host: 233 years ago, our founding fathers declared inpence with these words "we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain rights an among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. good morning and welcome to the "washington journal" today is july 4th, independence day. later in the program, we will talk more about the declaration of independence and how it came to be, but for the first part of the program, we want to talk about alaska governor sarah palin, who has announced that she plans to leaves office. she is going to resign, and she is not going to be seeking a second term or to find out what you think about that and what you think that means for the

g.o.p. what's next for the g.o.p. after the resignation of governor palin, who was talked about as being a potential candidate in 2012 for the republican party? the numbers -- you can also send an e-mail -- or send us a twitter at c-span wj. we'll get to your phone calls and your messages in just a few seconds. we want to first check in with erica bolstad, the washington correspondent for the anchorage daily news an joins us by phone. welcome to the program. >> thanks for having me. host: how much time were you given, because this news conference was called fairly quickly. how much time were you given in advance of this news conference to get ready to hear what the

governor had to say yesterday? guest: i wasn't even anywhere near it because i was in washington, but like most of washington, they were not working yesterday or just shortly after it happened literally was when i found out about it, and when we started hearing reports from some of the folks who were there who were telling us what had just happened and what she had decided to do, so it was a big scramble yesterday, definitely. >> why do you think she chose the day before independence day to make this announcement. guest: you know, there is no second-guessing governor palin on stuff like this. there is so many reasons she could have decided to do it today t could just be that she had made her decision and my guess is that she made her decision and just wasn't going to sit on it anymore, and this was the time to do it, i guess. host: on-line, your story with the headline "palin decision

mystifies some, thrills others. national reaction, democrats cite bizarre behavior. you quote stuart roy, a political consultant who has worked for republican congressional leaders. he says maybe there is a personal reason of some sort, but barring that, if it's a political move geared to 2012, it is one of the most millie tone-deaf moves in years. two and a half years as governor doesn't mean you shouldn't be president,," is that generally the tone or reaction of folks connected with either the governor directly or indirectly? >> that is across the board what you heard from republicans, democrats, everyone, basically to boil it down, if she does want to run for president in 2012, if that is what she wants to do, then why the heck did she do this? that is exactly what you heard over and over again. host: you go on to write that palin's staunchest supporters in

the anti-abortion movement say they were pleased and appreciate continuing to have a high profile role model who opposes abortion. they firmly believe that whatever she does next will have an equal and profound impact said marjorie dannonseltzer who cofounded the website popular with palin's supporters who oppose abortions. does this give an indication of what is next for governor palin? guest: no, and i think that that is everyone's favorite washington fourth of july parlor game today. i think your guess is as good as miefn. you know, you could easily take her on face value and see that she says that she doesn't like what has happened to her family and she doesn't like the effects of her vice presidential run on her governorship in alaska, that she thinks it has been distracting. take her on face value, and if

you do that, you know, does that mean a retreat from the public eye? you know, i don't think so. i don't think that we got that sense from the speech that she gave yesterday, so it's really difficult to know exactly what it is without her outright being a little more explicit what she wants to do. host: the governor made the announcement lakeside near her home in wasilla. this is what she had to say and then we will get more response. >> life is too short to compromise time and resources, and though it may be tempting and more comfortable to keep your head down and plod along and appease those who are demanding, hey, just sit down and shut up, but that's a worth less copout. that's a quitter's way out. the problem in our country is apathy. it would be apathetic to hunker down and go with the no. we're fishermen. we know that only detd fish go with the flow. no productive fulfilled people

put their efforts choosing to utilize precious time to build up, and there is such a need to build up and fight for our state and our country, and i choose to fight for it, and i will work very hard for others who still believe in free enter enterprise and strong national government and support for our troops, and energy independence, and for those who will protect freedom and quality in life. i will work hard for and campaign for those who are proud to be american, and who are inspired by our ideals and they won't deride them. i will support others who seek to serve in or out of office. i don't care what party they're in or no party at all, inside alaska, or outside of alaska. but i won't do it from the governor's desk. host: erika bolstad, your reaction to the governor's speech. guest: it seems like she really wants to continue to be on the

national stage in one way, shape or form. a lot of people i spoke to yesterday do think that she has a very powerful platform. she is still very popular in a lot of circles. she could raise a lot of money for republican candidates. i suspect that we're going to see her really put that energy and that charisma that she has in front of a crowd. i think we're going to see her do that and raise money for other people, be a very popular speaker t could be that she wants to be on the public speaking circuit as well. there's no question that she really -- that was one of the things she sparkled at when she was on the campaign trail. she definitely knew how to draw a crowd and i think that's probably difficult to give up for her. i think we definitely will continue to see her do that. host: one last question before we let you go, when the governor steps away from the office, will

the lieutenant governor, sean parnell, described in an article this morning in "the new york times" as a reliable social conservative and strong opponent of abortion and has issued few press releases as lieutenant governor. what else can you tell us about sean parnell and how his administration might be different or might be the same as the palin administration? >> i don't think we're going to see a lot of dramatic changes. this is someone who is very much a part of the palin administration, an supported it, an, in fact, he ran against congressman don young last year in a primary and he lost, but he did have the backing of governor palin, and i have had some people suggest that she would not have stepped down, had she not felt that she was leaving the state in the hands of someone who firmly supported her own agenda. host: thank you very much for speaking with us this morning.

if you want to read more of erika's article, you can find it on-line at www.adn.com. that is the on-line edition of f the anchorage daily news. let's go to the phones. our first call from hilton head, south carolina. what's next for the g.o.p. and governor palin after she announces her resignation? >> it keeps getting worse. she is probably resigning solely for the fact that the mean liberals keep chasing her and suing her throwing ethics complaints out there one after another to get rid of her. that's not right. that's not good politics in this country. the left is getting meaner and meaner for what they want. they're willing to put anything at it other than good debate and good public discussion. if that's true, i just wish she would have been more direct, a little more descriptive of exactly why she is live leaving and what has happened to our precious government.

host: joe, how much did you support the republican ticket in the last election, and would you have supported a palin ticket in the next election? caller: not really, because she's not being very -- the republicans aren't being open and clear communictors is exactly what's causing them to fail in the ticket, and i think she should have been more direct if it is that she is concerned about the people that are besieging her and filing false complaints then she ought to come out more force dpli and say it, but i think the whole republican party needs to be -- we need total, new, in my opinion, leadership. owe we need a total revamping of the party and i don't know if she fits that bill. i would have wished that he she was more forceful telling the american people that the system is really getting bad, that people are destroying our precious democracy with mean politics. host: let's move on to lighthouse point, florida, paul

on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. the only thing i can say about sarah palin is it is obvious she is running to be president of the united states. host: why do you say it's obvious? >> caller: well, just the speech itself and how she kept going back to the change and, you know, bipartisanship and all the things that i guess president obama ran with his ideas, she is presenting them as, i guess her ideas for the future, so you can see where she is heading, and there is no other reason for her to resign as governor other than trying to campaign for herself, raise money, because mitt romney is going to definitely be someone to contend with in the future, so for her to get on the same level of playing field, she would have to do something else, and i think that's why she made her move. host: let me get your reaction to this lead story in "the washington post" by philip ruck ert and ely saslow.

they right that it is in the best interest of the state and will allow her to more effectively advocate for issues of importance to her, including energy independence and national security. do you think that sounds like the start of a 2012 bid for the white house? caller: i think she is definitely running. host: what's on your mind this morning? what do you think about the governor's resignation understand the future for her and the republican party? caller: i think there is more than meets the eye. i think if ms. erika digs around she will find out she has a boyfriend in argentina. there has to be more. i'm afraid some big scandal is about to bust loose or maybe the

entire republican party needs to start seeing a therapist and get on some medication or something. anyway, happy birthday, usa and have a great day. host: saratoga, california, suzanne, good morning. caller: that last guy, i don't even even know what he uses for a brain. it's pretty clear by asking the question we're not listening to what she said. she and her husband are in debt $500,000 to defend themselves against these felonious and trumped up -- and as she said in her speech, they're going to continue to do this to her, and she realizes that she has a brain. also, talking about the situation that the president has put us in, it's obvious to any thinking american just what a disaster this empty suit of a president has thought that he has perpetrated against our

lives. you always know what he is going to do next because what he says he isn't going to do, within a week, that's what he is doing. this is the playbook for add cals. host: thanks for your call, ma'am. more of the article from the "washington post," they write that the state of alaska has spent almost $300,000 investigating ethics complaints against palin and her staff, including her firing of a public safety commissioner who had refuseed to dismiss a state trooper involved in a messy i did source with her sister. palin said she and her husband have spent $500,000, quote, just to set the record straight. back to the for phones, elizabethtown, kentucky, on the phone for democrats, go ahead. caller: i would like to have a job to be governor. i think it is a disgrace to resign from that position, to be a motor mouth. she will never be president. she is irrelevant to me. she talks to much.

i think it is a disdisgrace to resign a governor's job. i mean, how many people would like to be governor and do something for this country? who is going to pay her wages now, i would like to know? to me it is a disgrace. she should have stayed in alaska or go in the army to afghanistan, go ahead. host: move on to dayton, ohio, don on our behind for independents. you're on. >> caller: i can't believe you are asking the question. she doesn't have george soros' pockets or acorn's pockets. she can't fight the machine. she has been beaten constantly. look at what letterman did to her daughter. they would have never done that to clinton. you know what the answer is already. she wants a life. she wants a marriage. she's got five children. you've got to be kidding me. you wonder why? what's next? she got out of there simply to save her skin to have some peace of mind. you can't fight george soros.

you can't fight acorn. you can't fight the unions. look at the money alaska has spent trying to smear her one way or another. look at the machine that she's up against. get real. bye! host: in anchorage, alaska, john on our line for republicans. good morning. caller: yeah, i kind of echo the previous caller on that. i mean, as governor, she earns $155,000 a year. her husband works for an oil company on the north slope. he doesn't make a lot of money. he has been a commercial fishermen. these are real live honest people, and that's something the press can't stand, the liberals can't. i think she pulled out because they were bleeding her family to death. host: john, did you vote for gov forepalin when she ran for

governor and when she ran for vice president? >> caller: yes, and yes. although, i couldn't stand her running mate, mccain. i figured that the republicans really went out of their way to screw the whole thing up, and when i heard that -- when john mccain became the runner, i knew right then they were going to lose because he was not following republican strong points shall whereas palin was. host: john, when you get together with your friends and family in anchorage, what was the general reaction to the governor's announcement yesterday? caller: it was what? i mean, it was -- host: did you actually see it live? caller: no, i didn't. i was out working in the yard, and my neighbor came over and

said, hey, mike -- or john, anyways, the governor just resigned, and i thought really? and then i went and got on the news and she had. host: let me ask you this -- in this morning's "washington post" in the style section, they is the head behind, maybe she just got tired of the full court press. how art kir shall writes that perhaps it was fitting she bailed days after a hard edged san taye fair piece in which a mccain strategist questioned her mental state and wondered whether she was suffering from post par tum depression. what did you think when you heard that? >> well, i didn't hear that. that's just one of those liberal press things where they yell -- i mean, people like that couldn't make it in alaska because they just do not

understand people who work who try to do things right. they're always looking for some little nuance that they can blame everything on. host: john, we have a message from big sky chief who sent a message via twitter saying i think she will co-host with rush limbaugh, presidential material she is not. she will only drag down the g.o.p. further. what do you think about that? caller: that's problem hi what they thought of ronald reagan. ronald reagan went on to the republican game and gave him money and this sort of thing. she can build up one hell of a pile of political chips that she might be able to cash later on. host: all right, john, or mike, thank you very much for being on the program. next up is doc out of chapel

hill on our line for democrats. what's up, doc? caller: yes, good morning. i think -- happy fourth of july. i think she's going to be a fund-raiser for the g.o.p., i really do think that, and that's all i got to say. host: do you think she's going to be able to raise a lot of money for the republicans? caller: that's correct, for the party. host: how long do you think she will be able to do that, from now until 2012? or is there a shelf life on how long she can raise money? caller: i don't know. i think she will probably do that immediately to see how much her net value is as a fun raiser. host: ok. caller: just to see how long that lasts. host: thanks. our next call comes from john in fairbanks, alaska ska. john, what do you think is next for governor palin and the republican party? caller: well, i hope that she will become the anti-obama, and

foil the president of ours. host: what do you mean by the anti-obama? caller: everything that sarah palin stands for is opposite of what obama is doing, and we need more soises to stand up and tell the government that the direction they're headed is wrong and we're going to take it back. host: john, where were you in fairbanks and what were you doing when you found out that the governor was going to resign? caller: is i had the news on and you know, i watched for a couple of hours, and i was actually --

