host: good morning. at the white house later this morning, the president heading to camp david for an overnight there. it is july 3, a federal holiday for independence day. federal offices are closed, and the market has a three-day weekend. "the new york times," more on the situation in california, and that state's budget. paying taxpayers, vendors, and lower budget. a new general motors could emerge from bankruptcy protection as early as next week. our question this morning, focusing on the economy, specifically, what will it take to jump-start the economy? our line for democrats is 202- 737-0002.

for republicans, the number to call is 202-737-0001. when have our normal line for independents, 202-628-0205. a job loss in the month of june of 467 dozen jobs, and the headline says "rising job losses damp hopes of discovering." inside "the new york times," consumer spending amounts to 70% of overall economic activity. in recent times, americans found their way to fuel spending even as incomes for many households stagnated, borrowing against it was rising value of homes and capping credit card. now the paycheck has returned as the primary sources spending, and yet pay is eroding for even those who have jobs. the president, in an interview

conducted by jennifer loven, who is joining us at the bottom of the hour, talked about the economy. >> as we deal with the short- term crisis issues, it is so important for us to lay the basis for long-term economic growth. we have to figure out what the next growth engine is beyond credit card debt and home-equity loans, and derivatives on wall street. that is the reason why we have emphasized reforming our health care system, which has been a drag on our overall economy. and why clean energy is so important, because if we are weatherizing every building at home in america, if we are creating windmills and solar panels and by a fuel facilities -- and biofuel facilities, that is a huge future for export growth. host: paul krugman writes in

peace iece. "ok, thursday's jobs report settles that, we are going to need a bigger stimulus. but as the president know that? it is continuing to lose jobs at a rapid pace. once you take into account the 100,000-plus new jobs we need each month to keep up with a growing population, we are about 8.5 million jobs in the hole. the deeper the hole gets, the harder it will be to dig ourselves out. pat, republican line, what will it take to jump-start the economy? caller: good morning, i am a first-time caller. i think the people of america need to wake up. we are being taken over little by little, and gradually we will have all of our freedom gone. this cap and trade -- we do not see anything happen within the

next few years, but gradually we will be paying and we will be losing our freedom. they are talking about so much gas that we will be able to use, so much electricity we will be able to use, so much water we will be able to use, and who is going to be paying for all this? the people of america. host: romeo is on the phone, democrats line from greenville, south carolina. caller: if we were going to pass the bankruptcy again -- host: for general motors? caller: well, if people could file for bankruptcy. host: personal bankruptcy, yes. caller: anbar wing some money because they cannot -- and borrowing money because they cannot borrow money because they are bankrupt. they are going to start to go back up again.

host: you were talking about personal bankruptcy. and anan advance on what might happen next week. "a new general motors could emerge from bankruptcy protection next week of a federal judge approved its restructuring plan. judge robert gerber adjourn proceedings after the u.s. carmaker indicated it would revise terms of the plan to accommodate objectives -- would accommodate objections. the restructuring, under section 363 of the u.s. bankruptcy code, would be a landmark in the obama administration efforts to reshape the car industry. the u.s. and canadian governments will own 72%." the ps inside the washington post with this headline, gm

bondholders tried to block the firm's sale. next is jay on the phone from new jersey. what will it take to jump-start the economy? caller: at think if we do another bailout, i think it will take another bailout. but with this bailout, i think it should actually go to the taxpaying citizens. i think we should stop giving all our money to these private corporations that already ditch and died from paying taxes as it is now, so i think do a second bailout and make sure it gets down to the bottom of the citizens. also, try to take care of the poor. host: the front page of "the washinton post," as the stock market is sliding yesterday, down 200 points. austan goolsbee was our guest.

michael on the phone, new haven, connecticut. what will it take to jump-start this economy? caller: good morning, this is anthony. host: i apologize, but glad to hear from you, anthony. caller: small business getting their loans back, major corporations hiring again, and the recovery package was helpful. i am a senior citizen. there is recovery money in the state of connecticut on the highways and everything, and unemployment -- that is not going to do it. that is helpful, but i believe it is a job market where small business needs to start hiring people. that is why the unemployment rate is going higher and higher because they are not hiring.

host: steve pearlstein rights what you are saying inside the washington post. "don't mistake the economy topos sparkers for fireworks." he poses a couple of questions. "has the economy hit bottom and is the recovery about to begin? is it safe to get back into the stock market? is it time for businesses to stop cutting and start investing? can the government began letting up on monetary and fiscal stimulus? the right answer to all of these questions is probably no." he goes on to say, "even though it is still not apparent where the growth will come from to drive a robust economy with unemployment continuing to rise to general highs, consumer spending is likely to may raremd sluggish for years. the best hope for a sustained recovery may lie with a spurt of business investment in a new recovery."

democrat line, and jim, good morning. caller: i have been in the building trades and that was 17 years old in omaha, nebraska, and it just seems like contractors and businesses do not care who builds their buildings. we have seen lots of illegal immigrants putting up buildings, and that is just that people do not care about american jobs. i think people need to start caring about america, and we need to start taking our jobs back from overseas. otherwise, we are not going to have any place to work. host: the house and senate will be back in session on monday, confirmation hearings for judge sotomayor, to be the next supreme court associate justice. that will take place it week from monday on july 13. we'll have live coverage on c- span network. health care is also one of the issues when congress comes back

from its one week recess. jack is on the republican line. what will it take to jump-start this economy? caller: it is quite simple. the public has receipt to the end of the obama administration and the wacky democratic congress. they are at war trying to destroy the american economy. as long as they are in power and their policies are going forward, there is no way there is going to be recovery. so as soon as the end of the obama administration and the public perceives that some of the economy will turn around until he is trying to sabotage the economy and the country. it is like the manchurian candidate come to life. everything he is doing, destroying the economy. host: a viewer says "there has never been a robust socialist society. we must return the economy to the workers, not to the takers." in the editorial page of "the

new york times," "what do we have to counter this scary prospect? we have the obama stimulus plan, which aims to create 3.5 million jobs by late next year. that is much better than nothing, but it is not remotely enough." "all of this is depressingly familiar to anyone who has studied the economic policy in the 1930's. once again, a democratic president has pushed through a job creation policy that will mitigate the slump are not aggressive enough for a full recovery. once again much of the stimulus at the federal level is being undone by state and local retrenchment pickup but hear from steve on the phone from hartford, connecticut -- and local retrenchment." let's hear from steve on the phone from hartford, connecticut. caller: president obama needs to start doing what he said he was going to do, and stop rewarding big business.

i think we could find 6 million jobs tomorrow if you said guest workers, thank you, but you need to go home tomorrow. host: thank you. but jobs report, unemployment the highest since 1983. both the nasdaq and the nyse closed for the holiday. good morning, democrats line. caller: good morning, c-span. a couple of things. one thing that would certainly help would be another stimulus package if the roughly 25% of people that are republicans in the congress would let that " and somehow the democrats to would let that out and somehow the democrats would let them do it. i notice that almost every time you read an editorial, it is from a right wing source. but if you read paul krugman, it

is usually critical of the obama administration. even though i am not a cheerleader. host: well, i do not know about that. what this program really is is a reflection of what is in the papers, so whether it is president bush or president clinton or president obama, we read "the wall street journal," "the new york times," "the weekly standard." what we find is a new stimulation and stimulate discussion. caller: you never read from "the nation," and we do not have katrina on. host: she is one of are frequent guests. why are you up so early, by the way? caller: honestly, it is to watch c-span.

i get up a few mornings a week to try to watch. it is the best way to keep informed. you cannot do it by watching the regular cable news network, and i do love to hear the people's opinions from across the country. i find it unfortunate that many an attack mode or choose a mode of operation that is out of fear. when i think of america, i think of land of the free, home of the brave. i know that we are going to make our way out of this. i am not afraid of new people and our country and i am not afraid of the future, and that is what i hear now. i hear a lot of bitterness and a lot of fear, and i think a lot of that would help us get out of this economic downfall host: what do you do for a living? caller: i am activist and writer. host: have a great day. monica sent us this week. "deficit spending is the only

tested way to restart the economy. tax-cut cannot amend a bridge." women to the headline in "the new york times" about california. for the second time in the state's history, the emergency payment methods since the great depression was adopted. it was unclear whether the item you's, known as warrants, would be accepted by all of the banks in california, which were caught off guard by the move and seemed hesitant to entrust the state to repay them in october as promised. while the emergency move resulted in california's combination of outsized budget gaps, the unusual budget rules in a morass of financial obligation to prove that the polls, the action was seen as a warning flag to other states that have failed to close their budgets as this fiscal year becomes part of the economic downturn." on the front page of the "l.a.

times," "deadlocked state sends out by acute's." next is maya on the phone from oakland township, michigan. good morning. what will it take to start this economy? caller: good morning. i personally think we should stop got nothing the president. -- which it sought bad mouthing the president. even though i am -- we should stop at nothing the president. even though i am a republican, we are so adversarial. i would like to see senator conrad go after those companies that have their companies set up offshore in order to avoid taxes. also, i oftentimes hear people saying, "we pay our corporations to pay the highest taxes, 35%."

that is not really true. we have a corporation, and we never pay that amount of money. there are all kinds of deductions. but people that complain about that, the very few of them pay that. one other thing i would like -- i would like to see bill gates or one of the u.s. millionaires bring back some kind of manufacturing jobs to this country, even televisions or something to start, because manufacturing is just going out of the country, and there is nothing left here. i will never forget hearing that wonderful speaker from south carolina, for telling, who complained about the jobs leaving, and he was absolutely right. he was an oracle. we love c-span. host: thank you, maya.

again, the "l.a. times" "467,000 job loss, and economic shocker." in "the wall street journal," "tilting at windmills jobs." "about the best thing we can say about yesterday's june jobs report is that employment is usually a lagging economic indicator. elisse we hope it is -- at least we hope it is." angeles on the phone from little rock, -- angela is on the phone from little rock, arkansas. caller: good morning. if the republicans or so-called blue dog democrats would quit being selfish and get their hands out of the kajar and think about the american people -- out of the cookie jar and think about the american people. the republicans go to work every day and complain about -- they are not trying to help us.

they caused this mess, you know? but, you know, they just need to quit being selfish. that is what they really need to do. host: appreciate your call, angela. a getaway friday for the july 4 holiday weekend. if you're traveling, near record travel is expected in different parts of the country. inside "the wall street journal," "budget woes doom rest stops." many being shut down in virginia as a way to save money. how do you don't start the economy, not how you jump-start the economy, ron? caller: it is a complicated area. one of which i know is real estate. one way to jump-start the economy that would help psychologically is doing something about the media itself. host: what are you referring to?

caller: that i do not know. i believe the way the program has been established is that these large entities which handle $10 billion of assets or more -- what they do is put up a certain small percentage, the government matches the percentage and then gives them a non recourse loan. ok. if the same program were given to individuals -- real-estate developers, individual homebuyers, etc. -- the entire backlog, the inventory of real estate would probably be gone within three to four months. so i think there is a problem with regard to the understanding of how to unleash the ability of the individual american to resolve the problem is the government supports them instead of the larger entities and instead of trying to do it only

for larger economic means. i see it that the bush administration did not have one theoretician advising them, and the obama administration does not have one businessman, they only have academicians and theoreticians. host: nico pitney will join us later on form "the huffington post, and in the final hour, jonah goldberg . if you're old enough to remember the nixon years, herb klein passed away at age 91. he was the director of communications and president nixon's white house. he died following cardiac arrest in his home, according to family members. some background on herb klein

