Transcripts For CSPAN Washington This Week 20111127

it is easier for you to give our schedule, with a free network layouts are you can scroll through the program scheduled on the c-span network and receive an email alert when your program is scheduled to air. there is a section to access "washington journal", "book tv", american history tv, and the channel finder said you could quickly find where to watch our c-span networks on cable and satellite systems across the country at the all-new c- span.org. >> up next, a look at the legacy of gerald ford, the 38th president. we will hear from james baker who served as undersecretary of commerce. introducing mr. baker is gerald ford's daughter susan ford bales. this event is just under one hour. >> good afternoon, and welcome to the ford presidential museum. >> it is a pleasure for us to have susan ford bales. she is a highly articulate spokesperson on issues related to breast cancer. she has been extremely active with the betty ford center and served as chairman of its board for five years. susan has a very special role as the official sponsor of the u.s.s. gerald ford aircraft carrier that is under construction. this new carrier will be christened in 2013 and commissioned in 2015. susan is a trustee of the ford presidential foundation and served as co-chair of the foundation's program committee. she is an avid supporter of all we do at the museum and plays a key role in convincing our speaker to fit this into our schedule today. along with her brother, susan has stepped forward to represent the ford family and many events across the country, giving very generously of her time and talent. we are very honored to have her with us this afternoon. please join me in welcoming susan ford bales who will introduce our distinguished speaker. [applause] >> good afternoon. thank you all for coming today. welcome to the foundation trustees. special guests, a adana randall, randall, -- donna volunteers. congratulations on your 30th anniversary. ladies and gentlemen, in the twilight of his life, dad often asked to reflect on his legacy and how he saw -- thought historians would judge his decades of public service. his consistent response surprised many. certainly dad was proud of how he healed our nation following the greatest constitutional crisis since the civil war. he was equally proud of the example bipartisan leadership he set in congress and as president. but part of his legacy about which he was proudest was the group of men and women that formed the core of his administration. who then went on to serve the american people with exceptional and distinguished service. and no one, absolutely no one, better illustrates dad's pride that our special guest today. our guest with his unusual humility often describes his amazement when dad summoned him to the commerce department. but rest assured, dad knew exactly why this humble texan was so extraordinary. he went on to serve dad with distinction and then the rest is history. in the years after his service to dad, he served as 61st united states secretary of state, secretary of treasury, white house chief of staff to two presidents, chairman of the iraq study group, personal envoy of the secretary general of the un, and probably one of our fellow trustees of the gerald ford presidential foundation. a philosopher once observed "the best impression one gets of a leader and of his character is by looking at those closest around tampa." if interstate around him. -- around him." please know that the 38th president of the united states would be bursting with pride today. thus, it is a personal choice and honor to introduce to you a statement, a world leader, a man of peace, a man of integrity, and i am proud to say one of my dad' dear friends. ladies and gentlemen, jim baker. [applause] >> thank you, susan, for a very warm and generous introduction. and thank you for all you have done to nurture and honor the wonderful legacy of both your dad and your mom. dick ford, other distinguished guests, ladies and yemen, let me say it is a great pleasure for me to be back in grand rapids. i am delighted to be back, particularly to celebrate this 30th anniversary of the gerald ford library and museum, because this museum also does an extremely wonderful job of maintaining the legacy and not just the legacy but the lessons of a man, a president who was much more than just a man of his times. gerald ford was of great and timeless american who day in and day out demonstrated characteristics that will always serve as models for our leaders. those leaders of today as well as those leaders of tomorrow. but before i talk about his legacy, i would first like to state as a matter of personal privilege a simple but obvious fact -- i would not be standing here were it not for the faith that president ford showed in me when i was his deputy secretary of commerce. at the time, mye resume was thin, the president ford saw something more and me than just a texas lawyer. following the recommendations of rog morton and dick cheney, president ford selected me to take over for his friend jack styles after stiles had been killed in an automobile accident. he was president for's delegate for the 1976 republican primary against ronald reagan and after he became ill with cancer, president ford asked me to chair the president for committee in the general election against jimmy carter. those of you old enough to remember will remember that those races, both of them were historic racists settled by razor-thin margins, both of the race for the nomination and the general election contest. they served as springboards for my career in national politics and public service. and so, my friends, i know you will understand when i say, thank you, mr. president, for the confidence that you showed in me at a critical point in my career. but more importantly, thank you, mr. president, for the confidence you showed in america and the job that you did for america that -- at a very difficult time in our nation's history. [applause] again, for those of us old enough to remember, jerry ford inherited a deeply troubled country when he placed his hand on the bible on august 9, 1974, to take the oath of office. president nixon had been forced to resign, inflation and recession were presenting a country with what at that time was arguably its worst economic time since the great depression, the cold war was heating up, as confidence in uncle sam was trending down. americans at that time were quite jaded towards a political system that many felt have let them down and let them down badly. our national psyche was taking a beating. countless people worried that the american dream was a thing of the past. and into this national rest came a man with a true moral compass. he exemplified the plain talk of a midwestern air, the resolution of the michigan wolverine offensive linemen, the bravery of the pacific war hero, and the intellect of the yale law school graduate. he was all that, but he was much, much more. he was not the most glib of our national leaders, nor the most elegant, but president ford had something that was much more important -- he had character. jerry ford, as the country and the entire world would soon learn, maintained it trades that we associate with the boy scouts. u.she was trustworthy, loyal, helpful, reverend. this should not have come as a surprise to the american people, because it was the first american president who had actually earned his eagle scout rank. for president ford, the decency and honor were more than merely words that politicians throughout the ages have repeated in their high-minded speeches. for president ford, they were ideals a a, ideals to be incorporated into the way one live one's life. and so today, i would like to examine with you five of what i believe for president ford's best traits, traits that contributed to his effective brand of leadership. now, i think they are instructed to consider at this point in our countries history, because these very traits are needed today. they are needed in washington, where once again confidence in our country and in our elected officials is waning. and let me start with the leadership traits that i think most importants -- selfless this. like most politicians, president ford understood an election meant self preservation. but on like too many today, he was on willing to sacrifice his principles in order to satisfy the whims of the electorate. face with an enormous dilemma about whether or not to pardon president nixon in the aftermath of watergate, president ford did not look to his political advisers for advice. he knew what they would say. he know they would say, pardoning president nixon will kill you at the polls in two years. and it certainly did, just two short years later. instead, he did the very same thing that we tell our children to do when they are confronted with a difficult problem. he looked to his own heart for guidance. and after he found the answer, she explained it this way to his countrymen. "my conscience tells me that it is my duty to not only proclaimed domestic crim tranquility but to use every means that i have to ensure." that a courageous act allowed the nation to move forward from a very, very troubling time. and that characteristic of selflessness, i believe, is the reason the president ford was able to heal our injured country. even if it did ultimately cost him his job. a second leadership traits that president ford exhibited was bipartisanship. we hear a lot of talk about that today. a moment ago, i told to the president ford was a man of principle, and he was, no doubt about it. he was particularly worried about the influence of an ever- growing government and what it was having -- the influence it was having on our country. he expressed those thoughts are very, very eloquently. he said, "if the government is big enough to give you everything you want, it is big enough to take away everything you have." in that, he was absolutely right. but president ford was also a creature of the congress, let's not forget, who serve for more ars as minority leader before he became vice president. as well as anyone, president ford understood that our democracy is based upon negotiation and is based upon a compromise and it is based upon agreement. truth, he once said, is the glue that holds government together. compromise, he said, is the oil that makes government go. president ford may have had political adversaries because they come with the turf, but he did not have any political enemies. he knew hot disagree agreeably. president ford understood that bipartisanship is important not only for getting things accomplished, but for making sure they do not get undone when there are the inevitable shifts of power in washington d.c. 1/3 leadership trait of president ford was dignity. president ford was a fair and just human being who seemed to intuitively know what the right thing to do was. i will never forget election day 1976. the president had overcome of 30 percentage point deficit in the polls and for the first time during that campaign a win seemed possible. he had busted his tail in a campaign that was stacked against him from the very day he took office. on the night of the election, that afternoon, 5:30, i went in to give him some of the exit polls, which were not that promising, and i thought to myself that i might actually be able to light up the victory cigar that president ford had given me that afternoon. and it was not until early the next morning, after 3:00 a.m., that we learned that jimmy carter had won the closest presidential election since 1916. the election was so close that have fewer than 10,000 votes shifted in ohio and hawaii out of a total of 81 million votes, president ford would have won the vote in the electoral college and thereby won the election. despite that razor-thin margin, the president was very stoic in defeat. he had worked very hard. so hard you remember that he lost his voice. very, very hard and he had come so very close. yet, he graciously accepted the result. his longtime friend of former st. louis cardinals catcher who sat with the president as they watched the election returns rowland said that he'd seen a former cardinals great get more upset with an umpire sing strike two than gerald ford did when he realized he was not going to win a presidential election. but he refused to ask for a recount. even though there were many of his supporters that had implored him to do so. president ford was a man of honor, and because he had lost the popular vote, he did not want to put the country through the agony of a recount. his fourth leadership trade was humor. he had the inner confidence of someone who could laugh at himself. of course, that was important because hollywood was always trying to make him the but of their jokes. -- the butt of their jokes. they witnessed a leader whose sharp, self-deprecating humor could ease serious situations. one of those times came after he had accepted the resignation of agriculture secretary earl butts for telling an offensive joke. a little later, after being introduced at an event by bob hope, president for wisecracked "i have only one thing to say about a program that calls for me to follow bob hope -- ridiculous. bob hope has stage presence,, the timing, and the finest riders in the business. i am standing here in our rented tuxedo with three jokes from eraarl butts." [laughter] brilliance was in showing the country that he was not thin skinned. after all, who among us after being wrongly cast as a clumsy but soon in countless chevy chase skits could quip, "i have not felt this good since i fell down an airport ramp." a fifth and final leadership traits is one that he demonstrated side-by-side with his wonderful first lady betty. that, of course, was their perseverance in the face of adversity. life did not always go according to store plans for jerry and betty ford, particularly when it came to her battles with substance abuse. but rather than given to her addictions, betty ford chose the difficult path. she confronted head on those demons that were her problem, and she conquered them. and then she did something even she held othersic -- do the same thing. with president for supporting her, she was able to turn trials and triumphs. if ever there was an example of how we americans should respond to the inevitable challenges we will all face at one time or the other, the fords were it. ladies and gentlemen, as we reflect upon the legacy of gerald ford, it is extremely shortsighted to simply remember him as the post watergate president's. although he had 29 months and the white house, he used his time wisely and productively to confront a monumental issues that face tim when he took office he helped us restore our national census and our sensibility. r nation.out and the aftermath of the vietnam war, he continued the countries policy of detente with the soviet union and china. this eased the tensions of the cold war at that time. and he did this at the same time that he was helping restore america's confidence in its role in international affairs following the collapse of cambodia and the fall of saigon. he was also able to focus the attention of the world and his country on other important matters. persuaded israel and egypt to accept an interim truce agreement, the first ever for the two countries. he was the first president to begin to emphasize the need for regulatory reform and the first president to call for a national energy policy. he was an early supporter of majority rule in south africa and he was a strong proponent of equal rights for women. did he accomplished everything he set out to accomplish? no, but he reversed our course and moved the country forward against strong and difficult headwinds. if there is a tragedy and president ford's term as president, it is not based on anything he did in the white house. nor is it based on anything that he did not do. no. the tragedy of president ford's service is that the american people did not give him a full term in office. have they done so, i am sure that his sizable footprint in american history would have been even larger. why do i say that? because at his very core, gerald ford was a leader. one who was guided by a clear conscience and by a dogged determination to see his country at its very best. ladies and gentlemen, i sincerely doubt that there is one person in this room today who does not wish that more of our elected officials demonstrated president ford's leadership qualities. president ford did what he thought was right. he did what he thought was right even when he knew it was going to cost him public support. he served our nation won by partisanship was more than just an empty slogan. and he was a leading practitioner of it. his perseverance and dignity, even in the face of the very toughest challenges, remaining samples upon which i think we can all draw, and upon which the american people can draw. today, more than 34 years after he left office he did not initially seek, but graciously accepted, we remember gerald ford as an honest, ethical, and talented public servant. we remember him as a leader, a leader with on questionable character and integrity. but more importantly, perhaps, at least i remember him as a truly lovely human being. a truly lovely human being who always put his countries interest ahead of his own. and so as a result, i am absolutely convinced that history is going to be very good to president gerald ford. and will always reflect upon his tenure with admiration and with respect. our country would be far better off today if our elected officials could call upon those traits that to find president ford's leadership as they confront the difficult challenges that lay ahead of this country. thank you, all, may god bless you. my god bless this country that gerald ford not so much and served so very, very well. [applause] thank you. thank you. >> what role did you play and 1976 presidential campaign? >> i was his deputy secretary of commerce. i had been there six months when his delegate hunter and the contest for the nomination against ronald reagan was killed in an automobile accident, and president ford asked me to come to the press before committee and be the delicate in a contest for the nomination, which i did. by the way, that was an extraordinarily interesting convention and primary contest, because it was the last really contested convention of either major political priority. 1976 in kansas city. we only won the nomination by 100 delicate votes of 3000 on the floor. a very narrow win for an incumbent president, but of course, one of reagan, governor reagan had been running for president two or three times before. he was an extraordinarily tough competitor and challenger. and we felt ford, to win the nomination, even though we won it normally. then after the nomination, president ford asked me to chair his general election campaign against jimmy carter. we started out 25-30 points behind. on election day, the candidates were dead even. it -- those close elections are tougher to lose than the blowouts. i was chairman of the present for committee in the general election. president ford consult with president nixon on foreign policy, and were they friends? >> i cannot answer that, because i was in the campaign and not really in the white house. i was over and commerce for six months and i was the acting secretary of commerce, but most of my contact with president ford at that time was all on substantive economic issues. and very little to do with foreign policy, and nothing to do with politics at that time. i do think that president ford consulted with president nixon from time to time after the pardon and perhaps during the campaign. >> what differences did you notice between president ford and president reagan's leadership styles? >> it with a minute. i worked for four presidents and i have one rule that i never violate. i never compare president, because the minute you say something good about one, it is taken to be a knock on the other. that is the only question you could ask me that i will not answer. [applause] >> ok, folks, we need to change some of the questions that are coming in. there are several along those lines. this is another one related to ronald reagan. discuss the tension and the white house during the attempted assassination of ronald reagan. >> there was quite a bit of tension. we have only been there -- i was white house chief of staff when president reagan was shot. we have only been there for two months, maybe 2.5 months. it was the first week in march. we came in on january 20. it was a very traumatic time. and nobody really knew at first what it happen. wheat -- at first, we got conflicting reports as to whether he had been hit. what most people do not know is that president reagan came very close to dying from -- not from the wound, quite frankly, but from an infection nethat set in after they perform surgery on him. and that is probably well know out there known, but at the time, it was not well known. it was quite a shock to those of us in the white house. a lot of us were new to the job, and then to have a president shot at in an assassination attempt is very dramatic, very difficult. it was a very difficult period. one of the things that we did or it wassay didn't do received a lot of attention is that we did not invoke the 25th amendment that says that when the president becomes incapacitated, the cabinet is to meet and turn power over to the vice president. the vice president was in texas when president reagan was shot. of course, he got on air force 2 and was headed back to washington. i was at the hospital with senior white house advisers. we talked about whether -- president reagan was about to go into surgery. we talked about whether to invoke the 25th amendment and concluded it would not be the right thing to do. because the doctors told us he would only be under the anesthetic for a short period of time. this was back in the cold war when the threat of nuclear conflict was still quite alive. but we did not think it would be the right thing to do. the vice president of the united states, george h.w. bush was not anxious to see the 25th amendment in vogue, because he had been the last competitor standing against ronald reagan and the nomination in 1980, and he did not give the think that somehow he was trying to take over some power. i had been his campaign manager. i was the white house chief of staff. if i said we would invoke the 25th amendment and give power to george bush, it might have been more than allow a lottery in the white house. so we decided not to do that, but i will say this -- i have the concurrence of president reagan's longtime advisers and taking that course. edwin meese agree with me. as it turned out, everything was fine. vice president bush was so conscious of the fact that he had been the last standing competitor that when he came back to washington, there were going to take a helicopter and land on the south lawn. he said, no, you are not. that is where the president land. we will go to the naval observatory, the vice president's residence. >> what was the relationship between president ford and president reagan like, especially after the 1976 primary challenge? question.a comparison [laughter] giving awaynk i'm any secrets to say not all that good at that time. it later became better. that was a very tough primary. and it is quite natural that in a competition like that, there will be some tension and there was some. and there was some on both sides. i've written two books about my political and public service. the last one was more about my political service. i was telling susan earlier, there is a chapter where i am sitting in the oval office with president reagan, just the two of us, because i was his chief of staff, even though i ran two campaigns against him. get this. delegateesident ford's against governor reagan, and there was george h.w. bush's campaign manager and the fight for the nomination, and yet ronald reagan asked me to be his chief of staff. somebody explain that to make. e. we were sitting in the white house reflecting on a lot of these events and i said, you know, mr. president, if president ford had asked to to come on the ticket with him in 1976, it is my opinion he would have been elected. we would've won that election. that 10,000 votes would not have been a problem. and he might never have been present. he said, that is probably right. he said, but i will tell you this. if the president had asked me to take that position, i would felt duty bound to do it. that is not totally consistent with what the reagan campaign told the ford campaign in 1976 when we said, let's have a unity meeting, and the reagan campaign said, we will have a unity meeting provided you will not ask governor reagan to be on the ticket. we said ok, because president ford did not want to ask him and reagan did not want to be on the ticket. you ask about the tension. there it was, ok? >> what was your biggest challenge at secretary of state in the bush 41 administration? >> i was an extraordinarily fortunate individual to be secretary of state when i was. we used to live in a bipolar world where we have the soviet union and the united states, the cold war. and then the soviet union collapsed, communism imploded, the wall came down, and we were in a unipolar world. united states was the only super power out there and everybody wanted to get close to an uncle whiskers. and i was secretary of state at the time. my job was a hell of a lot easier, because everybody want to be close to the only remaining superpower. so we got a lot of things done. what did we do? we presided over a peaceful end to the cold war. it did not have to end peacefully. it could of ended with a bnag. ang. we have the first call for we kicked iraq out of kuwait with minimal casualties. ifirst-- in the first gulf war. we had the madrid peace conference where israel and her neighbors sat down to talk peace for the first time. we have the unification of germany. so a lot of things happened. you asked me what the toughest challenge was. uh, trying to figure where to concentrate, because we were in such a position to get so many things done, and trying to figure out except in what to concentrate on. i'm not sure we handle the breakup of the former yugoslavia very well. that was perhaps the greatest challenge. >> as secretary of state, what were your experiences with the fall of the berlin wall? >> well, we were fortunate to be in power when it happened. and i credit every american president, democrat and republican, going all with back to the beginning of the cold war, the fact -- for the fact that america was triumphant in the cold war, because every president, democrat or republican and every administration was steadfast in fighting the cold war on behalf of the american people. that is why we ultimately prevailed. i happened to be hosting a lunch in the dining room of the state department for corazon aquino when i got a message from the under secretary of state for political affairs saying that the east germans were going to let people go through the wall. i could tell that was going to be big stuff. by nightfall, it was huge. so i picked up the phone and called president bush and went to the white house and we spent the rest of the day talking about how we were going to deal with that matter. but we were, i think we did it right. as i said, we continue to work. president bush 41 was smart enough not to dance on the wall. the press were all over him saying, why have you not shown more a motion? you want a 40 year conflict. he did not want to stick it in the eye of cortes and the continuing leadership of the soviet union because he knew that we would have to continue to work with them to make sure everything ended totally peacefully -- he did not want to stick it in the eye of gorbachev. one of the most important things we did is to unify germany in peace and freedom as a member of the north atlantic treaty organization. we have in their window of opportunity, but we got it done, and there is now just one terminate. it is very important that that it done in that short timeframe. >> we will go back to a ford administration question. what do think was the impact of the helsinki accords on the cold war? >> i think that is one of the most significant accomplishments of president ford and that is. under-appreciate it. the helsinki accords gave everyone who wanted to support freedom for captive people of eastern or central europe, i n arab countries, gave them argue for etre to human rights and individual freedoms for people, because that was some of the things contained in the helsinki accords. when we return -- when we tore the exhibits, one of the things that was in the accords, saying that borders will only be changed to peaceful means. that is one of the problems we had and the breakup of the former yugoslavia. these countries one of slovenia, croatia, some of them wanted to declare independence, sees the border post. i went over to belgrade and said, if you do this, you will kickoff one heck of a civil war. yugoslavia was only a attempted -- kept together by the authoritarianism of tito. once they started agitating for separation, we thought it would end up in a big civil war, and it did. but the helsinki accords was a very, very important achievement of president ford's administration. >> help us understand why bush 41 was not successful in being reelected? >> there were three reasons. first of all, he had a sarta campaign manager -- me. [laughter] but secondly, we had been there 12 years. i mean, two reagan terms. bush was reagan's vice president. the press particular were tired of us. they really were tired of us. and we were climbing a tough mountain. there was another major problem. that's reason number one. it's very hard to keep the white house for more than 8 years, for any party. we had kept it for 12. secondly, we had a jug-eared fellow named ross perot that you may or may not have heard of, and he took 19% of the vote. clinton got 43%. bush got 38% and perot got 19%. perot was taking two of three votes from us. dd toake 2/3 of 19 and a 38, we have 51. when people say, he did not cost as the election, i will say he thought he did. i thought he did for 20 years and i still think he did. the third thing was our fault, absolutely. that is, instead of going up to capitol hill in january, 1992, when president bush 41 was at 90% approval rating and saying, the desert storm was a great success. now we are going to do domestic storm. and i am going to focus on the domestic problems facing this country, and here is an economic program. if we had done that, i think we might have won that election notwithstanding perot. but we did not do that, and that was a mistake. >> let's talk about another election. this is the one in 2000 with a vote recount. we have two questions -- what are the common misperceptions about the events surrounding a recount? and another. could you discuss it? >> i can discuss the recount. i do not know what people's misconceptions are about it. i can tell you a few factual things. number one, we were never behind in any account whatsoever in all the counts taken. the press went in, all the hanging chads and ballots were saved. "the new york times", a miami paper, i cannot remember which one, these are not fans of republican candidates. they went into their own survey and they said under no scenario could gore have won after they looked at those ballots. so there is a fairly independent look at it. i think -- i used to say that after the 1976 election where we lost by only 10,000 votes out of 81 million, remember thinking to myself that night at 3:30 in the morning, boy, is this something. this is the closest presidential election of your lifetime. well, it was not the closest presidential election. 