tv Washington Journal CSPAN February 16, 2016 7:00am-10:01am EST
>> 18 years is a long enough for justice to take a long view that extends well beyond one presidency, and justices could retire at a reasonable age without fear that they are betraying the home team. there's less of a risk that a justice would become infirmed on the job and 18-year terms would alsz allow presidents to confidently appoint well into their 50s and 60s. on those born in a later and different time. both parties have some stake in fixing the problems. each party benefits from the crisis of the sort we are now experiencing. and we want to hear your thoughts if you think that's a good idea, bad idea or you don't
know. you can share your thoughts with us. the phone lines 202-478-8001 for republicans, 202-748-8000 for democrats. and you can post on twitter and facebook. also, when it comes to the topic of picking the person who will replace scalia, harry reid has an op-ed in today's "washington post" taking a look at this topic. particularly, as you heard from others, including mitch mcconnell on the idea of holding off choosing a nomination. in which senator reid writes, if we enshrine this president, subordinate to the whim of the senate majority, it's easy to envision a future where the supreme court is routinely crippled. this act alone will define their time in the majority thinking otherwise as fantasy. if republicans perceive, they will ensure this republican majority is remembered as the
most obstructionist and irresponsible majority in history. all other impressions will be instantly swept away. my republican senate colleagues should note, too, they should surrender to the party to presidential candidates like senator ted cruz and donald trump. to the idea of term limiting the supreme court. our first call this morning is doris, chicago, illinois. live for democrats. good morning. what do you think about this idea? caller: good morning, i don't think there should be term limits. i think there should be a mandatory retirement age. between 75 and 80. i don't really want, i don't know, i think people cogniti cognitive -- host: their cognitive ability? caller: right.
it goes haywire the older they get. some are mired in the past instead of looking at the present. host: but overall, you think there should be some limit and it shouldn't be a lifetime appointment? caller: i do. and republicans have the control of the supreme court for 60 years. i don't think anybody has ever bothered to mention that. that's not their purview. they don't own the supreme court. it's time for a change anyway. host: tom from south carolina. good morning. tom from south carolina? you're on, go ahead. let's go to michelle. wisconsin. democrats line. sorry, good morning. go ahead. i do believe there should be
term limits. our thought processes aren't quite as quick as we used to be. and it just seems like no matter which the president who is ever at the time appoints one, it's always in favor of one party or the other. and i believe supreme court justices should be bipartisan. just to make sure the law is upheld the way it should be. i believe there should be a term limit on supreme court justice. host: the previous caller said there should be a mandatory retirement age. what do you think about that idea? caller: again, let's see. depending on when they're chosen into the supreme court, i guess, if you're 40 or 50, that would
work out, but if you're already hitting 60 or 70 and then get in and have to turn around and get back out. i guess, to me there's too ma many -- i'm not sure how to put it. too many iffies in there. host: thank you for calling, again. 202-748-8000 for democrats, and 8002 for independents. the question is term limits. c-span late last year in july took a poll looking at the supreme court. and one of the questions they did ask in our poll was about term limits. among the survey that was taken at the time, 3 in 5 americans it was found, 60% disagreed that they should be a lifetime appointment. and 79% of them said they
preferred 18-year term. with the possibility of reappointment for justices, a proposal advocated by some court watchers, only 1 in 20 respondents, that's about 6% strongly prefer lifetime appointments for justices. here is carlos. key biscayne, florida, republican line. hi there. caller: hi, good morning. how are you? host: fine, thank you. caller: i believe there should not be any term limits for justices at the time. it's a system as you go, it's been proven to work. and it, you know. right now, there's a discussion in regards to president obama's ability to name or, rather, should he name, you know, a succeeding justice because of this period being in the lame-duck period. the reason, part of the reason why they've been named, they can stay away from that type of
situation in regards to their mandates. so you never want to have a period within their mandates that is questioned in any way because it's either terminating or about to terminate. and so their views and positions won't be compromised in in way. host: some of us mentioned this idea, what happens when you get to the older stages of life and how that might affect the ability to take a look at court cases, make those decisions accordingly. do you think age should be a factor when it comes to those issues? caller: if anything, it should be a positive factor. one of the only societies in the world that doesn't revere the elderly, maybe the united states. but everywhere else in the world, elderly people are, actually, looked at and sought at for these types of positions. it also talks about the responsibility as an individual, the justice, because they can, they are able to resign. they are able to resign. and it must be a decision,
completely separated from partisanship, from political, from political decision. although, maybe that's wishful thinking. it also calls upon the responsibility of the justice to dictate and determine when they should resign. do they still -- are they still within the capacity to run and to be in their mandate? or should they resign? at a timely fashion. so these are probably the most capable individuals in the nation. they must be given the decision as to when they step down evaluating their own abilities and looking at the landscape in general. host: we need term limits on congress. again, you can make those thoughts toward the supreme court when this comes to the idea of term limits.
you can do so on twitter, on our facebook page, as well. jerome, you're up next. capital heights, maryland. independent line. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i agree, pretty much, with the previous caller. i don't think there should be term limits. i think the original idea of giving a lifetime position was to ensure that they would not be influenced by outside forces. that you don't want your supreme court justices being any different from your politicians. we don't want supreme court justice being influenced by polls. they should be able to interpret the constitution and as they grow older, hopefully they become wiser. and they have the ability to change their positions. we don't need persons on the court who are just political appointees who carry out the political party.
we need independent justices, and the only way to ensure that, i think, is to give them lifetime appointments. and they would hopefully be less influenced by outside forces. but one other thing i'd like to say also. i don't understand how c-span and much of the media is totaling ignoring dr. ben carson. i see lesser candidates getting coverage. but dr. ben carson who has always been right there at the forefront. he never seems to get the media coverage like the other candidates. i'm a l little curious about that. may justice scalia rest in peace, even though i thought he was an obnoxious reactionary trying to turn the clock back. thank you very much. host: jerome in maryland, if you go to the pages in the "washington post," they take a look at the idea of how supreme court justices are chosen. a piece recently in the pages and talks about term limits and
why they haven't happened. he poses a question saying why haven't term limits happened? blame the constitution. article iii states, quote, the judges, both the supreme and inferior courts will hold office. justices get to stay on for life as long as they behave themselves. so most legal scholars agree that mandatory judicial term limits would require a new constitutional amendment. that's a high bar, but not an insurmountable one. given the lead and popular levels, the constitutional amendment on this issue is a lot less farfetched than others. the piece is called "why it's time to get serious about supreme court limits." you can find it on the "washington post" website. we'll hear next from america's georgia. sandra, hi. caller: hi, good morning. host: good morning. caller: i do not think that term limits are necessary especially due to the fact that they have served us so well all these years. and i'm just a little curious as
to when it comes to president obama to make the nomination, that now we're talking about term limits. we have confidence in them. we've had confidence all these years. what is broken about it? i would be more apt to want to change the congressional term limits than to change the supreme court. and that is my decision. host: from gainesville, virginia, this is todd. good morning, you're on. caller: good morning. i also believe that term limits for the supreme court are probably inappropriate for a lot of the reasons that the various callers before me have mentioned. specifically, because the supreme court is supposed to be outside of the regular political
process. and look in and make sure that the political process is working the way it should. and validate that laws are constitutional and not be swayed by the various winds of politics, so to speak. host: and you think that ability would be limited if justice only has a certain amount of time on the court to make an influence or to, at least, serve on the court? caller: well, it's one of those things where, when you have only a limited amount of time, you start thinking, i think, a lot more about your legacy, and a lot more about what you'll be remembered for as opposed to what actually needs to be done and, actually, you know, fulfilling that outside role. because if you've only got 18 years to do your job, what are you doing afterwards. you have to make sure you make the special interest happy.
and then, to another point, mr. reid's op-ed. it's funny that he's quick to forget that in the 1960s, the democratically controlled congress actually passed a resolution asking the president not to appoint a supreme court justice in the same circumstances in which we find ourselves. it's funny that the shoe is on the other foot. host: talking about term limits for the supreme courts. if it's the good idea, bad idea or other. what do you think? caller: well, i'm conflicted on it. i'm excited about it being on today. i didn't know i could get this on internet. but as a person who is involved in the political process locally. we need to value older opinions.
the elderly for their wisdom because they've had a whole breadth, plethora of experiences. but on the other hand, as an african-american woman, i don't see myself on that court, and i'd like to see myself on that court so i can feel i'm represented. i.e., loretta lynch, she's already been vetted. now, as far as long-term i agree with the previous callers who mention the congressional. if you're there in two years, the time you get in there, you're trying to get reelected. maybe that should be a little broader and depth as far as the term limits go. had we ever considered having somewhat like an academy. the one who do clerks. that seems to be an experience that not every law student gets. now it's too many law students out there.
host: the piece in the "washington post" also talks about this idea of age. the age of the justices. he adds that quote, the constitution has written at a time when life tenure meant living in your 50s. writing it's not what the framers had in mind. term limits, statistically speaking, people are much more sharper and shaped mentally in the 40s, 50s and 60s than the 70s, 80s and 90s. complete with justices participating actively in the courts work. paul is listening to us in milwaukee, wisconsin, democrats live. hi, paul. caller: good morning c-span and
viewers. i believe that there should be 20-year terms for the supreme court justices. and when you vote on it every 20 years, there should be one vote for justice. and so that's so the majority can't control who the top 20 is. it should be 20 for that list, you know, at least 20 people every 20 years term. and this is so they can be accountable to the public. and sorry to repeat myself. but anyway, if one dies, one retires, whatever, go to jail or whatever. they should be replaced by the next one on the list. >> why not lifetime appointments? >> it's political. the republicans want to control the supreme court like i think i heard the lady say. about 60 years. they're more accountable to the people and the public. so they can change with the, you know, the younger people. and other people see things differently. they want to keep us back in the stone age.
like scalia and whatnot. but anyway, it keeps us back. a lot of us. people tired of the same old stuff. we want to see some things get done. host: some of the ideas of an elected kind of way of getting into the supreme court. what do you think of that idea? caller: that's what i said. one vote per person, every 20 years. every four elections, four-year elections. every 20 years, they get on the list and whatnot. and then the top 20, they on that list. and if somebody dies out of the nine or whatever, the next one on the list gets a job. and don't be accountable to these politicians. that creates other problems anyway. should be more accountable to the people. host: you get my idea and others can weigh in on it, as well. robert, diamond, missouri.
caller: good morning, sir. i will say this. i believe when you're 75 years old, you're too old to be in there. making these wise decisions for united states of america. i believe that honestly, a much standard union lasting several years and then justices showed them on there with the robes, half of them were sleeping. maybe they're sleeping up there. making these decisions. thank you very much. host: bobby takes on this issue.
if there were term limits, should judges be restricted from making decisions in their last year. she adds that they should prove mental health. and that's just one of the ways you can communicate with us as well as facebook. dennis is joining us from main, independent line, dennis, good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: i'm well. what do you think about term limits? caller: absolutely not. if they're on good behavior, they stay as long as they can function. they can be removed if they have bad behavior or mentally unfit. we have already have a mechanism for that. and not following up -- or trying to change the constitution because the flavor's not right. doesn't work. that's why we have one. and so, i say, we have the ability to remove them if
they're not functioning, working. you know, if their mental health is an issue. but where has that been a problem? where in our history has that been a problem? now, i never agreed with scalia, god rest his soul. i never, ever, ever have. because he was just too way to the right. but i compliment him on the fact that he was willing to serve. and i think that's the most important thing. willing to serve. you may not agree with him. that's why they're an independent institution. and that's why you have to have nine of them, not eight. and having the guys running for president, you know, screaming, oh, no, wait for one of us. you can't. you're not going to be in office until january. the supreme court starts hearing october.
