one more related point. one thing that was impressive about the democrats, on monday,, the first at the convention, people pointed out on twitter that there are no american flags. they don't even have an american flag on stage. by thursday, they had adjusted. when mrs. clinton came out, i

took a picture of this, the whole floor of the convention was a sea of american flags. there were some other adjustments. >> i still have mine. >> i only got the michelle sign because my sister's name is michelle. i'm trying to figure out a way to ship it to california. another example is they had the mothers whose children had been killed by police on monday. i think david axelrod tweeted, it might be nice if they had some widows of fallen policeman. and on thursday, they had some widows of fallen policeman. they showed a good deal flexibility in scheduling and learned quickly from their mistakes. this is where they had a big advantage this year in terms of the professionalism of their political machine. it is better than the republicans is in a typical year, nevermind this year. >> all right. with that, i would like to open it up to questions with two caveats. don't ask who they are voting for. when i was in college and we

went to speeches like this, we would like something called speaker bingo. one of the central ones we would cross off is when people ask a question that is not a question but a lengthy speech. don't give me a chance to x that off. >> i don't think this is -- there we go. one of the things i have been saying for years that is wrong with our politics was something that just happened here the last hour, we talk so much about the individuals and we don't talk very much about the policy. i personally hate politics. but i'm really into the political structure because i care about what happens with policy. i think most people in this room are that way. and i believe the reason that so many of us be voting for trump is because we are scared to death of hillary. we know that she's going to

follow the policies that barack obama put in place, and he has been a disaster, an absolute disaster, and almost every way. [applause] this is no small thing for me. i don't really have a question other than -- [laughter] if anyone wants to comment that we should be talking about policy rather than individuals. >> you should have come to the earlier panel. >> i do want to address that. this is a panel about politics and this election. that is why i felt boring bring it up over again, i think one of the policies that is creating the political environment we are in is campaign finance reform. sorry, i did it again. that is a specific policy point that has changed how we do

politics in this country over the last decade, 15-20 years. the better we get at circumventing -- i am a proponent and many of my counterparts are of 100% disclosure within 24 hours but limitless contributions. money and politics, people on the left will say, money is the thing that makes politics so bad, but every attempt to pull money out of politics is like water in a river. will you throw a rock into it and it would just divert and go around. money will never be pulled out of politics. the only solution i believe is for people to be able to hold candidates accountable for their speech. >> two things. one, i want to address that and go back to your statement, which i think is about a question. it is part of what i opened up with. i think it is really unfortunate that how we do electoral politics is not how we do policy

politics. we have got to get back in the day where it is different. we know how to reach across the aisle and find common ground. that 5%, 10%. i think that a couple things keeping us from doing that is the political system rewards running to your base. two extremes, but to your base because you want to stay elected and you feel like that is what you need to do. we have to figure out a way to fix that. i'm not for sure what it is, but it is really corrosive. related to that, i also think we have a problem with, this is a little bit of a criticism of my own profession, there are so many people like me that are in the middle and i still believe that if we had more conversations, principal the principal, we have people on the left that are very ideological, that believe in the betterness of america and want to do

will of america and want to do something, and i think the more we have those principles talking with is a post like yourself and you take more of us out, we will should be facilitating those conversations, not making money off the fact that there is conflict with those conversations. [applause] >> the other point, on money and politics. this is where kelly and i agree, but i want to make one point. as long as spending money is free speech and no matter whether corporations are people and we have a free market system that i hope we keep. >> weight, can you say that will more time? [laughter] >> a free market that is controlled by regulations and laws by people we elect to adopt or influence, money will find its way in. to say you are going to take money out of politics is like saying santa claus is real and will deliver toys in july.

it just isn't the case. what this says to me is that on the right, the republican side, the chamber of commerce and those others have got to be willing to say how much money they actually spent. if we are going to have disclosure, disclosure means everybody. >> and unions. it is not like chamber of commerce are the only donors to this problem. you had union interests. him then you have the infrastructure. you can't simultaneously knock afp and not have self-awareness. talk about progress now. this is a large, very difficult thing for all of us to get our hands on. that is why advocate for limitless donations and 100% disclosure. [applause]

