I woke up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat after the last Republican debate. I had a vision of President Ronald Reagan sitting in the front row at his library watching the debate. Alongside him were fellow Presidents Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Gerald Ford and even Richard Nixon.

Very quickly the blood drained from their faces. They began to fidget, to shift awkwardly in their chairs. They began to look around for the exits. These men who had led our nation, made difficult decisions and participated in politics their entire lives were appalled at what was going on before them.

Sure, they were shocked at the nastiness and vitriol among the candidates – this was way over the top. Sure, they were amazed that the front-runner was one Donald Trump, who belonged on “Entertainment Tonight,” not a presidential debate. Sure, they understood that how the candidates were behaving was counter to everything they knew about getting elected in America.

[SEE: Editorial Cartoons on the 2016 Presidential Elections]

But my guess is what really frosted these men was that the substance of what most of these candidates were saying was so unreasonable, so off base, so totally devoid of reality, that it was downright scary.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, and others, saying they would tear up the Iran agreement on day one of his presidency, thereby ensuring that no foreign leader would trust the U.S. to keep its word in the future. Former CEO Carly Fiorina stating flatly she would not ever talk to Russian President Vladimir Putin. No negotiating, no contact, nada. That would surprise Reagan and the others who always talked to our enemies and kept the lines of communications open – from the Soviet Union to “Red” China.

[SEE: Republican Party Cartoons]

And how about blanket threats, with Fiorina’s phone call to the “Supreme Leader” of Iran that we will throw out the agreement and “move money around the global financial system.” Trump showed no knowledge of foreign policy and simply said he would hire great advisers – where are they now, the ones he watches on cable TV? And then there was the suggestion that we deport 11 million people because “the good ones will come back.” And, of course, there was the fight about who was the worst CEO or who could attack Planned Parenthood with the most vengeance.

The sheer level of ignorance, lack of preparation and categorical, extreme statements on critical policy matters was astounding. My guess is that these former presidents, had they been present, would have truly wondered what had happened to their country and the quality of the candidates running for the highest office in the land.

As of today, 1,079 presidential candidates have filed with the Federal Election Commission. And you thought the 17 Republicans covered by major media was a lot! Among those registered are Rocky Balboa, AKA The Prophet, Frosty Chicken, Buddy the Cat – even Underage Candidate. Also listed were candidates Bill Clinton and Fidel Castro; maybe they could form a ticket?

Of course, these candidates and some who will seek minor third party nominations in the general election – like the Libertarian or Green Party – are largely ignored as the debates begin and as the jockeying for name recognition ratchets up.

But make no mistake: This is going to be a long campaign on both the Democratic and Republican side. The hype we have seen for so-called outsider candidates, like Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina and Bernie Sanders, may last for a while, or at least until voting starts. Heck, it may last all the way to the party conventions.

[SEE: Editorial Cartoons on the 2016 Presidential Elections]

But here is the funny thing about presidential elections, especially with funding restrictions blown apart: It is not all about Iowa and New Hampshire. In the entire month of February, there are four contests – those two states plus South Carolina and Nevada. That’s four states in four weeks.

All primary and caucus states aren’t finalized, but it looks as if Super Tuesday, March 1, will see at least 11 states decided. A host of key southern states, plus Texas, Massachusetts, Minnesota and Colorado, will have primaries or caucuses. In the following two weeks, big states like Michigan, Ohio, Florida, Illinois and Missouri will select delegates. We go all the way to June 7, when six states are slated to vote, including the big states of California and New Jersey.

The point is this: Be careful reading too much into one or two states’ polls. Be careful not to treat this contest as who is up or who is down at any particular moment. Campaign 2016 will be a long slog.

[READ: The Blemish on 2016]

Voters are just beginning to pay attention, and most of the candidates have yet to be really tested. According to a new CNN poll of Republicans, 75 percent say they are backing a candidate because of his or her view on the issues, while only 16 percent say experience. I would venture to say that a fairly small minority is aware of the candidates’ positions on the issues, especially those of poll leader Donald Trump or the runner-up Ben Carson.

