annelise will talk about ronald reagan's approach to the cold war and foreign policy in their book. "washington journal" is up next. ♪ host: welcome, on this sunday, august 16, 2009. today, the president and his family will tour the national park at the grand canyon. our guest is martin crutsinger. several events have happened to suggest that we might be in a turnaround mode. what are the indicators? guest: the gdp for the second quarter was down, but not as much. it was a big change from the first quarter when it was 6.4%

at an annual rate. unemployment actually dropped after it has been rising for over one year. but it is still 9.4%, very high. the number of layoffs were down to about one-third from where they were at the peak in january. there are some things that seem to show that the economy after the nosedive late last year seems to be host: stabilizing how significant are these indicators? guest: these other big things that economists watch. the fact that they are showing we are pulling out of that dive is significant. host: our guest today is martin crutsinger from the associated press. you can phone us with your comments. you can also send us messages by

twitter. how much of this positive news that we are seeing -- is the white house taking credit for? how much of it is just change over time because the time has come? guest: president obama is a politician, so politicians will always take credit for good economic news because there will be blamed for bad economic news. it goes both ways. you're right, we have a business cycle. we were in a down. -- in a down period -- this has been the longest recession in the post-waworld war time, but this one does seem to be in the now.

host: can you make predictions? guest: economists believe it could have been in the third quarter of this year. instead of the gdp shrinking that we could start to see a positive number. the problem is that most recoveries, unemployment is a lagging indicator. it is now at 9.4%. many forecast that it will go above 10%. it will probably peak in the spring or summer of next year. host: the get the sense that unemployment numbers are things that really mattered to the american people? guest: oh, yes. this has been a very severe recession. millions have lost their jobs. yes, unemployment is the key indicator and it matters to people host: we have a story today from this paper -- looking at how people who are unemployed

are dealing with that situation in florida. this reporter writes that if the sunshine state is a larger than life reflection of for the country is heading, then the nation is still stuck. is that the trend you see another part of the country? guest: florida and california were really at the epicenter of the housing bust because things had gotten so red hot there and realty had gone up so much. so, when the boom turned to bust, states that had seen big increases now too big declines. it is worse in florida, but there are many parts of the country where housing is in trouble. even there we are seeing signs

that home sales, new and existing have begun to show a little rebound. prices are still falling. but the construction is starting to pick up. even there we see signs of stabilization. host: is florida one of those states that is an indicator of the rest of the country? are there other places that could serve as a bellwether dax guest: florida is a big, tax- growing state. it had such a boom in housing -- these are the two states always mentioned, a california and florida because the boom was so big. host: let's go to the phones on the line for democrats with ralph. caller: hi, thanks for taking my call. watching the cable and news stations you hear that they were going to bottom out later this year. some reports that we will bottom

out next year. i was just wondering if you could give us an educated guess on when he thinks we will really bottom not? if the future really does look bright? guest: the bottom up, economists are saying there are some new ways of measuring, but one way, if you look at the overall economic growth in gdp, for the six months from the fourth quarter through the first quarter if fell at the fastest rate in a half century. that leveled off in the spring. some economists believe the things we have been seeing recent industrial production -- that it was up for the first time after eight straight

declines. economists hope that gdp could turn up in this current july/september period. the national economic researchers officially say when recessions begin and and and have declared it began in december 2007 -- when it actually and it will take the months to decide. but from the indicators that we see, private economists say it could happen right in this summer period. in terms of getting better, again may not feel better to most americans because unemployment will continue to rise up through next spring/summer. it is all relative. if you have a job or you get a job you probably feel like the recession is over, but you're still looking for work you will still feel like you're in a recession. host: bloomberg recently reported that the trade deficit

in the u.s. probably widened in june from lowest level in nearly a decade as rising oil prices -- the increase10. they increased 10%. guest: the nation's trade balance is one of the few things that improves and recession. what did rise a bit in june it is running at about half of the rate it was just one year ago. for five years we had consecutive record deficits. the trade deficit is not really the problem at the moment. imports have been falling more than exports. in fact, economists predict after falling to about half the level that had been running, that it will begin rising again next year.

it will show that demand is coming back in this country. it is something that means something in terms of jobs and whether we can export to other countries. the trade barriers we face and so on, but in terms of the overall economy at the moment it is not the biggest problem. host: cash for clunkers -- could discreet and auto industry bubble as plants in europe to produce more -- what happens when the print room in setbacks guest: that is what some economists are worried about. instead of boosting sales you're just moving them forward. it has been a huge success. the problem is, what happens after the vouchers stop? host: let's go to michael on the independent line calling from manhattan, new york.

caller: you have a great show. martin, i wanted to give you some information. i am a professor of business. i wanted to give the doctors and obama a number that will really surprise them -- doctors in eu live 12 years longer than doctors in manhattan. let me tell you how how i know. i was assigned by sloan- kettering in new york hospital to transfer and labeled in such a way to target cancer cells. we went to italy because we could get through their administration and test on the drug within two years which we could not get here in the u.s. i assumed we had the best medical care in the u.s. i bought the propaganda, but the life expectancy of a doctor is

about 72 years old at sloan- kettering in new york. when i was in europe dealing with this drug company to transfer the drug, my duty is in physics -- the line average life expectancy of a doctor in italy is 84 years of age. i heard everyone talking about the olive oil, but that is significant. i think doctors have to take a second look win -- and i know we're 47 and life expectancy, but you have to remember -that we're 12 years lower than italy and france. host: can you relate this to the conversation? caller: as a business professor i think the banking crisis is that they have not written $800

billion in commercial real estate. they are still holding it. so, i think when that is written down it should affect the banks. guest: there is a huge health of the right now that the presidency is receiving a president obama is trying still to campaign for these town hall meetings occurring. i'm not familiar with the specific statistic that the caller brought up. but it is causing a re- evaluation. the british officials came out this last week from both parties and said that while the republicans are attacking the single-payer program, britain says they have a good health care plan on both sides of the spectrum. i guess it is causing all countries to reevaluate how they

provide health care. host: here is a story from "the washington times" today. colonial bank has been shut down by federal officials and the biggest failure of this year. it is one of many closures. they boosted to 77, the number of banks that have failed in 2009. guest: yes, we were hit last year by the worst financial crisis that has struck this country since the great depression. things have stabilized to a certain extent, but we will still see fallout. that is just one of the things that will happen, that failure. economists say we will continue to see bank failures for some time. this problem began with the housing market, subprime

mortgages in particular. yes, that is just an indication of the problems we still face in the banking sector. host: what does it mean for consumer confidence? people looking to secure a mortgage, take out a loan? are people feeling this as they did six months ago? guest: the consumer sector powers the economy. it is 70% of gdp. for us to mount a sustained recovery the consumer will have to come back. there is bad news on that. the retail sales fell even with the cash for clunkers program beginning. they fell a bit in july. it had not been expected. consumer confidence by one survey that closely followed also dropped more than expected

which upset the market on friday. will the consumer be there to provide the spending power to pull us out of the recession? host: from little rock, ark. on the line for republicans. caller: good morning. i cannot see any recovery in our economy. this president has created the hugest deficit in history, one that children and grandchildren will never pay for. guest: the caller is correct. the federal budget deficit -- the administration is projecting it will hit $1.80 trillion. that is four times what the deficit was just when you're ago and that had been a record.

the deficit has gone out of sight. the administration argues they had no choice. they needed to stabilize the. banking the] -- they needed to stabilize the banking system. they needed to jump-start the economy. we have a $787 billion stimulus program passed last february by congress. they argue that yes, the deficits are large now and they had no choice and had to rescue the economy and once they deal with the crises they will start to get the deficit back under control. host: and of course, the president talked about what he inherited coming into office. do you get a sense of what the american public believes with regard to that? are they giving him a grace period? or are we seeing a backlash with the town hall meetings and people placing blame on this administration?

guest: the polls seem to indicate that obama's approval ratings on his handling of the economy have been slipping. so, i think we are seeing a bit of a backlash. that is what you see the president outdoing his own town hall meetings. they are turned to counteract that and get their message out. a recovery has begun in michigan and the stimulus plan gets some credit for that. host: good morning, jim, on the line for democrats. caller: good morning, i'm only now on my second cup of coffee so i'm a little bit fuzzy- headed. a couple of points. you asked how the life expectancy of doctors might affect the economy -- in one way it could is the supply and demand. if doctors live longer there's a greater supply of doctors to provide services.

i have never understood why in the debate of health care, by the supply of doctors is not, does not seem to be addressed? so, i am a little disappointed in our political leaders who have not addressed that. if you look of the yellow pages, you go into them in any city in compare of mobile mechanics to doctors and you will find there are many more -- automobile mechanics than doctors. why aren't we promoting and colleges to create more doctors? that is one point. one of the other points that martin raised earlier was regarding imports and exports.

i think you said something to the effect that we have more imports, therefore we can expect more jobs to come on line. i do not understand that correlation. if you'll be importing goods and services tax guest: no, if you work, much fewer. the imports have been falling. we have had an export boom in this country which has helped manufacturers. that faltered last year, late, just as the u.s. economy went into recession. so did the global economy. seoul, our exports began to falter, but at the same time the u.s. demand shrontz so much. -- so, our exports began to falter. and at the same time the demand

shrank. host: next caller, good morning. caller: good morning, i'm going to find out if you are aware of any kind of a clearing house whereby people could sign up for free to sell their houses on the internet? i have only been able to find one out there. most of them charged up to $500 just to sign up to try to sell your house. there is a one and i cannot quite think of the name of it. but if people could have a genuine clearing house out there where they could sign oand peopleyulp -- they could sign up and people around the country who do move could find a house and take it from there. are you aware of anything out there? guest: no, no.

i'm not the best person to ask. host: what are you hearing from people when you hear about home sales? we look at all that data from ford. but when people are looking to buy and sell, are you at the associated press during people be optimistic about the real estate market? guest: people are starting to see hope. it has just been that the slump has been so severe. there were five years of a bubble. we are starting to see things stabilize from around the

country. host: we have a question for you from twitter. guest: it is tough to parse that out. unemployment layoffs were over 700,000 per month. now that has dropped. but the data seems to show -- we did see a fall in consumer confidence for early august. i think it is still a touch and go type of situation. it refers also to the fact the bonuses are coming back as an issue because as wall street,

these financial firms some of them who got bailout help, are reporting bonuses. the companies who caused all of this mess do not seem to be sharing the paoin. in. host: it looks like germany and france have emerged from the recession. guest: we are the turning point. after looking really bad for a considerable period time we're starting to see better numbers in both germany, the largest economy in europe, and france, the second largest, reported their gdp having turned positive for the first time and when you're in the second quarter. that was a surprise. the declines had been so sharp just as here in the u.s.