>> there is no other way to hold people accountable for their own speech. >> yep. >> oh, come on. go ahead. >> steamboat board member. a two-part question. i read with interest charlie cooks column this week. a lot of us have been wondering who is going to show up and vote this year. is it going to be a depressed turn out? is it going to be a normal turnout? charlie makes the case that it will be normal, but for a different reason. his reason is that instead of the typical passion for your candidate of choice, it is that i hate the other one so much. that is going to drive people to the polls, at least charlie think so. the first part of my question, would you think, what kind of turnout will we get?

the second part follows from charlie's reasoning. at both conventions, the palpable anger at those conventions historically, and this is what troubles me the most, historically you go to a a national party convention and there's a sense of euphoria and we are all happy. we are behind our candidate. we know why we are here. let's go get them. this year, the tension, anxiety, the all out anger on both sides. charlie talks about that. we hate the other guy so much and don't like ours, that's why we will show up and vote. we are not appealing to our better angels. we are not appealing to our -- our better angels and when do we get beyond that as a nation? 2016 is going to be in the books here pretty quick. the question i have is what we

have afterwards regardless of who wins this election? where do we go next and how do we get back to the kind of america and i think both democrats and republicans who love this great nation have clung to for so long and yes, we have had our ideology differences, but the anger that both candidates are trying to tap into right now, that since of frustration that they are both sometimes fomenting, when do we get beyond that and back to the better angels of our nature? a piece that came up this morning that talked about what would happen or what do we see happening -- and i'm --t doing this an example hillary wins and there's a

belief by some that there are so number of, a republicans crossing the aisle to publicly support hillary. to talkcle goes on about what that means just after the election because a lot of these folks are just going to go back into their camps and are we ifn going to see because hillary wins, she will be the first in a credit president elected in 30 years where in her first term, she does not have a democratic congress of the same party. keep control of the senate which isaac think is less likely today than it was a month ago and evan by could end up being the swing seat. if you have republicans in both

chambers, what happens? i'm anwe cross that i'll in electived politics, it's about winning. i care about this country a lot and when it comes to the policymaking and i have a record of trying to find unlikely people and bringing them together to do good, i pray that there are leaders to step up and needs to happen at the state level and the federal level. that encouragement is going to have to come from people like you and from all on the left. this goes back to my point where i wish there were more principled conversations, people that are not part of the machine that makes money off the process. sea and it ise stunning, the amount of lobbying

made no matter who you represent ad that in and of itself comes self terms of how the town operates and they don't get a reward of some really big happens. way to to figure out a get at that and i wish i had an answer. thinkresponse to that, i colorado made a fair amount of national news during our convention. keyr the next 75 days, the to holding together is going to have to be a lot of self-analysis -- what do we stand for as republicans? markets or family or all of these fundamental questions i think our kind of up in the air.

number one biggest issue we are going to have a hard life of how this plays out is forgiveness. resentmentng to be if he wins and i think there's going to be resentment if he loses. this constant fear of republicans is going to create the type of situation where we cannot of ale -- cannot prevail again until we can say i disagreed on that person. and our ability to put forth good thought -- good policies that actually help people is a function of addition and not subtraction. it's going to be really hard no matter what happens. on november 9, somebody is going to be really mad and it's going

to be the role of whomever to reach out, forgive, and start those really critical discussions because i do not want to go the way of the whigs. i think freedom and the markets are exciting and awesome and i think we can prevail and i think we can start selling free free -- freedom over free stuff to young people. across, put our hands out and forgive. >> it seems to be that can negative is him in politics is nothing particularly new. to adams versus jefferson or more recently,

republicans said terrible things about barack obama and democrats and terrible thingabout george bush and i remember inmid-80's,n arju tsh hey went toi-ag ftil mu ty hed t psintf e te wh ineishe oth ca f bh nd thr s. hawif o ctghhen tmpin mt pty a w nsoee ee

ns tt ibl ereogo hpe wi bor n a wgog t i orortn. t p lo tmp re omrin r e ollot t gohindhe n

e aly atrexcedtiethebeg th ite , wer rach tonen harsfo

aheaic o'heepli wdostpsre tstt anlae] fo t tthinechulg foatn r sp riond sp teviolupoas tisoruroparubc pgrs. ay utoat -c-a's diapmes u wa he sp oth g