i don't know how that would work. but you've got to have nine, you can't have eight. host: dennis in maine. taking a look at the writings about the supreme court. where they were educated, where they come from regionally. it goes on. american member, only second in its history. on the other hand, justice scalia wrote, it consists of nine men and women, who studied at harvard or yale law school. justice scalia attended harvard. the other three went to yale. also surveyed the lack of geographical diversity on the court. for the natives of new york city, indeed, every island was
represented. justice sotomayor from the bronx, eight of them, he went on to write went on to grow up in the east and west coast. that's referring to the chief justice john roberts jr. from indiana. ryan, new orleans, louisiana, democrats line. term limits for supreme court justices. what do you think? caller: well, at first i was -- i think he's right about that. i think eric holder will be a great supreme court. i would wish that the president nominate eric holder. thank you very much. host: madeline is up next. republican line, hi there. caller: hi.
good morning. host: morning. caller: age is not a factor. host: madeline, why do you think age shouldn't be a factor? caller: because sometimes, as people get older, they're wiser, they've been around longer and they understand more what's going on. and it should be done on an individual basis not having to do with a particular age of a person. as there is a lot of corrupt judges. young ages, older, and they should be looked at because they are people that ultimately are causing crime and this nature. they make very poor decision and it has nothing to do with their age. host: doug, independent line. go ahead. caller: hi.
host: hi. caller: i do agree with the term limits suggestion on the justices. the much more vibrant supreme court. the previous caller mentioned the constitution provides lifetime appointments and the mechanism in place for removal. but the people did see fit to amend the constitution for presidential term limits. i think the supreme court term limits would be a good idea. host: do you think the number being thrown out, 18, should it be longer, shorter? what do you think? caller: i do like the 18-year limit. it would be an appointment every two years. i think that's a great number.
it would be more representative that way. host: john, you're up next. democrats line. caller: hello? host: hi. caller: they say, they were talking about the one reason to get rid of the supreme court justice would be good behavior. well, scalia, i don't think he exhibited good behavior because he'd go on trips, retreats and whatever with republican leaders and these hot line republicans. and he wrote and talked many times about wanting to tush the clock back to at least until the 1940s, late 30s, whatever. so i don't see why that, nobody ever said anything about that. why would a supreme court justice hang around a bunch of politicians and millionaires? for days at a time?
that don't make any sense. that's a good reason to get rid of supreme court justice. and he'd be the first in line. host: johnny from woodbridge, virginia, vivian off of twitter adds her thoughts this morning. saying that, don't change the supreme court. meanwhile, she adds, make the senate do their job. on twitter, on facebook, on the phones. term limits for supreme court justices. that's the topic for our first 45 minutes this morning, maybe 15 minutes or so. 202-748-8001 for republicans, 202-748-8002 for independents. you can continue calling on this topic. but when it comes to politics, south carolina, with all of the focus on the presidential candidates, including jeb bush holding a rally yesterday there and with a special guest, his brother. the former president george w. bush highlighted in the pages of the newspapers this morning. here's the headline from "usa today."
seeks to rescue brother jeb bush in south carolina, making a speech introducing his brother. here's a bit of the speech from the event that took place yesterday. >> these are tough times. and i understand that americans are angry and frustrated. but we do not need someone in the oval office who mirrors and inflames our anger and frustration. we need someone who can fix the problems that cause our anger and frustration and that's jeb bush. seems like americans are yearning for a strong leader. i'd like to remind you and the voters what the true strength means. facing challenges. enduring.
and emerging a better place. on the campaign trail, and will still be true in office. strength is not empty rhetoric. it is not blustered. it is not theatrics. real strength, strength of purpose. comes from integrity and charact character, usually isn't the loudest person in the room. i've seen in my brother a quiet conviction and a core of conscious that cannot be shaken. and my hope is that the people of south carolina will see this, as well. host: and if you want to watch that whole event, by the way,
you can go to our website at c-span.org and see the whole event for yourself as well as other events and activities that are taking place on the presidential trail. the reno gazette talks about the contest there amongst democrats and highlighting hillary clinton there campaigning and working the crowd monday afternoon at the community college. i'll just read you the subhead. during campaign sweep in northern nevada. flip from huntington, west virginia, republican line. hi. caller: hey, how are you doing? host: fine. go ahead. caller: well, first of all, i don't think anybody should be sleeping while they're making decisions for our country, okay. if somebody's sleeping, then that means they're probably too old because they can't pay attention to what's going on. host: so the idea of term limits, what do you think about that idea? caller: well, term limits.
there should be limits for them. and let's just get to something else. let's make it's seven so there's no contradiction. host: sidney, independent line, hi. caller: yeah, good morning. host: good morning. caller: y'all need to have a discussion on the authority of the supreme court. the supreme court according to judge scalia, which he stated that there is no place in the constitution gives them the right to rule laws unconstitutional. they just took it. in marlboro versus madison, thomas jefferson said if this is allowed to stand the constitution will be a ball of wax that can be shaped any way.
so we need to have y'all start having knowledgeable people that we can call in and ask questions it would take a constitutional amendment to put term limits but we need a discussion on the constitution. host: since the constitution already endorses lifetime appointments, is that something you agree with? caller: yes, but let's have a real discussion about what is in the constitution. host: you've already said that. but this idea of a lifetime appointment. why is it a good idea? caller: it's a good idea because it's in the constitution. if you want to change it, change it properly. host: okay. raymond from georgia.
why do you think there should be term limits? caller: i don't believe anyone should be there for life. host: okay. go ahead. caller: my comment is also, they've got term limits on the president. they should have it on congressmen and representatives, as well. everybody wants control every. host: donald is next, chesapeake, virginia, republican line. caller: hello? host: hi, you're on. caller: yes, i'd like to know why there wasn't an autopsy done on the judge. you know, here he is hunting and he just dies overnight? i mean, then there's not going to be any kind of autopsy done? it's ridiculous. host: what do you think about term limits for the supreme
court justices? caller: they need to be tested. they need to read the constitution once a week front ways and back ways. they should know it inside and out. if they don't, they need to be replaced. simple as that. if they can't be all there in their mind, they need to be replaced. that's what i agree on. host: and south carolina, as far as the primaries going on, donald trump held a press conference particularly aimed at his rival or another person in the contest. ted cruz talking about the press conference about his threatening to sue cruz. here's in the "washington times." vowing to sue cruz if no apologies for what he calls the campaign's lies and also says he renewed the previous threat to run as an independent candidate. adding that both the threat to run as an independent and the challenge to cruz' eligibility as far as where he was born have become repeated themes for mr. trump who is trying to unearth the lead in the polls in south carolina. he says if he wins on saturday,
he could end up running the table in the rest of the contest. there's a little bit of we took in the press conference from yesterday. you have a chance to see it in its full length on the website. but here's a bit from donald trump yesterday. >> i get along with everybody, remember? i was a business guy that got along with everybody. if cruz ever got the nomination, the democrats are going to file the lawsuit. so in a sense, i'm doing him a favor because i'm filing it early. if i file it, i'm filing it early. i have a good lawyer, very good lawyer and a lawyer that truly believes. but, remember this, how do you give a man the nomination for your major party one of the two major parties and he has a cloud over his head? you've got to do something. because the democrats are going to file to the best of my knowledge there already are two lawsuits out there.
they're going to sue him. if he got the nomination they're not going to sue now because he's not going to get the nomination. host: on twitter, saying he disagrees with term limits. it would turn it into an elective body subject to special interest and campaign money. bob from michigan, you are next. thanks for calling and waiting. bob from michigan, good morning. caller: good morning. host: hi. caller: i'm in the ballpark not necessarily with term limits but retirement age. i'm thinking 80 years old is probably a good age. that gives everybody a chance. and to move up and to make some changes.
the four and four on supreme court. because judge scalia was intellectually a very strong, strict constructionist, at least in his mind, i think people are going to find out that this four and four is not going to be a gridlock at this point. i think we're going to see decisions on the supreme court. and even with an equal amount that are a lot more reflective of what is truly a constitution n constitutional law. his influence was so great, almost bullying intellectually in many ways. rest his soul like everybody says, but i think we're going to see that the four and four is not going to be -- not going to hamper a high-quality decisions from the supreme court. i think people are going to be surprised at the independents,
and the thought that comes out of this. host: bob, let me ask you. you're thinking that four and four would be okay. is that because you agree with the idea going forward as far as the next president should choose the next justice of the court? caller: well, i think whether president obama chooses anyone, or not, i think the senate is going to hang it up anyway. host: lafayette, indiana, here is the democrats line. grace, good morning. caller: good morning. being near 100, i'd like to admit, i've seen a lot of things. and i think those people will see a lot and judge, i don't think they should be going to sleep. i have a part that's been bugging me to death. if ted cruz is allowed to run for president, does that mean that any american that's married
to one of our enemies can come over here. and then, her son is automatically allowed to become president? has anybody thought about that? thank you. host: donald trump also talking about this idea of the supreme court. and who should choose the next appointee to the court. here's the ad. >> i'm ted cruz, and i approve this
message. >> life, marriage, the second amendment. we're just one supreme court justice away from losing them all. >> would president trump ban it? >> i'm pro choice. >> you would not ban it? >> no. i am pro choice in every respect. >> we cannot trust donald trump with these serious decisions. host: we'll hear next from grace in indiana. democrats line, hi.