but that was a real good point of news. we sell a lot of products to europe, so we need that market to come back to help our manufacturing. host: are there also lessons for the u.s. in that? guest: it is interesting. they have used the same types of tools that we have in terms of monetary policy and lowering interest rates and economic stimulus packages. germany was one of the first countries to move to a cash for clunkers program. there are limited number of things that can be done. all countries seem to be using the same tools. it was a pleasant surprise. when you get to attorney point in the coming, that is what you begin to see -- when you get to a turning point. but is not uniform. there are parts that are still

in trouble. host: we have margie calling from florida. caller: i wanted to know how i could return the two stimulus' checks are received for $500 each. i am a widow, but i want to get that back to the treasury. guest: i guess the contact would be the treasury department. probably call there and just ask. i guess the caller is saying that with the country just running such a big deficit she does not need the money as much as the government. host: benjamin is on the independent line from jacksonville, florida. caller: how are you doing?

i have a question, has any lawmaker ever thought about the fees that america puts on their bankers were depositories? -- or depositors? when is there going to be a bill of rights for depositors? they pay nothing but fees and a gotten ridiculous and even worse after taking taxpayer money to be alive. i'm a graduate student here. the industry got $30 billion of profits since january. when will that stock? guest: the increase in fees the banks say as a result of the

fact that they were in hard economic times. they had to increase revenue flow. the action has caught the interest of lawmakers. there has been quite a bit of happiness on capitol hill about some of these. congress has dealt with that through credit card legislation this year. the federal reserve which has been criticized for not doing enough when this crisis was beginning to form has put forward regulations as well in the area of credit cards, but it does seem like that is an issue that the lawmakers probably have not addressed sufficiently for people who are getting hit by some of these high fees.

host: ronald is on -- rather donald is on the republican line. caller: good morning, i was wondering if you could explain how the unemployment figure is figure? it was up 200,000 last month, but the unemployment rate went down. could you tell me what the unemployment rate is if you kill those who lost benefits and those who are also -- if you count those who lost benefits and those were only working part time. guest: policy makers struggle with that. the unemployment rate -- there are two surveys. one is the household survey and also the payroll survey. the payroll survey gives you the number of net jobs gained or lost in any month.

the payroll number, to one of 47,000 people lost their jobs. the unemployment rate which had hit a 26-year high of 9.5% in june when downed a little to 9.4% in july. but a big factor -- the unemployment rate is figured by people looking for a job. if you grow disappointed and stop looking you're no longer counted as unemployed. that is partly what happened in july. people gave up looking. that is one reason why economists think we will see a big spike in a month or so of in the unemployment rate because as

more shines show that the economy is improving, people might think they can get a job and will return to the labour market which will drive up the rate for a time. host: martin crutsinger is the chief economics writer for the associated press. thank you for being with us this morning. coming up, we will have a round table and talk politics with david wasserman and the mark murray. ♪

>> radio talk-show executive on the new fairness doctrine, why is a bad idea and alternatives to censorship. he is interviewed by this commentator. it is part of the "book to be" weekend. >> this weekend, how a tory government would change current

domestic policies -- british politics tonight. >> this month, but tv weekend continues all week long in prime-time with more books on the economy, current events, and politics. monday night, these authors. >> lobbying, influence and money -- monday, ellen mmiller on how they use the internet to provide transparency in government. that is on c-span2. >> this fall, entered the supreme court from the grand public places to those only accessible by the nine justices. the supreme court, coming the first sunday in october on c- span. "washington journal" continues. host: our guest is david wasserman with cook political

report, and mark murray with nbc news. the president has an opinion editorial "why we need health care reform" today in "the new york times." how much traction do you think he is getting? guest: we will find out with some of the polls. some show that many of the protesters have been gaining traction with independent voters. nbc news will have a poll coming out tuesday night looking at this. president obama had three town house on thursday in new hampshire, friday in mantegna -- montana, and then the next day in caller. obama is making his pitch today with the same argument -- and

the pitch he is making is to those who have health insurance. early on the debate had to do with cost or those who are not insured. but now that pitch is made so that a% who are injured mainly through their employer -- he is trying to tell them how they will benefit. it has been an evolution of the last two weeks. host: the president layoutlays t some key points. it says that reform will being down skyrocketing costs and improve quality. he talks about the tone or tenor. he says that the vigorous debate taking place is a good thing. but let's make sure that we talk with one another and not over one another. he says let's disagree over issues that are real.

of course he is tapping into the fact that these town hall meetings have been very explosive, a lot of intense things going on. will the president gained traction with this sort of dialogue? guest: you see people coming to town hall meetings with pitchforks. it is reminiscent of 1993. when i speak to people who have been in politics a long time they say that this time is different because we have youtube. it makes not only the videos viral, but the protests viral. this is not positive press for democrats. when the average joe is watching a town hall meeting on their local news, and it makes for great reality tv, they look at another average joe yelling at

their member of congress -- whose side we take? who has not wanted to yell at their politicians at some time in life? the question is whether this will be a slow bleed mccracken, or whether they can hold this damned and keep public opinion from going off kilter. keep it from going in a direction that will make it hard for a blue dog democrats and conservative democrats to vote for any such package. host: here this senator, arlen specter, has been getting hard. who is being hit particularly hard besides arlen specter? guest: it is all democrats right now. there are no protests going on at republican town hall meetings. these are aimed at democrats.

conservative groups are mobilizing and finding out which democratic senators are having town halls. they are going to those. one thing that is interesting, you have these people with pitchforks. what do these democratic congressmen and senators in that doing? there was a piece on senator ben cardin who says these protesters are strengthening his resolve to get health care done. some know their districts and constituents very well. with senator ben cardin we saw many conservative republicans in hagerstown, maryland. on the flip side, obama won maryland by a lot. some of these people at town halls, some say these are not their constituents or they only represent a minority. cathy who represents a district

in florida -- very liberal, one of those first youtube but meetings. it is very democratic, a very blue. some are seen as the minority. host: are you able to track poll numbers, or just a general sense of how severely it is affecting these politicians? guest: some have changed completely, some of the ball. you have to wonder if you are a democratic member of congress what you're standing is back home in the district. taking a look at the situation as it applies to 2010, it is both good and bad news for democrats. the good news is that if they are down, they have more than one year to recover before the election. the bad news is that this is a critical time.

republicans are just beginning to process cannot identify who the strongest candidate will be in 2010. right now they are making a good case that the water is warmer than it has been in many years. host: are you seeing congressional members of working harder during this recess? guest: certainly working harder to defend themselves. democrats were great at selling a broad message of change in 2008. the question is whether they can sell specifics back come. that is very hard work. many coming to these meetings question whether democrats have already made up their minds. that is part of the anger. it is too early to say that the democratic base is depressed, but i think it was unusually energized in the 2008 election.

things are leveling back to earth now. that leaves us to question whether democrats will be able to replicate their success. host: as democrats return home, do they have specifics? whittaker but the president's op-ed piece today, is that what they need? -- will they be able to take the president's op-ed piece and make use of it? guest: we probably would have had a bill going back again that they could point to specific measures. at many town hall meetings there are several who refer to hr 3200 and that is the house bill that has passed three different committees. one from the energy and commerce committee is a little different with blue dogs having made certain provisions. they which they can point to something and go ready for

conference now. they do not. but we have seen the high command of the house and senate people who have given talking points to say this is what health care does. this is what can be achieved. in some respects -- this is a little counterintuitive, but having the broad principles in some ways could be a little better for them because they could end up saying that the eventual legislation will have this or that. if you have a particular concern about something we will make sure that gets taken out come september, but right now i think they wish they could have some concrete provisions in the bill to indicate. host: you can give us a call to speak with mark murray and david wasserman.

we already have phone calls lending up to speak to you. one is on the republican line from florida. caller: good morning, my comment is this. it is disingenuous to say will not cut medicare if you take $500 billion out of the program. we paid for medicare out of every paycheck and still pay for it every month. i do not understand how you would take that money out and still provide our services. guest: most of the provisions right now coming out of the house and senate, the money that will come from medicare does not have anything to do with the benefit recipients get. it comes from the inefficiencies currently in the program. obama talks about the medicare advantage program that came from the last few years that program is not all that efficient, does

not provide any better care than regular medicare. by getting some of the hospital payments, inefficiencies -- they believe that is the way to cut costs. but they will maintain that benefits for seniors will remain the same. guest: i think mark has done a good job with the policy, but when i look at politics this is interesting for democrats on the question of health care and medicare. seniors are more skittish than others when it comes to obama's handling of this issue. if you look at the midterm electorate shaping up for 2010, what is the difference between a midterm election and a presidential-level election and

who turns out to vote? the base of voters tend to be older and more white -- which is those voters who lost. -- he lost. host: surely calling for an enterprise, alabama. -- shirley column. caller: first of all, i want to say that i am 67 and i voted for above. i am very angry. i have government programs and they work very well. one is medicare and the other is tricare provides. i pay a minimal amount of receive my medications free. i feel that everyone should have my program. for these people to go out to these meetings and speak is fine.

but for them to go out there and interrupt and be disruptive is as they said, un-american begun to not let other people have their voice is disgusting to me. host: have you thought about going not to any of the town hall meetings in your area? caller: i have been to my congressman who is a blue dog democrat. it is pretty much republican. if they have one, yes, i'm going, but whether i'll get to speak i do not know. because these people -- but me ask this question. why is it so important for these people to make a profit on health care insurance? guest: well, the caller is from one of the most red hot congressional district in the country.

this is one of my favorite topics. the caller lives in bobby bright's district. he will probably vote against any health care package that comes to the floor of the house because to side with obama or nancy pelosi and a district this republican is nearly political suicide. he was elected in 2008 to congress under unusual circumstances. it was the perfect storm. the black turnout had to be just high enough for a very conservative democrats like him to prevail over republican who was badly wounded in the primary. when he speaks to voters and constituents back in his district at town hall meetings he faces more outrage than other democratic members of congress. he must adjust for that and what he does on the floor of the house. so, even a democrat such as the

caller going to a meeting like that, may not influence the rep on this issue. guest: what has also gone on with those who are so angry with pitchforks -- it has not been so good for the president for this reason. it was just amplifying, picked up by media, seen by millions -- is never good to have negative amplified. but there is a risk for republicans. republicans are just seen as a party of anger and no. david knows the emerging politics very well for 2010. republicans seem poised to make pick ukpsps in house numbers and

things are going along as they would like with obama getting bruised. the question is whether republicans are not only tapping into those who are angry and frustrated, but tapping into those who want a better future and are optimistic and positive. these town halls are not all that hopeful, optimistic, at least some of them are not. there is a danger for republicans that they might go too far with this anger. host: the baltimore paper has a story today, gop rides wave of ire. taking a more nuanced approach to these ramifications. the reporters write that the conservative mobilization has also created an unusual problem for republican leaders.