537 votes. a couple of other things i will say, in addition to the fact that we never lost a recount, we were never behind an account, we won any number of court cases, and yes, we've won the supreme court, the final case, and a lot of people say, you were just given the presidency on a 5-4 decision of the supreme court. that is simply not true. the vote on constitutionality in that case and the supreme court was 7-2. justice breyer, a democrat, voted with republicans, and justice souter, votetd witd with justice ginsburg. you had a bipartisan decision on constitutionality. after they said that the legislature is put in place -- a recount is illegal on constitutional grounds, then they said the time has expired for further recount because by gore's ignition, the critical date was december 12. this was december 11. there was no longer any time to come. the gore campaign made a big mistake. when they ask for recounts in only four counties and they were pro democratic counties, all of them, very heavy democratic counties. instead of a statewide recount. when they did that, that gave us the high ground. their mentor was count every vote. our mentors was, we counted them -- our mantra was we counted and every7, times, time we counted them we won. the supreme court said the florida legislature could not change the rules of the game after the game had started. under the constitution, the legislatures of various states have the ability to determine how presidential electors are selected and florida had a law, but once these recounts started -- by the way, we have a lot of lawsuits, maybe hundreds. the supreme court said, you cannot change the rules of the game after it has started. >> you will be pleased to know that we are going to move to current affairs questions. how and when did things go wrong, leading to the difficult situation the u.s. finds itself in today? >> i do not by the assumption that the u.s. is in decline. if you read the papers today, everybody, we are terrible. we are in such bad shape. if we are in such bad shape, why is that everybody wants to come here? nobody wants to go anywhere else. we're not in good shape today. we have some he among those problems. our big debt bomb. we have debt to gdp of over 100%. that is unsustainable. we continue to spend beyond our means. we have to find a way to do something about that. but i don't buy the argument that we are on the downhill slide. when i was treasury secretary for president reagan in 1986, the japanese were coming in and buying up everything. there were buying up radio city. and everybody was saying, america is down the tubes. japan will all the world. guess what? it did not have been. they just had 15 years of terrible economic times. we have a lot of things going for us that others do not. people compares to china. china's growth is an amazing thing. it is important. we need to acknowledge it. it is significant, but we have some strength that they do not have. and one of them is our political system, our principles, and our ideals. does anybody out there doubt that our political system is going to be any different years from now than it is today, and would anybody has are the same guess about china's? i don't think so. so i don't buy all this stuff about how the u.s. is in terminal decline. we do have some serious problems. we have to figure out how to stop all this spending. we have to live within our means. that means we have to deal with everything -- defense, entitlements, revenues, the whole deal. i will tell you one other thing that i learned from 8 yeraars of service to president reagan -- you do not resolve a deficit problem just by raising taxes. if you do not have spending restraint, i mean legal spending restraint, you can raise taxes until the cows come home and you will never deal with the deficit because congress will spend the money raised in texas and then they will spend more. and the only time we have ever gotten a handle on that to any extent it really was during that george h.w. bush administration when we had legal spending restraint, enforceable spending restraint in the form of the graham-rudman hollings restraints. we got a lot of problems, but i do not buy the argument that something terrible has happened to us. that is simply not true. we ought not to worry about the fact that brazil, india and china are moving up in the world. i think it is more an occasion of the day are moving up than the u.s. going down. why are they moving up? they are moving up because these countries have increased our paradigm of free-market economics. we ought to welcome that. yes, they are competitors now. they did not used to be, some of them. we will have to compete. i think we are positioned to compete with them effectively. >> how do you view the results of the rat study group a of applying to u.s. foreign policy during the era of spring -- the results of the iraq study group applying to the u.s. for policy during the arab spring? >> at the time we take a look at it, we were over there, we were given full access to the cia and others. what we said was, in december, 2006, we said the situation in iraq is grave and deteriorating, and it was. and by the way, we had a provision in the study group report supporting a surge, provided it was short-term and provided the commanders on the ground recommended it. that was the president ended up doing. and it turned out to be to some extent successful, but i have to tell you the jury is still out on what the final result is going to be in iraq. it is certainly a lot better than it was when we went over there in 2006. but i do not think we have seen the end of it yet. and i hope that things don't the did generate after we are fully out of there at the end of this year. but we are coming out. it is over. and certainly the world is better off to be rid of saddam hussein, but we do not know yet what the final situation is going to be. we do not know the extent to which iran may be emboldened and strengthened by what has happened there. and so i think the one thing the iraq study group report did was to focus the attention of policymakers and the country to some extent on the fact that we needed to change what we were doing in their. and we needed to find a way to do a better job of training iraqi forces so we ultimately could leave. we cannot stay in all of these countries forever. the same is true with afghanistan. >> in your role as former secretary of state, could you give us a thumbnail state of the union, particularly as it is related to national security risks for our country? >> we still have significant national-security risks. of course, the terrorism risk is still very much out there. we have to remain vigilant about that. we are targets. we need to understand it. cyber warfare is the vulnerability of the united states. i am not an expert in that. i do not know to what extent we are in a position to defend against cyber warfare. i think it is important for us to remember that throughout recent history our alliances have helped the united states. again, you look at the u.s. and china, we have a web of alliances all across the world, whether it is in asia or europe or where it might be, of people that will help share the burden of freedom loving countries. that is the strength of hours. we need to make sure we keep those strong. how we relate to the arab spring is important. that is a really big thing that is happening out there. again, we do not know what a finer result of that is going to be. i will tell you this -- if the israeli-egyptian peace treaty blows up, you can forget about an israeli-palestinian deal. it will not happen if that peace treaty -- and we do not know who is going to run egypt. it is still very much up in the year. we do not know what will end up happening and libya, whether that will be a civil war or something else. syria is a terrible problem now. and yemen. as far as the threat of terrorism, it does not just come from afghanistan. somalia, yemen, other places like that. >> last question. and i thank ever submitted this. why did you not run for president? we think you would have been a great one. [applause] >> i though about it. my time would have been 1996, in just before that, i had done two stands of chief of staff for two different presidents. i had been secretary of treasury for four years, secretary of state for four years, and i had worked on our lead at a fairly high level five campaigns for president by three republican presidents, and i was dead tired. i was dead tired. my wife and i talked about it. i think we could have raised the money, but i was 66 years old at that time. and we did not have it in us. i have never looked back on that decision. it was the right decision and i am happy with it. i am happy to be back here in grand rapids to stand up for somebody that i will always, all of my life admire and honor --j err jerry ford. thank you all very mucjh. h. [applause] >> this past july 4, in a ceremony held aboard the u.s.s. constitution and boston harbor, simon winchester became an american citizen. >> i decided that i would take all the necessary steps, the exam. i would confess i got one of the questions wrong. >> what was? s it? >> i had an australian friend and i said i got one of the questions wrong. >> she said, not about what color is the white house? >> i feel a full confessing it to you, but it is what is the american national anthem. i said it was "america the beautiful." >> author of 21 books, the latest is in paperback. watch the rest of our interview >> tonight, a look at bill clinton's 1992 run for the white house, with remarks from advisers and strategists. after that, the cnn presidential debate from earlier this week. later, a look at the legacy of gerald ford. >> next, a look back at bill clinton's 1992 run for the white house. the former president is joined by former advisers and strategists. the discussion took place in little rock, arkansas. this is about one hour, 15 minutes. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> good evening. welcome to the clinton presidential center. i am the director of the clinton foundation. [applause] thank you all for joining us for this discussion of the clinton- core campaign and the emergence of the democratic agenda for the 21st century. tonight, our esteemed panel will take us back to 1991 and the political climate that gave rise to bill clinton's eventual victory in the 1992 presidential election. this evening, our moderator is renowned author and columnist, ron brownstein. currently, ron is national journal group's editorial director. not only is he responsible for coordinating political coverage at activities across publications, but he is also a regular contributor to both the "national journal" and "the atlantic." he was a correspondent for "the los angeles times," in addition to writing a weekly washington at outlook column. the is the recipient of several journalism awards, the author of six books, and he regularly appears on national television. please join me in welcoming ron brownstein. [applause] >> thank you, and thank you all for coming. i guess i should start by thanking president clinton and the clinton foundation. i want to thank you for recognizing in this age of 24- hour cable and internet and talk radio that one of our great national challenges is a shortage of opportunities for political pundits to have their views heard. [laughter] all want to thank you for taking a small step toward rectifying that. as democrats began the process of selecting a presidential nominee in 1992, the parties had lost the capacity to effectively compete for the presidency. republicans had won five of the six previous elections, three by landslides. over those six elections, democrats had won one average 43% of the popular vote. the situation in the electoral college was worse. of those six elections, republicans had won on average 460 electorial college votes. during the 1980's, the democrats had won a smaller share of the available collect for college votes than in any three consecutive election sequences since the formation of the modern party system in 1828. it was not an exaggeration when commentators and started just talked about a republican lock on the left for college. when then-governor clinton stood in front of the old state house, that was literally the backdrop for his presidential announcement in october, 1991, but i always thought the real backdrop was the legacy of failure and even marginal position. bill clinton's goals as a candidate or sweeping -- to modernize the democratic agenda in a manner that could advance traditional goals through new means and also rebuild an electoral majority for activist government. to affect both how candidate clinton formulated that decision and how well he implemented it, we have an extraordinary panel door at the center of his national political career both as candidate and president. pretty much everybody in this room could have been on this panel, so we had to narrow it down to our magnificent six. don baer was the communications director the white house and is now vice chairman and chief strategy officer. james carville was the campaign manager for the 1992 campaign. star of the war room. he is now, "and author, actor, producer, talk-show host, speaker, an arrest warrant for -- and restaurant owner." not clear what he is doing in his spare time. al from, who is now the principal of the frum company. frank greer, the media consultant for president clinton's 1992 campaign, and now -- and has not escaped d.c. for the other washington, seattle. vernon jordan, chair of the presidential campaign in 1982 and the senior director, the senior counsel, and the author of an extremely engaging memoir that i explored with him. and finally, we have the hometown favorite, pallotti shackleford, the former deputy campaign manager of the campaign and former vice chair of the democratic national committee. welcome, all. [applause] al from, let me begin with you. one strand of the story starts with the dlc. there are competing theories of how the parties might revive. some thought it was possible to resurrect the new deal coalition with a populist message about economic fairness. there is a competing camp that offered more centrist among economic issues and trade, but conventionally liberal on foreign policy and social issues. then there with the new democratic effort centered on the dlc. how did that differ from the other competing interests and how did it shape what bill clinton ran on in 1992? >> first of all, thank you for everybody coming in, and president clinton, thank you for hosting this great reunion. when we looked at the statistics that you cited about the previous presidential elections and looked at a map, if you look at a map, there was only one state out of the previous five elections that the democrats had won five times, and there were three or four others that they had split. we basically decided that we had to talk to people who go to work every day and play by the rules. the middle class. we thought the traditional, progressive, democratic principles that furthered with new ideas would be the way to get people to start voting for us again. the key element of that was that people would not even listen to us. we had to show that we were different. we were different in five ways. one, we promoted economic growth, not just redistribution. second, we granite our policies in mainstream values like work, family, responsibility. third, we had a new ethic which said it was not just -- a lot of people perceive the democrats as something for nothing, or the republicans every man for himself. it was this concept of opportunity, responsibility going together, a concept of reciprocity, you got something from your country but you had a responsibility to give back. fourth, we tried to get beyond the isolationist image of the democratic party with a reconnecting of the roosevelt, truman, international progressivism. finally, we believe in an activist government that would not have to be bureaucratic and it served people as customers. we tried it to redefine the message. ideas like welfare reform and national service were evidence that we were different than the democrats they had been going against. >> pallotti shackleford, the president -- lottie shackleford, he adopted some of these ideas, but he also talked about middle class families, the economy. how was the experience in arkansas, and how that shaped his message and agenda in 1992? >> i think in many ways, it was probably evolutionary from the time arkansas for started to hear about bill clinton. from the time he first ran for office, he was always talking about what we needed to do an arkansas out to be better and tralee have an opportunity to experience the greatest potential. fast forward to the 1991-1992 campaign, it was the same kind of message. i think all of us got the sense that the government had a responsibility, but you, too, have a responsibility. i think that was one of the real changes that we started to see in that campaign. it was the beginning of somebody saying, i am here to work with you. you think about the book that he put out, putting people first, and these kinds of things, those things resonated. just like everything else, giving new hope and at making you feel that you truly can make a difference and you did not have to be ashamed of your government nor yourself. i think that was the beginning. >> vernon, there was an element of tough love towards his own party in the message in 1991- 1992. certainly, in one seminal moment in the campaign, the speech in cleveland, 1991, he said, "to many of the people who used to vote for us have not trusted us in national elections to defend our national interests abroad, to put their values and our social policy at home, or to take their tax money and spend it with discipline." tough words about your own party. i am interested in your thoughts about, why was the party ready, enough of the party ready for that message by 1992 for him to win the nomination, meanwhile offering a stern critique of where the party had been of the last decade or so? >> the party was lost at sea. the party did not have much leadership. bill clinton came in 1991, and he was to the democratic party what rosa parks was this the the civil rights movement -- what rosa parks was to the civil- rights movement. the west to the democratic party what the students in february 1, 1961, were to the civil-rights movement. he was to the democratic party what martin luther king became to the movement. it was change, it was different, it was fresh, it was young. it was also experienced. he had been governor ran long time. it was renaissance time in the democratic party, and a lot of the older democrats had to be brought around, they had to be converted, they had to be convinced. and here we are. [applause] >> frank, by the time you get to the announcement speech in 1991, the synthesis of new and old, you read that speech today, there are a lot of familiar notes, expanded opportunities and economic fairness, but also some new notes about fiscal responsibility, marry an opportunity and responsibility. he talked about the process, that speech, that landmark moment in the campaign, and to what extent there was a tug at about how far you went in a traditional direction vs. how far you went in challenging the party direction? >> i think one of the things in that time that you need to remember is that bill clinton had been on the front lines 10 years in education reform, welfare reform. he had been on the front lines doing the hard work, and a tough state, by the way. he had a better understanding of how to communicate this new approach for democrats and how to communicate opportunity, but also responsibility and a sense of community that we need to restore to the country. i think it was based on his terrific experience in arkansas, his personal values and what he brought to the campaign. and the other thing which was very different for democrats, he was a hell of a good communicator. he had a message, he understood the issues, had the experience, as vernon said, and he also had the ability to communicate. and the speech and the reaction he had, that was the first trial run of the message. it was an amazing speech, and it is as relevant today, and the speech that he gave out on the statehouse lawn is as relevant today in terms of the issue, the approach for democrats, and the approach to the country as it was then. [applause] >> james, we're going to talk about the general election and some of the innovations, but i want to ask about the primary if i could. it was very different from what you or most people expected. most people were gearing up for this is the logical, generational battle come up with mario cuomo of perhaps representing the old new deal consensus and clinton running as a centrist new generation new democrat. instead, your main rival became paul tsongas, who came at of the neo-liberal strain, who ran at mostly from the center, in many ways. how much did that scramble your calculations and change your approach to the way that he presented himself to the electorate? >> first, we had some defense before the primary that scrambled that more than paul tsongas did. [laughter] one of the things -- and i think anybody who has worked a presidential campaign, everybody talks about the general. the general is actually kind of easy. you have airplanes and staff and funding and you land at one place and sleep in the same bed every night. the primary is just always going. it is like harry thomason's airplane, sitting in their pact, going to new hampshire, four- hour flight, freezing cold. you would have staff meetings at 2:00 in the morning. >> no lunchtime. >> the thing that struck me was unbelievable fatigue. the other thing, there is no idea of the things that president clinton could do in a campaign. he knew that he could do it. it was a town hall, you knew that he could do it. if it was "meet the press," you knew that he could do it. very seldom was there the confidence that it would be ok, you just sort of did it. >> even the week before new hampshire? >> i have never seen -- if you look at the hours, the week before new hampshire, i had never seen a human being in my life perform to the standards that he performed from the monday, that final eight days -- i will never forget that town hall. it was one after another after another. and by the way, even at night, we actually lost new hampshire, unbeknownst to president clinton. we lost new hampshire by seven points. >> 19% of the vote. >> right, but it was so funny, we actually ended up in new orleans after all of that, and i had to do the "today show," and i cannot do any more. that is the thing about the primary people did not understand. they are so much harder than the general, they really are, and there is so much intensity. you hate everybody. [laughter] remember the tirade against it was the fund reserve from baltimore? i cannot remember the guy's name. >> vernon? >> there is something we should never forget about the new hampshire defeat, and that is they came in late that night and nobody was talking, everybody was quiet. somebody asked the question, governor, what do we do now? and the governor said, take me to the people. that was his response the night of the defeat in new hampshire. he said, take me to the people. he did not say called the newspaper or the networks, he said, take me to the people, because he understood where a democracy ultimately reside spread that -- ultimately reside. it is not on the editorial pages, it is to the people. then he went to georgia and he won, and the rest is history. >> one of the things i was going to go back to, to remind folks, we went to new hampshire with a lot of good research from stan greenberg, but we took bill clinton's message and experience and what he believed in, the new approach, opportunity, responsibility, community, and we took it to focus groups in new hampshire before the announced speech. democrats in this focus groups said, thank goodness, this is what we have been looking for, waiting for. the response was amazing. then, to go to your point, people forget that the first part of the campaign was a 60- second spot. people said candidates cannot do this. two cameras, bill clinton talking about his message and plan for america. we went from 15% in the polls in 10 days to 35%. it was from 35% that we came back down, but thank god, given the message, and the research that we had done, and green. did a fantastic job of that, we had a message from the message from new hampshire that was so welcomed by the democrats. it was new responsibility, welfare reform. >> that positive response in the focus group was one thing, but the idea of linking opportunity and responsibility, but we talked about responsibility and welfare was not uniformly cheered, especially at the outset. 1991, the speech in cleveland, jesse jackson was essentially leading a counter protest. there was a point in the campaign where doug wilder was quoted as suggesting that bill clinton only started talking about welfare after david duke did so well in louisiana in 1991. you always talk about racial reconciliation, became enormously popular with african- american voters, but this was rough terrain in the beginning. >> right, and i sought from the perspective as a journalist. i was an editor and reporter for a news magazine, "u.s. news and world report." i was covering part of the campaign. my kids like to tease me, i am getting older, exactly 17 years ago right now, this happened. here is the deal, exactly 20 years ago today -- sounds like the beatles, 20 years ago today i closed the first article i ever wrote about bill clinton, and it was to go into the magazine the week that he was announcing his candidacy. i got to spend extended time with him on a flight from washington to map this, because it cannot fly direct to little rock at that time. -- on a flight from washington to meant this, because she could not fly direct to barack at the time. we hit bad weather around memphis and we could not land. i get to spend three hours with him and the land instead of 1.5 hours. i remember this, the governor was meeting mrs. clinton in memphis, where they were going to be flying back to little rock because chelsea was 11 years old and she was going to one of her first boy/girl dances and he wanted to get off in time to go to that. we talked for an extended time, and two things came through. they were very different, and had covered the 1988 presidential campaign. they had put me on every democratic candidate who lost. every time i would come on the airplane, about two months later that canada would be out of the race, not because of me. they then sent me to cover the bush white house as a correspondent. what i noticed was, and i still have the transcript, mr. president, and i still have your ticket for your seat -- which if you want it back for a refund purposes or whatever, i could give it to you -- but two things came through, and that was the way the media covered that campaign and covered him bore this out. one, and all started with ideas. as general and vague as that sounds, that was unusual. we had not had the idea behind policy things, but work with the dlc, the work in arkansas that was a core of that. the second, which relates to the point, it also came out of his personal narrative. the story of his life in arkansas, all the way back to hope and mandy, but it was so clear this was a person who is genuinely connected to a place and to real people who he cared deeply about. and as you probe and scratched, they care deeply about them. part of that was the african- american community, where he had the ability to say these things about welfare and crime that most democratic politicians from places that you would have imagined could say these things were not in a position to do. it went great credibility to it. it was not seen as an attack, it was seen as, how do we come together to solve these challenges together. >> al, let me ask you, there were many memorable moments, and one in particular was in michigan, during the primary, where at the suggestion of stan greenberg and doug ross, who was running the dlc in michigan, the president went to a predominantly african-american church in the inner city of detroit and give a speech on the opportunity and responsibility in delivered virtually the same speech to an audience at macomb county committee college, famous as kind of the wellspring of the reagan democrats, the blue- collar white democrats would become disaffected from the party. that seemed symbolic of what he was trying to do, to argue the common language, the message that could appeal equally on all sides of the racial divide. talk about that, about trying to find the language to speak to white and african-americans in the same terms. >> i had a seven-year spat with jack rosenthal, who was head of the editorial page of the "new york times," that we would find a candidate in develop a message with the right candidate who would talk to working-class whites and african-americans. like bobby kennedy. i believed it was the day after the day of the illinois primary, where he and an editorial acknowledged that we had done just that, sort of conceded that to me. but vernon made an important point, bill clinton, governor clinton always went to the people. what we did, when he started as chairman of the dlc, we laid out our philosophy. for historians, you ought to go to the speech at hyde park in 2000 and see how every principle that we outlined led to policies. he did a speech at hyde park where he showed everything that he did as president came from those principles, something that is the kind of deep belief that i think is important for the presidency. but the other thing we did, we went around him, in 25 states. we were not doing political fund-raising, we were not doing right to the organizing. we were meeting with small groups of people, diverse groups, and talking about the ideas that came to define the campaign. we had a very good feeling on how people would respond, and also they helped us shape those ideas. but it always struck me, whether we were in california or montana or south dakota or wyoming, wherever we wear, president clinton could go to two groups that were absolutely 180 degrees opposed on a single idea, something like charter schools, for example, give the same speech to both groups, word for word, and both of them would come out and say, i may not agree with everything, but this guy is on the right side of the issue. >> frank? >> bill clinton and i also grew up in the segregated south. we understood, i think, it took someone from that experience to bridge the gap between working- class whites and african- americans. in the announcement speech, he talked about, i know what they want to do, they want us fighting each other, staring across the divide, instead of turning our attention to the people were responsible because we do not have jobs for blacks, four whites, for working people in this country, and that is what he wanted to do. he