actually, i'm very pleased for her. i have been a long-time supporter, and i think she is going to do good things for this country and this country needs a hot of help. host: john, frank thomas -- sorry, thomas defrank, rather, has this analysis in this morning's new york daily news under the title "moose hunter finished, but you knew that." he writes few g.o.p. insiders were surprised palin decided against running for re-election. the alaska statehouse is too isolate add locale for any politician aspiring to high national office. what do you think? caller: all these pundits, you know, they just have a one-track mind. it is all about uning for the presidency. she is an american, and she is going to be doing good things for america, and like i said, being the anti-obama is going to

be, i think, her -- how she will take control of the press's take on the situation. host: we will leave it there, john. another message on twitter from re diplomat also known as harvey carol, jr. who writes, my guess, she has a high priced lobbyist position in washington so she can appear to know what the he is happening in the world. back to the phones. back to fort lauderdale, tony on the line for republicans. go ahead. caller: good morning, happy birthday, america. i am excited about governor palin. she is just a breath of fresh air. it's a sad day in america when a woman or a man with high credentials is attacked as much

as she is. the liberal democrats have been trying to beat her down for years, and here is a woman marry the to the same man for a number of years with five wonderful children. why doesn't america celebrate a person like this? i'm really glad she is stepping down so that she can take the energy that god has given her and to use that energy to help save america. host: why do you say that she was attacked because she was a woman? caller: well, you know, here is a woman who, you know, is a republican christian woman who loves the lord jesus christ, who is against abortion, who is against homosexual marriage, who raises her own children, who has a loving husband, and she is just being attacked. you know, this is who we wanted in the white house. if it was 1955 or '65 or '75,

this is who we would want to be in the white house, and here is a woman who really has it all, has it together, an here are, you know, liberal democrats being sent to alaska with 15 lawsuits against her, trying to defile her reputation and they can't find anything on her. host: let me ask you this. this is another quote from the "washington post" this morning. it says "in alaska, republican officials said they had been talking with palin and her add advisors about whether she would run for re-election in 2010 but had no requested she was considering stepping down before her term was finished. i am very surprised that she she elected to step down, that she didn't want to be a lame duck governor for 18 months, said alaska republican party chairman andy ruedrich." so what do you see as the future for the republican party, specifically in alaska now that governor palin has decided to

leave her governorship? caller: well, i really think what's going on is she is had leaving this position in the hands of a male governor who has the same, you know, christian values as she does, so she feels very comfortable with that. i think they possibly might be grooming her to run for the senator of alaska or to a national position. many complaints that even republicans like myself had was that she was inexperienced to be vice president, and any republican who is honest can going to tell you, yeah, i love her, but, you know, she is inexperienced, so i think they're grooming her, maybe to a higher position, or maybe to a national position. she has set up her p.a.c. so she can raise some funds to be able to run, and at the same time, i think she is just a good mother who wants to maybe take care of her downs syndrome child and be with her other children a little more, and you know, just get her

self in a better position to run on more of a national position. host: thanks for the call. fort lauderdale, tony on the line for -- we just did tony. let's go to manassas, virginia with susan on the line for democrats. go ahead. host: caller: good morning. i want to put facts into the discussion this morning. i think everybody is supporters -- i don't know whether they don't know any of the facts or they're just turning their head toward it. a couple different things. sarah palin is not broke. she has a $1.2 million net value for her family. she is worth $1.2 million, she and todd. she also just signed a book deal for eight figures, $10 or $11

million. ed rollins, a republican strat gist, was very upset when he learned that she did this, an and he was upset because he felt like no governor quits in mid term. a republican doesn't quit. you were voted into office for a four-year term. you don't just quit, and then call yourself a lame duck governor. here in virginia, our governors can only serve one term. they don't quit halfway because they think that they're lame duck. the0th other thing is if she had come out and said i am resigning because i want to spend more time on my family an on my children, then i think everyone would have understood that, but in this 15, 20-minute ramble-fest, as i call it, you know, incoherent ramble-fest, she went from everything to the,

you know, attacks to her lawsuits and everything, you know, attached to that. all of these lawsuits came from within the state of alaska. it had nothing to do with liberals or with democrats from the lower 48. she has even taken heat from her own people up in alaska, from her own party. she was voted to enter into a four-year term, and she chose to quit, why? because she wants to take the money. host: thanks, susan. we will leave it there. soght other news, vice president biden is traveling to irak this weekend, and being reported in "the washington post" and other newspapers. they write that that biden warns of ending commitment, and the american commitment to iraq could end if the country again descended intoeth anybody and

sectarian violence but a senior briefing us said that it could resolve long-standing conflicts, some of that bedeviled iraq even before the united states invaded in march 2003. also in the papers this morning regarding vice president biden's trip is this headline "biden's past sues still cause anger." mike bart of the mclatchy newspapers writes that bide subpoena known in iraq for his earlier support of a plan to give three-way autonomy for each major ethnic group, sunni, shiite and kurd, under a central government. protestors burned an american flag and chanted "no for occupation, no for america" during vice president biden's visit to iraq. lowell, maryland on our line for independents. you're on the "washington journal. " what do you think is the

future for the republican party and governor palin? caller: it's lowell, massachusetts. host: sorry about that. caller: no problem. i i listened to her res resignation and she talked in circles. i couldn't understand what she was getting at or talking about. she threw everything in the pot but i do feel bad for her, because she seems like a very nice person, and ever since like since she was running for vice president and she got tripped by this guy from france and stuff and i think she has gotten a raw deal on that side, too, so i just feel bad for her. i hope everything works out for her in the future and i thank you very much for letting me speak. host: john, do you think this might have long-term lasting effects if she decides to run for president in 2012? caller: to be honest with you, i think it would have an effect,

because she is inexperienced buy it is hard to put your finger on it, but she tries her best, and once things get turned around like that, it is hard to get above the fray, you know what i mean? host: herbert kline, who died on thursday in la jolla, california, is in the obituary section of "the washington post" this morning. he was a long time san diego newspaperman who became the first white house communications director in the nixon administration and they white that the position emphasized public relations strategies in contrast to the white house press secretary daily give and take with reporters, known as a decent reasonable chap whose sole aberration was his fondness for richard nixon, and boston globe chief wrote in the

"washington post" in 1980 "mr. kline was intensely loyal to his fellow californian and later criticized the nixon administration for its obsession with public relations but never turned his back on the president. herbert chine is dead at 91. next up is wes tersefield, new jersey, and beth on our line for republicans. go ahead. caller: i think it is the classic battle between good and evil, and i think sarah palin represents the good and the hopefulness. believe it or not, there is wholesome conservatives left in the northeast that were really looking to her, so i certainly hope that she stays in the public eye, but i think evil is winning in this world, the george soroses, the acorn, the michael jackson pornographic society that we have become. good is losing, unfortunately. host: beth, in the sub headline

in the baltimore sun this morning, they say that she has been silent on a presidential bid, but she is taking her fight in a new direction. what kind of a direction would you like to see her take that fight? caller: well, i think she is going to come down to the states and make herself be known. we're all going to get a chance to really know her, but unfortunately, her wholesome speaking methods are going to be blasted by the left, the acorns, the george soros. she's just too good. host: thanks for your call. kerry, north carolina, j.j.ed on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i am a woman. back in the early '60's, i was one of the bra burners on capitol hill. sarah palin does not represent anything that we fought for. she is basically politically, i

think, illiterate. she's not someone i want cheerleading my causes, and the things that we hold dear to us, because she's ill-informed. she is a beautiful woman. she could be representative, but she is ill-informed, and those who put her on a pedestal to represent women of all colors, shapes, sizes, you name it, i think, are very short sighted and it's embarrassing. as a woman, i hope everything is going well with her and her family and that another shoe is not about to drop, but she doesn't represent the strong vital women of p america, because she is ill-informed. she has bad handlers who throw her on the stage to make a major announcement like yesterday, and she rambled on for 10 minutes before i knew what the heck was going on. that's it. host: how surprised were you by the announcement? >>

caller: absolutely shocked. i thought it with sanford and ensign having their problems she would move up the totem pole and be able to confront romney on a more even playing field with political backing. i work for the republicans back in the '60's and have since, of course, moved to the center left a little bit, but i think i'm pretty open-minded when it comes to women's leadership. i can't think of a subject that she could discuss in any detail that i would understand. i have tried. it didn't work. host: next up is brookfield, wisconsin on our behind for independents. go ahead. caller: good morning. this lady said she couldn't understand what subjects sarah palin could probably bring to america that she could understand. i will tell you, sarah palin will bring honor. whether she runs for president,

whether she just tries to instill in the american people that they have to reach inside of their selves and find that spark that made america great. that's what she is going to go to america for, because there is no honor left. the news media have become trash meetdz ya twittering an all these sources of people trying to put her dowp.she believes ine goodness of the american people. all the people that trash her. what "vanity fair" did to her family and dave letterman. somebody has to get out there and speak for the american women that you can't talk about them like that, that you can't talk about their families like that, and this is what i am hoping, that sarah palin can do. as far as the democrats and republicans go, i will never work for either party again. even the republicans didn't

stand up for her. i am just so disappointed. host: in the associated p press this morning, this message, this urgent, south korea says north korea has fired a 7th missile two days after north korea fired four test range missiles and it could escalate tensions as the u.s. musters support for toughen forcement of a u.n. res hiewtion imposed on the communist regime for its may nuclear tests. in the baltimore sun this morning, they report on a missile system that is designed to protect us from any incoming missiles. the pentagon said it can handle north korea. this is by julian barnes who writes for the tribune newspapers, citing the potential threat to hawaii, defense department officials last month deployed a gigantic new sea-based radar system that they say can guide underground interceptor missiles in alaska and california toward long-range

missiles in flight. you can read more about that in this morning's baltimore sun. next up is nabu, illinois. what do you think about the future of our republican party and sarah palin? caller: i think sarah palin said it p pretty plain. i'm a hancock county board member, and i can see what government does, and it is so inefficient, and she said in her speech, if people would listen to her, that as a lame duck governor, she could travel around and squander all the money from the treasury, having a good life, like most of the other politicians in america. she stood up there and said that she wasn't going to do this, and everything she said was what she said.

i take her for her word, because our politicians nowadays, like obama sends out had little trial balloons and see how that works and takes polls. this is the trouble. people -- i like to call them in the talking crowd, they like to sit around and talk about these things but they hate her because she has common sense, and has a realization that her money is finite, because i thought she spelled it out real well in her speech. i don't know what she is going to do in the future, but she spelled it out. she wasn't going to waste the alaskan people's money. host: do you think she will be an effective campaigner in illinois, in your county? caller: we are pure democrat here. we don't even have a p presidential candidate. obama didn't even come here because everybody knows that we're in the pocket of the democratic party, and like in

chicago and the rest of illinois. host: we're going to leave it there. thanks. a couple of items for independence day on the front page of the baltimore sun in addition to the united states celebrating its birthday, also tennis star pam shriver, or quoals owner peter an gel lows and former maryland lieutenant governor, cath heen kennedy townsend says that the fourth of july is the best possible birthday you can have, because it is always a holiday. people always want to celebrate and do something special. thinking of doing something special in new york? you can now go back up to the crown of the statue of liberty. the crown reopens to tourists today and following the american tradition, ticket scalpers are trying to turn a buck off the big event. craigslist user from nassau county in new york, offered two adult and two children's tickets for today's opening at $200. tickets actually go on sale at

statuecruises.com, $15 for adults, $13 for seniors an $5 for children. we will take a short break and when we come back, we're going to be talking about the employee free choice act with ken silverstein. we will be right back. >> it reminds me of a cathedral. >> princeton class of 83, walter kirn, would like to see changes to the higher education system. >> prips ton's lectures should be on the web. the wonderfully concentrated islands of talent and wealth

and knowledge should be opened up to larger society, not kept separate, which they still are. i can't understand why. walter kirn, the undereducation of an overachiever on q&a, sunday night at 8:00 on chsm span. you can also listen on xm satellite radio or download the c-span podcast. >> 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 updike, two-time winner of the pulitzer prize and a reunion of the apollo 8 astronauts and top non-fiction authors and books on c-span 2's book t.v. featuring

books on the american revolution, including historian john fur fer ling a.o.l. a.o.l. taking your calls from george washington's mount vernon estate, and p.j. o'rourke, his passion for cars an america's need to drive like crazy. also, nobel peace prize recipient on the challenges facing africa. find out what is on at any time at c-span.org. host: ken silverstein joins us to talk about his article in this month's edition of harper's magazine called "labor's last da stand" the corporate campaign to kill the employee free choice act. first off, what the employee free choice act? guest: to be simple about it, it is a bill that would allow workers to organize unions more easily. that has become a difficult thing to do in this country.

