♪ host: good morning on this thursday, august 20, 2009. we will plunge right into health care by listening to kathy kiely who has been out on the road listening to town halls. we will take your phone calls. a couple of things going on about the selling of health care on both sides. the president will be on a radio program and also have a town hall by telephone with supporters who helped his election to office last

year. on the legislative side, the gang of six are getting together today for an update on what they have been learning from town halls during their recess. kathy has a front-page story this morning. where did you go and what did you learn? guest: we have been to a couple of different places. i was most recently in mississippi on the gulf coast and john was in the polka knows of pennsylvania. host: why were those two members chosen? guest: we picked blue dogs, the conservative democrats who have been pushing back a little bet. they were the folks who said no, we do not want to but on this before the august recess. in the district i went to john

mccain won this district heavily. president. -- he got about 32%. we're looking at the people who are really likely to be under the most pressure, and see what people are telling them and how they are responding. host: how is a jean taylor's popularity? guest: hugely popular, he got about 75% of the vote. he is a 20-year veteran in the house. he is somebody who allen runs his party leader in the district. host: looking at video from that town hall with taylor in mississippi. what did you learn from this process? guest: one of the things we're looking at, the democrats were saying that this is astro-turf to distinguish their from true

grassroots. so, we return to determine if it was, or not. it is kind of like that new stadium turf, a little mix of both. you have people who are genuinely agitated, but the movement is also being organized by a lot of conservative leaders with whom i spoke who have said that on the one hand there were a little surprised by the energy. they have been moving quickly to help organize this. you see a little bit of questioning that i think comes from inside the beltway, and then a lot coming from the true grassroots. host: let's show your page in the newspaper, the opinion page -- this column runs regularly

"common ground" -- saying have to break up town brawls. it says the large turnout is anything but spontaneous democracy. it says in 1985 this supported the declines positions by packing tunnels. let's not kid ourselves into thinking that these confrontations are spontaneous democracy at work. it says that liberals gathered and is a movement. conservatives gather and it is a collection of automatons. guest: yes, and i heard some of that. i have to say that i think there is no question there is some organization behind this, but it does not mean it is not a spontaneous -- that there is not some genuine feeling.

one of a congressman who's meeting i attended, tom p. from southern virginia, he is a democrat. he said he felt his party leaders were making a mistake to question the motivation of the people at these meetings. he felt the anger is genuine. there has been a lot of talk about people being bussed in. the parking lots were full. these people were driving their themselves. to say this is a complete fabrication, something manufactured by political organizers, is incorrect. at the same time when you hear people stand up and ask questions about cap and trade it it is hard for me to believe that just came from the kitchen table. some of the questions are

definitely coming from outside sources. you see people coming to the meetings with a big sheets of paper -- there are e-mail networks going on. one of the striking things about this is how much the movement seemed like the obama campaign. some of the folks who are organizing it ourself- consciously modeling themselves after the bombing campaign. -- they are self-consciously organizing and modeling themselves after the obama campaign. host: your quotation here suggests that they went to school for hal barack obama -- for how the obama campaign organized itself. guest: yes, i talked with some people for the freedom that

works and dick told me he has been studying sol o. and barack obama. he says that they are greed organizers even though he does not agree with their views. host: we will take your telephone calls. first of all, senator chuck grassley is on the front page shahere. i'm not sure how much this matters, but the early editions of "the washington post" in dili. here is the headline. people are angry on multiple fronts. it is time for the senate to move cautiously. by later editions they had it replaced it with the lead on the cia story.

the senator chuck grassley story is still on the front page in later editions of the paper, but has moved to an off-lead position. that is a little exercise on how reporting is being done on this. also, the effort has lost "the washington post" editorial-page -- the public plan is no longer an option. they say it is not a matter of ideologies. they say that is nose-counting. let me add on the front page of "the wall street journal" -- new prescription for the health plan -- split the bill. they hope that it would speed of

the plan and held obama to meet his goal of getting it passed by the years end. guest: i think the democrats laid this earlier and the reconciliation bill. it opens up the possibility of doing part of the legislation on this health care bill. it is eye-blazing inside the capitol stuff, but the reconciliation measure can pass without the 60-vote super- majority often needed for a controversial measures. the democrats gave themselves this option. they looked ahead and saw this possibility that they could be stymied. they decided to give themselves the option of bypassing the filibuster, essentially. host: let's get to phone calls

for our guest. this is michael. caller: good morning, i hope you will forgive my nervousness. i have a rare condition which causes some of us to speak funny and have a funny mannerisms in public like edith bunker. guest: i get nervous on tv and i do not even have an excuse. caller: thank you. i have done art therapy and music therapy as a christian social work volunteer. first, i want to apologize on behalf of the christian committee for the way professing christians have played a big part with secular conservatives in turning these town meetings rather ugly, i think you would agree. viewers should have seen "the

daily show" last night and the reruns this morning where fox news did not perpetrate these town hall meetings, but they sure do champion them. they champion them as being grassroots. in 2003, 2004 the called early protestors of bush's invasion in iraq " unpatriotic" and called those of us who voted for al gore "sore losers." this is my question -- i have searched on a "if it ain't broke, it did not fix it" on the web site -- really suffering people groups who need

government to step in summer with the financing, as well as families who do not have insurance. who are the people who say if it ain't broke, don't fix it? host: thanks, michael. guest: it is really interesting when i attended these town hall meetings i was struck by how many people i spoke with who are against the president's health- care plan who do not themselves have health insurance, or who purchase their own. i think a lot of people are extremely nervous. it is like the devil you know versus the devil you do not. they are free of major changes.

-- they are afraid of major changes. there was a woman i spoke with in mississippi who talks about her concerns with finances. she is retired with her husband. they have company-provided health care. they also own a small airport in the area and she talked about how she feels about not being able to provide health insurance. she feels terrible about it, but they cannot afford to provide their employees with it. she is afraid if shoes required to provide it, it will put her out of business. -- she is afraid if she is required to provide it it will put her out of business. you're talking about something -- health insurance is personal to people -- am i going to be able to see my doctor? host: the next call is from

charlotte, n.c. on the republican line. caller: good morning. a quick comment about the town hall meetings. the democrats are very motivated to get out. republicans are somewhat passive. when they show up i believe you're seeing actual response and feeling. the perfect example -- and one of ours we had an attendee beset his representative mel white did not do town hall meetings. so he came to ours. i think the democrats are underestimating this true response. guest: which representative ? caller: mel.