understood it, i think, because he had lifted. and how you bring that coalition together? it was growing up in it. >> it was very important, give credit to bill clinton, the work that he had done, that was bubbling up across the south. among democrats who had figured out in the aftermath of desegregation how could get back in the game. because republicans had taken over most of the state houses, many of the state legislatures. i grew up in north carolina, and that was what we had seen come up democrats realized there were these crosscutting, unifying issues like education, the right things to do for their states, that they understood it could bring people together rather than divide them. >> in the long run, the coalition and the being more minorities and upper-middle- class, college-educated whites, then minorities and blue collar. >> as she talked about particularly african-americans, one of the things that related so well, they could feel it genuinely. they knew when people talk to -- they knew when the clinton talked to the people it is genuine, it was not something that was scripted. they knew that. then at vernon talk about the democratic party and its leadership. i think we must recognize the fact that even the democratic party, national day, was undergoing a change. ron brown had been elected in 1989, and that was a change for the party, because ron and the political director had starred at that -- [applause] and they were going across the country, showing them how they could win. i think you take that, coupled with all of the clinton fought wars, from the arkansas travelers -- coupled with all of the clinton followers, from the arkansas travelers, who started in 1991 to one across this country saying, you know, my governor may run for president, will you take a look at him. we went into all kinds of places doing that kind of thing. i think that was the first campaign on a national level that started to integrate off assets and the k value, and the value to all facets and all groups because of bill clinton. >> james, even with the sharpening of this message and the success in the primary, but the time the primary was over, you guys were bruised and battlebattered. he was not only troweling president bush but ross perot. i remember in the exit poll, ross perot was running extraordinarily well in the general election. talk about where you ended up in the primary and the process that you went through to try to reintroduce governor clinton to the country, culminating in the convention speech. >> i want to 0.1 thing out. only person here who had to travel there to get to little rock. i just like to point it out. >> we need to go back to one thing. >> it was just a joke. >> something to be clear, there was an impression that all democrats who grew up in a segregated society got the message. that is not true. that is not true. bill clinton got it, but there are a lot of them who did not get it, and did not get it now. [applause] >> what happened was people were saying in may of 1992 there was some chance you had to reach a certain threshold to qualify for matching funds. there was actually taught that we did not reach that threshold. it was like 30%, something like that. there was serious talk. there was a front-page story, saying that democrats on the hill were looking for some alternative, although it look like bill clinton had the nomination. all of those things were going on in may of that year. and said, went in look, we're going to get the nomination. we knew that. ron brown had sent paul tully down here, trying to get a mathematical certainty. we start something referred to as the manhattan project, where we went and did i don't know how many focus groups and everything. what we found out was that people really saw this wasn't extraordinary, talented person. -- this was an extraordinary, talented person. the ways this guy? he has all of these things to say that we kind of agree with. a lot of things were swirling around. who is the real bill clinton? and remember the man from hope? the connecting? >> was not one of the findings that many people thought he was a child of privilege? >> they did not know, but he was so articulate, they assumed he was. we had to reintroduce who he was and what his values were, because the thought he was a rich kid with a silver spoon, and they resented that. >> and that culminated in the convention speech rooted in the arkansas experience. he was a product of the middle class, but i thought was the core argument of the convention speech. it was rooted in the arkansas experience, and that became a metaphor for how he ascended and would help others to send. >> but he also very clearly what back to the new democratic reformers. when you have a primary in a state like new york, it's sort of defines you as opposed to you defining it. just a couple of things that i thought were really important in that time, and there were others. one is when he picked his vice- presidential candidate, he really broke paradigm. he did not balance the ticket, he may be cleared the message campaign. one of the things we cannot lose, as we think about all of the things that happen in a campaign, is how message- oriented this campaign was. we were telling people we were different. by picking alcor to be vice president, i remember when he called me he said, it will be the changing of the guard. was part of the message we're trying to deliver. he went to look at organization and a speech about reinventing government. in the platform, we did not do what every other democratic candidate had done, which was give the platform to the losers. we ran on opportunity, responsibility, community, made at the platform. we had to fight off a lot of amendments by others in the party, but we were determined to run on our own platform. we did a bunch of things that drove the ross perot vote down. it made clear that clinton was not the same kind of democrat that people were voting against. >> in addition to that, a lot of people tend to forget, but on october 3, 1992 -- november 3, 1992, a lot people say, i was there, i was there, oh, you are? people tend to forget that when the clinton campaign started, most of the movers and shakers, so to speak, did not want to have anything to do, which met in practically every state, james talked about raising the required money, and practically every state, it was truly grassroots at that time. these were not the movers and shakers in these communities. these were everyday people who believed in him and his message and barely got out there. -- and really got out there. that was one of the turning points, going further than that campaign at that time, that was one of the true meanings of grass roots. clinton had the ability to empower folks. people were doing things that you never knew they were doing, but they were doing it because there was this sense of empowerment they had from the campaign. once clinton moved forward from the primary, not everybody just knew, though, that campaign will not stay in arkansas. two things. number one, nobody got fired, they just kept hiring folks. we had more layers in that campaign than any other i have known, but people were empowered. at lot of good people, who were sorry later, did not work on that campaign because they did not to lose to little rock -- did not want to move to little rock. >> talking about message and agenda, but that was not the whole story. in many ways, there were so many innovations with things that have become commonplace, like a war room, or using pop culture channels. he went on arsenio hall. there was a great debate over whether that was demeaning for presidential campaign. even doing a town hall on a morning show. and, of course, at the absolute cutting edge of 21st century technology, which was like running for president with the jets since. -- jetsons. did you feel like you had to try new things? >> that was the time when the cell phone was bigger than stan greenberg. [laughter] one thing that you have to understand, the searing impression that the 1988 dukakis campaign made it on the party. you cannot imagine. a lot of things were governed by that, to some extent. >> no tanks, for example. >> if you go back to some of the cultural things, from arsenio hall, morning shows, how many war rooms have there been since 1992? everybody has a war room now. companies have a war room. it was actually hillary who came up with that term. need, let'swhat we have a war room. how many times if you google, stupid"?e blank president obama went on a bus tour. it has become part of the culture, the sort of change of all of that. if i look back, the one thing where you knew that it would work, the gore thing, when they came to little rock, in the back of the governor's mansion, you knew right as soon as you saw that, you kind of knew without ever -- right, you just cannot imagine the visual that had that there was a new guard. you are just sitting there. everybody knew. but again, a lot of the things that we did were also, it seemed odd, but the news cycle had become so compressed. so often, the first take is the one. everybody would wait for somebody to write a column, put an interpretation on the debate. you had that, and then we had -- you go back and look at the press corps we had traveling. that is when the press had money. some of the most aggressive, talented people in journalism were covering that, and every day, day in, day out. it was an amazing time. i do think as you look at it, i think the campaign was not just a different way but it was a cultural transformation of america. >> in the general election, the bush campaign would pride many of the arguments that worked effectively -- would try many of the arguments that worked out on democrats over the previous 20 years, tax-and-spend liberals, weak on foreign policy, and partially because the was dissatisfaction because of the status quo, what was different? did the new democrats initially give him a stronger line of defense? why did those arguments not work as well as they had in 1988? >> first, the new democratic positioning gave him not just a great defense, it gave him an offense, it gave him a for a clean. it or actually leading the pack. we were in a completely new context and landscaped with that election. it was the first presidential election after the end of the cold war. many new ideas, people were open to new perspectives, it was a new opportunity to lift up our heads and think about national leadership in a different way. finally, to step up and solve a lot of things that we had been facing that had been stepped to the side. it's tough to the side because of the national security considerations. but to come back to the race issue. in the course of the eight years of the clinton presidency, started in this campaign, bill clinton systematically -- nothing ever seems systematic, but systematically took off the table the wedge issues that republicans and conservatives had used to divide the country and divide the previous 30 years before that. welfare reform, crime, a number of things, to the point where -- -ish, butund pollyannas race was not the dividing force it had been in the previous decades. >> you anticipate a question. >> one of the narrative set against then-governor clinton was that his whole life was plotting and scheming. he had to be a signature issues, opposition to the vietnam war and a very aggressive set of pro-civil rights. because that was the thing that you did to get elected. if you were going to craft your political career, those other things that you would pick. excellent job of political consulting back then. [laughter] >> vernon, we talked about in the spring there was a low. was there a moment when you thought, wow, this really could happen, this campaign could elect the president? >> you won't believe this, because this sounds a little bit self-serving. i came to little rock in 1973 to speak to the little rock urban league. the president and hillary came to that dinner. it was the first time i met him. i went back home and told my then-wife surely i had just met a president of the net states. -- i told my dad and-wifeshirley that i had just met a president of the united states. what i liked about him is he left law school and came home. i left law school and came home. he came back to the south to do something about race. i went back to atlanta to do something about race. and we made that connection in 1973, and we have been connected ever since. [applause] >> anybody else? 1992, what was, was mom ital, you thought this could work? >> my moment was before 1992. i did a celebrity deal in the fall, september, 1991, right before the announcement. i told the person who is going to take of the the new york times that bill clinton would be the next president. i was convinced when we went around the country in 1990-1991 this man would be president. i had a few doubts as the numbers went down in may, but i really -- i thought he was going to be president in 1990. >> i will say, and i remember the event, i think it was san francisco when i first saw you and have a rate speak at a children's fun to dinner. -- when i first saw you and hillary speak at a children's fund dinner. the said these folks have a message and know how to communicate. that was the key difference. they had core values and core beliefs. i really believe from that point on, especially in the gubernatorial campaign that i worked on, it was clear that this, more than any other democrat, this is somebody who understood how to connect to the people. by the way, vernon, the thing about, "take the to the people," the key turning point was when we did town hall meetings. getting away from the press corps and talking to real people. those ripped people gave you strength, but it also said, this is what the message is about. -- those real people give you strength, but it also said, this is what the message is about. >> when i knew he would be president, it was the trip i took with him in the early september, 1991, we had this long time. we landed, he and hillary it went to chesley's stance. i came back to washington that night. washington, that night, friday, been the way it is now, i went to a dinner in georgetown, journalists, very cynical people, and a guy who worked on the white house staff of the bush administration, my wife was there. i walked in and i said to my wife and the people there, i am absolutely certain i have just spent the day with the next president of the united states. this is when bush was at 60% of the polls. my wife was nice to me, and everybody else out at the dinner said, you were out of your mind. but it was so absolutely clear. and this relates to something vernon touched on, this was somebody who had shown by virtue of where he had lived his life that he was committed to people and he had come home. i was a southerner, too, went to law school up north, who did not go home to work on those things. i became a media lawyer in new york and became a journalist. by so respected what he had given up to come back to do what he felt was the most appalling thing to do. -- i so respected what he had given up to come back to do what he felt was the most important thing to do. >> i also remember his performance at the national governors' association meeting at the educational summit in charlottesville, where bush called the summit and clinton literally captured that education reform movement. >> james, let me ask, everybody says they saw this, but there was another speed bump in the fall. ross perot came back in the race, getting a surprising audience. qualified in the summer, it's back in the debate, and now you are looking at a race that at one point is 3, four, five points. talk a little about that and what your interpretation was of why he found an audience, ross perot, and what it meant to you in the final weeks? >> first of all, a lot of senior people in the campaign are catholic or jews. there is something catholics and jews share, we are not optimistic about much. [laughter] i was not. election morning, stan and i meet at 6:30, go over where we were. i don't think we ever showed it tightening. but gallop did, but they changed it. i just would not allow myself to think of it. and you never knew what was going to happen. i am sure i knew deep down inside, but i would not allow myself to think about something like that. it was just not the nature to have. but i do think looking back on it, the convention is with the thing -- is when the thing broke. i think people wanted to be, they saw some talent there, they saw something there. once you were able to connect to he was with what he was saying, that was the thing, looking back, that put him over. >> the agenda and the biography. >> consistent with what i believed about bill clinton, in 1991, i took bill clinton to meetings in germany. they have been going on since 1964. the north american, european alliance. two other u.s. politicians were there, another governor, and senator dianne feinstein. they were sort of laid back. the governor of arkansas cornered every person -- [laughter] at that meeting, what do you do, where are you from, how do you do what? they came away saying, who is this clinton died and where is arkansas? -- who is this clinton guy and whereas arkansas? [laughter] after that, i said he is going to be the next president of the united states. this said, that is impossible, they were for bush. but he won. the steering committee came to washington in january. i called the president and i said, mr. president, they are here. they came to the four seasons hotel, and the europeans felt like they owned him because they met him when he was totally unknown. >> our time has basically been consumed. one final thing, and the lasting impact of this campaign and its agenda and the coalition, republicans have won five of the sixth elections until 1988. since 1992, democrats have won i the have wonn four of the past five elections. the democrat has won more than 43% of whites in that time, and in 2010, the democratic vote among whites was the lowest level ever in congressional lections in the history of polling. we do come after the 1990's when policy seemed to be de-realized, we have enormous gaps between the the way that whites and non- whites vote. if you look at whole ledger, what was the lasting impact of this agenda and the message in reshaping the democratic coalition, and has evolved since president clinton's time? >> well, everything evolves. but, i mean, there are so many lasting impacts. vernon was talking about european leaders. during the 1980's, but in almost every european country, there were conservative governments. starting with tony blair and the new labor, this formula that bill clinton really developed changed the whole face of world politics. i think there are some things, probably, some of the political things where there might have been some backsliding in the party and where the party has to work through again, but i think there are a lot of other things that are really very important. nobody questions and lot of the ideas -- nobody questions a lot of the ideas that caused us some much grief. i don't see people wanting to repeal welfare reform. the whole idea of americorps and the national service. we changed the national system with community policing and 100,000 cops. charter schools is the central element of president obama's reform agenda for education. and i think, most importantly, i do think -- you know, there is always some backsliding in any political party. we are a political party, we are not like the republicans, everybody is not exactly the same. but the understanding that if we are going to be a successful party, you have to grow the economy, create jobs for ordinary people. i don't think our party has lost that. that may seem like a simple thing, but it was not a simple thing in 1991. >> that seems like a good final summary on which to stop. thank you all for listening. i think the president would like to make a few final remarks. [applause] >> thank you. first of all, i want to thank the panelists. i think they were great. and thank you for taking me down memory lane. not everything they said was true. the truth is the day i declared for president, my mother was the only person in america who thought i could win. [laughter] hillay and chelsea were undecided, leaning maybe. that is not quite true. there are a couple of points that i want to make, based on what they said. first of all, we could not win the election in new hampshire, but we could have lost it. and new hampshire worked for me because it was a lot like a year. -- i just want to say since we are here in little rock, it would be a big mistake -- here is what the deal was. the republicans thought that i was the only person that had a theoretical chance to win even though i -- when i started running, i was low in the polls. they decided to go after me. i went up to 35 and got down to 18. i was heading down to single digits. greenberg said somebody has a pretty small -- strong foot to put on the brakes. 18 was not enough. hundreds of people came from arkansas spontaneously. literally, it was almost like it was organized. a friend told his employer he had to go but cannot afford to fly, so he drove straight through. he started going on radio stations saying iraq to let me talk about this. 600 people from arkansas took out a full-page ad in the manchester union's leader with their phone numbers and said call us collect, do not believe you -- do not believe what they are telling you about our governor. new hampshire took it seriously. thousands and thousands of people called these people in arkansas collect. [laughter] [applause] then, with our volunteers that were already there, we bag at 100,000 -- bagged 100,000 little films. do you remember that? we put 100,000 of them on the doors of the voters we identified as still persuade bloable. we came back and said we start going down at some point below 18% and we got back up to 36%. the rest is history. that is the first thing i want to say. i am very grateful for the people of this date. -- of this state. [applause] having a narrative is really important. if one side does and the other side does not, it is a very bad deal. the one thing that people like me who are oriented towards policy need to guard against is losing the forest for the trees. one of the things that really helped us was when not only had a narrative, but in the beginning we had a theme song. remember that? this man right here was responsible for it. stand up. [applause] a little known factoid in american history. i flew to california to give a speech, not particularly political, and he said, "i think you are going to run for president next year. i hope you do and if you do, this should be your theme song." it is a true story. there were no cds then. he puts the song in the tape deck and it is fleetwood mac singing "don't stop thinking about tomorrow." i said, "you were not born when that was made. actually, he was 2-years old. the minute i listened to it, i knew he was right. you were part of that campaign. you should thank him. he had a lot to do with it. [applause] you all talk about race and that brings me -- i want to come back to the narrative. one of the things that always mystified me, every time i look back at something i said in 1974 or 1976 is how all the media said i did not believe anything. what they were really saying is how dare you not talk like all the people in washington and how dare you expect us to have to look at your record as governor in arkansas to see if you are serious about this. they know how we want to talk about politics. a conservative is someone who despises government, hates taxes, hates regulations, thanks all programs will mess up if you incorporate, and a liberal is anybody who disagrees. you are confusing us, therefore you have no soul, no nothing. it did not work with african- americans who have a very good detector -- an additive which we cannot use on c-span. [applause] [laughter] it is not rocket science. i did not leave vernon in 1973. i had already been friends with hillary for four years, something he never stopped telling me. in 1977 i became attorney general. i had taught in the law school at the university of arkansas. three-quarters of all african- american lawyers practicing in the state, up 20% of my professional staff was african- american. 25% were female lawyers. i had one of the highest percentages of women lawyers of any attorney-general's office in america. the highest percentage of african-american lawyers. they went after me in the boardrooms of the elite, liberal -- liberal newspapers. 15 years ago when i was attorney general, i had a high percentage of african-american lawyers in my office than you do today. when you catch up to me, come back to see me and tell me how i do not believe in something. meanwhile, i will go back to work. [applause] but the media then it was coming to grips with the problem that they have now. this is not a criticism, i am expressing empathy with them. it is the top running these tv shows today. the economics for newspapers are horrible. they are horrible. the economics of magazines are horrible. that is why you see these boilers of news, commentary, and entertainment. if you are like me and our semi- retired, you do not have to watch the news at all. you can change the channel and watch a movie, sports, or something. this is difficult. that is why they look for short in boxes to put people in. when president kennedy was in office, the average president when he was on the evening news talk for 30 seconds or something. maybe 40. now it is down to six or eight. this is a generalized problem. anyway, i want to thank everybody, starting with the people who are here in arkansas. rodney slater who started with me in 1982 and rode it all the way to the cabinet. richly deserve, i might add. ron brown is a new democrat, even though he is never with us. not a week goes by i do not think about him and thank god for his presence in my life. i love him. [applause] but this idea of having ideas -- that is the other thing i was going to say -- 2008 was the first time since 1992 i think because people were hurting so bad that people were starved for ideas. but i put out this little booklet and people were making fun of me saying it was too policyd, it was to polico wonky. we got 60% of the vote in a six- person field because we were the only people who said this is what we were going to do. we were driving to claremont one night and i asked how many people we had to have in new hampshire to avoid humiliation. someone said 50. i said what is the grand success? he said 150. we show up as 400 people and the fire marshall will not let them come to the door. why? but because i said what we were going to do. it is important for people to remember that when they hire you to be president people understand it is a job and they want to know what the heck you are going to do. paul tsongas had a very detailed plan. it did not heard anything that he was a town south of the new hampshire border. they made fun of us saying after we did all of the activity we were second. i said that is right. let's see how he does in memphis. [laughter] 81% of the people voted for me. but i like paul tsongas because he said what he was for. that is important. it is important not to forget. i will say all of this to the rest of you -- it is very important not to get caught in all of this. it is important to take it back to the people and make it about the people in the circumstances of the time. i go crazy every time i read the conventional wisdom which is the republican narrative. they are so much better at narrative than we are. it is easier to have a narrative if the story is always the same. but they are good at it. [laughter] part of the republican narrative is that i was saved from myself by the election of the republican congress. it may be balanced budget possible. a lot of these folks in ron's profession keep saying this. overlooking all relevant facts. fact number one, the budget was 90% balanced before the balanced budget act was passed. [applause] so it is not a tree that the democrats voted for the '93 budget agreement. they toted the load. fact number two, when it comes to welfare reform, the first new democrat was bobby kennedy. if he had not been killed, the whole world would have known it. the second new democrat on welfare reform -- welfare reform was jimmy carter, who gave four of five states the right to start welfare reform experiments. i beg the white house to make us one of the test cases and they gave it to us. fact number three, before the welfare reform bill passed, donna shalala and i had given 43 of the 50 states waivers to implement welfare reform before we ever had a bill. yet i kept reading how this was a republican idea just because president reagan had a good story about a welfare queen in a cadillac that did not exist. [applause] i am telling you this -- i want you to laugh, but it is kind of sad. we need a coherent narrative. we need -- [applause] this is the only thing i will say about the current circumstances -- i thought the president did the right thing to lay out a coherent plan to jump- start the economy now and try to get the growth rate higher. he did the right thing to tell the american people the truth -- we are never going to balance the budget at this rate of economic growth and this rate of low business investment. you have to have spending cuts, new revenues, and economic growth. my last budget was also a surplus budget. they sparked a lot of growth. you have to have all three things. i think it is really important for those of us when we look back at that time to remember what they said. the economy was not as bad then as it was now, but it was pretty bad. we kept slipping back in. we would get out of the recession and slipped back in. we're not generating job growth. a lot of people were really hurting. we went to see a bunch of them. do you remember that? the number-one rule of effective politics, especially for the people you are running again, is to have a simple narrative. the government is always the problem, there is no such thing as a good or bad tax cut, there is no such thing as a good or bad cut, there is no such thing as a good or bad regulation. your counter have to be rooted in the lives of other people. and so they made that happen. the other thing i want to say, i have the gratitude for every one of these people, but i have to tell you -- we were looking at total meltdown about one week before new hampshire. we were in a little room and james carville -- he likes to act crazy because it helps him get speaking bigggigs. the figures if he goes around acting like he needs a rabies shot, more and more people would want to see him. [laughter] we were alone, do you remember that? just a handful of us in that little motel room. they were saying i was dead and all the commentators said i should withdraw. james carville stood up and said, "i served in the united states marines. i come from louisiana. i like people who believe in serving this country and combat. unlike all these people who are saying bill clinton is dead, i have actually read his letter and i believe we should take a full-page ad out in the manchester union leader and print his vietnam letter. it made me think more of him. do not let people define this. this is a kid. he was a kid. he said some things he would say different today, but he loved his country and he had a good reason to do it. now everybody get up and go back to work." the deserves a lot of credit for that. he stood alone in that room and said that. [applause] that is my thing. we always need a narrative. it needs to be people-centered. we need to let people know what we are going to do. one of the things that tends to tilt things towards the republican's anti-government narrative is our country was born out of the suspicion of government. king george's government was not accountable to us. that is what the boston tea party was about. with the tea party started out, at least, they were against unaccountable behavior from top to bottom and more to into something different. if you want to go against that grain, you have to tell people you understand it is a privilege and responsibility to spend their tax money, but there are some things we have to do together. that is the purpose of government -- to do the things we have to do together that we cannot do on our own. believing in shared prosperity and shared responsibility and sharing our membership in the committee is better than "you are on your own." if we can make that choice credible, then our candidates, starting with the president, and our principles will be fine. we also have to always realize that we might be wrong about some things. that also is a good thing. if one group, once you show your own strength, says i might be wrong about a particular thing and the other group never does, the average person thinks more of the honest side than the proud side, the falsely proud side. i do not think any of that has changed very much. i was touched when frank greer said he read the gop announcement speech. again, i thank all these people for what they did all those long years ago. i thank all of you who were part of it. i probably would not have survived in new hampshire. i am afraid it will cost him half of his news gigs, but i considered him to be a righteously honest person who had convictions about the way the world works, about the way the world should work, and did not ask what he said -- what you said through a priest conceived -- preconceived smokescreen. benjamin franklin once said our adversaries could be our brands because they show us our faults. i always played it straight and at i am honored by your presence here. thank you all. it was great. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> tonight, a cnn pub -- republican presidential debate from earlier this week. after that, a look at the legacy of gerald ford, the 38 of the debt of the united states. later, another look at that discussion on bill clinton's 1992 run for the white house. tomorrow on "washington journal," the impact on the deficit reduction committee's inability to reach a deal with josh boak. after that, joseph mcquaid. later, daniel seddiqui talked about his book "50 jobs in 50 states." that is live at 7:00 eastern here on c-span. >> the co-chairman of the congressional progressive caucus talked about the progressive's agenda, what is next for deficit reduction, and gives a great to the president on his first three years in office. >> what grade would you give the president if you could for his first three years in office? do you plan to endorse him? will you commit to us on this program that he will endorse him in his bid for reelection? >> i would give are printed in a passing grade. c is a passinghea grade. >> a b- or c. i consider them passing grades. >> if that would you would give the president? >> yes, i would say it is a passing grade. but in terms of an endorsement, like i said, i have seen the cast of characters on the other side. i think what they bring to the discussion right now is the same kind of hard, extremist position both on the economy and the social well-being of this project of this country. the contract with the president is obvious. i will support the president. >> watched the entire interview on "newsmakers" sunday at 10:00 a.m. and again at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. it is also available online at c-span.org. >> the newly designed c-span.org web site has 11 video choices making it easy for you to what today's events live and recorded. it is easy to get our schedule with new features so you can quickly scroll through all the programs featured on the c-span network and even received an e- mail alert when your program is scheduled to air. there are links to our programs. a handy channel finder predict finder so you can find where to what our c-span network on cable or satellite systems across the country at the all new c- span.org. >> neck, a cnn republican presidential debate on national security and the economy. you will hear from eight of the republican presidential candidates. during the debate, newt gingrich made the news for his comments on immigration policy. this is debate took place in washington, d.c., and was hosted by the heritage foundation. it is one hour and 40 minutes. >> please take your podiums while i tell you a little bit more about how this debate will work. i will be the moderator. our partners from the heritage foundation and the american enterprise institute will ask questions as well. i will follow up. i will try to guide the discussion. i will try to make sure each candidate gets their fair share of questions. you will have one minute to answer, up 30 seconds for follow-up and a bottle. i will make sure you get time to respond if you are singled out for criticism. this year more than ever, we have seen how events beyond our borders directly affect america, including the economy. candidates, republican voters are here. they are watching our around the country to decide if you have what it takes to be the next commander in chief, to shape form policy, and to protect this great nation. on some of these issues you will agree, on some you will disagree. by the end of the night, voters should have a better understanding of how you would lead the nation in times of crisis. let's let the candidates introduced themselves to the audience. keep it very brief. i will -- i am it will splinter. i will be your moderator this evening. i am happy to welcome each of you to our debate. rick santorum, let's begin with you. >> i am rick santorum and it is great to be here. the number one responsibility of the federal government is national security. if you like what barack obama has done to our economy, you'll love what he has done to our national security. >> i am ron paul, congressman from texas. i am plea to be here to debate because it is a very important debate. i am confessed that need this and unnecessary wars are a great detriment. they undermine our prosperity and our liberties. they add to our deficit and consume our welfare. we should take a careful look at our farm policy. >> i am rick perry, the governor from texas. i want to introduce to you the first lady of texas, anita. 45 years ago we had our first date. i am a black man in many ways to represent a great state. we are here to ask you for your support, your blessings, and your vote. >> i am mitt romney. yes, that is also my first name. i am a husband, a father, a grandfather of 16. i love this country very much. i have spent my life in the private sector. as i have watched the direction the spread and has taken our country, both domestically and internationally, i believe he is taking us on a perilous course. if i am is president, i would use every ounce of my energy to make america strong and free. >> i am businessman, herman cain. i am delighted to be here to discuss one of the most critical issues we face because as a result of this administration, our national security has indeed been downgraded. [applause] >> i am newt gingrich. my father spent 27 years in the infantry. as a result of that, in the fall of 1958 i decided that national survival was worth the study of a lifetime. i work with the heritage and american enterprise institute for more than 30 years. i cannot imagine any to the zero institutions better to partner with cnn on the survival of the united states. [applause] >> my name is michele bachmann. i am a proud member of the united states congress. i am privilege to serve on the house select committee on intelligence. my father audibly served in the u.s. air force. my stepfather, the united states army. my brother, the united states may be. for everyone of us on the stage tonight, we want to send our very best happy thanksgiving greetings to all of our men and women in uniform who are serving overseas, here in the united states, and also to their families. at the thanksgiving. we appreciate you. we love you. we want to get you home as soon as we can. [applause] >> my name is john huntsman. i believe this week in particular that there is still much to be grateful for in this, the greatest nation that ever was. i am here with my wife of 20 years who is 4 to listlessly -- fortuitously sitting in the new hampshire bought. we are the parents of seven kids, two in the united states navy. i have lived overseas for times. three times in the united states ambassador. i am honored and privileged to be here. thank you one and all for making cannot possible. >> thank you very much. let's get right to the questions. our lead off question is from the hon. ed meese, former attorney general of the united states who is representing the heritage foundation. >> at least 42 terrorist attacks aimed at the united states have been thwarted cents 9/11. tools like the patriot act have been instrumental in finding and stopping terrorist. should we not have a long range extension of the investigative powers contained in that act so our law enforcement officers will have the tools that they need? >> new gingrich, only this weekend was an alleged terror plot discovered in new york city. >> i think ed meese has raised a key point. a key distinction for the american people to recognize is the difference between national security requirements and criminal law requirements. i think it is desperately important that we preserve your right to be innocent until proven guilty if it is a matter of criminal law. but if we are trying to find somebody -- somebody who may have a nuclear weapon they are trying to bring into an american city, i think you want to use every tool you to possibly use to obtain intelligence. the patriot act as been a key part of that. looking at it carefully, extending it, and building an honest understanding that all of us will be in danger for the rest of our allies -- this will not and in the short run. we need to be prepared to protect ourselves from those who would not just kill us individually, but would take out cities. >> to clarify, you would not change the page to act? >> i am not aware of any change it needs. i say we should strengthen it because the dangers are literally that great. i spent years studying this up. you start picking about one nuclear weapon in one american city and the scale of loss of life and you ask yourself, what should the president be capable of doing to stop that? you, with a very good answer. very sharp division. criminal law -- the government should be on defense and you are innocent until you are proven guilty. national security -- the government should have many more tools to save our lives. >> congressman paul, i expect you disagree. >> i do. what tell us why. >> i think the patron act is unpatriotic because it undermines our liberty. i am concern as anybody about terrorist acts. timothy mcveigh was a vicious terrorists. he was arrested. the as a criminal. it is a crime and we should deal with it. we dealt with it very well with timothy mcveigh. what i really fear is we have drifted into a condition that we were warned against because our early founders were very clear. they said do not be willing to sacrifice liberty for security. today, it seems to easy for our government and our congress to be willing to give up our liberty for our security. i have a personal belief that you never have to give up liberty for security. you can still provide security without sacrificing our bill of rights. [applause] >> do you want to respond, mr. speaker? >> timothy mcveigh succeeded. that is the whole point. [applause] timothy mcveigh killed a lot of americans. i do not want a law that says after you blow up a major american city, we will, by you. i want a law that says if you try to take out a major american city, we will stop you. [applause] >> this is like saying we need a policeman in every house, a camera in every house because we want to prevent child beating and wife beating. you can prevent crime by becoming a police state. if you advocate a police state, you can have safety and security and you might commit a crime, but the crime then will be against the american people and against our freedoms. we will throw out so much of what our revolution was fought for. do not do it so carelessly. >> congresswoman michele bachmann. we want to bring you into this conversation. >> i am with the american people, the constitution. the job of the commander in chief. we have to realize it -- we are in a very different war with very different techniques. we have very different bad actors that we have before. the motivations are very different technology is completely different. when we were looking at prior loss, phones were wired into walls. that is not how it works anymore. today we do with law wireless auctions. we have to completely change the way we go about investigating. this is one thing we know about barack obama -- he has essentially handed over our interrogation of terrorist to the aclu. he has outsourced it to them. our cia has no ability to have any form of interrogation for terrorists. when the attempted bomber over detroit, the underwear bomber, was intercepted, he was giving miranda warnings within 45 minutes. he was not an american citizen. we do not give miranda warnings to terrorist and we do not read them their rights. >> governor huntsman, where you stand on the paycheck act? do you believe it is an american -- an american as congressman paul has suggested? >> we need to be very careful in protecting our individual liberties. we have a name brand in this world and i have seen it shine living overseas. when our light shines on the values we live up to represent, it moves people, countries, and events like nothing else can. we are a nation of about use. we will try to find that balancing act between our individual liberties and security. but we also have to remember as we are speaking about security -- i am c. tom ridge in the audience -- we will tell you that we cannot secure the homeland out of washington, d.c. itself. we have to have partnerships with governors and mayors. this is a national effort. no longer can we compartmentalize intelligence. those are the old days. today we have to share. we have to make sure we are prepared as a people, a federal government, and eight local government in a sharing type of relationship. >> i want to give everybody a chance to respond, but let me get this one question from cnnpolitics.com. tsa pat downs -- violation of civil liberties are a necessity to ensure national liberty? >> we need to do a lot better. we could use better technology. we could identify people who are lower risk and allow them to go to the process more quickly. but let's come back to the issue. congressman paul talked about crime. newt gingrich was right. there are different categories. there is crime and there are rights afforded to american citizens under our constitution. those that are accused of crime. then there is war. the tools of war used today is terror. there is a different body of law that relates to war. for those who understand the difference between the two, the recognize we need tools when war is waged domestically to ensure that as president of the united states you can fulfill your first responsibility, which is to protect the life, liberty, and property of american citizens protect them from close domestic and foreign. that means, yes, we would use the constitution and federal law for those who commit a crime. but for those who use war and attack the united states, we use a different form of law, which is the law afforded to those who are fighting america. [applause] >> gov perry, you proposed legislation that would criminalize that dow's under certain circumstances. explain. >> here is what i would do it the tsa. i would privatize it as soon as i could and get rid of those unions. [applause] in denver they have a program where they are privatizing it. the airline and private-sector groups work together to do the security in our airports and it makes abundant good sense. i agree with most of my colleagues here on the stage when we talk about the patriot act. we need to keep it in place. we need to strengthen it at that is what it is required to update it with new technologies as they come along. here is the other issue we have failed at. that is our ability to collect intelligence around the world. this administration in particular has been an absolute failure when it comes to expanding the dollars and supporting the cia and military intelligence around the world to be able to draw in that intelligence that is going to truly be able to allow us to keep the next terrorist attacks from happening on american soil. >> rick santorum, under certain circumstances in the past u.s.- supported profiling. is that correct? >> i have. is a goodetthe tsa example of that. we need to find the bomber which the bomb. israel has been good at that. it is an enormous expense for pat downs and other intrusions. i think it is too much money. i agree with rick perry. i actually voted with the bill came up to allow for privatization. i was not for this becoming a government auction. i thought it should be a private function. the patriot act is different. we are at war. the last time we had a threat at home like this was during the civil war. abraham lincoln ran right over civil rights because we had a present domestic threat. in the previous wars, we have not had this kind of threat we have here in the homeland and we have to deal with it differently. i disagree with the remark -- governor huntsman. we have had the debate. it is been an open debate. it shows the values of our country that we can did -- we can engage in the open debate and balance our interests. >> is it ethnic profiling, religious propelling -- who would be profile? >> the funds most likely committing these crimes. obviously muslims would be someone you would look at. absolutely. the radical muslims are the people committing these crimes. as well as younger males. these are things, not exclusively, but these aren't things you profile to find your most likely candidates. >> congressman paul? >> that is digging a hole for ourselves. what if they look like timothy mcveigh? he was a pretty tough criminal. there is too much carelessness in the use of words that we are at war. i remember voting on a declared declaration of war against terrorism terrorism is a tactic, it is not a person. it is not people. this is a very careless use of words. what about this of -- sacrifice liberties because there are terrorist? are you the judge in the jury? they are suspect. the dod budget has changed the wording of the definition of al qaeda and taliban to anybody associated with organizations, which means almost anybody can be loosely associated. that makes all americans by honorable. now we know that american citizens are vulnerable to assassination. i would be very cautious about predicting the rule of law. it will be a sacrifice you will be sorry for. >> herman cain, let's bring you into this conversation. how are you with senator santorum when he says there should be religious profiling, muslims in particular should get extra screening when they go through airports? >> i believe we could do a whole lot better with tsa. i call it quoted -- "it targeted identification." if you take a look at the people who have tried to kill us, it would be easy to figure out exactly what that identification profile looks like. i want to make sure i did to the patriot act. i believed we could do a whole lot better. i also believe of the privatization. if there are areas of the paycheck act that we need to refine, i am all for that, i do not believe we should throw out the baby with the bath water for the following reasons. the terrorists have won objected that people do not seem to get. they want to kill all of us. we should use everything possible to kill them first, or identify them first. >> just to be precise, is it ok for muslim-americans to get more intensive pat downs or security when they go through airports than christian americans, or jewish americans? >> that is oversimplifying it. i happen to believe that if you allow our intelligence agents to do their job, they could come up with an approach -- i am sa orry, blitz. i meant wolf. i apologize. let's ask the professionals to give us an approach of how we can increase the identification of people that might be a danger to civilians as well as a danger to this nation. >> thank you, cain. [laughter] [applause] go ahead. we have another question. "i am fred kagan, from the american enterprise institute. the raid that killed osama bin laden was obviously an important success in the struggle against al qaeda though it also drove the u.s. relations with pakistan to a new low. do you think an expanded grown campaign in pakistan would be sufficient to defeat al qaeda and to secure our interest in pakistan? >> governor once been. >> as we talk about foreign- policy, let's be reminded that in order to have an effective foreign policy we need a washington that works. today we have a president who cannot read. we have a congress that cannot even figure out how to balance our budget. they need term limits, by the way. [applause] we have to get our house in order if we expect to get anything done overseas because when our light shines, we can influence the rest of the world. pakistan is a concern. it should keep everyone up at night. the military is responsible for isi. you have the youngest democratic. you have a madrasah movement. you have over 100 nuclear weapons. you're up trouble on the border. you have got a nation-state that is a candidate for failure. i say it is a haven for bad behavior. it is a haven for training. the people who seek to do us harm and an expanded drone program would serve our national interest. i take it must be done and it must be consistent with recognizing the reality of the ground -- on the ground. we do not need 100,000 troops in afghanistan. we do not need the nation best building in afghanistan when this nation needs so desperately to be built. "you are a member of the intelligence committee. do you think, as governor harry has said, that pakistan should no longer receive u.s. aid because they have shown they are not a good ally of the united states? >> pakistan is at the epicenter of dealing with terrorism. as governor huntsman said, they are and a cop -- they have an al qaeda training ground there. the haqqani network to be trained there as well. they are one of the most violent, unstable nations there is. 15 of the nuclear sites are available or particularly penetrable by jihadists. attempts have been made on nuclear sites. this is more than an existential threat. we have to take this very seriously. the united states has to be engaged. it is complicated. we have to recognize that the chinese are doing everything they can to be an influential party in pakistan. we do not want to lose influence. you asked me about the money that the united states gives to pakistan. this is a dual answer. a nation that lies, that does everything possible you can imagine wrong -- at the same time, they do share intelligence data with us regarding al qaeda. we need to demand more. the money we are sending right now is primarily a intelligence money. it is helping the united states. whatever our action is, it must ultimately be about helping the united states and our sovereignty, our safety, and our security. what you would continue aid to pakistan? >> at this point i would continue that aid, but i do think the obama policy of keeping your fingers crossed is not working in pakistan. i also think that pakistan as a nation -- it is kind of like to nuclear to fail. we have to make sure we take that threat very seriously. >> governor perry. >> i understand where she is coming from, but bottom-line they have shown us time after time they cannot be trusted. until pakistan clearly shows that they have our best interest in mind, i would not send them one penny. i think it is important for us to send a message to those across the world that if you are not going to be an ally of the united states, do not expect one dime of our citizen's money. that is the way we changed for policy. now if we want to engage these countries with our abilities and our companies that go in and help to economically build these countries up rather than just writing a blank check to them, we can have that conversation. i think that is a change in for a policy that would be adequate, a. , and a positive move for us. but to write a check to countries that are clearly not representing american interests is nonsensical. what do you want to respond congressman bodman? >> i think that is highly 90. we have to recognize what is happening on the ground. these are nuclear weapons all across this nation. potentially, al qaeda could get all of these weapons. these weapons could find their way out of pakistan into new york city or into washington, d.c., and a nuclear weapon could be set off in this city. this is how serious this is. we have to maintain an american presence. they certainly are not looking out for the best interests of the united states. i would not expect them to. but at the same time we have to have our interest, which is national security, represented. the best way to do that with an uneven state is to have some sort of presence. quite she just said your views were highly 90. >> absolutely we need to be engaged in that part of the world. i just said we need to quit writing blank checks to these countries and letting them decide how these columns will be spent. we have afghanistan and india working in concert right now to leverage pakistan. i think if we would create a trade zone in that part of the world where you have all of those countries working together, that maybe the answer to getting pakistan to understand that they have to work with all of the countries in that region. >> if i could just clarify -- we are not writing blank checks. we are also changing intelligence -- exchanging intelligence information. >> us take another question from the audience. >> i am with the heritage foundation. is the money we drawback from troops in afghanistan really worth the risk of allowing the taliban to expand territories and allocated to grow sanctuary's? >> governor romney, $2 billion a week the united states is spending right now in afghanistan. more than $100 billion a year. u.s. troops were supposed to stay for another three years at least. is that money well spent? >> we spent about $450 billion so corporate 1700 servicemen or women have lost their lives and tens of thousands have been wounded. our effort is to keep afghanistan from being a launching point for terror against the united states. we cannot write off a major part of the world. pakistan is the fifth largest country in the world. we cannot say goodbye to what is happening in the part of the world. instead, we want to draw them towards our identity. we do not want to pull up stakes and run out of town after the extraordinary investment we have made. we should have a gradual transition of handing off to the afghan security forces the responsibility of their own country. for the region -- what happened in indonesia in the 1960's were we helped of indonesia's move towards modernity. we need to bring pakistan into the 21st century, or the 20th century, for that matter, so the candidates do up the world. right now, american approval levels in pakistan is 12%. we are not doing it very good job with this huge investment we have made. we can do a lot better directing that to encourage people to take advantage of the extraordinary opportunities the west and freedom represent for their people. >> governor huntsman, the you agree with governor romney that the u.s. these to stay in pakistan at these levels? >> i disagree. when the two square with the american people about what we achieved. we need an honest conversation about the sacrifices we have made over the last 10 years. we have dismantled the taliban. we have run them out about kabul. we have killed osama bin laden. we've appended al qaeda. we have achieved some very important goals for the united states of america. the fact that we have one of the thousand troops mason building in afghanistan when this nation so desperately needs to be built -- 100,000 troops nation- building in afghanistan when this nation so desperately needs to be built. we have not done a very good job defining and articulating what the end. it is in afghanistan. i think the american people are getting tired about where we find ourselves today. let's let me let governor romney respond. >> are you suggesting that we just take all our troops out next week? "did you hear what i just said? we should draw down from 100,000. many of them have not even caught the wire. we need a presence on the ground that as more along 10,000- 15,000. we need to prepare for a world, not just a salvation, but every corner of the world in which counter-terrorism is. to be in front of us for as long as the eye can see. >> the commanders on the ground feel that we should bring down our surge troops by december 2012 and bring down all of our troops by the end of 2014. the decision to pull our troops out before that, they believe, would put at risk the extraordinary investment of treasure and blood that has been sacrificed by the american military. i stand by the commanders in this regard and have no information that suggests the public our troops out after than that would do anything but put us at great peril. this is not time for america to cut and run. we have been there for 10 years. we are winding down. the afghan troops are picking up the capacity. the mission is pretty straightforward -- to allow the afghan people to have a sovereign nation not taken over by the telegram. >> let me bring the speaker in. kraits just about the generals on the ground. it is important for the american people to know we have achieved some very important objectives in helping build civil society. but at the end of the day deeper than of the united states is commander in chief. of course you are going to listen to the generals. i remember when people listen to the generals in 1967. southeast asia did not serve our interests and very well. the president is commander in chief and should be informed by different voices. >> mr. speaker. >> he gets a response, i get a response. of course the commander in chief gets -- makes the final decision, but he makes the decision based upon the input of the people closest to the ground. i have been to afghanistan. the people i speak with their say we have a very good prospect of the people in afghanistan being able to secure the peace and sovereignty from the telegram. -- from the taliban. we could well see that nation and pakistan get pulled into terror and become another launching point to get into terror. >> mr. speaker. >> i am a little confused. we get down to these narrow questions that do not get to the core issues. the very first question about pakistan is the one should -- that's to be the starting point. when we went in and killed bin laden connaught -- bin laden -- is this a 32nd response? i am have to play by the rules as long as i know what they are. this is the heart of the american dilemma. we were told a perfectly natural washington assumption that our killing of some of bin laden in pakistan broke u.s.