we've gone from the mid 1950's when roughly 35% of the workforce was unionized to about 12% now. it's been going down steadily, particularly since the ag gan years, but even a little bit before, the numbers were going down, but since the reagan years when the p president busted the professional air traffic controllers union, there has been a general hostility on the part of government towards the unions that was not reversed during the clinton years and now we have gone through a situation where it's only a mild exaggeration to say it is impossible to unionize in this country but it's very difficult. unions are wreakenned and workers are not able to form unions anymore. host: what is the corporate campaign to kill the employee free choice act that you write about? guest: well, it's not as big as nafta, if you can remember back to nafta and even a little after that, the campaign to win

permanent -- oh, i'm blanking on the term -- but it was to give china permanent trade relations with the united states. there were massive campaigns. the corporate campaign was behind both of those issues. on the employee free choice act it is the same situation. business is bitterly opposed to this measure t has united business in a way few bills do. a lot of issues where the business community is pro or con but don't feel passionately. on this issue, they are dead set against it. there has been a huge, huge lobbying campaign. it is not just lobbying. it is public relations an advertising. you have got non-profit organizations who represent the business community, and where you don't have any sort of real requirements to report how much money you're raising and how much you're spending, all sorts of non-profits are involved in this battle. it is dozens and dozens of

organizations and hundreds of lobbyists who are working to kill this bill on behalf of the corporate community. host: how big is this anti-union effort, and how big are anti-tobacco or anti-gun efforts? guest: it is an ad hoc movement designed specifically to kill one bill. it is not like the n.r.a. which has been around forever and is going to be around forever, presumably, so it was, you know -- the campaign started about three years ago. this bill has been around for a while. it passed the senate under the bush administration, but it was a real easy vote, i have to say, for democrats who supported it, because they knew bush was going to veto it, so it was an easy free vote. now the democrats, with al franken having a 60-seat majority, so in theory this bill should pass, but there is

intense pressure. you ask about the size of the campaign. it's hard to specify, because there are laws about disclosing how much is being spent by lobbyists, so some of the money is reported, but you don't have to report the public relations component and these non-profit groups that i referred to don't have to report their expenditures. even the lobbying expenz tours are hard to track. if wal-mart, a leader of the campaign, bitterly opposed to unions is spending -- if they report on their lobby disclosure forms that they spent a million dollars that coughers a broad range of activities. it is hard to pinpoint how much is going to defoat this one bill, but tens of millions of dollars is safe to say and i suspect you can go up to the next level. it is hard to know. there is no way to know. host: let's look at an ad that is being used now on the airwaves that addresses the employee free choice act.

>> i know we talked about the review and the raise. >> that's not what he wants. it is a 2% raise, plus benefits, guaranteed smoke breaks, and triple overtime. few funeral benefits? i don't care about that stuff. i want a 5%. >> joey here will just have to go on strike. >> unions want federal bureaucrats to take away your personal rights. call senator nelson and tell him there is no compromise on the employee free choice act. host: who is putting this ad out and how effective has it been so far? guest: i didn't see the tag line so i didn't see who put it out but i suspect it is one of the non-profit organizations and we wouldn't know how much it cost them to do that because, again, they don't have to disclose how much they are spending. host: in the end they say you should call senator nelson. are these types of ads effective in getting people to call their senators and congressmen and say, you know, don't support

this act? guest: this ad, in particular, i don't know. that's a pretty crude ad, i have to say. i mean, you union leaders a total thugs and workers completely under their thumbs. i'm not critical of the labor movement on a variety of fronts. i'm not gung ho on the unions. i think this bill is a very good requested, but, you know, that ad seems a little crude. whether it is effective or not, i don't know. they are targeting senators in key states. senator nelson is a target. senator lincoln in arkansas is a target. she has said she will oppose employee free choice act. the senator is friendly with wal-mart, i would point out. senator pryor in arkansas is another key target. senator specter, who is now a democrat and who has lobbied hard on the issue, so you have about ten senators who are really being intensely lobbied on this issue by the business

community, and whether the a.s are effective or not, we will see when the vote comes down. it has been effective because already the unions have had to backtrack on key demands. it looks like in order to get a bill passed even with 60 democratic senators they have to compromise. i think the campaign has been very effective. host: the ad was put out by the employee freedom action committee. if you want to see more of ken silverstein's article, you can go on-line and find it at harpers.org. it is also hyperlinked on our website. the title is "labor's last stand, the corporate campaign to kill the employee free choice act." if you want to get involved in the conversation -- you can also send an e-mail or a message or twitter, like the one that we've got from avrwc and it is

on the screen there. he writes "ken, the bill eliminates the secret ballot. why? is the goal to pressure or scare those who oppose the union into voting for one?" guest: well, that is the way the business lobby describes it, because we're taking away the secret ballot. i would point out in the rest of the industrialized world, card check, which is what it is now being referred to is pretty much the way that unions are recognized. the rest of the industrialized world has survived ok with that system, and they have higher rates of unionization. we have about 12% in great britain. closer to 30 in canada. closer to 30. the rules have been so stacked against labor unions at this point, as i said earlier, that it's virtually impossible to organize a union. it's hard to win the election, and if you do, you have to negotiate a contract and the companies can stall this out forever. you can just, you know, refuse to negotiate.

the national labor relations board, under the bush administration, you have appointed a number of union busting attorneys to the national labor relations board. unions can't get their rights recognized there, so the businesses where workers recognize the union, they just stall it out. a year later you still have no contract and have workers who are disillusioned and an gi and they start peeling away. if you just look at the numbers and i have seen actually some of the internal corporate lobby -- i saw a couple of powerpoints that they put together and they started gleefully looked at the way that the number of unionized workers has gone down. they say they are not anti-union, that they are just against this bill, but the fact is that wal-mart, a leader of the campaign and some of the other companies, have been very, very anti-union for many, many years, and they do not want to give up higher wages to their workers and they don't want to

give up control over the, you know, whatever, whether it is a store or a factory or whatever. they don't want that, and i understand why they don't want that, but the fact is that this bill would make it easy foreworkers to unionize and presumably get higher wages. wages have been going down in this country for a long time. i think it is a good requested to raise them. host: we will go to the phones but before we do, we want to encourage folks in a union or trying to organize a union, definitely give us a call. also, if you are in management, let us know how you feel as well about the employee free choice act. our first call comes from port st. lucie, florida, george on the line for democrats. caller: good morning, gentlemen. i'm a member of the local here in florida. my concern is that businesses even in government organizations, they don't really care about the people. i mean, what we're looking to do

is strengthen the communities, the individuals living in those communities. we want to educate people. we don't want to drag anybody down, yet we keep on getting pointed as radicals and thieves and thugs, as you so eloquently put it before, but yet nobody addressed in the general population doesn't understand that we are fighting for them, also. this is not just for the union members as a whole. everybody benefits from this. thank you. guest: well, i agree with the caller here. i mean, if you look at one of the things i try to lay out in the story is if you look at the rise of the labor movement in the united states, it coincides with the postwar peer period when unionization hit a high of 35% of the labor force. this is where we had the

foundations of the middle class society where wages went up and benefits went up, workers got medical benefits. you got vacation time. the country became more of a middle class community, and we have become less of a middle class community over the last 20 or 30 years as the anti-union movement has intensified, and so you have seen as unionization rates go down, wages go down, and middle class lifestyle goes down, which is why i think this is a good bill. i think it would help reverse declining wages and growing social and economic inequality. it is you know, it may not be a perfect bill but we've got to make it easier for workers to unionize in this country or wages are going to keep falling. >> jerry on our line for independents out of shelton, connecticut. go ahead. caller: yes, good morning. my question for mr. silverstein is i would like to try to get facts and information on issues

like this, but over are the last number of years, it seems like information coming from the media and people like mr. silverstein seems to have a by was in it, a personal bias and a political by was. i have heard it already this morning from him. he even went as far as to cheap shot that ad that you ran recently. i think people should know what the background of people are and what their political biases are when they are able to put things out on a megaphone, even if it is not such a big megaphone like the magazine he writes for. could you tell us what your backgowns politically and your biases and feelings might be so that we can take that into account when we read the article? host: before we let you go, can you tell us about your background, jerry? caller: yeah. i spent 25, 30 years in corporate life, you know, working for a living, and i have a personal feeling about unions.

my dad and every relative in my life was a member of a union one way or another and the current union movement wouldn't represent them. they were hard-working people, some of them worked, you know, for the man their whole lives. others went out and started small businesses but this current union movement is nothing really but a bunch of people who try to force things rather than people who give people a choice. you know exactly what's going to happen with this, you know, new bill if it goes through. these union people will be able to get you on record in the open as to whether you want to, a, have a union, or b, have a vote or not, and they will be able to force you either economically or personally, you know. you don't have to beat someone with a club to force them to

vote one way or the other, or more importantly, they will force people to shut up. host: ken silver stein of "harper's" magazine, go ahead. guest: you talked about how you worked for somebody for so many years and i have worked for the last 30 years as well, so i match you in being a working person. everyone likes a political bias. i always like to say. that we all do. i don't like the pretense that we don't. i am not republican or democrat, because i'm not a fan of either party but i'm absolutely positively on the lib al side if that satisfies your curiosity. in terms of the bias in the ad that you said i took the cheap shot. the ad was produced by the employee freedom action committee which is headed by richard berman who runs a bunch of institutes on behalf of corporations so that he represents the marketer's institute, and represents the

group that is sort of anti-drunk driving group, i believe. he has worked for the tobacco industry. all of the organizations have these nice names but in fact, they are crorp pratt pushing groups. the employee freedom action committee talks about ads that portrays unionists as a bunch of thugs. that is a great talking point of people who put out this ad and how they are their union leadership is rich and privileged is one of their. >> major talking points. you could criticize that. it is ironic that mr. berman, who runs that organization is making millions to run these campaigns, some of them attacking unionists as being privileged and wealthy and he himself is making far more money than the leadership of the afl-cio. .

caller: i have a good job and made a good living. we were not rich but when he retired he had healthcare and a pension, and was able to live a dignified life after that. i really don't understand why a lot of the conservatives don't understand and looked back on how the unions built the middle- class and made us the strongest

country in the world because of it. it has been shattered over the last 30 years. the only other thing i would say is that i really hope that this does go through, but i also hope we have somebody in power who addresses our trade deficit issues, that we are giving away access to the most powerful market in the world which will not continue to be so if we don't get a little bit more protectionist on our trade issues. thank you so much for being there. host: before you go, it did your relatives ever express any concern about what management might think if they found out how your relatives were voting when they got together as a union? caller: back then, and i get this through my mother them -- more than my grandfather, but as there is today there was a lot of pressure on workers put down by management, by then it was

too late for them to form a union, but just to try to work harder for more benefits for workers. i know today that the upper management can basically just -- you can come to an agreement by can i get a contract for an unbelievable amount of time. through that time they find out who is trying to work for the unionization and find ways to put pressure on them in the workplace or even have them eliminated. that is another reason why we need this bill. guest: thank you for your comments. needless to say, i appreciate them. yes, i agree. as i was mentioning earlier, when you look at the rise of the middle class and what has happened now, i know how much i pay out-of-pocket for health- care benefits. i know from what has happened to pensions. it has just begun -- become

difficult to maintain a decent lifestyle. i am always shocked and i try not to think about how much money i spend for medical care. you have seen the attack on unions and an eroding of benefits that unions won for their members, but also had to be matched and extended to non- union workers. i agree with the caller has a number of union members closedown, you are going to see this reduction in wages and benefits. that will fit every worker in the economy host: we're talking about lobbying efforts against the employee for each race act with ken silverstein. he has been the editor since april 2006 of "harpers magazine." he is a regular contributor to both print and web version of "

harper's." back to the phones. you are on the "washington journal." caller: i do appreciate his honesty in talking about his biases. that is refreshingly. however, this employee free choice act -- i don't see how you can say that is not the case. i have been an employee and own my own business before. the secret ballot is intrinsic to the american people. for him to say giving them freedom by not allowing people to have a secret ballot -- that is why people are so against this, at because they understand that they should be able to have a secret ballot. that is the big red herring. i don't see how he can get around explaining why that should not be the case. most people honestly -- they

have done a lot of great in this country but there is a time when maybe they are bloated. look at the uaw and their leadership. if you can say they have done a good job and they don't make a lot of money in those organizations. i would love to hear ken silverstein talk about what the head of the union people make. they have a vested interest in keeping unions. i think the secret ballot is a red herring. i would like to have him explain that. guest: i appreciate your comments. i never tried to hide my political biases because i think this is one of the stupid things journalists do, and we don't have credibility when we live or are unwilling to talk about what we believe in. they give for acknowledging that. you also make a fair point about bloated union leadership. that can be overstated but if

you look at salaries union leaders make, it is a fair point of criticism. in terms of the secret ballot, i understand you're concerned but i do think it has just become so difficult to unionize. you talked about how this will take away workers' right to their secret ballot. if you look at the other side, businesses are able to dismiss workers who are leading unionization drives. it is very risky for workers to come out in favor of unionization. you end up fired and there is this long process to get reinstated. by the time they get reinstated a position may be eliminated, and they would not back wages, which is what they would have been paid had they not been fired in the first place. it is very difficult for workers to take a pro-union position. the business community right

now, the rules are stacked in favor of business. they can hold captive meetings with their members, they can block their members, there are strict rules against about how unions can reach out to workers. whereas, businesses are able to have a captive work force in terms of propaganda against the union drive. i would also say it is fair to criticize the union leadership, but let's not be naive about businesses. when the corporate community talks about we love our workers and we are opposed to this bill because they're taking away the secret ballot, please, they are interested in protecting their profits. it is a fair point in both sides. host: john has this to say. the industrialized world with cardcheck is becoming a socialist and less productive each year.