-- "after serving the with the navy in world war ii, he became a special correspondent for copley newspapers. mr. klein accompanied vice president nixon to moscow in 1959 for the historic meeting with premier nikita khrushchev. the next year he represented nixon in setting the terms for his debates with john kennedy. he was his press secretary in 1960 when he ran for governor of california in 1962. when he ran for the presidency again in 1968. he resigned in 1973, when year before the watergate scandal forced president nixon to st ep down. next is diane from laguna, california. good morning. caller: how can this economy get better, i think, is as soon as

president obama gets more focused on fixing it. he is absolutely obsessed with this health care and his cap and trade. i think he has lost his desire to make the economy is priority. i think that was a way to get him elected. i think it is how he got elected, and i think he is now so obsessed he has this feeling that he wants to be president and walk away -- i do not think he cares if he gets reelected in four years. he wants to say that he passed this health care and his cap and trade -- and i voted for him, so you are aware of that -- and i am frightened that he is worse that bush in the sense that bush was obsessed with the war in iraq and proving his legacy

there. and i think this man is brilliant and i think his desire is to walk away 10 years from now and say i was the one that got this new health care bill in, and i do not think that is going to help us, it is going to hurt us financially for the next 10 years. and i think the cap and trade is even more frightening economically. so i do not know where he is coming from. i think he is just -- if you listen to the question, i listened to the question that you had your next guest, posed to him, about how do you help the economy. his answer was health care and cap and trade. it was shocking to me. where are the shovel-ready construction jobs that we were all going to get in each state? where are they? where is all this talk that he was out on these meetings, the town hall meetings, telling everyone that we are going to have people going to work in the shovel-ready projects? i mean, if they pass another

stimulus bill and it does anything but go directly to the u.s. citizens -- i mean, this man should be impeached. host: thank you for the call. we will talk with jennifer loven about that. also, the president talking about the situation in guantanamo bay with the detainees in cuba. "the jobless rate in atlanta is not words but it is high," according to "the atlanta journal-constitution." "the new york times" in its editorial this morning on more jobs lost, "on a plan the compensation was wisely extended in the stimulus bill to a maximum of 53 weeks. but benefits will begin to expire in september for roughly 650,000 workers. congress should not wait until

the last minute to extend those benefits. next is kay from palm beach, florida. what will it take to jump-start this economy, kay? caller: good morning. thank you so much for c-span. i work for public education here in south florida. i got my layoff notice in april that i would not be returning for the next budget year because of budget cuts to the school system. when the stimulus money came, i was retired yesterday. they did lay off 900 people in broward, and they hired 700 people back. the reason for this -- and i do appreciate charlie crist, and his support for offshore drilling. that takes away funding from

public schools, public transportation, the police, fire, and city workers. the economy here tank back during hurricane season three years ago. insurance is so high to own a home. taxes are low, but you have no revenue to pay. i do not know what to do. i cannot sit there and say you have to put the tax rate back where it was, but when you do not have revenue, you cannot spend. here in florida, that is my deal. the insurance here to own homes is outrageous. i think if they would work on that and put the tax rate back where it was, everything would even out and we would have funds to pay for services. host: thank you for the call. the headline says the true costs are understated because the full expense of using military aircraft and paying for the staff to organize the trip.

you can read more from page a3 from "the wall street journal." another tweaet. next is matt from pennsylvania. welcome to the program. caller: good morning, steve. i am calling here from bucks county, pennsylvania. we are in an affluent suburb outside of philadelphia. host: is that part of the mainline? i should know that. caller: it is on the other side. host: i am from the other side of the state, so bear with me. caller: yeah, you are from the pittsburgh area. one thing we need to do is tax cuts aimed at the middle class, upper-middle-class, it take the

25% rate down to 15%, the 15% rate down to 10%. put money in people's hands who are fortunate enough to have a job. then what we do with the stimulus, but the money into what the other caller talked about, shovel-ready projects. let's work on the infrastructure. i do not know where the last stimulus money went. the gang in congress, the democrats, they play with it like christmas money. it has gone to god knows where. i hardly see anything going on here as far as construction is going. our roads are falling apart, as you know, especially in western- central pa. let's fix it and put people to work. unless we deal with it from the ground up rather than top down, it is never going to work. host: "sanford's wife ready to

forgive the argentine affair and move on." more than one dozen republican officials have called for mr. sanford to step down, including 12 of the state senators. senator lindsey graham has said that he would like to see the governor reconcile with his family and complete his term. democrats have been less vocal on this subject possibly because a santa resignation means that his lieutenant governor would be able to serve more than a year in office before running for reelection, giving him a formidable term before running for reelection." good morning, scott. caller: it is my birthday this morning, a great birthday gift. host: how are old are you? caller: 44.

first of all, i did not vote for mr. obama and i do not support his plan on the recovery for the economy. but i am going to defend him here real quick. you had a caller from massachusetts who said he is deliberately trying to wreck the economy, comparing it to 9/11. that kind of dialogue does not help anything. i do not think the democrats are out to destroy the economy, i do not think they want to be socialists. i think they are misguided and i think their tax and spend policies are not the way. i understand the teacher that says we need to raise taxes so i can have my job. but if you do not have revenue coming into the state, if you do not have the people that loosen up the money so they can spend, it is going to choke it down. host: by the way, i want to point up one other thing, robert f. kennedy jr. as an op-ed this morning in "the washington post" called "is president

breaks hearts in appalachia." a coal mining site in west virginia, the essence of the piece this morning from the son of robert kennedy, saying that the government needs to do more in west virginia. caller: you are pretty close to where i am. we are just below pittsburgh, about an hour and 15 minutes. host: west virginia has more wal-mart employees than: police. caller: that is -- -- then can coal employees. caller: a lot of that had to do with coal and timber, and we have a great medical facility here. but that is going to come to a grinding halt here pretty soon

because he is not a friend of the coal fields. you know, i am for the green energy initiatives he has taken, but that cannot be our lead. we've got to remember what brought us here, and oil, gas, and coal are still king. we need to support that industry, lower taxes to where small businesses can flourish and just -- and i agree with the guy from bucks county, i just do not think we can do it from the top side down, we need to go from the bottom up. host: john noble berg -- john goldberg will be talking about that in our final hour. jennifer loven is the senior white house correspondent for the associated press. she sat down with the president yesterday in a wide-ranging interview that focused on the economy and also on the situation with the detainees in cuba. here's an excerpt from that part

of the interview, and she will be joining us in just a moment. >> i am confident that we can do much better than we are doing so far. what we have done in guantanamo is leave them in limbo for seven years without any recourse. we now know they have habeas rights, and that means they are able to answer charges and have legal representation. we are going to be able to prosecute a sizable number of those being held in our u.s. courts. the military commission cost structure that we are setting up will meet the demands of our legal positions, and the question then is going to be how do we handle folks who -- we have very strong evidence that they have a engaged in criminal activities or violated laws, but the evidence is through

multiple here say documents -- hearsay documents that cannot be classified in court. how we present one of the -- how we present that is going to be one of the challenges to buy administration. host: we want to run back -- we want to welcome back jennifer loven from the associated press. you talk with the president on the detainees. what did you learn? guest: i was surprised at his answer. the question was -- he had made this proposal to go to congress to " try to create a new legal framework for holding some terrorist suspects indefinitely, which would be a huge change in the sort of legal jurisprudence system and our country. so the question was, that the president, as a former teacher of constitutional law himself, felt comfortable with the idea

of creating this new framework and having that as his legacy? i was surprised that he said yes, he is uncomfortable with it, and he says it gives him great pause. as he goes forward with congress to try to figure out a way to do this, he may in fact in the end become uncomfortable with it and abandon the idea altogether, which raises all sorts of questions about what you would do with these people, that presumably small set of people in that group who can neither be prosecuted for a whole host of reasons, or police because they are too dangerous. host: you brought up the issue of the deadline they have imposed. have they boxed themselves in because they want to do it in a year? guest: of course. aid is an incredibly complicated task they're going to undertake. maybe robert gibbs does not say this as much in the briefings,

but you have to set a deadline to get something done. they're going to say that they are determined to meet that deadline up to the very last minute if they have to extend it. it is an incredibly complicated task to figure out which detainees fall into categories, what to do with them, where to prosecute them, how to hold them and they are convicted -- if they are convicted, and the questions are endless. with all the other proposals letter taking up congress' time, it is not something the congress is digging into yet. host: when congress comes back next week, you will be leaving with the president to travel to russia, gonnhana. guest: he will have his first moscow summit with russian leaders. the main agenda item is the attempt to get a new arms reduction treaty with moscow.

the current one expires in december, so there is a deadline to get that done. the president hopes to give a speech in moscow, yet another set piece. he is hoping it will kind of lay out his priorities, his agenda in terms of restarting the relations with russia, the u.s. relations with russia. then he goes on, as you know, to italy for the group of a summit. that has been a traditional -- for the group of eight summit. he will meet with the pope while he is there, meet with italian leaders as well, then he makes his first trip as president to africa, and he chose ghana to do that. he will give a speech there as well host: you c.

host: this interview conducted yesterday from the diplomatic reception room at the white house. >> prime minister putin still has a lot of sway in russia, and i think that it is important that even as we move forward with president medvedev, that bruton -- that putin understands that the old cold war u.s.- russia relations is outdated. i think medvedev understands that, i think putin has 1 foot in the old ways of doing business and 1 foot in the new. to the extent that we can provide him and the russian people a clear sense that the u.s. is not seeking an antagonistic relationship but once corp. on nuclear non-

proliferation, -- wants cooperation on nuclear non- proliferation, fighting terrorism -- guest: you think the meeting with the prime minister can pull them out of this old way of thinking? >> i think that they're hearing the same things and seeing the same things so they can move in concert and cooperate on critical issues. host: jennifer loven, do you have any sense on how the russian president and use president obama? guest: i think he sees both encouraging and discouraging things for russia, which is typical of how russia postures in the world these days. president medvedev has talked encouragingly about president obama's upcoming trip, how he wants to make progress, how he is looking and seeing encouraging signs about the arms reduction treaty that we talked about. at the same time, russia is

still clearly prime minister, former president, putin, as you heard president obama talk about them is still the dominant force in russian politics these days. so there is a lot of posturing about russian power. there are concerns in the region that there will be another georgia, a neighboring country of russia. there is a one hand, on the other hand host: we have some pictures this morning courtesy of the u.s. military. vice-president biden is in baghdad today. he had a meeting with general o de haren el -- with general odierno. can you give us the background on yet another surprise visit to iraq that began with president bush, when he traveled to iraq

on thanksgiving several years ago. guest: is a big week there, the withdrawal of u.s. troops from all the iraqi cities, a big milestone in the war. it keeps the u.s. on pace to meet the schedule of withdrawing troops laid out by obama himself and the agreement with the iraqis. so, in the context of this, president obama has tapped the vice-president to be his point man on iraq. so it is a very timely time for all biden to go there. it is not often a leader of his level spend a couple of days in iraq. so it is very interesting. one thing that the president raised yesterday was the notion of keeping to this schedule, and he and other officials talked very candidly about the fact that violence will increase now that the troops are not in the cities any more patrolling.