my question is, the response we're getting at town hall meetings, do you think this is the weakening of the american public as to obama's overall policies? it did strike a nerve with people, but are they working up as to what the general direction of the obama administration is toward nationalization of industries? what would you think about that? guest: the caller makes an interesting point. we found that many we spoke to at the meetings did have health care on their minds, but many did. did not. the president's health-care plan seems to be a lightning rod and

is attracting people who are angry, some about the health care plan, some about overall government spending. some are angry about the bailouts of all kinds. some of the organization for this started last year when president bush was still in office. there were people angry about the bailout then for some of the banking companyies. i heard a lot of people who were upset about illegal immigration. it is broader than health care, yes. host: to the point of who is and who is not having town hall meetings -- you a trewrite thate

of with an altogether. is there a pattern? guest: there is not. it depends on the member of congress. many are not doing them in a traditional sense, but are opting for the telephone town halls. they will say they feel is more efficient and can reach more people, but any of us who have participated on telephone press conferences know that is much less free-wheeling. you cannot interrupt or follow up. you just have to take your turn. i'm not a mind reader. it is hard for me to say why they are doing this, but i suspect many of them are doing it that way. host: good morning, on the independent line with chris. caller: good morning, when you listen to the democrats and republicans calling in -- this is a very divisive issue. when you hear politicians from both parties talk you get the

feeling that nothing is really going to get done. if anything does get done, meaning if everyone agrees and there is a compromise and everyone is responsible, then long-term no one is responsible. i consider myself just an average joe, but a free-thinker. i read all different types of media and have information from different sources. i talk to people on the street, complete strangers, about it. i find that the average citizen in this country feels they're not being adequately represented. that the democrats tend to raise taxes and focus on [inaudible] , and the perception with republicans is that it is all about big business. we're losing sight of the small

businesses and individuals. that is very unfortunate. but what is fortunate and what i hope comes from this is that there is immobilized third prodded. if you need to have the checks and balances of three compared to two. -- i hope that what comes out of this is a mobilized third party. guest: do you have a third party in mind? caller: it is the problem with independents that you have the green and the libertarian -- they are not organized enough on issues to galvanize. it is a niche kind of thing. but all of the independents could get totogether to

realize the personal responsibility. our nation is at a tipping point and as a person who is a contractor in the washington, d.c. area, you will never need a more hard working, eager group of people. quite frankly i applaud their ethic. i also think they are the country's future. we have to reach out to illegals. we need to take care of that first. need to get our energy consumption under control before we can really talk about health care. host: thanks for participating. guestwhat if any changes are you seeing in the party politics as a result? guest: some of what you have cited on the front pages here.

democrats are reevaluating their strategy. this is exactly what the president was trying to avoid when he was pushing for passage before the august recess. it is a reality. this is a very complicated issue. it is very difficult to find a consensus on it. what you are now seeing is that the democrats are talking about may be pulling back a little, passing this in pieces, bit by bit. using this strategy in the senate of putting what they can on a reconciliation bill which is a technical way to say they will avoid a filibuster. many new strategies are being worked out. today the president's phone call with his supporters -- what you have seen is an intensity shift.

last year it was the democrats, liberals who had all the energy , who were lining up outside high school gyms and town halls to get into the meetings. this time it is the conservatives. what the president is trying to do is ask his folks were they are. host: here is an article by michael, let me look for a while we take calls. he announced he would take their questions on his radio program. let's go to alabama on the line for democrats. caller: good morning, about the town hall meetings -- if i owned $10 million in stocks in hmo's i would organize a group of people in dirty t-shirts to

go to a town hall meeting, too. but as a registered nurse, the problem we have is that if we looked at patience as a commodity that we trade on the new york stock exchange. i feel the media is partly to blame. we have two types of health care insurance. we have insurance the projects you if you work for the federal government or large conglomerate. the bills are paid if you get sick and go to a hospital. but if you're an individual, is a ponzi scheme. they do not pay your bills, increase your premium, or cancel. that is what the public option is put in there. it is for patients over 50 years old. they did dump and are not protected. not that they're bad americans and do not want to be responsible. they have no place to go. the private insurance companies

dumped them. the media has not explained that well enough. that is why we're doing this big hoopla in these town hall meetings. yes, these people are confused, but most of it is manufactured. it is because we do not look at health care as a service, but rather as a commodity. i'm willing to take questions. guest: have you had patients who have had that experience? they have been dumped by insurance companies? caller: absolutely. most of the people who have had to foreclose on the grounds or filed bankruptcy it has been because of health care. they will go through and their doctors will beg and fight with the insurance companies to please cover our patient, but they will say, this is a pre- existing disease or there is a family history.

you have to be reasonable. we all have that family history of some kind of disease because we all have mothers and fathers, sisters. if you are over 50 they do not care about you. if you are working for the federal government or large company, they make deals because they have a large pool of employees. that is a better policy, but the vast majority of our patients do not work for the federal government or for ibm. that is the problem. we have a large demographic of patients over 50 that private insurance companies do not want to cover. there is not a profit to be made from them. guest: well, this is exactly the argument the president has been making over and over again for the bill. this has wide support including

republican support. it would eliminate the ability of insurance companies to screen people for pre-existing conditions. that is a long-standing complaint. i would be shocked if any legislation passed without that. the other point the caller is making is what the do for people who are not in a corporate pool or some large pool? what do you do for them? now it looks like there's more interest from the congress in the coops. there is the recognition of the problem the caller has identified, but no consensus on how to deal with it. host: here is this reporter's statistic. the radio post said on his twitter that he received 5000 submissions for questions for the president today.

also, talking about incremental approach -- this third ranking democrat from south carolina has taken to reminding his colleagues that congress passed multiple piecemeal civil-rights bills and the 1960's and that activists had to put off demands for voting rights until 1965. lbj made it very clear that ahlf a loaf is better than no loaf. guest: and he is the chief vote counter in it that body of legislators. host: here is another headline. this story says that senator edward kennedy in a poignant acknowledgment of his mortality has privately asked the governor and legislative leaders to change the succession law to guarantee that massachusetts

will not lack the senate the twin his seat becomes vacant. --when his senate seat becomes vacant. guest: well, a reminder -- senator kennedy has been battling very serious illness. he has terminal brain cancer. i am sure he would be in the senate if you were able to be. he loves the senate. he has spent most of his life here. he has not been in washington since april. i think he understands what he is facing. that is a recognition of it. host: louisiana, on the republican line. caller: yes, i think these town

hall meeting target. there's one thing people are not thinking about and that is the constitution. -- i think these town hall meetings are break. i was listening to a judge and a couple of lawyers on tv yesterday. they say all this stuff is unconstitutional. i have also seen three or four of these states, if it passes that they will not go along with it. they will just forget about it, ignore it. i guess that is what it is. i do not know. guest: do you know specifically what is unconstitutional? caller: yes, the whole thing. also, giving money to acorn is

