america's most red. standing with his daughters. guest: i got that alert. they went and had ice cream. i called my colleagues in london and said that the president could be coming out with a major statement. steven and i waited for that call. we are very attentive. well, they went out and had ice- cream. . guest: he is overexpose

according to the principles of white house press, but perhaps he has figured out something the previous administrations did not. i still think he is in danger of it. every time the president has to take a stand publicly he antagonizes some one. you would rather send out something other than the president if the white house has to send out a story. the president risks taking the brunt of being out there. i have seen his - show up faster than his positives have gone down which is a hint that he might be over exposed. so far he is doing fine at around 60%. guest: he has a lot on his plate and he wants not only his staff and others talking about the recovery program and the car bailouts in deficit, this

regulatory plan -- it is hard to keep up. i call him the energizer. he has to get out there to sell this product. guest: the technical problem is that the more that any president is out there talking about issues the less the media will accept a substitute. to the extent of the president can get others to be accepted by the media and public as effective spokespeople he or she is better off, but once you're out there more and more people expect you to be out there all the time. that is the danger. host: the front page cover of both papers here paperssue joins us from the british virgin islands. caller: good morning. i like the way that people can call and give their opinions.

on the outside looking in a think that what president obama is doing makes sense because sometimes american metals too much. they need to take time out for themselves. -- america meddles too much. and let everyone has their own opinion. sometimes you do have to intervene, but this time it is not the time. america needs to strengthen themselves, get on top and where there were. sometimes you just need to leave things to god and i think that is where america is going. the people who are suggesting that obama does something -- do they want to send their daughters or their child? they want to sending their spouse to fight? take that under consideration. when they are eager to fight the fight or intervene they must

remember that america needs strengthening. that is the key thing. and they need god. guest: there is a lovely island there. what is the alternative? the former administration called iran part of the axis of evil. since that time i think the supreme leader has more acolytes to build a nuclear arms. that did not work so i think something must work. the president is trying to keep the door open. to try to keep some dialogue open. host: with this time difference the associated press is reporting from iran. the daughters of the former president as well as others are

arrested for participating in the purchase. guest: that is sad news. he is a national player. he is very influential. host: he is extremely critical of president ahmadinejad. guest: that's rare we had heard he was trying to get his family out. he wanted to make a stand and protect his family. if his daughters had been arrested in makes it harder for him to do what he wanted to do. host: mike joins us from los angeles on the republican line. caller: of elect to speak to the iranian situation. the previous caller said it is none of our business. the changing of the regime, the terrorism over there, and of the suicide bombing -- it would be reduced. i think that iran has a major

influence on terrorism happening in the least. i think with a change of regime this terrorism could be reduced. that is why america should take part in this overthrown of the regime. guest: it is interesting because the iranian desperate is very large. here in washington we have the large -- we have a theiranian population. people have seen me on tv and a perch ministry. they tell me please, send this message. -- they approached me on the street. i know that the iranians living here, many of them thinks american needs to help, others are afraid to influence.

but the idea that automatically we do not do anything because it is none of our business is not the analytical place to be. the question is what can we do in our interest in to help the freedom fighters? host: great that the iranians our industry. -- in the street. guest: i agreed that our focus should be on domestic issues. it is a hard story, though. this is the wacos, this is the where the regime works -- the hope is that this young generation who has not adhered themselves to the revolutionary movement will now be considered counter-revolutionaries, dissidents, they can be jailed. you can tweet me.

i mentioned of the show a beyond this morning with you gentleman. host: good morning on the democrats' line. caller: first of all, i think there is a universal problem with oppressive governments like the shaws and everyone else. president obama and the american people stand for not pressing people's voices. the second thing, the president's character -- i do not think there is any risk for over exposure. he is an authentic character. for the person who has authenticity there's an unlimited amount of interest. we want to see often to people before our eyes. the third thing really powerful is that iran is going through a

new nationalism. it is not controlled by religious czars or even -- people like ahmadinejad. i would like to quote something from the book of rahm emmanuel -- we believe the popper judy for all special privilege for none is america's special mission. -- the opportunity for all. i think if we stick with that we can see iran overcome its situation. another said that at every stage and under all circumstances the essence of the struggle is equalized the opportunity. host: thank you. guest: to be courted alongside

fdr, rahm if use watching the show and i'm sure that he is, would be very pleased. i agree with the gentleman. i also want to say if you pay this despot into a corner -- if you remember during the cuban missile crisis, bobby kennedy said let's not paint khrushchev into such a corner that he will react so violently -- that is what they did the deal in turkey. you have to get someone out or he would just lose it. there's no measure to the damage he can do to his own people. host: here is another message from twitter. let me turn to one domestic issue concerning sonya sotomayor

