Transcripts For CSPAN Public Affairs 20121016

almost three-fourths of tea partiers in this is fine. what polling data shows that they are in support of the cutting the budget. everybody knows that the future budget deficit will be the source of the entitlement programs troubles, unless we change that. why would they oppose reducing government spending for social security and medicare? we asked whether they would be willing to have their current social security benefits reduced, or ensure its oppose rs in52% say no. one thing that struck me in my interviews and other research is that tea partiers would talk about social security and medicare as if it was a savings account. if they sacrifice money today, they could have put it in a savings account. a government savings account, if you will, for when they have retired. when we said, would you be willing place for retirees. to accept reductions in your benefits by -- if you were guaranteed to receive the amount of money at least that you have put into the system. you see the response to hear how slipped. 65 -- has flipped. 65 percent sign says yes. -- 65% say yes. if it were willing -- they would be willing if they were guaranteed to get their money back. when you see them and promised to get the money that at least they put in, 67% were open to a cut as long as they got their money back. and we ask this in august, 2011 paul purdum decided to revisit this last month at our september poll. we went straight for it. we asked, would you be willing to accept cuts in future benefits if you were guaranteed to receive benefits at least equal to the amount of money you and your employer paid into the system? three-quarters of tea partiers say yes. what we were finding early in the polling data was aspects tea partiers more reluctant to cut medicare spending. what they were thinking was a world of reluctant to have their own savings taken away. -- they were reluctant to have their own savings taken away. more than a seen those as redistributed payment. although the key points are disjointed somewhat, they are very important point. and the polling data can help to clarify where the tea party stands and how it is different from those who do not identify with the tea party. namely, they are very concerned with support economic mobility, and they continue to be self. it indicates there is strong fiscal conservatism, and they are also open to entitlement reform, although we may have previously thought they were not so thank you very much, and i will turn it over for questions. [applause] >> indeed, we will. the question and answers section begins now. let me go over some ground rules. raise your hand and i will call on you. wait for the microphone and speak into it clearly. we need a microphone so that everyone throughout the room can you as well as for those watching on c-span and on line. for viewers at home, you can submit questions via twitter using the ashfaq -- using the # tproots. >> my question is, probably to all four, but it was triggered by mr. kirby's response, his remark that he appeared to be the defining libertarians as fiscally conservative and socially liberal. i find this kind of undermines what libertarians are. to me, libertarians are essentially saying we do not want government coercion. you can have whatever kind of personal beliefs you want. you could be someone who likes to live on a commune, but he will not force other people to live on a commune. that makes you a libertarian. my point is, we're putting everybody on the same continuum by describing them this way. in other words, libertarians are on the same continuum as conservatives and liberals, which is probably a reason why they are not identified as a distinctive, group by a lot of people. and what do you think about this criticism? >> i definitely agree with you that libertarians are worried about coercion. but i think the socially liberal part might be hanging you up. the questions that we use to define libertarians as socially liberal are questions like, do you believe the government should promote traditional volumes or no particular set of values, and to libertarians, by and large pick no part to give their set of values. i think that is consistent with where you are describing. the socially liberal might be misconstrued when talking about social programs, but i actually i'm talking about more tolerant than they do not want government messing around in their social space. i hope that clarifies. >> the gentleman next to him. >> we don't want to start any argument here. >> when you say fiscally responsible, i am a little bit bothered because i think there is a difference between the kind of fiscal responsibility that happens when you keep both spending and taxes low and the kind of fiscal responsibility that occurs where you do spend a lot of money, but you raise taxes. some of these european countries, and maybe i am wrong about this, but i and -- in italy, for instance, they do have very high taxes. they hope that will offset the effects of a a very high spending. to the extent that i am a libertarian i am very bothered by the idea that it is responsible to raise spending and steal money from people in order to pay for it. >> that is a question for whoever wants to answer it. >> milton friedman famously describes that the measure of taxation is the level of spending. spending today will have to be paid for with future taxes tomorrow. a lot of would probably -- a lot of tea partiers would probably agree with your estimation. >>, and we also see in the data and -- in the data that tea partiers are also sensitive to the issue of government spending because they see it as future taxation. other people do not see that. tea partiers do seem to see this and they are primarily found in part of the income distribution. our research shows they are very sensitive to tax increases because they feel it differently. it is harder for them to pay extra taxes and it is for mr. buffett. but they are getting less than they are paying in in terms of redistribution. and that is exactly where tea partiers fall, generally speaking. that is one of the reasons they are generally averse to government spending. >> the former chairman of the cato institute, a marvelous man named bill must gannon, he died recently. he did research. i think the evidence conclusively shows that people who want to cut taxes all the time are big government's best friend. they are discounting government services and when you put something on sale, everybody loves it. the best way to balance that is to make everybody pay for it. when you raise taxes, new restrain spending. and the record shows that works the best in the u.s. i could not find polling data on this, but when i went out and talked to tea partiers, i would ask them point-blank cannot what if you could get very large reductions in spending -- i asked them point-blank, what if you could get very large reductions in spending and smaller government as a result? they all said no. they were more allergic to raising taxes than they were to having the government grow. i thought that was surprising. you saw that same demand -- a dynamic in the republican primary debate. >> i have not seen the polling data, but my interviews have also come out. typically, data would show that he would favor some sort of compromise there if it were guaranteed that the spending decreases would actually go into effect. and typically, the reluctance to any kind of taxes at all is because experience had suggested them. tax increases, if they do go into effect, a strange accounting tricks happen and they do not seem to materialize. if you were able to pose the question where it was credible, that you credibly cut spending actually, whether or not tea partiers would then favor tax increases, i think it was somewhat mixed. >> in the front row right here. to wait for the microphone, please. >> will martin dale. aarp. a lot of my friends -- i will not speak to my own beliefs, but a lot of my friends jump on the ron paul revolution bandwagon. they jump on largely because of the civil liberties and anti-war rhetoric as opposed to some of the more tax related issues. at our age, we are not really getting taxed either way. i am wondering if that has a large input in your definition of what a libertarian is. and what that goes into as far as whether those issues, the things in the patriot act, the indefinite detention things, are these issues word about by libertarians or tea partiers? >> to answer your question, we have issued questions about the page redact -- the patriot act. the moral background questions are probably more influential in the way people think then knowledge of the issues. if you use a background belief questions, you will find libertarian's do care more about civil liberties than conservatives. there is one question about closing guantanamo bay. it was surprising how many libertarian tea partiers were willing to accept that and versus conservatives, who wanted to keep it open. it was sort of surprising. >> the gentleman right here, the one inside. sigyn from the left. and it will get to the other person. >> jim harpole with the cato institute. i would be happy to hear anyones observations. and what i debate with my friend on the left about regulation cannot -- about regulation, they often use a mental model that if this time we elect the right people and other regulators do it right, we can come up with something good. we have been doing for 40 years now and it has not happened. but what i am recognizing is that there is an aspiration of model that they are using. i wonder if you had come across this in some of your questions, as far as the escaping poverty and being what you want to be. do they think that people can literally escape poverty, and statistically, someone is likely to move up in the u.s., or do they mean aspirational? what is the kind of thinking that you are seeing? you asked this question because it gives me an opportunity to clarify -- i am glad you asked this question because it gives