caller: oh, hello. host: you were just on, right? caller: yes, i was. i didn't hear anything, though. host: bobby is next. columbia, maryland, republican line. caller: no, i do not believe we need to have term limits. i really think experience is very important. and having eight people on the supreme court right now is really not a problem. i also want to remind everybody listening that chuck schumer in 2007 when bush had 18 months left, he said that bush would not appoint a new supreme court judge. this has been done before. host: back to the idea of term limits. give us your thoughts on why they aren't a good idea. caller: i don't think we should
change the constitution and don't think we should have term limits. then you have people, i'm afraid special interests would get involved like someone said previously. and that's the problem with our president right now. people with the special interest groups and the lobbyists out of elections. that's why trump is doing so good. he's funding his own campaign. whereas you have people like cruz and rubio actually being -- being given money by george soros. host: the previous caller talked about a mandatory retirement age. do you think that's a good idea? caller: no, i don't think we need to do that. i've given it some thought. people, they can actually make good decisions. i'm 74. i'm okay. i'm really good and i miss working. i really do. host: what did you do in
washington? caller: i had a job at 17 and a security clearance. they would come to high schools and recruit us in maryland. then i worked at the national relations board. and i worked on every major space program from "apollo 11" to 2012. i supported all of them. host: that's bobbi from maryland. and this is roger, mckenzie, alabama. caller: thanks for taking my call. i don't think there should be term limits either. there's no sense of trying to change the rules. we do enough of that already. but for some reason, they're getting away from the constitution. i forget the lady's name, but she went to egypt and recommended for them not to use our, you know, not to follow our lead on our constitution that it was old and it wasn't, you know, good. but it's still an excellent document. and if you swear to abide by the
constitution, any politician who does. and then, all of a sudden, changes, says he doesn't like it. he or she doesn't like it or thinks it's outdated. you ought to have to, you know, quit, resign, whatever, because that's what you were put in there to do. host: that's roger from alabama. he's the last call on the supreme court justices should receive term limits. for the focus of our show today, we're going to be featuring guests from politico. that's not only the newspaper here in washington, d.c., also within europe, but also the website. and they also do events on television, as well. we're going to be talking to some of their key figures. we're going to hear first from john harris, the editor in chief and "politico's" co-founder. how they cover washington and issues with campaign 2016. and then, we'll also hear from kristin roberts. we'll talk 2016 politics with her. she's the national editor for "politico." if you take a look at recent stories. jack lew talked about the president's budget and that was
just a release. one things he talked about was corporate inversions and re-writing the tax code for businesses. plenty of stories on it. but if you go to our website, you can see about the total 2017 budget. here's a little bit from that presentation. >> i'll discuss the major aspects of the president's budget and how it lays out a vision of what we need to do as a country. both now and over the next five or ten years and beyond. to create growth and make sure that opportunity is truly broadly shared. in seven years since president obama took office at a time of the worst financial crisis since the great depression, we've seen a sustained economic recovery and unprecedented decline in federal deficits. notwithstanding, some of the recent volatility that we've seen and we're seeing in financial markets, economic growth continues in a solid pace. since my testimony a year ago,
our economy has continued the record-breaking streak of private sector job creation, which reached six consecutive years and more than 14 million jobs. over the last two years, we've experienced strongest job creation since the 1990s. at 4.9%, the unemployment rate is half of the 2009 peak. real g.d.p. expanded 1.8% last year, exceeds many of the major trading partners and continue on a sound path. fiscal year 2009 to 2015, the deficit is a share of g.d.p. fell by almost 2.5%. we have much more to do to fully address the challenges associated with our new economy. the president's 2017 budget puts forward the building blocks of a social compact for the 21st century creating the conditions for sustained economic growth while upholding the basic american belief that everyone who works hard should get a fair shot at success.
it shows that investments in growth and opportunity are consistent with and contribute to putting the nation's finances on a strong and sustainable path. and the budget substitutes more balance deficit reduction and ends sequestration while making other critical investments and in addressing our fiscal challenges over the next ten years. today, i'd like to briefly focus on three key areas of the president's budget, including our proposals to reform the tax code, invest in infrastructure and support working families. first, fixing the american business tax system is essential to promoting long-term growth and broad-based prosperity. includes a number of concrete tax reform proposals to make our system more strong and more fair, including a complete reform of our international tax system and a specific proposal to close the inversion loophole. while inversions may be legal, it's wrong for companies to take advantage of our infrastructure, education, our supreme court for
research, our rule of law, and avoid paying their fair share of u.s. taxes. i look forward to working with this committee and the congress to close the door to inversions. second, we need to invest more in modern infrastructure that will create middle class jobs in the short-term and meet the needs of a growing economy in the long-term. to accomplish this, the administration has proposed a phased in $10 a barrel fee on oil production and import that will ensure that we better manage the costs associated with fossil fuel use providing long-term solvency for the highway trust fund and offer new funding for clean energy investments. host: today on "washington journal" we're featuring guests from "politico," with the idea of covering washington. it has expanded not only to cover washington, but events not only across the nation, but the world. joining us, our first guest this morning is the editor in chief, and he's also the co-founder of
the publication, john harris joining us to talk about these issues, talking about "politico" and how they cover washington. mr. harris joining us, and thank you for giving us your time today. guest: thank you. host: i know people probably know your name brand, but tell us about your story. it's creation and the purpose that you set out to do when you created the publication. guest: sure, i spent the bulk of my career starting at age 41 at the "washington post" proudly so. the post is a certain kind of news organization. they cover politics, they also cover the washington red skins, cover foreign news, movie reviews, all the rest. a small group of us had a belief that in this new era, which can be dominated by digital media
and innovation, publications that specialize and really sought to own a particular area. espn's a good example. it owns sports. we didn't see anybody that was doing that for politics and policy making. we pursued it when we got back in from our owner and said, hey, come on over, and we'll try this experience. we did, and the result has been a great professional adventure for all of us. there's now 500 people here. i think it's been a real success in the media landscape, as well. host: how do you think your approach to covering washington is different than other publications? guest: we do it more intensively, we do it with more journalistic resources. more reporters and more editors trained on the subjects. and we do it with a very clear sense of our audience in mind. i think that's one great thing about working at "politico." a clear sense of mission. and that is not to cover politics for everybody in this
country of 300 million or whatever it is now. we're not fundamentally a traffic-driven site. fundamentally edited, reported, edited and published for a particular kind of reader who is highly engaged with the subjects. so they're professionally eng e engaged. they're in the world of politics. in the west wing, they're in the speaker's office up on capitol hill. if we're making ourselves indispensable for that office, we're winning, any day we don't do that, we're trying harder. host: you target these folks. tell us about how you publish. i know you have a paper that gets published. but is the website your main source of getting information out to your audience? guest: when i was at the "washington post," the whole rhythm and culture of that place was organized around a 24-hour cycle that existed for a century.
it's a lot of legacy news organizations have had a big challenge to reinvent themselves for the digital era. some doing well, others lagging a bit. "politico" is lucky in that we were born with the spirit of reinvention from the beginning. we didn't have any legacy culture or any legacy work routines to overcome. you know, the so what of that is we honestly are not obsessed with platform. we do have a paper, circulates up on capitol hill. people love it there. we put about 30,000 out on the streets. obviously, our main platform, of course, is the website on big election nights, you know, we'll get several million people coming in in just the course of an hour or two, to our site. we had that on iowa caucus night. a new site record. a new site record for any month except november when, of course, we really spiked. increasingly, a lot of people read us on mobile. many of our specialty products are aimed at hitting people with the mobile phone so they read
our content on email, which, of course, is no longer an exotic technology. we're focused less on the platform than are we making it easy for our audience to read? and giving them the kind of content that makes their lives more productive? host: today, our program features key people from "politico" talking not only about the publication and how it works, but the politics. if you want to ask our current guest, john harris, the editor in chief and co-founder 202-748-8001 for republicans, 8000 for democrats, and 202-748-8002 for independents. mr. harris, to that last point you made about platform, one of the things in the profile piece written about you recently came from the "washington post." he said this, the central conceit of politico is based on a belief that the internet created desire for content delivered minute by minute rather than waiting until 6:00
p.m. to publish your best report. every single scoop or piece or insight the second they learned it. do you agree with that? guest: i think that reflected our original vision of "politico" when we started in 2007. i think we haven't lost that original vision. but we've expanded it in a number of ways that probably not as familiar with. we were primarily a politics and congressionally focused publication. we owned the presidential race, and we had bodies swarming all over it. that was exotic in 2008. and now some of our competitors have done the same. but we did politics, congress and some extent the white house. in the nearly decade since we launched, the vast percentage of our growth has been in the policy areas. so we're covering technology policy in washington, health care policy in washington, energy policy in washington.
15 different policy verticals where we try to bring that same sense of urgency and that same sense of swarming over the story probably a little less visible. the other thing we've learned, it's been a great surprise. even in this sort of speeded up era of digital news. the long form piece, the magazine piece that might go for 3,000, 4,000, 5,000 words, people will read that. they'll share it, they'll post it on facebook. it'll go viral. if it's good. there's very little appetite for a long thumb sucker. but if the piece is revelatory, it'll go as viral as any kind of sort of piece of daily shouting from the campaign trail. the original work is what gets a voice and gets an audience. host: with that approach, though, what do you do editorially to keep over the reporters who report? how do you keep things in shape that way when it comes to
editorial oversight and content? >> well -- guest: well, we try to be a team. the best and most important factor, the editors. when we were first began, we were very reporter-driven publication. i think we're still a reporter-driven publication. we were understaffed in terms of the editing. thanks to the backing of the publisher and people not part of the original founding team but now are leaders. people like susan glaser, kristin roberts, i think we'll hear after. we've got first class editors. you don't see their bylines, you know, on the site as much. but they're absolutely critical to promoting our reputation, driving our growth. host: and before we let you talk to callers, a couple of words about your partner, jim vandehei.
tell us a little bit about what he brings to your partnership and what kind of things do you oversee as far as the division of labor there? guest: well, "politico" began as an if adventure in friendship, really the three of us. we were friends, we had very strong ideas about media. and as we were pursuing these discussions, that's how we met a new friend, somebody we didn't know at that time. robert albriton, the financial backer of "politico." and it was out of that back and forth, we had a mind meld. and it was out of that that "politico" blossomed. we together found the courage to leave pretty good jobs and start this. so that collaboration lasted just about a decade. jim's announced that time is right for him to turn the wheel in his own professional career. mike allen is still with us for
the near term. but he's indicated, probably, at the end of the election year, he'll be moving on. so, what we've got is something very familiar in start-ups. you've got a core group that comes together. creates something. editorial value and business value. and at a time, a certain time the big test is can this enterprise make the transition? and in order to prove that, we've got to prove this place is more than about me or any of the individual co-founders. host: our first call for you, john harris, is thomas, wichita, kansas, democrats line. thomas, you're on with john harris of "politico." go ahead. caller: how's it going? guest: fine, thomas. caller: you know, what a great name for a newspaper or a whatever it is online,
fredericksburg, virginia. go ahead. caller: i think politico is a good thing. do you have any thoughts on the scalia, whostice believed in individual rights over the state and the right to pursue liberty and happiness? i wonder, if you are going to denigrate an institution that is about the only place people have respect for or the only institution people have respect
for yet, and know that somehow they will get it right, even though sometimes they jump in a little early. they should not, but i think he was a great man and i was just wondering -- and a very strong hoping you and i am explain some of this legacy. from fredericksburg, virginia? that brought a smile to my face. as a young reporter, in the mid-1980's, i used to cover fredericksburg and my colleague writes the daily playbook here at politico. he got his start at fredericksburg, a special place in the politico identity. justice scalia's passing caught us all by surprise. we learned all about it late
saturday afternoon. it has been a huge story for reasons the caller suggests. the historical legacy will loom large. that legacy is a source of controversy. -- hisson he matters opinions provoke strong views across the ideological spectrum. scully a will remain in the news because there looks to be a big battle over when he or she will .e nominated right out of the gate, the senate majority leader said he is not going to push a nominee through to confirmation until obama's term is over. democrats and president obama himself were outraged by that.