- pakistan relationships to a new low. my answer is it should have. we should be furious. [applause] that is where this has got to start. if you want to keep american troops in afghanistan, you say no sanctuary, to change the rules of engagement, you put the military in charge of the military side, your overall the state department until they get the job done, you do it intensely and tell the pakistanis to help us or get out of the way. duke -- do not complain if we take out people on your territory if you are going to protect them. >> rick santorum. >> i agree with ron paul. [laughter] we are not fighting a war on terrorism. terrorism is a tactic. we are fighting a war against radical islam. radical islam is saying to just wait america out. america is weak. they will not stand for the fight. they cannot maintain this. they will set time limits. politics will interfere and we will tell the people in afghanistan, we will tell the people in iraq and other places that we will be the strong force in the region. president obama, by making political decision after political decision about time lines and constraints on goals of the engagement, has validated everything these radical islamists are saying. gov huntsman, you are doing exactly what all the radical leaders are saying america will do. we are not in this to win. we are going to play politics with this. we will find this problem in afghanistan on our shores in very short order. >> we will go to herman cain in a moment. hold your horses. we are going to take a quick break. much more coming up. the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff cause this the number one threat to america's national-security. the candidates will answer the question on that topic coming up next. we want you to send us your questions at cnnpolitics.com. our coverage of this historic debate at constitution hall in washington continues in a moment. [applause] >> welcome back to a historic constitution hall here in the nation's capitol. we are continuing the cnn national security debate. let the right to the audience. we have a question from the audience. go-ahead with your question. >> hello. >> no question from the audience? we do have a question from the audience. >> we were waiting for you. >> i am from the heritage foundation. preventing iran from getting nuclear weapons. would you help israel launch an attack or support it otherwise? >> let me ask her maintained. did you get the question? if israel attacked iran to prevent iran from getting nuclear weapons, which you help israel launched the attack or support it otherwise? >> i would make sure they have a credible plan for success. clarity of mission and success. remember, when you talk about attacking iran, it is a mountainous region. the latest reports say there may be 40 locations. i want to make sure we have a good idea where these are located and if there is a credible plan. i would support it. yes. depending on how strong the planets, we would join with israel. if it were clear what the mission was. >> would you support israel in such an attack? >> no, i would not do that. i do not expected to happen. the leaders the just retired, it was the stupidest thing to do in the world. israel is not about to do this. not one expert says there should be a unilateral attack on iran. that is not going to happen. if it did, why does israel need our help? we need to get ad of their way. we interfere with them when they deal with their borders and when they want to have peace treaties. we tell them what they can do. then they decide they want to bomb something? that is their business. they should suffer the consequences. when they bombed the iraqi site, i was one of the few who said it is none of our business and israel should take care of themselves. they have 200 nuclear missiles. why should we commit? why do we have this automatic commitment we're going to send our money and leslie to israel? i think they are capable of taking care of themselves. think of all the money we gave to egypt over 30 years. we were buying french, and now there is a civil war. bonn and at all -- whole thing is going to backfire. we should be cautious in sending troops without a proper declaration by the u.s. congress. >> let me let herman cain respond. >> if the mission and plan were clear, i pointed out that is highly unlikely given the mountainous terrain in iran. here is the other reason we should help israel. back to afghanistan, if we pull out too soon, iran is going to help fulfill the power vacuum in afghanistan. it is in our best interest to prevent them from being able to help in afghanistan. >> let's stay on this subject. please give this your name and organization. >> i am the vice president at the american enterprise institute. yesterday the united states had the new sanctions on iran. we have not bought oil directly from them in over 30 years. we have had targeted sanctions for more than half say -- half that time. do you believe there is any a set of sanctions that could be put in place the would stop iran from getting a nuclear weapon? >> absolutely. we need to sanction the iranian central bank. that could mean one of the most powerful ways to impact them. that is why we need to do before we start having conversations about a military strike is to use every sanction we have. when you sanction the bank, that will shut down an economy. they have to deal with the united states. it is one of the reasons -- there is an area over there. i am talking about syria, bringing them into the mix. one of the options is to have a no-fly zone over syria. you're putting those sanctions against iran. at that moment, they will understand that america is serious. this president refuses to do that. >> the argument, i know you have studied this. on the sanctioning of the iranian central bank, if you do that a cut off iranian oil exports. the europeans get a lot of that oil. they think if the price of gasoline skyrocketed, it would be disastrous. that is why the pressure is on not to impose those sanctions. >> the question is perfect. we ought to have a comprehensive energy program to create a surplus of energy so we can say to the europeans, all of the sources of oil we have, we could replace the iranian oil. that is how we won world war ii. [applause] we all get sucked into the use tactical discussions. we need a strategy of defeating the regime. we need a strategy of being honest about radical islam and designing a strategy to defeat it. we need a strategy in central asia that recognizes that you do not care whether you are pakistan or afghanistan. yet the same relationships. we need to be more strategic and less tactical. if we were serious, we could break the regime within a year starting with cutting off the gasoline supply to iran and the sabotaging the olli refinery they have. >> sanctions now, a good idea at? >> a good idea. replacing the regime before they get a nuclear weapon beats replacing the regime with a york -- or. >> and michele bachmann. >> i agree with all of that. energy independence is something president obama has avoided. >> that will take many years. >> almost every decision the president has made has been and to put united states in a position of unilateral disarmament including the decision he made to cancel the keystone pipeline. that would have created jobs and help us in energy independence. why are we talking about is zero having to make a strike against iran? iran has plans to strike israel. they have stated, and he said he wanted to eradicate is your from the face of the earth. if he had a nuclear weapon, he would wipe israel off of the face of the earth and use it against the united states. this is not a threat, this is the reality. that is why president obama has failed the american people because he gave iran the luxury of time. he met with them with no preconditions. it is the doctrine of appeasement. he has changed the course of history because when we needed a leader, which did not have one. that is what i will do differently. [applause] >> we have another question. >> i am a visiting scholar and my questions about development systems. under george w. bush, the united states spent billions of dollars to fight aids and malaria in africa and set up a corporation to encourage governments to pursue policies that promote economic growth. do you believe those are wise expenditures? >> as the author of the global fund bill and the millennium challenge and someone who worked in the print -- with the president, i believe it is essential. africa was on the brink of a meltdown and chaos which would have stanford telegram for radical islam to get a foothold. we are already seeing it. the work we have done in stabilizing at area was essential for our national security. i hear people talking about going to 0 on a foreign aid. i think that is the wrong course. you want to spend more money on the military? 0 what we do to develop relationships around the world. it is important to use all of the assets we have to promote our values. america is that city on the hill. the city that comes to the aid of those in trouble. we have done more good for america and the third world by the things we have done and we have saved money and military deployments by wisely spending that money on folks to can and will be our friends. [applause] >> can the united states afford to continue that kind of foreign assistance to africa for aids, malaria, it could run into billions of dollars. >> it depends upon priorities. it depends upon looking at the program and asking the question, has it been successful tax let's look at the whole problem. it may be worth continuing, it may not. i would like to see their results. what have the results been? then we make a decision. >> i think it is worthless. it does not do any good for most of the people. if you take money from poor people in this country and give it to rich people and corp. -- poor countries. you accomplish nothing. we should export some principles about free-market and maybe they could produce some of their own wealth. this idea of talking about the endless wars and foreign aid, nobody cares about the budget. we are in big trouble and nobody wants to cut anything. if you're going to send money overseas and these endless wars and going to libya without even consulting congress, the biggest threat is our financial conditions. this is aggravating. >> what they are doing is cutting a trillion dollars out of the defense budget. there are cutting it trillion dollars which happens to equal the trillion dollars putting in to obamacare. you have a president that has a priority of spending us into bankruptcy. we need to protect america and our troops and military and stop the idea of obamacare. that is the way to save money. >> they are not cutting anything out of anything. all of this caucus talk. believe me. [applause] they are nibbling away in baseline budgeting and automatic increases. there is nothing against the military. the people on the hill because the budget is not going up as radically as they wanted to. it is a road to disaster. we had better wake up. about what they're cutting with the $350 billion. they stopped in the f-22. the navy cruiser system. long-range air force bombers are not going to be built. the list goes on. they are cutting programs backup capacity of american defend itself. we have been talking about israel and iran. what we're talking right here is a failure on the part of the president to lead with strength. that is why we have discussions if israel or iran is going to become nuclear. the president said we will be friendly to our foes and disrespectful to our friends. the right course is to stand up to iran with sanctions and indict the press -- put in place the sanctions to stop their economy. it is going to make gasoline more expensive. no price is worth and ronnie nuclear weapons. we need to show we care about is your. we will stick with them. my first trip will be to israel to show the world we care about the country. >> we're going to stay on this subject. >> hello. and the director of the institute for economic policy studies at the heritage foundation. the next president will make some the tough choices in order to solve the spending crisis. would you be willing to say that our national security is so paramount that cuts to the defense budget are unacceptable? >> no. at the beginning of the reagan build out, it is clear there are some things you can do in defense and less-expensive. if it takes 15 years to build day weapon system when apple changes technology every nine months, there's something wrong with the system. i am not going to say yes. let me make a point. something is wrong with this city. you said it would take too long to open up american oil. we defeated nazi germany in three years and eight months. we thought we were serious. if we were serious we would open up enough oil fields set the price of oil would collapse. that is what we would do if we were a serious country. [applause] we would apply -- and have an efficient federal government. we would open up the deland's -- federal lands. to breakuch you can do out of the mindless bureaucracy and get the job done at. helping people by having public- private partnerships. >> mr. speaker, would you a bomb iran to prevent it from becoming a nuclear power? >> only as a last recourse. no bombing campaign which leaves the regime in charge is going to accomplish much. you have to talk about regime replacement. mrs. or disagree with ron paul. if my choice for to collaborate with israelis, or force them to use nuclear weapons, it will be a dangerous world if they went to nuclear and used nuclear weapons and iran. that would be a future none of us would want to live through. face the economic reality. let's face the deficit reality we have. i would argue that 70% debt to gdp is a national security problem. japan is in the third decade of lost growth. we have another deficit in this country, the trust deficit. people have lost trust in their institutions. they do not trust the executive branch or wall street. we have to fix both of those. let's be realistic. we cannot have an honest conversation about where we go with sacred cows. everything has to be on the did -- on the table. we need to have the defense department and a budget. if we cannot find some savings in the budget, we are not looking closely enough. we need spending that follows a strategy. that strategy needs to be how we protect the american people now wear and now that we are in the second decade of the 21st century. i believe we need to follow economic policy. it used to break my heart sitting in beijing looking at afghanistan. we have 100,000 troops. there's something wrong with this picture. when are we going to get with the program and determined that form policy will be driven by economics? that creates jobs on the home front and we have a counter terrorist threat for as far as the eye can see. that means in afghanistan in every corner of the world. we have to prepare for the reality the counter-terrorism is here to stay. we need special forces. we need defense spending that will match the reality of four we find ourself. ere we find ourselves. >> and there is not going to be any change in that automatic trigger, the sequestration, 1.2 trillion dollar cut. here is the question. if you're president, which you compromise with democrats in order to avoid that washington gridlock? >> i do not think anybody is surprised that the super committee failed. it was a failure. we expected that. we had a president of the united states who is not a leader. he pitched this over to them and said you should figure this out. i signed a six balanced budgets as the head of the state of texas. i worked with those legislators on a daily basis. this president has been a failure when it came to this budget process. the idea, it was almost reprehensible. i have worn the uniform of this country. it was reprehensible for means for this president to stand in front of america and to say that that half a trillion dollars is not going to be on the table. we're going to have far work our way through it. as a commander-in-chief, as an american citizen, even his own secretary of defense said it was irresponsible. if leon panetta is an honorable man, he should resign in protest. >> would you compromise? you say you would not accept any tax increases even if there were 10 times as many cuts. wouldn't you let the bread box continue or would you compromise? >> the idea that you cannot sit down and work with both people on both sides of the aisle but throws into that briar patch, we would never have gotten into this situation if i were president. i would be working so we had a budget, i laid out a clear pande 2 flat tax to 20%. cut the spending and put a 20% corporate tax rate. they should make congress part- time and that would make a big impact. >> i covered ronald reagan. i will read a quote, "if you got 80 percent of what you're asking for, i say you take it and fight for the rest later. if you got 75 percent, would you make a deal with the democrats to increase taxes in order to move on and fight the next battle? >> it depends on what that percentage is. if the things you have to give up make what you're trying to accomplish harder to do, why the republicans are drawing a line in the sand is because what the democrats are attempting to do is increase taxes which will increase the deficit. you do not work against yourself. you take ideas from the other side. there are spending cuts that i mentioned before that i would stand firm on. any compromise, you would give up things that may be critical. you do not undermine the ability of the economy to grow because of politics. this president has poisoned the well. he is trying to divide a group from group in order to position himself to rally his troops. he has poisoned the well. i have a long track record of a bipartisan accomplishments where i kept -- welfare reform, i stuck to my principles. we put a work requirement. did i compromise? yes, on child care, some transportation. >> let's stay on this subject. we have another question. at thea research fellow american enterprise institute. even if the super committee had not failed, the savings proposed would have been a drop in the bucket relative to the $11 a trillion deficit. it will borrow even more the next decade. to strengthen our economy and our country, what to entitlement reform proposals which you make to address our deficit? >> said is a great question. it raises the issue of large- scale change. yesterday in manchester i outlined a social security reform based on chile and galveston, texas. for 30 years, the government has promised if you do not have as much savings as you get from social security, the government would make up the difference. they paid $0. people slid from three times as much to 1.5. they did not go below social security. they have 72% of gdp in savings. it has increased to the economy, the growth of jobs, the amount of wealth, and a sauce social security without the payment cuts or having to hurt anybody. you can have a series of reforms that make most of this problem go away without going through the austerity the city lights. -- likes. >> what would you cut first if your president? >> let me answer in the context of the super committee. i was involved in that fight. my voice said this, it is time for us to draw a line in the sand. we have sufficient revenues to pay interest. the real issue was where we going to give congress another $2.4 billion. another blank check to the president. little over four years ago, we're eight trillion dollars in debt. we are now 15 trillion dollars in debt. now we're talking about adding another 11 trillion dollars in debt, 8.5 according to the super committee. all they were asked to do is cut back on 1.2 trillion dollars of that increase in debt. we are not talking about the central issue which is balancing the budget. we need to balance the budget and chip away at the debt. we need to recognize that when we are sending interest money over to china, we are not just sending our money, we are sending our power. our military will decrease and our money will increase. think about that. our money will be used to grow china at the expense of the united states. that should give every american pause. >> all of your going to weigh in. we of more to discuss. important issues were discussing. more tough questions for the candidates including their plans for protecting the border and reducing illegal emigration. this is? cnn republican national security debate. republicanthe cnn national security debate. [applause] welcome back. we are at the cnn national security debate. let's go to the audience. we have a question. give us your name and your organization. >> i am executive vice president are would like to thank the candidates for joining us tonight. we appreciate you being here and sharing your views. i would like to turn it back closer to home and talk about the southern border. as all of you know, that drug- related crimes is getting heavier and heavier. do you consider that to be a national interest to attract? what could we be doing to help stop these cartels? >> governor perry. what do you think you would do if you're president as far as using the united states military? let me broaden that. i think it is time for a 21st century monroe doctrine. when you think about court we have put in place, then we use it again in the 1960's, we are seeing countries start to and comment. we know hamas is working in mexico as well as iran with their ploy to come into the united states. we know that the iran in government has one of the largest embassies in the world. the idea that we need to have a border security with united states and mexico is paramount to the western hemisphere. putting that border in place with the boots on the ground, with the aviation assets, and working with mexico, whether putting sanctions against the banks, working with them on security with mexico, all of those together can make that country more secure and our border secure. s president will promise you that within 12 months, that border will be shut down and secure. >> to do you agree with your governor? >> not entirely. the drug war was mentioned. that is an all of it -- another war we ought to cancel. nobody is benefiting. that is where the violence is coming from. we have a responsibility of our borders. i am tired of all of the lives lost word about the borders between pakistan and afghanistan. we should think more about better immigration services. if you subsidize something or give people incentives, you get more of it. if you have a weak economy, which we should have prevented, but mandating to the states and to texas that we have to provide free medical care and education, that is a great burden to all of the border states. i would say a eliminate all of those benefits and talk about eliminating the welfare state. it is detrimental to the people the.com. >> when you say cancel the war on drugs, does that mean legalize drugs? >> i think the war on drugs is a failure. you can let sick people have marijuana. compassionate conservatives say we cannot do this. we're going to put people sick and dying in cancer, the federal government is overriding state laws and putting people in prison. alcohol is a deadly drug. the real deadly drugs are prescription drugs. the drug war is out of control. it undermines our civil liberties. why spend a trillion dollars on this war. believe me, the kids can still get drugs. >> herman cain. >> allow me to answer the question. the answer is, yes, and insecure border is a national security threat. number one, we know that terrorists have come into this country by way of mexico. secondly, 40% of the mexicans already believe that their country is a failed state. thirdly, the number of people killed in mexico = the number of people killed in afghanistan and iraq combined. so let's solve the whole problem. secure the border for real. enforce the laws that are already there. promote the current path to citizenship. clean up the bureaucracy so people can come through the front door instead of sneaking in the side door. do with the of the goals already here and empower the states to do with the federal government is not doing. >> let's stay on the subjects. >> have a question about high skilled emigration. what would you do to ensure that united states is as welcoming as possible to the skilled immigrants? >> as the son of a legal immigrant, i believe that legal -- believe in legal immigration. if you look at all of the jobs being created today, a huge percentage comes from legal immigrants who have evaded and created great products and companies and employed a lot of people. that is one reason that i put together my economic plan, to take all that innovation and make sure that those products are actually made in america. his primary problem, reaganomics was criticized as a trickle down. we're not seeing it to trickle down to the blue-collar work poer. we need to zero out the corporate tax. also regulatory reform. repatriation for profits. energy policy that will explode the energy in this country. we will have innovation, which i support, and have that money trickled down to blue-collar workers. >> new team rich, back in the gingrich, back in the 1980's, you had a pathway for emigrants. there are 12 million in united states right now. they still call it amnesty now. what would you do if he were president of the united states with these milling -- millions of illegal immigrants? >> i think we should have been -- an h1 visa with every math and engineering degree so people can stay here. five blocks down the street you will see a statue of einstein. clear how much the united states has drawn upon the world to be more inclusive. ronald reagan says he signed it. we're supposed to have 300,000 people. he signed it because we were going to get two things in return. a guest -- guest worker program. we got neither. i think you have to deal with this as a comprehensive reports that starts with controlling the borders. i believe you have to find some system, you need something like a world war ii selective service that reviews the people. if you have come here recently, you should go home. it's yet been here 25 years and yet been paying taxes, you belong to a local church, i do not think we're going to separate hearing kick you out. they have a very good program that says you get to be legal but you do not get it passed to citizenship. -- get a path to citizenship. >> i do not agree that you would make 11 million workers legal because that is amnesty. you should not give the dream act on a federal level. those are things the speaker had been before. those are areas i do not agree. what steve jobs is said to president obama, he said he had to move his operation to china because he could not find 30,000 engineers to do the work that needed to be done. that is what we want to do. we need chemists and engineers and people who are highly skilled. we think about united states, if we can utilize these workers like steve jobs wanted to, that will help the united states. i do not agree we should make 11 million workers legal. >> in the dream act, i liked the part that allows people who came here with their parents to join the u.s. military which they could have done. that is something any foreigner can do. i see no reason to punish someone who came here three years of age and wants to serbs. i did not say we will make 11 million people below. if you go back to your district and you find people who have been here 25 years and have family and have been paying taxes, as somebody who believes in family, you would have a hard time explaining why that subset is being broken up and forced to leave given the fact they have been law-abiding citizens. [applause] >> i think he said that would make 11 million people legal. that is the issue we're dealing with. it would be the federal dream act which would offer subsidized benefits to illegal aliens. we need to move away from that. >> governor romney, where you stand? some of them, if they have roots should be allowed to stay in the country? >> amnesty is a magnet. when we have had it in the past, people will get to stay for the rest of their lives. that will encourage more people to come. the right course is to say we welcome people who want to come here legally. to make sure we are able to bring in the best and brightest, i agree and terms of stapling a green card to a diploma of anyone who has a degree of math, science, ph.d., we want those brains. in order to bring people in, we have to stop illegal immigration. that means no amnesty, in steep tuition, -- in state tuition, this is a party. this is a party that loves legal immigration. we have to stop illegal immigration. it is bringing in people who can be terrorists or the become a burden on our society. we get to have laws that protect our borders, turn off the magnets and make sure we have people to build our economy. >> to be precise, are you saying giving amnesty or allowing some of these immigrants to stay as a magnet that would entice others to come? >> there is no question. now you are all going to get to stay or some large number and become permanent residents, that will encourage more people to do the same thing. people respond to incentives. if you can be a permanent residence by coming here, you will do so i want to bring people legally, especially those who have skills that allows us to compete globally. >> i do not believe that the people of the united states are going to take people who have been here a quarter century with children and grandchildren, members of the community, who may have done something 25 years ago, separate them from their families and expel them. i do vu -- to believe it yet no ties, we should deport you. we should control the border. we should have penalties for employers. i do not see -- the party of the family, is going to destroy families that have been here a quarter of a century. and for single law without giving them citizenship but by finding a way to create legalities of their not separated. >> are you with the speaker governor? -- speaker or governor? >> here we go again. you used the word magnet. that is one of the things we have to do, stop those magnets for individuals coming here. the real issue is securing the border. this conversation is not going to end until we get the border secure. i think there is a way that after we secure the border, you can have a process in place for individuals who are law-abiding and who have done only one thing 25 years ago. that you can put something in place and that continues to keep those families together. the idea we are having this conversation, until we have a secure border, is just an intellectual exercise. you have to secure the border first. i have been dealing with it for 10 years. we have to put the boots on the ground and secure the border once and for all. >> i do not disagree with what he indicated. we have to secure the border. we talk about people here 25 years, that is the exception. that is not the rule. start