what i asked him was whether he thinks that there is a level of violence or he has a concern that they could reach a point where he has to rethink his schedule, where there is a graduated phase, but all trips are essentially gone by 2011. he said he is confident but not certain that it would be kept. host: our guest can be seen in most newspapers as one. whizzes on the phone from texas. -- liz is on the phone from texas with jennifer loven. caller: good morning. i am interested in the issue of bringing gtmo prisoners to the united states. the consumer -- we cannot buy anything if we do not have any money. now, for your guest i want to ask you -- is it simply a political issue that is

preventing us from bringing these prisoners to the united states? you know, we build prisons quicker than we build schools. i do not know why we could not build a prison that holds them, say, in leavenworth, kansas. i do not understand -- i do get the military tribunal for national security issues. a u.s. court -- we are able to do this. i just do not understand why. guest: that is a very good point. you nailed it. it is a political discussion, of course. this is washington, and when you are talking about complicated issues, national security issues, there is a little bit of posturing on both sides. but it is true. there are terrorist in prisons now in the united states. and ones that we consider pretty dangerous that were convicted in

u.s. courts and are being held safely in u.s. prisons. and president obama has made this point himself. we have done it, we can do it, we can do it safely. and some of the outcry of how can we possibly bring these people here is just a little bit of a canard. host: the person who gets the first question typically at these briefings, this week from -- this tweet-- guest: he wants to get me in trouble. every president has his own unique style. it is a very difficult job. is the hot seat in every sense of the work. robert gibbs, you know, like to use a lot of humor and it sometimes works and it sometimes does not, as steve knows, too, from being in there. it can be tense, it can be

combative, and sometimes the person up there at the podium and oils that -- at the podium handles that well, sometimes they score points, sometimes they do not. like i said, mr. gibbs has an edge nt is not afraid to use host: our next call is from sandy it -- " caller: you made a statement about mr. putin having 1 foot in the old ways of russia. and, you had made is how do we make him change politically on what they want to do as a country. we seem to be trying to get involved in a lot of politics. the issue i guess, and the bottom line, i guess is -- it becomes a political issue with the united states and the

congress trying to make the world more safe and everything else. i think we have kind of proven that we have made a lot of mistakes in these last, i guess -- i will be honest with you, in the last 10 to 15 years. and the issue about gtmo and everything else, the terrorists and everything else, again, you are right. to me is a political issue with congress and everything else, -- to me, it is a political issue with congress and everything else. so let's go ahead and consider russia a quagmire. do you think president obama is trying to mate not the world, but -- is trying to make not the world, but the united states, more honest with the people in europe, russia, and also in the middle east? guest: that is a very interesting question, and i do think that is exactly what

president obama hopes to do. whether he can, of course, as a whole other story. but he would like to. we have heard him use that "press the reset button" phrase with russia. but he really wants to do that with several different parts of the world, whether it is the europe or the muslim world. with russia, i think his comments about putin yesterday were pretty provocative. but underneath that, i think what he meant -- and you have to understand a little bit of russian history. russians feel like they have lost their global stature, and prudent is someone they see who helped them gain summit -- and who can -- and vladimir putin is someone they see who help them gain some of it back. so i think underlying what mr. obama said yesterday is how do

you move russia, and particularly britaputin, beyondt thinking? host: in dealing with highly charged questions about the racial issue, the cord was moving away from affirmative action. >> i have always believed that affirmative-action was less of an issue, or should be less of an issue, then it has been made out to be in news reports. it has not been as potent a force for racial progress as advocates would claim, and it has not been as bad on, you

know, white students seeking admission or seeking a job as its critics have said. i think every kid from the time they are born, we should make sure they are getting a good education, good nutrition, is succeeding from k through 12. when everybody has a level playing field, everybody is competing, and we have dealt with some of the legacies of discrimination that have resulted in substandard schools or extreme poverty in some communities, then affirmative- action ends up being an afterthought. guest: i think that was an incredibly nuanced answer about affirmative-action and race, which of course we heard the

president talk about that in vain before when he was a candidate. again, he still believes that affirmative action could be helpful in certain circumstances in hiring and emissions -- and admissions type decisions. but he talked about the need for going beyond affirmative action in an interesting way, and i think he was sort of striking a balance, taking both sides of the issue and talking about recent cases. host: this comment from a viewer in maryland -- "everything is beautiful when a candidate is running for the highest office in the land on a platform that the other guy got wrong. but once he has an office committee to complexity hits you in the face and you realize that there are people who want to destroy america and they may not fit neatly into the crest -- into the criminal-justice framework with which you are so comfortable than. welcome to the big leagues.

guest: he has made decisions that have earned him considerable criticism among his supporters in the democratic party for doing that. host: our next caller is from a viewer in grosse pointe, michigan, independent line. caller: good morning. i am getting a little bit of laryngitis year. after listening all morning and through the weeks, and i listened to the callers calling, and i am fascinated at what people expect of one man. he has been in office less than six months, he inherited an awful economy, and i do not think that anybody can think that the global crisis that we face that just occurred -- and nothing that anybody can fix the global economy crisis that we face that just occurred in the past six months. as we have always been told, as

a black man, you cannot be as good as anybody, you have to be twice as good. he is just a man. he is not the one who is here to just save us from everything, and it seems that people expected to be able to solve every crisis that we face. in six months he is supposed to have a game plan to fix both wars, fix the economy, go around the world and make friends again with all the people that we have upset. host: thank you for the call. guest: i think that is a really good point. but americans are impatient, and we want whenever will problems are facing us to be fixed pretty quickly. -- and we want whatever problems are facing us to be fixed pretty quickly. president obama and candidate obama set very high expectations for himself, and he has taken on these giant problems, added giant proposals

and initiatives to his own to do list. some of what we're doing, whether it is us in the media or the public, is trying to hold him to the expectations he has set for himself. host: i want to get your reactions to a announcement written up in "the washington times" yesterday. while he is in russia and italy, the white house, with the secretary of health and human services, kathleen sebelius, will have an all-day summit next week. can you explain? guest: i think we have all forgotten that this flu is out there, but it is still a threat. officials were talking about the fact that we could get a second wave of the flu season as we approach fall and winter, and so the white house is, i suppose admirably, trying to get ready to this -- trying to get ready for this, and make sure they are prepared. other countries are dealing with

cases and deaths from this fluk. i do not know if it involves as much of a mock exercise as it does to make sure they have all their communications set up with state officials. one of the most important things they can do in a situation like that. host: and from -- a photograph in "the washington post," easter sunday, as they went to church across from the white house. they have not decided on an official church, but they will go to a church on camp david. guest: i am sure it is a difficult decision for him and his family. they had a church home when they lived in chicago, and one of the things that white house officials have talked about both publicly and privately is that it is very difficult for this

president to go to a church. it could possibly -- not possibly, probably -- inconvenience the people who are there, it could crowd the church, and it could make it difficult for everyone there to worship as they want to, and also for him. this is a decision they have not been able to come to a conclusion on yet. host: john is on the phone from ventura, california. a lot of california collars up early this morning. caller: thank you. it is nice to be up and listening to c-span. when you are on your way to russia and the president is thinking that we have -- that russia has the economic problems and military problems that we have. so does europe, so do we. you go back to world war ii, we all had the same. a full war, the zero consumer spending. all three seem to be interested

in consumer spending to get them to finance everything. in the war, they had consumer spending to finance nothing. maybe now they need to compromise, maybe half consumer spending, have government spending on the very things that obama says we need, and they would be pretty much the same things that the russians need. reporters like yourself and the whole media never bring up the previous subject, we had no appointment -- a dozen across your mind as you are with him that you should be thinking of the world war ii example and thinking in general terms? host: john, pickup paul krugman's piece in "the new york times," because he talks about the 1937 example and that it was the jobs program that got us out of the recession.

guest: i will think about it now. i am not an expert in world war ii era economic policies, but it looks like something to look into it and bone up on. host: on the issue of sanctions toward -- >> i think the sanctions regime after the nuclear tests and missile launches by north korea have been robust, in part because russia and china had be willing to go -- had been willing to go further than they had been in the past. in my conversation with president medvedev, he has acknowledged that iran's development of a nuclear weapon would be a destabilizing force in the international community, and that he is interested in working with us in trying to find a way that iran can step away on this issue.

so far at least we have seen good cooperation on these issues. >guest: he did not get military force, though. wasn't russia the obstacle? >> no, what i think we sought is the most robust sanctions regime we have ever seen, with respect to north korea, in international diplomacy, people tend to want to go in stages. what we are seeing right now is that implementation of the sanctions procedure was set up, is going very well. guest: but you think there is room for more later? >> there is potentially room for more later. but keep in mind, what we are also trying to do is keep the door open for north korea to start acting in a responsible way, to recognize that a denuclearized korean peninsula is the only way that they are going to achieve the kind of

commercial ties and development opportunities that can be good for their people, and we want them to know that that is still available. host: general loven, a lot there. the sanctions against north korea -- russia's involvement of this, china and its influence in north korea. what did you learn? guest: russia and china have always been the obstacles to getting strong sanctions either against iran or north korea for their nuclear programs. what the president is referring to is the fact that he got russia and china on board for a fairly aggressive new sanctions regime against north korea. .

guest: well, he came up with the pastry chef and said any kind of pie that you might want, the pastry chef can make the best pies you ever had and said it is a challenge to the waistlines of the first family. i asked basketball questions, asked him to choose between kobe bryant and michael jordan. he didn't miss a beat before he picked michael jordan. i asked him about pet peeves with aides and he had to think about that but he said it was the powder they put on his face all the time when he is walking around if he is possibly going to be before a camera.

host: thanks very much for being with us. have a good fourth of july weekend. >> you, too. host: we will take a break and it is friday morning, july 3, part of a holiday weekend, and the "washington journal" continues in just a moment. during this holiday weekend, notable americans on c-span, stories from inside the white house, domestic policy advisors on their presidents, from richard nixon to george w. bush, honoring president ronald reagan. ken burns on his career and

upcoming series on america's national parks, a tribute to the late writer john updyke, two-time winner of the pulitzer prize, and there is more books an authors on c-span 2, with three days of book tv, featuring books on the american revolution, including john ferling taking calls on your first president sunday on "in depth." and p.j. o'rourke, his passion for cars an america's need to drive like crazy. also, nobel peace price recipient wangari maatari on problems facing south africa. host: we welcome nico pitney back to the "washington journal ." he asked a question of the president at the most recent

news conference. we're pleased to have you. glenn: thank you. host: let me ask you about social networking and the impact it is having on iran after the election and now a couple of weeks after the election. host: when we say the world is watching, that is only possible because of not just social networks, although that is an important part, and there are a lot of facebook users in iran and twitter and there is a site called bolatarin which is a way for people to distribute news that they find and bring it to a wider audience. you know, the international community would not know whats was, you know, happening in iran nearly to the extent they do without these social networks. that said, for iranians trying to organize demonstrations and build this opposition movement, it's relying, i think, much more on words of mouth, old fashioned

organizing because internet service is very difficult to get there, even with networks, there is one called the torah project, and they're world renowned for helping people in countries that have major internet sensors get through them, and they will see maybe a thousand people sign up each day. it is still a really small fraction of the population in iran that is able to use these services. host: what have you been blogging about over the last 48 hours? >> well, the news from iran continues to leak out. i mean, it's not the same pace by any means as it was in the last few weeks but you see now the opposition movement organizing itself in a new way. mousavi, the reformist candidate, has now created or is in the process of creating a civic organization, which seems to be the platform with which he