me an opportunity to clarify. who doesn't like the word opportunity? what politician does not want to advocate for opportunity? how that is operational is that is different for different people. -- operationalized is different for different people. if we think of starting on the same platform, meaning, some what equalized access to education, and we start at roughly the same place so that we have an equal opportunity to succeed. this is not about equal results, but just starting equally. tea partiers are not talking about that. they are talking about, if he were to imagine a ladder, they are thinking of the ladder of exports -- upward economic mobility. it is not about where you start, but what is possible for that person. they want a ladder of opportunity to be equal for all people. that means quality before the law. people are treated equally. and typically, equalizing the platform for where you believe -- begin and equalizing the utter for everybody, they do not intend to go well together. that is where you get conflicts. tea partiers would care a lot about how the latter works for people. -- how that latter work for people. most of them would not think that they would all necessarily become extraordinarily wealthy. but they would think you could get to a point where you are not struggling, perhaps. and almost the opportunity to try is what matters most. i think there is some basic expectation that although you may not be as wealthy as bill gates, there is some expectation of a level of being comfortable. >> i would just add that we tend to look at history and what is going on in our country in terms of a moral narrative. we tell stories from the past that explain how we got to the present. and there are good guys and bad guys and it is almost like a child's cartoon appeared on the left, it is the bad guys of big business that are raping and pillaging the environment and at least in the port. if we can get the cops in on them, they will control them. the witty the right regulators and they will get those bad guys. -- we need the right regulators and they will get those bad guys. my sense from emily with the tea partiers is that there is as much a sense of good and evil as there is with every group. i think we should talk about the role of the court and -- the role of the poor in being the bad guy. we saw this in the romney 47% comments. the american dream is dying because people have demanded entitlement programs that have sapped the will to work. basically, pushing away the latter. but we do not want that latter -- pushing away the ladder. we do not want the ladder. >> i think that goes to the concept that you brought forth, which is proportionality. essentially, that actions and consequences should be correlated so that if you make good decisions and work hard, you are rewarded. if you make bad decisions and you do not work as hard, you are not rewarded. that for the two-party -- for the tea party is the bad guy. with the financial crisis, the bailout for banks, a bailout for hard, you are mortgage companies, allf these things infringed on this underlying moral foundation of proportionality, which is central to their idea of the american dream. they think that proportionality is absolutely essential for people to have the freedom to try. with a tarp especially in the financial crisis, that was the enemy. >> that gentleman next. and then jim harper. >> i am with the madison coalition. i saw it in your polling this enormous frustration with politicians in general in the tea party. i wonder if anyone on the panel has seen any indication that tea party people or republican leaders are interested in the idea of empowering states and making politicians in washington accountable to states, arguably as the authors of the constitution intended, as the solution of some of these problems of growing government power and seemingly uncontrollable government arwin. >> out -- government are we in. >> i hear that all the time that was a major theme among tea partiers that i talked to, but also a source of tension within the movement because the more traditional conservatives do not want to go there. they are worried that the states will make the wrong choices and do what massachusetts did with healthcare. they want more of a top-down, more or less libertarian form of government. you guys may have more granularity on that. >> one side issue that was popular in a tea party that speaks to this was the direct election of senators. >> yes, the 17th amendment. >> one of the surprising pieces of history where the states have more control over who their senators were then in the past. this has been seen as the solution for many. >> during 2010 and afterwards, very often this summer i've heard someone say to me that the essence of the tea party is the constitution and the backing of the constitution. do any of you have any comments on this? are they really supporting an original list -- originalist idea of the constitution? >> the single most important idea of the constitution is the document. these guys are hostile to compromise. in that sense, they are somewhat hostile to the idea of the constitution. they do believe in returning government to the people, by which they mean bringing it closer to us. they see these coopting avian forces and interest groups, and in that sense, it is not that different than other populist narrative's. in that sense, i see them closer to the spirit of the jefferson declaration. >> i would add to that the idea of moral psychology. at morality lines and lines. the idea that you have an idea that you can circle around. you have a fight song, some sacred object. in the golden days, things used to be better. my sense of the constitution and the declaration of independence and the founding fathers are playing this role with the tea party. here is where the libertarians and conservatives might be very helpful conservatives' moral narrative's tend to be stories of declined, that there was a golden age want. liberals stories are that everything was always terrible and oppressive and we are fighting to break free of forces of patriarchy. worshiping the constitution is something that both libertarians and conservatives can do for different reasons. looking back to the centuries when times were nobler and more pure, there is no obligation to actually read it. if you are sacralize in a something, you do not need to do scholarship on it. you can worship the idealization of it. and the people on the left have the idealization of martin luther king, or anybody. do you think the constitution plays a different role for the libertarian tea partiers and the conservative tea partiers? >> i completely agree with your assessment. in the interviews, i heard two different reasons for why the constitution was so important. as you can imagine, most of them brought it up on their own, the constitution. and i heard two different reasons one was the conservative narrative. it was almost a cultural thing. it is part of us. and that makes it good. but then i heard another narrative, which was more kind of -- they would explain to me thatreasons that's and bolts, me mechanical. the constitution limits what the centralized powers can do, which gives individuals more autonomy. it was more nuts and bolts. any other explanation would be that it would -- it is good because it is the constitution. i clearly related better to be more nuts and bolts the side of it. but what i saw those two stories emerging, i did see that they did corallites -- correlate quite well with the libertarian half and the conservative half of the tea party. >> the gentleman in the middle here. >> and dale johnson, a freelance writer. a question to longevity. i do not see this group of people going away. what i see is if the republicans win and demint and rand paul are successful in moving the conservatives in the libertarian direction, i could see a lot of the tea partiers peeling off and going home to the republican party, but if mitt romney moves in more of a massachusetts direction where he is compromising and doing a a bit more conservatism fit to govern, i see it taking off. especially if the democrats win and continue the trillion dollar deficit. the tea party is just going to grow. i'm not sure in any circumstance i see a five-year life span on it. >> i distinguish between the durability of the sentiments and the individuals and the durability of the movement as an independent new -- independent movement. and as you say, depends to some extent on what republicans do. if mitt romney is elected and he governs as the mitt romney of the primaries, this group will be very hard to please. their standards are very high and if he compromises, they will get him. if he becomes the mitt romney of the debate, we are talking george w. bush or worse. if the first thing he does is make a compromise with the democrats, watch out. when i talked to him about this, at least the people in relative leadership roles -- david kirvish talked about this, too. they are well aware that the republican party wants to coopt them. their argument is that they got, what did before. their argument is that it will stay outside and we will keep a close eye on them so we are always prepared to back them. that is hard to do. -- always prepared to hit them. that is hard to do. >> many tea partiers look at the senate as a sort of insurance policy. there are a lot of battles where rand paul type candidates are running. if they can win a tea party caucus and work as strategy, and only put bills on mitt romney's desk that would force his hand, he would veto them, but he probably would not drive it as far as those folks. the budget might look more like what rand paul proposes rather than what brahney proposes. -- down what mitt romney proposes. >> and to the extent that any kind of social movement can create an institution that is durable will indicate what is left. with the occupy wall street, we did not see this local level where they tried to take over local level offices. i did not see the