guest: i think that there was a time where this was the common perception that the united states was much more efficient and productive and -- more proficient than europeans, and european economies are going down. from what i know of european economies, they have their share of problems and we have ours, but people in those countries do have a better pay, much better health care. they have free health care. you can argue which system is better but i know how much i pay every month for health care. if i can pay that in taxes and get better health care and what i am getting now, i would be happy to make that trade. that is the bigger question. it is probably bigger than our scope here. host: what is the corporate campaign to kill the employee free trade act? what does it say about the

current state lobbying in washington, and how that aspect of business and politics gets done in this town? guest: we lost track, when i say we i mean "harpers." we could not even keep -- figure out how many lobbyists were working on this. i cannot remember the exact number, but for the fourth quarter of last year we identified hundreds of lobbyists on this bill alone. that does not include the pr component and non-profit organizations. it is a huge amount of money being poured into the effort to kill this bill. it is affected. what it shows is -- it is effective. it is not a straight

correlation. i don't think we should reduce this to every time lobbyists are hired they are able to win. it is not that easy, but there is a strong correlation. the more money you can pay for lobbyists, there is no question the better chance you have of winning your issue. we are seeing this with health care and all sorts of initiatives that obama promised he was going to take action on. it is all going to be very difficult because lobbyists are very effective. a lot of them are former members of congress. they know how to play the system. they leave the hill and make money as lobbyists. typically, somebody who had a big role in health care will now be lobbying on healthcare. it blocks any attempts to change and reform the system, which we agree we all need. host: you write about a group

called the center for union facts. the center's irs tax return shows that it took in $2.5 million that year almost entirely from unnamed donors, including one who put up $1.2 million. about half of the money was spent on anti-union print and online ad campaigns. $840,000 went to the company for of management services. guest: this is the problem on am referring to. we have no idea how much money is being raised by these organizations. what we don't know is who is giving them the money, because if you are a nonprofit group you don't have to disclose it is also true that the unions are not entirely open about what they're spending. it is not possible to track what the union suspended. i cannot say for certain because

neither side fully discloses their spending, but i have to believe based on the number of lobbyists they have working, that the business is out spending labor by a large amount. i do know if you look at campaign contributions, that business leaders outspend union leaders by a vast amount. i expect you would see a similar disparity here. host: back to the funds. kathleen on our line for independents. caller: good morning. what a night's breath of fresh air after talking about sarah palin. i was wondering when the union workers of this country were going to stand up again. i would love to see every worker in america go down to wall street and sit on the front door. what is it going to take for

this country to realize what the corporations have done to us? they have made slavery legal again in this country. we have slave labor in this country. worst of all come up we have no benefits to boot. host: where do we have this slave labor? caller: look at the minimum wage. you cannot live on minimum wage in this country. that is what walmart and k-mart pays. those people cannot live on minimum wage. they supplement with food stamps. host: we will leave it there and add to that this message who writes he has not made clear how an anonymous ballot does not protect employees from employer oversight. he has not made clear how an

anonymous balad does not protect employees from employer oversight. -- how an anonymous donor does not protect employees. guest: it is like an election in which one side gets 90% of the tv time and the other side gets 10%. when the side with all the extra time can harass and intimidate and fire people who are advocating for the other position and get away with it. the rules are ridiculous. it is very difficult to unionize in this country. even though the cardcheck provision, which would allow workers to sign a form in order to endorse their support for a union, that would go part of the way towards reversing the situation now where it is very

difficult to win the elections. more than anything, it managed to win, because a lot of workers still do want unions. but if you win the election the business can stall you out on negotiating a contract. it would rectify some of the imbalance that is overwhelmingly stacked in favor of business. host: gerald on our democratic line. caller: good morning and happy birthday america. i would just like to say i am an active member of the international brother heard of electrical workers -- international brotherhood of electrical workers. i am not rich but i do make a fair wage. and i still don't go to walmart because i try to shop at local businesses to support our local economy more. to the people that have questions about the union leadership making too much money, our local business manager, he only makes a foreman

wage, so he is not rich either. people say union members are lazy. i take as an insult. i live in nevada, at which the construction industry has been hit hard but i am still working. my boss still continues to make profit off of me and my fellow employees. that is why he stays in business and the highest unions. host: how much does your management know about the inner workings of your union? caller: they know everything. they have the rule book of the union on hand. my boss did not have the employees go union on him. he willingly went to the union hall and signed up because he knows he can get qualified workers. in the construction industry with unions, we can get 100

qualified electricians to work at a power plant within a day. you go with a non-union shop, you get everything from a qualified electrician to someone that probably doesn't know much. host: i will leave it there. guest: obviously, the caller is generally supportive of the position i am taking, so i don't have a lot to say. i have heard about there are a few companies i have heard who are in favor of the employee free choice act. and partly for reasons that the caller mentioned he has a steady, organized labor force with unions. there are some employers who like fat, but in terms of taking a political position -- . some employers who like that. -- there are some employers to

like that. host: the bill is now being worked on in the senate. guest: in the house it is pretty much a foregone conclusion that it is going to pass. the democratic majority there is very large and is expected it will pass their easily. the real battle is the senate. earlier this year you had senator clinton of arkansas, and i would have to note her closeness to walmart, who took a position closing -- took a position with it. and senator specter said he would oppose it, and switched parties and became a democrat. there are a number of other wavering democrats. host: adjust to what -- want to get to this point, senator specter was a co-sponsor of the bill in 2003 and 2005, and was

thought to be the republican most likely to vote for closure. you go on to write that mean he announced in april that he is switching parties, he went out of his way to reiterate his opposition to the bill and his opposition to closure. what changed his mind and how much will that affect the voting in the senate? guest: this is my personal opinion, but i think specter has zero integrity. he supported the bill before because it was easy for him to do it. there was no risk that it could actually pass, so he could go to the unions and say i love your, i am a supporter of the bill. but once it got difficult politically, because now you have a democratic president who will sign the bill, specter does not have the integrity to follow through. initially, he was running -- he

had to get to the republican primary, and he had to run to the right. so he announces i am opposed to the employee free trade act in order to get favor with the anti-union votes, but that does not work. he looks at the internal polling and says he will still get killed by the opposition. but now he is a democrat but he has already staked out his position. he may find a way. they will work on a compromise and specter will maybe say he is democrat and he can support the bill again. that he has found a compromise, but i don't think he has any integrity. host: richard on our line for republicans. you are on "washington journal." caller: give me a few minutes because i have been watching c-

span for 30 years. i will agree with the first thing you said, senator specter has no integrity whatsoever. i want to tell you about the union's. there is a need for unions in this country but i will tell you where every member should go. they should go down to wall street, it is wall street that kill this economy. they told the corporations to go overseas. they go overseas to get cheaper labor and people back home are not making the wages they were making before. you touched on healthcare. i will tell why your health care is so expensive. you are paying health-care -- we have to pay for the big bulk of the people who pay no insurance. they go to hospital and they pay nothing. that is what made health care costs so much in this country.

you penalize the people who play by the rules. as far as unions, i will tell you, it is your federal, state and county unions are absolutely killing this country. the average person who lives in a home cannot pay the taxes any more to support these people who worked 25 years and get a big retirement bonus. i have family workers. it is absolutely bankrupting this country. host: richard has given us a lot to work with. guest: interesting comments. i certainly agree with you about the role that wall street has played in hurting the economy. i think most americans are in rough agreement and feel in your torus wall street and the financial community. your point about the local state

employees, i confess it is an interesting point and i am not familiar with what your talking about but i will look at it. host: you also write in the article with regard to the obama administration. the union's view legislative bit dense and the appointment as labor secretary hilda solis, who is very sympathetic to the unions. obama has failed to embrace their agenda. he said if it passes he will sign it, but it does not sound like he has been enthusiastic about getting it passed. guest: he has not been enthusiastic at all. during the campaign in states like pennsylvania where there were a lot of union voters, he was all gung-ho for employee free trade act. he promised to support it when he was president. he just has not delivered.

i spoke to a member of the u.s. chamber of commerce who is against the bill. his point on this was accurate. this is a divisive issue. obama does not see it as a legacy issue like health care or the economy or some other issues that he wants to work on that he sees as more important. frankly, i think supporting unionization from the broader economy is a hard thing to do, but that is his calculation. this will split the senate and make a lot of people mad. obama doesn't like to make people mad. he has not fought for the bill and it has been disappointing if you are a union supporter who is for this bill to see how the president has not delivered. >> ralph on the independent line. caller: ina uaw member from

syracuse, new york. -- i am a union worker. i am glad you are a pro-union worker. but his two misconceptions, it does not eliminate the secret ballot. all the secret ballot language still remains in the law, but it adds a choice where workers, if they get over a majority, they can be certified for the national labor relations board. that is a big misconception that people have about it. i would like to ask, when does he think the vote will come out of the senate? host: -- guest: thank-you for the clarification on the question of the secret ballot. i want to comment briefly on your comment about how few

columnists write about labor issues anymore. that is a very good point. 20 years ago you had labor reporters at the major newspapers and much more coverage of the union movement. that has slowly been eroded where the labor writers are no longer there. we have lots of business writers. we have page after page of business coverage in the newspaper, but very little coverage of the union movement. that has been detrimental to the country. in terms of when the vote will be held, i cannot say i have any inside knowledge, but before al franken was seated as the 16th democrat, supporters of the bill were not going to try to even get the bill passed because you have to have 60 votes to block a republican filibuster. now that he is seated, the bill

is once again in place. there have been negotiations going on to try to find a compromise bill but i don't think there was any way it will be introduced until al franken is seated. i don't know exactly what the schedule is but i would expect some time over the summer it should be voted on. host: before the august recess? guest: it would be speculation on my port -- on my part. when i was reporting the story i was intensely following, but as old media we have a long lead time for stories. i was worried the bill would come up for a vote because -- before my piece came out, but i don't have the inside knowledge on that. now that al franken is seated the bill is definitely in play. host: george from west virginia on our democratic line.