will continue to build on the work he was doing during the campaign. you see the diplomatic impact that ahmadinejad kind of tainted victory is having, even his traditional allies are giving him diplomatic snubs. the opinion, even among more progressive and centrist analysts is shifting away from negotiations with iran, and so those are the two kind of major threads that i think we're seeing. host: let me read the reporting of christopher rhodes an jeffrey fowler, who write in the "wall street journal" report that the pro regime voices multiply on-line. they are taking a queue from the opposition strategy and thousands of iranians use social networking sites and blogs to criticize the government to spread news of its violent clashes with protestors but over

the past week, a growing number of iranian users of twitter have been tweeting in favor of the regime, according to internet security experts who have been studying this development. does this surprise you? guest: it doesn't surprise me too much. there has been active work done by ahmadinejad supporters from the beginning. some of it has been more controversial an and others. for example, there were sites that were posting photographs and video of demonstrators and asking the readers of the sites to identify the people and send in information about them to the government. those sites, many of which are hosted in the united states, in fact, were jumped on by opposition supporters and many were ended up being taken down. one was hosted by google and google removed it. there has been a low level battle between the two camps

on-line, but it doesn't surprise me that, you know, that the same tools that are of use to the reformists are being used by the ahmadinejad supporters. host: we talked to you the day after you talked to the president about iranians being in communication via twitter, but after that, there has been other reaction among those in the media on the question you asked and how it came about. my question to you is your reaction to those in the media that you were able to ask the second question of the president at that news conference. guest: i think by and large it's been a small group who has written critically about it, and you know, myself included, journalists like to write about themselves and everyone else has had to weigh in and debate t that's fine, but i don't think, you know, for every one reporter

at a paper that is critical, i'll get various e-mails from other reporters who are very supportive. i don't think it is nearly as big of an issue as it's been made out to be, and i think, you know, i think in the end, it came down to the quality of the question, which i think, you know, president obama ended up dodging it, and i think it was a scwit mat question, and it really is something the question was about how president obama would relate in the future to ahmadinejad given the questions over the election, and if that is the crucial issue on the minds of iranians for people in the united states, they really want to know -- they don't like ahmadinejad at all. they don't want president obama to place a stamp of approval on the election, and you know, so i feel good about representing the

views of a lot of iranians with that question. host: our guests who attended u.c. santa barbara want to address the iou situation in california. our phone lines are open. we will get to your calls, tweets and e-mails in a moment but the new republic last month had this story called the puffington post, the consequences of arianna huffington. i want to read one sentence "someone please alert the media, not every issue fits into your cherished right/left paradigm. indeed, that way of looking at the world is becoming less are relevant and more obsolete and more and more dangerous. the words of arianna huffington. >> glenn: yeah, i mean, i think, obviously the point she is trying to make is widely accepted, if not widely practiced, is that many issues these days do not fit neatly

into that kind of traditional left/right spectrum, and by continuing to shoehorn every issue into that spectrum, you end up with a very distorted debate, a debate that doesn't reflect what, you know, people out in the united states and out there are thrifnging about things, and so i think, you know, the type of journalism that we're trying to do at the huffington post, and there are people at mainstream outlets also trying to do this, but we're trying not to look at it through that frame, and i think the end result is a different kind of writing. i think people -- i think it's reflected in the work that we do. host: there is a headline this morning from "the washington post" "honduran leadership stands defiant as the new government scorns any international efforts to reinstate the ousted president." we have a tweet that says why

not the same exposure for honduras? >> it is a very good question. you know, to return briefly to the different types of media that iranians are using, twitter, you hear frequently the events in iran being called a twitter revolution, but without youtube, without video, the crisis there would never have jumped over to television media in the same way, and without that jump, it couldn't have been the worldwide story that it became in the intensity that it was covered, and what you don't see out of honduras right now is the same kind of video that makes it compelling. it is also the story for u.s. media. no one knew who mousavi was, by and large in the united states before, but ahmadinejad was an established head of character for media story lines, so its

was easier to kind of find some base level knowledge among viewers, and then build the rest of the information off of that. with honduras, unfortunately, i think it rarely gets covered in the first place, and so picking up on this crisis and building attention to it is more difficult of a task. host: i want to ask you if you have had on-line relationships with certain individuals in iran? glenn: yeah. it has never been a huge number. during the height of it, there were maybe a dozen or so a day, but then you would be in contact, you know, your iranian-americans or people of iranian descent around the world would send along information or, you know, sentiments from people in iran who they talked to on the telephone, but it's still very dangerous for people there to use the internet. the tools to get around the

censors are fairly complicated for a lot of people, so as i said before, it is a minute fraction that's on-line, and given that, the amount of work that they have been able to do to spread the word about what is happening there when foreign media is completely blocked out is pretty impressive, and i'm never missing an opportunity to thank all the people who do this, because they do so at great risk. host: before joining the huffington post, our guest worked for the center of american progress. ron is on the phone from atlanta. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. host: thank you for listening. caller: i believe that america needs an independent party, first of all, but my question really is why should a social networking system even be allowed to support a coup in a foreign country, in iran, a

violent takeover, and is it possible that the c.i.a. could be writing tweets? to encourage this? thank you. have a great fourth of july. guest: thank you for those questions. you know, it's -- i'm not sure which site you meant was part of the violent coup, but iranian authorities don't want this to be happening, so, you know, it's certainly not legal right now, and the people who are doing it are, you know, again, e saiding the government's wish -- evading the government's wishes there, and the sources of these tweets, much has been written, but there is no way to authenticate where they're coming from. there are some anonymous networks that you can get on merely by you -- a bunch of other data is made anonymous so you can authenticate the

location of the user, and so there is a small number of users on these sites who, at the very least, you can tell that they're in tehran. they're not americans pretending to be iranians, but beyond that, it is very difficult to tell, and, you know, it's been a problem for all the reporters covering this, and some have been more cautious than others. i mean, certainly i'm saying that at the huffington post for the work we do, if we can't verify it, we up front about it and let readers know. typically we don't post anything unless we can, you know, at least check it with, you know, if we see some kind of multiple accounts and try our best to corroborate it through the means that we have. host: michael is on the phone from bouey, maryland. good morning, republican line.

caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. looking at the way that the p president is handling the iranian issue, my question is what is the best -- what do you think is the best situation for the president to be involved in the iranian issue, because it is really a big mess right now, because the president recognizes the president of iran, so what do you think might happen? guest: when you talk to iranians and iranian-americans, they appreciate the way the president has handled this. critics of the president say he isn't supporting the reformists enough. well, their position is that the only reason that the reformists have been able to continue their campaigns both in the streets to the extent that they're still able to, but also more

importantly behind the scenes in these higher power struggles is because the united states hasn't weighed in more heavily. if they had, the reformists, the opposition leaders, would be kowtowed. they wouldn't haved authority there to continue their efforts, and i think going forward, as i mentioned earlier, you see more and more analysts who previously would be very supportive of negotiations, u.s. negotiations with iran. now, i believe that that's not something that we can do. while the u.s. has, particularly since sanctions are to the max, while our hand is relatively weak with iran their belief is that iran's manned is even weaker and given the uncertainty there, at some point khomeini and ahmadinejad are going to

need to make a move. it is likely they will make the wong move. they have made various miscalculations in the past few weeks in handling this, and it may happen again, and certainly the reform movement is still coalesced enough to take advantage of it possibly, so at this point, again, you know, i think you're going to see president obama resist negotiations in a way that he hadn't before, and also continue to take a relatively nuanceed kind of -- i wouldn't say soft spoken but he won't be too aggressive in terms of hissette rick on the issue. host: we have been doing twitter for over a month now, so we're learning some of the symbols and the short version because there is only 140 spaces but this is a tweet for you. what do you think of the name tweet? glenn: i don't like the word blog or tweet, but you end up in, i don't know, i guess the

next generation just won't even mind it. host: what is happening in iran? who won the election based on what evidence you think mousavi won, so why are you calling mousavi a reformist? guest: the first question, what evidence am i basing it on. no one knows. who knows how many people actually know what transpired in the election. it is difficult to say with 100% accuracy. however, i think there is various good reasons to be highly skeptical of the outcome. the results in many cases were just unbelievable. i mean, for example, mousavi according to the official governmentallies lost in his hometown. now, his hometown is -- a vast majority of them are ethnic minorties in iran. mousavi is of the same ethnic

minority. it is as if one iranian american said to me, president obama had won 20% of the african-american vote. i mean, given what we know about the demographics, it's just not going to happen without a massive, you know, just a huge turn of events, and so you've got disparity there. the other thing there is that we have seen several reputable people over seeing the vote that there was widespread fraud, that they didn't count the votes, that they just made up these tallies. roger cohen -- excuse me, bill keller of "the new york times" quoted somebody as saying that, and then the b.b.c.'s reporter also this quotes from the interior ministry official saying that. there are reasons to be highly

skeptical of the vote. it's just unfortunate that we can't be more certain. host: if you're interested, the financial times has a times about mark zuckerburg who is the founder of facebook, did so from his dorm room at harvard university. next is a call from bethesda, maryland. theresa, welcome. go ahead, theresa. we'll try one more time, if you're there. caller: hello, yes. yes, i would like to make some comments about it the so-called facts on iran. i live in america and i have contact with people every day in iran in the past month. i have visited iran twice during the presidency of ahmadinejad. i would like to know why did

people in america receive something that they could not verify? i did not think that was professional. there are reports in iran that the counting was done in two hours after the closing of the polls. another source said it was 13 hours after the closing of the polls. if you count the number of the votes, divided by the districts, and divided by 13 hours, you get 70 votes counted every hour, which is quite possible. the other issue brought up is that the interior ministry does nothing to prove this is the way it was and if you go to the interior ministry, every vote by every candidate in every

district is on the website. if you would like to me, i will help you translate it into english but it is on the website. it has been there more than a week. this is absolutely true. host: appreciate the call. we will get a response from nico pitney. guest: the reasons to be skeptical of this election are fairly clear, but no one can say for certain. i believe she said it was a little hard to hear, but that the votes were counted -- the result was announced 13 hours after the polls were closed, which i don't believe was accurate, so that would be the one i thought i would throw in on her comment. host: from the democrats' line, waterloo, iowa is the next

caller. ted is on the phone. good morning. caller: good morning. hi, nico. is airian that basically your boss? >> yeah, she is my boss. caller: i like her. she is really good. i am calling because there was a reporter on questioned or the day before, i'm not exactly sure but was talking about iraq and how this surge really worked and all this stuff, an i don't know everybody lets those people get away with that. there has been a sunni awakening in the proverbs out away which made it work, because they knew we had an election coming up, and bush was done, and that basically a democrat was going to take over, and so that they switched sides. of course, we paid them, but that's what -- it wasn't the

surge. it was -- even the general that created the surge in iraq -- i can't remember his name. guest: general petraeus? caller: petraeus, yeah. petraeus even admitted that the surge wasn't as effective as it was all reported to be. guest: i haven't been following iraq as closely as i have iran, and so, i mean -- are you from california, by the way? host: the leading los angeles times, the big story and elsewhere in california as the state now is accepting out $5 billion in iou's or vouchers or whatever you want to call them. deep in debt, short on cash. california on thursday turned

out its first batch of iou's in nearly two decades amid grumbles from bankers amid scant progress for the state to resolve the state's widening budget deficit. guest: it is a sad situation there in pennsylvania and in illinois, new york. it is very tough out there, and you know, you just can't -- obviously, you feel frustrated and these numbers look very big, but i think it's always important to remember that essentially there are individuals and lives at stake. people are going hungry and through awful times. at the huffington post, we have tried, and have a reporter whose sole beat is to cover the human side of this economic crisis that we're in, because it's very -- it's critical, and those of us who aren't so, you know, in such bad shape need to be

reminded of that side of it, also. host: our guest is nico pitney, from huffington post on-line at huffingtonpost.com. you can read his blogs from those reporting inside iran following the elections. caller: good morning. yes, i have a question for mr. pitney. the united states was putting a lot of emphasis on iranian relations. if we had put that much emphasis in the 2000 election, would the united states be in the situation it is in now? guest: you're not the first person to say that. there are many merps who write and say, you know, i'm inspired by the iranians. i only wish that we had been as outraged in 2000 with the florida vote, you know.