same kind of activity. the tea party went very local levels proved a lot of times, you did not see it. the fact that ted crews out of texas won the nomination for the republican party is because of the group that localized at the level -- the local level kind of under the radar. polls showed that his opponent, david duke verse, was leading in the polls. but then came the election day, and ted cruz sweat, because of those institutions that had been created that were terrible. however, if they have not, and i do not know where they have and where they have not, but where they have not, i would suspect a waning of a tea party activity. but even if people are not organizing, that does not mean the sentiment is not there. it is question of the tea party movement is almost like the occupy wall street movement. it is a way to identify a unique set of views that you do not get if you just say you are republican or a democrat or a liberal, tory libertarian or whatever. >> that has already answered one of the questions that we received from one of our viewers over twitter. that is, the differences and similarities between the two party activists and the occupied movement. anyone else that has a comment about the differences or similarities and? >> i will start. are republican oremily and i visitey together about a year ago. and in terms of the moral foundations that i presented, they are very skeptical of crony capitalism. they could make common cause on a number of substantive issues, but their styles could not be more different the best way to say it is, the three moral foundations that bind the groups together -- group loyalty, respect for authority, and a sense of purity. those are the three that the social security -- social conservatives have that both the libertarians and others do not. these are really useful foundations. it is one for all and all for one. hang in there and fight them off. the tea party have that. at least the social security -- social conservatives have that. what we saw with occupies that they are so anti- hierarchical. and they are given to boundaries and exclusions. if you are not going to discriminate and keep some people out and keep some people in, they are very opposed to the word hierarchical and those structures, they do not work very well. we have seen a lot of discussions evolved into arguments about procedure and people speaking out of turn. it is very hard if you do not have some sort of sense of authority and discipline. the organizations are structured extremely different. the occupied folks just have a lot more trouble creating durable structures that could move out of reflection and discussion and out into the world. >> they are very different in terms of the a fundamental narrative. you have the force in america that is perverting and corrupted the country. they disagree about what that is. tea partiers says it is government, and occupy wall street says it is unbridled capitalism. but there is a similarity in the populist narrative, a very important -- populist narrative. a very important difference, of which the politicians are aware, the tea partiers have narrowed their focus. they knew what they want and they know what they do not want. occupied still does not know what they want. and in politics, if you do not get together, you do not get what you want. >> a person would like to know via twitter whether the tea party was more libertarian when it started, and if that is so, why has changed. >> let me show you a slide that -- emily and i took 12 polls between 2011 and 2012 and tried to see which percentage of tea partiers were libertarian. though starting in 2010 have the highest percentage of libertarian. it was sort of. -- 50-50. and then it started to decline. they got a little frustrated when other people got involved. you described a penchant for not being very cooperative with others. they did not like their parents very much. it certainly will not like other people getting involved in their thing. [laughter] interestingly, they seem to come back in 2012. maybe this is in part because the ron paul campaign ... going in force. -- and got going in force. the interesting question about longevity is, where the -- where do these ron paul people go now that he has retired? they might have left the tea party. now they are back in. does that give energy to the tea party and combine to make a brand that is bigger and broader than just the tea party that is more activist and it is just as big matchup? it is an open question. a lot of scholars will look at the tea party and say it is conservative. but one indication that this trend is at a low point is that if you take 2011 as the time you will study the tea party, you might actually be studying it at a low point of libertarian party is a patient. you might be fooled into thinking it is a very conservative leaning group. because the data shows that if you look at the whole trend from the beginning through 2012, you see the end and flow of libertarian participation. >> on that note, you -- i would like to thank our panelists for coming. and i would like to invite everyone out into the lobby for the reception. if you're looking for a restaurant, and you are on the second floor, look for a yellow stripe. thank you for coming today. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> you can see all of this event at our video library c-span.org. also today, the national journal hosted a policy summit looking at the expense -- the expired bush era tax cuts and the sequestration a tax cut, the combination often referred to as the fiscal cliff. in the discussion there were talking about raising taxes. here is a look. >> i think one of them for sure is that we can move forward on the things we agree on. we agree on middle-class tax cut. the bush tax cut for middle- class americans, let's get that done. let's get done the things we know we can do. we also agree on the fact that we cannot cut medicare reimbursements for physicians by 30% and that we should repeal the sgr, and that we should replace it. i have had discussions with republicans and democrats and we are close to an understanding that we ought to get to>> you cr to contain costs. let's deal with the sgr and the middle class tax cut. those are two places that we could go. if we all do agree that we should expand -- examined tax expenditures that are not necessary for growth or innovative industries of the future, let's get rid of them. it will lower the tax rate on the corporate side. on the individual side is harder, but not impossible to deal with. that would give it a place to start and creative path for moving forward. if we have a chance for a big bargain, i would love to see it. >> hopefully the election will show that we have some shared vision on this and that we will move together -- forward together. i want to talk about the areas of common ground that you see. >> the areas are twofold. one is, there is a false premise out there that we do not need more residents somehow. i think mitt romney debunked that in the last debate, saying, you say there is no need for more revenue. and he said, no, i think it needs to come through growth. i think we can have a very robust discussion about how to create an agenda. i think there is a commonality there. where there is a great deal of common ground is the high level of dissatisfaction with the tax level. there is no one that want the status quo in the current tax code. you have that attitude and you look upset the -- at what ways and means has done in the last 18 months, the chairman of the committee has had a wide ranging hearing -- has had hearings and wide ranging discussion. if he were to hear them now, it would be the theme that alison just mentioned a couple of minutes ago, and that is, and competitiveness. how do you create within the united states the most competitive environment in the world. i think that alludes to this idea that companies, world wide american companies, are in a position to pursue 95% of the world consumers who are outside the united states. there is a recognition that the u.s. tax code should be moving to put them on a platform to do that, to compete effectively. an area of common ground is in recognition of that. number one, you need more revenue. if the democrats are open to how that revenue comes about, great. my view has always been, look, if you can get the money that satisfies these obligations, that is the area of common ground. let's move forward on that. and it is not just party dogma. this level of dissatisfaction, this notion that we have literally an army of people in the united states that have to be hired in order to comply with our own tax code, we have 1.2 million people who are on the compliance aside. we have 1.4 people roughly that who are unemployed -- who are unemployed currently. the need for simplicity is the common ground on which we must begin to negotiate. >> it is coming up on an hour and 15 minutes away before our preview coverage of the debate gets under way. and we are outside mac auditorium in hempstead, new york. we are setting afford to buy coverage. the -- before tonight's coverage. -- we are setting uppe for tonight's coverage. >> the candidates have done all the rehearsals. in 98 -- 9:00 p.m. tonight, the debate gets under way. we will start at 7:00 a.m. eastern with a preview. the hour and half debate begins at 9:00 p.m. , it covers foreign and domestic policy. we will take your phone calls and tweet and e-mails beginning at 10:30 p.m. eastern. debates and changes p.m. in styles and media coverage over the years. >> good evening. as you can see, technology really pushes the buttons. welcome to the bird center for legislative studies. we are glad to be on c-span to buy. as a result, we get to the question and answers section of our session, please come to the microphone here to my left, your right. so that everyone in the auditorium as well as the recording can hear your questions. the byrd center for legislative studies has the goal of fostering a support for the