the constitution requires action now. the scalia legacy is going to be much discussed. he is going to be in the news for months. host: justin from tennessee. next. caller: how are you, everybody out there? first, justice scalia will be missed by americans. most, anyway. is, how hasto you politico in the past canal being -- from what i noticed, it is like certainmiddle other organizations. and quite to the
left. that ifalso like to say people do not wake up and realize our country is in bad trouble, and we need people speaking the truth about partisanand not being about who is right on which side and which side is so wrong about everything else. i ask what leads you to believe there is a partisan leaning to politico? what makes you say that? caller: have you ever read politico? guest: i have a i have read i'm wondering where you got the idea. they are very left-leaning and anti-right most of the time. neither left nor right, but i see the unfairness in it. host: what do you think about those accusations? have anolitico does not
opinion section where we express our own views as most traditional publications did. we do have a place where we from our ownon not staffers with an obligation to be nonpartisan, but for outside contributors. from left, right, middle, across the spectrum. of the caller, i believe, is simply wrong. you have to look at the broad spectrum of coverage where we have liberal or left-wing voices, conservative or right-wing voices. part of what we do is not outside contributors or opinion of any kind. it is news. politico is first and foremost a news publication. argue about those
facts, depending on where on the political spectrum the fall, but the facts are what they are. that has been since the very first days when we started back in 2007, and as long as politico is around. we are meant to be a nonpartisan and nonideological news organization. republicans, you can call -- are talking with john harris of politico, editor and chief -- in chief and cofounder. i am curious, when it comes to like the supreme court story that was brought up, once the scully a story was brought up, what is the approach of who is going to cover them? guest: we believe nothing feeds like excess hair when you have a big washington story like this,
the editors and the reporting almostn the newsroom, 300 editors and photographers and all the rest, big parts of the newsroom start to fire up because there is almost an infinite variety of angles. , we try to cover them all. watch thertant to gears in motion. i feel sorry for my staff learning a saturday night on a holiday weekend, but this is second nature for us. peoplethe most important has ah, my colleague who real reputation in washington for his ex case on legal issues and legal affairs. team immediately swung into action because that is going to be the arena in which this plays out.
does the senate confirm a nominee that president obama says he will send up, or do -- until the next president is in office? there are policy implications across a lot. those individual reporters and whatrs say wait a minute, might the change means for our readers? host: massachusetts, bill is up with john harris. you are on with our guest. go ahead. thank you for taking my call to i have a question and then a comment. do you ever report on nominations being held up by certain senators, that is the question. guest: yes we do. it is a familiar washington phenomenon. it can be very hard or a to fill out his or her
administration with appointees pyramid times, individual senators will place a hold on those and they do not go forward. so we do try to cover that. whyfurther explain something is being filled or not filled due to the actions of individual senators. montana, independent line, here is john. go ahead. on the night of the last democratic debate, the same day, there was breaking news the ig was investigating hillary clinton cash foundation program and nothing was said about it on the debate. i am thinking, where have all the good men and women gone who would ask the question on the legality going on with the clinton cash foundation. what is your response to the questions that night? seems like the kind of question that might not come up at a democratic debate that will
almost certainly come up when the individual candidates, including secretary clinton, face reporters one-on-one and not in a debate context. in the press, we are always clamoring for them to do that more frequently and have more news conferences and on the fly, just as they are out on the campaign trail. that is a constant source of the debates have been pretty entertaining and informative. in the 2012 cycle. inside -- exclusively on the republican side. some people thought that might drain some of the excitement and drama out of the campaign year and give us an insufficient andow for these candidates
their character and all the rest. i do not think that has been true. in my view,h sides, ande have been entertaining they have not always been substantive, but journalistic questions have sought to elicit important substance. theannot control how candidates answer and at times, there has been a carnival quality to some of the debate. but that is ok. there has been enough. watching thoseed debates carefully, they have done a lot -- a wide enough window to have a take on policies and the character and the personalities of the people running for president. i think that is true on both sides. about ourheard guest's earlier career in fredericksburg, virginia. he cover the white house and wrote a book about bill clinton
in the white house. is a story about bill clinton back on the campaign trail. line.s a in his post white house years, he has become a democratic surrogate, but he seems to lose it. what are your impressions? guest: the article ran in the post where he said he seems to lose it? that author is a political veteran -- politico veteran and a friend. she might he onto something. an effectiveis politician both in his own right when he was campaigning for himself, and he can be for .emocrats as we saw in 2012 bill clinton made the case for president obama's reelection, more cogently and more crisply
than we had even heard from obama at that point. he is campaigning in an emotional frame of mind, which he is every time he is campaigning for hillary clinton. sometimes emotion can get the better of judgment. he has not always been effective. we have not seen one of those moments where he really steps in but we have also seen several moments where he becomes the story or a line he offers becomes a story, or we get a into his grievance, that he is angry on secretary clinton's behalf. he is probably not always it as effective in that contest p rise soon the line is tongue-in-cheek. . don't think he has lost it but we have seen him be more effective and less effective. host: republican line. caller: good morning.
i used to love politico. i think you all lost credibility when mike gave, in order to gave it -- give an interview with hillary clinton, he gave her the talking points. could you please elaborate on that? guest: i know what the caller is referring to. came to light because the secretary of state e-mails were being released as part of this investigation into her handling of e-mail, politico has got clear policies about maintaining our independence. mike gave an apology and he may have stubbed his toe a little bit and not followed the polity -- policies to the letter. he almost always does. he has been a respected journalist and friend of my for and than a quarter-century,
there is nobody in washington who has got more respect for his independence than mike does. that is on both sides of the party divide and across the spectrum. let's judge mike on the balance amazingareer and the reputation he has built over 10 years at politico, and not on any one instance of a stub toe. make an said he did apology. any discipline on the story? guest: his apology was enough for me. we conditioned out as reporters. occasionally, the spotlight is turned on a spirit we just take it for what it is and we respond to criticism. specificallyrring to mike there, but to any time we have made a mistake over the nine years at politico p when we
started this, we made valves that we would always be andsparent with the reader take him or her into the newsroom, and the process when we decide how news gets covered, and that we would be accountable. we would not go into a defensive crouch and deny a mistake. we would acknowledge it and move on. that is what we have done in this case. host: a viewer on twitter is asking about the financial side of politico. how does the need for advertisers and ratings affect your content? guest: we feel privileged in that we have a hybrid news model based in part on advertising, and based in part on premium subscriptions. two pillars. if you want to count our events, a growing portion of our business, that is a third pillar. the secret to successful news organizations, is having multiple pillars. that is what we have.
somee not as dependent as other publications we compete and on chasing traffic chasing the ad dollar in a time of great change in the advertising industry. though we love traffic and always have, on general election go from theill daily traffic of a couple million unique visitors up to in the0 or 50 million closing days of the general election. asked her analysts, we love it when our work has a live audience. going back to what i said earlier, we measure ourselves a in and day out not by traffic but are we making ourselves indispensable to the core audience of politico and policy influentials. we have got a business model that supports that editorial model.
caller: good morning. i have a question. that the republicans came out too fast on that day shkreli ahead passed away, to make a firm judgment that they new supremefirm a court justice? that is my first question here the second question is, do you think they would be making a mistake because president obama put moderate, that he could up there a moderate to the supreme court and it like -- might backfire on them if they refuse to accept his nomination and they putt wins a left-wing democrat in there? would that hurt?
i think they are better off because they know the president is a moderate and you would put somebody in there who is fair and just. thank you. a couple reactions. it is not my place to say that washat it was -- smart strategy. i will say i was surprised by the speed with which senator thatnell made that remark he will not allow the republican majority to vote on confirmation until president obama'successor was chosen. an hour or two after the news of scalia's passing. it struck me as awfully fast. as your question suggests, may be it will end up being a smart risk, but it seems to me it almost guarantees that the nomination is a partisan
flashpoint and ideological flashpoint in an election year. it as an element of apredictability, not just in presidential contest, but also a senate contest in key states where you have got competitive races. tellnk only time will whether it was wise or unwise from a partisan standpoint. but i think we can definitely say it was a high risk move. from san jose, california. victor, hello. caller: i am retired from the was and one of the issues always diversity in the newsroom. i would like you to speak to that, if you could. sure. it has been an issue for as long as i have been in the news business, now coming up on 32 years. got some san jose alumni
, our congressional editor is a veteran of your newsroom. i am dissatisfied where politico is in terms of diversity. i have been impressed by the progress we have made relative to where we started but i am not satisfied with where we are. i think on gender grounds, we used to be week. -- weak. the circumstances of our founding happened to be three white guys who started us. diverse onout not that scale. and we have made great strides in terms of gender. strongest and most promising and most influential executives on both our business side and our newsroom, our outstanding woman professionals and i am pleased by that. in terms of racial diversity, we need to do much much better.
we made it a priority. we have got a summer program that offers scholarships to some of the most outstanding journalists of color who have come to washington and they effectively join our newsroom for a time during the summer and that has allowed us to recruit from that group. talentedof our most minority journalists of course, because they are so talented, get recruited by others. it is a nonstop flight to do better. i give ourselves may be a passing grade but not a good grade. we will do a lot better. mississippi, linda is on with john harris of politico. good morning. caller: good morning. putamily is tired of people
in donald trump in. i know this does not pertain to show but i appreciate you letting me have this comment. was -- new york city, it would not compare to what the bushes and clintons had done to the united states. thank you. let's hear from michael, huntsville, alabama. you are next. caller: hello, pedro. good morning, john. considering the lead up to the against the2003, president that was on national television, do you think the climate helped europe, held magazines such as yours grow? i want to make sure i understand the connection
between what you're saying about the political climate at the war, flesh that out a little bit. caller: ok. on the mainstream media, there was hardly a voice against the war that was ever on television. i get it. i think i get your question and i largely agree with it. the backlash to the iraq war when many in the media felt we did not apply enough to president george w. bush's claims in the lead up to the iraq war, that had a profound effect on the political landscape and i would say the media landscape. a number of voices became very , mostly but not
exclusively on the left. months -- much ideologicaland because of those events. to some extent, news organizations grew out of that. the huffington post was started in 2005 and 2006 and was probably a reflection of the surge in activism and energy related to iraq. politico's founding was independent of that. saw bigof cofounders changes in media. we saw the legacy news organizations where we grew up not responding to those changes with enough creativity and force , in our view, and we thought that gave us an opening for a new publication. but i think as a general rule, we are onto something.
politics became much more of a blood sport. the bush years were part of that and had a big effect. about othersked leaving the publication. are they going to start a new publication? guest: i do not think so. we do something distinct here. jim has said he is interested in media. i have known that. we have been friends for a dozen years or more. he has always been full of the ideas about where the media business is headed. for a publication he has said will not be competitive with lid ago. -- politico. still a little not fleshed out in his mind. he should have him on in -- and
asked to i would watch with interest. only because of the announcement made after leaving, and some of the writeups, there was a piece by paul about it. it starts off this way. jim wanted more control. credit.anted more day after day, month after month, the antagonism ultimately led to the breakup of the bromance at politico? been a journalist for 30 plus years since 1985. i have had my pen and my of thek on one side fence, almost always on that side of the fence. since we started politico and we have generated a lot of itlicity and coverage, always brings a little bit of a smile for me because things never look quite the same when you are on one side. exercise for good
me to be on both sides of the way paul wrote it probably would , but it isi write it kind of a shrug of the shoulder. five hundred journalists and business professionals here, that does not have much to do with soap opera coverage. host: no truth to that writing whatsoever? guest: i think it is true that there was a very close that was at the heart of politico's founding. that amade clear professional collaboration had kind of reached its limits after a decade. their personal relationship is ande independent of that will be intact over the years. but it was time to move on and i think they both reached that judgment.
it is not as dramatic or as restless as that article decided. the fundamental question was, what was in the best interest of the publication. i think we have gotten that result. call, fromore georgia, independent line. you are the last call for john harris. you to c-span for taking my calls. i am disillusioned about our current state of the media. i feel like the media is hindered by the label put on you all as being the liberal media when i feel like you are the corporate media owned by just a few corporations. the accusation that you are the liberal media seems to prevent you all from recording stories as is. if something happens that makes republicans look bad, then you bend yourselves into pretzels to also drag a democrat into the story in order to create a sense
of equality, when really what we as a people want is simply the truth, not truth enis -- t ruthiness, but the actual truth. that has been lost especially when it comes to donald trump. i would like your people to stop viewing him as an entertainer ryan for president, and treat him just like every other presidential candidate. confront him on his racism, holdm, and xenophobia, and his feet to the fire just as you would any other political candidate. you are doing the american people a great disservice. i will await your response and i hope you have a great day. coverage, asf the i look at politico and competing news organizations, i think we are getting that. trumpot think that donald is being covered any longer as
just a carnival sideshow, but being looked at as someone who is the front runner for the republican nomination and people are giving the sort of tough scrutiny you would give, appropriately, to a potential president. happening.t is the other part of the caller's question, the notion of false equivalence, that is a familiar criticism. heard it a lot during the bush years. one caller mentioned the run-up to the iraq war. we heard this complaint particularly on the left, that in the effort to show both sides, we created a false sense of balance. but there was objective truth and we should not be afraid to just say it. i think that critique of the media at times was fair. i would say as a practical matter when you cover a debate ideological charged and the substance behind them is
complex, the simple and obvious truth to a person on one side, does not look that way to other, fair-minded people. mission is the same as it has always been. cover fax if there are things that are flatly wrong, we should say that. -- if thereave to is objective truth, we should shine a light on that, a bright light. of the matter is, the world will always look simple to people who have strong views left or right or on the partisan side. andworld will always be that is our mission as journalists, to capture that and do it in vivid and aggressive ways that get us close as possible to the truth. host: the utter -- editor in chief of politico joining us.