who knows what would have happened if events had gone differently and people would have, you know, been p protesting. that's coming from lynette murphy who says we need to concentrate on our own voter fraud and not worry about another country's fraud. guest: well, you know, each person can worry about what they want to worry about. there are many people who care deeply -- i mean, their families are in iran. they face, you know, obviously, the threat of violence, and i think it's perfectly reasonable for them to care greatly about what's happening there, and in terms of u.s. interest, it's vital to of course, observe what is taking place there, and hopefully it will end up in a way that makes the region more stable and provides people there with the freedom that they, you know, are seeking, and, you

know, i think it is incredible to me, the stories of ordinary americans who basically only know an ahmadinejad. when they think iran, they think ahmadinejad, and now their view has been completely changed by this crisis. there are people, you know, -- one woman wrote me from texas and said she goes out on her balcony at night and does the chapters they are doing in iran to echo the '79 revolution when they overthrew the shah and this woman is going out in solidarity and doing her chants from her house. there are people putting up bumper stickers that the american people seem to be very supportive of the opposition activists seeking freedom in iran and it's opened up a different side of that country to a lot of people in the united states. host: nico pitney of the huffington post.

thank you for joining us. we appreciate your time. guest: thanks. host: we focused this morning on the economy, but many are talking about the situation in afghanistan as the u.s. is targeting the taliban. jason is covering the story for "the washington times" and will be joining us in a couple of minutes to give us his perspective. also this morning from the cover of the national review is writer jonah goldberg to talk about drilling, and sotomayor and congress. it is friday morning, july 3, part of a holiday weekend. we're back in a moment. cheer clear cheer clear.

>> i think, for example, prince princeton philosophy should be on the web. i think these wonderfully concentrated islands of talent and wealth should be opened up to the larger society, not cultishly kept separate, which they still are, and i can't understand why. >> walter kern, the underhe education of an overachiever on q&a sunday night at 8:00 on c-span. you can listen on xm radio or download the c-span podcast. how is c-span funded? >> the u.s. government. >> i don't know. i think some of the is government raised. >> probably the public. >> i want to say from me. my tax dollars.

>> how is c-span funded? 30 years ago, america's cable companies created c-span as a publics service, a private business initiative, no government mandate, no government money. "washington journal" continues. host: the boston globe has the marines push into the afghan region and from your newspaper this morning, you're calling sarah carter writing from washington, two months before afghan civilians head to the polls u.s. military reinforcements have mounted an offensive against a growing taliban insurgency that is threatening to destablize the upcoming presidential elections. at this point, 4,000 u.s. marines debarked from helicopters in this searing hot insurgent-controlled territory. it will not be easy." can you elaborate? >> yes, the offensive underway right now in helmand province is

going to be the single greatest struggle in afghanistan. this area has deteriorated in the past several years because of the narco trafficking that goes on. there taliban is the opium p producing heartland in afghanistan. that, of course, funds the taliban war chest, which makes them -- puts them in a position to spend more on recruits than the afghan government can even spend, and so it is critical now that they confront this in earnest, and there was an effort last year to push into helmand province but the marines there didn't have the manpower to hold the grounds for as long as they would have liked and had to hand it off to afghan security forces and it slid back into insurgent hands. it this is an effort to seize

the ground and hold it. the tactical direction this time is once forces are on the ground will not be move out or hand it off. they will start and then start to try and make inroads with civil affairs teams. host: a lot of photographs in the papers which we will share with you. this is from "the washington post" and it is from afghanistan. "u.s. military and diplomatic officials say the vast majority of afghans, even those in silence-wracked places like the helmand province"do not want to be ruled by the taliban. if afghans are provided security and basic services, they will switch allegiances and support the local government." easier said than done. guest: easier said than done. one of the issues is that while they may well not support the taliban actively, it's been eight years now since the

taliban was ousted, and in many cases people on the ground have not seen any real sign of the afghan government, u.s. security forces, basic services and development that were promised to them, and so there is not a lot of good faith that they have to build on now, and so in these instances, the taliban insurgents may be the only element that they are really familiar with and while it may be less than ideal, certainly cases where they can make money off of the drug dealing, and whether they will go for less viable alternatives such as farming, this has some appeal for them. coupled with that, you have this increase in civilian casualties resulting from air strikes, from night aids and other military actions, and so that has compounded some of the mistrust that already exists, and people

will say, well, look, you know, we'd like to trust you, but if anything, we have suffered. you haven't given us much to go on. who are we to believe? it is more of a position of being on the fence and waiting for some sort of good faith measures to really take hold and then be sustained and then people may welcome around. host: we showed a map of the region. this photograph in "the new york times" caught my eye because it gives you a sense of the topography and the geography of this province in southern afghanistan. what is your reaction when you see these troops move through this part of the country and what are they facing just in terms of weather conditions, mountainous regions and other factors? >> yeah, i have spent time in helmand province. it is a hostile, rugged area, dry area. temperatures run well above the 100 degree mark. it is not an easy place to fight and secure, and at this point,

because there aren't a lot of military installations, because more than half of the districts are under taliban control, there is not a lot of traction, so the ma evens that are there now are really pushing out into a new area where they can expect to confront hostile elements who want to protect their main cash crop and their foothold in the region, and it's going to be a very, very difficult fight as the summer progresses. it is an environment that suits the insurgency very well, because they're familiar. they're more used to the conditions, the heat and so on, so i think this is a quhap ter of the conflict that is going to grind for some time. even if ground is taken by the u.s. marines and the security forces, it's going to take a lot of effort to really hold on to it. host: we will take your phone calls in a moment. abc news chief correspondent

yesterday on the program something was precise in identifying that while there may be some similarities in the situation in iran and afghanistan, she clearly pointed out there are very deep differences so as we move troops from one country to another, we can't use the nal jy of what worked in iran will work in afghanistan. can you pick up on that point? do you agree with that? guest: i do. there certainly commonalities but afghanistan is a much different scenario. for one, you're not building on a lot of infrastructure that you had in iraq. there are much higher level tz of illiteracy in afghanistan, so in terms of the human capacity for jobs, for reconstruction, there are dree fission sis there -- deficiencies there. it is hostile terrain. it is saft. it is varied. there is desert. there is rugged mountains along the borders, much of which is still an unknown quantity to

outciders, which gives the insurgency a great advantage, so that there are many different factors really, but i think the one that really gets underestimated is culture. you have to look at afghanistan as something independent of any other region. we know that traditionally people have been resistant to outciders meddling in their affairs or certainly when they come under good pretenses, but then the situation evolves to one that people feel they are under threat, that their way of life is being squeezed, and so then i think we can see that their patience is limited there, and there is a ka fas ti to -- a capacity to rise against that sort of threat. we need to look at afghanistan as a separate entity, and i think devise measures that are case specific to its needs and its culture, and that is

something that appears to be in the process now more than it has, i think, in the past. host: you can read more from our guest on "the washington times".com, and there is more about the situation in the afghanistan and "the new york times" pointing out that commanders promising that marines would remain in significant numbers, setting up small operating and logistical bases among the population in afghanistan. that tactic, they say, is central to the success of the so-called troop surge in iraq. pointing out again that 4,000 additional marines moving inside afghanistan, the first major development as part of the strategy put forth by president obama and secretary -- defense secretary gates. charlie is on the phone from baton rouge. good morning. caller: yes, good morning. there are so many things in the sense that you're not allowed to cover, being part of the

mainstream media propagandaists and for the c.i.a. funded media that we have now. anybody interested in knowing more about that -- host: i'm knowing what you mean by the c.i.a.-funded media. caller: well, let's look at a recent article here by paul joseph watson where taliban members have been caught being flown to different parts in iraq, specifically right now is where they caught them here, by u.s. forces to create instability. of course, this is just the tip of the iceberg, a blacks ops operation to foster terrorism against our own troops in order to stimulate hostilities and increase the war. the false spreading of democracy

would have to be questioned about who invited us there? who wanted us there? when did these people ask for it? the fact is we're there to keep up with our imperialistic motives and the perpetuation of war to keep up what is left of this false economy. host: you want to respond to that? guest: first off, i can say that neither myself or anyone i know has any involvement with any intelligence agency, and i'm not one to indulge in conspiracy theories but i can say that is a fair question, why we in afghanistan? quofng it is one that has been addressed for several years. there was some mission creeping in as we went into afghanistan and it wasn't sure what our long-term objective was going to be in afghanistan. i think now, as the cost in terms of human life and our taxpayer dollars has gone up,

and promises to increase in the years ahead as the insurgency picks up, that there is a compulsion to look very clearly at what it is we're really trying to achieve. i think it just goes back to fundamental global security. afghanistan and the tribal areas shared with pakistan were a toe hold for al qaeda and terrorist outfits there who used it as a training ground and staging ground for attacks on the united states and elsewhere and would do it again. while it's not necessarily a savory choice to be in afghanistan, the experience of past powerful militaries bears out, right now, it doesn't seem to be one where we have much of a choice, so the idea then is to have to manage the situation there in a way that is feasible, an at the same time, building some capacity, whether it's

civil or local security forces. i think that they can start to really take the reins of their own affairs so we don't have to be there occupying the country indefinitely. i don't think anyone wants to see that. there are measures underway now to make sure that that does start to happen. host: and a lot of photographs, this one from "the wall street journal", a picture of captain eric meter of the second marine brigade, giving the marines a pep talk before loading up in the helicopters as part of the operation inside afghanistan. what do you think he is telling the troops? guest: he is telling them it is going to be a damn hard fight in this area, that they're going to encounter stiff resistance. it's not going to be easy. no one is going to be holding their hand. i think this is the kind of fight that the marines are trained and psyched up for that it really is a challenge. they want to be sort of at the

forward edge of the spear, as it were, and this is a real opportunity for them to do that. host: our guest writes in "the new york times" that our the marines land in a caldron of afghan resentment. dan is on the phone from shreveport, louisiana. good morning. caller: good morning. i have been in and out of afghanistan since the soviet era, and i'm telling you, there are compelling reasons to be there, just to eliminate the taliban, you know. they used artillery to bring down a 3,000 statue. one thing about this narco trafficking income they pick up, i understand that they are totally against narco trafficking and they crushed the opium industry when they were in power in afghanistan. host: let me follow up, because

there is a tweet that says can you tell us why president bush did not burn all the poppy fields in the helmand sally after 9/11? is it true that 60% of opium have from there? guest: sure. i will take your question first. thank you. well, the taliban was interested in policy and they were against narcotics. that goes part and parcel with their reading of islam in general, but that said, they were more practical, also, and there were isolated pockets where they were reported to be involved in the drug trade or at least turning a blind eye to it in exchange for some kickbacks because they do have, again, very real considerations they need to make as far as funding their fighters, attracting foreign fighters, and so forth, and afghanistan, as a country, where unfortunately, there are not a lot of revenue generators right now, more traditionally

such as farming and industry. 30 years of war really shattered what infrastructure was there, as well as a hot of the agricultural traditions that were very strong in the country. you know, orchards, for example, during the soviet war, the '80's war, are tantamount to ambush as far as the soviets were concerned and so a lot of those were razeed, and so there is really not a lot to go on. opium poppy is a crop that is naturally suited to the terrain and highly lucrative. there is a great demand from afghanistan's neighbors and abroad, starting with iran, which has well over a million addicts all the way over to the united states. it is an issue of global concern, and i think that that goes in large part to explain why the opium industry is so strong in afghanistan.