constitution and represent of democracy. we welcome the c-span here to record proceedings. and we welcome john splane as our experts on debates. he is a consultant with speak -- was a consultant with c-span from 1997 to 2007, during which he supervised and won a peabody award. he was also the console and for the lincoln does that -- a lincoln douglas debates, a c- span series. dr. spillane is the author of many works, including the road to the white house on television. he led a discussion in 1996 during the debates, one of which was televised on c-span. he has incurred many achievements. in 2003, he retired as the house better chair at the university of denver. he taught at the university of maryland from 1973 until 2001 and retired with emeritus status. currently, he teaches at the university of maryland as well as shepard university in a part- time capacity. he received his bachelor's in 1963 and his master's in 1965 in american history at the university of new hampshire. and his doctorate from boston university in education and in 1978. please welcome john to elaine. -- johnson lane. >[applause] >> thank you, everyone. could you turn off the house like entirely? the cameras have to have some light here. nice to see you. i'm running for president. [laughter] for some of you, it will be a new language. ben is one of my students. could you stand up? if i shoot up to ben what fields we have -- remember, we will be on television. what field and do we have? superior, in control, give me a feeling word. >> power. again, -- >> again, stand up. you can see how you would get the language of the visual. if i shoot down at him, what do you get? i am powerful and he is not as powerful and so forth. now, if he is talking and he says the my did not have a relationship with that woman -- ok, that has never happened in the history of the world -- what feeling if we shoot him from the side do we get about the truthfulness of his answer? anybody. in direct and/or -- remember when eustis bill wiki -- steal candy and mom would tell you to do what? looked me right in the eye. what he wants to do if he is on television is to look directly into the camera. we will see that bill clinton to iran -- and developed the love days. the he looks into the camera and you just want to hug him. if he stands there long enough, he will hunt you. [laughter] the worst thing i could happen to him is that i shoot him from behind. that suggests what about him as a person and? the guilty from the side, but from behind? he is not even here. people with cameras and know how to use them to affect the outcome. in fact, what happens during presidential debates, and tonight, one of the things they're looking for -- the day meeting that networks because they need something to keep you awake. roughly 40% of the people watching to i will vote for joe biden's ticket no matter what. roughly 40% will vote for the other side no matter what. the debate is the 20% in the middle. you can say almost anything and the republican will vote for you. you can say almost anything if you are a democrat and they will vote for you. you are aiming for the 20% in the middle. tonight is a ball game. it is the vice presidential debate. and is a ball game. and some people will come in and watch parts of the debate and go back to the game. they will come in during the commercials. but enough of them will either not see the debates at all or just see parts of it. they will watch for the morning sound bites. in the absence of a sound bite, you want a site by. -- a sight bite. the other night with president obama debating mitt romney, the next morning there was one sight bite of president obama over and over, and that was him looking down and not looking at the other person. there was one sound bite about big bird. but they were not given much the other night. there was no "there you go again." there was no "are old hat -- i won't hold your age and experience against you, mr. mondale." you will see some video tonight that very few people have seen, including what you were looking at earlier. what you're looking at earlier was the audience that was on the stage in 1996 with president bill clinton and senator bob dole. they are the ones that came off the stage and we interviewed them in a focus group to see whether this was a good idea, to have a town hall. and we will talk about that format because it is the next format. but i want to make it important point first -- an important point first appeared about 65% to 70% of us get our information from visuals. they might come over the internet or from traditional television, or youtube. but visuals are what convince us one way or another that a person is telling the truth or whether we like that person, or even the color of their tie. they will go forward into the war room and they will go before the camera and check out how looks. will this one work? how about this one tonight? how was that one? it is important that we not be cynical about the process, but described it. it is not what they look like, is it? it is what is in their heads and hearts. let me put these ties right here. i do not want to lose them. here is the conundrum. by the way, older people -- there are no older people in this room, but anybody over 65, and we get most of our information from television. never mind uber folks. they get their information more through -- never mind the younger folks. they get their permission more through the internet and video. i was looking to see the video on the debates and you can find it everywhere. you can find every possible clip. in the constitution of the united states, here is what they had in mind. if they had in mind that would elect people by television. it is a joke, right? [laughter] that is not in the constitution. in the constitution they had in mind that we would deliberate, that we would talk, that we would elect officials based upon a reasoned arguments. you cannot argue against an image. an image is just that. but in a world with a lot of problems in the world, and a lot of problems in the country, reason and argument house to dominate, but it does not when it is on television. because the visual overrides. because if the visual does not override, then listen to it on radio reason and or read a transcript. the whole idea is that the image is the dominant thing. put it on just for a second. then we will turn the lights down. and we will ask about this person i you are going to see. go ahead. who is lesley stahl? she is on 60 minutes, been on cbs. and been around for a while. she is going to tell us something. i wanted in the lights because i want you to get the full impact of this. very few have seen is on c-span. not too many watch c-span because it requires you to watch and think and it is long form. c-span is not cut it up for you. many have not seen this, but everybody ought to. listen to what lesley stahl has to say. >> why don't you tell the story. there was a point made by the other panelists. tell the story >> tells the story. >> it was the end of 1984. reagan is running for reelection and i was asked to do a summing up story on the campaign, so i did. i was obliged to use all of these marvelous morning in america pictures that might have put together for us. but what i said was tough. a lot of the campaign was designed to create and asia over the budget cuts. and you saw him cutting -- to create amnesia over the budget cuts. you saw in cutting a ribbon. you saw the banners and flags and reagan with color. the son was hitting him just right. and i said, little would you know that he is cutting the budget for nursing home construction. and i said a little would you know from this picture that he is cutting the environmental budget. it was unrelenting. four and half minutes, very long. and i thought, i will go back to the white house and he will never talk to me again. the piece ran, the phone rang, a senior white house official. i said, hollow, and i knew he was going to yell at me. peace -- great piece. i said, what, did you hear what i said in an? and he said, nobody heard what you said. and it clicked in my head. i realized that was true. i took my piece to a smithsonian institution focus group, 100 people. i ran my peace. if three or four people out of 100 knew it was a tough new story. more than half thought it was an advertisement for the reelection campaign. and most of the rest thought it was a positive story. the pictures were wall-to-wall just exactly like their advertisements. that is what the public saw. >> what did she say? what did lesley stahl tell us? say that again. >> [inaudible] >> that words do not matter. and go back to the constitution of the united states and you will see that words do matter. how do you have a country that makes sense when the document it was based on, words and concepts and ideas, is not worth reelecting? the other night, some of us were watching war room in this room and we saw the same issues of 1992, the same issues we are talking about in 2012. the economy, terrorism, and so forth. you could almost have labeled the discussion 2012 and it would have been the same thing let's go through a history of the elections. i will go through this very fast. 60, i believe today. -- in 1960, i believe they did. kennedy went through the handouts. he went into the debate at two points behind and four points ahead after. it narrows towards the end of the campaign, and he wins closely. there is a commercial that matters. every percentage point that a president tax on to his coattails might bring in some congress people, which generally it does. sometimes people vote a straight ticket and do not care who is on it. nixon and humphrey -- nixon wins streets of chicago. nixon is not going to debate again because he had that experience before. 