In addition to the debates, the public appearances, the fundraising and the press coverage, candidates have to pay serious attention to delegates, filing deadlines and choosing their slates. This is where the long slog comes in, and where time is critical. According to an analysis by Elaine Kamarck and Ashley Gabriele at Brookings, if a candidate misses Democratic primary deadlines, he or she can lose 500 delegate votes by the end of November, more than 1,000 by the end of December, 600 by mid-January and about 850 by the second week in February. Since a Democrat needs nearly 2,250 delegate votes to win, missing deadlines, even early ones, is costly. The same principles are true for the Republicans.

[READ: Fiorina’s Rise Has Just Begun]

It is hard to imagine, but in 2008, then-Sen. Barack Obama netted more delegates by winning the Idaho caucuses than Hillary Clinton did by winning the New Jersey primary. At the end of the day, this can turn out to be a serious numbers game.

It is true that in politics we do tend to be drawn to the shiny objects, the flash, the headlines, but there is the hard, day-in and day-out campaigning that goes on for months and relies on organized perseverance. Arizona Sen. John McCain, a Republican, was dead as the nominee in the summer of 2007, and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean was the front-runner going into the winter of 2004. This is a long game, and we are just getting out of the gate.

I am getting hit on Twitter for forecasting Donald Trump’s demise a couple months ago in this space. As he has risen in the polls and dominated the news media since the Fox News debate, I have been told what an idiot I am to have underestimated The Donald. Even my wonderful cousins, who have lived in Italy for over 40 years, warn me that if former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi can do it over there, Trump may be able to get elected over here.

First of all, it is important to point out that Trump has galvanized support from a disaffected electorate for his blunt talk, in-your-face attitude and refusal to talk and act like a traditional politician. That is enough to scare the pants off Republicans, especially the country club set. “Could he really get the nomination?” they ask. Second, his supporters are getting increasingly passionate and involved and attending his speaking events in ever larger numbers. And third, he is dominating the news cycle. One reporter told me that they turned off the cameras when he started to speak to the Conservative Political Action Conference earlier in the year; now, they are carrying his press conferences live.

[SEE: Editorial Cartoons on Donald Trump]

My colleague Bill Press made the point about the news media in a column: “As long as he brings them top ratings, they’ll give him all the time he wants. CNN’s Brian Stelter compared coverage given GOP candidates by CBS, NBC and ABC between Aug. 7 and Aug. 21. On the evening news, Trump talk consumed 36 minutes, 30 seconds. Jeb Bush came in a distant second with 9 minutes and 22 seconds. Marco Rubio, 1 minute, 35 seconds. And poor Lindsey Graham, only one second.”

Now, there is no doubt that outrageous talk, bluster and playing P.T. Barnum result in serious ink. But, as many columnists have pointed out, that does not make him a serious candidate. Nevertheless, it may not matter in the short term.

He may win a large number of primary and caucus states. Could he get the nomination? I doubt it. It’s not impossible, though. But, after all, when practically all the candidates drop out, and we are left with Donald Trump, any member of the Republican Party would jump at the opportunity to be the Trump-alternative.

[SEE: Political Cartoons on the Republican Party]

There is one interesting question, however. If Trump can draw 24 million people to watch a debate in the summer on Fox News, what does that say about his ability to bring people into the system who are not traditional participants in the early stages of nominating a president? Could he flood the states in the winter and spring with new voters? Unclear.

But, at the end of the day, the American people will get the joke: Donald Trump is not emotionally or substantively fit to be president of the United States. He may run a company, but he can’t run the country. He may be appealing as a protest figure, as the “I’m mad as Hell, and I’m not going to take this any more” character, Peter Finch, in the film “Network.” But, ultimately, we are electing a president, we are not participating in a game show or dealing in reality TV or watching “Entertainment Tonight.”