at the same time, they are using it now to pay their fighters. they can pay up to four times what the afghan police can in of much of the country, so it really presents kind of a no-brainer proposition to afghans who are very poor living under the poverty line, and this is a consistent way for them to make a living. certainly, where there are flo security forces or police to look over their shoulder, so i think that goes a long way to explaining that. as far as the president, president bush destroying opium poppy, that is not a likely prp sigs, because it's just so white spread around the country, and again, that's presuming that you have control over these areas, which is not always the case. vast areas are controlled by warlords with powerful influence in kabul and elsewhere. some are commanders in the

militias. it is not easy to go in and raze the crops, if they are, in fact, identified and if troops, police can get out there to begin with. of course, there are also issues of corruption that tie in with this drug phenomenon. there are stories of drug enforcement teams going out and destroying one field of opium poppy on one side of the river bed and leaving another to grow. in effect, showing that kickbacks may have been paid by certain people with clout in the government to preserve their crop at the expense of another and send the market value up, so corruption is intertwined in all of this as well. it is a very complex phenomenon, and i don't think it would be an overstatement to say that afghanistan has become a de facto na. co state because it runs from the insurgents from farmers

growing under them, by choice or force, police officials at the local are level and all the way up to government officials and family members of top level government ministers, so it cuts to the very heart of the conflict today. >> if you're listening on c-span, our guest is jason mutlogh, a correspondent for "the washington times". the call is by sarah carter. "the washington times" points out that the u.s. offensive launched shortly after 1:00 a.m. questioned in the western helmand province, in a campaign that aims to strike at the heart of the taliban. dottie is on the phone from cocoa, florida. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you all doing in washington, d.c.? guest: fine, thank you. caller: there are areas that you pointed out astutely, and i

can't get over why don't we buy those poppy crops from those poor people? i mean, i have seen documents ries, yada, yada, and they get money fronted to them and they have to return the crop to the warlord or their daughter gets married to some creep somewhere, and also when we began all this after the 9/11 and went to afghanistan, you know, hoorah, hoorah, and the taliban and al qaeda, how connected are they? are they connected? is it, like just a mishmash? and when we see these people struggling and burn the one thing they grow, why wouldn't they think we're either just stupid or ail gwens from another planet? guest: well, there have been some proposals put forward to purchase opium poppy in some

restricted arrangement whereby western pharmaceutical companies start to use this for open quats-based drugs in hospitals and so on, but i think those ideas haven't gained much traction for several reasons. one, the drug debate is still very much a hot one in the u.s. and in the west, and would this be equivalent to making concessions in a war that worry's still fighting, and still sort of questioning our own strategies and view of that. what kind of compromises can we make and what can we do? so that's still something that remains to be seen. at the same time, there is a fear of legalizing criminality in afghanistan, because you have these very entrenched networks that have made a lot of money, that if this was somehow accept ed, and in the system,

that they would be able to piggyback on that system, and it would then amount to a tacit acceptance of some of their operations, and i think the sense is that afghanistan is still in such a fragile state, that that might be going too far. at the same time, i do also think that some of the ap p approaches to date to the drug issue there does need to be reconsidered very critically in terms of just what the end result has been to date. it's been eight years now, and we have clearly not made significant inodes against drug trafficking in afghanistan. we haven't provided a real alternative to opium poppy, and so for a lot of people who are without government support on the basic services, steady jobs, it's a choice that they have to make in some cases. host: the houston chronicle puts

this story front page, indicating that one marine soldier believed to be captured as a result of his movements in a remote outpost in what they call the volatile region of eastern afghanistan. tom is on the phone from west hills, california. good morning. republican line. caller: good morning. well, believe it or not, my question involves the poppy fields, also. it seems to me ultimately that's the solution to cut the funding for the taliban. i'm wondering here in the united states, we pay a few billion dollars to our farmers to not go crops. i wonder if we could use a similar approach over there, so that would be my question. guest: again, we're talking about a lot of people and a lot of money, and you know, in the final analysis, that could well be more cost-effective than fighting the drug war there. i'm not entirely sure, myself.

i couldn't say definitively. host: this tweet coming in we napalmed vietnam, why not all along the h elmand valley? >> i don't think anyone wants to go back to napalm in vietnam. that has its own costs. as we see from the backlash from these air strikes. i mean, it's just having a measurable effect on public support for the government and u.s.-led security forces so i don't think that is an option at this point. really, it's a matter of winning faith, and that's going to take time. it's going to take really interfacing with communities showing that we're not there one day an gone tomorrow, that we're making an investment with our money and manpower on the grown to give them something they can believe in. that's not going to be easy. there is always a cost that comes with that, but i think at this point in time, given how many afghans really have so little to go on, that that is

really what is going to be needed. host: joining us from seb bestian florida on the democrats line, welcome. caller: thank you. you have articulated the opium problem so well. thank you so much. guest: thank you. caller: it appears to be a cultural issue. i'm concerned that the government agencies are not looking for americans who can go over and talk to these folks and try and help them and give them money like we did in iraq. we paid off all provinces in iraq. i have a dear friend in kabul at the moment. he has been there for a year and a half. he has been working with irg, and he has infiltrated some of the areas after the roads were being rebuilt and he is an

indian and volunteered to go over there and work for a good amount of money, i'm sure, but also to get involved with the culture. would you address that? what is the government doing? guest: you mean in relation to combatting the drug trade? i'm assuming that. ok. well, culture is something that needs to be taken more seriously. we're seeing steps in that direction, i think. i don't necessarily believe that the opium trade is tied to culture. i think that's something that could be dissosh shaitsed from the afghan people, if they had something that was viable in its absence. they're pragmatic people. i think pragmatism wins the day, but so far, they haven't. we have seen initiatives with pomegranates an wheat and other commodities but those have never really taken off. this is the scourge of afghanistan, is that this particular crop is just so

abundant, easy to grow. it thrives in the environment there, and there are networks that are willing to take advantage of the insecurity, both in afghanistan and along its borders to turn that into a very human being cra tiff industry, did a very lucrative industry. it goes from independent people that work and to the police to the highest echelons of government. it is not something that is going to go away easily. host: we have two more calls and one more tweet. carol tweets the name karzai has yesterday to be -- has yet to be uttered this morning. guest: interesting point. as you know, the elections are scheduled for august 20th, and it seems now the sense in kabul and elsewhere that karzai is the odds-on favorite to win a second term. if you look back even last year, this seemed highly unlikely.

he was facing criticism from the west as soon as president obama took the election, and he made pointed comments about karzai's inability to root out corruption in his administration and it seemed that this was a prelude to a changing of the guard, that he was not going to get as much support from the u.s. as he has almost unflinchingly in the past, but he has very shrewdly coopted a lot of his chief pone efntses in the months up to the election on all fronts, showing political acumen as he has shown in office, and it seems now despite his high popularity among the afghan public, his first term was 50% and now is somewhere 30% think he is not suited for the job.

. guest: a lot of the afghan public are skeptical and cynical. that could be reflected in the voter turnout. host: jason motlagh is a correspondent for "the washington times." caller: actions are being taken

in the middle east. why is it not genocide? that is exactly what is happening. host: you describe it as a genocide? caller: against the afghan people, the palestinians, africa, darfur. term is genocide. guest: i would make some distinctions. i would not say it is genocide in afghanistan. i have covered the issue of civilian casualties closely. i do not think it has garnered enough attention in the media. i think the backlash is having on efforts there is something that cannot be overestimated. i do think that the u.s. and the regional partners have strategic

interests and genuine concerns for the future of afghanistan. anyone who goes there and spends time, most everyone develops some affinity for the afghan people and some of the -- sympathy for what they have had to deal with. they were on their way up. they got caught in a storm. they have suffered conflict often on for 30 years. that is not something that changes overnight. now, it is a matter of reaching out and making the sacrifices while being practical at the same time to find some semblance of stability. it will not be perfect. but we need to find some stability where the country can attract investments. people can move freely, rights can be espoused, and so on. they can move out of the shadow

of the taliban and other insurgent groups that want to exploit their problems. host: this tweet payment earlier. is there any evidence that russia is helping to arm the afghan resistance? this could be a prelude to the president traveling to russia on sunday and monday. guest: to my knowledge, no. that is not to say it is not the case. there are concerns about arms from third countries reaching the insurgents. we have found things with russian, chinese markings. how do they get there? are they from third-party non- government the parties? if they are affiliated with the government, that is not certain. i do not know of any russian arrangement with the taliban or any related insurgent groups.

host: robert is our last call from illinois. caller: the designated the united states as the policeman of the world? we need to take care of our people here in the united states. as far as buying poppies from over there, we are broke. we do not have money. get out of there. let them fight amongst themselves. obama campaigned on getting out of iraq and the fighting over there. let's get out of there and forget about it. let's get our money back in the united states where it belongs. let's get manufacturing back in the united states instead of buying from elsewhere. every part i by now says china or korea. have a good day.

host: when will you return to the region? guest: i will be there in august for the elections. i will be there for about a month. host: jason motlagh has been our guest. you can always log on to their web site at washingtontimes.com we have a lot to talk about with our next guest, including the cover story of the july 6 edition. we will get his thoughts on the obama administration, the 111th congress, and judge sonia sotomayor. first, we have a news update from c-span radio. >> more on the president's upcoming trip to russia. they will allow the u.s. to ship weapons across the territory to a afghanistan.

president megadeath and president of, are expected to sign an agreement on this next week in moscow. bridget president ned the death -- president medvedev and president of, are expected to sign an agreement next week. there is family time on the schedule of the vice president. his son is stationed just a couple of minutes from camp victory. the family enjoyed a smaller union. "the wall street journal" reports that the system designed to protect u.s. computer networks is being delayed by at technical considerations and privacy concerns. the einstein system will not be fully installed for 18 months. that is seven months -- seven years after it was first set up. the publisher of the paper has canceled the policy dinners that were to be underwritten by lobbyists or corporations

willing to pay thousands of dollars to be in the same room as journalists and lawmakers. some who were invited said they were not told that the defense would make money for the newspaper. the concept raised questions about journalistic ethics. ken salazar says that on the fourth of july, we are giving america a special gift. for the first time since 9/11, the observation deck in the crown of the statue of liberty will reopen to the public. tomorrow, up 30 visitors will be chosen every hour by lottery. they will be allowed to climb the spiral staircase to the crown. the statue sees as many as 15,000 visitors every day. president obama flies to camp david this morning for the first part of the fourth of july celebration of his family, including his daughters of 11th birthday tomorrow. about 20 of her friends will be on hand for the festivities. in an interview, the president

says is little intimidating to be around that many girls. the first family will return to the white house to post military families for a fourth of july barbecue on the south lawn. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome back the editor at large for the magazine. let me begin with the headline. you say that this falls short of a serious energy policy. host: can you elaborate? guest: barack obama has said to

this day that we cannot drill our way out of our energy problems. that is true. there are other things besides drilling for oil that we need to do. but drilling for oil is one thing we definitely need to do. it is a necessary but not sufficient solution to our problems. we have a remarkable amount of oil but we can get at. when barack obama it is artificially sustaining the of the industry's -- the automotive industries that do not pay as well as the oil and gas industry and are not as central to our economic life in some ways, he is doing everything he can to make it difficult to drill for more will. most of the safety and environmental concerns that people have about oil drilling do not have much merit, i think.