drawingto lines. the principle is we're not going to have an amnesty system that people get to stay for the rest of their life. , we will give people who come legally a card that identifies them and as legal. on that basis, we will bring into this country the number of people we need to power our industries, agriculture, high- tech. we welcome people in here. the idea of focusing republican debate on amnesty is a mistake. secure our border. protect immigration. return to a system that follows a lot. >> another break. we of more to discuss. we will broaden the conversation and go to the middle east to stock about the arab spring. -- talk about the arab spring. cnn.com. much more from the historic constitution hall. [applause] welcome back to the cnn republican national security debate. please give us your name and organization. >> ayman vice president with the heritage foundation. violence has erupted between the bashar al-assad christine and some of the people of -- regime and some of the people of syria. israel, jordan, and iraq. in your view, what are the interests of the united states in this region and what would you do to protect them? >> herman cain, governor perry called for a no-fly zone for the u.s. over syria. would you support that? >> i would not. i would work with our allies to put pressure to be able to try to get our allies to stop buying oil from syria. i would not support a no-fly zone. the most effective tools we have in any of these situations are strong military. it is getting weaker. and our own economic strength. this discussion about cutting and compromise, we did not spend enough time talking about the other part of the problem, growing the economy. this administration has failed at growing economy. we can cut until the cows come home but would not solve the problem until we have economic growth. >> why would you support a no- fly zone? >> that is one of a multitude of actions that work very well from the standpoint of being able to pressure that regime. i think there are a number of ways. when you put the no-fly zone above syria, it gives those the opportunity to disband when they want to get out. i think if we're serious about iran, that is what we're talking about. syria is a partner in iran in exporting terrorism all across our part of the world and around the globe. if we're serious about iran, we have to be serious about syria as well. i think a no-fly zone is an option that we should be using. we should put them in place. >> jon huntsman, we had a question from twitter. "so many people view the arab spring as a good thing. given the recent violence, do you worry this can go bad?" we have live pictures in cairo right now. thousands of people protesting the military regime. what do you say to this person? >> history will tell. we missed the persian spring. libya, we do not have any definable american interests. in syria, we have an american interest, israel. we need to remind the world what it means to be a friend and ally. at some point they're going to have enough material to make a weapon. we had a discussion of sanctions. everybody commented. sanctions are not going to work. the chinese will not play ball. i believe iran has decided they want to go nuclear. they have looked at north korea and libya. look where they are. let's let history be our guide. we saw the region transforming itself into something different. we sought changes in 1947. i think we do a disservice by jumping in too soon and taking of sides. -- up sides. our interest is to ensure iraq does not go nuclear. >> another question from the audience. >> i am from the american enterprise institute. the united states adopted a policy of disengagement with somalia. today, and al qaeda affiliate controls the territory and that country. what can the united states do to prevent a al-shabaab for imposing the same threat al qaeda did 10 years ago? >> you're talking about al qaeda? you have to understand who it is. al qaeda responds in a deliberate fashion. he said outside is inspired by the fact -- al qaeda is inspired by the fact we have a base in saudi arabia. we should have removed it. al qaeda response to that. they are annoyed with it. if you have a no-fly zone, that is an act of war. what if we had china put a no- fly zone over our territory? i do not think we would like that. we should practice a policy of good will and two other people. what about saying we do not do anything to any other country we do not have the due to last? when we have a no-fly zone over iraq, it meant to be a regime change. why should we spend more money to get involved in another ward? that is the internal affairs of other nations. we do not -- we have way too many already. this is looking for more trouble. why don't we mind our own business? [applause] >> that is a foreign policy. it is different than president obama's president obama's foreign policy says, america is just another nation with a flag. i believe america is exceptional. president obama says we're going to have a balanced military. i believe the superiority of our military is the right course. president obama says we have common interests. i do not agree with him. there are people who want to oppress other people. president obama thinks will have a global century, we have to un- american century where america leads the free world. president obama apologizes for america. it is time for us to be strong. if we are strong with egg military and economy, no one will try to attempt to threaten us or attacked us. >> are you with governor perry on declaring a no-fly zone? >> this is not the time for a no-fly zone. we need to use sanctions and covert actions to get to regime change in there. there are people who are shifting over, becoming part of the rebel effort. hawker -- bashar al-assad is getting pressure from turkey and saudi arabia. the arab league is putting pressure on him. that is the way to go. they have 5000 tanks in syria. maybe a no drives on. this is a nation which is not bombing its people. >> as i said, the no-fly zone is one of the options we have. you need to leave it on the table. this is not just about syria. this is about iran and those as a partnership in exporting terrorism. if we're going to be serious about saving is real, we had better get serious about syria and iran. >> another question from the audience. go ahead. >> and a visiting fellow. my question has to do with the unexpected. governor george w. bush was never asked about the threat from al qaeda yet it dominated his presidency. what issue do you worry about that nobody is asking about here or in any of the debates? >> give us a quick answer. >> i have spent a lot of time about central and south america. i am concerned about the militant socialists joining together with the islamists. i am concerned about the spread of socialism. this is administration, the delay toward trade agreements, turning our backs on the hondurans, we took the side with hugo chavez and fidel castro. we have sent all the wrong signals. my first trip by would go to israel but then to central and south america. we need a solid hemisphere. the people south of our border need to know we are going to build a strong alliance. >> i want to do this quickly. >> i worry about overreaction, getting involved in another war when we do not have to. i worry about people and never understanding who the taliban is and why they're motivated. taliban does not want to come here. they want to kill us over there because all they want to do is give people who occupy their country out of their country just like we would. [applause] >> the big issue out there, i happen to think it is china and how we're going to deal with china. communist china, when i think about ronald reagan and he said the soviet union was destined for the ash heap of history, he was correct. communist china is destined for the ash heap of history because they are not a country of virtues. when you have 35,000 abortions a day, the cyber security, those are great and major issues morley and security-wise. -- morally and security-wise. >> rick is right on china. the most significant threat is iran becoming nuclear. rick santorum is right with the issue that is not enough attention. latin america. congressman, we have an attack, on 9/11. there have beenwe have hezbollag throughout latin america and venezuela, throughout latin america, which poses an imminent threat to the united states. >> having been a computer scientists earlier in my career, cyber attack. we do not talk enough about it. that is a national security area that we do need to be concerned about. >> speaker gingrich. >> i helped create the heart rudman commission and the greatest threat is a weapon of mass destruction and an american city, probably from terrorists, but for 9/11. that is one of the three great threats. the second is an emp attack that would destroyed the ability to punch in, and a cyber attack, as herman said. all are outside the current capacity of our system to deal with. >> i would agree with what my colleague said. we need to remember that we won the peace in iraq, and now president obama is intentionally choosing to give that piece away. if we are taking that terrorist threat away from the middle east and bringing it to the united states, we talk about al-shabab. israel. we just had two convictions of two women financing terrorism throughout the al-shabab. this threat now is in the united states i believe, and now the threat has come home. and that is what we have to deal with. >> governor huntsman. >> i would say china, because i know about the subject matter. they are in for real trouble ahead. our biggest problem is right here it home in new incident every street corner, it is called joblessness. it's called lack of opportunity. it is called debt which is a national security problem in this country. of congress and nobody believes in, an executive branch that has no leadership, and institutions of power that we no longer believe in. how can we have as any detective foreign-policy when we are still in so much trouble at home? >> if thanks to all of you. we have to leave their right there. we want to thank our partners, the american enterprise institute. if we want to thank the heritage foundation. thanks very much for watching. i am here at constitution hall feared the news continues next. our coverage continues right here on cnn. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> the next televised republican presidential debate is set to be in des moines, iowa on december 10. if that is on abc. you can watch this is cnn republican presidential debate again tomorrow night at 12:30 pm eastern here on c-span. >> seymour videos of the candidates at our website for campaign 2012. read the latest comments from candidates and political reporters, from social media sites, and links to c-span media partners in the early primary and caucus states, iowa, new hampshire, and south carolina, all at c-span.org/campaign2012. >> tomorrow on "washington journal," a discussion on the super committee's inability to reach a deal with josh boak of "politico." after that joseph mcquaid of the "new hampshire union leader." later, daniel seddiqui talks about his book "50 jobs in 50 states." that is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. up next, a look at the legacy of gerald ford. we'll hear from james baker, who served as undersecretary of commerce during the ford administration, and later as chief of staff for the reagan and george h.w. bush administrations. introducing mr. bacon is his -- is gerald ford's daughter. this event is just under an hour. nt is just under one hour. >> good afternoon, and welcome to the ford presidential museum. >> it is a pleasure for us to have susan ford bales. she is a highly articulate spokesperson on issues related to breast cancer. she has been extremely active with the betty ford center and served as chairman of its board for five years. susan has a very special role as the official sponsor of the u.s.s. gerald ford aircraft carrier that is under construction. this new carrier will be christened in 2013 and commissioned in 2015. susan is a trustee of the ford presidential foundation and served as co-chair of the foundation's program committee. she is an avid supporter of all we do at the museum and plays a key role in convincing our speaker to fit this into our schedule today. along with her brother, susan has stepped forward to represent the ford family and many events across the country, giving very generously of her time and talent. we are very honored to have her with us this afternoon. please join me in welcoming susan ford bales who will introduce our distinguished speaker. [applause] >> good afternoon. thank you all for coming today. welcome to the foundation trustees. special guests, a adana randall, randall, -- donna volunteers. congratulations on your 30th anniversary. ladies and gentlemen, in the twilight of his life, dad often asked to reflect on his legacy and how he saw -- thought historians would judge his decades of public service. his consistent response surprised many. certainly dad was proud of how he healed our nation following the greatest constitutional crisis since the civil war. he was equally proud of the example bipartisan leadership he set in congress and as president. but part of his legacy about which he was proudest was the group of men and women that formed the core of his administration. who then went on to serve the american people with exceptional and distinguished service. and no one, absolutely no one, better illustrates dad's pride that our special guest today. our guest with his unusual humility often describes his amazement when dad summoned him to the commerce department. but rest assured, dad knew exactly why this humble texan was so extraordinary. he went on to serve dad with distinction and then the rest is history. in the years after his service to dad, he served as 61st united states secretary of state, secretary of treasury, white house chief of staff to two presidents, chairman of the iraq study group, personal envoy of the secretary general of the un, and probably one of our fellow trustees of the gerald ford presidential foundation. a philosopher once observed "the best impression one gets of a leader and of his character is by looking at those closest around tampa." if interstate around him. -- around him." please know that the 38th president of the united states would be bursting with pride today. thus, it is a personal choice and honor to introduce to you a statement, a world leader, a man of peace, a man of integrity, and i am proud to say one of my dad' dear friends. ladies and gentlemen, jim baker. [applause] >> thank you, susan, for a very warm and generous introduction. and thank you for all you have done to nurture and honor the wonderful legacy of both your dad and your mom. dick ford, other distinguished guests, ladies and yemen, let me say it is a great pleasure for me to be back in grand rapids. i am delighted to be back, particularly to celebrate this 30th anniversary of the gerald ford library and museum, because this museum also does an extremely wonderful job of maintaining the legacy and not just the legacy but the lessons of a man, a president who was much more than just a man of his times. gerald ford was of great and timeless american who day in and day out demonstrated characteristics that will always serve as models for our leaders. those leaders of today as well as those leaders of tomorrow. but before i talk about his legacy, i would first like to state as a matter of personal privilege a simple but obvious fact -- i would not be standing here were it not for the faith that president ford showed in me when i was his deputy secretary of commerce. at the time, mye resume was thin, the president ford saw something more and me than just a texas lawyer. following the recommendations of rog morton and dick cheney, president ford selected me to take over for his friend jack styles after stiles had been killed in an automobile accident. he was president for's delegate for the 1976 republican primary against ronald reagan and after he became ill with cancer, president ford asked me to chair the president for committee in the general election against jimmy carter. those of you old enough to remember will remember that those races, both of them were historic racists settled by razor-thin margins, both of the race for the nomination and the general election contest. they served as springboards for my career in national politics and public service. and so, my friends, i know you will understand when i say, thank you, mr. president, for the confidence that you showed in me at a critical point in my career. but more importantly, thank you, mr. president, for the confidence you showed in america and the job that you did for america that -- at a very difficult time in our nation's history. [applause] again, for those of us old enough to remember, jerry ford inherited a deeply troubled country when he placed his hand on the bible on august 9, 1974, to take the oath of office. president nixon had been forced to resign, inflation and recession were presenting a country with what at that time was arguably its worst economic time since the great depression, the cold war was heating up, as confidence in uncle sam was trending down. americans at that time were quite jaded towards a political system that many felt have let them down and let them down badly. our national psyche was taking a beating. countless people worried that the american dream was a thing of the past. and into this national rest came a man with a true moral compass. he exemplified the plain talk of a midwestern air, the resolution of the michigan wolverine offensive linemen, the bravery of the pacific war hero, and the intellect of the yale law school graduate. he was all that, but he was much, much more. he was not the most glib of our national leaders, nor the most elegant, but president ford had something that was much more important -- he had character. jerry ford, as the country and the entire world would soon learn, maintained it trades that we associate with the boy scouts. u.she was trustworthy, loyal, helpful, reverend. this should not have come as a surprise to the american people, because it was the first american president who had actually earned his eagle scout rank. for president ford, the decency and honor were more than merely words that politicians throughout the ages have repeated in their high-minded speeches. for president ford, they were ideals a a, ideals to be incorporated into the way one live one's life. and so today, i would like to examine with you five of what i believe for president ford's best traits, traits that contributed to his effective brand of leadership. now, i think they are instructed to consider at this point in our countries history, because these very traits are needed today. they are needed in washington, where once again confidence in our country and in our elected officials is waning. and let me start with the leadership traits that i think most importants -- selfless this. like most politicians, president ford understood an election meant self preservation. but on like too many today, he was on willing to sacrifice his principles in order to satisfy the whims of the electorate. face with an enormous dilemma about whether or not to pardon president nixon in the aftermath of watergate, president ford did not look to his political advisers for advice. he knew what they would say. he know they would say, pardoning president nixon will kill you at the polls in two years. and it certainly did, just two short years later. instead, he did the very same thing that we tell our children to do when they are confronted with a difficult problem. he looked to his own heart for guidance. and after he found the answer, she explained it this way to his countrymen. "my conscience tells me that it is my duty to not only proclaimed domestic crim tranquility but to use every means that i have to ensure." that a courageous act allowed the nation to move forward from a very, very troubling time. and that characteristic of selflessness, i believe, is the reason the president ford was able to heal our injured country. even if it did ultimately cost him his job. a second leadership traits that president ford exhibited was bipartisanship. we hear a lot of talk about that today. a moment ago, i told to the president ford was a man of principle, and he was, no doubt about it. he was particularly worried about the influence of an ever- growing government and what it was having -- the influence it was having on our country. he expressed those thoughts are very, very eloquently. he said, "if the government is big enough to give you everything you want, it is big enough to take away everything you have." in that, he was absolutely right. but president ford was also a creature of the congress, let's not forget, who serve for more ars as minority leader before he became vice president. as well as anyone, president ford understood that our democracy is based upon negotiation and is based upon a compromise and it is based upon agreement. truth, he once said, is the glue that holds government together. compromise, he said, is the oil that makes government go. president ford may have had political adversaries because they come with the turf, but he did not have any political enemies. he knew hot disagree agreeably. president ford understood that bipartisanship is important not only for getting things accomplished, but for making sure they do not get undone when there are the inevitable shifts of power in washington d.c. 1/3 leadership trait of president ford was dignity. president ford was a fair and just human being who seemed to intuitively know what the right thing to do was. i will never forget election day 1976. the president had overcome of 30 percentage point deficit in the polls and for the first time during that campaign a win seemed possible. he had busted his tail in a campaign that was stacked against him from the very day he took office. on the night of the election, that afternoon, 5:30, i went in to give him some of the exit polls, which were not that promising, and i thought to myself that i might actually be able to light up the victory cigar that president ford had given me that afternoon. and it was not until early the next morning, after 3:00 a.m., that we learned that jimmy carter had won the closest presidential election since 1916. the election was so close that have fewer than 10,000 votes shifted in ohio and hawaii out of a total of 81 million votes, president ford would have won the vote in the electoral college and thereby won the election. despite that razor-thin margin, the president was very stoic in defeat. he had worked very hard. so hard you remember that he lost his voice. very, very hard and he had come so very close. yet, he graciously accepted the result. his longtime friend of former st. louis cardinals catcher who sat with the president as they watched the election returns rowland said that he'd seen a former cardinals great get more upset with an umpire sing strike two than gerald ford did when he realized he was not going to win a presidential election. but he refused to ask for a recount. even though there were many of his supporters that had implored him to do so. president ford was a man of honor, and because he had lost the popular vote, he did not want to put the country through the agony of a recount. his fourth leadership trade was humor. he had the inner confidence of someone who could laugh at himself. of course, that was important because hollywood was always trying to make him the but of their jokes. -- the butt of their jokes. they witnessed a leader whose sharp, self-deprecating humor could ease serious situations. one of those times came after he had accepted the resignation of agriculture secretary earl butts for telling an offensive joke. a little later, after being introduced at an event by bob hope, president for wisecracked "i have only one thing to say about a program that calls for me to follow bob hope -- ridiculous. bob hope has stage presence,, the timing, and the finest riders in the business. i am standing here in our rented tuxedo with three jokes from eraarl butts." [laughter] brilliance was in showing the country that he was not thin skinned. after all, who among us after being wrongly cast as a clumsy but soon in countless chevy chase skits could quip, "i have not felt this good since i fell down an airport ramp." a fifth and final leadership traits is one that he demonstrated side-by-side with his wonderful first lady betty. that, of course, was their perseverance in the face of adversity. life did not always go according to store plans for jerry and betty ford, particularly when it came to her battles with substance abuse. but rather than given to her addictions, betty ford chose the difficult path. she confronted head on those demons that were her problem, and she conquered them. and then she did something even she held othersic -- do the same thing. with president for supporting her, she was able to turn trials and triumphs. if ever there was an example of how we americans should respond to the inevitable challenges we will all face at one time or the other, the fords were it. ladies and gentlemen, as we reflect upon the legacy of gerald ford, it is extremely shortsighted to simply remember him as the post watergate president's. although he had 29 months and the white house, he used his time wisely and productively to confront a monumental issues that face tim when he took office he helped us restore our national census and our sensibility. r nation.out and the aftermath of the vietnam war, he continued the countries policy of detente with the soviet union and china. this eased the tensions of the cold war at that time. and he did this at the same time that he was helping restore america's confidence in its role in international affairs following the collapse of cambodia and the fall of saigon. he was also able to focus the attention of the world and his country on other important matters. persuaded israel and egypt to accept an interim truce agreement, the first ever for the two countries. he was the first president to begin to emphasize the need for regulatory reform and the first president to call for a national energy policy. he was an early supporter of majority rule in south africa and he was a strong proponent of equal rights for women. did he accomplished everything he set out to accomplish? no, but he reversed our course and moved the country forward against strong and difficult headwinds. if there is a tragedy and president ford's term as president, it is not based on anything he did in the white house. nor is it based on anything that he did not do. no. the tragedy of president ford's service is that the american people did not give him a full term in office. have they done so, i am sure that his sizable footprint in american history would have been even larger. why do i say that? because at his very core, gerald ford was a leader. one who was guided by a clear conscience and by a dogged determination to see his country at its very best. ladies and gentlemen, i sincerely doubt that there is one person in this room today who does not wish that more of our elected officials demonstrated president ford's leadership qualities. president ford did what he thought was right. he did what he thought was right even when he knew it was going to cost him public support. he served our nation won by partisanship was more than just an empty slogan. and he was a leading practitioner of it. his perseverance and dignity, even in the face of the very toughest challenges, remaining samples upon which i think we can all draw, and upon which the american people can draw. today, more than 34 years after he left office he did not initially seek, but graciously accepted, we remember gerald ford as an honest, ethical, and talented public servant. we remember him as a leader, a leader with on questionable character and integrity. but more importantly, perhaps, at least i remember him as a truly lovely human being. a truly lovely human being who always put his countries interest ahead of his own. and so as a result, i am absolutely convinced that history is going to be very good to president gerald ford. and will always reflect upon his tenure with admiration and with respect. our country would be far better off today if our elected officials could call upon those traits that to find president ford's leadership as they confront the difficult challenges that lay ahead of this country. thank you, all, may god bless you. my god bless this country that gerald ford not so much and served so very, very well. [applause] thank you. thank you. >> what role did you play and 1976 presidential campaign? >> i was his deputy secretary of commerce. i had been there six months when his delegate hunter and the contest for the nomination against ronald reagan was killed in an automobile accident, and president ford asked me to come to the press before committee and be the delicate in a contest for the nomination, which i did. by the way, that was an extraordinarily interesting convention and primary contest, because it was the last really contested convention of either major political priority. 