not constitutional. you need to be looking at other things of their besides the health care thing because there are lots of things going on that are not constitutional. host: thank you. do you want to talk about constitutionality of health care? has the issue been raised at all? guest: that call reflects what we are seeing at these town hall meetings. these are folks who are angry about a number of different issues. the president's health-care plan is really the lightning rod. the other point is, in all the meetings, and all the folks i talked to -- i did not find a single person who had voted for barack obama last year. this is not a matter of people who had supported the president

who are now flaking off. it is a matter of people who did not like him to begin with who are now more galvanize. for the president the complication is, does that mean that the independent voters will flake off? we did a poll that showed that that support is softening. that is the political complication for him. not so much those showing up who do not like him to begin with. but what effect they might have on others who are watching. host: kathy kiely along with her colleagues has a cover story in today's "usa today" -- listen to us -- inside august roiling tunnels. you can find it on the internet as well. thanks for joining us. the other big story today is about the butting in

afghanistan. we will learn more about the risks and rewards of it. -- the other big story today is about the movement in afghanistan. our next guest is mr. reid. it is 4:00 right now, isn't it? guest: yes, it is, and the polls are just now closing. host: what have you been able to observe today? guest: well, it sort of depends on where you go and what you look for and at. there has not been a great deal of violence in kabul. not a great deal of violence generally across the south or other areas of the country where the taliban have a person's. however, there has been scattered violence.

-- for the taliban have a presence. there has been an armed assault in one province. however, the taliban intimidation campaign does appear to have been somewhat successful. we have no official figures, but anecdotally it appears that voting turnout was quite a low in the pashtun south. it was lower by kabul than in 2004. the no. turnout might be quite good for president karzai's challenger, the former foreign minister who is generally seen as the no. candidate. host: when will the results been known? guest: we have gotten mixed signals. over the weekend they will attempt to release some figures.

the major campaigns will release figures based on what they have heard from their poll watchers. there is always a question of the legitimacy of such figures. final preliminary figures will not be available for another week or 10 days. there is a lot of pressure on afghans to come up with some sort of indication for a clear winner or whether we will face a runoff. host: let me introduce our guest for the next 45 minutes. bing west who has spent a lot of time on the ground in afghanistan. he is a former defense secretary in the ronald reagan administration. he also writes about foreign affairs and policy issues connected to them. do you have a question for our

correspondent there in afghanistan today? guest: no, but the issue about runoff stoles things were few more months. for mr. reid if there is a runoff will be interesting to see what efforts are taken by mr. karzai to get his support base in the south up and running for him. host: do you have any comment on that? guest: yes, i think the gentleman is absolutely correct. presidents karzai has made alliances with local leaders in the south and is perceived as the southern candidate because of his pashtun origins. he will have to rally his pashtun committee which constitutes 40% of the population. if necessary, he will have to find some way to cut limited

deals with local taliban leaders to allow the runoff process to take place. there is also bound to be a lot of horse trading if we go to a runoff. there will be rumors of offers of positions to people in the government, efforts to woo away the other candidates' supporters. host: let me ask mr. reid this question and then we will say thank you and goodbye to you. what are the stakes and possible outcomes for the u.s. and its allies in these elections? guest: well, i think the u.s. wants a legitimate government, generally recognized by the afghan. this is probably more important than what the turnout was, or exactly how clean the mechanics were. they would like a situation

where the new president feels he has a mandate, acceptance and recognition by major power centers here. he could move on a number of issues, possibly overcome moderate the elements in the taliban, if there are any. anti-corruption of the government. it is easy to say but hard to do. americans feel that much time has been wasted since 2001. time has been wasted since the election was postponed from the spring. they want to move quickly so that the public sees some indication of progress here. host: mr. reid, thank you for joining us on election day. we look forward to your

continued reporting as the results become known today and later in the week. thanks for your time. let me turn bing west who is joining us from boston. what is your answer to the question i just posed to mr. reid about the stakes for the u.s. and the allies? guest: karzai has had five years and he has done a poor job. he is not a manager or a compromiser. if he wins in october you can expect the administration will try to insist that he have a tough chief of staff to be a manager and get things done in the middle of a war. conversely, if the opposition wins it will be a new slate and set back the time frame for running a country. so, on balance, i suspect many will hope for a villa, but in

karzai wins you can expect the administration to insist to bring a good manager in --. host: let me show the two phases here. these dark -- these brown and dk brown areas are the areas thatkarzai won. the man next to it -- these are the number of terrorist attacks, first in 2004, and now in to doesn't. the increase in violence and mirrors almost exactly the areas with the highest percentage of karzai voting. -- and now in to designate the attacks have increased. guest: is shows that it is a

tough war. the taliban have a set of watchers. people watch every time an american network goes out. we're dealing with the network. there is only so much that american or british soldiers can do. this comes down to afghan versus afghans. we have to be very careful with our current surge that we do not try to make this an american or nato war. host: we're looking at video of u.s. marines engaged in military operations. what is their mission there as you caution us not to make this a u.s. or its allies war? guest: wow, the mission when you go out with afghan, british, or american soldiers is you are looking for the taliban and you

will get into a firefight. you are in a war and someone will die. or you will imprisoned them. but when you get to the general officer level you hear all this talk about counter insurgency. they have to rebuild an entire country in the 13th century into a 21st century democracy. if you cannot win a war and to you have a functioning democracy that is economically stable -- if this is how we look at it, we're looking at another 10 years. it. will be it right now is the forgotten war in america. but about one year from now when we're no longer debating something else domestically, people will ask what we're doing? how long will it take? how much will it cost? we're spending $80 million per year -- billion per year there.

it does not sound like much compared to medicaid, but we must get fiscally responsible. host: as the afghans could to thepolls today we invite your questions or comments. you can send us a message by e- mail, or a note by twitter. we will put those on our screen. you say not many are paying attention. "the financial times quoted has results of a new survey. 51% say that the war in afghanistan say the war in afghanistan was not worth fighting. previous polls conducted over

the last two and a half years has shown at least 50% support for the war. what are you hearing? guest: i am hearing that i hope president obama will become much more firm about this. this is where you need presidential leadership. we were attacked from afghanistan. for us to begin to say come gee, this is not worth it is too short term memory. clearly we do not want could do to end up with a triumph there. the president is in this position where he has an enormous, costly domestic agenda. he does not have the time before this war.