and her nomination. these writers say that the poll found that most americans would be willing to pay higher taxes so everyone could have health insurance and the government could do a better job of holding down health care costs than the private sector has. your reaction? guest: i have not seen the internal on the pool yet. but it is remarkable how precisely the poll comports with the editorial position of "the new york times." we have all the with polling and you have to be careful with the freezing. i have dealt with health care since 1993 with the clinton health-care plan. that is not what i have seen in the pulling of the years and recently, but it depends how you phrase the question. -- with the polling over the

years. there are polls recently that americans eat less of a crisis now than in 1993. it is now and the low 50s as opposed to the 60s. if anything there is less energy for radical change now banned in 1993, but we have to look at the internal on those polls. this is also a moment where the public is concerned about deficits. the president is out there saying he is trying to get it under control. the program that will increase the deficit by $1 trillion or more in the next tenures may not be popular. so, do not cherry pick polls. host: let me go into detail about how the poll was conducted. here are more specifics.

guest: this president even more than the clintons, when i came down to washington to work on the health care program, he has paid more to the economy. you and i both tony were part of the government health care plan, part of the federal employees health benefit program which everyone on the hill is and so is the president and his entire family. if this is a public plan we benefited from a. it was the best health care i ever had. the government provided for applicants a huge assortment of terrific health care plans and because they had such an enormous pool of people applying for them they were able to pool the resources and get a really good health care rates. guest: if you are willing to spend enough you can get almost anything. but you and i did not quite have the best. elected congress and senators have it a little better.

they were able to go to the hospitals in bethesda and get treated immediately with no paperwork. they just went there. it was taken care of. when you have 300 million people supporting the health care costs of a few thousand people here in washington of course you can buy the gold- conversion, but the problem is we do not have enough taxpayers to pay for that kind of service. guest: because of the coming guys like you and i will not be retiring soon so we can continue putting the money into fica and social security and provide for medicaid and medicare which is actually a government-run health care program that is excellent. host: i am trying to put the editorial in "the new york times," which have you had a time to read? let's go to market and san antonio. caller: quick question -- do you think any of the stuff going on

would be possible if we had not gone into iraq? guest: good question, i really don't know. guest: that is a fascinating question. we do not know the answer. one of the theories behind bush going into iraq -- he said it. for 60 years we have been dealing with the autocrats in there and look what we have. so, let's try to empower the people. it has been a bloody mess in iraq. tentatively it seems to be turning better, though. we had that in lebanon as well. hezbollah was defeated. you had that -- is this an example for the people? i do not want to assert that it is, but the theory of bush's iraq was first to get democracy there in the belly of the arrogance of non-democratic released, and hopefully it will spread. maybe, maybe not.

the store might be 10 years from now. guest: we took away the threat of iraq from iran which was their natural-born enemy, so in a way we helped iran. host: here is the editorial you have referred to. the issue is whether to establish a new public plan to encourage more competition between health insurers and provide americans with an alternative. guest: this is what washington will debate. i don't think the democrats have put it on the table. senator baucus does not want it. guest: he has held off a bit. guest: this will be one of the great debates and it does not begun charlie along partisan

lines. if you create a government-run interests whether they will under-priced the private-sector insurance and drive it out of business, and then you have a big step towards will be a single-payer when the government provides it for workers in medicare and medicaid provided for the old and poor. you would not have much of a pprivate sector left. that is one of the fears. it will be hard to pull out from washington and the next few months. host: let me refer to this lawmaker who asked about whether this will create the competition. he appears on "newsmakers" and here's part of that interview. >> at the end of the day few choose to have competition and a plan that is dependable and affordable, you cannot do

without having the public plan their which creates the competition for private plan, so, yes, there will be a public plan in the bill. will people look for it? i do not know. who wants to go home at next year's primary and say i voted against the plan that will provide let's say 30,000 people in my district, most of your non-white, poor, working, most of whom do not have a way now for insurance -- of against giving them away to pay their doctors and hospitals. i don't think that is a vote many people want to make. >> isn't that and is your vote to take if the bill costs $1 trillion or more and is paid for with more taxes? >> it is premature to say how the bill will be paid for. let's say you will be cut with

the to pay for cuts with provider pimm. -- with provide pay. we do not know yet and that is what we hope to find out. host: the survey also revealed that there is considerable unease about the heightened government involvement on both the economy and on medical care. 85% of respondents said the system needs to be fundamentally changed or completely rebuilt. 77 percent si77% said they werey satisfied. guest: just don't get sick. the current version is a real hybrid. if you have plenty of money your fine. if you are in the engine your not, but you can have medicaid. the people in the middle, the guy and dow making $30,000 or