is this a anger enough to gain traction, or could it employed? guest: it could go two ways. one of the dangers is that many who are showing up are the people at the base, you're more conservative people, but also some who supported ron paul during the primary. there are few of the other lindon supporters -- a bit of a circus atmosphere. but the big number are coming from the conservative base. the republicans have not really had a problem getting their people to turn out.

in 2008 there were not as enthusiastic, but the base still came out. the question for republicans and 2010 and 2812 is if they can win the middle of the country. the gallup poll showed that the middle were siding with protesters and the town hall meetings. we will see if that plays out and future service. the people at the white house see this as a replay when sarah palin was chosen and the republican base was energized, but then the obama campaign knew deeply that independents wanted to play to palin's message. we will see this played out in the fall. host: do you see potential for kickbacks or some detrimental affect in the end for republicans? guest: democrats are trying to

make republicans on every action of people showing up to these meetings. it is fair to say that there are very few swing voters showing of to express outrage. this is a cathartic experience for people. they are shouting over others, yelling at congressman. they will not be convinced by arguments. in a couple of ways, republicans stand to benefit. having a base up there clearly opposed to obama -- and i think this issue is really obama- driven. who the trust on healthcare? when you have so many details floating around it is difficult for anyone to get through a 1000-page bill. you have to put your stock in people to represent you or to

communicate the bill. so, i think the question of who you trust, whether obama or not -- not necessarily whether you trust republicans, but whether you trust obama. that question is driving people. host: let's go to joe from long beach, new york. caller: the key word there is trust. that is a good word to use. if a judge were to sit on a case involving pharmaceutical or insurance companies he would recuse himself if he accepted money from them, but our politicians -- all of them both republican and democrat -- accept huge amounts of money. i used to be a patient. i am now consumer. we know that they want more profits. the politicians who have accepted money from the pharmaceutical companies and

health-care industry are going to be forming the new legislation which will give them more profits. do i trust these people? no, i think they either have to step aside or return the money they have accepted. they are not voting in our best interests, but they have been bought and paid for. guest: that is a legitimate concern. there has been a lot of criticism from the left on max baucus in the senate finance committee who is from montana. he has received millions from people in the medical field, from medical lobbyists. there is the concern that all of this will end up benefiting the stakeholders in the health industry right now. not only at that committee, but elsewhere. there is reporting that president obama and his team have struck deals with phrma,

with hospitals. there is a lot of evidence for citizens and voters to have a lot of skepticism and perhaps cynicism about what will come out of the bill. will it really be good for americans and patience? or will it be really good for the health industry? that is a legitimate concern. guest: but you have to look at this and ask yourselves if the democrats see it coming? do they have a contingency plan? i think that president obama and congressional democrats have ruled out some alliances they helped to forge among key players that you would not imagine to be bedfellows, such as that aarp, phrma, and labor unions -- i think they thought it would impress people and strike them as bipartisanship.

instead many who are skeptical of spending, sour on soaring deficits, is that they see this as a conspiracy of the elite. i do not know of any level of cooperation among the key lobby groups or trade associations and washington will change the tenor of this debate. host: what is the sarah palin factor right now overall? she has faded from the radar, but is putting messages on the face back and got a lot of attention last week as talking about obama's death panels -- which is an issue now completely debunked. guest: it took two words for us to start talking about death penalty. host: and she has the personal experience of having a down's

syndrome child. guest: yes, and president obama mentioned his own grandmothers passing to bring a personal anecdote of his own -- i am not pulling the plug on gramm all, in fact i lost my grandmother about one year ago. -- and not pulling the plug on grandma. one thing about sarah palin -- she is able to tap into gutteral politics and can get conservatives fired up. we can see her driving the issue on facebook. for this to be a dialogue. at the end of the day, however, uc president obama, democrats, others take the issue head on and it may be able to make it into a positive -- you see them

possibly turning this into a positive. for viewers this has to do with voluntary, using medicare to pay for hospice care, set up and live counseling. there have been republicans who voted in the 2003 prescription drug bill for a similar provision aimed at terminally ill patients. now that the fact-checking has gone on this could be a positive for obama and democrats. sarah palin did drive the conversation by using her facebook page. host: do you see him go into the lower 48 -- do see her going to the lower 48 states guest: that is possible that sarah palin will. as soon as she has injected herself into the debate through

facebook or other media, she has basically put herself into the same camp as many of the far- right members of congress that democrats love to vilify. like the representative from georgia, or the one from minnesota who are so heated. when she says things like that panel's it makes many republicans running in more marginal districts invite her for a fund-raiser. they understand there might be some blowback. the question is what territory she would be helpful in for those running in 2010? we will find the answers in a few months. this is not helpful for her national average. host: let's go to the phones on

the republican line with mike from caller: illinois medicare is underfunded by trillions. this is just covering our seniors with the public option. how can we imagine we will cover everyone who has no insurance with the public option? social security is going bankrupt and so are post offices. how many stamp increases do we need? you have amtrak going bankrupt. my question is, i have health insurance through my employer. if i make a change like a dependent, would that cause me to have to go to a public option? i have heard this constantly. please answer my question. guest: just to explain the public option and what many democrats and president obama

are talking about, that is still being worked out. there are conservative-leaning democrats who are thinking about a co-op system. but the public option would be one of many types of insurance policies that one could end up having. they are envisioning a type of exchange were your employer would have several options to choose from, or you would have several options from which to choose. for example, your own cigna or aetna. . .

the way that the legislation has started to move, however, is that what we're probably going to get out of the senate is some type of co-op that won't be as strong as the government-run option that a lot of house democrats want. but would be a nonprofit -- what basically what blue cross and blue shield were before they became blue cross and blue shield. and the hope is that a lot of

conservative democrats would get around this co-op. and people are talking about a co-op instead of a public option option. they hope that becomes more favorable. caller: good morning. that last fellow that was worried about social security going bankrupt, well, i wonder what kind of shape social security would be in if the republicans had gotten their way under george bush and had put it in the stock market and privatized it right before this financial crash. but that's not what i called about. people that complain that these rallies, it's almost comecal to find that they're complaining about it and they're drawing social security, they're on medicare or disability. they're getting their money's worth. i mean, crunch the numbers. for god's sakes. if you are lucky enough to get the social security and you drive for a couple of years,

you've drawn every penny that you've put in back and you're on somebody else's dime now. guest: i think this really raises the question. are voters seeing all afthese enentitlements as simply too much in an era of real skepticism of federal spending. and one of the questions i have is will democrats do something to aim for deficit reduction over the course of the first obama term to try and aswauge some voters on the issue of are we simply digging ourselves into too deep a hole to get out of. and so i think when you take a look at the numbers on the health care plan right now, the key line is do you trust obama's handling of this issue? and to the extent that

democrats start to compromise on this issue, go for a co-op plan, i think what they risk is putting some very liberal democrats into the disapproval come column. and i think what you would start to see there is a snowball effect of, start to call this plan an unpopular plan, and see voters as overwhelmingly disapprovaling of this plan if some liberals are driven into the camp. zoo host: the caller raises an interesting question on the role of government. and we saw the role of social security back in the 1930's and 19 40's and that was deemed a very successful governmental program and we saw a dramic controlled washington for 30, 40 years. and what's interesting about this health care debate and the economy right now is that if the economic stimulus does end up working and you say the recovery act ended up helping

to improve the economy, if health care does end up passing and people see that to be a benefit, those are some considerable advantages that democrats might have going into the future come 12, 2016, 2020 if americans actually end up seeing the government can play a prozz positive role. we heard from two different callers, one who was skeptical, one who was more supportive. and the question is where does the middle end up. if the economy sinks after the recovery act, then democrats have very big government problems. the potential benefit is if this is a replay of the 1930s and 19 40's, democrats do stand to gain. so all this has to do with whether or not the government can work. and we're going to see in the next few years whether it can. host: michael calling on the independent line from missouri.

caller: i am from michigan. it's near ann arbor. but i heard mr. murray reassure the woman on medicaid that the government was perfectly capable of saving $400 billion without affecting health care or services provided to recipients and beneficiaries at all. and i think that's wonderful. if our government can do that i would like to see them start with the health care programs provided for the senators and congressman and achieve those sort of safings. show us you can do it and then you might get me on board. but i think those kind of savings in any government program are yet to be demonstrated anywhere. i've seen nothing but the growth of programs uncontrolled without any cost effectiveness. guest: and that's a very legislate thing that you actually raise and it goes back to the last thing that i was actually saying that right now there are a lot of americans

who are very skeptical about the government and the obama administration. can they end up trusting them? do we need a pilot program to see if this can work? that we've heard so many politicians talk about i'm going to reduce costs, i'm going to balance the budget. i'm going to eliminate the deficit. and more often than not they haven't succeeded right now. so this caller raises a legislate point about the fact is that can president obama deliver on this? he made a lot of promises. and if he can, we won't see that for a couple of years, that will be really good for him. but if he can't deliver on it and we see investigative stories a year after health care if it does pass, and if it passes, and then all of a sudden the waste, inefficiencies haven't gone away, that there are a lot of medicare and medicaid recipients wo who who don't have the type of service they had before hand, that's going to be a big problem.

host: let's look at the governor raises coming up. big race in virginia. how is this referendum on health care and also the president's popularity weighing into the virginia race? guest: i think it's another good news, bad news. there's a good chance they'll strike out this november. democrats are down in high single digits to even the low double digits in polls right now. and there's also probably going to be another election on november 3rd as well for a house district in upstate new york that we're following really closely because congressman john mchugh from near watertown new york is likely to become the secretary of the army. so we're going to have a race there between a very moderate republican assemblywoman and a democrat who starts out with really no political base in the

district. and that's another race that republicans could win. so once you have three in something in politics that's a really powerful thing. the good news for obama is this may not have a lot to do with his performance as president or the way that voters see him doing his job. these republicans were ahead even when obama's rating was close to 60 in the polls. so you have a situation here that i think is unlike that of 1993. when you had christy whitman winning new jersey and george allen winning virginia and that was flashing warning signs for democrats across the country of what was to come in 1994. in those races, the races broke late. christy whitman and george allen were behind for much of the campaign before they surged ahead. so there's sort of a case for decoupling that's helpful for democrats. of course the media isn't likely to see it that way if

democrats lose all three. host: david raises an excellent point. 2009 is set up so well for the republicans right now. john corzine would probably lose the democrat in new jersey and the republican running for governor of virginia will probably win the race. but we still have about 80, 90 days before election day so anything can happen. so that's the good news for republicans. the bad news is if they end up happening to lose one of these races it could really hurt them because we're all chalking them up as being able to win these races. right now there's a brand new "washington post" poll that has bob mcdonald ahead right now. i do think that after labor day and they start engaging this race has a potential to be a 150/50 type of race that it could break either wafplte and the democrats being able to hold on would be a really psychological blow to the republican party.