caller: good morning and happy birthday america. i worked for one of the largest refinery companies in the world in new jersey for almost 20 years. we had no union there and the last four years i was there a union came in, the united steelworkers. they shut that plant down and put 1876 people of of work. that is what i think of unions. -- they put 1876 people out of work. unions are ok what they demand too much -- but they demand too much. and every few years they demand more and more. look at the auto industry, $75 an hour compared to $35 an hour with toyota. this is why the auto industry

went to bankrupt. they should have made them go bankrupt and this way they would have been all contracts and everything nullified. host: you have the last word. guest: there are certainly some cases you can find where union wages are very high and you could argue that wages had become too high. overwhelmingly, i don't think that is the case. on the other side, you have companies that are shipping jobs offshore to places like india because they are seeking every possible dollar for profit. workers want to be paid more money. i understand businesses want to make more profit, but under the current law it is difficult for workers to unionize. mostly you do not see high wages. host: thanks for being on the program. if he went to checkout his article, you can find it online

at harpers.org. thank you very much for being on the program. guest: thank you. host: this is what the declaration of independence looks like. he confided on the back page of the section into more -- in this morning's "new york times." here to talk to us about that will be james hutson. he is the chief of manuscript division at the library of congress. he will be our guest when we come back. >> during this holiday weekend, and notable americans on c-span. stories from inside the white house. domestic policy advisers on their presidents, from richard nixon to george w. bush. honoring president ronald reagan. ken burns on his career and his upcoming series on america's

national parks. and a tribute to john updike, and a reunion of the apollo 8 astronauts. featuring books on the american revolution, including historian john ferling taking our calls on our first president, my from mount washington -- live from the mount vernon estate. and the passion for cars and americans need to drive like crazy. and a nobel peace prize recipient on the current challenges facing africa. find out what is on any time at c-span.org. >> how is c-span funded? >> the u.s. government. >> i don't know. i think some of it is government. >> it is not public funding. >> probably donations. >> i want to say from me, my tax

dollars. >> 30 years ago america's cable companies created c-span as a public service, a private business initiatives. no government mandate to lead no government money. -- no government money. host: james hutson is the chief of a manuscript division at the library of congress and is here to talk to us about the declaration of independence. tell us about the rough draft of the declaration and how it got from that to the copy we are more familiar with. guest: the rough draft was generated in the following manner. on june 7, richard henry lee introduced the resolution in the congress to declare independence. on june 11, a committee of five was appointed, at jefferson, franklin, john adams, roger sherman and livingston. jefferson was named through means that are not quite clear

to prepare a draft, which he did. he submitted it to franklin and adams for corrections. it was finally reported out of the committee on june 28, at which point the congress decided on july 2 to vote a resolution at independence. from july to to july 4 they debated jefferson's draft and made a number of changes. so the amended document is the declaration of independence. the rough draft is jefferson's draft with all indications of the changes and amendments made during that one month process from june 11 to july 4. host: i misspoke earlier, the rough draft is the one that is at the library of congress. guest: the rough draft is the one at the library of congress.

the official copy is at the national archives, but the library of congress -- i don't know if you want to get into this. the official draft has a rather interesting history. when the new government was formed in 1789, at the papers of the old continental congress were given to the secretary of state. among those papers was the interest copy of the declaration of independence. those were in the state department until 1814 when the british burned washington. it was rescued and taken to virginia and got as far as leesburg, and was then returned after the war was over. it was in the state department until 1841 when the patent office constructed a safer building, so it then went to the patent office and was there

until 1876 when it was sent to philadelphia to be exhibited. it came back to the state department, and in 1921 it was sent to the library of congress, since we have in your building that was sought -- thought to be safer. we had it until 1952. it was on the wall up there in an area called the shrine. we also had the constitution and we have them in helium cases, but the national archives was founded in 1934. in 1950, there was an act passed that said all non-essential federal records should go to the library of congress, so we transferred it to the national archives in 1952. there was a military escort and a tank, an armored personnel carrier. the declaration was put in the

corporate personnel carrier and taken to the archives. host: we are talking are james hutson of the library of congress about the declaration of independence. if you like to get involved in the conversation, the numbers are on the screen. you can send us messages through e-mail or to order. -- or twitter. if we had a rough draft we send out an e-mail and people make their corrections and sent it back to us. they could not do that in 1776. how difficult was it for all of these guys to gather around that rough draft, or did they pass it around? guest: that is a great question. there have been all kinds of theories and speculations about the changes and how they were

made. probably the best historian who looked at this was a man named julian boyd. he concluded that 86 changes were made on the rough draft from the time in which jefferson first wrote it out until it was amended by congress on july 4. most of those changes were in the nature of a copy editing things. some of them were fairly interesting. jefferson had written inalienable rights and the word was changed unalienable. no one knows how that happened. in terms of being self evident, it was originally written as sacred and indisputable. the change was made s self evident. there is speculation as to who did that. there were two major changes

made. one was a dilution of jefferson 's ellicot passage against the slave trade. -- eloquent passage against the slave trade. i brought this along. is it ok to read this? host: by all means. guest: this is among the charges against the king of england. there were about 25 of them. jefferson had a laundry list of charges, taxation without representation, at jury trials being violated. host: because the original declaration was more or less a list of grievances against the king. guest: this was a major grievance that got deleted. he says he has raged cruel war against human nature itself, of violating its most sacred rights against people who never defended him, and carried them into slavery in another

hemisphere. this warfare is the warfare of the christian king of great britain. determined to keep open a market where men are bought and sold. he has prostituted for every negative attempt to prohibit or restraint this commerce. this assemblage made what no fact of distinguishing, he is exciting this very people to rise in arms against us and the purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them by murdering the people vote he has also of treated them -- crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another. one of jefferson's greatest eloquent passages. but that was struck out. host: james hutson, our first call comes from tennessee.

your town is named after the president? caller: yes, sir. good morning and happy birthday to the nation. thank you for that passage. i never read that before, but i found three words in there that could make them objectionable even in the modern day to refer to christianity and use the word prostitute and whore. those will probably not be acceptable to some. here is the prostitute -- here is the premise of my question. in a political context i tend to agree more with thomas jefferson and his philosophies. there was a tremendous amount of acrimony during the entire process of the revolution and constitution in the early administration between jefferson and adams. i was wondering if he might have

insight into the degree of controversy that this committee had with respect to jefferson and adams in terms of their disagreements and the editing and development of the document. guest: good question. it is difficult -- scholars have had a difficult discovering who made or suggestions some of these small changes. jefferson later went through the rough draft and tried to identify who made what change. apparently, franklin and adams made the most changes, but there was hardly any disagreement between franklin and jefferson. later in life, adams made some snide comments about the drafting of the declaration and said jefferson included phrases

that had been hackneyed around in congress. but adams was a bit splenetic at this point. he went on to commend it jefferson. some of his recollections about the process of the selection of jefferson are interesting. he finally says he was selected because he had a felicitous pan, but at this point they were in favor of independence and agreed on virtually everything that was inserted in the declaration. host: let's take this call from virginia on our independent line. caller: i am calling to you from within two miles of bond

rejected the miles of monticello. host: what is your question? caller: it relates to punctuation and capitalization. i am looking at a second amendment, two versions of the second amendment on line. militia is capitalized, the state is capitalized, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is capitalized. therefore, malaysia has to exist -- militia has to exist. the district of columbia is [unintelligible] therefore, they do not have the right to keep and bear arms. guest: you are talking about the bill of rights. the second amendment as contained in the bill of rights,

which was written in 1789 and ratified by the states in 1791. the declaration of independence was approved by congress in 1776. it says nothing about the question about the right to bear arms. it attacks the king of england for keeping a standing army in times of peace in the colonies, but the issues you are interested in do not appear in the declaration of independence. host:bill in pennsylvania. you are on "washington journal." caller: thanks for taking my call. i was just wondering if you were to purchase a copy of that, because it's a copy on its somewhere? -- does it say copy on it? i have one copy and nowhere does

it say copy or print on the paper. host: where did you buy this? you're not led to believe it was authentic, were you? guest: not really, i got it from my mother. i was told to be very careful with it. guest: that is an interesting question. we get it all the time at the library of congress. in fact, there are some pathetic times in which people have come to us and said with great excitement, guess what i have here? i have the declaration of independence. there is only one copy of the declaration, and that is in the national archives. in 1823, there is a man named stone who made a copy using the original declaration of independence. that has high autograph value.

recent copies have sold for $250,000, and that is easily recognized. except for that, every other copy out there is a facsimile. many times during the late 19th century, insurance companies and banks produced copies and handed them out. the tents have been made to make the papers look old, but unfortunately there are three copies, the declaration itself, the first printing in 1776 done in philadelphia. that was probably on the evening of the fourth. that is worth a lot of money. a copy of that turned up in great britain, but there are 28 of those that have been found.

you are getting $800,000 maybe there. then these are printed copies, so the printed copy in host: 1823 our next call comes from -- our next call comes from tom. caller: happy for -- happy fourth of july. i want to thank c-span. i wanted to know where i could get a copy of jefferson prospects surt he read and possibly a copy -- of jefferson's excerpt that he read. guest: you could get a copy of the rough draft, it is not easy but there are a couple of volumes that the library have -- library of congress just published. it is a reprint of a 1943 publication by julian b oyd.

-- julian boyd. in that volume he will find a facsimile of the rough draft. you could write to the -- you could write to me at the library of congress. i could tell you how to order that volume. i think it has been distorted by the university press of new england. -- it has been distributed by the university press of new england. a large library would also have it. look under julian boyd as the editor of the jefferson papers. you would find that in bullion one. host: montana, you are on the "washington journal." caller: i would like to say that "washington journal" is one of

the best show because they had the greatest guests. regarding thomas jefferson's skepticism towards religion, i would want to know why he substituted a keyword creator instead of god in the declaration of independence. i will take my answer of air. guest: that is a good question but if you look at the last paragraph, he talks about a firm reliance on providence. many christian believers have been encouraged by that phrase, but the word creator was a word you would find commonly used by intellectuals during the enlightenment time. the declaration of independence has also been called a factor of the american leighton it. you will find washington --

factor of the american in light mint. you will find them amusing synonyms for god., the almighty, maker of the universe. in jefferson's case, i don't know his is idiosyncratic, it is quite common. host: why was it necessary for the fat in fathers to write the declaration in the first place? -- why was it necessary for the fathers to write the declaration? guest: these were contained in the resolution of congress on june 7. i am not exactly sure they were contained in that resolution but it was well-understood that they were going to meet foreign assistance to prevail against great britain, the mightiest military power in the world at that point. no one believed that any country would offer assistance to a group of people who were still subjects of great britain.

you had to declare yourself an independent country or who would possibly give you assistance and risk a war with britain? the other reason was they wanted to form a new, stronger government which was not possible if you still have 13 colonies and a disassociated state. it was political reasons. host: in today's edition of the "baltimore sun" they write about the seats of liberty. they say a maryland was one of the last holdouts in authorizing a declaration. that the major landholders who dominated political affairs were reluctant to take that step, but tradespeople and common citizens became convinced that reconciliation with england was impossible and agitated for a formal separation. guest: that is an interesting question about the economic forces that favored or opposed

independents. there were a large numbers of loyalists and historians spent a lot of time trying to analyze their socio-economic conditions. many of those or wealthy landholders, but lots of them were not. there were lots of wealthy people in favor of the declaration of independence. i believe john hancock was said to be the richest man in america. host: we are talking with james hutson and the declaration of independence. today the and independence day. if you want to get involved in a conversation come at the numbers are on the screen. -- if you want to get involved in the conversation, the numbers are on the screen. you can also send us messages through e-mail and twitter.

john on our line for independents. what is on your mind? caller: i wanted to know if he could answer a simple question. is the declaration of independence written on pink paper? guest: thank you very much. -- written on ink paper. it is written on the elements. host: -- it is written on velum. it is a form of leather. host: is there a reason why they chose that? guest: it was just because it is supposed to be more durable. i am not a student of paper, and i am not 100% sure but i believe it was velum. host: was it common for documents of this type to be written on this? guest: no.

i hope i am right about that. host: next up is denver, colorado. thanks for waiting. caller: thank-you. happy fourth of july. my question is is in today celebration of american independence and sovereignty? do you feel that globalism mae stripped america of its sovereignty? -- do you think globalism may strip america of its sovereignty guest: i do not really have a comment on that. i n and historian. it is one that worries some people -- i am aan historian. i n -- i suppose it is possible but i don't have an opinion. host: next up is louisiana. bill on the democratic line. caller: thank-you. i thought it would be

interesting for the public to hear history written by the winners. i just wondered if he would comment on what would have happened to the people who signed this had they failed. thank you. guest: they would have been traiters. they knew that and i think many of them expected or feared that they would be hanged. host: this editorial in the " philadelphia inquirer" they write about some of the folks who were involved in the signing of the declaration of independence. they say they are words that should not be cast aside when this nation is confronted with extraordinary circumstances that test our national security, or our commitment to be a welcoming begin to immigrants from other countries.

is this the background that was going to the minds of the founding fathers when they put this together? guest: yes, to a certain degree. i am not sure -- but they did think this was -- that is why the preface, at the first paragraph was written. it could have just been a list of grievances against the kaine and concluded by saying the king is a tyrant, and therefore we are overthrowing his government. but the first part of it about all men being created equal, it speaks to a larger issue, and jefferson firmly believed that the one purpose of the country is an asylum for oppressed people. host: john on airline for independence.