1976 in kansas city. we only won the nomination by 100 delicate votes of 3000 on the floor. a very narrow win for an incumbent president, but of course, one of reagan, governor reagan had been running for president two or three times before. he was an extraordinarily tough competitor and challenger. and we felt ford, to win the nomination, even though we won it normally. then after the nomination, president ford asked me to chair his general election campaign against jimmy carter. we started out 25-30 points behind. on election day, the candidates were dead even. it -- those close elections are tougher to lose than the blowouts. i was chairman of the present for committee in the general election. president ford consult with president nixon on foreign policy, and were they friends? >> i cannot answer that, because i was in the campaign and not really in the white house. i was over and commerce for six months and i was the acting secretary of commerce, but most of my contact with president ford at that time was all on substantive economic issues. and very little to do with foreign policy, and nothing to do with politics at that time. i do think that president ford consulted with president nixon from time to time after the pardon and perhaps during the campaign. >> what differences did you notice between president ford and president reagan's leadership styles? >> it with a minute. i worked for four presidents and i have one rule that i never violate. i never compare president, because the minute you say something good about one, it is taken to be a knock on the other. that is the only question you could ask me that i will not answer. [applause] >> ok, folks, we need to change some of the questions that are coming in. there are several along those lines. this is another one related to ronald reagan. discuss the tension and the white house during the attempted assassination of ronald reagan. >> there was quite a bit of tension. we have only been there -- i was white house chief of staff when president reagan was shot. we have only been there for two months, maybe 2.5 months. it was the first week in march. we came in on january 20. it was a very traumatic time. and nobody really knew at first what it happen. wheat -- at first, we got conflicting reports as to whether he had been hit. what most people do not know is that president reagan came very close to dying from -- not from the wound, quite frankly, but from an infection nethat set in after they perform surgery on him. and that is probably well know out there known, but at the time, it was not well known. it was quite a shock to those of us in the white house. a lot of us were new to the job, and then to have a president shot at in an assassination attempt is very dramatic, very difficult. it was a very difficult period. one of the things that we did or it wassay didn't do received a lot of attention is that we did not invoke the 25th amendment that says that when the president becomes incapacitated, the cabinet is to meet and turn power over to the vice president. the vice president was in texas when president reagan was shot. of course, he got on air force 2 and was headed back to washington. i was at the hospital with senior white house advisers. we talked about whether -- president reagan was about to go into surgery. we talked about whether to invoke the 25th amendment and concluded it would not be the right thing to do. because the doctors told us he would only be under the anesthetic for a short period of time. this was back in the cold war when the threat of nuclear conflict was still quite alive. but we did not think it would be the right thing to do. the vice president of the united states, george h.w. bush was not anxious to see the 25th amendment in vogue, because he had been the last competitor standing against ronald reagan and the nomination in 1980, and he did not give the think that somehow he was trying to take over some power. i had been his campaign manager. i was the white house chief of staff. if i said we would invoke the 25th amendment and give power to george bush, it might have been more than allow a lottery in the white house. so we decided not to do that, but i will say this -- i have the concurrence of president reagan's longtime advisers and taking that course. edwin meese agree with me. as it turned out, everything was fine. vice president bush was so conscious of the fact that he had been the last standing competitor that when he came back to washington, there were going to take a helicopter and land on the south lawn. he said, no, you are not. that is where the president land. we will go to the naval observatory, the vice president's residence. >> what was the relationship between president ford and president reagan like, especially after the 1976 primary challenge? question.a comparison [laughter] giving awaynk i'm any secrets to say not all that good at that time. it later became better. that was a very tough primary. and it is quite natural that in a competition like that, there will be some tension and there was some. and there was some on both sides. i've written two books about my political and public service. the last one was more about my political service. i was telling susan earlier, there is a chapter where i am sitting in the oval office with president reagan, just the two of us, because i was his chief of staff, even though i ran two campaigns against him. get this. delegateesident ford's against governor reagan, and there was george h.w. bush's campaign manager and the fight for the nomination, and yet ronald reagan asked me to be his chief of staff. somebody explain that to make. e. we were sitting in the white house reflecting on a lot of these events and i said, you know, mr. president, if president ford had asked to to come on the ticket with him in 1976, it is my opinion he would have been elected. we would've won that election. that 10,000 votes would not have been a problem. and he might never have been present. he said, that is probably right. he said, but i will tell you this. if the president had asked me to take that position, i would felt duty bound to do it. that is not totally consistent with what the reagan campaign told the ford campaign in 1976 when we said, let's have a unity meeting, and the reagan campaign said, we will have a unity meeting provided you will not ask governor reagan to be on the ticket. we said ok, because president ford did not want to ask him and reagan did not want to be on the ticket. you ask about the tension. there it was, ok? >> what was your biggest challenge at secretary of state in the bush 41 administration? >> i was an extraordinarily fortunate individual to be secretary of state when i was. we used to live in a bipolar world where we have the soviet union and the united states, the cold war. and then the soviet union collapsed, communism imploded, the wall came down, and we were in a unipolar world. united states was the only super power out there and everybody wanted to get close to an uncle whiskers. and i was secretary of state at the time. my job was a hell of a lot easier, because everybody want to be close to the only remaining superpower. so we got a lot of things done. what did we do? we presided over a peaceful end to the cold war. it did not have to end peacefully. it could of ended with a bnag. ang. we have the first call for we kicked iraq out of kuwait with minimal casualties. ifirst-- in the first gulf war. we had the madrid peace conference where israel and her neighbors sat down to talk peace for the first time. we have the unification of germany. so a lot of things happened. you asked me what the toughest challenge was. uh, trying to figure where to concentrate, because we were in such a position to get so many things done, and trying to figure out except in what to concentrate on. i'm not sure we handle the breakup of the former yugoslavia very well. that was perhaps the greatest challenge. >> as secretary of state, what were your experiences with the fall of the berlin wall? >> well, we were fortunate to be in power when it happened. and i credit every american president, democrat and republican, going all with back to the beginning of the cold war, the fact -- for the fact that america was triumphant in the cold war, because every president, democrat or republican and every administration was steadfast in fighting the cold war on behalf of the american people. that is why we ultimately prevailed. i happened to be hosting a lunch in the dining room of the state department for corazon aquino when i got a message from the under secretary of state for political affairs saying that the east germans were going to let people go through the wall. i could tell that was going to be big stuff. by nightfall, it was huge. so i picked up the phone and called president bush and went to the white house and we spent the rest of the day talking about how we were going to deal with that matter. but we were, i think we did it right. as i said, we continue to work. president bush 41 was smart enough not to dance on the wall. the press were all over him saying, why have you not shown more a motion? you want a 40 year conflict. he did not want to stick it in the eye of cortes and the continuing leadership of the soviet union because he knew that we would have to continue to work with them to make sure everything ended totally peacefully -- he did not want to stick it in the eye of gorbachev. one of the most important things we did is to unify germany in peace and freedom as a member of the north atlantic treaty organization. we have in their window of opportunity, but we got it done, and there is now just one terminate. it is very important that that it done in that short timeframe. >> we will go back to a ford administration question. what do think was the impact of the helsinki accords on the cold war? >> i think that is one of the most significant accomplishments of president ford and that is. under-appreciate it. the helsinki accords gave everyone who wanted to support freedom for captive people of eastern or central europe, i n arab countries, gave them argue for etre to human rights and individual freedoms for people, because that was some of the things contained in the helsinki accords. when we return -- when we tore the exhibits, one of the things that was in the accords, saying that borders will only be changed to peaceful means. that is one of the problems we had and the breakup of the former yugoslavia. these countries one of slovenia, croatia, some of them wanted to declare independence, sees the border post. i went over to belgrade and said, if you do this, you will kickoff one heck of a civil war. yugoslavia was only a attempted -- kept together by the authoritarianism of tito. once they started agitating for separation, we thought it would end up in a big civil war, and it did. but the helsinki accords was a very, very important achievement of president ford's administration. >> help us understand why bush 41 was not successful in being reelected? >> there were three reasons. first of all, he had a sarta campaign manager -- me. [laughter] but secondly, we had been there 12 years. i mean, two reagan terms. bush was reagan's vice president. the press particular were tired of us. they really were tired of us. and we were climbing a tough mountain. there was another major problem. that's reason number one. it's very hard to keep the white house for more than 8 years, for any party. we had kept it for 12. secondly, we had a jug-eared fellow named ross perot that you may or may not have heard of, and he took 19% of the vote. clinton got 43%. bush got 38% and perot got 19%. perot was taking two of three votes from us. dd toake 2/3 of 19 and a 38, we have 51. when people say, he did not cost as the election, i will say he thought he did. i thought he did for 20 years and i still think he did. the third thing was our fault, absolutely. that is, instead of going up to capitol hill in january, 1992, when president bush 41 was at 90% approval rating and saying, the desert storm was a great success. now we are going to do domestic storm. and i am going to focus on the domestic problems facing this country, and here is an economic program. if we had done that, i think we might have won that election notwithstanding perot. but we did not do that, and that was a mistake. >> let's talk about another election. this is the one in 2000 with a vote recount. we have two questions -- what are the common misperceptions about the events surrounding a recount? and another. could you discuss it? >> i can discuss the recount. i do not know what people's misconceptions are about it. i can tell you a few factual things. number one, we were never behind in any account whatsoever in all the counts taken. the press went in, all the hanging chads and ballots were saved. "the new york times", a miami paper, i cannot remember which one, these are not fans of republican candidates. they went into their own survey and they said under no scenario could gore have won after they looked at those ballots. so there is a fairly independent look at it. i think -- i used to say that after the 1976 election where we lost by only 10,000 votes out of 81 million, remember thinking to myself that night at 3:30 in the morning, boy, is this something. this is the closest presidential election of your lifetime. well, it was not the closest presidential election. 537 votes. a couple of other things i will say, in addition to the fact that we never lost a recount, we were never behind an account, we won any number of court cases, and yes, we've won the supreme court, the final case, and a lot of people say, you were just given the presidency on a 5-4 decision of the supreme court. that is simply not true. the vote on constitutionality in that case and the supreme court was 7-2. justice breyer, a democrat, voted with republicans, and justice souter, votetd witd with justice ginsburg. you had a bipartisan decision on constitutionality. after they said that the legislature is put in place -- a recount is illegal on constitutional grounds, then they said the time has expired for further recount because by gore's ignition, the critical date was december 12. this was december 11. there was no longer any time to come. the gore campaign made a big mistake. when they ask for recounts in only four counties and they were pro democratic counties, all of them, very heavy democratic counties. instead of a statewide recount. when they did that, that gave us the high ground. their mentor was count every vote. our mentors was, we counted them -- our mantra was we counted and every7, times, time we counted them we won. the supreme court said the florida legislature could not change the rules of the game after the game had started. under the constitution, the legislatures of various states have the ability to determine how presidential electors are selected and florida had a law, but once these recounts started -- by the way, we have a lot of lawsuits, maybe hundreds. the supreme court said, you cannot change the rules of the game after it has started. >> you will be pleased to know that we are going to move to current affairs questions. how and when did things go wrong, leading to the difficult situation the u.s. finds itself in today? >> i do not by the assumption that the u.s. is in decline. if you read the papers today, everybody, we are terrible. we are in such bad shape. if we are in such bad shape, why is that everybody wants to come here? nobody wants to go anywhere else. we're not in good shape today. we have some he among those problems. our big debt bomb. we have debt to gdp of over 100%. that is unsustainable. we continue to spend beyond our means. we have to find a way to do something about that. but i don't buy the argument that we are on the downhill slide. when i was treasury secretary for president reagan in 1986, the japanese were coming in and buying up everything. there were buying up radio city. and everybody was saying, america is down the tubes. japan will all the world. guess what? it did not have been. they just had 15 years of terrible economic times. we have a lot of things going for us that others do not. people compares to china. china's growth is an amazing thing. it is important. we need to acknowledge it. it is significant, but we have some strength that they do not have. and one of them is our political system, our principles, and our ideals. does anybody out there doubt that our political system is going to be any different years from now than it is today, and would anybody has are the same guess about china's? i don't think so. so i don't buy all this stuff about how the u.s. is in terminal decline. we do have some serious problems. we have to figure out how to stop all this spending. we have to live within our means. that means we have to deal with everything -- defense, entitlements, revenues, the whole deal. i will tell you one other thing that i learned from 8 yeraars of service to president reagan -- you do not resolve a deficit problem just by raising taxes. if you do not have spending restraint, i mean legal spending restraint, you can raise taxes until the cows come home and you will never deal with the deficit because congress will spend the money raised in texas and then they will spend more. and the only time we have ever gotten a handle on that to any extent it really was during that george h.w. bush administration when we had legal spending restraint, enforceable spending restraint in the form of the graham-rudman hollings restraints. we got a lot of problems, but i do not buy the argument that something terrible has happened to us. that is simply not true. we ought not to worry about the fact that brazil, india and china are moving up in the world. i think it is more an occasion of the day are moving up than the u.s. going down. why are they moving up? they are moving up because these countries have increased our paradigm of free-market economics. we ought to welcome that. yes, they are competitors now. they did not used to be, some of them. we will have to compete. i think we are positioned to compete with them effectively. >> how do you view the results of the rat study group a of applying to u.s. foreign policy during the era of spring -- the results of the iraq study group applying to the u.s. for policy during the arab spring? >> at the time we take a look at it, we were over there, we were given full access to the cia and others. what we said was, in december, 2006, we said the situation in iraq is grave and deteriorating, and it was. and by the way, we had a provision in the study group report supporting a surge, provided it was short-term and provided the commanders on the ground recommended it. that was the president ended up doing. and it turned out to be to some extent successful, but i have to tell you the jury is still out on what the final result is going to be in iraq. it is certainly a lot better than it was when we went over there in 2006. but i do not think we have seen the end of it yet. and i hope that things don't the did generate after we are fully out of there at the end of this year. but we are coming out. it is over. and certainly the world is better off to be rid of saddam hussein, but we do not know yet what the final situation is going to be. we do not know the extent to which iran may be emboldened and strengthened by what has happened there. and so i think the one thing the iraq study group report did was to focus the attention of policymakers and the country to some extent on the fact that we needed to change what we were doing in their. and we needed to find a way to do a better job of training iraqi forces so we ultimately could leave. we cannot stay in all of these countries forever. the same is true with afghanistan. >> in your role as former secretary of state, could you give us a thumbnail state of the union, particularly as it is related to national security risks for our country? >> we still have significant national-security risks. of course, the terrorism risk is still very much out there. we have to remain vigilant about that. we are targets. we need to understand it. cyber warfare is the vulnerability of the united states. i am not an expert in that. i do not know to what extent we are in a position to defend against cyber warfare. i think it is important for us to remember that throughout recent history our alliances have helped the united states. again, you look at the u.s. and china, we have a web of alliances all across the world, whether it is in asia or europe or where it might be, of people that will help share the burden of freedom loving countries. that is the strength of hours. we need to make sure we keep those strong. how we relate to the arab spring is important. that is a really big thing that is happening out there. again, we do not know what a finer result of that is going to be. i will tell you this -- if the israeli-egyptian peace treaty blows up, you can forget about an israeli-palestinian deal. it will not happen if that peace treaty -- and we do not know who is going to run egypt. it is still very much up in the year. we do not know what will end up happening and libya, whether that will be a civil war or something else. syria is a terrible problem now. and yemen. as far as the threat of terrorism, it does not just come from afghanistan. somalia, yemen, other places like that. >> last question. and i thank ever submitted this. why did you not run for president? we think you would have been a great one. [applause] >> i though about it. my time would have been 1996, in just before that, i had done two stands of chief of staff for two different presidents. i had been secretary of treasury for four years, secretary of state for four years, and i had worked on our lead at a fairly high level five campaigns for president by three republican presidents, and i was dead tired. i was dead tired. my wife and i talked about it. i think we could have raised the money, but i was 66 years old at that time. and we did not have it in us. i have never looked back on that decision. it was the right decision and i am happy with it. i am happy to be back here in grand rapids to stand up for somebody that i will always, all of my life admire and honor --j err jerry ford. thank you all very mucjh. h. [applause] >> tonight, a look back at oakland since 1992 run for the white house with remarks from his advisers and strategist. after that, a deficit reduction inability to reach a deal. tomorrow on washington journal, a discussion on the inability to reach a deal with josh boak. after that, joseph mcquaid on the paper's endorsement for the gop election. daniel seddiqui talks about "50 jobs in 50 states." >> the newly designed c-span website has a web video choices making it easy for you to watch today's event live and recorded. it is easy for you to get our schedule so you can quickly scroll through all of the program scheduled on the c-span networks and even receive an e- mail alert when your program is scheduled to air. section to access your favorite and programs. a handy spot check -- channel finder so you can find work to watch our three networks on cable or satellite systems across the country. at the almost c-span.org. >> next, a look back at bill clinton's 1992 run for the white house. the former president is joined by former advisers and strategists. it took place at the clinton presidential center. is about one hour and 15 minutes. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> good evening. welcome to the clinton presidential center. i am the director of the clinton foundation. [applause] thank you all for joining us for this discussion of the clinton- core campaign and the emergence of the democratic agenda for the 21st century. tonight, our esteemed panel will take us back to 1991 and the political climate that gave rise to bill clinton's eventual victory in the 1992 presidential election. this evening, our moderator is renowned author and columnist, ron brownstein. currently, ron is national journal group's editorial director. not only is he responsible for coordinating political coverage at activities across publications, but he is also a regular contributor to both the "national journal" and "the atlantic." he was a correspondent for "the los angeles times," in addition to writing a weekly washington at outlook column. the is the recipient of several journalism awards, the author of six books, and he regularly appears on national television. please join me in welcoming ron brownstein. [applause] >> thank you, and thank you all for coming. i guess i should start by thanking president clinton and the clinton foundation. i want to thank you for recognizing in this age of 24- hour cable and internet and talk radio that one of our great national challenges is a shortage of opportunities for political pundits to have their views heard. [laughter] all want to thank you for taking a small step toward rectifying that. as democrats began the process of selecting a presidential nominee in 1992, the parties had lost the capacity to effectively compete for the presidency. republicans had won five of the six previous elections, three by landslides. over those six elections, democrats had won one average 43% of the popular vote. the situation in the electoral college was worse. of those six elections, republicans had won on average 460 electorial college votes. during the 1980's, the democrats had won a smaller share of the available collect for college votes than in any three consecutive election sequences since the formation of the modern party system in 1828. it was not an exaggeration when commentators and started just talked about a republican lock on the left for college. when then-governor clinton stood in front of the old state house, that was literally the backdrop for his presidential announcement in october, 1991, but i always thought the real backdrop was the legacy of failure and even marginal position. bill clinton's goals as a candidate or sweeping -- to modernize the democratic agenda in a manner that could advance traditional goals through new means and also rebuild an electoral majority for activist government. to affect both how candidate clinton formulated that decision and how well he implemented it, we have an extraordinary panel door at the center of his national political career both as candidate and president. pretty much everybody in this room could have been on this panel, so we had to narrow it down to our magnificent six. don baer was the communications director the white house and is now vice chairman and chief strategy officer. james carville was the campaign manager for the 1992 campaign. star of the war room. he is now, "and author, actor, producer, talk-show host, speaker, an arrest warrant for -- and restaurant owner." not clear what he is doing in his spare time. al from, who is now the principal of the frum company. frank greer, the media consultant for president clinton's 1992 campaign, and now -- and has not escaped d.c. for the other washington, seattle. vernon jordan, chair of the presidential campaign in 1982 and the senior director, the senior counsel, and the author of an extremely engaging memoir that i explored with him. and finally, we have the hometown favorite, pallotti shackleford, the former deputy campaign manager of the campaign and former vice chair of the democratic national committee. welcome, all. [applause] al from, let me begin with you. one strand of the story starts with the dlc. there are competing theories of how the parties might revive. some thought it was possible to resurrect the new deal coalition with a populist message about economic fairness. there is a competing camp that offered more centrist among economic issues and trade, but conventionally liberal on foreign policy and social issues. then there with the new democratic effort centered on the dlc. how did that differ from the other competing interests and how did it shape what bill clinton ran on in 1992? >> first of all, thank you for everybody coming in, and president clinton, thank you for hosting this great reunion. when we looked at the statistics that you cited about the previous presidential elections and looked at a map, if you look at a map, there was only one state out of the previous five elections that the democrats had won five times, and there were three or four others that they had split. we basically decided that we had to talk to people who go to work every day and play by the rules. the middle class. we thought the traditional, progressive, democratic principles that furthered with new ideas would be the way to get people to start voting for us again. the key element of that was that people would not even listen to us. we had to show that we were different. we were different in five ways. one, we promoted economic growth, not just redistribution. second, we granite our policies in mainstream values like work, family, responsibility. third, we had a new ethic which said it was not just -- a lot of people perceive the democrats as something for nothing, or the republicans every man for himself. it was this concept of opportunity, responsibility going together, a concept of reciprocity, you got something from your country but you had a responsibility to give back. fourth, we tried to get beyond the isolationist image of the democratic party with a reconnecting of the roosevelt, truman, international progressivism. finally, we believe in an activist government that would not have to be bureaucratic and it served people as customers. we tried it to redefine the message. ideas like welfare reform and national service were evidence that we were different than the democrats they had been going against. >> pallotti shackleford, the president -- lottie shackleford, he adopted some of these ideas, but he also talked about middle class families, the economy. how was the experience in arkansas, and how that shaped his message and agenda in 1992? >> i think in many ways, it was probably evolutionary from the time arkansas for started to hear about bill clinton. from the time he first ran for office, he was always talking about what we needed to do an arkansas out to be better and tralee have an opportunity to experience the greatest potential. fast forward to the 1991-1992 campaign, it was the same kind of message. i think all of us got the sense that the government had a responsibility, but you, too, have a responsibility. i think that was one of the real changes that we started to see in that campaign. it was the beginning of somebody saying, i am here to work with you. you think about the book that he put out, putting people first, and these kinds of things, those things resonated. just like everything else, giving new hope and at making you feel that you truly can make a difference and you did not have to be ashamed of your government nor yourself. i think that was the beginning. >> vernon, there was an element of tough love towards his own party in the message in 1991- 1992. certainly, in one seminal moment in the campaign, the speech in cleveland, 1991, he said, "to many of the people who used to vote for us have not trusted us in national elections to defend our national interests abroad, to put their values and our social policy at home, or to take their tax money and spend it with discipline." tough words about your own party. i am interested in your thoughts about, why was the party ready, enough of the party ready for that message by 1992 for him to win the nomination, meanwhile offering a stern critique of where the party had been of the last decade or so? >> the party was lost at sea. the party did not have much leadership. bill clinton came in 1991, and he was to the democratic party what rosa parks was this the the civil rights movement -- what rosa parks was to the civil- rights movement. the west to the democratic party what the students in february 1, 1961, were to the civil-rights movement. he was to the democratic party what martin luther king became to the movement. it was change, it was different, it was fresh, it was young. it was also experienced. he had been governor ran long time. it was renaissance time in the democratic party, and a lot of the older democrats had to be brought around, they had to be converted, they had to be convinced. and here we are. [applause] >> frank, by the time you get to the announcement speech in 1991, the synthesis of new and old, you read that speech today, there are a lot of familiar notes, expanded opportunities and economic fairness, but also some new notes about fiscal responsibility, marry an opportunity and responsibility. he talked about the process, that speech, that landmark moment in the campaign, and to what extent there was a tug at about how far you went in a traditional direction vs. how far you went in challenging the party direction? >> i think one of the things in that time that you need to remember is that bill clinton had been on the front lines 10 years in education reform, welfare reform. he had been on the front lines doing the hard work, and a tough state, by the way. he had a better understanding of how to communicate this new approach for democrats and how to communicate opportunity, but also responsibility and a sense of community that we need to restore to the country. i think it was based on his terrific experience in arkansas, his personal values and what he brought to the campaign. and the other thing which was very different for democrats, he was a hell of a good communicator. he had a message, he understood the issues, had the experience, as vernon said, and he also had the ability