but if republicans are able to win in 2009, and make gains in 2010, the bigger question, i don't know if it's been resolved. what we saw in the presidential election was the republicans have a big problem with minority voters and particularly latino voters and this country is growing with that segment of the population. we also saw that the republicans didn't do very well among independent voters. so even if they're able to win in these governor races, and pick up seats, republicans might be learning the wrong lesson about how you end up winning nationwide come 2012, 2016. there's still a long time to play out. but that could be one of the good news-bad news situations. host: what may be important, this poll that mark mentioned in the "washington post" talks about how the economy and transportation are big issues in virginia. in new jersey the economy is be a big deal because the governor has a record in the industry

himself, in the financial industry. what are some of the big thing that is we're seeing as make it or break it moments? guest: i think spending is clearly the biggest issue across the country. states especially because we're seeing so many stories about state and local government bankruptcy. so while that's not necessarily the case in virginia what we're seeing is virginia has a long history of wanting checks and balances. it's gone back to the mid 1970s that virginia has elected the opposite party of who is in the white house in the governor's race every four years. and that doesn't bode well for democrats. and in new jersey, john corzine has made mistakes that have significantly affected his own popularity. it's tough for any governor right now in this economy but for a governor who had an

unpopular toll hike plan, what hod a very messy divorce, this is a specially a problem when every little thing that can be pegged on him ends up being a political liability. so especially glens a candidate like chris christy who has a reputation taking on corruption right after more 40 public officials end up in prison in a bin raid, that's something that weighs heavily against the incumbent governor. host: hi, chris. guest: good morning. how is everyone today? i just have a comment actually. and my comment is about the news media and their coverage of all of these events. we know full we will from what we can see on the internet. i don't trust abc, cbs, nbc, that there have been a lot of activities at some of these town hall meetings regarding the sciu and physical attacks on some of the protesters, which of course is completely ignored by the mainstream

media. you focus on these commentaries that these are republicans and katie couric is now on line saying they're there out of fear and ignorance. ignorance? i as an american citizen is not going to pay a bit of attention to anything out of cbs when i hear that she thinks that i'm ignorant for paying to attention to an issue. your coverage for the bush administration are completely different than today. there were no abc stories about how these militia groups are endangering the president's life because these protestors are congregating to discuss with their representatives the situation. and i think the media is complicit in a lot of the misinformation that is out there and i think you're complicit with the obama administration. guest: well, there's several points in there.

one, the caller does raise a legislate point about in 2005 there were democrats that were protesting bush's privatization push as well as the iraq war and we saw a lot of protestors lining u bush's motor cade outside of events and that did go on. we did cover that. we are covering the current protests going on right now. the caller also mentioned organized labor attending a lot of these town halls. what we are seeing is that grass roots supporters from both sides, organized labors and conservetives are really showing up at these events. and the caller mentioned one point where there was a little bit of pushing and shoving in one of these town halls. the one that i can she's referring to is one where it was an sciu's event for

cattedsy castor out in florida that turned ugly and it's hard to see anyone looking very good in all of the that. but the bigger point that the caller raises is concerns about the media and how we're covering this. these are questions that i end up getting all the time. i can tell you that i for myself and my network are doing our best to be as fair as possible and cover this issue. this is maybe getting a little bit more coverage than we saw in 2005, precisely what david was talking about earlier about you tube that protesters are growing, posting it on you tube and becomes a cable story front and center. and something that we're talking about. and this just happens to be the most important domestic policy fight of this president's first year in office and that's going to drive a lot of coverage. and finally, the point is, and this is something we always grapple with. this is august, too. and oftentimes when congress is

gone in washington, when the president starts to get on vacation, when a lot of americans go on vacation, that sometimes a middle sized story can blow up into a much bigger one because it's august when there aren't a lot of other -- there's not a lot of political news going on elsewhere. and so if you sometimes want to be able to make news, august is often a very good time to do so. host: another critique that we're seeing is there have been a number of town hall that is have been fairly doe sile that haven't drawn the kind of violence or shouting down that we're seeing on so many networks. and that in fact a large percentage of these town halls have gone pretty smoothly. this is an argument that the white house is making. but i think this is sort of a function of the way that the news business works these days. it's impossible apart from c-span to really provide coverage in long form of a town

hall meeting event where you see questions that are being asked by people who are acting in a reasonable and well behaved manner. and so that's the world we live in today for better or for worse. but i think it is also fair to say that the large majority of people who have been coming up to express outrage on this issue have come to criticize what obama and democrats are doing. host: let's go to tim on the democrat line. caller: hi. first, i do support a public option but i think a lot of people don't understand what it is. it's basically they need to sell it more as an insurance policy that i have to pay for. it's not free. people say well, we're going to cover 40 million people more. i would rather get my 800 or 900 a month to someone who is

going to cover me instead of an insurance company i don't trust. how is it that every republican in the country has health care insurance? if you don't have health care insurance as a republican because of preexisting conditions or you lost your job, you had better stand up and start holering louder than the other people. because if they kill this thing you may be the one filing bankruptcy somewhere down the road. if you don't have health care and you need it, you would better let that be known to your people. thank you. guest: the caller raises a very good point that the white house might want to start adopting if they're actually tuning in right now, is that start referring to the public option as a health policy insurance policy, one of many as you're getting into an exchange. president obama has been making this argument in his town halls across the country but you encaps lated in a couple words and seem to be doing a better sales job than we're hearing from the white house right now.

but also going to the broader point about people who have health insurance and people who don't. really does get to this point where 20% of this country still, still a lot, but 20% don't have health insurance, 80% do. democrats have always been aligned with people and when we saw the 2007 and 2008 democratic primaries, there was a lot of talk about having universal health care coverage, insuring all. and the caller seems to be aligning himself with that line. on the other hand, to really get to the people who do have health insurance right now, that is the segment of the population that obama is really targeting because they realize that there are a lot more people like that and a lot more voters who do have health insurance. but obama does have one point. you may have insurance now but you could lose it tomorrow, next week, next year. and that's an argument that they're going to continued to

have to make to be able to sell to the people who do have health insurance right now. host: i wanted to ask you about senate races. mel martinez has said he's stepping down. also kay of texas will be stepping down. what are we going to look for in those seats? guest: well, that's a very good question. i cover the house but when we're taking a look at the senate seats and how these appointments or replacements might affect what's going on in 2010, we could see a very competitive senate race in texas, in may, of 2010 which is very odd. there's democrats in the race with five times as much money or more than republicans especially houston mayor bill white, a democrat who may have a field beyond his houston base, in that race. so that sort of becomes a side show or a test case. as much as we love to see polls, we love to see votes in the business and every time we have an election that stands

alone it's fascinating for us. so that's the case there. but i think the senate is much different from the house looking at 2010 and the reason is simply that senate elections by nature are reaction to what's happened six years ago. how are things going to change in the senate? take a look at what happened in the races that were held for these seats six years ago. and how are things going to change from then to now. 2004 was not a terrible year for republicans. george bush was ereelected that year. in the house that's different because the same 257 seats that democrats woun are all on the table again in 2010. so whatever if change has been since two years ago is going to impact what happens in the house. and historically what we've seen in mid-term elections is the party in control of the white house loses an average of about 16 house seats in the first term mid-term election of

a presidency. and it's typically a wash in the senate. well, it's not typically, but on average it has been a wash. so it's possible that democrats could hold their own in the senate, keep their losses to small single digits, perhaps even pick up a seat. what we're looking at in the house now is a bit different because the turnout dynamic that the fact that the mid-term electorate looks perfectly thai lord to republicans means that republicans can pick up five to ten democratic seats just based on who is going to turn out in this election and how that's going to be different than 2008. and i look at another thing trying to determine how many seats republicans can pick up and that's obama's approval. i see it as sort of an over-under. on the 53% of the vote that he won in 2008. his approval, then he starts becoming an asset. if it's lower, democrats could see additional losses beyond

those five to ten that i was discussing based on the turnout dynamic and that's when things become dicey. guest: you mentioned texas and florida. what i'm interested in there are some competitive and fun races. in texas senator kay bailie hutchinson running against the incumbent governor is going to be a battle for the heart and soul of the republican party. she is a bit more moderate. texas, my home state is a pretty conservative state. how that plays out, it's going to be a fascinating race to cover. in a similar vain, in florida you have charlie crist who is a more moderate governor of florida running against the more conservative marco rubeyo used to be the speaker of the florida house. and he is going to have a hume montgomery gus advantage in money. he is going to have a huge name

i.d. advantage. but if he is going to get a run for his money would really tell us that the conservative base is still driving the republican party. and i think that's going to tell us a lot as we head into the 2010 general election force that mid-term cycle. host: let's go to ricky on the independent line calling from washington, d.c. caller: good morning. i'm calling because in listening and watching the town hall meetings going on, and i'm trying to let people understand that changes are very difficult. people don't like change. but when you give them change, they will accept it. the democrats will make a mistake on health care reform. if they fail, they're going to lose a lot of seats. but give it to the people, i bet you they will gain seats. that is how everything happens. just like a family. when they're trying to make a

change in your house, you see the wife or children protesting but when you do it and it's good everybody will like it. the last caller was saying he wondered how every republican has health insurance. i'm always wondering do all republicans have health insurance. they don't lose their jobs. they don't have a problem. or they are protesting because somebody in the white house is not a member of their party. this health insurance shouldn't be about democrats or republicans. it should be about americans. people should look at what is happening. i have health insurance. but any time my little boy goes to the children's hospital and comes back, the bill is always verified and the insurance pays 25% and leafing me with 75%. guest: the caller raises a point, change is hard in washington. the founding fathers set this

up in government where it is difficult to get anything done, where you have the sthat and how and the judiciary system and get all this in place and get everyone in board having the majority to do so is sometimes almost impossible. we saw franklin delano roosevelt very successful. what people often fail to remember is that he had almost, the democrats had an 80 to 20 majority, a humemung gus majority in congress. right now obama and the democrats have a 60-40 majority in the senate and a sizeable majority in the house all recipes and i think that most people still think that health care is going to get done precisely because of that. but change is never easy and in fact the system and the way that government is set up it's a whole lot easier to do nothing than to do something. so that is what the challenge that obama and the democrats have right now as they try to

put together this health care reform. if they get something done right now and if it is seen by most experts to be significant change, this could actually be the biggest domestic policy change in this country since roosevelt. and that would be a huge achievement for this white house. it hasn't come easy. the sauage making in capitol hill isn't pretty. these town halls aren't pretty. but at the end of the day if they get something done that would be a big fetser in their cap. host: let's go to lose on the republican's line. caller: good morning. i'm a republican and i don't have health insurance, i'm not worried about it. i think the problem is everybody goes republicans, conservatives at these meetings. i have news for you, fellows, 80% is democrat and everybody i spoke to does not want this to go through. and i think the reason is we've lost trust with this guy.