uny lk swshi moin w hrdroth ruinmas t t-pty ndat awe agrn rtcaide llte. fit,imai oth fi ssl's cent roronhe lly inn ma instatn. heyore t merls d adhertlebo t maris,hegont siifandeil authy e eonud treaso edor a aitna preeng corahawi dal um-- sul' s banerg esonabt this? dage thou i' s wh r ilshha sweds an autha shdianwhan sd lk, ungneeve, me miak i' lrn setngnd wod't iagn. i ntllheac tt ll meut

i llaltooneson coitesndhebielse the tealtohe pli t oeran wha a ndatinond umwh wi n reaisaxetns t pliafr pmid dsondta aut tialecit -he h oplyncra rsi t engen e be hki a weno ts beatck ohe c s ke de rsi a esen wmpch a hatoesn oanttk th d i19. cora t hla suaon erthi idhe'no edoreg pcein wh ttk inenuredy naru oth d b ruia sil ta ld t rest -to t rigti of arede. h dyogeth tpa fothal i deta temtae.

flsika akow >>e ven oruscomi retishitmecond iseendyohohtond umtrel texo tynd etith thpridt d ar cstcte alue fit iueth aee o bui'coidtheond umbemenetiorn ie 'reoi tsido -hurllin mic hreouoi tge tm p fhiwa oerha wereoi twiho mey >>henid at o ami's stowfuecom onheacofhear. acsss nmaslp heert rermg nta athe the mtis ve tald aut -- t o tngond um kns h tdo dl.

wt wngithiar clto hai idbo hla inns s cnobehe oduyn e it hse - thghhi h wleond umisheaduyn t blk t. na tmpaydeicle in b hla clint h a co odog ny trie in. doldru tksbo dertgusms founel hla cnt habe bbiusms. miiopeleild iq d 'venlcrtea ear taroe er reblan a t ptyf tendeaonri, t e moatartharf poatnndettind ghras f iigntwh ha bn rc tfl io th cnt aefeefr ftwhh lly inn d llavthhus- tan siedn lltrt

relaonhi l tth dipprae 9ilon js. e in tt e rrlen r ony bk tth poci othclto amuch asheeplins >>e e he lvet er ouavhaze mea porenyreecse ouvinerorha mh. a ippciednd lk rwd gti y tth dete sthamic ppl cahe t fl or t lorayc-an ntueouoatohehi uscora. moayftno a2:, a li icleld thilry inn a sat t knes eyayuthe pnsorhe da--orheatn'ecom th genar cditeji stn a ve esenal ndatspk omheir wahoe tat ideoi anlirtiapay cdite ga jns, spsn s in, wa

mdan "e cmucars - >>n isor omu me agnt mia aenonan thwod dl seengin dfenttie atrmwe pplcoum mea d meifng caaisee da a anyts tfireuthi vorso nd rch a atesge a gngo pe tth a h d wge ou msa tpelend ale wt t skearan hodoe g tm test i oucaides cmucarsas

oton-sn o. >>rede omand ser otr rlleerarinhi th wke f t g0 suit th ihe0 d- e th nu mti a t lt me esenbattds meinberehendf s rm ta jn rris etg thisusan unrpt tkboyr ana teiacee-re aouemtxpteth weenwadeyeafr ss to iue wh ser pnt ofheroseagemt. th isothg wcod ar rebo torw enhe esent hos clin ns nfen athg- smiin cha. wl veheulrerkt a. o cpa mec's cat i bltevionomni a brghto ys puic rve yr blor teitwrer

ece ziin ps s ,ionc--unionc leslioan t psie pehmt t i coison. wl t u de fm catohi rorr. wl arwi aooba atowones i dltit fuintoomt e ka ru thcore vedor son ti toczi fdi. orne a jn am oheene oothr ewonhess. nar idle te e ka tuio noneistethfa tt

esmouiesreavin anheanth. sqto heeeifcu, ngouanerblsie coedisry auea a ine a hd cpren b f thfit timn sty t wod,eav aosits reina vushacaes meto he gh dord bi. idn barsa sithsetofr wainonndheenor fm miou g tetr d me wh aikunngeare thghwaandeatdoar wi. we aeewi t ctefo dias ctr tt sul

be $9 lln. aiweilgolo wh isecset ameen whhei's fod, reno tt wt mhte, ts anmeen a sulbe ead sh. $1 bli, ose. pseth a ery moatn rtllevy puic vedort. it wt t hsef prentis. iwhe e gifrzo po iar st tt hoe rrentiv a he iwh ty ntacto us- eriso spin th. dethbi wgoacnd e puicsn e na o