to communicate. and the speech and the reaction he had, that was the first trial run of the message. it was an amazing speech, and it is as relevant today, and the speech that he gave out on the statehouse lawn is as relevant today in terms of the issue, the approach for democrats, and the approach to the country as it was then. [applause] >> james, we're going to talk about the general election and some of the innovations, but i want to ask about the primary if i could. it was very different from what you or most people expected. most people were gearing up for this is the logical, generational battle come up with mario cuomo of perhaps representing the old new deal consensus and clinton running as a centrist new generation new democrat. instead, your main rival became paul tsongas, who came at of the neo-liberal strain, who ran at mostly from the center, in many ways. how much did that scramble your calculations and change your approach to the way that he presented himself to the electorate? >> first, we had some defense before the primary that scrambled that more than paul tsongas did. [laughter] one of the things -- and i think anybody who has worked a presidential campaign, everybody talks about the general. the general is actually kind of easy. you have airplanes and staff and funding and you land at one place and sleep in the same bed every night. the primary is just always going. it is like harry thomason's airplane, sitting in their pact, going to new hampshire, four- hour flight, freezing cold. you would have staff meetings at 2:00 in the morning. >> no lunchtime. >> the thing that struck me was unbelievable fatigue. the other thing, there is no idea of the things that president clinton could do in a campaign. he knew that he could do it. it was a town hall, you knew that he could do it. if it was "meet the press," you knew that he could do it. very seldom was there the confidence that it would be ok, you just sort of did it. >> even the week before new hampshire? >> i have never seen -- if you look at the hours, the week before new hampshire, i had never seen a human being in my life perform to the standards that he performed from the monday, that final eight days -- i will never forget that town hall. it was one after another after another. and by the way, even at night, we actually lost new hampshire, unbeknownst to president clinton. we lost new hampshire by seven points. >> 19% of the vote. >> right, but it was so funny, we actually ended up in new orleans after all of that, and i had to do the "today show," and i cannot do any more. that is the thing about the primary people did not understand. they are so much harder than the general, they really are, and there is so much intensity. you hate everybody. [laughter] remember the tirade against it was the fund reserve from baltimore? i cannot remember the guy's name. >> vernon? >> there is something we should never forget about the new hampshire defeat, and that is they came in late that night and nobody was talking, everybody was quiet. somebody asked the question, governor, what do we do now? and the governor said, take me to the people. that was his response the night of the defeat in new hampshire. he said, take me to the people. he did not say called the newspaper or the networks, he said, take me to the people, because he understood where a democracy ultimately reside spread that -- ultimately reside. it is not on the editorial pages, it is to the people. then he went to georgia and he won, and the rest is history. >> one of the things i was going to go back to, to remind folks, we went to new hampshire with a lot of good research from stan greenberg, but we took bill clinton's message and experience and what he believed in, the new approach, opportunity, responsibility, community, and we took it to focus groups in new hampshire before the announced speech. democrats in this focus groups said, thank goodness, this is what we have been looking for, waiting for. the response was amazing. then, to go to your point, people forget that the first part of the campaign was a 60- second spot. people said candidates cannot do this. two cameras, bill clinton talking about his message and plan for america. we went from 15% in the polls in 10 days to 35%. it was from 35% that we came back down, but thank god, given the message, and the research that we had done, and green. did a fantastic job of that, we had a message from the message from new hampshire that was so welcomed by the democrats. it was new responsibility, welfare reform. >> that positive response in the focus group was one thing, but the idea of linking opportunity and responsibility, but we talked about responsibility and welfare was not uniformly cheered, especially at the outset. 1991, the speech in cleveland, jesse jackson was essentially leading a counter protest. there was a point in the campaign where doug wilder was quoted as suggesting that bill clinton only started talking about welfare after david duke did so well in louisiana in 1991. you always talk about racial reconciliation, became enormously popular with african- american voters, but this was rough terrain in the beginning. >> right, and i sought from the perspective as a journalist. i was an editor and reporter for a news magazine, "u.s. news and world report." i was covering part of the campaign. my kids like to tease me, i am getting older, exactly 17 years ago right now, this happened. here is the deal, exactly 20 years ago today -- sounds like the beatles, 20 years ago today i closed the first article i ever wrote about bill clinton, and it was to go into the magazine the week that he was announcing his candidacy. i got to spend extended time with him on a flight from washington to map this, because it cannot fly direct to little rock at that time. -- on a flight from washington to meant this, because she could not fly direct to barack at the time. we hit bad weather around memphis and we could not land. i get to spend three hours with him and the land instead of 1.5 hours. i remember this, the governor was meeting mrs. clinton in memphis, where they were going to be flying back to little rock because chelsea was 11 years old and she was going to one of her first boy/girl dances and he wanted to get off in time to go to that. we talked for an extended time, and two things came through. they were very different, and had covered the 1988 presidential campaign. they had put me on every democratic candidate who lost. every time i would come on the airplane, about two months later that canada would be out of the race, not because of me. they then sent me to cover the bush white house as a correspondent. what i noticed was, and i still have the transcript, mr. president, and i still have your ticket for your seat -- which if you want it back for a refund purposes or whatever, i could give it to you -- but two things came through, and that was the way the media covered that campaign and covered him bore this out. one, and all started with ideas. as general and vague as that sounds, that was unusual. we had not had the idea behind policy things, but work with the dlc, the work in arkansas that was a core of that. the second, which relates to the point, it also came out of his personal narrative. the story of his life in arkansas, all the way back to hope and mandy, but it was so clear this was a person who is genuinely connected to a place and to real people who he cared deeply about. and as you probe and scratched, they care deeply about them. part of that was the african- american community, where he had the ability to say these things about welfare and crime that most democratic politicians from places that you would have imagined could say these things were not in a position to do. it went great credibility to it. it was not seen as an attack, it was seen as, how do we come together to solve these challenges together. >> al, let me ask you, there were many memorable moments, and one in particular was in michigan, during the primary, where at the suggestion of stan greenberg and doug ross, who was running the dlc in michigan, the president went to a predominantly african-american church in the inner city of detroit and give a speech on the opportunity and responsibility in delivered virtually the same speech to an audience at macomb county committee college, famous as kind of the wellspring of the reagan democrats, the blue- collar white democrats would become disaffected from the party. that seemed symbolic of what he was trying to do, to argue the common language, the message that could appeal equally on all sides of the racial divide. talk about that, about trying to find the language to speak to white and african-americans in the same terms. >> i had a seven-year spat with jack rosenthal, who was head of the editorial page of the "new york times," that we would find a candidate in develop a message with the right candidate who would talk to working-class whites and african-americans. like bobby kennedy. i believed it was the day after the day of the illinois primary, where he and an editorial acknowledged that we had done just that, sort of conceded that to me. but vernon made an important point, bill clinton, governor clinton always went to the people. what we did, when he started as chairman of the dlc, we laid out our philosophy. for historians, you ought to go to the speech at hyde park in 2000 and see how every principle that we outlined led to policies. he did a speech at hyde park where he showed everything that he did as president came from those principles, something that is the kind of deep belief that i think is important for the presidency. but the other thing we did, we went around him, in 25 states. we were not doing political fund-raising, we were not doing right to the organizing. we were meeting with small groups of people, diverse groups, and talking about the ideas that came to define the campaign. we had a very good feeling on how people would respond, and also they helped us shape those ideas. but it always struck me, whether we were in california or montana or south dakota or wyoming, wherever we wear, president clinton could go to two groups that were absolutely 180 degrees opposed on a single idea, something like charter schools, for example, give the same speech to both groups, word for word, and both of them would come out and say, i may not agree with everything, but this guy is on the right side of the issue. >> frank? >> bill clinton and i also grew up in the segregated south. we understood, i think, it took someone from that experience to bridge the gap between working- class whites and african- americans. in the announcement speech, he talked about, i know what they want to do, they want us fighting each other, staring across the divide, instead of turning our attention to the people were responsible because we do not have jobs for blacks, four whites, for working people in this country, and that is what he wanted to do. he understood it, i think, because he had lifted. and how you bring that coalition together? it was growing up in it. >> it was very important, give credit to bill clinton, the work that he had done, that was bubbling up across the south. among democrats who had figured out in the aftermath of desegregation how could get back in the game. because republicans had taken over most of the state houses, many of the state legislatures. i grew up in north carolina, and that was what we had seen come up democrats realized there were these crosscutting, unifying issues like education, the right things to do for their states, that they understood it could bring people together rather than divide them. >> in the long run, the coalition and the being more minorities and upper-middle- class, college-educated whites, then minorities and blue collar. >> as she talked about particularly african-americans, one of the things that related so well, they could feel it genuinely. they knew when people talk to -- they knew when the clinton talked to the people it is genuine, it was not something that was scripted. they knew that. then at vernon talk about the democratic party and its leadership. i think we must recognize the fact that even the democratic party, national day, was undergoing a change. ron brown had been elected in 1989, and that was a change for the party, because ron and the political director had starred at that -- [applause] and they were going across the country, showing them how they could win. i think you take that, coupled with all of the clinton fought wars, from the arkansas travelers -- coupled with all of the clinton followers, from the arkansas travelers, who started in 1991 to one across this country saying, you know, my governor may run for president, will you take a look at him. we went into all kinds of places doing that kind of thing. i think that was the first campaign on a national level that started to integrate off assets and the k value, and the value to all facets and all groups because of bill clinton. >> james, even with the sharpening of this message and the success in the primary, but the time the primary was over, you guys were bruised and battlebattered. he was not only troweling president bush but ross perot. i remember in the exit poll, ross perot was running extraordinarily well in the general election. talk about where you ended up in the primary and the process that you went through to try to reintroduce governor clinton to the country, culminating in the convention speech. >> i want to 0.1 thing out. only person here who had to travel there to get to little rock. i just like to point it out. >> we need to go back to one thing. >> it was just a joke. >> something to be clear, there was an impression that all democrats who grew up in a segregated society got the message. that is not true. that is not true. bill clinton got it, but there are a lot of them who did not get it, and did not get it now. [applause] >> what happened was people were saying in may of 1992 there was some chance you had to reach a certain threshold to qualify for matching funds. there was actually taught that we did not reach that threshold. it was like 30%, something like that. there was serious talk. there was a front-page story, saying that democrats on the hill were looking for some alternative, although it look like bill clinton had the nomination. all of those things were going on in may of that year. and said, went in look, we're going to get the nomination. we knew that. ron brown had sent paul tully down here, trying to get a mathematical certainty. we start something referred to as the manhattan project, where we went and did i don't know how many focus groups and everything. what we found out was that people really saw this wasn't extraordinary, talented person. -- this was an extraordinary, talented person. the ways this guy? he has all of these things to say that we kind of agree with. a lot of things were swirling around. who is the real bill clinton? and remember the man from hope? the connecting? >> was not one of the findings that many people thought he was a child of privilege? >> they did not know, but he was so articulate, they assumed he was. we had to reintroduce who he was and what his values were, because the thought he was a rich kid with a silver spoon, and they resented that. >> and that culminated in the convention speech rooted in the arkansas experience. he was a product of the middle class, but i thought was the core argument of the convention speech. it was rooted in the arkansas experience, and that became a metaphor for how he ascended and would help others to send. >> but he also very clearly what back to the new democratic reformers. when you have a primary in a state like new york, it's sort of defines you as opposed to you defining it. just a couple of things that i thought were really important in that time, and there were others. one is when he picked his vice- presidential candidate, he really broke paradigm. he did not balance the ticket, he may be cleared the message campaign. one of the things we cannot lose, as we think about all of the things that happen in a campaign, is how message- oriented this campaign was. we were telling people we were different. by picking alcor to be vice president, i remember when he called me he said, it will be the changing of the guard. was part of the message we're trying to deliver. he went to look at organization and a speech about reinventing government. in the platform, we did not do what every other democratic candidate had done, which was give the platform to the losers. we ran on opportunity, responsibility, community, made at the platform. we had to fight off a lot of amendments by others in the party, but we were determined to run on our own platform. we did a bunch of things that drove the ross perot vote down. it made clear that clinton was not the same kind of democrat that people were voting against. >> in addition to that, a lot of people tend to forget, but on october 3, 1992 -- november 3, 1992, a lot people say, i was there, i was there, oh, you are? people tend to forget that when the clinton campaign started, most of the movers and shakers, so to speak, did not want to have anything to do, which met in practically every state, james talked about raising the required money, and practically every state, it was truly grassroots at that time. these were not the movers and shakers in these communities. these were everyday people who believed in him and his message and barely got out there. -- and really got out there. that was one of the turning points, going further than that campaign at that time, that was one of the true meanings of grass roots. clinton had the ability to empower folks. people were doing things that you never knew they were doing, but they were doing it because there was this sense of empowerment they had from the campaign. once clinton moved forward from the primary, not everybody just knew, though, that campaign will not stay in arkansas. two things. number one, nobody got fired, they just kept hiring folks. we had more layers in that campaign than any other i have known, but people were empowered. at lot of good people, who were sorry later, did not work on that campaign because they did not to lose to little rock -- did not want to move to little rock. >> talking about message and agenda, but that was not the whole story. in many ways, there were so many innovations with things that have become commonplace, like a war room, or using pop culture channels. he went on arsenio hall. there was a great debate over whether that was demeaning for presidential campaign. even doing a town hall on a morning show. and, of course, at the absolute cutting edge of 21st century technology, which was like running for president with the jets since. -- jetsons. did you feel like you had to try new things? >> that was the time when the cell phone was bigger than stan greenberg. [laughter] one thing that you have to understand, the searing impression that the 1988 dukakis campaign made it on the party. you cannot imagine. a lot of things were governed by that, to some extent. >> no tanks, for example. >> if you go back to some of the cultural things, from arsenio hall, morning shows, how many war rooms have there been since 1992? everybody has a war room now. companies have a war room. it was actually hillary who came up with that term. need, let'swhat we have a war room. how many times if you google, stupid"?e blank president obama went on a bus tour. it has become part of the culture, the sort of change of all of that. if i look back, the one thing where you knew that it would work, the gore thing, when they came to little rock, in the back of the governor's mansion, you knew right as soon as you saw that, you kind of knew without ever -- right, you just cannot imagine the visual that had that there was a new guard. you are just sitting there. everybody knew. but again, a lot of the things that we did were also, it seemed odd, but the news cycle had become so compressed. so often, the first take is the one. everybody would wait for somebody to write a column, put an interpretation on the debate. you had that, and then we had -- you go back and look at the press corps we had traveling. that is when the press had money. some of the most aggressive, talented people in journalism were covering that, and every day, day in, day out. it was an amazing time. i do think as you look at it, i think the campaign was not just a different way but it was a cultural transformation of america. >> in the general election, the bush campaign would pride many of the arguments that worked effectively -- would try many of the arguments that worked out on democrats over the previous 20 years, tax-and-spend liberals, weak on foreign policy, and partially because the was dissatisfaction because of the status quo, what was different? did the new democrats initially give him a stronger line of defense? why did those arguments not work as well as they had in 1988? >> first, the new democratic positioning gave him not just a great defense, it gave him an offense, it gave him a for a clean. it or actually leading the pack. we were in a completely new context and landscaped with that election. it was the first presidential election after the end of the cold war. many new ideas, people were open to new perspectives, it was a new opportunity to lift up our heads and think about national leadership in a different way. finally, to step up and solve a lot of things that we had been facing that had been stepped to the side. it's tough to the side because of the national security considerations. but to come back to the race issue. in the course of the eight years of the clinton presidency, started in this campaign, bill clinton systematically -- nothing ever seems systematic, but systematically took off the table the wedge issues that republicans and conservatives had used to divide the country and divide the previous 30 years before that. welfare reform, crime, a number of things, to the point where -- -ish, butund pollyannas race was not the dividing force it had been in the previous decades. >> you anticipate a question. >> one of the narrative set against then-governor clinton was that his whole life was plotting and scheming. he had to be a signature issues, opposition to the vietnam war and a very aggressive set of pro-civil rights. because that was the thing that you did to get elected. if you were going to craft your political career, those other things that you would pick. excellent job of political consulting back then. [laughter] >> vernon, we talked about in the spring there was a low. was there a moment when you thought, wow, this really could happen, this campaign could elect the president? >> you won't believe this, because this sounds a little bit self-serving. i came to little rock in 1973 to speak to the little rock urban league. the president and hillary came to that dinner. it was the first time i met him. i went back home and told my then-wife surely i had just met a president of the net states. -- i told my dad and-wifeshirley that i had just met a president of the united states. what i liked about him is he left law school and came home. i left law school and came home. he came back to the south to do something about race. i went back to atlanta to do something about race. and we made that connection in 1973, and we have been connected ever since. [applause] >> anybody else? 1992, what was, was mom ital, you thought this could work? >> my moment was before 1992. i did a celebrity deal in the fall, september, 1991, right before the announcement. i told the person who is going to take of the the new york times that bill clinton would be the next president. i was convinced when we went around the country in 1990-1991 this man would be president. i had a few doubts as the numbers went down in may, but i really -- i thought he was going to be president in 1990. >> i will say, and i remember the event, i think it was san francisco when i first saw you and have a rate speak at a children's fun to dinner. -- when i first saw you and hillary speak at a children's fund dinner. the said these folks have a message and know how to communicate. that was the key difference. they had core values and core beliefs. i really believe from that point on, especially in the gubernatorial campaign that i worked on, it was clear that this, more than any other democrat, this is somebody who understood how to connect to the people. by the way, vernon, the thing about, "take the to the people," the key turning point was when we did town hall meetings. getting away from the press corps and talking to real people. those ripped people gave you strength, but it also said, this is what the message is about. -- those real people give you strength, but it also said, this is what the message is about. >> when i knew he would be president, it was the trip i took with him in the early september, 1991, we had this long time. we landed, he and hillary it went to chesley's stance. i came back to washington that night. washington, that night, friday, been the way it is now, i went to a dinner in georgetown, journalists, very cynical people, and a guy who worked on the white house staff of the bush administration, my wife was there. i walked in and i said to my wife and the people there, i am absolutely certain i have just spent the day with the next president of the united states. this is when bush was at 60% of the polls. my wife was nice to me, and everybody else out at the dinner said, you were out of your mind. but it was so absolutely clear. and this relates to something vernon touched on, this was somebody who had shown by virtue of where he had lived his life that he was committed to people and he had come home. i was a southerner, too, went to law school up north, who did not go home to work on those things. i became a media lawyer in new york and became a journalist. by so respected what he had given up to come back to do what he felt was the most appalling thing to do. -- i so respected what he had given up to come back to do what he felt was the most important thing to do. >> i also remember his performance at the national governors' association meeting at the educational summit in charlottesville, where bush called the summit and clinton literally captured that education reform movement. >> james, let me ask, everybody says they saw this, but there was another speed bump in the fall. ross perot came back in the race, getting a surprising audience. qualified in the summer, it's back in the debate, and now you are looking at a race that at one point is 3, four, five points. talk a little about that and what your interpretation was of why he found an audience, ross perot, and what it meant to you in the final weeks? >> first of all, a lot of senior people in the campaign are catholic or jews. there is something catholics and jews share, we are not optimistic about much. [laughter] i was not. election morning, stan and i meet at 6:30, go over where we were. i don't think we ever showed it tightening. but gallop did, but they changed it. i just would not allow myself to think of it. and you never knew what was going to happen. i am sure i knew deep down inside, but i would not allow myself to think about something like that. it was just not the nature to have. but i do think looking back on it, the convention is with the thing -- is when the thing broke. i think people wanted to be, they saw some talent there, they saw something there. once you were able to connect to he was with what he was saying, that was the thing, looking back, that put him over. >> the agenda and the biography. >> consistent with what i believed about bill clinton, in 1991, i took bill clinton to meetings in germany. they have been going on since 1964. the north american, european alliance. two other u.s. politicians were there, another governor, and senator dianne feinstein. they were sort of laid back. the governor of arkansas cornered every person -- [laughter] at that meeting, what do you do, where are you from, how do you do what? they came away saying, who is this clinton died and where is arkansas? -- who is this clinton guy and whereas arkansas? [laughter] after that, i said he is going to be the next president of the united states. this said, that is impossible, they were for bush. but he won. the steering committee came to washington in january. i called the president and i said, mr. president, they are here. they came to the four seasons hotel, and the europeans felt like they owned him because they met him when he was totally unknown. >> our time has basically been consumed. one final thing, and the lasting impact of this campaign and its agenda and the coalition, republicans have won five of the sixth elections until 1988. since 1992, democrats have won i the have wonn four of the past five elections. the democrat has won more than 43% of whites in that time, and in 2010, the democratic vote among whites was the lowest level ever in congressional lections in the history of polling. we do come after the 1990's when policy seemed to be de-realized, we have enormous gaps between the the way that whites and non- whites vote. if you look at whole ledger, what was the lasting impact of this agenda and the message in reshaping the democratic coalition, and has evolved since president clinton's time? >> well,

Related Keywords

Arkansas ,United States ,Vietnam ,Republic Of ,Australia ,Brazil ,Madrid ,Spain ,Syria ,Croatia ,San Francisco ,California ,Mexico ,Cayman ,Gilan ,Iran ,Egypt ,Iowa ,Helsinki ,Eteläuomen Läi ,Finland ,Libya ,Miami ,Florida ,Canada ,Japan ,Germany ,Afghanistan ,Georgia ,Michigan ,Pakistan ,Claremont ,New Hampshire ,Iraq ,Slovenia ,Saudi Arabia ,Chile ,North Korea ,France ,Hawaii ,Louisiana ,Honduras ,Turkey ,State House ,Illinois ,China ,Beijing ,Arab League ,Al Qahirah ,Russia ,Belgrade ,Serbia General , ,Kabul ,Kabol ,Washington ,District Of Columbia ,Reunion ,New Orleans ,India ,South Carolina ,Cambodia ,Adana ,Hollywood ,Cuba ,South Africa ,New York ,Macomb County ,North Carolina ,Texas ,Boston Harbor ,Saigon ,H Chíinh ,Boston ,Massachusetts ,Indonesia ,Bonn ,Nordrhein Westfalen ,Denver ,Colorado ,Jordan ,Cairo ,Hyde Park ,Israel ,American Church ,Town Hall ,Ohio ,Somalia ,Yemen ,Berlin ,Kuwait ,Venezuela ,Americans ,Mexicans ,Australian ,America ,Texan ,Iranian ,Afghan ,Israelis ,East Germans ,French ,Hondurans ,Iraqi ,Israeli ,Japanese ,American ,Chinese ,Egyptian ,Soviet ,Serbs ,Pakistanis ,Palestinian ,Ronald Reagan ,Roosevelt Truman ,States George ,Rodney Slater ,Al Qaeda ,Paul Tully ,Herman Cain ,Tsa Pat ,Doug Ross ,Harry Thomason ,Fidel Castro ,John Huntsman ,Martin Luther King ,Corazon Aquino ,Fleetwood Mac ,Arsenio Hall ,Jack Rosenthal ,Bashar Al Assad ,Gerald Ford ,Abraham Lincoln ,Barack Obama ,George W Bush ,Ross Perot ,James Carville ,Mario Cuomo ,Hugo Chavez ,Benjamin Franklin ,Don Baer ,Jon Huntsman ,Ron Paul ,Dianne Feinstein ,Jerry Ford ,Jim Baker ,George Bush ,Dick Ford ,Rick Perry ,Michele Bachmann ,James Baker ,Frank Greer ,Paul Tsongas ,Simon Winchester ,Rick Santorum ,Ron Brownstein ,Dick Cheney ,Newt Gingrich ,Bobby Kennedy ,Edwin Meese ,David Duke ,Donna Randall ,Lottie Shackleford ,Los Angeles ,Doug Wilder ,Tony Blair ,C Tom Ridge ,Betty Ford ,Timothy Mcveigh ,Stan Greenberg ,Cleveland Jesse Jackson ,Jimmy Carter ,Ron Brown ,Susan Ford ,King George ,Fred Kagan ,Bashar Al Assad Christine ,Joseph Mcquaid ,Rog Morton ,Donna Shalala ,