>> during campaign 2015, c-span takes you on the road to the white house as we follow the candidates on c-span, c-span radio, and sees and.org. -- c-span.org. >> wrote to the white house began in iowa at the caucuses date back to 1972 and then we move to new hampshire, the quintessential primary which has a long and rich history. we now begin to test the candidates and their message. the firstlina, southern primary, and then the party caucuses in nevada for democrats and republicans. we will see a number of candidates have a we trap out of the race and so the field will probably narrow, and then we move into early march. the start of winner take all --maries, a delicate delegate count will be critical.
as we watch that continue, we get a better sense of whose message is resonating. [applause] -- every election cycle will remind us how important it is for citizens to be informed. >> a home for political junkies and a way to track government as it happens. a great way for us to stay informed. >> a lot of people on the hill. my colleagues will say i saw you want his band. >> there is so much more to make sure people outside the beltway know what is going on inside of it. the office of politico located in arlington, virginia, a short drive from washington, d.c. joining us today three members of the staff to talk about the operations and the coverage of politics. you heard from john harris before and now you hear from kristin roberts.
good morning. could you describe your role and how politico covers stories? guest: i am national editor and i take heart in the biggest stories in d.c. and washington. the presidential election, the thing i run on a daily basis. i wake up in the morning and figure out what our targets are for the day, what could be a home run story, and coordinating with the staff. how do you gauge how to approach a story and what is worth covering, and how do you assign a staff to make these decisions? guest: a lot of conversation goes on with reporters. the campaign and they know the campaign insiders. they are often become -- coming to me and the rest of the editors on the team, with ideas. this is what is percolating and what i think can become a great
story that tells the inside tale of whatever is happening on a particular campaign on the republican or democratic side. best case scenario, the reporter bringing me great ideas, i am trying to give that person the space and the time to do the reporting necessary to do it right. in other cases, news is happening. it is a balancing act every day, trying to weigh our original reporting against the need to be on the news. luckily for politico, we have a team that has reporters who are incredibly well sourced and are constantly feeding me ideas and telling me what they can build out. we have a large enough team that we can be on the news in a real and present way. campaign 2016, i am looking at the website now and a story that gets a lot of of ation is the idea
possible broker convention for the gop just below that event in south carolina. it's our viewers look at the website, could you tell them why those stories and why they are important? going into a week of very few national events or the campaigns are completely focused on south carolina and nevada. these two contests could start to define the republican field and could give hillary clinton a chance to try to elbow bernie sanders out of her way. for the campaigns, we are in a critical two-week stretch. for republicans, it is more like 10 days. approaching the milestone moments in the campaign, we are asking, what are the campaigns asking and thinking about everyday and what are they doing as they look down the road and consider the calendar. these, we are looking at stories and saying, for marco rubio, what does he have to do this week?
seewill ceo i reported -- phenomenally reported. he is shaking off a huge failure in new hampshire and coming to a state where he has inherent advantages because most of his knows south carolina intimately and they understand how to build a campaign in south carolina. what he is seeing on the ground with the rubio campaign is an extremely confident candidate and receiving crowns -- crowds that are adoring the man. the other thing you mentioned is .his broker convention story it is something that you will find political reporters talking about almost every political cycle. editors like me will say enough here to do not want to talk about convention.
it is nonsense and it will never happen. this presidential cycle, not only might it happen, it is something the campaigns are beginning to be prepared for. piece, he willhe walk you through how some of the campaigns are doing it, how they are courting delegates and dipping into rulebooks that have not mattered for decades, to see how they can find the right people who will not just vote for them on the first ballot, but stick with them on the second ballot at a negotiated convention. these are the things that are in the political bloodstream this morning. they are stuff we cover because of that reason. host: kristin roberts joining us aboutconversation campaign 2016, what is happening on the ground and how she interacts with reporters to get coverage out. if you want to ask a question -- on the democratic side,
what are interesting stories you are seeing and what would you like to see all -- politico cover in the battle between hillary clinton and bernie sanders? is amazing.story we have been washing for years the battle inside the republican party for the hearts and minds thecontrol the direction of party. at the beginning of this presidential cycle. i was having conversations with political reporters who were warning me all of the things we have seen on the republican side for so many years largely playing out in congress are about to happen on the campaign in this cycle. boy were they right. what we are seeing is not just bernie sanders pushing hillary clinton to the left. on various issues. but challenging her as someone who is not liberal enough, who does not speak to the new democratic voters. what he has done in new hampshire, you have got to wonder, is he correct about
that? is the new generation of democratic voters no longer the that working-class voter has fueled the democratic party for so long? it is now largely a young party, a party of color, and the questions coming up every day get to this theme. is hillary clinton still representative of the party? can she convince younger voters as she did in iowa and not in new hampshire, can she convince younger voters that she can represent their interests? every day, we are talking about individual stories and narrow stories, but all that fits within the larger frame. reportingar as your staff is concerned, do you have specific people with individual campaigns, how does that work? we have got people with individual candidates and their responsibility is to know the candidates as they would know a
family member, to get a full 360 andee view of that person what their motivations are, knowing their staff and their family members, getting a really good understanding of how the person thinks and operates so ant the stories reflect insider understanding of an individual campaign. contenders, leading we have reporters, but in addition, we have reporters who would sit back and look and -- at the entire view of the campaign. one can dive very deeply into any campaign and unearth incredible reporting, but he can also sit act, as he does multiple times a week, and take a view of the entire land and say, this is what will matter over here. and he finds exactly the angles tot are going to continue deliver for the reader, that will continue to educate the reader about what is really
happening on the presidential trail. we have a number of reporters who will sit there and do things like that. allen is a reporter who will sit back and look at the entire field and focus in on donors and various interest groups and be able to deliver a story that can touch on individual campaigns but tell something wider and broader. host: the first call for you, kristin roberts, is from john. republican line. go ahead. caller: i have a couple of comments and then a question about mrs. clinton, secretary clinton. the comment about the convention, i tell you, the republican voters, it is about time the candidates actually and ideas ofalues
the people who vote for it. there would just be a ravel the -- a rebellion and disintegration of the republican to put in ay tried broker of a bush or a rubio. believe me, i would not vote for it. a significant portion would not. about the democrats, you made a comment earlier about the democrats with a new party identification. they represent minorities and young people. what i am confused about when i hear and read, why is identity politics only applying to everybody else except white males? -- in anyo and racist event, just a comment. as far as the clintons, i do not understand why the media only talks about $675,000 that mrs.
clinton received for the three speeches at goldman sachs, when in reality, the clintons received $140 million in speaking fees. you have got to really think. $140 million in speaking fees from special interests, corporations, domestic corporations, financial firms. host: got you, john. thank you. kristin roberts, anything you brought away from that? guest: important observations per first to your specific question of why the media is focused so much on what hillary clinton said to goldman sachs and the amount of money she got. for me, when i look at the story, i see that the money is important and how much they raised in speaking fees. almost every former candidate or on thepolitician gets speaking circuit and makes a lot of money. what is important there is what she said to goldman sachs behind
closed doors. she is promising to regulate wall street very severely. she is facing a candidate far to her left and he is saying, look, wall street does not want me to be the democratic nominee. it does not want me to be president of the united states because it knows how hard i will come after them. hillary clinton is saying there is really no distance between bernie sanders and myself on issues.ive i'm just a pragmatist. what she said to goldman sachs he comes -- becomes critically .mportant to the other issue about the broker convention, i think you are onto something important here and that is we are seeing backlash fromry the american people against washington and away washington did not anticipate.
if the convention is brokered in a way that does not reflect the popular vote put forward through the primary process, that will be an enormous story with huge ramifications. independent line, james is next. wanting toas just chart where you guys are on a political spectrum. i have been reading politico forever p you were in barack obama's back market -- back pocket for the eight years of your existence. it seems like you love him on just about bailouts and solyndra and tax policy. prettymidwest, you guys much our northeastern elitists with most of the people on your staff. policy, you are probably secretly all for bernie standard -- bernie sanders.
i do not know where you stand. but you have to change because you know, people are in a silent revolution with the way they thatpolitical junkies know politico is pretty much lukewarm , lefty. i just wanted to have your opinion on where you guys are and what you plan to do after a conservative gets in the white house. guest: i am happy to take that. politico is not partisan. sincerity.with all there is not a single person in this office who knows me very well who could tell you where i stand on the political spectrum. it does not matter. we are going to approach every single candidate in the same way. we will ask tough questions to the right and to the left. i will tell you not everyone in the office is a liberal and not everyone is a conservative. but we will treat all of the the same way,
objectively, because what we are doing is important be it we are trying to tell the reader what they need to know. are the person going to leave the country going to do that? the idea that you write for a certain crowd, mr. harris had talked about washington and people who focused on policy. do you think that is the focus of who you write for? what about people in the midwest and other parts of the country, does that come to mind? it everythink about day or do we do have a core audience of political insiders who read politico every day all the time, multiple times a day. them, they are an audience that wants to be fed insider knowledge about the campaigns. what we found throughout the last two or three political cycles is that politics is important to people around the country and our audience is
growing every day. it is amazing to see how many readers are coming to our most deeply reported stories because they know what they will get from politico is reporting that comes straight from the inside, as close to the campaigns as you could possibly get. while we know our core audience and political insider someone who is inside and outside interested in the washington story, we also know we have brought national appeal to the stories and we're trying to write them in a way that connects to those audiences. host: donald is next, democrats line. good to be on c-span this morning. my question is about ted cruz. i was in the military for 25 years and you had to have a , some type ofance clearance. this guy has been in the senate and he has a dual citizenship.