if you take the global warming argument out of it for a moment, it is idiotic not to drill for more oil in the united states. host guest: that is right. india and china alone and are going to outstrip us in terms of greenhouse gases very quickly. i think china already has. china is building a cold-fired -- coal-fired plant every 10 days. they have no interest in agreeing to capping or limiting their production of fossil fuels and greenhouse gases. anything that we do on this front is remarkably negligible. it will have the unintended

consequence of outsourcing carbon-dependent jobs to countries where it is cheaper to use them. at the same time, the obama administration and others will say that cap and tree does not do much on its own. it does a lot of bad, but not much good on its own. they will say that we need to lead the world by example. that is undermined by the fact that for 30 years, we have made it very difficult to drill for oil and natural gas in the united states. no one has followed that example. if you tell someone in brazil, saudi arabia, or the united kingdom not to drill for oil because they should follow our noble example, they would laugh in your face. the production of greenhouse gases will continue whether we pass this or not. we're just cobbling ourselves. i would put the emphasis on

nuclear, carbon sequestration, agricultural policies. but cap and trade strikes me as a profoundly wrong way to pursue this stuff. host: congressman waxman will be with us for an hour on monday. we will ask him about that. this book came out two years ago. in the book, you say this. guest: if people want to read more about the book, they can go to c-span.org and look up one of the speeches i gave on the book.

the basic argument of the book that i make is essentially that fascism was always a phenomenon of the left. the national socialists, mussolini was a socialist. i argue that american progressivism that was a progressive revolution was part of the same moment and intellectual life. american progressivism borrowed great number of ideas from the same occurrence that led to italian fascism and vice versa. the argument in the book is for people who know nothing about it. it is not that i think american liberals arnaz these -- levels are mab -- liberals -- i am not saying that think american liberals are nazis that want to

put people into camps. case in point is the barack obama campaign. he ran as a spiritualized figure. there was all of the messiah talk. there was this deification of the masses. his volunteers were told not to talk about issues. instead, they were told to testify about how they came to obama in the way that one would talk about coming to jesus. michele obama talked about fixing people's souls. this is very much keeping with italian fascism and others on the left. the idea that we can find spiritual sustenance in politics was central to the obama campaign. there is this idea that we must rally behind the charismatic

leader, putting aside all of our differences. still to this day, barack obama talked about putting aside etiology while he hasn' an incredibly ecological movement. i made all of these predictions about where liberalism was going in terms of economics. we see big government and big business getting in bed together. we saw wal-mart getting in bed with big government. all of that was written about a year before i knew who barack obama really was. host: he is also a contributor to the fox news channel. we have a telephone call from here in washington, d.c., on the democrats' line. caller: most of the crude oil we get in the united states is not fit for consumption in the united states. that is why we sell the majority

of it overseas. it would be too costly for us to purify to use it here. conservatives are the ones that believe that people ought to be kept at certain levels and if they break the law, they should be in jail. they are more of the mind where individuals should be held to a certain standard. liberals are more likely to work with people for results instead of, with a stern. of view about how something should proceed. guest: those are interesting points. on the oil part, i do not think he can speak as if all of the oil iunder the control of the united states is all unsuitable

for american production. i do not think that is true of the oil in the gulf of mexico. it is true of the oil-field in the upper west that has an enormous amount of oil in it, but it is mostly in shale. it is very expensive to get out and is not cost-effective yet. on fascism, that is an odd argument. i do like the idea that conservatives believe that people who break the law should go to jail whereas liberals do not. i am not sure how that fits into the fascist paradigm. i am perfectly plaid to take the rap as a conservative that we think that people that break the lock should go to jail. host: would you put barack obama into the same category as barack obama? in terms of his ability to

excite the public and communicate a message? guest: it certainly seems that we so far. there are very few politicians that you can think of like that. ronald reagan was one, bobby kennedy was another. i think barack obama fits the mold that he is true to his word that he wants to be a transformational president. i do think he has a healthy ego about his own role in society. there is a practical aspect to this period as inspirational as he is rigid there is a practical aspect to this. as inspirational as he is, those things are less important trade is not a big thing that a president can get a rally going.

he has to be able to implement policies that are successful. as a candidate, he is very similar to ronald reagan in that respect. they are different illogically. as a president, remains to be seen. it is beginning to look like he has written off more than he can chew. if the policies fail, if the economy keeps getting worse, if we have crazy inflation, i do not think it matters how inspirational he was. the policies themselves will swamp that. host: do you tweet? guest: i do not. i never thought that the world was suffering for a lack of outlets for me to express my opinions. host: she is asking if you recall george w. bush a fascist. guest: of recall many aspects of

george bush -- in the book, i say that he flirted with fascism. i do not think that george bush implemented a police state in the united states. people who think that would have to explain why barack obama has not continued that since he has adopted almost wholesale all the policies enacted by bush. host: we have a telephone call from oregon. caller: i am concerned about the aspect of drilling again. i come from down below loss angeles before. -- i come from down below los angeles before. i have dealt with the pollution there. it is mostly from automobiles. i am concerned about how we do not fade away from the situation

that is killing us, in a sense. if you look around the world, we're going down the forests everywhere. we are dissolving the filtered situation of the planet. we are pleading on top of that. i get frustrated when people want to delve back into drilling. look at the skillpills that have contaminated areas. do we have to compete that much with the rest of the planet? do we need to set an example before we destroy the whole ecosystem to where none of us are doing any good? guest: i think he very well expresses the mindset that oil

is sort of the poison running through mother earth. 1. i made in the piece is that hatred of oil pre-dates any notion of global-warming. the idea that oil is the lifeblood of capitalism and therefore bad, comes before we were even talking about the fear of a coming ice age. i understand those concerns. there are legitimate environmental problems. deforestation is one of them. the state of the oceans is abysmal. it is important to tease out some of these things. the danger of oil spills has been greatly reduced. i concentrated on offshore drilling. the safety and environmental record of the oil platforms is

astounding in terms of what man can accomplish these days. it is much safer than 40 years ago with the santa monica oil spill that launched the environmental movement in this country the oil tankers to need work. one reason why drilling on our own soil makes sense is because you have to rely on fewer oil tankers from around the world. i think you have to disaggregate some of these things. the caller was trying to make this an indictment of oil. you have to make it more practical issue. we're never going to convince the rest of the world to stop drilling for oil because we have stopped. what will get people to stop drilling is one we find a better

fuel than oil. right now, we do not have won. oil is a great fuel for the things that it is good for. i hope that someday soon, we come up with the battery technology, the hydrogen fuel cells, and the other things that will help to make will obsolete. we are not close to that yet. host: you point out that you cannot travel to the oil rigs in the gulf of mexico without a hard hat and safety goggles. guest: i went out there at the middle of last month. i had to do some sea survival training. i had to get in a helicopter simulators and crashed into a swimming pool. i had to learn how to make a flotation device out of my jumpsuit. i have been to anwar as well. what impressed me was how deadly

seriously these people take environmental safety. people are talking about good jobs. nancy pelosi said the bill was about jobs, jobs, jobs. i think that was a good indication that it was not a bout jobs. these green jobs are mostly part-time, short-term jobs weatherizing grandmother's attic. on the other hand, these are excellent jobs for people who are not college educated. as the classic blue collar job. we're not killing the oil industry, but we are certainly not letting it grow. host: our next call is from bill in virginia.

caller: i want to move over to health care. can you define what a subsidy is for me? guest: a subsidy is when the government raised the cost of something either directly or indirectly. a subsidy is when the government defrays the cost of something either directly or indirectly. caller: the dictionary says it is a gift to a person or country. the other night, president obama was asked a question about the possible taxing of the premiums that employers and employees pay for health insurance. he began his answer by saying that you need to understand that the money we pay for health insurance premiums is not taxed. that adds up to a huge subsidy for workers and employers.

that is so incredibly illustrative of the way that liberals think. just because they cannot tax the money i spend to provide myself with health-care, in their minds, that adds up to be a government subsidy. it has been eating at me ever since i saw him. [laughter] guestcaller: as soon as i heardm say that, i went to the dictionary and looked up a "subsidy." i will hang up now. thank you. guest: i agree with you entirely. the mainstream view supports where you're saying. the idea that you hear from barack obama often when he talks about spreading the wealth or tax cuts for the rich under bush being a massive transfer payment from the port to the wealthy --

from the poor to the wealthy or bill clinton talking about people's spending the money wrong, the liberal mind-set works from the basic assumption that there is a defined pool of wealth out there that belongs to the government. the government gets to decide how it is distributed. the conservative point of view is that there is a defined amount of oil out there, but is created by individuals. we have laws that say certain amounts of it can be taken away from the people that created it for good public purposes. the left as a completely opposite view. it is the government's money and belongs to the collective and they get to decide how to dole it out. not taxing something from the liberal perspective is considered to be a subsidy. that being said, i am not as opposed to removing of the tax benefit on the health care benefits thing.

i think one of the things the bush administration recognized and what the obama administration is coming to realize is that it is crazy to have a system where your lifeline to health care and everything else comes through your job. the idea that health care or insurance benefits come through your job is an anachronism from world war ii. in order to attract the best workers, employers would provide other benefits in lieu of wages. that system made a lot of sense and the days when you would stick with one job for four years -- for 40 years and then retire. people now switch jobs many times in their lives. the idea that every time you do that, you lose all of your

connections to insurance and what not makes a lot less sense. i am for a major overhaul of health care, but not socialized medicine. that would involve liberating the markets so that the health care is stuck to the person instead of the job. host: this is eight weeks -- this is a tweet. andre is on the phone from new jersey. caller: we had just suffered eight years of a terrible government regime in george w. bush. for obama to get us out of this situation, how can he be critically judged so far with

less than a year in office? we elected bush in. we had to live with his decisions. why is it so hard for the american people to come together to dig out of the situation with the president and follow his lead? guest: this is a democracy. i seem to recall quite a few people complaining about the way that bush did things when they thought he was wrong. i think the way barack obama is doing things is wrong. i see no reason why in a democracy we should not say that when we think those things. the idea that we cannot judge what he is doing it seems to be unpersuasive. he has put forward major policy proposals.

he has dedicated trillions of dollars to certain ends. he made predictions about how the stimulus plan would work. it is not working the way he said it would. the idea that everyone should stay quiet while he tries to dig us out of the problem, the metaphor only works if everyone agrees that the way he is doing it makes sense. if you are in a collapsed cave and designate someone to did you out but all he does is make papier-mache dolls, you tell him to stop. it is an obligation and not a luxury to say that the policies are wrong. i may be wrong. that is part of democracy. the democrats have pursued still-devised policies that have more to do with any ideological and political agenda than they have to do with getting us out of this mess.