he has little girls at that one meeting and we find out the mother, he's best friends with the mom. it's just that we do not trust this guy right now. he's got to slow down. and another thing, everybody is insulted by the comments made by plosi, reid, specter saying unamericans, plosi calls nazis. throwing those guys out of her office and calling the cops i think washington has forgotten that they work for us. good day. host: david, this loss of trust that the caller was talking about, is that typical for this time in a president's tenure? guest: i think what president obama and drackeds are realizing democrats are realize is any hope of having commover whelming bipartisan support for a bill as major as this one is any coalition that's going to have coalition is going to be

fragile. the problem here for democrats are the democrats are divided. even when the republicans were down in 2006 and 2008, their control in the white house led a lot of republicans led republicans to be divided on issues. i think right now democrats are divided over whether bipartisanship needs to be a priority and that's troubling for them inso far as i think about half of democrats really need some cover on this issue in the form of bipartisan support at least a couple of republican votes for this measure. if they want to feel very comfortable about their prospects. the rest of the democrats from very safe districts feel we have majorities that are so large that we should be able to pass anything that we want to pass. i think we've long since given up the notion that these large majorities for democrats, that 60 seats for the senate and 59% of the house are guarantees of

the kind of change that obama and congressional were talking about. and speaker plosi and the top lieutenants are becoming lightning rods in the 2010 elections if republicans have their way. host: let's talk about house speaker pell osi. guest: they're going to play big roles in this health care right now. the house losses what she's done so far. she's taken a lot of arrows for the obama administration right now. her poll numbers have gone down in that c.i.a. flap on the back and forth really damaged her. on the other hand, she's gotten a lot of stuff done. and it's been ignored a little bit because we've been focusing on the health care debate or the latest controversial debate. but you look at the amount of legislation and she deserves a lot of the credit.

but her house and reid's senate are going to have to get together and at some point particularly we're talking about earlier, if it does turn out that this becomes a co-op, it's going to come down to them getting their liberal members in line and saying we need to get this done. they're going to play big roles in that. host: good morning. kveragets good morning. i was just wondering why it is that the news media will not give the president a break that he deserves for trying to pay for the things he is proposing. guest: one, i'm glad that this caller has this question because earlier we had questions on the other caller not liking the media and that makes us happy because when there are democrats and republicans who aren't liking our coverage, on the one hand that shows we're maybe getting something right.

on the other hand, as we are as journalists we always want to improve and do better and win americans trust, democrat, republican, whom ever. and what we're actually trying to do in the media is be as fair as possible. it's not perfect. you have so many different news outlets, you have so many journalists. people are human beings. we're not robots where we are actually always going to be not influenced by factors in our own life or have certain opinions. and so it's a hard business. but it's also one of the greatest jobs to be cover these type of issues. and i can tell you from my advantage point what i do for nbc news with my col um that i co-write and edit is we just try to be as fair as possible. and one thing that we can do a good job of is having so many sources, republicans, democrats, independents, to keep a check on us to make sure we're trying to get our stories

right and we're actually covering the issues that people really care about and really matter. we're never going to be perfect but we can try to do our best. and i can tell you just through the sources that i have and republican and democrat, you know, we weren't doing our job, they would be letting us know. we're always reseptive to doing a lot better, getting comments, being just good listeners and but really appreciate the comments there. guest: one other point here is i think democrats have faced a dilemma in how to explain this legislation to voters. this is a very difficult sell in many respects. you've seen criticism from republicans on obama. oh, he's not saying enough about this. you've heard criticism from others that he gets too bogged down in the details. that's a good question. do you talk details? do you try to provide personal aneck dotes?

or do you try and stay above the fray and put out a broad message like the coalition, pharmaceutical companies and labor is putting out in their new ad campaign on health care saying this is going to benefit you. it's going to safe you money. surt it. and -- support it. and i think on some point in this debate there is, it is nest necessary for democrats and president obama to add clarification and be more clear about how the savings that they promise are going to come about because this is clearly becoming an issue at town hall meetings and other forums when president obama and democrats say we're going to save x number of dollars through preventative care. a lot of voters sort of scratch their heads and say how are you going to do that and trying to reconcile numbers from the cbo and those that obama and

democrats provide can be a very harrowing task for voters. and so i think there are some points on which democrats and obama could be more clear if they want to sell this plan. host: thanks for being with us this morning. david wasserman and mark murray. we'll be right back. coming up in the next hour we'll hear from martin and ana lease anderson. they're the co-autsdzers of the new book reagan's secret war.

host: open phones for the rest of the hour. you can give us a call and the numbers are on the bottom of your screen. let's take a look at some of the headlines in newspaper around the country. these come to us curetty of the news seem. in the sunday edition of the denver post, president obama

grabbing the stage. big article there about the president's visit to colorado yesterday. he's been doing the tour, making some town hall stops, talking about health care. the next one, the richmond times, dispatch a story about small businesses there and how they are weighing in on health care reforms. also, senator web of virginia. he has just been in myanmar where he secured the release of an american and met with an yang sue chi which is something of note for the local media and around the country since it was an unusual event. the houston chronical, obesity. the weight issue looms even larger. and let's take a look at one more paper this morning. arizona republic. many deported fellance sneak back. u.s. pushing prosecution,

lengthy prison terms. first call comes on the open phone segment from jerry on the democrats line from north carolina. caller: hi. this is dr. kill patrick and vi been the medical director of a free clinic here for over three years and working for them for over six years and this is basically a lot of retired physicians trying to deliver health care to the many, many people in this area who don't have any inshirnse or care. first, i would like to tell people out there that medicaid is not easy to get. everybody has the idea that if you're poor you can get medicaid. that's untrue number one. medicaid is very, very difficult to get. number two, my patients mostly work. they work at various fast food restaurants, maybe wal-mart and they're uninsured. so they're not all slackers which is one of the things that you hear so much from the republican side. and number three, i want some people to come down to the free

clinic and see what it's all about. a lot of people do a lot of talking because they're happy with theirs but they don't seem to understand what's going on for the people that don't have insurance. and i think people need to see the face of the people in this country that are uninsured, that are poor, and that have to get their medical care through emergency rooms, which is inadequate, and actually through free clinics which is basically inadequate also. unfortunately. because we're only open a couple days a week. but i think there's a big issue here, it's a moral issue that nobody is addressing. i get so upset when people stand up and talk about they're so worried about their insurance when they have theirs and everybody else, forget them. it seems to be the attitude that i hear so off. so i would like your commentary on that. i think the people need to see the face of the uninsured in this country. i don't think they see it. i've never had a politician come to my clinic. and in spite of the fact i'm a

democrat. there's no stimulus money for free clinics in this country and there's many, many free clinics all over this country trying to provide health care to people. thank you. host: freeda calling from new orleans, louisiana. caller: thank you, c-span, for the on the air. i have a few comments. and i don't want to sound that i'm arrogant or something. but the elected officials have forgotten who elected them there. as for they feel like they tell us what to do. and then when people get a bit upset and get a little bit noisy, then they want to be hurt feelings and, oh, you don't behave the right way. and so forth. so why don't they behave the right way and do what people

elected them for? another point. katie curic, the news media, i mean, i remember when katie couric was nothing but a little hop scott on good morning america or wherever it was and they all feel they have to tell us to pay the taxes, do what's right, and do steal, don't murder, just boy work hard and work for 50 years and we finally get to go on social security. then everybody begrudges this to us. 50 years of work, i think everybody deserves it. and our politicians need to learn a heck of a lot because this coming election i just do believe that these people,

they're going to be vote d out. as for nancy pelosi she spends more of our taxpayers money than anyone. ie, she has her jet that she flies back and forth and she is a multimillionaire es. and we should listen to her? what the heck does she know about poor people? host: a piece in the "washington post" today in the outlook section. is crazy a preexisting condition? this piece by rick pearlstein talking about the town hall meetings and how people have gotten upset are voicing their discontent. in new hampshire outside a building, cameras trained on a pistol. he explained why the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time by the blood of tyrants and patriots of this one example of the feed back

and people being upset that this writer is talking about. and it goes on to talk about why and where the angser coming from. and rick pearlstein looks at past times in american history where people have been equally upset and come out angry. he says the similarities across the decades are uncanny. when adlied stevenson spoke, the indignation forces thronged the hall sweating and furious shrieking down the speaker for the television cameras. then, he was whacked by a picket sign. what's the matter? the woman responded, well, if you don't know, i can't help you. let's go to the phone. stephanie on the independent line is calling. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to say something about age as it has to do with health care and it's not that people over 65.