Issues matter, plans for the country matter, ability to govern matters – and none of those things are strengths of Donald Trump. He is first and foremost a man with a tremendous ego that needs to be fed, not a man of serious ideas or well thought out positions that go beyond sound bites. His bluster and unvarnished rhetoric have gotten him farther than I would have thought but, at the end of the day, the American people will not buy what he is selling.

[READ: Views You Can Use: Trump vs. Ramos]

The scary thing for the Republican Party is whether its voters will get the joke. Will he ruin the party’s chances in 2016? Will he be their nominee or decide to run as a third party candidate? Regardless, Donald Trump is not good news for the Republican Party or the country, for that matter.

I have to admit that I loved reading the so-called Republican insiders’ views on how Donald Trump failed to impress in last night’s debate. They need him to exit stage left (or is it stage right?) as soon as possible. Methinks they doth protest too much.

From the opening question on whether anyone would consider a third party candidacy to Trump’s assertion that they wouldn’t be talking about immigration if it weren’t for him, he was indeed center stage. Did he hurt himself with his base? I doubt it. Did he channel much of the anger of a sizable number of Americans towards politics and politicians? Absolutely. Ohio Gov. John Kasich admitted as much. One fact is clear: Donald Trump is not going anywhere anytime soon. He will be a factor into next year, big time.

[SEE: Editorial Cartoons on the 2016 Presidential Elections]

My sense is that Kasich, New Jersey Gov. Christie, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, despite his pretty poor performance, may still be in the game for future debates. As will Carly Fiorina after her success in the “kid’s table” debate. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is a master debater but scares the pants off many Republicans. My guess is the rest of the crowd will fade.

And that leaves us with former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush – still the favorite of the establishment and a formidable candidate. But his performance was anemic to say the least. One debate does not a candidate make or break, as we know. Nevertheless, Bush’s decision to play it safe, not confront Trump, and bob and weave on Iraq and Common Core, puts him in an awkward position as we move into the fall. He is desperately trying to run a general election campaign and still appeal to the base of the Republican Party, which, as it is currently constituted, would make Ronald Reagan blush. He wouldn’t recognize the collection of extremists on the two stages last night.

[SEE: Political Cartoons on the Republican Party]

Bush may succeed by not engaging with Trump and, for that matter, many of his opponents, but what he does not need is to recede into the woodwork in this campaign. He faces real trouble in Iowa, should he choose to compete there, and this could steamroll into a series of second-, third- or even fourth-place finishes. His $100 million-plus helps, but only so much – everyone else having a super PAC changes the rules of presidential politics these days.

Bush needs to up his game and not play the presumptive inside-the-beltway front-runner, especially when Trump has taken a sizable lead. When, and if, Trump fades, Bush needs to be the one voters turn to, and after last night, that is far from pre-ordained.

Bush did not make any glaring gaffes (“I’m not sure we need half a billion dollars for women’s health issues”), but he did not stand out in a positive way either. He got lost. With this Republican field, playing it safe may be playing it wrong.

Good grief, Charlie Brown! We Americans are inundated with polls – state polls, national polls, online polls, polls testing the who’s up and who’s down of the 20-plus candidates, even the quickie polls after a speech or event. And sometimes polls actually do a decent job of testing the critical issues before the country.

I just came across one such poll, taken in the key state of Iowa, that focused on our children’s future – imagine, looking seriously at our kids, our political system, the economics of what lies ahead. What a novel idea! Having just read noted author Robert Putnam’s latest book “Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis,” I was very interested in the Iowa survey. It tracks very closely with Putnam’s analysis and conclusions: 65 percent express skepticism that “the life for the next generation will be better than for us.” In fact, only 7 percent are “very confident” that our kids’ lives will be better.