but within one year he will have to rally support for it. there is no substitute for solid political support. host: also, continuing to publish the military fatalities in afghanistan, here is "the new york times quoting -- the department of defense has identified 779 american service members who have died. it confirmed of the falling dusk on wednesday -- the next caller is john on the line for democrats. caller: good morning, i wish someone would come on to tell the american people why we were attacked. it is not because of our way of life. it has to do with american foreign policy in that part of the world for who knows how many years in the past. that is fresh. we do not hear any reason why. the taliban did not attack

america for a reason. suddenly, the taliban and al qaeda will keep taking the afghans because american is an occupying force in that country, just like in vietnam. no one wants to be occupied by a force for a government who will set up a puppet government. that is what is typical in iraq. you have people coming from there to fight americans because they know the american government does not believe in law and order. george bush ran amok. no one has been held accountable. why should anyone in afghanistan believe the puppet government will be legitimate? host: thanks for your comments. your response, mr. west? guest: john, we were attacked because of our way of life, not because of our government.

it had nothing to do with whether it was president clinton or president bush. we are dealing with a bunch of wackos who have a different view of the entire world. they are murderers and terrorists. we have to put them where they belong on the earth. as far as the afghan people are concerned, my concern is opposite of yours. the afghan people know one word in english where you go -- t.r.t. -- p.r.t. those are the provincial or reconstruction teams by americans and. and they are universally popular. the problem is that if you left it to many afghans they prefer they have local control thoughp.r.t's rather than their own government -- the prefer

local control with the p.r.t.'s. you go out to any village meetings and you keep hearing "prt"and we have to be careful that the afghan people do not believe it is americans who are doing everything for them. that is to a large extent which is helping. the afghan people really like having americans there. they are not ignorant about americans coming to be decent and having a large amount of money they're spending to help. so, i'm afraid that you and i have two different views about why we were attacked and how we are truly received in afghanistan. host: liberty, utah, on the independent line. caller: yes, why can't we go in there and help those people with their fields and plant corn?

that is the next big profit. help them to get on to a profitable item, rather than the drugs. host: what did you learn about conversion of the poppy crops into other kinds of agriculture? guest: it staggers remind -- they will have wheat and poppy side by side. the fact is that collecting the opium from the poppy is very, very profitable for farmers. much more than corn or wheat. the new strategy -- but we will see if it can take, is to say look -- we will not just give you money to raise public because you will take but the

money and raise the puppy. we will equalize the price by subsidizing the price of wheat, and seeds, to try to equalize the price so that you have any college. choices not go after the farmers, but the traffickers who collect the opium and try to convert it into heroin. -- so that you have an equal choice. i think you'll see a more reasonable effort by marines. but make no mistake, well over $500 million, 50% of the entire gdp of afghanistan comes from the opium and heroin. it is a huge task that will take many years. host: of europe sends this by twitter. guest: no, no, no.

we have to stop these conspiracy theories about america. that is not how we are and we all know that. we are in afghanistan because we were attacked from there. the notion that the taliban we are trying to keep down -- they were keeping down the amount of crop going in one year because they had already harvested it and wanted to drive up the price on the street. the taliban are ruthless, savage, and not to be trusted. in the and only the afghans can figure out how they will do with the taliban. we cannot. we are sending over military power for military jobs. we can help with reconstruction. but we cannot get inside what causes the taliban to tick. we can only say that if they are

enemies, they are going down. host: mr. west is a military analyst, and he served under the reagan administration in the 1980's. he has just returned from one month with the marines and advisors on the ground. tell me about your trip and specifics. did it change your mind? guest: i was in the vietnam war and with three theiraq were in my friend of reference when dealing with counter insurgency is that all the generals can do is set the table. they're not starving beaches -- storming beaches. i go out every three or four months with different squads. i began in the south with the british advisors and marine. what a first of there is, every

time you go out there is a warning system that tells the taliban you have a patrol moving, and then they will engage you. they will engage you each time. it is equivalent to fighting be apaches in the 1870's. i went up to the north and with back to the battalion i had been with before. that same sort of thing. they will shoot at you from the mountainside and the fade away. we have a tough enemy and will have to determine how it is. how much money will it take to obtain our objective? that is to not allow to been to take over afghanistan. general mcchrystal is putting together a new strategy that we will hear about probably in october. host: this call is from the republican line.

caller: good morning, mr. west. keep on keeping on. i too am a vietnam veteran. i get tired of these crybabies thinking that america is the fault, the cause of everything. a what you to keep on keeping on. guest: it is a hardware. what we're asking our soldiers and marines to do is really tough. -- if is t is a hard war. they are wearing body armor and staying with it day after day. that is the real definition of courage. your ability to persevere under tough conditions regardless. i'm just really proud of the job

they do. they have been added for a long time. you would think that the taliban which show signs of cracking, but they're not. -- you'd think that the soldiers would show signs of cracking, but they're not. i wish that they had assured tour. army soldiers have to go over forone year. i think it is too long. but even given that, what we're doing on the ground -- those who volunteer are tough fighters. host: what should the worst take away from scenes on television and in newspapers of the deadly flash here in iraq? guest: i will just say it. i think the president's malaki has always been a seat confident

without understanding security realities. he thinks he is above certain things. he should have recognized that americans have a system for protecting those cities. before you say for political reasons that you want them out, you better put everything else in order. i believe that the iraqis can stabilize their country, but they are paying the cost now because in my judgment president maliki did not give the attention and difference he should have to security commanders when there were warning him to slow down. host: what should this a violence's sake two military members and families who have put so much effort into that country? guest: ultimately iraq will emerge as a stable country. it will not be the great -- if you will, i am not one of those who believes we should spread

democracy around the world. i am more cautious. but given we started out to do certain things, i think in five to tenures it will be a fairly stable country. that it was not in vain. -- the in five to ten years it will be fairly stable. host: the line for democrats. caller: first thing, thank god for the americans who think the way you think. the only thing i disagree with you about is that democrats is godly. for us to live the life with integrity and principles and not

want to seek a poor country dominate thugs and not want to help them. i am so disappointed with my democratic party right now with the town hall meetings, with everything the democrats voted for a president that wants to do some. chain and make some change. -- do some change and make some change. why aren't we supporting them? we voted this man in office, and he wants to do right by all the people. he wants to say to the world that we are the best, greatest country in the world. we elect black presidents. why aren't we supporting what you are saying, what the president is saying, and giving support where it is needed not

with this foolishness with the healthcare, but the decent, working, and trying to dissolve some issues that will slap us back in the face if we ignored? host: thank you, charlie. guest: it is two different points. the idea that america has a thriving democracy i think is certainly manifested in the debate we have now every day. where i hesitate a little bit is when we try to export that to other countries that are not really ready for its. it there has to be something in the social fabric of the country that causes it to be able to take that next step into full democracy. when i look at afghanistan with its differenttribes and history i did a little concerned that we do not try to bite off too much.