caller: i really -- jon on line for independence. caller: this was a document that was sent over to england. did the king of england right as one back? if so, what did he have to say about these charges and acquisitions we put in front of him? i know he sent his army over but did he send a letter back? guest: as far as we know i am not aware of any response by the king of england. certain if -- certain british pamphleteers responded to the declaration of independence. i think some of their arguments were fairly cogent against attacking some of the statements that it contained, but to my knowledge became -- but to my knowledge it is hard to know whether the kaine even read it

or not. the congress sent over -- hard to know whether the king read it or not. they sent over petitions and various other -- various others. they seem to have been read by very few. the thought is that those probably did not reach the king. host: san francisco, peter on our line for democrats. caller: i know in my readings that adams proposed the second would be the great day. he wrote to his wife and foresaw that we would have parades and fireworks on july 2. on the fourth i know that it was edited down from two-thirds and jefferson was upset. why do we celebrate the fourth and not july 2? guest: the fourth was the day on

which congress actually passed the resolution for independence. on the fourth the u.s. became an independent country. as you point out, john adams thought this would be the great national celebration. he talks about fireworks and bells and whistles. the declaration was adopted on the fourth. the country has -- it was read around to the troops. whether this is -- it is a good question why the second disappeared from the consciousness of the citizenry, but it did. host: declaration of independence is on display at the national archives. guest: it is on display. host: if you visit the library of congress can you see the

rough draft? guest: know, you cannot see the rough draft. that is one of the great national treasures and that is kept in another place under very strict security. it is encased. we do occasionally have it on exhibition but it is not on exhibition at the moment. host:kent on the line for independents. caller: what are the change -- one of the changes they made was to have been as. i was wondering if there was any other word they were debating, and how old was jefferson when he wrote the declaration of independence? guest: jefferson was born in 1743. again, the question of words being changed, there were lots

of minor changes. the question about why was propertied not include it with life and liberty is a very good one. most natural rights writers would have used the kind of word of life, liberty and property. .

it was a somewhat idiosyncratic term, for sure. >> we're all familiar with john hancock because of his signature and some of the other signatures on the declaration of independence. but who were some of the other people who signed this declaration and how did they get to be in that room as cignators? guest: these were representing the various states. if you were a representative of x, you could sign. actually, the declaration was available for signature for sometime after july 4. so some people who were elected afterwards came in and signed it. at least that's one of the working theories. but you had -- well, samuel adams was in the massachusetts

delegation. richard henry lee was a signer. these were important politicians who had been elected to congress by their states. >> and was there -- did they experience any kind of payback, or were there any repercussions for having signed the declaration of independence? >> well, you'll see in places a kind of -- there are stories. i've seen little one-page kind of pamphlets about what happened to the signers of the declaration of independence. and many of these people suffered. their properties were burned. they themselves or their families suffered in various ways. now, whether the british were actually aware that they were inflicting damage or they just happened to be in the theater where combat was going on is

another question. but there was -- many of the people came to harm, yes. >> frank in virginia beach, virginia, is our next caller. you're on with jim hutson of the library of congress. go ahead. caller: yes, the fight for independence is an ongoing thing, an ongoing struggle. right now today you can see the incredible corruption, all of this leveraging of debt, you know, leverage, leverage, leverage, slice and dice so thin and then sold to us, masquerading as an asset, hence the ridiculous term toxic acid. we are fighting for independence right now every day, an we have to keep that in mind. these same thieves, these same scoundrels who foisted horrible things like slavery on us, they're forever looking for cheap labor, slave labor to this day. in china, they're in independencia. it's the same corrupt mindset

of the totalitarian, you know -- free market means free from corruption, free from thieves and manipulation. host: frank, we're going to leave it there. has any other country in the history of the planet who's declared their independence from another sovereignty written out a document like the declaration of independence or is this unique? >> i guest: i think many of the countries to emancipated themselves from colonialism in the 19th and 20th sent re, mainly the 20th century, produced documents of this sort. remember, ho chi minh was supposed to be a great admirer of the declaration of independence. so it's certainly had its impact. i don't know the exact number, but certainly manifests to have been composed by countries leaving colonialism and so forth. >> and they used the

declaration of independence as their basis? >> i do not want to venture to say that's true, but many of the leaders were aware of it. >> toledo, ohio, ed on our line for republicans, go ahead. caller: yes, thank you very much. i wanted to on this july 4, 2009, a.d.. the liberty bell has on it from leviticus 25:10 proclaim liberty throughout the land to all the inhabitants thereof. and what a lot of people don't understand, and mr. hutson fell into the trap, we have mentioned our declaration of independence, four or five things mentioned over and over again. but the first thing he came up with is tax ace without representation. i wish he would go through the ones mentioned three or four times versus taxation without representation. and a lot of people don't understand -- i'm a follower of david barton of wall builders,

where i can actually find out the true history of our nation, rather than what's published in today's papers. they don't understand that half of the people that signed that declaration came out of biblical schools. they would be called bible schools today. and most of the people that founded our bible societies and other great institutions signed that declaration of independent. and if they saw the separation of church and state today, which is a marxist ideology, they would hang the traitors high, and if not, higher. host: we'll leave it there. jim hutson. guest: well, bible schools, that's an interesting -- i know david barton, as a matter of fact, and -- host: for those of us who don't know who david barton is, tell us. guest: well, david is the director -- i think that's the word -- of an organization called wall builders that really wants to restore -- and

this is probably not how he would describe it -- for the religious heritage in the country. but, again, in the 27 or so grievances that jefferson mentions against the king of england, i do not -- about the only one in there that relates to religion is an oblique reference to the quebec act. jefferson complains that the british parliament has passed the quebec act, which was an act in 1774 that established, in the views of the colon iferts, an arbitrary act in quebec and permitted the catholic religion to exist there. so, again, i would have to scrutinize these 27 or 28 complaints again. but i think that's maybe the major complaint about religion in the declaration.

it's also a bit of a stretch to call harvard and yale bible schools from which adams and these folks graduated, many of them. in the 18th century they were certainly interested in educating alerted ministry, but they also talk about charters, talk about the church and civil state. host: jim hutson, thank you very much for coming on the program and talking to us about the declaration of independence. guest: thank you. host: we're going to take a short break and when we come back we'll be talking with richard miniter of "the washington times." he is their editorial director and we'll hear what he has to say when we come back. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]

>> these places reminds me of modern cathedrals that donors would build wings on, hoping they'd go to heaven. >> walter kirn, princeton class of 1983 would like to see changes to the education system. >> i think princeton philosophy lectures should be on the web. i think that these wonderfully concentrated islands of talent and wealth and erudition should be opened up to the larger society, not kept separate, which they still are, and i can't understand why. >> walter kirn, lost in the meritocracy, on q&a, sunday night at 8:00 on c-span. you can also listen on x.m. satellite radio or download the c-span podcast. >> 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 updike, two-time winner of will pulitzer prize and the reunion of the apollo eight astronauts, on c-span2's "book tv," featuring books on the american revolution, including taking your calls on our first president live from george washington's mount vernon estate sunday on "in-depth." and p.j. o'rourke, his passion for cars and america's need to drive like crazy. also, a nobel peace prize recipient on the current challenges facing africa. find out what's on any time at c-span.org.

>> "washington journal" continues. >> richard miniter is the editor for "the washington times." back on august 28 of 2008, this was the lead editorial in "the washington times," talking about mccain and history. he had just picked governor sarah palin of alaska to be his running mate. and the editorial read in park, she has impeccable conservative credentials. and it also went on to say, "but the pitfalls are that she may be too young. our state has only three editorial electoral college votes, and in july she became embroiled in a scandal over the firing of the director of public safety, walt monegan." where do we stand today? guest: she's been bedeviled by many small scandals, these are manufactured by foes but also

people she has surrounded herself with. there's been investigations of lands deals, investigations into the use of government e-maim addresses and long-distance phone cause, and, of course, there's been charges of undue influence for the use of state troopers and so on and so on. most of these charges that have reached a conclusion, the governor's come out just fine. but the many small bites must really be frustrating for her. host: on august 31, the edition of "the washington times," this was the editorial that began, "there is a great deal to admire about alaska governor sarah palin, and it goes on to say that senator mccain's selection of mrs. palin is anything but the kinds of predictable political decision that washington politicians typically make." first question -- is there still a great deal to admire about governor palin? guest: i think so, yes. she's certainly been a path finder, not just in alaskan

politics, but she's the first in sort of my generation, the generation after the baby-boomers, to really make an impact on the national political american life. you can have a great debate over what that legacy is. she's also the first working mother, mother of school-age children, at the national political level in a very long time, so that makes her a role model for many women across the country. and she is a reformer. she took on a very cozy and perhaps corrupt establishment in alaska and tried to do the right thing and made some headway, and that's more than most politicians can say. host: it also sales that selection of mrs. palin is anything about the kinds of predictable political decision that washington politicians typically make. does her announcement yesterday that she is not going to seek re-election, that she is going to resign her position as governor of alaska, does that continue with the kind of nonpredictable political decisions that washington politicians typically make? guest: well, it's certainly

atypical and unpolitical, isn't it? what was unusual with the editorial was the selection of palin by mccain. so it was the washington politician in that sentence was senator john mccain, who is a bit of a maverick. she also is a bit of a maverick. maybe that's what those two ultimately saw in each other. but the bigger question is how can we have a political life in this country in which people can enter political life with young children. i mean, we know with the case of obama, his children are off-limits. the case of bill clinton. chelsea was off-limits, jimmy carter, amy was off-limits. but look at the bush family. their two daughters were under constant scrutiny. palin's daughter was the butt of late-night jokes. so the media should not have gone after palin's children, and perhaps that was the thing that drove her from public life. that was the thing that ultimately she had to choose

between the destruction of her family by the media or her own ambitions. and she made the wise -- if that was the choice, she made the wise and correct choice to choose her family over politics. host: richard miniter is our guest for the rest of the show, for about the next 45 minutes. and if you'd like to get on and talk to us about some of the items in the news today regarding governor palin or president obama or the war in iraq, the numbers are 202-737-0002 for democrats, republicans, 202-737-on 0001, independents, 202-628-0205. messages can be sent via email to journal at c-span.org or by twitter. the address is c-spanwj. and we'll wait for the phones to heat up and continue our conversation with richard miniter. tell us about what the editorial page's philosophy is and how you go about putting

together the editorial page on a daily basis. guest: first of all, we were driven largely by the news. so we looked at what the most important elements of the national conversation are and we tried to develop a thoughtful response to those events. we have a range of experts on our staff who cover national security, congress, the courts, economics and so on. so our economics expert is a ph.d. in economics. our national security expert had worked in the pentagon at a pretty high level, taught national security at the national defense university. his name is jim robins, also a ph.d. and an author of a number of books. so that makes us a bit unusual by editorial page standards. we have also a great range of sources and resources to draw on to really advance the agenda. >> one of the items that was written about in the editorial page -- this comes from thursday's edition -- has to do with judge sotomayer and

talking about her foreign ideas is how it's headlined on the editorial page, and what's written is, "worse than her muddle-headedness is her lack of discretion or humility. in the american system judges are not meant would be philosophers, legislators or diplomats. their job is to apply the law as written, not to try to achieve some sort of cosmic justice, as determined by their own inner ethical gyroscopes." your comments. guest: sounds like good writing to me. this ace spirited page. that's why readers turn to us first and we draw a tremendous amount of attention on the web and why our editorials get talked about. but behind those words is an important point -- that when judges start to become -- step outside of their role and try to be something that they're not, trouble ensues. this happens in any element of life, right? when you have a park ranger pretending to be a policeman, it's heading for trouble, right? what we're really asked of in life is to do our job as well

as we can and to stay focused on that, because it's an important job. that's why it was given to us. so that's why, you know, we don't -- on the editorial page of "the washington times," we don't take sides with political parties. we're for principle, not politicians. so where that principle is embodied in a democratic judge will be for him, or if it's not embodied by a republican lawmaker, we'll be against him. we're driven by principle, not by people or personalities. that's what sets us apart as well. host: let's go to the phone. our first caller comes from tulsa, oklahoma. brent, on the republican line, you're on the "washington journal." caller: hello. host: hello. caller: i am wanting to know, with sarah palin's resignation, will this hopefully bring the death nell to the wacko fundamental conservatives? guest: how would you define a

wacko fundamentalist conservative? caller: the white trash pentecostals. guest: so you're not opposed to fundamental conservatives, you're just opposed to the wacko ones? i want to understand your question. host: brent's moved on. guest: ok. first of all, palin's always gotten a bum rap on this for being against revolution and wanting to sensor library books and things like this. these things were extensively investigated by newspapers and found out to be false allegations. so she was pretty conventional, a pretty conventional cystian. certainly didn't come from a church that handled snakes or believed that some flying sawser was going to lands next tuesday, nor did she think that all the answers came from karl marx. you know, everyone sees into