What is happening to the notion of upward mobility and the American Dream? And why are we not focusing more on our children? This survey was commissioned to explore those issues by the Child and Family Policy Center and Every Child Matters Education Fund and done by Seltzer & Company, the firm that does the highly respected Des Moines Register poll.

[READ: It’s Just an Illusion]

I am usually skeptical about polls that ask “mom and apple pie” questions such as do you support our kids, are you in favor of a strong national defense, do you care about the elderly? But this poll does not do that.

It shows that voters have a nuanced view of the issues, party affiliation does matter and, most important, the candidates for president in 2016 need to be confronted with what they are going to do to bring back a strong middle class and restore the American Dream for the younger generation.

As the Its About Our Kids website puts it: “Children are 24 percent of the population and 100 percent of the future.”

Here are some surprises from the poll: “Improving the health, education, and wellbeing of children” ranks as the most important issue with 29 percent, followed by “creating jobs and improving the economy” at 23 percent, “pursuing terrorists in the U.S. and abroad” at 20 percent and “balancing the federal budget and reducing the deficit,” also at 20 percent.

[READ: Call the COPS]

There are big differences between Democrats, Republicans and independents, however. Democrats rank kids’ issues as number one with 35 percent, and independents put them at 33 percent. Republicans rank kids much lower at 16 percent and put pursuing terrorists at 36 percent and reducing the deficit at 30 percent, much higher.

We see similar results in differences with the question of investing more in kids, investing less or keeping it the same. The overall numbers are 52 percent more, 32 percent the same and 11 percent less. But Democrats support investing more by 69 percent and only 1 percent say less with 27 percent saying the same. For Republicans, only 34 percent want to invest more, 38 percent say the same and 21 percent want to invest less.

The biggest division between the two parties is on the question of choosing whether you believe “Government efforts to make health care, education, and child care more affordable are integral in helping parents raise their children responsibly” or you believe “A responsible parent should not look to government for any help in raising their children.”

[SEE: Political Cartoons on the Economy]

Overall, 42 percent favor government efforts and 40 percent not looking to government. While Democrats support the first statement by 70 percent to 17 percent, the Republicans favor the second by 66 percent to 12 percent. Pretty close to polar opposites.

The candidates should take these results to heart and truly engage in a debate about how best to restore the American Dream and increase upward mobility for our children. Democrats appear to favor action and a strong role for government and communities; Republicans seem to embrace more trickle down and leave it to the families.

With more and more Americans seeing their incomes stagnate, with a lack of education and support for those on the lower rungs of the income ladder and with more and more people locked into dead end jobs, all of which effects our children, it is time for candidates to answer the simple question: What are you going to do about it?

I hope they will start in Iowa.

Now, seriously, does anyone other than “The Donald” truly believe his fame and fortune are going to get him anywhere in a Republican presidential primary, let alone a general election?

His candidacy has been a joke from the start. He makes for great copy, but so did Jack the Ripper.

He has no filter. His ego couldn’t begin to fit inside the Empire State Building. He has no knowledge of the issues confronting the country. He has no experience that would propel him to be taken seriously as president. He is all hat and no cattle, as they say in Texas. He was born on third base and thought he hit a triple. The lines on Trump could go on and on.

Now, I have to confess that his extremism and issue positions – on immigration, on same-sex marriage, on climate change, on Muslim-Obama-born-in-Kenya – do define a certain segment of the Republican Party. And a certain segment probably does spend too much time watching, and being enamored with, “The Apprentice.”

[SEE: Editorial Cartoons on Donald Trump]

But, really, does anyone in his or her right mind believe that Trump is a serious candidate for president of the United States? Of course not. Just as Herman Cain or Michele Bachmann never stood a chance yet, at one point, led in the polls.

So, Democrats who are rejoicing due to this Trump foot-in-mouth disease should step back and realize that it is July, 15 months out from the election, and there is little likelihood that he will be a factor in November 2016 or that most Americans will even recall the bizarre back and forth on John McCain’s war record. My Democratic friends can enjoy it while it lasts, but my guess is that it will be fleeting.