conversely, in terms of staying with it, i think if we do we will succeed. that is where the leadership of the president -- not this year which is ok, but next year will be the crunch here. the president will have to for the sake of his own party beat more of a wartime leader. we are about one year away from the big debate about afghanistan. host: this year ort weets us that americans have no time for long wars anymore. do you agree with his assessment? guest: i wonder if we ever did have time for a long wars. jim is onto something. the longer something drugs out, the more impatient the country

becomes. no matter whether it is healthcare, or something else. we keep going. that is why we have a vibrant economy. but sometimes you get into situations that require a high degree of patience. that is where we are with afghanistan. it is not so much putting more americans in their this year, but after this year when we withdraw some, and then do we have the patience to leave advisors there? and to spend considerable money for the nextfive to ten years? . .

a caller disagreed with you and you mentioned locally the taliban will not understand why we would want to help them, but we are going to spend money and help the economy. we americans are willing to do that. we are by no means -- are not willing to do that. we are by no means able. we are in debt. the wars in afghanistan is they attacked us. everybody that has attacked us, according to your way of thinking, the anon, iran, now we are building in military force in columbia -- colombia. honduras has problems with

elections and american politicians are not going down to rescue -- hello? host: go-ahead. caller: hello? host: ok, we've got your point. why don't you pick up. guest: i would just say it again. we are not there to help the taliban. they are our enemy. we were attacked from afghanistan. hello? we were attacked by afghanistan in out -- and al qaeda. now al qaeda is in pakistan. we have a regional problem. but you have to deal with it because al qaeda is our implacable enemy. with the telegram budget that has to be sorted out of afghans. there are certain people in this world as we are talking trying to figure out how to attack us and kill americans. we have done a pretty good job keeping them off balance since 9/11 and we have to continue to do that. we have the soldiers, we have

the marines, we have the cia operators rigid operatives that can do this. host: the german we spoke to at the beginning of this segment, the -- gentlemen we spoke to at the beginning of this segment just filed this. authorities are keeping the polls open an hour longer the plans to allow more to vote. the country's independent election commission spokesman said polls will be kept open until 5:00 p.m. thursday to allow people to participate. voter turnout appeared down early, particularly in the violence out but government officials said voting seemed to pick up in the afternoon. our next call for our guests as we talk about u.s. policy in afghanistan as the country goes to the polls. pensacola, florida. jack. republican line. caller: intuitively i have respect for the type of person he is -- a tough, old reagan

administration alumnae. there is no question that this soldiers, soldiers -- marines, some of the bravest in the world. one who -- you can see the dedication and quality of training and professionalism of our troops and the good sense and judgment displayed by murphy and his fellows there. however, you can't help but feel and watching this tragically that we're seeing the thing replay. in some sense, mr. west alton know best himself having been in the reagan administration, seen what the soviets have gone through. we see a nation the size of texas with some of the most inhospitable terrain at the poverty on planet earth. we see a group of tribes living in practically the eighth century in terms of their thinking. insular people, who are united only in their absolute detestation of us and their desire to destroy the west and

that u.s.. history is replete -- alexander the great failed, the greeks, british, soviets, and sadly i think it will be us. one more problem that really has not been addressed, but witnessing -- witnessing farcification like the colombian farc, been fuelled by profits from opium and harry and -- heroin and it is a money grab. it seems like a forever war, a tragic waste of our time. host: based on your analysis, what would you have the united states do? lot completely? caller: thank god -- i don't have the arrogance to answer the -- but i got i am not running the show. i it meant that freely. -- i admit that free. one has to go to the general --

the one that was credited for success in the united states in iraq -- you have to wonder every time you kill a terrorist -- a terrorist, are not two being brad? -- are not two being bred. guest: i was -- was with jack all the way in terms of his description of the country. vast, mountains in the south, -- mountains in the north, real heat in the south. we have all of these tribes, many of them back in the first century, let alone, the eighth century. they don't all the test this. not by any means. you mentioned lieutenant murphy who was killed, but the survivor was rescued by the afghans in the area. you have a mixture. we're not doing that badly at all when you look over all things. we are not the russians. we have not been received that way. you mentioned alexander the

great. he actually was received very well in certain parts of afghanistan rather than another's. he had a different way of handling things than we did. but there is no reason to get really pessimistic about afghanistan. there really isn't. if we are willing to put in enough advisers -- and i am not saying we have to keep all of those troops there are all. but if we are willing to put in a sufficient number of advisers and willing to put an roughly, i would say about $50 billion a year, i think things could turn out ok in afghanistan about five years from now. it all gets back to, are you willing to be patient. that is what it gets back to. host: twitter message from a viewer writes -- guest: that may lead our

generals off the hook too easy. -- letson our generals off the hook too easy. we have a consensus way of doing things. if the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff walks into a meeting at the nsc and said, sir, we need more troops in afghanistan, that will make the newspaper had worked -- headlines the next day. somehow bob -- bob woodward and somebody would get a hold of that. it is not at all clear to me we can put this on the backs of the politicians. the military itself was asleep at the switch in afghanistan. host: frederick, maryland. ian on the democrats' line. caller: thank you for taking my call. with regards to starting and stopping wars, it reminds me of machiavelli saying wars began when you wish but not end when you please. it should have been a lesson from the beginning. what i want to say is, if you

read "punishment of virtue," you can read what is going on over there and people like this -- you can laugh at them, like i do. if we are going into a war, there is going to be a reason -- strategic real war resources. 9/11, it was retaliation. we have been meddling in the affairs of every country across the globe. if you read the book "blow back ," it will tell you about appeared in former selves. do not let people live. it is not about left and right. these people who are running our country for more danger than the taliban could ever be. thank you. guest: if that is what you think of the american government, that is what you think of the american government. the beauty is, you control the

amount any time you want and vote in your sleep. -- you can vote them out any time you want and vote york slate. another twitter -- guest: in my judgment, whether you get hit again at home or not depends on a lot of variables but certainly quitting would, in my judgment, would be a strategic disaster. the consequences of that would be such that i could not envision any president or congress of the united states doing. host: the next question is from north carolina. ron, independent line. caller: good morning. first, i would like to say, it