i'm 66. i'm in medicare. but people that lose their jobs because of age discrimination, and that's very, very very real experience too. up here you lose your job and you can't get another one. and i think the major points that why you can't get another one is because of health care. and i think that if people could purchase their own health care and not have to burden employers, i think a lot of this age discrimination as far as getting a job would go away because older workers really are more productive. but another thing is i heard a c-span viewer a long time ago say this and i will just never forget it and i want to repeat it because it has to do with these mcforums that they're having and the people. and this guy said the republicans are either super rich, super stupid, or super racist. and the super rich use the super stupid and the super

racist to keep the super stupid and the super racists voting against their own self-interests. thank you. host: for a different perspective, let's go to mary from the republican line. caller: hi. thanks for taking my call. host: go ahead. welcome. caller: thank you. i appreciate c-span and i especially the open phone lines. my concern is one of my concerns is about the health care reform. we have so much loss of jobs, so much foreclosures, people not knowing how they're going to pay for their cars or their homes or buy groceries or child care or whatever. how can we afford this large a change or burden in this country as this time? maybe this is just not the time to present this. because, i mean, you know, age

doesn't really have too much to do with it. gender or whatever, preexisting conditions. right now the economy is so bad and loss of jobs. who is going to pay for this? how can we buy things like this when we don't have the money coming in and people are losing their jobs? caller: on the democrats line steve is calling from indiana. guest: that caller: if we don't do it now, when are we going to do it? the health care is part of problem if everybody had health care they wouldn't have to worry about their hospital bills and stuff. and i've got health care. but i don't like it because the insurance companies are making all these big profits and i'm

getting nothing out of it. so what good is that doing me? i've got to pay extra. i've got to pay a deductible now where i didn't used to. i had a little bit of a co-pay but now i've got a deductible before i can even get anything from them. so you republicans, thanks a lot if we don't get it. because you're just going to raise the price of insurance and the rich are going to get richer. so thank you. host: on the independent line donald from dallas, texas. caller: good morning. yes. and with the health care issue, really it's every issue. we need to legalize hemple. everything would be payed for. you could build your studio, your homes, you could put gas

in your car. there wasn't enough corn when we had the ethanol issue what a couple years ago. now when there was an ethanol rage what happened? we ran out of corn. you make it out of hemp. easy to do. it's got more biomass than corn does. if you put it towards the health care issue, you're getic rid of a lot of stuff. you want to talk preventative care, talk hemp. host: looking at some of the international news today, afghan vote will be key test for anti-insurgent strategy. this story from the associated president. president obama's afghan war plan is facing its first major test. the president has called thursday's election the most important event all year in afghanistan. the united states is taking no chances, perezing a new

military offensive last week to make sure the voting goes well. however, the taliban has warned it will disrupt the election in cluding threats of suicide bombing. the united states is hoping for more than token participation in districts recently under the taliban thumb. that's one of the stories in the international news. also looking at hillary clinton's trip to africa. the diplomacy of folksy talks about the secretary of state's visit to africa and how she had a more hands on approach than past secretaries of state have done. she went on events including a saff ari, she had high level meetings, roundtable discussions and town hall interviews. she seemed engaged throughout it all, scribbling in her note booksskeeping a straight earnest face even when one nigerian religious leader told her he was constipated with

ideas. this by jeffrey gettle mab of the "new york times." and he writes about how mrs. clinton is different and so had a hands on trip. let's go back to the phones. albert on the republican line from san antonio, texas. caller: hi. how are you doing? my thame is al gear and i'm trying to respond to the republicans to get their act together. i recall that when the u.s. senator, u.s. attorney holder made a remark when he got confirmed that the united states is a bunch of cowards and i'm thinking that the republicans and the rhetoric

fit that prescription to be cowards. and given that a president, six or nine months, and indicating he is a muslim or he's a hitler and things of that nature, you know, that's not called for. that americans to do that to a president. and i believe mr. holder's remarks here fit those people, the rhetoric people, you know, trying to condemn our president. thank you. host: calling from upper marlboro, maryland. caller: good morning. please don't cut me off. i wanted to speak about senator grassley from 83 iowa.

and he took millions from the health care industry as well as senator parkance of montana who took 1.6 million. secondly, senator carden held a town hall meeting and there was a sign that said kill obama, kill michelle and their stupid kids. and what this is leading to is inciting folks, we have folks showing up with guns, these signs, painting a moustache on the president's picture, the swastikas, which i feel is offensive also to the jews but most importantly the president came in with agendas. the american folks voted him as president. and his agenda said he will pass health care. it's no surprise. everyone was aware of this. but lastly, the republicans are trying to divide the country. that's the only way they can take the seats in the house and the senate back is to keep the country divided.

we moves beyond that. that's not going to happen again. so wake up america. it's a new day. time for a change. thank you. host: on the independent line, charles from houston, texas. caller: thank you for taking my call. what i want to talk about is i remembered when clinton tried to do the health care, the health care accounted for about 9% of the gdp. now it's about 20%. say president obama fails to do the health care and in the another 10 years it's going to account for 30% of the gdp. 30%. for every one dollar generated in this country, 30 cents will go to health care. and then not to talk about the defense spending, which will be about 50%. then you're left with 20% to do the roads, the school, the whatever you can, the

environment and on and on. these are the things we need to do just for our economic health we need to get this health care under control. if not, well, we could always look at china. i mean, this country has the government taking care of people. that's why the health care is not being tacked on the economy. host: the republican line from california. hi, jenny. caller: hi. thank you for taking my call. the one thing i want to say is the media, nbc, abc, even c-span and cnn, msnbc, nobody is covering the killing of the palestinians that were holding up the white flags. i mean, from the izz rail eas. this is just mind boggling to me because of the jewish controlled media. just go to america-high jack.com, feeo con zionist

threat.com and press tv.com and you will get some real coverage. thank you. host: let's go look at twitter. caller: good morning. host: hi. caller: i would like to make three points. number one, when people talk about the expenditures for health care, they're forgetting that we will have a reduction in the private health insurance costs. so even though health insurance will cost some money, we're going to have a reduction in other costs. number two, i would like to know who is going to be covered by the national health insurance. i've read a lot of the bills on the internet. sometimes the word american is

referred to. sometimes the resident of the united states is referred to. so i'm wondering, is this going to be comprehensive or is this going to eliminate certain groups in our country? the third point i would like to make is that private health insurance c.e.o.s are making an enormous amount of money. i won't mention names on the television but two individuals who run health insurance companies have amassed personal for tunes of close to $1 billion. because of -- not because. from health care dollars. so i think it's incumbent upon the government to really push this national health care plan. thank you. host: on the independent line, good morning, phil. caller: good morning, young lady. hi.

host: hi. caller: calling about health insurance too. and one of the comments this morning is about the news networks and their coverage of it. and basically hypeably and a bunch of weirdness,. all dealing with barack. there's been one news broadcaster on cnn, lieu dobs, who has gone over nine different health care plans for of the world, like the dutch, the french, the japanese, the canadians, the germans, the -- and ause australians. and we're the highest percentage, we pay over $7,800 per year for health care. most other countries is around $3,800 to $3 rks 200. ours is 70%.

they asked all these other countries if they're satisfied. 90% said yes they are. germany said no. but it's been about, their health care was actually nationalized back in 1870's. so they need to revamp it a little bit dealing with today's issues. but i really feel that if the news broadcasters would bring out a discussion on different countries, how they feel about their health care, what entails their health care, you know, we've got all these different microeconomies that have tried this. some are satisfied, some are not. we should, as a people instead of talking a bunch of bologne, look at these people and use their knowledge to form ours. and as far as that one gentleman that called from arizona and was worried about the insurance companies, the insurance companies i feel,

sir, have basically done this to themselves with their greed. . . >> british voters are expected to go to the polls in national elections next spring. this conservative party leader on how a tory government would change policies. tonight on c-span.

>> this month, book tv's weekends continue all this month. monday night, this author and also senate majority leader harry reid. >> being, influence, and money. on monday ellen miller on how they use the internet to provide transparency in government. >> this fall, enter the home to america's highest court, from the grand public places to those only accessible by the nine justices. the supreme court, coming the first sunday in october and c- span. -- on c-span. "washington journal" continues. host: martin and annelise anderson join us this morning

with their book. good morning. guest: hello. host: thank you for being with us so early from california. guest: for many years, 20 years ago and when reagan left, he did a lot of things -- a lot of things he did were really good, especially in nuclear weapons and cold war and on stuff like that, but most people were always puzzled by reagan. how did you do these things? who was working for him, pulling his strings, things like that? we had worked with break in for some time. it has been a puzzle as to exactly what happened. recently, we were able to get the classified documents. once we had them and looked at them we saw what was happening.

the book is about a lot of information no one has ever seen before. host: please tell us how you got access to these documents. you were able to gain clearance and look at these writings from speeches to his personal diaries and even minutes of meetings. guest: yes, most people -- well, everything was secret or top-secret, very classified. it took me almost one year to talk to people to get it opened up. we got the information, actual documents that no people had ever seen before, except maybe a handful of about 10 who are working with reagan. when we got them -- the book is around that people -- so, we can

use them. host: we have an excerpt talking about where he had 365 meetings and a secretive planning group. it says more than 80 of these have been declassified for use in this book. guest: yes, and the basic ones we found were what he was doing when dealing with the soviet union. that was the critical thing he had to deal with and it took him almost seven years before he could get done. we worked with him starting in 1981 all the way through. the main reason we wanted to write this book is we think it is important to understand what the president is doing, not

just reagan, but all presidents. it is important to know what they're doing and how they did it. when the next president takes over it is really good to know what worked and what did not. host: annelise, were you surprised by the information your husband was able to get through some of the secretive, classified sources? did you see an insight into the president you have not seen before even though the you work for him? guest: i had guessed that reagan was making all the decisions. actually, i was surprised at the extent at which he was directing the people who were members of the national security council, secretary of state, defense, the joint chiefs of staff were advising him of course, and told us that the

director of the cia -- and the vice-president was always there, and he was given the direction and setting the strategy, reminding people what the goals were, expressing his philosophy. he was dealing with differences of opinion among state and defense often. there were differences of opinion. sometimes he would go with one or the other. he would maybe say you wanare nt as far apart as you think. we should not go with either of you, but a third year. he would express the philosophy and the negotiating strategy. he was a great negotiator. i was partly surprised and partly concerned. host: what is a key is that you

say the minutes and the writings show that he was the one making decisions at the end of the day? guest: that is right, absolutely. when we were doing this book we tried hard not to give our ideas as to what was happening. we tried to find documents where he actually read them or other people read them. you can read, see, understand yourself and decide on your own as to what happened. it is important to know this. if you go -- we have a lot of friends who think he was nice, clever, pretty, made movies. but they are really puzzled as to what happened whathow. many people think he was just lucky. we know now it was not lucky and was done carefully. it is important to know that.

it is other presidents who have the same problems. host: tell us about the personal diaries. how much insight did they give you about his day to day decisions? were you surprised at the extent of his writings? guest: he wrote in his own personal diary the entire time he was president, virtually every night. he often comments on the meetings of the national security council and expresses his view of them. he says it was a good meeting or we had disagreements. i have to solve this problem, and things like that. the diaries are revealing on a huge range of subjects. it helps to have them in the context of interest.

