power. we need to get rid of them. host: sorry i cut you off there. we have very little time for frank, democrats like, lancaster, a pennsylvania. caller: good morning. so nice to see you back. these people should really understand where this president is coming from. he is our last problem here for a long time to come. we had a bunch of crooks in there for the last eight years, and i think he is doing a swell job and he should be one term and then let hillary clinton take two terms, and then he'd come back for the next term because this democratic thing is working your right. .

>> last night of the annual congressional baseball game. it's hard ball, not softball, democrats against the republicans. c-span was there, and it was a rout, at 15-1.

>> an update on the senate health committee and their mark-up on the reform election, it's been pushed back half an hour, with sessions to last more than a week, and as they speak with session getting under way at 10 eastern and you can follow it online at c-span.org. >> people don't want to look at policy. >> from devil lake across the

country, on the way through the west. >> roosevelt was the only politician of the day that absorbed darwin and bird migrating patterns and understood deer and elk. >> sunday on "q & a",. >> "washington journal" continues. >> on this thursday morning we are pleased to welcome columnist, george will. >> glad to be here. >> there is so much and i talk

about your column, on sundays and thursday, and the topic today is tobacco. and why did you choose it and what is your point? >> i have written it over the years, because we're trying to deal with a product that's legal and deadly if used as to be used. it's curious, we are regulating the truthful communication about information of a legal product. it raises all kinds of problems. it seems to me one of the great successes of government. that half the population 50% woke up and lit a cigarette, and that's a good thing now it's 25%.

and there are many tremendous public health benefits. and what got my attention, congress powering the food and drug administration to regulate tobacco. and the president said it's changed, it's not how washington used to work. it's exactly how washington used to work. the bill was supported by phillip morris, why? because they know that by restricting advertising, it restricts the measures by which it's market dominance can be challenged. it's what is called regulatory capture, and industry delighted to be regulated because of it freezing their advantages. and the mere fact that they are regulating tobacco does not immunize them of liability.

that's protecting another strong measure here in washington. host: in your paragraph, ironies abound by the state tobacco taxes. guest: all over the country state companies are addicted, i use the word intentionally to tobacco prices. they have to price the tobacco, to not discourage too much smoking. because if they do, there goes their revenue source. you couldn't loot the tobacco companies unless they have loot to be looted. and in 1948, 46 states came to a compact with the tobacco companies to get $246 billion over 25 years.

they have to make sure there is a continuing supply of smokers to keep the revenue flowing. and it's compounded with s-chip, state children tobacco program. and to fund this improvement, we need to have self-damaging habit of smoking flourish in this country. host: mr. will is here for you to call for questions. we have our lines for republicans, democrats and inpendents. i am sure you have seen two polls on the president's popularity, and in a nutshell, both have similar results of a

popular president and strong marks for his leadership and communication style. rising concerns about the problematic approaches to the financial crisis. you can either comment on the polls or tell people what you think of his performance. guest: first on the polls, they represent that american people are sensible. which is to say that the president is engaging, attractive, bold, interesting man. fresh from winning an emphatic vote from the american people. and he's taking the country into the area where people are scared to go, and people were

polled about reagan were squeezy about policies but love the him. host: we have calls, and this is from north carolina, this is t.i.watkins. sir, you will her an echo unless you hit the mute. caller: ok, george will, i am one of your fans down here . a few years ago you wrote an article what you thought of colin powell, and you took him apart. it was so good to see that and everything he had done wrong. i would like you to comment on that. guest: i don't remember the column, but i remember having a

distinct difference with mr. powell and the middle east. and colin powell is someone that the republicans should have in their party. an enormous distinction and achievement and strong feelings. i am a much more conservative republican than he is. but i am what they call a big-tent republican. and wil'mton where my favorite is from. host: where the government contested distention. you wrote a strong column about the president's speech in