host: you can read more of his work on line. the link is also available through c-span.org guest: it is much easier to rule out the guys who will not be. host: give your general observations about sanford. guest: he should just go. he is an embarrassment. one can have all sorts of arguments about whether cheating on your wife should disqualify you from public office. they are all moot at this point. he has made an unholy spectacle of himself with this movable feast of in bears' offense and seminars on in relating king david -- on emulating king

david. he is not that important to his state or the party. host: there is a new peace in the "vanity fair" on sarah palin. have you read it? guest: it seems to be a rehashing of familiar things. i think all politicians that and see a path towards the presidency think about it seriously. i think she is indisputably ambitious. i do not mean that in a bad way. most politicians have to be ambitious or they would get out of politics. i think she is taking it seriously. host: someone is saying that the early odds on favorite is mitt

romney. guest: i have met him several times. he is a friend of "national review." i am not completely sold on him. in many ways, he fits the criteria for the gop. he can talk seriously and in depth about economic policy. that is a strength of his. he is a grown-up. he is a serious guy. he has been vetted in the public enough times. even though he is a mormon, he is married to one woman and he is sticking with her. the gop has a long history of picking the guy whose turn it is. we picked bob dole because it was perceived to be his turn. the same thing with john mccain. there are a lot of people who think it is his turn. the lesson of barack obama it

is at this stage of the game, it is entirely possible we do not even know the name of the person that winds up getting the nomination. host: will sonia sotomayor be confirmed by the senate gu? guest: yeah. caller: can you hear me? host: hell are you doing in little rock? -- how are you doing in little rock? caller: it is hot down here. i am a true independent. i am a bit of a conservative. i have to tell you that the lines have been blurred between liberals and conservatives. mussolini was the father of fascism.

he said this. he said that the definition of fascism is a government that merges with corporations or corporations that control government, either one. the government controlled by a corporation was the bush government. now the obama government is controlling the corporations. both are fascism. they are two sides of the same fascist coin. guest: that quotation is often pictured. you got most of it right. he was referring to something called corporatism. that is a real political doctrine that was popular in the united states and europe. it comes out of catholic thinking in the 19th century as a replacement or alternative to liberal democracy and free- market capitalism carried the

corporatism does not entirely refer to big corporations. that is something that the left often tries to say. it means labor unions, and guilds, universities, the church, the big institutions in society. the idea behind corporatism is that all of the big players sit around a table and figure out how to work cooperatively for the greater good. this was the idea that inflamed the minds of the american progressives during the progress of europe. we do see it on display with barack obama talking about getting wal-mart at the table and getting the health insurance companies at the table. the labor unions and the government now on general motors. the idea behind this is that we need to move beyond the idea of competition where everyone works together. if we all try our hardest, which

can make this the best your book ever. that sort of mind set defines much of american liberalism. in the conservatives and republican party, to many liberals think you are conservative if you are pro- business. they should not necessarily be pro-business. they should be pro-markets. some of that has been lost. some of that was lost during the bush era. when you have the big players around a table, the people that its group are the small businesses -- the people that get screwed on the small businesses and individuals. that is what we saw with the new deal. that is what we're seeing today. host: we want to welcome our radio listeners and viewers.

host: there you go. guest: i was not planning on bringing up ron paul, but there are plenty of other people i was not planning on bringing up. i like him. i liked having him in the primary. it was nice to have a libertarian. he is not my favorite kind of libertarian. he is a useful voice to have in there. i like these big fights on the right. that is one of the things that keeps us healthy. we're constantly revisiting our dog, and questioning where we should come down on things. ron paul has some friends i do not like. he has dabbled in some ideas i do not like. i do not like the way talks about foreign policy. if you listen to him, he would think that the republican party

-- you would think that the republican party from eisenhower to ronald reagan was an isolationist party. that is nonsense. i have much less problem with having ron paul in there that i had with mike, to huckabee. huckabee really is different. the beauty of a libertarian is that no matter how bad his personal views may be, they do not matter as much. the libertarian would not want to impose his views on people. with mike huckabee, was sold it for me was because he said he was in favor of a nationwide ban on smoking because he does not

like smoking. that bothered me more than anything that ron paul could have said. caller: hell are you doing today -- how are you doing today? the thing that really upsets me the most is that term fascism. if you look in the webster's dictionary, is where the government helps corporations. i have been fussing about that. i am active in the republican party. they have asked me to run for the state house. it would have involved moving so i turned it down. one thing you said that i really like is that we are entitled to speak up. i am retired from the oil and

gas business. donald rumsfeld gave saddam hussein the material to gas the kurds. we gave that to him under reagan. we supported him. my first complaint was why should we just give it to them? we should have sold it to them during my second complete was why we were harming both iran and iraq. that was none of our business. even though i agreed with some of the things you said, my biggest complaint is that fascism is what we saw. towards the end of the years, all of my friends agreed with

me. i have one friend that has street kids in the military. i cannot repeat what she said about bush. she was one of his strongest supporters. host: the book is called "liberal fascism." guest: there was a lot in that call. i do not think even webster's says that fascism is the marriage of corporations and government. that is part of it, to be sure i have a whole chapter on fascist economics. fascism is born from a specific moment in international politics. i mean politics in the broadest sense having to do with culture and literature. in many ways, it was a response to international socialism. that was based on the idea that your objective class status defined to you were. workers of the world unite, as

it says in the communist manifesto. the workers in different countries and bond greater than their culture, nationality, or language. it was not popular enough to win over people in germany, italy, and other places. a lot of workers in places like germany, italy, and united states liked the ideas of socialism. they liked the precepts of socialism and the redistribution, but they did not like internationalism. they did not like the idea of paying but service to moscow. they liked the idea that said you could be a socialist and a german or an italian. mussolini was one of the most

important socialist intellectuals in italy. he never abandoned his love of socialism. he realized his path to political power would come with promising socialism but also a populist nationalism terry and the merger of government and business is incidental to larger idea of nationalizing and spiritualizing the group collected towards national teams. that was what was at the heart of fascism. a lot of people say that big government and big business in bed together is fascism. it is not good. it is not something i like, but it does not stop the conversation. it merely starts it.

host: earlier this week, "the new york times" pointed out these facts. the house approved the requirement last week that american utilities generate more of their power from renewable sources of energy. china is on track to pass the u.s. as the world's largest market for wind turbines. the point is that they are further ahead in many respects on clean energy. guest: there is nothing wrong with green energy. the problem is that you could quintuple the amount of energy produced by solar and wind. it was still make up a tiny fraction of our energy needs. it is no surprise that china

wants to get into this business. they better reasons to get into some of the green stuff than we do. their air quality is so abysmal. the idea that we will somehow turn the midwest and the coasts of the united states into giant wind farms to power ourselves out of our problems is far more fanciful than the idea that we could drill our way out of our problems. host: in this piece, he writes the developing alternative energy sources makes sense. host: mary is joining us from

kalamazoo, mich. caller: i have been a liberal democrat all my life. mr. goldberg, i have been a detractor of years. i voted for barack obama. i consider it the biggest mistake i have ever made in my entire life. i went from someone who defended my party to someone who is extremely angry at my party. i will never vote for them again. i live in michigan. i have looked around my state. all this talk about building windfarms, instead of contacting local domestic firms to create these, they have contacted with companies in spain. when the governor of pennsylvania was going to build a wind farm he went directly to

madrid. china has the resources to develop all of these technologies because they are of very wealthy country now. they will continue to burn coal. they are purchasing up huge stores of oil and other products to protect their own economy. we are bleeding our economy drive. the democratic party is saying that we will have to subsidize china, india, and other countries not to pollute when they will definitely continue pleading. i believe my party is so corrupted that they are seeking to destroy our economy. that means destroying our lives. guest: whether it is purely corruption or just an aspect of it, there is a correction of an environmental constituency in the democratic party that is

seeing this as an opportunity for political treats. it is also in the ideological obsession. the idea that this the greatest hoax ever perpetuated is a reference to tom friedman from "and york times -- from "the new york times." even if it were not true, he thinks that global warming is forcing us to do these smart things. i think that is idiotic. it is forcing us to do all the things you are describing in terms of outsourcing vast quantities of economic activity and job production to countries of laughing at us for going down this path. host: we go to martin in nashville, tenn.

caller: you keep talking about being a conservative and stuff like that. i wonder what you think about the union workers supposed to take tax cuts. guest: i do not know that union workers -- i think we would disagree on the net benefit of unions in certain industries. i do not know how to respond. i think the premise is balls. host: reed is joining us on the republican line. caller: thank you for the opportunity to speak. i have a question for your guest. i wanted him to comment on a higher level aspect of politics. i would like to get a comment on what soft tyranny is and how the

democrats are chipping away at our rights. it is like they keep coming up to the table with this rotten meat. we all know that we will not eat it. they will not even eat their rotten meat. but they will play this game and that somehow conservatives are holding society hostage and that there is some eutopia out there. can you comment on how soft tierney will chip away at our rights? -- soft tyranny will chip away at our rights? guest: that is one theme of the book. he says that he would rather have hithe current -- people

understand that sometimes the curtailment of liberty makes sense. the draft is one of the greatest curtailments of individual liberty ever conceived of. in times of war, it is sometimes necessary. what is not necessary is all these smaller increments on personal liberty that we see rolling out quietly. they say the politically correct people are funny, but over time, it is a death by a thousand cuts. in this bill, there is a rule that says you cannot sell your home unless someone from the federal government comes and makes sure that you have made it energy efficient first. that is going to impose costs of varying degrees on americans. the federal government is deciding when and how you can

sell your own home. 1. i make in the book is that the classical orwellian 1984 vision will probably never come to the united states. we are at liberty-loving people. there is still the possibility of the brave new world vision for people have pre-packaged and joy and happiness delivered at their doors. it would render what c.s. lewis calls now and without chess men wit -- men without chests. the bigger danger is the idea that the government will do all these things for you. it will sap initiative. that is a far bigger danger.

i think we are heading in that direction. host: chris is joining us from florida. caller: i want to make a statement and then i will hang up. you always hear about the conservatives saying it is the liberals. the conservatives had china with nixon. there was the star in vietnam. what does that say to people in the war? q. are rewarding them. if the government could make money off the taliban, they would be doing manufacturing for us if it were up to the republicans. you talk about gun-control and how is the liberals. it is the brady bill. that was president reagan's chief of staff. there was aig.

you started buying up these companies. the medicaid b program is a socialist program. host: brady was president reagan's press secretary. guest: he was shot in the head and his wife became an activist. it is ludicrous that to say somehow republicans are in favor of gun control because of the tragedy of brady. i challenge you to look at voting records. the idea of trying to make republicans hypocrites on that is silly. some of the things he alludes to are things that i have criticized. i am not sure where the point of all this is. i hear things about bush and republicans and who am i to criticize liberals.

the argument that because bush was wrong makes it ok for obama to be very wrong is a deep policy. host: good morning. caller: i disagree with liberals being fascists. i find that funny. under your definition of fascism, with corporate lobbyists writing legislation being approved by congress fall under that definition? do you think the vacuum in the republican party is because of dick cheney picking himself as vice president? guest: i would not go as far as you go, but i do think there was a big problem with the primaries. we did not have the incumbent that represented the bush years in the race for everyone to key off of and criticize. there was a v