we've focused in this book on reagan's commitment and firm belief that nuclear weapons should be abolished. that is a view that his advisers on the national security council and in the cabinet, the members, disagreed with. but he felt very strongly about it and work on that. he was also very firm and not making any bad deals with the soviets. and negotiating from a position of strength. he wanted to build up our military so that it was strong enough. he did that. host: you write in your book --

guest: one of the things we discovered starting in 2001, and we found by lack some various things he had done in terms of writing things and organizing them -- one of the things that have been for many years, and no one knew what he was doing. he wrote them every night but did not tell people. oftentimes, for example, we had one booklet put out on what he had done with documents he had written. it is only now that we have discovered what he was doing. he was by himself. he just did not tell other

people what was going on. host: who knew about the journal? did his wife and one of his children? guest: yes, his wife. i'm not sure about the tobago host: so, very few people, if only nancy reagan. guest: yes, and she was doing the same thing. hers has only been published in part, but his was published in 2007. the complete version will be published this year. guest: we discovered he was writing a lot of letters. we were curious. we kept talking to people. basically, we put out a book with over 1000 handwritten letters. since that time, we have been keeping how many letters he had done. we are up to 10,000 letters right now that he wrote by hand

on a whole range of issues. it is stunning when you compare it to other people in that business at this time. host: our guests are martin and annelise anderson, the co- authors of ". reagan's secret"" they have written previous books on reagan. -- the are the authors of "ronald reagan's secret war." good morning, and i'm sorry, who is this? caller: i am sorry, and what is your name? host: my name is patty. go ahead, please. caller: good morning, i would just like to say that i am 79 years old and ronald reagan was the best president i have seen

in my lifetime. his conservatism, lowering taxes, ability to talk to public -- the public and foreign leaders. by the time he got into office my husband and i were raising seven children and those were the only years with his huge tax cuts that we were able to save ira's and i'm now living on those now that my husband has passed we could take a few lessons from him now by lowering taxes. and getting the government off our backs. it would be wonderful if president obama would adopt some of his policies. guest: yeah, let me say one of the things about reagan. that is what he was doing. it was always a question people had, who was telling him how to do it? he was lucky about what he was doing.

when you go back and look at the eight years he was president, you say, look, he knew what he wanted to do and made all the main decisions. that is what this book is all about. you may not like what he is doing, but at least we should know what it is that he is doing. guest: we also worked very hard -- he worked very hard and getting the economy in very good shape and he was successful. it made it possible to do other things including sustaining a strong military. host: darrell is our next caller from cincinnati, ohio. he is calling on the independent line. caller: first of comment. the world that barack obama has inherited is far different from the world that reagan inherited. from two wars to a completely

different system of trade and globalization, etc. so, for the last caller who says that begins policy should be adopted by the obama administration -- it does not match up with reality. my question is, you described ronald reagan as having presided over 375 national security council meetings. for those of us who had questions about what happened during the iran contra it is incredulous to believe as micro- managing as regan apparently was that he could have been completely clueless about the fact that a marine corps colonel was engineering this plot to sell arms to the iranians and then divert funds to the contra. could you please speak to help ronald reagan could have been both the micra manager and then complete the attached from an

issue that was as explosive as the iran contra affair? guest: yes, i will try. first of all, whoever is the president of the united states, there are literally hundreds of people working for him. the important thing is that ronald reagan made all the decisions in terms of major things. but there are a lot of other people there. what happened with this particular one that there were people doing as you say and they were not right. toward the end reagan said that there was a mistake here, there's no question about that. whether obama, reagan, it is critical to watch the president. what is he doing? there are hundreds of others working with him for not may be as perfect as he is. i think that is the problem.

but no one is perfect. on that particular one, that was something he was not into. host: here is a comment by twitter. guest: well, uh -- i don't think so. i think the soviet union and united states have a very high percentage of the nuclear weapons and still do. i am not sure exactly when india and pakistan became a clear powers, but certainly there are continual threat today. ronald reagan worked hard on non-proliferation as well as negotiating the soviets to eliminate an entire class of nuclear weapons. the intermediate range nuclear

forces that the soviets had it directed toward cities in western europe, and he did that successfully. those weapons were eliminated. the first time in the united states history that the number of nuclear weapons has actually declined on both the soviet and u.s. side. guest: this is the key thing. it happened 20 years ago. up until that time all the other people were getting more and more nuclear weapons. in fact, about 95% came from the soviet union and the u.s. ronald reagan work on it for seven years and finally got the soviets to agree with him. they dropped down about 50% of all their nuclear weapons. it made things a lot better for everyone.

it was not finished. there was a lot more work that had to begin. as it happened during the last 20 years not that much was being done. one of the things obama is trying to do is to go back with what ronald reagan was doing with gorbachev in the soviet union. we see obama going back 20 years and doing a lot of the things that reagan had done. it is important to see how it was the only reagan and gorbachev reduced the number of nuclear weapons. it is one of the things obama is now trying to do in a difficult way. that is true. host: you write that president reagan had been in office for

half a year and very few understood his foreign policy. he had not yet given such a speech. he wrote to a friend he was working on his foreign policy. he wrote to "i do not think it is always wise to stand up and say where your position is. we have had very good experiences using that method, but you cannot talk about afterwards, or cannot do it again. " guest: that is the way that reagan operative. there are a lot of things he did. he did not tell other people at the time he was doing them. as it turns out they're pretty good. so, i am not sure what the other residents are doing. but it is important to know what ronald reagan did and how worked. what will other people tend to do, too? host: let's go to the independent line from scottsdale, arizona.

caller: good morning, the caller before talked on the iran contra. since he was such a hands-on president, how could that have passed him? why would they keep that from him? such an important decision. my other comment about ronald reagan, a thing i remember most is when you talk about the school lunches. he said that catch-up was a vegetable. guest: no, he did not say that. caller: yes, he did. to me that always sums up his compassion for the nation. guest: well, i think that catch- up was technically classified by the department of agriculture as a vegetable because after all is made from tomatoes. i think after that comment -- he did not say that.

but that classification was changed then. since that is a condiment and are really a vegetable. in terms of the iran contra, he knew about the arms sales to iran. he did not know about the other thing to the contras and that is well-documented by eight years of research and investigation. host: where did president reagan's desire to see a reduction in nuclear weapons come from? did you find that among his writings? guest: yes, i think it begins with the 1980's when we have dropped some nuclear-weapons on other countries, and he thought at the time it was a very difficult thing, a bad thing to do. we should not do. he watched it carefully for a

long time. we found a number of times he said back in 1945 -- it was the first time. later on he talked about it. basically, what he's feeling was, that if you look at the nuclear weapons, and that is what people are doing right now. there are many people turn to figure out how we can stop this. the nuclear weapons that blew things up back in 1945, they are now probably 50 to 100 times larger or more powerful. if you drop one of those -- everybody will be killed. it is so desperate that most people do not even want to think about it, but it is a difficult thing to do. people are working now on how we can get it loosened, bring it back down.

host: go right ahead, annelise. guest: i wanted to read a quotation from a speech in 1963 that reagan prepared that expressed how early on he had developed his philosophy. he says the only sure way to avoid war is to surrender without fighting. the other way is based on the bleak that in an all-out race our system is stronger and eventually the enemy gives up the race as a hopeless cause. a noble mission extends a hand in peace and says there's room for both of us. that was his philosophy in 1963. it was basically what he carried out during his presidency. host: our next caller is john from san francisco on the line for democrats. caller: i wanted to ask the

authors about ronald reagan's policies in lebanon. i have been reading a book about it by george ball. maybe you have heard of him? he is highly critical of ronald reagan's actions, especially with the way they seemingly caved in to the government in israel. the kept telling us one thing and doing another and basically making us look like fools. that was until the marines were sent in. we all know there were hundreds of casualties of marines. i would like to hear if you can shed some light on what ronald reagan was thinking? if he was in charge and what was alexander haig seemingly going about doing the foreign policy

at the time? guest: there are tremendous numbers of things that went down with reagan and everyone else at the time. alexander haig was only there for the first year and a half. i believe you're talking about the situation where the people were having difficulties over there. they asked peoplbegin to bring e over to help. he finally agreed with about 1500 people to go over there to stop the problems. some of them did get killed. i think there were 200 who got killed and then he pulled them back, and it stopped. but there are hundreds of things like this going on, back and forth. we have tried to look to the major things. one was getting rid of nuclear weapons.

that was something that can kill everyone. that was a major thing he finished. a lot of other people are trying to do it now and make it better. host: our guests are martin and annelise anderson. they are also fellows at the hoover institution. martin said on the pentagon's advisory board and annelise was a senior policy advisor during reagan's campaign and was an associate director in his office of management and budget. you can give us your calls it and must adjust by twitter. you can also be-mail us. the president had these bottom meetings with mikhail gorbachev. but inside did you get into his writings on the meetings? please tell us what you had access to and tell us why it is

significant. guest: the basic thing, if you look it the eight years he was there, the first couple of years he tried to deal with the soviet union. he talked comer letters and they just ignored the whole thing. -- he talked to them and wrote letters. in 1983 we had a new one and came very close to nuclear war. they finally went to the fourth and fifth year, and finally came along one person and the soviet union he felt he could talk with and get some things done. when they did that there were a lot of meetings where ronald reagan talked to this people, writers, back and forth. he never walked away. he always wanted to try to

change them. it took a long time. annelise, you might want to talk about some of those. guest: yes, there are transcripts of all of his summit meetings. there are both american transcripts and soviet transcripts, especially at a certain summit meeting that was translated into english. we have both versions available. guest: yes, i think some people remember something reagan did that he dithey did not like, but you have to see that with every president. you have to look at their total range. whether eisenhower or nixon. none are perfect. they will do something you do not like.

the real question is, what did they do in the end result? when they left and went home, what happened? what was better? the eight years that reagan was there in terms of the economy and particularly in terms of nuclear weapons -- if you have not controlled them we might all be dead. that is the thing we will see right now with obama. very quickly his learning. one of the things he must do is deal with the nuclear weapons. -- very quickly he is learning. it is so important that many people don't to talk about host: what worked between reagan and gorbachev? how were they able to advance the goals of reducing the stockpile of the clear weapons? guest: one of the major things

is both are similar. -- reducing the stockpile of nuclear weapons. guest: they really got along well. they disagreed and argued, no question. we got hold of a number of documents. while they were doing that, some of the meetings they went to -- they went into small rooms and closed the doors. we do not know what they said. now we have the document. you can see what each one said. host: what was that relationship like? was all the discussion about world peace, nuclear-weapons? was it more like two men talking together and sharing? guest: one of the things ronald reagan always brought up with

gorbachev from the first time he met them was human rights. there were people being held who wanted to leave the soviet union. he had their names and he advised gorbachev that would help relations a great deal if they were allowed to leave. he suggested it would be a good policy to follow, that there might be fewer problems in the soviet union if people were allowed freely to leave when they wanted to know. -- when they wanted to. there were jewish people who wanted to go to israel. of the chair did start letting more people leave jig gorbache-l

gorbachev did let people start to leave. it was very successful. the not claim credit for the fact these people were released. there was a female poet from the ukraine who had been in a labor camp. she and some other poets and dissidents were released right after the summit. so he accomplished quite a lot in that area. he considered human rights the freedom to travel, freedom to worship at one wished, to have some human dignity about choice of jobs and pursuing goals. fundamental, something government should not be in the way. host: you write this.