1968, the streets of chicago on television. nixon wins. 1972 -- nixon/mcgovern. mcgovern gives his acceptance speech in the middle of the morning, after 2:00 a.m. i wake up at 2:00 a.m. for the next day. half the nation is asleep. we do not know about watergate at that time. 1976, there are debates. gerald ford suggests eastern europe is not under soviet domination, and that becomes a little bit of a problem. close election. electoral college -- 292-240. maybe the debate made a difference. usually, it is a lot of different things that add into an election. it cannot be just debates, jets commercials -- just commercials, and so forth. look at what happened the other evening. mitt romney has momentum now. obama is playing catch-up. we will say -- we will see what happens tonight with the biden/ryan debate. 1980, if a mistake is made, no time to catch up. there you go again. carter does not have a great debate. reagan wins by eight points. he was behind going in to that first debate, but the momentum kept going, and reagan won handily. 1984 -- there we have -- ronald reagan is going to win anyway. he probably would have liked it if there were no debates. 1984, he does not do very well in the first debate. mondale does a little bit better. reagan comes out in the second debate and suggests to walter mondale that he is too young. "i will not hold your age and inexperience against you." the crowd goes crazy. by the way, the rule is that the crowd can make no noise. 500 people in the hall can affect how we perceive things. 1988 -- "you are no jack kennedy. he was a friend of mine." the vp candidate overrides the candidate. dukakis, who was writing in the tank, and then the question about his wife, he answers sort of perfunctorily, and that election is over. 1992 -- we will see some debates from 1992 pretty soon. three people on the stage -- bill clinton, george bush, the incumbent, and ross perot. there is a story there. we will tell you a little bit about it. bill clinton goes in the head and stays ahead. 1996 -- that is the focus group you saw there. bob dole against bill clinton. we will see some of that and try to figure out what was going on there. clinton holds his lead. that is all he has to do. 2000 -- that one was not close, was it? we will see a piece of the third debate and talk about that, and you can decide whether that made any difference or not. just a little thing can make a difference when you're talking about 256 votes in florida. 2004 -- debate, kerry looks like he is ahead, but i was in florida and ohio when they played the commercial, and you did not know what to believe. very, very effective. i would argue in 2004, commercials really mattered. 2008, we will see president obama debate john mccain, and john mccain very seldom looked at barack obama. that was the story the next day. they were talking about that, just like barack obama was not looking at key times to mitt romney. i need ben up here. we are going to dress him up a little bit. can i have that gray jacket? september 26, 1960. one candidate comes out with a great coach -- a gray coat. black and white. i told the c-span crew i would move around a little bit. he blends into a gray background. go up there a little bit, and he will almost disappear. [laughter] and he sweats at 55 or 60 degrees. when i was down in wake forest in 2000, vice president gore was debating, and the hall was so cold because he sweats at 50 degrees or whatever. the last thing you want to do is look like you are richard nixon sweating. the other person comes out with a dark coat, and he's got great eye contact. i a few look at richard it -- if you look at richard nixon, his eyes roll, whereas kennedy is looking right at him. he refuses make up because he hears that kennedy refuses make up. he has a bad knee, and he is moving all over the place. i on -- on television, if you want to look good, you stay reasonably steady and drop the voice a little bit and do not do this like i do all the time. so we are going to take a look at what they look like. by the way, the last three debates, which nobody talks about, nixon has a dark coat, so he learns. they are beginning to learn the effects of the visual. do not take that coat. it is too valuable. >> 25 years, the republican leadership has opposed federal -- >> [indiscernible] but how is the eye contact? i mean, he is right with us. >> medical care for the ages, development of our natural resources. i think mr. nixon is an effective leader of his party. i hope he would grant me the same peer the question before us is -- which point of view and which party do we want to lead the united states? >> mr. nixon, would you like to comment on that statement? >> i have no comment. >> the next question to vice- president nixon. mr. vice president, since the question of executive leadership -- >> you got the point. let's go to the next chapter. this particular piece -- by the way, go ahead to the next chapter. that is the 1980. go to the next chapter please. that is joe biden in 1988. could you pause there? now, could you turn on the lights please? i need to look at folks here. bentsen/quayle. do you remember what happens? the "you are no jack kennedy" line. dan quayle, the republican nominee, and lloyd bentsen, the democratic nominee. there are three things after this particular debate that we learn. ben, i need you again. could you stand here? amanda, come on down. i need one other person. go on that side. thank you. there is a researcher out there -- go ahead. that way, i can talk about it. there is a researcher going around taking a look at what is working during debates pictorially. not necessarily arguments because most of us in this room cannot recall an argument from last wednesday's debate. what he finds out is that if you pivot toward amanda, your opponent, the camera will pick up what your opponent is doing. your opponent -- look right at ben and shake your head no. "what you are saying is baloney ." the worst thing you can do is look down and look guilty. what happens in 1992, which we will see after we see 98, you will see that the third person -- after we see 1998, you will see the third person -- also, you can move the camera to your opponent if you use your opponent's name. just call her george bush. just say "george bush." what do the camera people want to do? have a reaction shot because we want to see what is happening. that is why the split screen was so intriguing the other evening. thank you very much. we will bring you back again. could you put the next piece of tape on, please? >> we continue to grow because i will not raise taxes. >> your time is up. >> i don't mean to beat this drum until it has no more sound, but when you said it was a hypothetical situation, it is after all the reason we are here tonight, because you are running not just for vice president -- laugh it -- [applause] i if you cite the experience you have in congress -- >> that applause is against the rules. the other night, there was very little applause because there was not much to applaud too. no sound bites, there was no action. you will see in a moment tom brokaw try to follow up. what dan quayle does is reorient question. pettit, meaning answer the question you want. brokaw is going to shake his head, "that's not what i'm asking." he will eventually mentioned jack kennedy, and then you will see a reaction shot of benson -- bentsen shaking his head, loading up. they already know that quayle uses this line and refers to jack kennedy, so they are ready for him, all right? yes, they have done homework. they know homework for tonight's debate and the one next week. you will see dan quayle -- red tie, off-color white shirt, blue coat, looks like a flag, because we do not think you are patriotic unless you are red, white, and blue, right? watch him move to the camera, something that president obama did not do the other night. go ahead, please. >> if it fell to you to become president of united states, as it has to so many vice-president just in the last 25 years or so. >> let me try to answer the question. i think this is the fourth time i have had this question. i will try to answer again as clearly as i can because the question you are asking is -- "what kind of qualifications does dan quayle have to be president? what kind of qualifications do i have? what what i do in this kind of situation" -- situation?" i would make sure that the people in the cabinet and the people and advisers to the president are called in. i will talk to them and work with them and know them on a firsthand basis because as vice president, i will sit on the national security council, and i will know them on a first hand basis because i will be coordinating the drug effort. i will know them on a firsthand basis because vice president george bush is going to recreate the fate council, and i will be in charge of that. i will have day-to-day activities with all the people in the government. if that unfortunate situation happens, if that situation, which would be very tragic, happens, i will be prepared to carry out the responsibilities of the presidency of the united states of america, and i will be prepared to do that. i will be prepared not only because of my service in the congress but because of my ability to communicate and to lead. it is not just age. it is accomplishments. it is experience. i have far more experienced than many others that sought the office of vice president of this country. i have as much experience in the office as jack kennedy had when he sought the presidency. i will be prepared to deal with the people in the bush administration if that unfortunate event were to ever occur. >> senator bentsen? >> senator, i served with jack kennedy. i knew jack kennedy. jack kennedy was a friend of mine. senator, you are no jack kennedy. [applause] >> once again, you are only taking time away from your own candidate. >> that was really uncalled for, senator. [applause] >> you are the one that was making the comparison, senator, and i am one who knew him well, and, frankly, i think you are so far apart in the objectives you choose for your country that i did not think the comparison was well taken. >> turn the lights back up. could you take that? i need two readers. this is not good for television, so do not