people they disagree with cheaches of their own imagination. i fear that's the case of this caller. host: gene on our line for democrats from charleston, west virginia, you're next. caller: yes. i remember back when bill clinton was president, when he first came in, there were lots of jokes about chelsea, and janet reno, if you remember how ugly she was, she wasn't necessarily off-limits to the press, and especially to the talk-show hosts at all. and amy carter, when jimmy carter was president, the talk show hosts went after her because jimmy carter said that he even talked to his daughter, amy, about the possibility of war with iran. she certainly wasn't off the lift. so i think children of the -- off the list. so i think children of the presidents or candidates do

come into fodder, especially with a party that asks for votes based on family values. you would kind of start looking at their family a little bit more, and maybe that's the reason that the press was a little bit more intense about the governor of alaska. >> how does the editorial page staff go about setting the line as to what you will write about, what you won't write about and what you will critique and what you won't critique >> let me answer the question from the caller first, if i may. first of all, i think that the attention paid to jimmy carter's daughter, amy, yes, amy came into 1978 into public life and criticism. but amy herself wasn't being criticized. president jimmy carter was for a ridiculous speech in a sweater on live television, in which he said he consulted amy, who i believe was in the sixth grade at the time, about -- it wasn't about actually war with iran -- i think the caller is misremembering -- it was about atomic war with russia, which

was something that there was a cloud of fear on that issue constantly hovered over the united states in that is years. it obviously wasn't a real threat. no one thought that was going to happen tomorrow. but so amy herself wasn't criticized. and chelsea, again, wasn't singled out for criticism the way the bush twins were and certainly the way palin's daughters were. the kinds of things that were said by late-night comics about palin's daughters are simply on par by themselves. there is no easy equivalent to find in modern american life for someone running for national office and it's really despicable, frankly, what the media did and said about her children, who weren't running for office themselves. didn't put themselves out there. the second point that caller raised is well, if you're going to campaign on family values, well, actually, that's not what she campaigned on at all. she campaigned on clean government, maverick, change, so on, and she talked a lot about environmental policy. i think there's a belief out there that any republican

politician who campaigns on anything is also campaigning on family values. final point on family values is that if you're going to stand out there for conservative beliefs -- even if you are going to stand for family values, and certainly millions of americans do -- it doesn't mean you have to be perfect. you can be yourself, poor at math, but think that children ought to learn how to add, multiply and divide. one does not have to be absolutely perfect at a subject to realize that society is better when people are more tolerant, for example, more knowledgeable or whatever virtue you are promoting. and i say that's a fundamental, philosophical mistake. i hear that quite a bit, that one has to be perfect in order to order vo indicate a virtue for the men -- in order to advocate a virtue for the american people. first of all, we wants to be inside the 24-hour news cycle,

generally, unless we have something of -- a result of our own investigations. and in that case, we will -- we'll time the appropriately. but generally we want to be inside the 24-hour news cycle. we wants to be responding or leading the kfers on an important topic. so when congress is debating cap and trade, you'll tend to see editorials by us on cap and trade. we've been leading the pack, i think, on sotomayer's confirmation. we've dug up more on her, i think, than other competing papers have. and that's because we consider these to be important elements of the national conversation. so we look for issues that resonate with a tremendous number of readers that are being decided upon now i think is the key question. and we can make a difference. if we're just going to be saying the same things that other papers are going to be saying, either on the right or on the left, then we will avoid commenting on it, because there's no point in being an echo, we want to be a voice. host: richard miniter is our

guest. the next call is from minneapolis, minnesota, on our line for independents. william. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i am thinking back to abraham lincoln, an unconventional christian and an idiosyncratic person. and he was able to navigate all of these difficulties in politics. now we have an unconventional christian in some difficult times, like lincoln was in difficult times with islamic fundamentalism on the horizon. what has changed in america that someone would be castigated like sarah palin? >> that's a thoughtful question. well, the glib answer is 24-hour news. but i think something more -- several things more fundamental

than that has changed. as the country has become urban and suburban as opposed to a rural country, people have become less tolerant of each other because we're in closer proximity. so we've seen in the 20th century and sadly a bit in this century is that the differences -- the spectrum of differences in american life has actually narrowed. in the 19th century szed the know-nothings, a lot of these crazy characters. where the crazy characters have vanished on both extremes for american life. and yet, for example, liberals and conservatives find it difficult to work together, to share the same apartments. we see churches divided along ideological lines now. so one of the fundamental things that has changed is that we were just left tolerant of each other. another thing that's changed is that religion is largely absent from large elements of american

life which wasn't true in lincoln's day. lincoln could make offhand biblical references and everyone in the crowd would understand. they were part of the same cultural conversation. but i noticed a few years ago when george bush -- president george bush sort of made an offhand remark about one shouldn't complain about the spec -- speck in someone else's eye when you have a log in your own. what an odd metaphor, for anyone acquainted with the king james bible had heard that phrase at some point in their lives and knew exactly what it was, don't be so quick to criticize the sins of others when you have sins yourself, a key christian teaching. so we're left tolerant. we see people who are anti and pro religion don't get along well, an open anti-religious

sentiment wasn't present in the 19th century. so that's another fundamental change from lincoln's day. host: on the horizon this week is president obama's trip to russia. the subhead in this morning's "los angeles times" says "obama seeks a fresh start with his visit, but anti-american policies are deeply entrenched in the kremlin." they write, "it's an open tune moment for the united states to warm up the frosty relationship. moscow could help on some of washington's most policy problems, including afghanistan, iran, north korea. but in russia there is scant evidence of a desire for a treasure start." what will we be reading in the editorial pages in response to the president's trip? guest: i don't want to give it away and keep anyone from picking up the paper at the newsstand. but generally there's always this incredible optimism that the warmth of a skilled negotiator and communicator

like mr. obama could sort of warm the cockles of the frozen russian heart and suddenly bring peace on earth. but nations have not personalities, but interests. and if we were to examine the foreign policy of the russian czars, of the present russian government, we'll notice deep similarities. well notice that russian state has had an interest in iran for more than 300 years and that there were some very unhappy moments in iranian history balls of that russian inter-- because of that russian intervention in that country. countries do not back off centuries of interest in a pick geographic region, and they don't back off their vision of themselves as a global player. russia sees itself as a force that is competitive with us, not collaborative with us and that's not likely to change. that's been in place for almost a century now. and that may just be the way things are.

now, can things be made better at the margin? can they be incremental improvements? hopefully. we've seen some incredible improvements in regan and bush one in those relationships, and hopefully obama can make some bit of a difference. but nations have long-term interest and there's only so much even a powerful personality can do, even if they want to do it. host: our next call for richard miniter comes from ellen on our line for republicans from danbury, connecticut. caller: good morning. host: good morning, ellen. caller: happy independence day. guest: happy independence day. caller: i'd like to thank anybody in your audience that's a veteran for their service and just wanted to make a quick comment. i see that senator dodd is running all kinds of nice and slick ads up here, and everybody i know is just laughing and changing the channel. and most of their financing is coming from outside the state. i'd like your audience to know that.

but my question is what do you think the chances are of the cap and trade bill passing the senate? and i'm going to hang up and listen. thank you. guest: well, the dodd race is always interesting. one of the things people may have forgotten is that chris dodd's father himself was a senator, was a devoted anti-communist, although he was a conventional liberal whose political career ended in scandal, and so now some people who are longtime observers are suggesting that the current chris dodd may end up in a similar way because of all the sweetheart deals he seem to get with mortgagemakers and others. and the fact that money is coming from outside the state is something that people who oppose the established candidates always tend to point out. but the nation has an interest in local elections, sadly. when a senator can sit on the banking committee and make law for the entire country, even though you might life in

chicago or los angeles or kentucky, you might well want to send a contribution to mr. dodd's opponent, or to mr. dodd, depending on your point of view. these, unfortunately, have become national races in some ways. i forgot the caller's final question, but -- host: cap and trade. guest: well, cap and trade. well, it certainly got through the house upwards of 40 democrats voted for it, but eight republicans switched sides, like mark kirk of illinois, voted in favor of cap and trade. that's ominous. we'll see what the debate in the senate is going to be. passage in the senate might prove to be far tougher. first of all, everyone knows that president obama wants to sign this bill, that -- so if it's not stopped in the senate, it will not be stopped at all. but the conference between the house and the senate will go rather quickly. so the senate is the final battleground. you have lobbyists on both sides sharpening their knives, so this will be a major issue.

the big issue really here is cost estimates. do we think that -- do we believe the administration's cost estimates that will only raise electricity prices for the average american family by a couple of hundred dollars, or will it raise those prices by a couple of thousand dollars a year. and in this economy, unemployment has just hit 9.5%. does the average american really want to support legislation that is going to substantially raise his electricity and energy prices, making it more expensive to cool a house in the summer and much more expensive to heat it in the winter? that's the question ultimately that might doom the bill. host: our next call comes from memphis, tennessee, on our line for democrats, please help me with the pronunciation of your name. caller: aurelin. host: go ahead. caller: hi, editor from "the washington times." host: richard miniter. caller: mr. miniter. my question is i'd like to compare palin's common sense and intelligence to sotomayer,

because when i see palin comes out, i could have debated palin with my education and job skills. i get tired of the republicans being so exclusive, that they scraped the bottom of the barrel and tell me she's more intelligent than me. i see these people dumb on the job all the time. and sotomayer is an inclusive person. if she's only 80% and inclusive and liberal, i can work with you to get the rest of it right. but the republicans have been so exclusive. it's not love thigh -- thy neighbor as themselves. i'm religious and they tell me i have no family values and then they parade people in front of me that's horrible.

host: aurelin, you said you could debate governor palin with your job and your training. what is it that you do for a living? caller: clerical skills. guest: you raised a number of interesting points in there. you know, i think it's simply one of these facts of human nature that people we agree with, we tend to think they're smarter. people we disagree with, we tend to underestimate their intelligence. especially when you haven't met someone, let alone had them sit down and take an i.q. test. it's hard say who was smarter. as in the case of sotomayer, one of the things that sets her apart is she hasn't gotten the scrutiny that sarah palin did. the supreme court justices nominees typically don't. host: in the wednesday edition of "the washington times," the lead headline was "the surge worked. iraqi transfer of power is a sign of stability."

it was written, "the departure was made possible because the surge succeeded in reducing violence in the country. had we left precipitously in 2007, as the democrats demanded, the debate would be whether iraq was a victory or a vietnam-style defeat." guest: well, my thoughts exactly. of course, i would say that, wouldn't i? no, i think it's important, and what i'm trying to do in this editorial -- sometimes in editorial writing it's important to remind, not to instruct and wag your finger, but to remind people of the history of how we got here. so we have this history on july 1, withdrawing from all iraqi cities, turning it over to the iraqis. a lot of the outer provinces have been turned over to iraqi forces as well. so we've largely withdrawn from large elements of iraq. those are now patrolled, protected by people who are accountable to the iraqi people, who can -- if they commit a crime, they can stand

trial in iraqi courts and who are taking orders from leaders who are elected by them. that's a huge moment. we also wanted to point out the history and said, wait a minute. there was a tremendous debate in this country, 2007, whether iraq was a lost cause. we had "newsweek" and "time" magazine and foreign policy magazine and "the new york post." every star in the constellation of establishment media saying, it's over, give up, go home, and get real. it turns out they changed the strategy. the u.s. military learned a lot about urban warfare. the u.s. military has always felt uncomfortable fighting. but when you're finetting a counterinsushtcy, it's mostly in cities, it's not in the plains where we can have these tank maneuvers that we trained for. it's a neighborhood by neighborhood kind of combat. so we had to change strategy. we had to learn how to work with the iraqis. we had to learn how to cooperate better with that culture and realize that a third cousin is not a distant

relative. it may be for an when, we can't name our third cousin, many iraqis can. so, therefore, when you arrest someone who's the third cousin of a terrorist, he or an insurgent, he may well know where that person is. so learning those kinds of things, the surge was a tremendous success and it meant that the war in iraq, rather than being a totally soul-shattering loss, was a much different result, something approaching victory. host: will there be a parallel drawn between the surge in iraq and the stepped-up u.s. activity in afghanistan? guest: well, certainly the obama administration would like us to draw that parallel. the sad thing is it's too soon to tell. we're still in the early days in the new strategy in afghanistan. general mcchrystal has announced a strategy which seems very promising. they're deploying a lot more troops. but the russians poured in tremendous amounts of troops into afghanistan and they found that more troops did not soak

up the resistance, but seemed to be -- afghanistan seemed to be an angry mouth that could swallow whole russian divisions. it may well be that the answer is not more troops, but a different strategy, a different way of working with the afghans. and these are very different countries. afghanistan and iraq are very different countries. in afghanistan you're fighting not an urban war, but one in the countryside. a lot of the times what you're fighting for is for control of water, because from water comes the center of village life, all crops, all people need water and some of the drier environments, like a province where the u.s. troops are presently engaged. so if you can control the water points, you can move the insurgency away. but you'll see some of the toughest fighting will be over a small mountain well or an aged spring out on the burning sands of the province. and small, but very vital engagements. that's really -- that's a very different kind of war than iraq. host: our guest for the next 20

minutes, richard minter, editorial page editor of "the washington times." atlanta, georgia, from david. what's on your mind this morning? caller: happy fourth of july. i appreciate you taking my call. i just heard mr. minter say that he kind of approaches the editorial page sometimes of wanting to remind people of the history of how we got into a certain situation. and i agree. i hope he reminds people of why we're actually in afghanistan, too. the only reason why i feel people can even halfway consider governor palin a viable candidate in 2012 is because george bush lowered the bar so far. so really, that's all i have to say. thank you very much. host: your response, sir? guest: you have quite a range of callers here. host: yes, we do. we cover the spectrum here.