Now, of course, there are a couple of scenarios where I may be terribly wrong. Number one: Trump goes all in by self-funding his campaign, participates in debates and remains a candidate well into next spring. Not impossible, but a clear embarrassment to the Republican Party and the field of candidates.

[READ: Trumping His Negatives (for Now)]

Number two is even more serious for the Republicans: the independent candidacy of Donald Trump. The worry is that he gets so mad and frustrated with his Republican cohorts that he jumps ship, starts writing checks a la Ross Perot, and runs as an independent candidate in the general election.

He does not even need to garner the 19 percent of the vote that independent Perot got in 1992, but could get closer to the nearly 3 percent Ralph Nader received in 2000 and still drain votes from the Republican nominee. And if he puts serious millions into the race (Perot spent $60 million in 1992) and plays on the frustrations of the American people, he could be a real factor.

Will he do that? I doubt it, but with Trump you never know.

The conclusion: Trump could be a has-been or he could be a true albatross around the neck of the Republicans. My guess is the former, but what a wild year it would be if it turned out to be the latter.

Got your attention, right? Is there a buzz? Is something going on?

I don’t have a clue and I am not going to discuss the pros and cons of a Biden candidacy in this column. Suffice it to say that I have very little to say and will not speculate.

But I want to make one very interesting point about vice presidents and the presidency.

In the past 70 years we have had 13 Presidents, from Franklin D. Roosevelt to Barack Obama. Most of their vice presidents have either become president or run for president, or both.

[GALLERY: Barack Obama Cartoons]

We had both Henry Wallace and Harry Truman under FDR, Richard Nixon under Dwight Eisenhower, Lyndon B. Johnson under John Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey under LBJ, Gerald Ford under Nixon, Walter Mondale under Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush under Ronald Reagan and Al Gore under Bill Clinton. And even Bush veep Dan Quayle ran briefly for president.

So, who are we leaving out? Which vice presidents did not run for if not become president?

Over the course of 13 presidents only four of their number-twos did not choose to run or get to serve.

We can start with Alben W. Barkley, Harry Truman’s vice president, who was 75 years old at the end of 1952. We next have Nelson Rockefeller who was appointed vice president under Gerald Ford, after Nixon resigned, and was not a candidate. And, most recently, we have the unelectable Dick Cheney.

Of course, who could forget Spiro Agnew – but who could also forget he resigned in disgrace.

[SEE: Democrat Cartoons]

The very basic point I am making is that there is a prevailing inclination of vice presidents to believe that they would make very good presidents – and they often have the skills, the experience, the drive and the organizational heft to wage a solid campaign.

More and more, vice presidents, like Joe Biden, have played essential roles in governing the country. They are not spending their time at ribbon cuttings but at the center of making policy.

No longer do we accept the statement by John Nance Garner, Franklin Roosevelt’s first vice president and the 32nd man to hold the office, that “the vice presidency is not worth a bucket of warm spit” (actually, he referred to a different bodily fluid but it got changed in subsequent repetition to the more family-friendly euphemism).

Bottom line: it is highly unusual in modern American history for the vice president not to strive for the highest office. No predictions, just a little historical perspective!

Hillary Clinton in her speech at Texas Southern University in Houston called for sweeping changes to increase voter participation – expanding voting hours, 20 days of early voting, automatic universal voter registration when a citizen turns 18 and more access to polling places.

She also pulled no punches criticizing Republicans and several of the 2016 presidential candidates for attempting to suppress the vote by putting up roadblocks, especially for the poor and minorities.

My friend, experienced press hand and wise sage, Carl Leubsdorf, wrote a column for the Dallas Morning News on Clinton’s proposals and the rise of voter ID laws. It got me thinking: Would a constitutional amendment giving 18-year-olds the right to vote make it through Congress and the states today?

[READ: Is Hillary Clinton Ready for More Democratic Party Debates?]