cairo, would you tell them of your concerns of what he said? guest: the concern, all presidents but particularly this one, tend to think their personality is an irresistable force, and there are a lot of immovable things out there that won't find it irresistible. the president had a theme in the 40's, if we would just talk and harmony would break out. this is the old belief that the natural continue is harmony, i tend to be more like hobbs, people getting along is difficult. in the 30's, when we got to

know the empire of japan, we had an irrepressible conflict on our hands. i thought his view was "a," optimistic, and for the palestinians to slaves, and to slave master's of absurd. host: do you applaud the effort or should not have made it? guest: i am all for the effort to get the palestinians and israelis together. i do think when you get a peace process going, it's an end from itself. and we would almost do anything to keep the process going, and the process is to be a means to the end. host: chicago, you are on the democrat line. good morning. caller: good morning, primarily when i turned the program on you were talking about big tobacco. and i see that we have

deaggressed to international issues. host: it's a free range discussion this morning because mr. will talks about many topics. caller: i was calling about the big tobacco issue, and from my historic view of mr. will's position on the subject of big tobacco. there seems to be a problem and the proposed regulation of tobacco by agencies or an agency given dominance over the other agencies to regulate big tobacco. i look at it as something has to be done in that area to curve the abuses, being that the general american public suffers from this product. and if mr. will does not

believe that's a positive step, what proposals do you have? we know this is an issue that's been adversely affecting, a product that is adversely affecting the american people. it seems in the united states if there is a product that affects the health of the general public as illegal drugs or marijuana or something of that nature. it's regulated. there is an agency that steps in and does something about it. and we know for years that the american public is adversely affected by tobacco. guest: he used an interesting word, the "abuse" of this product. and what makes it interesting, you don't have to abuse cigarettes to be injured by them. used as intended they are

unhealthy. questionably they have a big public risk to the country, so arguably do cheese burgers. the question do we want the government regulating things and us and our choices for our own good. there is a limit to the paternalism, the nanny state should be unleashed. i am not saying it's wrong, but flags ought to go up when we talk about the government impinging on our libertarian abilities. host: next caller, don. caller: good morning, i am don and from maryland. but i agree with you on the fact that mr. brinkley was a good man. and i am from north carolina. and read your articles

everyday, you know, when i am going to get "the washington post". president obama, i want to know what your take on him giving a good speech in cairo, and then the people critiquing him the way they do. he is trying to set up a new type of relations in the middle east. and we all know that the middle east is really controlled by the desires of god. and i would like to know your take on that. guest: what worries to me about the president's approach to the pal -- palestinian approach is

historical and the honest broker, brokering the differences of israel and the forces, the hamas and all the rest who want to destroy israel. because israel is a salient of our values, in a dangerous and inhospital neighborhood, it seems that the united states is an ally of israel and gets many awards from that association. host: as we jump around about the policies in iran? guest: it's thrilling what is going on in iran. in the run-up of the election, twittering, i don't know the verb. twitting was important. when the ayatollah came back

in 1969, he was using cassettes. the world moves, 30 years late we have internet and satellite dishes, purities have established of sealing out outside forces. socializing the people. it's impossible nowadays, simply impossible. furthermore the median age of iran is 25, they are not going to be governed indefinitely by medieval clerics. it's not going to happen, and we are saying what happened in philippines when marcos call

for election from the senator from nevada. fed the election, and it was obviously fraudulent, and people came out and four days later he was gone. but that these changes are coming to iran is obvious. host: we had a woman who wrote reading alida in tyrann and one talked of the china presence in iran. guest: sure china being a permanent member of the security council, and having these close commercial relations with iran. this is one reason why we won't get meaningful judgments of sanctions of iran. the good news is regime changes

are coming to iran. the bad news is the regime whatever it is will have nuclear weapons. we will have to learn to deter iran into eternal revolution or the society makes it a pacific nation. no one would care if the belgiums had nuclear weapons because they are peaceful people. host: we have our guest george will and we are throwing baseballs at him and taking the swings. next we have kevin. caller: good morning, this is my first time for years to call, i am batting a thousand this morning. mr. will, i respect your opinion and i believe you are left in the journalism industry