it seems to me -- donald trump just mentioned it last night about his conference suing him. my question is, they do not seem to be paying enough attention. the looked like they robbed china to vote and they are wasting their vote on this guy. he is very much legally an american citizen. he was one in canada to an american mother, so he was always an american citizen by birth. he did have canadian citizenship, which he gave up many years ago, and the legal community is largely in agreement on the fat that he is truly an american eligible to run for this office. legality,on of, the the question on the campaign trail about whether or not he is eligible for the white house is really a question that is driven , not by legality, if
you will. there are many legal scholars who have weighed in on this and said, ted cruz is absolutely qualified to run for the office. but there is a political benefit to some campaigns raising this as a potential problem for ted cruz. connecticut, this is ill for the republican line. caller: i am a moderate republican but not so much a fox news republican. i believe the revolution going on now, not many people believe the major television media and the talking heads. twitterow are going to and the computer and whatever to hear directly what a candidate says. the talking heads just twist everything around in favor of the establishment.
people are starting to not like anymore. and congress i have heard for 50 years both for the least of two evils. for the last thing i have to say, it is about justice scalia, the one who got bush the election, and then his daughter got a special job with the government. i would like to see obama appoints a supreme court justice now so we could get citizens united overturned, which has really helped to ruin the country. but the media does not touch stuff like that. i want to thank you for your time and c-span. this idea of millennial's and how they consume news, is this something you talk about their as far as how younger folks consume news and does it affect how political operates or at least its future? we have got millennial's who work for us and we are constantly thinking about how to
deliver news to different people per we are innovating and trying to deliver news not just on our website and newspaper on the hill, but using all of the new social media platforms. twitter was something that really helped drive politics in older -- older cycles are now we are seeing things moving on snapchat and instagram, and trying to be a part of that conversation to do reporting from there, especially the candidates on those platforms, but also pushing our news out to those audiences as well. votehing about the youth and getting our news and information to those voters, that has to be a part of my thinking every day because what we're seeing on the campaign in this presidential cycle, unlike in many previous presidential cycles, young people are coming out and participating at a far greater typical. is finding a way to deliver news
from them and to hear from them the kind of news they are consuming and in what way, that is of course very important to us. host: when do you know when a story is ready to go, the style and the way it is written, when do you know it is ready for publication and what gives it your seal of approval? it has got to tell an incredibly insider tale. the main mission every day is to break news and to break moot -- news that matters, not small , but, a press release really digging deep inside of the campaigns and delivering to our readers some insider understanding of what the strategy is, how it is changing, and what the tactics are going forward. for me, as i am reading a story, i am asking, how do we know this, who are the sources, what is the depth of information here that is different from what other people have? is it something that tells me something i did not already know? if the story the reporter is giving me, i can check all those
boxes, to say something not painfully obvious already, and sourcing is strong enough that i believe in the information they have given me, then it is ready for publication. host: independent line, kerry is up next. caller: i am a retired navy veteran. my concern is, with national debates, what can we expect for a debate to come -- become less of a reality and show more of a rational event, and saying that, also, is there any reason why jill stein is no longer included in the major debates that we see on television? i would love to see some discussion on policies and to
me, governor kasich, also, with his background and experience, he would be a great candidate for president. chair of the budget committee, he held balance the budget and close the budget shortfall. another thing is he is a very rational person. also, senator clinton and sanders, i would like to see them for people have a rational debate. seeingthe debate we are are of two different varieties on the democratic side we are down to two people and if you watched the last debate they had, it was very much about policy. if you were not state involved -- knowledge about several areas, you may have had a difficult time following what they were saying.
hillary clinton thinks that there is no difference between the two of them, but she except of the fact that she was a pragmatist and a realist. if you are looking for a policy discussion, you are getting it on the democrat side. to lookoom debtor inside, the candidates are fighting with one another to survive south alanna -- south carolina. this last debate was the ugliest we have seen. it is sort of a local hunger games -- political hunger games. we will begin to see a change in the tone and substance of those debates as the cycle moves forward. what that means is that some of the candidates on the stage now being subjected to a very ugly argument iffight, you will, won't be there anymore to have a chance to engage on the policy. earlier in this contest, there are some people who are no longer in the campaign who may
have been -- may have benefited from being part of a campaign focus on the substance and not the rhetoric. what we are seeing on the debate stage is also a reflection of the kind of people who are trying to become the president of the united states and that, as a fewer is a important take away as well. how do these people conduct themselves when they are faced with a difference of opinion? important, have been unfortunately they have also been entertainment when they could have been focused more on policy. host: our guest previous word for national journal -- worked for national general. helen from maine, you are up next. caller: i'm curious as to why donald trump deferments have not been a nonissue among veterans, particularly as we are approaching the south carolina primary. briefly whene up
he accused john mccain of being a non-hero. the fact that he has four or five deferments and then lied about having a very high draft number just does not seem to make the news. does it simply not matter to veterans? guest: i do think that it does matter and i think that this is a very interesting point that you are making because in south carolina, we have voters who are very focused on military issues and defense and security issues. we have a lot of veterans in that state and active military in that state and their reception to donald trump, and we will see the votes on saturday, will be indicative of the strength of his candidacy but also the strength of his candidacy among a very important group of voters. the question about why the media has not focused more on the question of deferments, i think what you will see over the
coming weeks and even days is incredible scrutiny on front runners in this campaign. there have been lots of stories that have been digging into the background of the various candidates, donald trump included, but this is an area where i promise you will see more digging. host: if a candidate does not like the story, is it you they talk to if they have problems? staff callidates and up all the time. they reach out directly to the reporters when they don't like something that was written. they will often reach out to the editors and it can go all the way up the chain. we are talking very much in real time with each of the campaigns about what they don't like, and they very often are unhappy with the things written about them. -- taylorville, illinois, max, republican. caller: i what to know why when it comes to herman cain, i feel
like people with after him for the wrong reasons. -- went after him for the wrong reasons. when it comes to hillary, i believe she is corrupt. donald trump is the one i'm voting for because i believe that he can get america back on its feet. host: ok, thanks. anything from that? guest: we are hearing a lot of people who feel the same way, wondering why some candidates are getting me over others, who had the same sort of opinion about hillary clinton. it is one of the problems that hillary clinton has, this question of whether people trust her or they think she is corrupt. the campaign is struggling every day to get away from the narrative that she is untrustworthy. it is difficult for them to do that when they exist in an where e-mails are being released by the state department on a regular basis.
there is still this dripping of facts that the campaign is dealing with. i'm not surprised to hear from this caller about his feelings toward this candidate. it is something that the campaign is grappling with, every day. host: maurice in south carolina, independent. you are on with kristin roberts. caller: good morning, politico and c-span. i wanted to give politico some credit in terms of -- they had a gentleman on their earlier talking about -- on there earlier talking about liberals and to me, -- that is what they use when they want to tear down an organization. i have watched political for some time now and they have been pretty evenly across the board, but the republicans have stations that they can go to like fox news where they are not vetted and they can get away with anything and say whatever
they wanted. when things don't go their way, they usually use the liberal tag word to try to shut down the media. what should be important is the issues. we try every day to be right down the center, to not have a political leaning. it is one of our core and fundamental driving forces at politico. we are a nonpartisan organization and we try to treat outside of any -- both sides of any debate equally. john was right when he was talking about politico's mission and what drives us forward every day. the previous caller who thought that we were in the tank for the democrats, it is simply not true. if you were to ask democrats, they may say we are in the tank for the republicans. host: fayetteville, north
carolina, grady, democrat line. i wish they would stick to the facts. when you accuse someone of being untrustworthy or corrupt, they should have to have facts to back up what they are saying, not just make statements and defamation of someone's character. i think mrs. clinton's record speaks for itself, for duty and honor and country. you need to tell the young people in her history, and her record, not just somebody making up -- making a lot of charges that are not proven for seven or eight months when they say they want to become -- running for the president of the united states.
the young people are being cheated. are need to know that they where they are today because a people aree old fighting for them to get their rights and get equal treatment for them. we got these young people now running on hope and promise. hope and promise you can't buy anything with. host: thank you very much. the youth question of vote and what they remember and how they look these candidates and how the exist in the presidential cycle that is beating up one competitor -- one competitor beating up another competitor is a fascinating question. one of the things we have to remember is our youngest voters don't remember the clintons. they were not politically aware when bill clinton was in office. they don't remember all of the
attacks on his conduct, they don't remember these things, it is not real to them. while i appreciate what you are saying, that young people need to look back and see all the things that various members of the older generation of politics have done for them, the truth is, they live very much in the present and for them, what the it is barack obama and so their vision of what's important and what has been done and what their place in society is is very different than somebody of my or your age. host: as far as a workday as a reporter, what is it like? how often do they have to file -- what kind of requirements do you make? guest: hour workday starts incredibly early. my workday starts before the sun comes up, i need to figure out
what happened overnight that i miss. ed. frankly, a workday for a reporter starts the night before when i talk to them before they go to bed and say these are the main targets for the next day. a day in a reporter's life can depend completely up what's happening on the campaign trail. one reporter might have to file four or five small stories in a day if they are following a campaign that is making a lot of news. another reporter might not file a story for a week or two if they are doing in-depth reporting. --n struck injured and worked together before the iowa caucuses to land a story about how donald trump really did this. how he engineered a campaign that got him into the front runner position. that story took weeks to do. while they were working on that big story, they were filing less often on the daily front.
host: kristin roberts is the national editor for politico and talking about pink -- campaign 2016 and the coverage that politico gives to the republican and democratic field. ramona from virginia, good morning. know about -- to and his connection with the clintons. i know he is very leftist, but what is his source of income? what country is he from and what is his citizenship status? enemy of conservatives. i missed the beginning part of that question, can you tell me who you are asking about? host: she wanted to find out more about george soros. let's talkguest:
about how george soros affects this little campaign -- presidential campaign. the question gets back to something we talked about, earlier and that is hillary clinton's relationship with the moneyed class in america. it is the thing that bernie sanders keeps hitting on and you heard it in the last debate when he talked about george soros and he talked about wall street and goldman sachs and it comes back to the question of whether hillary clinton and people who take money from the richest americans, the richest people from around the world, can also deliberate and fulfill the promises that they made to voters, especially on the question of wall street regulation. this will continue to be a real issue for both campaigns, but in particular on the democratic side because we are starting to see that the bernie sanders
message on wall street is resonating with voters in a way that hillary clinton was not fully prepared for. just looked at the most viewed section of the website as far as stories. on top of that list is the cartoon -- a selection of the favorites of hillary clinton. does this surprise you as far as what people pay attention to when you post? amazinghe cartoons are and matt is amazing. it is not surprise me it is one of the most viewed items. it is something we get a lot of promotion to over the weekend. they are entertaining and informative at the same time. that does not surprise me at all. you will very often see things in the top threat section of the website that are very in-depth sectiong -- top read
of the website that are very in-depth reporting. i want to look at the photo gallery, i want to see what's happening on the campaign trail, that a story is not going to adequately convey or sometimes i want to spend 15 or 20 minutes with a piece and come back with a cup of coffee. matt is very good at what he does. host: james from collins, mississippi. caller: thank you. wondering -- do you all realize that when they are talking about bernie sanders in the news, abc, cbs, but every time they have a conversation, bill is put him first and , andry last in any subject even in the debates, a lot of time they always of a coin the bernie sanders always goes first. not only that, this is the problem.