seems like we've got this defeatist attitude. you hear about we lost the vietnam war. i was there in 1968. walter cronkite sang, we can't win. we had almost completely -- we had devastated the viet cong their act tet -- there at tet. it was the politicians who gave up. i am wondering if president obama will keep his campaign promise. i know congress is not for it. how could he really keep his campaign promise when congress is not for this war? host: mr. west? guest: i-5 myself in a strange position where really i do analyze battles and strategy -- i find myself in a strange position. the interesting thing is, most of these questions are of the

issues of dealing with the tenacity of the will of the american people as a whole and the leadership of our politicians. i am no more qualified than anyone of those who have called in and questioned to answer that. we are all one country. we are all americans. we will see what happens over time. i hope, and i do believe that the president, president obama, will make the right decisions because i believe just pulling out will be wrong. and i think that is probably where we end up. but it is really a credit to us and a credit to c-span that we can have this open conversation and put everything out on the table and debated back and forth. host: of the editorial page of "usa today" is on this topic. as afghanistan votes, american's resolve fades. if the war is to be one, support will have to be revitalized and adequate force commitments for

whatever strategy emerges. today's election will be a key test for what to -- needs to be done to halt afghans build a stable, reasonably representative government that does not harbor terrorists. the taliban's threat to man those who book provides a clarifying moment in the often ys the stakes are. ith the bad perhaps the turnout will be a repudiation of the telegram's barbarity. perhaps the war, as badly as it is going, can return the room. the question is whether obama can come up with a strategy that persuades americans and allies to commit sufficient time, effort, and resources to find out the answer. do you agree with that? guest: sounds like i could have written it. but i am not quite as pessimistic as "usa today" was at the beginning. they framed it right. the question really becomes, leadership of president obama and the willingness of the american people to stay the course.

and believe me, i am out there with these marines and soldiers and i love them dearly. and one loss really gets to me. but it is not a big war. it is not a huge war like world war ii or something. we can sustain this because we have the volunteers to do it, and they are good soldiers and we can sustain it because the cost costs substantially nothing compared to the others we are uncovering. host: our last question for you is from charlotte, north carolina. cathy on the republican line. caller: i basically have a statement. i gave the three brothers to vietnam and i'm a mother now. a marine in iraq and i have a soldier in afghanistan. kudos to you for being there and watching them do their day to day job and letting america know just what they are going through.

my family would have not made a different decision. they are volunteers, like you said, proud volunteers and we are a proud american families and they, like we are, are in it for the long run. god bless you. host: closing comments, what you want americans to know about this from your learning's on the ground? guest: it is a hard war and it is going to take perseverance. our troops have that perseverance but there is no easy short cut in this one because of the afghan government did not do a good job in picking of the way they should have over the last five years to six years. now what we have to do is we just have to stay there with them, develop their security forces and then back us out and that their security forces picked up the burden. host: what are you going to do

with all of this video you shot while on the ground and all of the notes? guest: i am writing a book on random house that will come out next june. i will probably put a lot of video on youtube so people can see what, that really looks like. host: @ thank you for sharing it with the audience this morning. bing west joining us. ahead, we will have a session of open funds. we talked about health care and also the voting and the war on the ground in afghanistan. if you would like to follow up, you're most welcome but we would also take the calls on any topic. the final hour, if you have been watching lately, this week and next we have been turning to summer books. our focus this morning is a new book about fdr and the constitution. about his effort to pack the court. burt solomon is it the right term. we will talk about this episode between a strong president and the congress and what some of

the lessons are. burt solomon joining us at 9:00 a.m. eastern time. back in a couple of minutes with your open phone comments. >> as the debate over health care continues, we are interested in your thoughts, particularly if you are attending a town hall meeting with your member of congress. share your experiences and thoughts on video by going on line to c-span.org/citizen video. >> as of the health care conversation continues, c-span's health care hub is a key resource. go online and follow the latest tweets, video ads and links, and keep up to date on events like town hall meetings, house and senate events and even up load your opinion with a citizen video. the c-span health care, but at

c-span.org/healthcare. >> this fall, enter the home of america's highest court, from the grand public places to place is only accessible to the nine justices. the supreme court, the first sunday in october on c-span. >> "washington journal" continues. good morning. we are back once again for open phones for the next 40 minutes. we welcome your calls on any topic. earlier on we talked about the evolution of the editions of " the washington post" a change the other lead story. it began with a health care story -- as conditions emerged, this is now the lead, cia hired a firm for assassin program. also the lead story in "the new york times" this morning. outsiders hired as cia plan to kill judge harvests -- g. hottest -- jihadists.

here's the story -- that is unnamed sources.

also today, "the washington times was " prudent -- printed a piece by michael hayden, outgoing director of the cia and national security agency, time for the cia to move ahead. he said the next week the obama administration is expected to release another collection of documents on the u.s. government attention -- and interrogation. the documents will likely include a lightly redacted version of the cia inspector general to thousand four reporter the program, more department of justice legal opinions, including the 2007 opinion on which i relied what director of cia, as less some reporting on the overall effectiveness of the program. the next phone call for the morning and the first open phones, new york city, gregg on the democrats' line.

caller: i will keep it short and simple since you like to talk a lot. host: that is not true. caller: you are very well versed -- host: disagree, because we contract of the number of calls. caller: i am c-span and advocate. very simple -- health care. it is convenient for people to come to town hall meetings to argue against something that is beneficial to them personally in the long run, whether their mother, brother, sister. based on convene yet make -- racist at the -- added to -- attitude. people who control the environment which the advocate. c-span, being the balanced news station, should ease up a little bit when it comes to promoting what is not good for john q.

public, period, which is bigotry. host: what is an example. caller: as a person who -- of color who knows my history, and my family is native american, to know that we all need health care. some people pay for it and some people can't afford to pay for it. but to have a blatant argument, to call the president de nazi -- to go to a place where the president is speaking and being able to carry guns. if i was to have a gun on my side and i'm standing anywhere near the president, i am sure i would be carted to jail. the question is, how is it the president, everybody's president, would agree or not, i would not want anyone around george bush with a gun because he is my president when he was the president. ok, it is the right to bear arms. who is it the right for?