I seriously doubt it for two reasons.

First, the movement to lower the voting age from 21 to 18 began in World War II when President Franklin Roosevelt lowered the draft age to 18. As a popular slogan of the time asserted: “Old enough to fight, old enough to vote.”

President Dwight Eisenhower supported it in 1954 but nothing much happened until the 1960s when the Vietnam War was raging and 18-year-olds were being drafted. (More than 2.7 million Americans servedin Vietnam, roughly 650,000 of whom were drafted.) Politicians were having trouble denying this basic right to our servicemen and women.

[MORE: Clinton Wants Automatic Voter Registration]

Another political buddy of mine, Les Francis, was one of the architects of the drive for the vote in the late 1960s, and he described a “confluence of factors” that included a broad bipartisan coalition, the backing of veterans’ groups and labor, a small seed fund set up by the National Education Association, and, importantly, confusing federal and state laws.

The result was a movement that quickly led to congressional approval in March 1971 and state ratification just a few months later. So, the draft of hundreds of thousands of young people to fight in Vietnam and the pressure on elected officials were instrumental in getting the 18-year-old vote passed. But, of course, there is no draft today.

The second reason I doubt it could pass today is that the Republicans would be terrified of extending voting rights to the 18-to 21-year-olds who they believe are far more liberal and Democratic than the electorate at large. The 18-to 29-year-olds in 2012 voted for Barack Obama over Mitt Romney by 60 percent to 36 percent and made up 19 percent of the electorate. (In 2008, their vote was 66 percent to 31 percent in favor of Obama over McCain.)

[READ: Supreme Court Deals Blow to Voter ID Foes]

It is no wonder that Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and other Republican politicians are doing everything they can to suppress the youth vote and to prevent college students from voting. Voter fraud isn’t the problem, their party affiliation is!

Of course, no reasonable Republican would argue now in public against the 26th Amendment to the Constitution but given today’s world, without a military draft and the Democratic bent of our young people, I doubt it would get through this Republican Congress. After all, Republicans are doing everything in their power to suppress voter turnout, not increase it.

It’s David vs. David.

David Brooks writes in The New York Times that the Hillary Clinton campaign is making a big mistake not going after the middle, and thus expanding its reach, but instead concentrating on its base voters. David Plouffe, the Obama campaign manager in 2008, holds the opposite view: “If you run a campaign trying to appeal to 60 to 70 percent of the electorate, you’re not going to run a very compelling campaign for the voters you need.”

First of all, I am not entirely sure that this is an “either/or” proposition nor, is my guess, does the Clinton campaign think it is. Every election is about making sure your voters turn out, and to win in such a 50/50 political environment you have to persuade independents and undecided voters.

We will find out more tomorrow with Hillary Clinton’s announcement at Roosevelt Island. But let’s look at the arguments, the numbers and the candidate and see how this shakes out.

Despite all the polls right now and all the punditry 17 months out, every reasonable analyst would argue that voter turnout will be a key factor a year from November. In a polarized nation with highly sophisticated targeting and lists of each sides’ likely voters safely ensconced in modeling programs, not much is left to chance.

[SEE: Editorial Cartoons on Hillary Clinton]

The 2008 turnout set a modern day record, according to the data compiled by the Presidency Project at the University of California at Santa Barbara. More than 131 million voters turned out, which was over 58 percent of the voting age population, the highest percentage since the 18-year old vote came into play in 1972. The number of voters turning out actually dropped to 129 million in 2012, even though the voting age population increased by 10 million.

Clearly, the real question is who will be voting and who won’t and in what swing states with key electoral votes will this have an effect. The number crunchers from each party are putting that data together in as sophisticated a way as they possibly can right now. And they are figuring out what they need to do to maximize their turnout in those key states.

The days of Richard Nixon promising to visit every state in the course of the 1960 campaign are long gone. From Hillary Clinton’s perspective, she needs to make sure that she focuses on those voters she can get to the polls and those voters she can persuade in the course of the campaign.