the black congress or whatever, those people are for hillary clinton because they are in her pocket. it is time now for african-american young note -- young people to know that bernie sanders is no different than any other politician, but they are holding the black population to hillary clinton. the tone that hillary clinton is singing now, she was not when obama was running. why is it that now, she can get up and say the things like she was close to president barack obama? they do go back and listen to some of the things she was saying against president barack obama. [inaudible] host: we cut your point, we will let our guest respond. your point, wet will let our guest respond. guest: i am constantly trying to
one reporters and editors that we should not talk about these groups of people as monolithic votes. there are lots of differences in the black unity, many members who are liberal and many members who are conservative. what we are seeing in south carolina gets right to the heart of your point. it is a question of does hillary clinton better represent the interest of the african-american community in south carolina, or does bernie sanders? the relationship of barack obama is an interesting one. the last democratic debate, both bernie sanders and hillary clinton were desperate to try to show a connection to this president, because he still remains incredibly popular and african-american communities and in south carolina. clinton islary better for the black community that bernie sanders might be, that is not for me to say, but i
recognize that it is one of the issues that hillary clinton and desperate tos are make the case on for their candidacy, especially as they look not just a south carolina, but to the entire region. ust: kristin roberts joining to discuss campaign 2016 and related issues, thank you for your time. she is the second of three guests joining us on a look at politico and talking to reporters and editors. covers theuest campaign trail closely and we will talk to him about what he is being out there. he will join us next. ♪
2016, c-spanpaign takes you on the road to the white house as we follow the candidates on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. >> road to the white house began in iowa. the caucuses which date back to 1972, then we moved to new hampshire, that could essential first in the nation primary with a long and rich history. now we begin to test the candidates and their message. we move south to south carolina for the first southern primary and then the party caucuses in nevada. more than likely, we will see a number of candidates drop out of the race so the field will narrow, then we move into early
march. super tuesday, the start of winner take all primaries which means the delegate count will be critical and as we watch the delegate count continue for the candidates, we will get a sense of whose messages are resonating. every election cycle, we are reminded how important it is for citizens to be informed. >> it is a home for political junkies and a way to track the government as it happened. >> is a great way for us to stay informed. >> there are a lot of c-span fans on the hill. my colleagues tell me they saw me on c-span. >> there is so much more that c-span does to make sure the people out by the beltway know what's going on inside it. all morning on washington journal, we have been profiling the politico, located in arlington, virginia, writers and editors -- writers and editors
joining us. covering campaign 2016 and thank you for your time, this morning. guest: thank you. host: tell us about what you do on a day-to-day basis. who do you cover and how often are you out on the trail? guest: i cover the republican presidential candidates and i have been doing so for a little over a year. i am on the trail sporadically. when there is debates, primaries, big events, i will go out and cover them. i'm also working here from the newsroom, making calls and so on and so forth. host: a recent piece you did talk to the limit about the soul-searching that was going on in the publican party. -- in the republican party. can you give your thoughts on what you found out about this story? guest: that was a piece that came after the new hampshire primary. -- what is explored is
this ongoing level of concern within the establishment of the republican party about the failure to stop insurgent donald trump and ted cruz, both of whom are in the lead and you have not been able to see an establishment candidate emerge to contest either one of them. not been able to unify and rally around you need -- any of them. bush and johneb kasich are still dividing up support and that makes it easier for donald trump and ted cruz. host: why do you think that no establishment conservative has risen up to a point of being a direct challenger? guest: do a certain extent, you are dealing with a publican party that remains very divided -- with a republican party that remains very divided. you have a large part of the party that remains with jeb bush. of bush has taken advantage his last name, he has a broad
network of people that are donors and supporters who he can count on for contributions. another part of the party wants a new where, someone like marco rubio. then you have john kasich out there rallying support on his own. you haven't seen the establishment wing of the party find one person to rally around. brought up jeb bush, how significant is it that george w. bush appeared last night to endorse his brother? guest: this was an interesting move for a couple of different reasons, but mostly because jeb bush has been collected to embrace his last name -- has been reluctant to embrace his last name. he had not been using -- if you ,ook at his banners, it is jeb! he does not use his last name. that was part of his desire to show that he was an independent figure and part of his realization that people in the
party are willing to keep by the bush family name, they're looking for something new. you now see him in the final days for the south carolina primary, he is hugging onto his brother and holding onto his mother for dear life and there has been a shift. in part, this may have to do with the fact that he has struggled in this campaign. he did not perform well in iowa, he did a little bit better in new hampshire, but is still not where he wants to be if he wants to be on the trajectory to win this nomination. saturday is a critical state for jeb bush to win or to perform well and if he wants to continue with this nomination. host: our guest joining us until 10:00. -- republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002.
holds a press conference yesterday, targeting ted cruz. why do you think this press conference is happening and does this suggest anything about the conditions of the trunk -- trump campaign in south carolina? ,uest: if you look at the polls donald trump is pretty far ahead in this race. he is in the mid 30's, ted cruz and marco rubio both in the midteens. there was some hope on the part of his rivals the following saturday nights while debate that he would fade a little bit -- wild debate that he would fade a little bit. we have not seen that yet. as it relates to his decision to hold this press conference, he is a master at the media. he understands how it works and
--understood that jeb bush george w. bush's visit to south carolina would dominate the media storyline. he knew that yesterday was a holiday weekend and he knew that by inserting himself talking about george w. bush, even a controversial ways, he would find himself injecting into every single story that was written. host: first caller, john from new jersey, independent. caller: good morning. please give me some time to explain myself. i want to know why the news , the samelow ratings as the congress and the senate. i wonder if anyone can explain that to me and is it because of the fact that the news media no
longer does a lot of investigation work, but just reports the news and they don't get things right like they did with watergate and other situations. when the lady was asking about george soros, when ms. roberts was on, you did not hold ms. roberts to explaining who george soros was. that question was never answered and i see that going on a lot on this grim. i respect -- this program. i respect this program but i think you should hold the people you bring on -- i think you should hold their feet to the fire and make sure everything is correct. have a good day. host: we will let our guest response your initial question. guest: i think there has been a lot of good investigative work going on in this campaign.
you have a lot of news outlets covering the presidential race. there is tremendous interest. this bounces between a number of different interests -- issues as it relates to hillary clinton or marco rubio. people are trying to wrap their arms around how you cover donald trump. donald trump is in the subject of books, documentaries, people are starting to go a little further into his background, but you are seeing some of the most robust coverage of this president to race of any race in decades -- presidential race of any race in decades. host: democrat line, hello. caller: i was wondering if this gentleman could explain what the dnc did in new hampshire to bernie sanders with the assignment of delegates, for i have heard some numbers that are beyond belief.
hillary got 95% of the delegates or something like that. could you explain those numbers? maybe why the dnc did that. guest: the democratic delegate system works in terms of how delegates are awarded -- it is somewhat different than the way the republican system works. from the big picture, hillary clinton has some real problems she will have to deal with. she lost big-time in new hampshire. moving on to south carolina, nevada, she knows there is pressure to demonstrate strength. you have all of these conversations about strength -- delegates, but she is under serious to rest and if you look at her campaign, it is t campait
knows the stakes are high heading into south carolina and nevada. host: talk of little bit about the death of justice scalia -- talk a little bit about the death of justice scalia. is this going to be a dominant issue for campaign 2016? guest: it is going to be a big issue. how this plays out in the republican primary is somewhat of a question mark at this point. there is widespread agreement among republican candidates on this issue. there is a belief that president anyonehould not nominate to fill the seat on the bench. there is not really a point of being able to distinguish from one another in this way. it is going to matter a lot and you will see a lot of this playing out in. that it raises.
he will see a lot of senators how they acttes, on that issue, the statements they make will matter a lot. one thing you can and will see ,s you will see people republican candidates arguing that this really raises the stakes ofcaucus. you'll see democratic candidates are doing that as well. host: you can elaborate on this from the ted cruz campaign. a great point. the ted cruz campaign right now in south carolina is running an ad basically telling voters you cannot trust donald trump and the stakes are too high in the selection given the fact we are talking now about a supreme court vacancy that could alter the balance of the supreme court saying, you cannot trust donald trump to fill this seat. a potentially compelling argument.
we will see of this moves numbers in cruz's direction. one of the issues i have noticed watching these debates is the lack of financial literacy by the press. also, the candidates. $19 trillion in debt. we have approximately $43 trillion in unfunded liabilities . even if you were to tax the rich, the top 10% and take everything they had, you could not balance the budget. that does not seem to be coming up. budget issues are coming up in this race. not coming up in the way that we thought they would maybe a year or two ago. isis has become the dominant issue in this contest.
now talking about the supreme court. in part when you look at the republican race, candidates are the four ways to differentiate themselves and there is not a --le lot of difference candidates to not feel like there is a lot of real difference between them on the issue of budgeting. they are trying to find ways of distinction themselves. host: connie from johnson, south carolina. independent line. good morning. caller: i am an independent who planned on voting republican, though not for mr. trump. probably governor kasich. with the death of justice scalia and the reaction of the senators in the republican senators. i will vote democratic if they don't at least vet and vote on a nominee. it is poor sportsmanship.
i would like to know what comments you have heard from other people like me. have you heard anyone else say a similar comment? republicans are playing -- sort of a gamble in the way senate republicans are playing this. in the sense that they are coming out and saying president obama does not have a right or he should not appoint a nominee. should not put forward a nominee be out of office in a year. this is something that every voter necessarily agrees with. some people believe president obama should be able to support desk should be able to appoint someone. not everyone likes the idea of a supreme court vacancy for an extended period of time, about a year. so we are going to see whether
voters like the stance or they don't. host: we saw the results john kasich got in new hampshire. do you expect that to continue or is that a one-time phenomenon? guest: it is a good question. john kasich's past the nomination now. in part what is going on, he performed well in new hampshire. kasich spent months on the ground in new hampshire, probably more than anyone else. after that he did not held a lot of infrastructure and support in other states. you have not seen him with a big presence in south carolina. have not seen him with a big presence in nevada which both on tuesday. the question is, what is john kasich's past denomination? they are betting big on michigan which both march 8 and ohio which both -- delegates are awarded winner take all.
until march 8 you have a bunch of states that are going to vote . a bunch of southern states that vote on march 1. nevada votes on february 23. you have south carolina which votes on saturday. that means you have a bunch of states where presumably john kasich will not fair terribly well and will not be racking up delegates. by the time he gets to michigan on march 8, will he be underwater? his team says we can make our stand in midwestern states and rack up a share of delegates. host: since you mention south carolina when it comes to ground game, which campaign has the best one out there? guest: the cruz campaign has a very good ground game. toing a big play evangelicals.
the rubio campaign has a very strong organization in the state. marco rubio's top advisers help from south carolina. and then you have jeb bush who has a strong organization as well. the bush family long has had south carolina wired. home torolina was overe w. bush's big win john mccain in 2000. host: you mentioned that the trump campaign -- guest: the trump campaign ground game is something that remains shrouded in mystery. ande was a sense in iowa new hampshire that he did not have as strong a ground game as the o -- as the others. these people come out and vote.
he had a big win in new hampshire. he is on tap for a big win in south carolina. if he has not been getting a good ground game or not, who knows what kind of difference that will made it his league is that big -- will make if his lead is that big. caller: hello. thank you for c-span. i had a question and comment. why have they not caught donald trump on his lie about six soldiers dying going after bergdahl? commanders have said nobody died going after that guy. although i do not admire his action leaving his post, but desertion is 30 days. he was captured and held for five years. he may not be the greatest soldier. obviously he was not. i am a veteran from the 82nd airborne. i know what it is to be afraid but i've never run away.