that have quality respectively. and here is my concern, i think we have lost sight of governing our country. with the bush administration and promoting democracy with weapons and now we have an african-american president inos. -- in office. and this underlying disparity has manifested itself. i see a problem, not a dichotomy but hypocrisy, the crimes that have taken our country down has been executives, predominantly white executives, that are not indicted and now trying to take control of other countries. my question is do we need to take a look at governing ourselves? guest: the short answer is yes,

but i think we were guilty of overreach in the bush years. remember that the candidate ran for honest and more public policy. and disavowing to do what is called "nation building." to me this is an oxymoron, it's like orchid building, you don't build orchids or nation, they are a product of the long organic evolution. and the problem is that "a" it was flawed going in and "b" refuted by the unpleasant experience of trying to put iraq back on its feet. colin powell said on the eve of invasion of iraq, remember the pottery rule, if you break it, you own it.

and we owned it for years. host: what is the state today? guest: iraq, so far so good. there are unresolved questions, the kurds in the north are essentially an independent country, they have their own flag and passports and oil. and the question is will iraq tolerate this session there. and second, once the united states is gone will the bitterness that's prevailed for generations continue to subside? or will be a resurgence of it? i don't know. host: cape coral, this is bill, democratic line. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. mr. will, i understand you have a vast amount of knowledge of this world.

personally i consider you one of the vanguards of the party of no. you have a lot of proposals for the administration all the time. but i have never heard you seek a solution. now just like the house yesterday and the senate came up with a health bill. four pages long. and they were shaking it in front the tv's. they came up with nothing they told us. they said only that this is a proposal. but they didn't tell us anything. and that's what i consider you, you telling us a lot of things but there is no solutions to what you are saying. thank you for taking me. guest: first of all, i would like to say something in defense of the solid english word "no."

it appears in the constitution, and the five most beautiful words in english language, congress shall make no law. the bill of rights is a series of nos, it's something that the government cannot do, and unreasonable searches and seizures. and no has a role of context where most new ideas are bad or false. the truth is less plural than all the errors in the world. so to say no is a respectable thing to do. but beyond that, i would like to think i have solutions to a lot of america's problems. not all of them, but i have ideas. they don't involve expanding the government. now some people say if you are against expanding the government, you are generally negative. that's not true. i am for the market and

initiative and for entrepreneurship and for light taxes and regulation. in health care, insuring the un insured. the simplest thing, give them money. vouchers or a debit card loaded with a value. that's simple. that empowers individuals and not make them dependent on the government. host: i wonder in your life and you have said in "the washington post" and before that you were writing and teaching. did you ever consider running for office? guest: not seriously, i have lived in maryland since the mid-70's. and in 1982 some republicans wanted to know if i was interested in running for the senate. and i said no, there were only

two republicans in maryland, as far as i could tell, i was one and gene patrick was the other. it's a democratic state. and i have a metabolic urge to write, if i can't write i will explode. and i would find the life of public office interminable of sitting and hearing others talk would be tiresome. host: next caller. caller: mr. will, you are one might have favorite commentaries. and i want to go back to the discussion of the tobacco stand, and it's something that is really fascinating the dichotomy you are talking about. but there is a big solution that nobody -- well, not

nobody, it's getting to be a bigger and bigger topic all the time. that's legalization of marijuana. that could replace all cigarette revenues in the state in about a week. surely you know about the history of this country, and you know who harry sangber and on their stance of legalizing marijuana, and i would like to know your stance of legalizing marijuana. guest: it's going to be an issue soon, it will be an issue at the state level. but it's going to be a national issue and should be. when you look on one side of tobacco, their illnesses kill 400,000 a year, more than

vehiclular accidents, cocaine and alcohol, combined. it's far away the largest call of preventable death in this country. compared to which marijuana looks rev lent lyly benign. ly -- relevant benign. and more than a decade ago "national review" said that the drug war is lost. and that's dealing with the drug problem on the demand side. and we have to deal with demand. and marijuana