Certainly, she will likely get in excess of 90 percent of the African-American vote, as well as more than 60 percent (and maybe closer to 70 percent) of the Hispanic vote. She will win the women’s vote and the youth vote. So the real question is 90 percent of what? And 70 percent of what? And will these voters be sufficiently motivated to go to the polls? If her message is mushy and middle of the road and doesn’t portray a future president who will fight for their interests, these voters will sit on their hands.

In addition, she does have a primary fight on her hands and the most compelling opponent is Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who will watch his numbers grow if Hillary Clinton isn’t appealing to progressives. Thus far, she has articulated a very strong and future-oriented platform that Democrats can rally behind. Bottom line, too, is that she is comfortable with this agenda and will push hard in the coming weeks laying out specifics on the issues she has identified.

[SEE: Editorial Cartoons on the 2016 Presidential Elections]

Contrary to the Brooks piece, she has also exhibited her pragmatic and working-across-the-aisle approach as a senator and as secretary of state. The notion that Clinton will only run a “base” campaign does not give her enough credit for her results-oriented approach over nearly 40 years in public life.

I do believe that the campaign understands the importance of running a strong primary race coupled with a general election campaign that mobilizes the large number of voters who are drawn to her candidacy. If the base is disaffected, she is in trouble, just as if many Americans who are undecided believe she is neglecting their interests and move away from her.

If this is a Seinfeld campaign – “the campaign about nothing” – Hillary will lose not just the base but the middle as well. But she is on the road toward a strong, clear, progressive race. My guess is that that the announcement tomorrow will lay that out very well and so will her weekly speeches during the summer on key issues.

In 1975, when I was a 27-year-old staffer on the Church Committee that investigated our intelligence community, my boss, then-Sen. Frank Church (D-Idaho) made this statement on an August 1975 broadcast of “Meet the Press”:

[SEE: Editorial Cartoons on the NSA]

That was 40 years ago – before cell phones, before the Internet, before email, before personal computers, before we even knew the meaning of the phrase “digital communications.” Church saw around the corner and could have made this statement if he was sitting next to Rand Paul on the Senate floor Tuesday.

One of my jobs on the Church Committee was to investigate the NSA’s technology and its practice of creating “watch lists” of Americans – Americans who protested the Vietnam War, demonstrated for civil rights or questioned their government. Church fully understood the abuse that had taken place and what it meant for the future. What he, or we, did not understand at the time was that both then-Sen. Howard Baker (R-Tenn.), a member of the committee, and Church were both put on the watch list to be monitored.

[READ: Rand Paul’s Big Gift]

So, where are we now and what should be done now?

Despite Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s rants, 67 senators voted to reform the Patriot Act and curb NSA’s bulk collection of American’s phone records and to make the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court at least somewhat more transparent. That is a major change from when the Patriot Act was enacted hastily in the wake of Sept. 11, 2001.

But there is much more that needs to be done after Tuesday’s Associated Press revelations about FBI spy planes. Evidently, the FBI has more than 100 secret aircraft it is using to collect information from Americans’ cell phones and photograph areas and individuals in cities across the United States. Over a recent 30-day period, 11 states and 30 cities were spied upon with these aircraft, some with the capability of using the “cell-site simulator” (code name: Stingray). There were no warrants issued for video surveillance, and only recently were some warrants required for the cell phone intervention.

[SEE: Editorial Cartoons on Congress]

The Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law are both calling for increased oversight, reform of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act legislation and serious examination of the impact of the new technology on Americans’ basic privacy. Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act allows for mass surveillance of online communications, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation believes it should be curtailed.

The House and the Senate passed the new USA Freedom Act and the president signed it, but that is only a first step. If we are truly going to get a handle on everything from drones to detention camps to torture, as well as NSA surveillance, we need a full investigation of our intelligence agencies similar to the Church Committee and serious legal and executive remedies.