do certain people get to bear arms answer and not? all based on a health care argument? the argument about big business is being bailed out, republicans, balh, let us take care of big business but when it comes to anything that has to do with the average person in this country it cannot happen. that particular mindset goes back to slavery. when slavery over the same manipulation of the population was done. keep them in dumb and stupid. c-span, please, when somebody makes a comment that is not factually, people bring in factcheck.org -- why don't you guys correct the misinformation? host: thank you for the call. gary, republican line. sterling, virginia. audit cut it is a real honor and privilege. i would like -- caller: it is an honor and a

privilege. i would like to say about health care -- we are saddling our american manufacturers, from with what i have heard, 7% to a 17% differential because of other countries are subsidizing health care of their population. canada, to the north, our biggest trading partner, the reason all of these cars, you open them up and look inside and it says made in canada and it is because they subsidize their health care. so these people who are all against health care reform are really against the american manufacturers because he is not allowing widget or is not able to charge. right away, 17% more he has to charge for his product. the other thing about

afghanistan, none of this would have happened if they just read the newspaper. thank you the remote. host: sandy, independent line. caller: i have to agree with the first caller from new york, but my reason to collar -- for calling is the afghani elections. if the people in this country are so ignorant to believe that they attacked this country because they don't like our way of life is insane. the real problem is what these neo-cons have been doing all over the world but are really what have liked to have asked your last guest if he would elaborate -- he conveniently left out -- why are contractors from india dressed as civilians along the afghan-iranian border building pipelines and roads? why did he conveniently leave

that out? people need to wake up in this country and what these neo-cons are all about. thank you for allow me to speak. host: thank you for making the call. margaret, republican, mobile, alabama. caller: thank you for taking my call. a question regarding the health care debate. excuse me. all of our representatives and alabama are republican and i have been waiting for them to have town hall meetings so we can join in the debate and i have heard nothing. i have written to our representatives and the only response i get is that they are opposed to president obama's plan but there is nothing about people -- they say nothing about what republican proposals are to do something about the bob cost of health care. so i would like for someone to challenge the republicans to find out what it is they are

proposing that you do about the rising cost of health care. host: next comment on open phones comes from burlington, vermont. ron, democrats line. caller: i believe that the more science needs to be put into the debate. how many people in america are really satisfied when they go to a doctor that what they get really fixes the problem. i don't think you are going to see a lot of raising of hands. i would like to see data that says how many people -- how many times did they go to the doctor in europe compared to hear. i think you will find that of germany, let's say, had to support our lifestyle, the way we eat, the way we take vaccines, all these things that

are really illegal in these foreign countries -- gmo's, gulf war syndrome tied to vaccines. just the amount of these toxins that are in our foods and all, i think americans are truly sicker than the rest of the world and having a nonprofit system or one in the private sector really won't cure the problem. host: americans about to get another cash for clunkers program, this time on home appliances, says "the wall street journal." beginning late this fall, rebates will be available for purchasers of high efficiency household appliances congress authorized $300 million for the program early of this year as part of the federal economic stimulus bill. atlanta is up next.

good morning, john on the independent line. caller: you did a great job. thank you for c-span. i was hoping to get through to speak to mr. west. anybody who thinks that the forces are in afghanistan and/or iraq for any reason other than big oil i have beachfront property on the moon they can buy real cheap. a friend of mine e-mail me a website -- i went there and i bought a book that this guy had written it and i highly recommend it to everybody, black and white folks in the country, because there are shenanigans going on and they are using racism to get everyone's at odds, he educate yourself. host: john on the republican line. go ahead.

caller: first of all, i want to defend you from the gentleman who called earlier. host: no problem. caller: when they don't want to hear anybody else's point of view. host: that is the pity of it -- i would rather hear the complaints rather than people frustrated. caller: he seemed to have an issue with folks calling barack obama a nazi. i totally disagree with that, just like to disagree -- it is amazing that people have a short memory -- the posters that identified bush as being hitler with a mustache, not just the people but actually leaders and the house from man to pose a to harry reid and things leaders have said about bush and not once but did bush ever complain or said anything about his opposition. the fact that had a shoe thrown at him, and posts like huffington post and moveon.org

-- i wish people would get away from the name calling on all of the stuff altogether which blind and kind of distracts us from the issue at hand which is the issue that is being debated now, cap-and-trade, whether it is health care, or whatever. stop being so emotional about political things, whether it is barack obama or the republicans, we should not take glee in uplifting a mere man. it is about the greatness of this country and the things we need to do to help and continue to make this country the greatest nation in the world. host: the word is out from scotland. you know there was going to be a decision as to whether or not the lockerbie bombing would be free on compassionate grounds because he has prostate cancer. the associated press just ran this, scotland's justice minister has freed the terminally ill lockerbie bomb on compassionate grounds despite protests from the united states, including strong statements from secretary of state hillary clinton.

the next telephone call is from pittsburgh, pennsylvania. zack is on the democrats' line. caller: thank you for c-span. i wanted to enumerate the previous -- some previous caller's caller about health care. the first couple of town hall meetings i watched on c-span, i believe it was senator specter's town hall, and there was a town hall from maryland and a town hall from one of the most conservative districts from texas, one of the congressman. in both of the senators town hall meetings, people were yelling and screaming and not letting them get their word in. basically spending allies that the right has -- about health care.

in a conservative town hall, they were very quiet and let him get in some of the same lies, the death panels, etcetera. i would like to see c-span treat those lies, whenever a caller calls and with them, the same as if a democratic collar called in with conspiracy theories like the conspiracy theory that bush administration was behind 9/11 and whatever. the same way that is treated, which is you immediately hang up on the caller. that is my feeling. i would appreciate it if you do that. thank you. host: next up. henry. hot springs village, arkansas. caller: forgive me if i stumbled through this. i'm a 85-year-old deadbeat. holst but you don't sound like a dead beat to me. -- host: you don't sound like a

dead beat me. caller: nobody has ever mentioned about the lobbyists. i suggest they put a proposal on one of the ballots, preferably presidential ballot, for people to vote yes or no whether they should ban lobbyists from washington where the hill or wherever -- yes or no, just yes or no. the other thing is that i believe that in that election, there never should be a majority of anybody because nothing is ever settled. another thing that i want to say is, you know, the congress or anybody else right now trying to push the health bill through, and they are trying to shove it down our throats. like trying to put a toothpick in the whole of a bag to stop a leak.

unless they get it right, it should not go through, period. but i would like to see the proposal being done on the ballot because of the lobbyist are absolutely running the country and they should be stopped. they also are ruining the country. i appreciate you taking my call. goodbye. host: thank you for making it, henry. jeffrey, republican line. he is watching us from tampa. hello, jeffrey. you are on the air. caller: hello? i am wondering why the reporters on social security don't go back and look at when social security was set up. it could not be touched, could not be borrowed against, it had an abundance of money in it. congress decided to borrow money against it, lose money against it, expand programs, take money out, give it to other programs and now they are saying social security is going broke.