turn off the set, folks, because we are actually going to read something rather than do something visual. i would like to have you read this part right there that is in brackets, okay? and do it on the microphone so they can pick it up. strongestentsen's moment when he called president john f. kennedy a friend of mine and contested dan quayle's experience compared to kennedy's came into question, a former kennedy speechwriter said, "i don't recall them being quite that friendly." >> hold on just a second. tension city. where it starts, apparently. >> "apparently bentsen barely knew kennedy when they served in the house together. if quayle had known that, he could have probably had a rejoinder." >> in the newspapers the next day, jfk reference transform the debate and may have made lloyd bentsen and hero and dukakis not, but may have affected the election, but they may have this wrong. let's assume -- we cannot really confirm whether bentsen knew kennedy. we would have to figure that out and go way back. but we have testimony that he did not. now let's change the line. i will have david deliver it. would you get up and say, "i saw jack kennedy and you are no jack kennedy?" i mean, that loses it, doesn't it? you need that "friend of mine" thing. you need to watch what happens on television because it needs to all the fact-checked. the problem is we send folks off to war based on who gets elected. i am arguing we ought to do something about it. i will have recommendations later on if you are interested during the q&a. now we have three candidates. we will fast-forward through some of it. here is what happened. we have george bush remembering that he should create some activity, so he starts to pivot , and because he does that, the camera will do what? paul here has the rules, which disallows a one shot when you are not speaking, meaning picking up paul when he is not talking. it is against the rules. people making sound is against the rules, but the televisors are interested in good pictures because those attract advertisers, and those attract money. there are a lot of good people in television, but commercial television is interested in three things -- money, money, and money, all right? the rules really do not matter. i would say they ought to matter because it is our country. you are going to see one attempt at a reaction shot, and we will see bill clinton, looking right at him respectfully, not looking down, not looking away. we will see a little bit of ross perot. ross perot is not playing the game. he will not wear a blue coat and red tie, and he is going to go back to texas, okay? the other night, president obama had blue on. look for a lot of red ties tonight with the commentators and everyone else. let's take a look at the 1992 debate. >> you have two minutes, and the question is this -- are there important issues of character separating you from these other two men? >> i think the american people should be the judge of that. i think character is a very important question. i said something the other day -- >> is he dressed properly? ok, he is going pivot. what is the camera going to do? he turns a little bit. there we go. we are going to pause it in a second. >> bill has gotten on me about "read my lips," and when i make a mistake, i will admit it. how are we doing? how is clinton doing? pretty good. you ought to have one big question you are asking right now -- where is ross perot? ok? so somebody has made the decision -- not the voters yet -- that there are only two candidates in this little debate. remember, when you shoot from behind, you are basically saying, "you are not here." we are going to fast forward through this, and then we are going to fast forward through ross perot, not because he does not have important things to say, but because we want to catch a bill clinton -- catch bill clinton. on "the today show," two minutes of president bush talking is not going to keep you awake. anybody talking is not going to keep you awake. they want the snippets. we will see if we can give them a snippet. ok, here we have ross perot. fast forward through here. david is doing a good job here. you ought to see this in fast motion. we want to move on to clinton. ok, could you go back there just a little bit? here is the reaction shot with ross perot speaking. back a little bit, right about there. go ahead and pause. >> you are a mature individual and you make a mistake -- >> ok, pause. where is the camera? who is the debate about? where is ross perot? where should he be? he has a right to be up on that stage just like everybody else. bill clinton and george bush looking at him, which is fine. now, we are going to have bill clinton. let's predict what's he going to do. he has good instruction. good instruction. what's he going to do? ok, he is going to look at the camera, but first, we want a little camera action for "the today show" or whatever show they have in the next morning. you are right because he is going to look into the camera. what is he going to do first? he is going to look -- he is going to pick it -- he is going to pivot. what is the camera going to do? what is against the rules? catching bush alone when he is not speaking. go ahead and play, and we will fast-forward through bill clinton. ok, here we go. ok, play. and pause. does anybody remember the question? no, that's right. it was about character, but by now, nobody remembers, and nobody really cares, especially the people who will produce the television show the next morning because they are interested in attracting people's eyeballs, and they need something, and bill clinton is going to give it to them. he looks right in the camera and the word "character" will never come up. >> you even brought some white -- right-wing congressman into the white house to attack me for going to russia in 1969 and 1970, but over 50,000 other americans did. >> we have a two shot, and go ahead and play. ok, pause. against the rules. and he is caught looking down. now on television -- could you read it as loud as you can for everybody? >> [indiscernible] candidate who is not responding to a question while his opponent is answering a question or to the candidate who is not giving his closing statement while his opponent is doing so. >> jim lehrer mentions that rule in the 1996 debate, but if you are on television, we need a little repetition, right? because we cannot possibly remember. let's see what else they do. ok, play. >> your chairman of joint chiefs and who is supporting me. but when joe mccarthy went around this country attacking people's patriotism, he was wrong. he was wrong. >> do not get us the first time, we will do it again. rules do not matter. it is only in our country, approaching 320 million people now. we are playing television games. my view is the more we know about it, weekend the power it by figuring it out -- we can de- power it by figuring it out. my problem is there are 30 of us in the room right now and the orioles are on. >> connecticut stood up to him. your father was right to stand up to joe mccarthy. you were wrong to attack my patriotism. i was opposed to the war, but i love my country, and we need a president who will bring this country together, not divide it. i want to lead a unified country. [applause] >> we are going to pause just a second. we have to put up the house lights so they can see this. this is the town hall debate. i sometimes speak to groups that have people who are coaching candidates or who work with candidates, and i want everybody to know this -- the following always give you -- usually, not always -- usually give you extra time. lisa is asking me a question. i want you to get me to stop. you are going to tell me that time is up. i cannot see lisa right now at the moment. you are hiding. [laughter] yes, ma'am, this is what i would like to do for the economy. number one, go ahead and stop team. -- stop me. number two. no. 3. number four. when i would get there would be a lot of media bashing because he is interrupting me. the other thing that works -- you may see him use -- "could i please have a chance to answer the question?" sometimes they will reorient the question. "let me just tell the audience with the question is. thank you for letting me have extra time." the other thing is they will enumerate. number one, number two, #3 -- you can say anything. just enumerate. "i'm going to cut the budget by not raising taxes. number one, i will get rid of corruption. no. 3 --" they may ask specifically how you are going to cut the budget, but you are enumerated, so it sounds good. it was reported to me -- i was not there, but it was reported to me that when president clinton found out or was told that the people who had the cameras were 5-feet-8 -- president clinton is 6-foot-2 -- if i walk into him and he is smaller than i am, what kind of shot well i have? upshot, power shot -- we talked about the language of visuals earlier. we will fast-forward through some of this because bill clinton is given a lot of time to talk because he walks right into the audience and he looks great, wearing red, white, and blue, and looks great, and later on, we will see george bush checking his watch. we will only see it once, but he did it twice. go ahead and play. >> pell grants are up, but it is not going to get the job done if we -- >> ok, play. this is good. why the bags under the eyes? they could get rid of that. part of the charge is he is too young, so he will not get rid of the bags. maybe later on, but not now. leave them. he looks great. red tie, bluecoats -- blue coat. you get the nice, powerful upshot. ok, fast forward. we are always working against time. we will get you out of here so you can see this. hopefully new knowledge. we will talk about that. this is a long time he is given. if you were counting minutes, you might wonder why, and why is he given that shot where it is almost straight into the eyes. ok, that is quite a while. ok, go ahead and play. he got called back. "could i also answer that question?" how