40,000 lives per year who are now told by the employer, i'm sorry, i cannot afford to keep you on, that is the problem. -- the guy and of the girl making $30,000 or $40,000 per year. there are many who are only one paycheck away or are under- insured. this is the population that european countries, france and the u.k., those entire countries equal to the people in this country who do not have health care or are only one paycheck away from not having it. guest: look, congressman star was talking about the political expediency of voting against the opposition. i would argue -- he did not want to answer it -- that right now one of the proposals, if you get health care benefits from your

employer right now you do not pay tax on that as income, but the one proposes they would tax that at least a certain level -- guest: $17,000 and above. guest: if you are currently getting insurance and will pay tax on it to help those who do not. there would be picked up and be benefiting from your taxes. the other plan was to cut medicare. the president has announced he would cut $300 billion out of medicare which means the providers would get paid less. if you are on medicare and are 65 years old you can expect less doctors to be willing to see. you'd be antagonizing everyone on medicare and people who currently have health care who must pay for some of the 47 million people through taxes who do not. i am not sure that is a winner.

host: here is another message from twitter. let's hear from columbus, new jersey on the republican line. caller: good morning. this is my first time calling. how can obama say anything to other countries on what they should do when we have issues here at home? he totally is against the tea parties, and he waves a little te tea bag, making fun of people here who want less government. less government is what we're all about. if the government takes over we could be creating what these people are objecting to. guest: let me go back to the federal employees health care program which was the best health care program i was on. it was not government-run, but

rather overseen by the government. by the way, you had a choice. you could have blue cross blue should, travelers -- you have a choice. you got a better do. the government would negotiate the contract. you were free to choose. millions of federal employees brought to bear that kind of power to get a really good rate. that is probably what they're talking about. i am not talking about single- payer. i don't think that will happen. the main players are ted kennedy and max baucus. they are realistic that single- payer will not fly. this president is more pragmatic than thinking he would just push it through. host: our guest is also an author. if you read about something about two months ago concerning china, and the u.s. currency.

it is complicated but you say we must be careful. you say it china owns an awful lot of the u.s. guest: i am not a financial expert. i started focusing on it since last september. but i have been reading and talking to experts. mark wolfe of "the financial times" anticipated this would happen. he is the chief financial correspondent, columnist for the paper. he identified this problem. the problem in housing in america including corruption and subprime loans was the product of several things one of which was the extraordinary flood of capital because china, japan, other parts of asia and the middle east were saving more than they could spend. then the fed loosened of the

money. also, as that imbalance between us and china grew, the chinese refused to let their currencies and just went bad. the wanted to maximize their exports and minimize our imports. those imbalances exaggerated the problems in our housing market. among those solutions is for the chinese to let their currency reflect the reality of the current accounts and the imbalance that exists. it gets more and more complicated. at some point i do not understand it. host: so, we can tell our viewers to check your blog here. guest: go to washington notebook and i also tweet as part of sky news, as their award winning website of the year. host: you are plugged in.

guest: i have got to. thank you. host: phil joins us from new york. good morning. caller: good morning, back to iran, the president while he was running wanted to have unconditional communications with our enemies/opponents, iran, north korea, and i wonder whether churchill is still relevant. someone visited hitler in 1937 and churchill stood up in front of the house of commons and condemn it because he thought that halifax was giving comfort or discomfort to the people who were against the though nazis at

the time, so does this principle still apply today and especially to a different culture, and oriental/eastern culture? guest: 1 always has to be careful not to make an argument that is comparing anyone to go nazis. host: a pretty unique group. guest: but churchill was complaining about a condition that existed in london in the 1930's. my parents were in that society. they did not know the future. they thought the hiller was dealable. there's a wonderful book recently out that discusses how the british government and literate society were judging which of the nazis you could work with, but the others were extremists.

all this analysis assuming that hitler and though nazis were like some other government as opposed to a pack of psychopaths. i do not want to characterize the iranians as nazis. there's always the question of thinking you can find moderation and a group of authoritarian and dictators. sometimes you might be able to, sometimes not. it may be a quest that does not have an opportunity to find a reasonable person to negotiate with. we do not know for sure. ahmadinejad does not sound reasonable to me, but the argument is made that he only says that to stiffen his base. i do not want to make the comparison to the nazis, but i think the principle -- you have typically judcooly judge whethee people you want to negotiate are susceptible to any judgment.

guest: it does take time and measured steps. guest: only because the germans declared war on the united states a couple of days later. guest: and your that fdr made a heck of a martini. guest: he would it add one part removed to report gin. host: will go from the food network -- in the early 1950's the shah takes over and iran and in 1970 the revolution put the cleric into power in hostages were held for 140 days. now nearly 30 years later there is another change inside the country.