guest: that's the great thing about c-span. host: next up is osceola, michigan, brian on our line for republicans, go ahead. caller: good morning. many ways to go on this this morning. i have guess the biggest disappointment -- i'm 50 now -- is that we have such an emphasis on style over actually the substance of the words. it just amazes me. to a greater point now, during the last election cycle, annal i'm sure it will happen again, -- and i'm sure it will happen again. the debates were a debacle. why can't we put the two candidates in a room, much like phil donahue did in the 1970's and let them hash it out and talk? when things are scripted much like hollywood, i mean, my god, i can take an off-broad way actor, give him a speech, put him in a hotel room, have him study it and he could deliver

the greatest speech, and everyone would be saying how great he is. so how do we get to the truth of things, sir? guest: that's a deep question, too. i can see that -- that's an important question, because i think that's something that a lot of people think about and worry about, whether or not what the politicians are saying is just some script written by some handlers, or is it a thoughtful analysis of the problems facing our country and how to resolve them. i don't think putting the two candidates together with phil donahue -- i mean, is he still alive? maybe he's been replaced by one of those robots from westwood or something, who knows. but anyway, there's another 1970's reference for you, caller. it's not the debate between the candidates that's important, it's the debate between the supporters of candidate a versus the supporters of candidate b. ultimately there has to be a conversation. there has to be a resolution of important issues. and we've really been stuck since the 1980's in this country. the country is divided and

people are shouting at each other over the abyss, over some gap, rather than meeting and talking one-on-one and hashing out these issues and coming to some consensus about some of the major issues facing our country, such as how are we going to pay for the retirement of the baby boom, how are we going to continue to fight the war on terror while balancing that with civil liberties. what about the global warming and the environment? what about education reform? what about the reform of some of these laws that benefit unions and so on? there's a whole host of issues, you have a list, i have a list. but this discussion has been stalled and it's been frozen by political correctness and by an inability to communicate. and i don't think it's a matter of what happens to candidates, i think it's perhaps the internet can supply a forum here where, you know, the supporters of people on those two sides can actually have a conversation. and that -- the beginning of that national dialogue, i think, would be the beginning of the turning point in american politics.

host: on the front page of a paper in south carolina they have an article about governor sanford and a trip to argentina stunneded by south carolina funds and a meeting between the governor and his argentinean girlfriend. how much of this would be subject matter for the editorial page? how deeply would you go into this story to write an editorial on "the washington times"? guest: we'd want to write something that was going to add value to the conversation, that's going to take the conversation to a new direction. we did have an editorial the day the scandal broke. it was called "sanford's tang gow" where we kind of looked at why is it important to people that their governor or their leaders are faithful. i don't think the public or the voters care so much about the he can act state of someone's

marriage. the only people who really know how a marriage is going are the two people who are in it. for the rest of us, it's a foreign country. but, you know -- i mean, the couple seems to get along really well. but when you step outside the bounds. when you break some of the fundamentals, you know, you ask the ross perot question -- if your wife can't trust you, how can i? so it's this whole notion of trust, which is an angry, uneven theme that runs through american politics, where people simply don't trust people -- politicians and others, but they don't trust people of the other party. and this is the kinds of thing that would tend to feed that. and we're seeing so many scandals, especially among the republicans these days. it used to be that we could trust the republicans just to have money-related scandals. now they've broken that rule and it's the sex-related scandals, which usually we counted on the democrats to give us. you know, you really wonder whether there needs to be a weeding out among the people

running these political parties and you say aren't there any normal people among you who can stay within the four corners of your marriage? host: next up, jupiter, florida, check on our line for democrats. caller: good morning and happy fourth of july. thank you for c-span. host: thanks for your call. caller: i am a -- i guess i'm kinds of like a lot of people in the country now. i was raised in a democratic family and i've always tended to be more conservative. i am leaving the democratic party and registering as an independent. i'm disgusted with both parties. obama has been a travesty and i'm really upset. but i guess the real comment i want to make is when i was growing up, when you watch the mainstream news media, you tended to believe what they said. they presented facts and maybe there's a little bit of an agenda, but primarily they left

it up to the person watching to determine what it really meant. now i feel the state is dead. i cancelled my subscription to the "post." i have trouble watching most of mainstream television, because it's kinds of all obama all the time. and i'm sorry, i just don't believe what i'm hearing. it seems that they're all agendas-driven. and mr. miniter, i honestly listened to you this morning and i might actually start being on the cable and on the computer and listening to you and reading what you have to say, because you're the most even-tempered person i've heard in quite a while coming out of the media. i'm just wondering if you feel the media is really driving the agenda in this country today rather than possibly what the reality of the world situation is and how you feel about the media in terms of their impact on national politics and whether it's for the good or for the bad.

guest: the caller is raising an important question. the media is sort of the intelligence service of the people. if you remember in the run-up to the iraq war or just after the iraq war, we had this tremendous debate about intelligence failures. but no one talks about media failures. stories that the media has gotten wrong or stories that the media has left out, an important fact that if you knew that fact, would change how you looked at the story. and we all have our own list of those stories. i think the reason why newspapers in particular are dying in this country is there is, as simple as it sounds -- no longer serving the needs of their readers. they're not acting as the people's intelligence service. giving them insight and information about what's going on nationally, locally, internationally, so people can make important decisions in their lives. they take another look at their 401-k, is it safe to send their kid to this high school versus that one. all these decisions that you need information on.

and the press used to supply reliable, trustworthy answers on these important questions. and now, as your caller said, they increasingly seem caught up in their own agenda. well, frankly, i think the caller's on to something. you see -- if you look at the number of headlines on global warming, for example, when no reliable opinion poll that wasn't conducted by an interest group, did the american public put that in the top 10. you look at the coverage friday, for example, the unemployment rate, climbing to 9.5%, one of the highest -- probably the highest since 1982. it's a real changing moment in american history, a new level. and yet, if you looked at the "associated press" stories, offense, we'll have to put off refer for a -- oh, we'll have to put off recovery for a while. perhaps they had a pro-obama agenda. so it does seem as if the media

has its friends and that is its enemies, sarah palin, rather than telling what they see and hear and what they're learning and comparing it to history and looking at what it means. but that's the real fun of this business. it's actually not putting your finger on the scale, but trying to figure out what's going on. host: richard miniter is the editorial page editor of "the washington times" here in washington, d.c. on the streets and delivered to your homes six days a week. you can finds it 24/7 online at washingtontimes.com. back to the phones. miami, florida, joe on our line for independents. go ahead. caller: how are you guys doing? host: fine. caller: great. a question about -- you know, we all have differences in the country as far as debate and we have people's opinion as far as one party to the other. as far as looking at fundamentals, meaning that you really trust the system and you look at the investigation of acorn, do you think there was adequate coverage there, when you look at how voters were skewed, or if they were skewed? that really erodes at the fundamental that perhaps maybe

the votes were tipped in a certain direction. what's your comment on that? guest: well, certainly at the washington "times" we've been one of the leading, if not the leading paper looking into acorn and that's a big story on our editorial page. we've covered that and broken news on that, on the editorial page of "the washington times." it's a big story for several reasons. it's the kind of community activism that obama emerged out of. so that's a key. out of that crawled deron, it becomes important to -- called deron it's important to look at that -- cauldron it's important to look at that and it should be understood. acorn is playing an increasingly large role in our politics. they are involved in the u.s. census for better or four worse. i understand there are people on both sides of that issue. but that's unusual to have such a high-level partnership with a group in the census taking, and they seem to be involved in many other areas of the administration. so anything that's that

involved deserves a closer look. frankly, i think wal-mart should be investigated as well. let's take a look at the relationship between the obama administration and wal-mart. wal-mart has recently come out for national health care and backing the obama plan after years of opposition. whenever somebody suddenly changes, i get curious, don't you? host: sure. next up, redondo beach, california, on our lines for republicans, go ahead. caller: thanks for taking my call. your guest is a neocon propagandist. he basically has said -- host: let's move on to state college, pennsylvania. ken, on our line for democrats. caller: wow, that was scary. good morning, happy fourth. i had a question about the comment that mr. windsor made about sarah palin. there were a lot of attacks on

her autistic son. i don't remember that every happening and i feel that what she tends to do and what a lot of her defenders do is cast her as this victim in order to rally sympathetic support for her. i was just wondering if you can at least mention any example where people have come after her autistic son, rather than her husband. guest: i don't believe that i said, anyway, that there were attacks on her autistic son. there may well have been those attacks. i haven't seen them. but we have seen persistent attacks on her daughters by david letterman and by others, and, you know, out of we had locke birth is a crisis in -- out of wed lock birth is a crisis in our country by people of all income levels and it's something we're going to have to deal with as a country moving forward. but there needs to be a way to talk about it in such a way that it doesn't destroy the teenagers involved and it

doesn't focus assaults on teenagers as a way of getting to their parents. because that means that there's a whole generation of people whose children may or may not have done things, who will be kept out of american life. and, you know, there is a benefit to having people in public life who don't come from perfect families. it gives them an insight into how many people in this country live. and i know that i'm -- on the left people say that one of the great virtues of sotomayer is that she comes from that -- you know, the preseason communities in the bronx -- the puerto rican communities in the broncs and knows what that part of life is like and they're on to something. palin also knows something about a different part of life in this country. if we're going to separate the two, there may ablot of empty seats. host: the subhead on the front page of "the new york post" this morning says "governor sarah quits. sparks 2012 frenzy."

i know we're way early in the process on this. but when the time comes, how does the washington "times" editorial group go about deciding who they're going to endorse for a major office like president? >> we think it's a jump ball at the moment and we'd like to have lots of people competing for that endorsements of all major political parties. host: so it's a process where they come to you and as opposed to you going out and saying we're thinking about endorsing you. guest: it's a little bit of both. we want to learn a lot about the candidates and the issues and see who best can move america forward. what set of policies that has an analysis of -- a solid analysis of the problems facing the country in 2011, or in 2012, that we think offers a thoughtful alternative to whatever mess we're in. and that might be the incumbent or it might be a republican challenger or somebody new.

we'll see. on palin on the 2012, i think it's unlikely that you'll see her run or certainly her chances of getting the nomination would be very remote. to see her run is doubtful. it comes down to name recognition, which she does have, but fund-raising prowess, which she probably doesn't have. alaska is not a major source of republican funds. if you're a republican candidate you're going to raise money in south texas, in southern california and raise money in new york. and to a certain extent in the northern virginia area. host: but now that she's not going to be governor, won't she have more time to do that? guest: she doesn't have those relationships. she's about a year and a half behind mitt romney, who has a tremendous network, has money of his own, but he has a tremendous financial network and a network of supporters and volunteers. and the other contender, which no one talks about, is dick cheney. it might well be that although he has a bad ticker, that people are looking for a steady

hand. he's been outspoken in recent weeks against the obama administration, defending various decision that is he was involved in as vice president. and, you know, the ultimate contrast to a young president might be an older one. maybe the country, after a lot of rapid change, is ready for the pace of change to slow down and maybe dick cheney represents that. i'm certainly not stumping for him and i have no idea whether he's running or not. so i think it will be -- you know, it will be a classic graig white guy debate in the republican party and sadly i don't think governor palin will be a part of it. host: george on our line for independents, go ahead, george, from connecticut. caller: first of all, i'd like to mention that i appreciate the wonderful mind of richard and i was inspired by the mind of jefferson prior