does he look? >> we do not have an automatic recovery system and $1 billion in bank fees, so the net is $8,000,000,000.60 years from now. all the other stuff i mentioned costs much less than that. -- the net is $8 billion six years from now. it is all covered in my budget from the plans i laid out from raising taxes on families with incomes above $200,000 and asking foreign corporations to pay -- >> this is a documentary. pretty good. >> $100 million in budget cuts, including what i think are very prudent cuts in the defense budget. >> ok, be ready to pause. >> you get into big cities -- >> paws. go back and catch him on his watch. -- pause. if there are no sound bites, that plays in the news. president bush is disengage, just like obama was not really there the other night. how you know that? well, he had his head down. that is what the founders had in mind in the constitution. you have your head down, you are not really there. go ahead and chapter up to the next clip, please. >> play an important role -- >> this is gold. i was in the audience this particular day, and there are three people at home watching on c-span. you know, when the games are on and so forth, our country -- you know. this is steve roberts, cokie roberts' husband. you will hear a reporter talked about what they are looking for during the debates. they will tell you, and the candidates will try to give it to them. problem is we ought to all know what it is about -- the zingers, the one-liners, and the one- liners do not govern a country. that is part of what we are talking about. >> it is hopefully not under the radar. people occasionally watch these things, but the debates are always, of course, intersecting the public in two ways -- there are the people who sit and watch the whole thing, but probably a good deal more voters understand the debates from what print reporters, radio reporters, tv reporters choose to report about them. how good a job do we do? how do we cover debates? do we do a good job at it or not? >> i think of the old saying about rugby -- you do not win at rugby, you survive. we were talking earlier about the fact that you are writing your story against the deadline as the debate is going on, and you desperately hope you survived by not missing the sound bite of the night. fact of the matter is what we do is look for the best "gotchas" from each candidate. that is followed by all the "experts" declaring who won, and i should tell you that they are usually wrong about that. >> lights on, please, and then we will chapter of -- up. what did he tell us? just looking for sound bites or a "gotcha" and in the absence of words, your head is looking down. you are looking at your notes. think about that as something to report on a presidential debate and whether that has any substance or not. we will see mccain doing the same thing in 2008 and everybody talking about it. could you chapter up, please? ok, could you pause for just a second? this is what you saw earlier. this is a cut of what you saw earlier. watch what this woman has to tell you. she is on the stage, just like she will be on the stage next tuesday night. this is the gallup group. there are 120 in there. i'm moving fast because the media people are outside banging on the door because they want to talk to these people. these people are the story. this piece of tape is gold, just like the one before with bob franken, because they are telling you how it all works, so you can be informed and figure things out for yourself, but you cannot figure things out for yourself if you do not know how it works. >> when dole was asked to respond to a question, president clinton always seemed to be living in the background -- looming in the background. i found myself almost watching his response to the question more than dole's. >> what is she telling us happens on the stage? bill clinton is moving. i of you know where the cameras are -- if you know where the cameras are and if you look from over there, who is taller -- him or me? he is because of the position he is in, but i am is a little bit taller than he is. thank you. and billis 6'1", clinton is 6'2". not much difference. the words are one thing, but who is the coach of the stagecoach? his name is michael sheehan. nobody knows who he is because we do not know the kingmakers, but we ought to know who the king makers are, so bill clinton is going to assume center stage. he is going to move up to the podium, and all we are watching is bill clinton while bob dole is talking. go ahead, and lights out. thank you. he is doing a great job with all these different things going on. >> people who were on his side saying i did the wrong thing. i think i did the right thing. on drugs, i have repeatedly said drugs are wrong and illegal and can kill you. we have strengthened enforcement. everybody in san diego knows we have strengthened control of the border. >> they also know if you're caught with 125 pounds of marijuana or less, you go back to mexico. you are not prosecuted. you have a u.s. attorney that sends you back home. i think that is important. that is a lot of marijuana. that is a big supply. >> who are you looking at? what is the height difference? i was a consultant at the time, and we were getting a lot of letters, "what are you doing on c-span making bill clinton taller than bob dole?" first, these are not c-span cameras. c-span is taking the feed, but you are watching bill clinton, which is precisely the idea. the problem is that al gore may have been coached by the same person, and he tried to assume center stage. it is in the debate of 2000, and we will move to the chs -- vhs in a second. anybody here ever been a street fighter? [laughter] ben, i will have to use you again. if you were approaching me to fight me, how would you approach? because i did use to fight in the street a bit, so watch out. how would you approach me to punch me out? ok, move toward me. not bad. that's enough. thank you. the next what happens day. go ahead and play. >> that i can get something positive done on behalf of the people. that is what the question in this campaign is about. not about what is your position on issues, but can you get things done? [laughter] >> ok, go ahead and stop. vice president gore wants to talk about the substance of the issue, but that is not what is going to be picked up the next day because television does not do very well with long form substance. c-span does it. pbs and some others do it, but who visually one that one -- won that one? bush did. won the election. how close? maybe later. we will move now to 2008. that is the other dvd. after this, we will open it up for questions, but you will have the story. while he is putting that in there, i make this point to all the people i talk to and the classes where we deal with this -- we need to as citizens and students get our information from a variety of media. if you only get it from television, you will be dominated by visuals. every once in awhile, i bring in a strange relic in the class, a book. there are books you can read without a kindle. they have a nice feel to them. but we need to get our information from newspapers. in the last 10 years, newspaper consumption has been cut 50%. we are not reading newspapers. we are reading headlines. and the internet -- internet is going up. listen to radio. come to meetings like this. discuss things over the dinner table at soup groups and things like that, when you are at dinner with friends. we get our information through a variety of media. think about it. listen to a variety of sources -- conservatives, liberals, moderates, radicals, reactionaries, but listen to them all. if you are only going to watch fox, you will be captured by fox's point of view. if you only watch msnbc, you'll be captured by that point of view. it is hard work being a citizen, but it is worth it, especially when our brothers and sisters are going off to war, etc., or losing jobs. it is worth being involved so those kinds of things do not happen or at least are minimized. are you ready for this one? ok, this is the first debate with barack obama and john mccain in 2008. you have a handout, by the way -- we will talk about it later. >> you were wrong. you said we would be greeted as liberators. you were wrong. you said that there was no history of violence between shia and you were wrong. >> ok, say moderator. same sort of problem. did you see john mccain ever looked at him? the other night, the charge was with president obama that he did not look at him at all. now, we are going to move onto the second debate, which is the town hall debate. because i was at the town hall debate in 1996, there is a fascinating story -- bob dole left the room immediately at the end of the debate -- reported to me. i was not in the room. i was with the audience in another auditorium. what does bill clinton do while bob dole leads -- leaves? shakes' everybody's hands and with a love days, looks right in the eyes -- shakes everybody's hands and with a love gaze, looks right in the eyes. to make matters worse, dole's limousine is behind clinton's, so he is sitting there waiting. one of the reasons you work the crowd is because these are the people who talk to the media about what it was like. watch what barack obama does at the end of the second debate and what john mccain does. go ahead. >> i of the question is -- who is best equipped as the next president -- if the question is -- who is best equipped as the next president? >> this does not turn up on the morning news, that little number that might shape an election, ok? how do we get out of here? how do we leave? what will barack and michelle obama do? shake hands with everybody. that, by the way, you can probably only see on c-span because they cover before and after. msnbc and fox are off with the commentators. move up to the next one please. this is the split screen that we now have as an experience. >> millions of jobs in america. first of all, across the board spending freeze. >> ok, stop, and that is roughly what we saw the other night with president obama. back in 2008, very few were using split screens. c-span with using it on c-span2 because they have more than one network. now almost everybody is, and the candidates do not like it because they have to be on all the time. as viewers, we want to see what they are doing most or all of the time. that does it for the video part. could you turn up the lights? if you have questions or comments, could you come up to the microphone so they can pick you up really well? and we can talk about what happened last week or what is coming up. go ahead, please. >> you can probably hear me with or without it. my question is this -- i have a memory of the league of women voters being involved with this and being righteously angry, but i do not remember when that happened. >> 1988. this was the document they sent to me from the league of women voters, and i have never copied it because they did not give me permission to, but there it is. they pulled out because of all these rules. they were not being followed, and the candidates were basically controlling everything. the league of women voters said, "we cannot any longer participate in this charade." one of the problems now is mike mccurry, one of the co- directors, and there is a representative from the other side, and there's nobody from a third party, or anyone who is not a republican or democrat in that group, so that is the only people who get up on the stage. 