, thisint i'm making is guy has paid his dues, he made bed. trump is a draft dodger. trump's style about his dealmaking and criticizing obama . why doesn't somebody catch this guy on what a scoundrel trump is? guest: one of the big issues about trump is he made a number of statements that have been controversial or at times may not have been factually accurate depending on how you look at them. his opponents have not figured out a way to successfully use that against him. look at what happened in the debate on saturday night. trump made a number of statements about 9/11.
about what the bush administration may be new or did not know about weapons of mass destruction. since that point you have trump's rivals trying to take advantage, use that against him in this republican primary. the problem is, communicating that in a way that will hurt trump, make supporters like him less, has not been easy to do. you have trump supporters, a block of support which is extremely -- which has proven itself to be hard to move away from him. his rivals have not figured out how to do that yet. you have a large portion of anti-trump voters in the race but they are dividing themselves among different candidates. host: good morning to frank. new york, independent line. military 20 retired years. i was brought to former president bush endorsing his
brother yesterday. he spoke of being in the classroom when 911 happened. it became clear that my job as president was to protect her and the children of america. where was he during the first eight months? jed doesn't --jeb does not use empty rhetoric. he should have said unlike me and my theater leading up to the invasion of iraq, mission accomplished, bringing bin laden to justice. he said jeb will support troops on the battlefield and when they return home a mic me with vehicles, building shoddy facilities for our troops in iraq and the va affairs at the veteran administrator -- the veteran affairs hospital.
host: we will let our guest answer. i think what he was talking about was george w. bush hoss endorsement and how it brings back a lot of the elements about the iraq war we talked about. does it bring back iraq as a political topic? guest: this is the thing. jeb bush's decision to bring his brother -- a certain amount of risk involved. a lot of people even in south carolina where the bushes are popular, who may be fatigued by the bush brand, maybe looking for something different. the fact that jeb bush waited so long to do this, to bring his brother out, reflects maybe a .evel of discomfort maybe a sense that he wanted to wage this campaign on his own without his brother's helped. there is a calculation that bringing his brother at the very .nd is worth the risk
perhaps he is running a time to demonstrate strength in the race and that why not bring him out. if things in iowa and new hampshire did not go well why not try to see if it helps in south carolina. host: there is a tweet that iowa want to talk about ethanol, new hampshire wants to have you for coffee and south carolina one to see if you can take a punch. what is it about south carolina politics that suggests that? guest: something very true about that. south carolina is a state that has long been known for its bareknuckle political culture. famouslyre are hard-fought. full of innuendo and rumor. it has become something of a fable of sorts. is there as much truth to it as the legend suggests? who knows?
when you look back at the races, the famous bush versus mccain race in 2000, nikki haley's race for governor. a number of hard-hitting races in south carolina. if you look at the way the primary shaping up, it is a total shootout. look at what unfolded on the campaign trail yesterday. as has been a tough race. we will see what happens in the final 72 hours. host: robert up next. republican line. caller: good morning. the top lawyer for walmart which lobbied to pass the bill to devastate in the cities -- devastate inner cities. how is it possible that the luck caucus is not explaining to inner cities how she devastate cities and leaves them dry and damaged?
host: who is this person doing this? caller: hillary clinton. she was a top lawyer for walmart when her husband was president. guest: what was the question? host: about hillary clinton being an attorney for walmart and what walmart does to communities. at least that was his point. clinton has taken a lot of flak for connections to wall street, connections to corporations. her fundraising from corporate interests. it has hurt her in this race. if you look at the way this contest has played out, it has hurt her. she has yet to figure out a way how to deal with bernie sanders and how he is running this grassroots antiwar street campaign. she has not been able to figure it out yet.
host: christopher. buffalo, new york. democrats line, hello. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would like to inquire if the republican platform was to shrink government and to destroy government anyway they can, why we would actually elect people and now we complain that government is not working and we elected republicans who want to break it. electu are asking us to more republicans to break a government that half of the country already thinks is broken.
guest: you have a republican party that is going to run. no matter who the nominee is they will run on cutting taxes, cutting spending. those are things they are definitely going to try to create contrast with democrats on those issues. host: what do you expect leading up to saturday? what are you expecting as far as not only the day-to-day campaigning but any surprises that you might expect in this last week? guest: south carolina always has surprises. there may be some nasty flyer that gets circulated. when it comes to service it will dominate the news cycle for a day or two. we may see more from donald trump. south carolina always has a lot of surprises.
one thing worth keeping an eye , the state'sey governor has not endorsed yet. if she endorses that could be a big deal. ,e have not seen mark stanford he has not endorsed yet. that would create a splash. keep an eye on those endorsements and keep an eye on the polls. does hillary clinton's lead over bernie sanders shrink? does jeb bush get to make up ground because of his brother's visit? if jeb bush does fall back he may be under some pressure to drop out on saturday evening. at the same time, donald trump, keep an eye on his poll numbers. host: it is not necessarily a surprise but even as of yesterday, suggestion that he might run as an independent, do you take stock in that? guest: this is something he has threatened a lot. he has gone after the republican national committee a lot.
a line that appeals to his core supporters. he is trying to lock in and motivate supporters to turn out the polls. the way he does that is by taking himself as antiestablishment, not part of the system. he can do that by threatening to run as independent, by saying the republican party is treating them badly which is what he did yesterday. host: let's hear from mark, republican line. caller: thanks for c-span and politico. a quick couple of points. opinion, media, in my links to the left, and all of late-night talk shows, all of universities, all of colleges is left-leaning, that is been a trend for the last 30 to 40
years. we have debates now and we have issues where conservatives are a punch line, pitting against each other. you have media on every network going after them. he liberals, with hillary and bernie, the gone pbs for debates. they get the softball interviews . how come we can't get them to show up to a fox debate? why will the liberals at least go on one conservative network? if you watch fox debates they are hard on conservatives. why can't you see hillary and bernie go on and at least have one conservative outlet talking to these guys? -- democratsn't have had a bad relationship with fox news for a long time now. you also see republicans with an antagonistic relationship with msnbc. situations.of those
msnbc typically seen as a leftist outlet. foxnews seen as a right of center outlet. host: ellis is up next. caller: my question is, why has robertsstadt and answered the questions a couple callers asked regarding george soros? what is his income? what is his citizenship? does he own politico? what percentage does he own politico? isn't c-span supported by the federal government? why doesn't the moderator take charge and hold their feet to the fire and get them to answer those questions? host: we did ask the question. we are not owned by the federal government. mr. isenstadt can answer anything else brought to the table. obviously is soros
a liberal. what role he plays in the 2016 election remains to be seen. how much money he gives will be something that a lot of people will be watching. he could be a big player in this race in terms of the amount of money he gives to fund any outside liberal efforts. host: steve. columbus, ohio. democrats line. caller: i just want to affirm the observation that one of your previous callers made. ineffectivee rather and that there is no such thing as an investigative reporter anymore. like yourly, i would guest to answer this question. contemporary jimmy breslin?
the contemporary mike royko? rather?emporary dan you were talking about iraq earlier. at least in vietnam we had reporters who were actually there. now, what we have are embedded reporters, which is a euphemism. it means they are not there. by thee sequestered government and military. there has been a proliferation of coverage about the 2016 presidential race and there are a lot of people who are doing deep investigative dives into a number of these candidates. before scott walker dropped out he faced a lot of scrutiny. you have seen jeb bush face a lot of scrutiny for his business
deals over the years. marco rubio has gotten scrutiny for his past. a lot of these candidates are getting scrutiny in different ways. what you have now with this current media environment, you have more media than ever covering this campaign than any other presidential campaign. there is a proliferation of coverage. there is a lot to read about any number of these candidates. host: mary, mobile -- let's go to harry. baltimore, maryland. republican line. caller: thank you for having me on. .onald trump whether people believe it or not , i am a 72-year-old republican and i have watched donald trump talk to people. he talks directly to them and says exactly what he wants to say. the rest of the ones that are from the government looking
every direction you can but never look anybody in the eye like a man should. the second thing is, they should year.n election this they should basically vote everyone in -- vote everyone out that is in regular government and put new people in and change it to an eight year limit. host: we will let our guest answer. guest: what was the question? host: i missed the first part. i don't know if he actually asked a question for you i apologize for that. after saturday, do you expect a further winnowing of the field as far as it currently stands? guest: that seems likely. as you get further into this race candidates find themselves under more and more pressure.
they run out of money, start taking a hard look at whether they have the support to win. if benaturday night, carson does not fare well he may find himself under pressure. .e talked about jeb bush kasich has said he will move on to michigan regardless. this is what happens. there is a winnowing after new hampshire we saw chris christie dropout and carly fiorina dropout. host: could i ask about current thoughts on the ben carson campaign? campaign hasrson stated there was a massive implosion in the campaign late last year. he has had a hard time recovering. did not seem to be a major presence. he had a hard time gaining support in iowa and new hampshire. he seems to be struggling in polls in south carolina. at a certain point he has to
take a hard look at if he cannot gain support in south carolina or nevada he is to take a hard look at what his map is going forward. host: mary in mobile, alabama. independent line. caller: i have not called in about three or four months. how youry upset about promoting black lives matter. one of the black lives matter people is now in jail for arson. . digress do americans understand why we are angry? we are angry at both the democratic party and the republican party. i was always a democrat at one time. i was a john kennedy democrat.
his january 1962 state of the union address. host: what would you like our guest to address specifically? caller: i want to know why we a real promoter of our constitution, our lives, individuality, and why do we have to have state come into our lives all the time? host: mary, thank you. any response to that mr. isenstadt? guest: this is the kind of someonet -- this is why like donald trump has gained a lot of support. a lot of anger out there now. concerned about the government. its role over the past couple of decades.
real anger and frustration and that is something george w. bush acknowledged when he went on the campaign trail for -- for jeb bush yesterday. caller: good morning. i know you are running out of time. hillary clinton, in her own admission, said they were broke when they left the white house. there worth over $100 million. they got most of their money from taking corporate money for making speeches. corporations now run everything in our government. that's why people are angry. nicely that all of the media outlets make money off these people. what i wanted to do was give this gentleman his story for tomorrow. i have not seem in any print media or also any questions at these debates why it is that
hillary clinton keeps claiming that she is practical. she can do every single thing bernie sanders can do. she keeps claiming. bernie sanders cannot. what i want to know is why will she be able to with the hatred the republican party has shown her and her husband over the years, what will she all of a sudden get into office and be able to do all of these things she is claiming that bernie sanders cannot do because he is way too far out there? host: thank you. we are about to throw to an event that go right ahead. guest: hillary clinton is trying to find ways to contrast yourself with bernie sanders. she is under some duress in this race. she lost new hampshire by a wide margin, rolling into south carolina and nevada and she cannot afford more losses.
if she does, bernie sanders will continue to gain momentum. she has to find ways to contrast herself with bernie sanders. you see this continue to play out in debates and . thank you for joining us. we also want to thank political for opening their offices. that's it for our washington journal program. come next, it is the house public and -- house republican policy chairman speaking about the election. .t is set to start right now it starts momentarily.