guest: yes, that is something that did happen. we did not know it had happened. not basically until we sat down to look of the documents. we have said repeatedly, do not listen to what we are saying. read the documents. see what he actually did and what gorbachev did. he continued to tell gorbachev and others, the soviet union wanted takeover united states. we did not want that. you basically had two incredibly powerful groups looking at each other. it was very dangerous. basically he kept saying, look, if we have a nuclear war and you

start the war, we will also work with and do the same thing to you. if we do that, we will both die. let's stop this and make it better. let us just let you work on your stuff, let us work on our stuff. it may sound a silly, but it work for awhile. host: our next caller is from palmdale, calif., on the independent line. caller: good morning to you and your guest. i really loved c-span. i watch it all the time. it is such an educational channel and i recommend it to all of my friends. i'm really happy your guests are on today. i'm reading a book that does talk about president reagan's willingness to talk to his soviet adversaries and his

genuine desire to eliminate nuclear weapons. this is a book called "teardown this mess." i wanted your guests to comment. one of the things the book says is that george h. w. bush and bill clinton wrote about reaganomics during the 1990's with peace and prosperity -- coming back to reaganomics they feel the last eight years led to war, bankrupt energy policies, and coming generations of debt. please comment on that. guest: wel, you know -- well, you know, i think the reagan economic program was followed by 25 years of sustained

economic growth. i hope that obama can achieve the same. are we going to wait 25 years to find out whether the obama economic program is successful or not? it was enormously worldwide trade and increases in income around the world as well as in the u.s. -- it was quite stunning. this has been the most sustained period of economic growth we have ever had worldwide. host: let's go to john on the republicans line portland, ore.. caller: hello, i had a question with regard to reagan's notion of trust and verify.

it seems to be a mantra that became essential to his negotiation. is it something that has become a part of politics and the system today? guest: i wish it was, but i think that what reagan was doing, he often dealt with people in the soviet union -- and he knew that some of these people, especially in the early days, that they never -- how would we put it? every now and then they lied, but that did not bother ronald reagan. he kept pushing ahead in terms of what was necessary to get done between the soviet union and the u.s. they were no longer going to be at war. when you look back on it, it is difficult to understand. many people do not do it.

if another group does not tell the president the truce they get upset. ronald reagan did not seem to get too bad upset. he knew who was lying and who was not, but he continued to push forward to get the main thing done. in terms of nuclear weapons it was to get everyone to reduce the number. that was the goal, that was what got them. host: let's talk about president reagan's personality. that was not a side of the president most americans saw. he said he might have had a snappy response for reporter, but tell us a little about the

president that you knew. guest: basically, ronald reagan is a human person. i was there several times when suddenly he was furious. basically, what was making him furious, if it would happen to me i would call it being very upset -- but he responded very quickly and came back. this guy could get mad, and a question. but it happened very rarely. host: what would happen? guest: basically of someone so they're going to do, and turned around and did just the opposite. especially when he was talking about people were part of his place. for example, he expected some of

the soviet union to lie to him. but some of those working with him around him, including some of our people, that would make him really bad. but it was a very tiny number. i wanted to make sure when we put it in there that the man was not perfect, like everyone else, i suppose. host: we have this comment from twitter. guest: certainly in terms of the air traffic controllers' strike reagan was not union- busting. he was the only present we have had who was a member of the union. he was the president of that union. he negotiated for them. he was extremely supportive.

that was the screen actors guild. he was extremely supportive of solidarity in poland. he worked with pope john paul the second and supported the movement in poland and got funds to them through indirect means and made speeches about poland. i think that the air traffic controllers' strike which you might think of as a so-called union-busting was not. these were employees who had taken an oath not to strike. ronald reagan felt strongly that public employees did not have a right to strike. he had written about that in the years when he was writing commentaries for radio. he rode 685 himself. he felt strongly about this.

-- he had written 685 about these. host: this is a caller from new york city. caller: by the bomb granada after withdrawing troops if he was so interested in human rights? as far as union-busting, he was. unions, if they do anything great, is keep up the standards of the workers employed there. we no longer have that. that is why we had this accident in new york for two airplanes crashed. one of the air traffickers' supposed to be watching was talking to his girlfriend on the phone. republicans should stop hero- worshiping him and look in other directions. he brought war with iran contra. this is unbelievable.

you keep pulling him up as a hero. republicans will die because the keyboard shipping their past instead of looking for leaders in the future. he was no great hero. guest: all i can say is that there were a lot of things happening one way or the other. we have written in this book not what we say. these are the actual documents. you want to read the book, you can see what happened and decided he was right or wrong. but whether it is reagan or anybody else, someone who was running all are things -- i don't quite know how to put it, but nobody is perfect in this business. some people think he is terrific and some do not. all i can say is that we try to just make it an actual thing as to what did happen.

then some people still will not like it, that is fine. but you have to find out exactly what happened. with moderate and we have discovered there were many things we did not understand. host: president reagan talked about the soviet union and very dramatic terms, using words likeevil. how did that affect his negotiations? did it become a roadblock? guest: various people and the communist party and the soviet union at the time -- reagan made the speech in 1983 that said the soviet union was the focus of evil and the modern world, have said they recognized themselves when he made the remark.

he made it clear that there was a moral distinction between the u.s. and the soviet union. it paved the way for negotiations, actually. not immediately, but eventually. -he did not -- in ronald reagan's view, the u.s. and the soviet union were not morally equivalent, not just two superpowers, but one was much more moral and promoting of freedom and liberty than the other. and it was actually helpful that he did that. guest: yes, the garbage just never argued with reagan and -- gorbachev did not argue, but

they just went on and talked about things. host: good morning, vermont. caller: good morning, with regard to the screen actors guild, ronald reagan was a mccarthy act, working to rid out battled communist. the reagan administration ended in 2008. the clintons were reagan democrats. they were distinguishable -- were not distinguishable from republicans. the formula was the book could with the empty suit, george bush, jr.. can you talk about preserving the rockefellers industry in nicaragua? guest: wow, i'm not quite sure where to stop on this one. basically, if you are interested and ronald reagan, all i can

say is there are a lot of other presidents involved in various issues from time time. if you look the eight years ronald reagan was their cannot always say is let's take a look at it, read it, see what he did and did not do. a lot of other people haven't read this book including people like george shultz. they were there with him. they understand what happens. they agree with this. now, but on terms of everything else that other presidents have done, that is way beyond us right now. host: how does star wars director into the negotiation of the time that reagan was in power guest: that was a majorpoint, because in 1983 when he studied that, he had studied it for years.

when he announced he wanted to do this, he wanted to get a document that would build something to save the interstates if anyone tried to attack us. the soviet union was very upset about this. what everyone seems to have forgotten is back in the 1960's both the united states and the soviet union had put together this idea that they would each have the same document. the soviet union tried to get more defensive. united states in 1975, we have built 100 of these to stop any nuclear weapons coming in.

then we wiped them all out, but the soviets union had not done it. then when they saw that ronald reagan was coming back to do this they were very upset. some of them were afraid of the idea that if the americans did that, they might have something above what the soviet union is doing. it was a very important thing. ronald reagan would not get rid of it. he wanted to make sure a, it would be the best thing for the united states. host: lewis is on the republican line, calling from florida. caller: good morning, i wanted to know if your guest could shed some light on why reagan announced his presidency in

philadelphia, mississippi where three workers were recently killed? guest: i think it was a campaign decision and probably not a good one. host: it did gain negative publicity, can you tell us more about that? guest: yes, there are a lot of things that go on when a president is trying to decide who will be president and where they go on what they do. that particular one, as far as i know, reagan did not say it was where and why. he went to dozens of people. but i do not think it was what he just said. host: good morning, wisconsin. caller: i would like to know what the position was on

reagan's position to pittsburgh and his refusal to visit a concentration camp. in my mind this defined his presidency above and beyond anything i can never match. i would like to hear your take on it, thank you. guest: i think that's helmut kohl, the german leader of the time, very much wanted ronald reagan to come to germany. reagan wanted to do that. kohl had been extremely supportive on the issue of putting our persian two missiles in germany and cruise missiles elsewhere in europe. reagan felt a commitment to dokohl as the leader of west germany -- allreagan felt a

commitment to kohl. guest: this was something they did not want to do. they had about 1200 weapons aimed on western europe. basically, he finally got him to the point where they agree to take them on down. he was working with the germans. they basically saved the whole group. host: robert is calling on the independent line from cincinnati. caller: good morning. thank you for line me the opportunity to speak. as i have listened to the two people on, reflecting back on the life i have lived as a citizen and the enacted states during reagan's presidency -- and if i recall unemployment compensation became taxable, the

air traffic controllers were fired, and we lost the ability to write off interest on your income taxes on automobile loans unless they were used in business. i am not turn to be sarcastic with my last comment, but made no effort, not a vegetable. guest: oh, that is right. a tomato is a free. --is a fruit. ronald reagan certainly did lower taxes. there were various changes in the tax cut. there was a reduction in things that could be deducted in order to keep the rates lower. one of the things was that home mortgages, interest on them remained tax-deductible, but

interest on credit cards and automobile loans were not. that is true. host: bill is the next caller from new york on the republican line. caller: good morning, and thank you for the book. just two comments -- i wish democrats would stop call on the republican line, and why is everyone so upset about reagan stop in the cold war? have a great day. guest: thank you. i'm not sure everyone likes this idea. many people have forgotten that reagan worked very hard to reduce the nuclear weapons. the nuclear weapons are so incredible. once they start to blow up and if they really started to attack -- and that is why right now we're very concerned about other

countries trying to build up nuclear-weapons to attack the u.s. if they do the consequences are credible. a lot of people do not even like to think about it, but you have to think about it now. guest: one of the things that affected garbage of a great deal was the accident at chernobyl. he has said it recently -- one thing the effectgorbachev. he has said that one nuclear weapon is like 100 chernobyls. he was very aware of the risk there, and i think so is obama. this is the first president since reagan who has stated as an explicit objective certa this

delineation to reduce the clearance. ronald reagan recognized to take a long time to develop such a system. he thought at least decades. in the view that he thought that could be done quickly or comprehensively is just wrong. host: we only have one more minute. the me ask you to share something that surprise you when you read the minutes of the meetings or president reagan's own writings guest: right from the first time he sat down and opened this up, he told all the people how important was that all these people were to him.

he finished by saying, but i will make all the decisions. we did not know until just now but he was making all the decisions for bad or good. we will look at that within that context. host: our guests have been doctors martin and annelise anderson. guest: thank you. host: this is their butt. coming next, the protest iskaren ignani. thanks for watching "washington journal" and we will be back tomorrow. ♪ [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]