20 or so other candidates turned up on c-span, but people are watching this. they are not watching that. other comments? could you get over there? yes. >> i do not know if i'm the first person to touch upon this, but it seems like a lot of the time, the candidates are permitted to run amok -- they take more time than they have, they do not answer the questions they were asked, and a lot of times, the end of spitting out the same reversed -- rehearsed sound bites and propaganda they have been using. on "newsroom," they talked about changing the format to give the moderator the power to say, "stick to the question." >> one of the books i wrote one time is called "a companion to the lincoln douglas debates." -- "a companion to the lincoln- douglas debates." our experience in reenacting that -- for example, at charleston, we had about 5000 people there paying attention to what was being said. it was a very hot day, and they stayed almost the entire time. you do not have to go an hour, an hour-and-a-half, half an hour, but you could go 15, 15, 7.5, 7.5, something like that with the candidates are asking each other questions during their time. that is what happened to yield the doctrine which led to stephen douglas being defeated and lincoln eventually becoming president because he asked a question. all you would need is a timekeeper. you would not need a moderator. for example, tonight, we will have somebody asking all the questions as if only one person can ask all the questions. let the candidates go at each other. that is what jim lehrer was trying to do the other night, but it got messy. if you have a strict time limit, just turn off the microphone. that would be interesting because they continue to talk for half an hour and they are not on. we could do this, but it would not be a tv show. it would be a debate. anybody else? please, mr. murphy. >> how do they select the moderators? it seems they seem to come from the three major -- abc, nbc, cbs -- and they do not seem to come from a lot of the other areas, and they control them. >> follow the money. who has the biggest purse is? abc, nbc, cbs, cnn, and they will grow pbs in now and then as a public service -- they will throw pbs in now and then as a public service. i'm being sarcastic. every once in awhile, c-span might get in there. same thing occurs covering events on the floor of congress. the iran-contra hearings in 1987, c-span had wanted to be in the room taking the film to give fair, medium close-up shots rather than tight shots, but when it got interesting and when people started watching is when the networks came in. it is a matter of financial power. and prominence. they want to get the person in because that is a lot of publicity. tonight, martha raddatz from abc. any other questions? this is your chance to be on national television. the historian of the united states congress has been on television many times, so this is easy peasy. yes, sir. >> compared to the debates and compared to advertising, television media and all of our campaigns in modern times, which do you think is more important in terms of their effect on people overall? advertising -- the kind of advertising we get during the campaign -- or the power of the debates themselves? >> good question. i do not know what your experience is, but we in west virginia live close enough to virginia that we are getting all the commercials. i think this year because they have equal money, they are canceling each other out, so i think this year, it will end up being the debates, but in any given year, it might be different. 2008, probably a whole lot of combination of things, although the handout i gave you, when obama starts going up around september 27, which is also the economic slowdown, but that is the first debate. it is like kennedy, obama, and now romney getting on the stage with the other candidate and the nation seeing you for the first time sometimes boosts you up, but a lot of people are talking about what you just saw -- obama being pretty cool, calm, and collected, and john mccain looking off into the audience mayybe. john mccain, to his credit, said he thought he should look at the moderator in the audience, not his opponent. we are following the story the media come up with, which is that he was looking down. by the way, we would not have seen that if it had not been split screen. but we do not have to worry about split screen with big screens. you can put lincoln-douglas style right up there and have a wide shot and watch them go out -- go at it, and talk about substance the next day. anyone else? i know some of the people in this audience, and that is why i refer to their names. some students, some former students. >> watching the debates takes x amount of time, and as soon as it is over -- let's assume you are watching cnn. they have a battery -- you need two hands to count the different pundits. how much do the people who watched the debates really register from the debate or from all these pundits? >> good question. i will tell you what we think we know about that. first, i'd will say i hope they do not and turn it on to something else -- first, i will say i hope they do not and they turned it on to something else. but the line in 1986 was not picked up immediately by anybody until a couple of days later. the press started talking about it because they had nothing else to talk about. they picked it up later, and then everybody starts talking about it. that is the problem -- we let other people do our thinking for us. variety of sources through a variety of media, and we will all be better off. i think we will. anybody else? go ahead over there. i just saw david checked his watch. [laughter] i do not know whether the camera picked it up. if the camera did not pick it up, it did not happen. >> talking about sources, a lot of times, the candidates will give facts. i personally want to know about their sources. a lot of fact checking does not come out until the next couple of days. i do not know if it would be possible to have real-time fact checking to see where this information is coming from. again, my problem is a lot of it is propaganda, i feel. >> that is a good question. problem is -- a good friend of mine in the media and all this fact checking, it is hard to do. he argues that context is more important than accuracy. the difficulty with news reporting -- it is very difficult. a lot of good people in news reporting. historians try to put things in context over time and as we learn more. >> [indiscernible] after the fact or even remembers after the fact. >> my response to that is it is our country. we have to pay attention and just fact-check ourselves and even think for ourselves. any other questions or comments? it is time to go home to the debate, but i was just talking to someone today on the phone. shakespeare said, "this above all -- 29 own self be true -- to thine own self be true." the idea that if you are true to yourself, you will not be false to anybody except on television where myth becomes a reality and reality comes -- becomes myth. if we are going to keep this nation as our founders intended, we have to think for ourselves, and tonight would be a good time to do so. i will be watching, and i hope you will, too. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you for coming. if you want more information about john for the byrd center, visit our website at www.byrdcenter.org. thank you. >> if anybody would like to see the rules, they are up here. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> the presidential candidates are in new york this evening, getting ready for tonight's debate. our coverage touch momentarily

Related Keywords

New York ,United States ,Fox Point ,Virginia ,New Hampshire ,Texas ,Iran ,Florida ,San Diego ,California ,Russia ,Washington ,District Of Columbia ,Denver ,Colorado ,Hempstead ,Connecticut ,West Virginia ,Mexico ,Boston University ,Massachusetts ,Town Hall ,Maryland ,Ohio ,Italy ,Chicago ,Illinois ,Americans ,America ,Soviet ,American ,Martha Raddatz ,Joe Biden ,Ron Paul ,Ronald Reagan ,Bob Franken ,George Bush ,Walter Mondale ,Mike Mccurry ,Lincoln Douglas ,Benson Bentsen ,Martin Dale ,Jim Harper ,Dale Johnson ,David Duke ,Milton Friedman ,Nixon Mcgovern ,John Mccain ,Martin Luther King ,Lloyd Bentsen ,Jim Lehrer ,Steve Roberts Cokie Robert ,Tom Brokaw ,Jack Kennedy ,Bob Dole ,Joe Mccarthy ,Kennedy Obama ,Gerald Ford ,Michael Sheehan ,Barack Obama ,George W Bush ,Stephen Douglas ,Bentsen Quayle ,Ross Perot ,Dan Quayle ,Biden Ryan ,Lesley Stahl ,Richard Nixon ,John F Kennedy ,Ted Cruz ,