congress broke the social security system, yet the reporters let that lie. it was originally set up, cannot be touched by congress. i'm wondering why everybody lets it fall by the wayside. host: thanks. deerow, democrat from missouri. -- darryl. caller: mr. west, do not know if he was adam west or bing west, but he was wrong. paul wolfowitz told us before the iraq fiasco, he was one of the architects, that the war would be paid for what may be $50 billion to $60 billion and it would come out of the iraqi wheel. where is a the iraqi oil seven or eight years? we have not seen a drop. we have murdered over 1 million iraqis -- the reason i say murdered is because everybody but these experts from the pentagon knows that we went into

iraq based on a lie, a lie that should have george bush, dick cheney and paul wolfowitz in jail, but they are not, see. so we are not going to win in iraq. we are not going to win in afghanistan but we can't win. those people know we are over there to steal their resources. if you look at american history, that is what we do. look what we are doing in south america. farming colombia 25 venezuela. you people, i don't understand. anybody who still believes 9/11 was caused by 19 hijackers crawling out of a cave is just insane and they need to just, it's suicide because they have no sense whatsoever. it is just murder. host: thank you, daryl. donna. caller: 3 comments and a question.

first of all, the republicans and the democrats who get a lot of campaign money from health insurance companies and have taxpayer funded health insurance, they want to block it for the average citizen. secondly, then it is the senior citizens who have tax payer funded medicare and want to block it from the younger generation who are helping to pay for their medicare and might live a long go with preventative health insurance. with this pay-as-you-go system, you would think the seniors would want to keep their children and grandchildren alive a longer and then they would be paying their social security and medicare taxes and medicare would go bankrupt and less than eight years. of the seniors are not using their brains. they have been brainwashed from insurance companies and the media that gets millions of dollars.

for all of us oppose it questions, the golden rule, if you want preventative health care for your self, you should want it for all of your neighbors who cannot afford it like any other decent western industrialized country. lastly, senator byrds and kennedy are too sick to vote. why aren't of the governor's replacing them? i will hang up and listen. host: this is open phones, sarlo let your common stand. a story printed in the "philadelphia enquirer." health insurance group alleges bullying by congressional panel. a spokesman accused congressional democrats for launching fishing expeditions as individual insurers consider whether to honor the house committee's request for financial records. a spokesman for the american health insurance plan said democrats on the panel to "silence the health insurance industry and distract attention

from the way -- fact of the american people rejecting a government run plan as part of the president obama's plan overall." last night 52 letters were sent out to help insurers that have to billion dollars or more in annual premiums. he said such letters were not dispatched to other industry groups, some of which have been airing television advertising in support of obama's call for legislation. among the records requested are those related to company's of highly paid employees, documents relating to company's premium income in claims payments, and informational expenses stemming from an event held outside company facilities in the last two and a half years. requests were made in letters signed by representative henry waxman from california. lexington, ky. bob on the republican line. caller: to live very much for taking my call. i'm a conservative and i want to applaud the conservatives who are standing up all over the

country and letting their voices be heard with of the health care issues and a cat and trade issues -- cap-and-trade issues. good news to report about an organization called honorflight -- i am taking my uncle was served as a marine in world war ii to the monument next week. it is my honor to do that. host: what is it all about? caller: he is a veteran of world war ii. host: where you going? caller: 2 d.c.. host: how are you finding it? caller: the organization is called on a flight, they take private donations and they have flown over 40,000 world war ii vets for no charge to see the memorial. it is my honor to attend with

him next week. a couple of callers ago when there was a man who said we murdered people, that our country murders people. i would like to remind him that over 3000 people were killed at the new york trade center in 2001. that was murdered. don't forget it, america. thank you. host: scottsdale, ariz., john, open phones. caller: following the various town halls, and i have been noticing that a question continually comes up in every one of these meetings more than once, and that is, if the plan is so good, why don't you take it. and i think that it kind of exposes a tactic that probably would slam-dunk of the bill, if the president would essentially said, i am going to be the first customer and i am not going to

sign the bill unless it is good enough for me and my family. literally go on someplace like c-span or a series of web broadcasts and ask questions of the people who wrote the bill and of health care professionals and he essentially refrain the debate. if he is willing to be the first customer, he can hold up a card that says i'm the first customer. a lot of the fear surrounding this thing will go away. it is really just simply fear that is driving this thing one way or the other. i think the public option is probably necessary to contain costs. but if we are able to see a customer going through the process of asking the questions of what this bill will do for him or her, i think it would solve everything. i think he needs to basically step up and say, i am the first customer. faugh host: immediate reaction and the white house and the sky

this decision to release the lockerbie bomber from prison today on compassionate grounds. the united states deeply regrets the decision from the spot as executive to release al-magri, convicted and sentenced to life in prison for is all of the bombing of pan am flight 1 03, which blew over scotland in 1998. as we have expressed repeatedly to officials of the government and of the united kingdom and scottish authorities we continue to believe that he should serve out his sentence, appeared on this day, which extended the bid sent these to the family to live every day with a loss of their loved ones. we recognize the effects such a loss ways on the families and forever. florida, dawn on may independents -- don on the independent line. caller: this health-care system and how does being manipulated. senator, $3.49 on health care. he spoke yesterday -- $3.4

million on health care. it's about the system getting 35 cents on every dollar -- which is a hike. you had a man of their -- on there, when asked them how much money they received from them, receive money -- he sits in the board of -- you get people like mitch mcconnell receiving money. $5.9 million, $6.3 million. democrat -- republicans,

democrats, independents, receive the money. i am not against anybody making money. me and my wife, a small-business owner. but these big ceo paseo de $11 million -- ceo's making a $11 million. take $8 million. you're not going to go broke. all have to say. host: appreciate you watch a bit new jobless claims rise unexpectedly to 5076 baldwin -- $576,000 and total benefit rolls show little changed. body of the republican line. caller: thank you for having this program, i really appreciate it. the gentleman who called and said there is a lot of fear going on about the health care

plan and also a lot of desperation. one to the public got to actually see what was in the plan, they are scared that it is a government takeover of health care and there is a lot of desperation on the part of the people who are afraid now it will not go through. i just want to say, there is a lot of corruption as far as the lobbyists and everything goes. people ought to read the book "culture of corruption close " by michelle malkin, and it goes into the present administration and the corruption. host: she was a guest on the program in recent weeks. plano, texas. nat on the democrats' line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i wanted to say to my republican friends, you have heard the comments about the present being a nazi and people bringing

assault weapons. i did not to the up for -- this kind of war when the republicans had all three. i did not see this kind of rhetoric and propaganda when his medicare part d bill passed. i would like to see a lot of the republicans and conservatives who are crying bloody murder to president obama, to just temper down. if democrats are so wrong, you will have a chance to vote, everyone will have a chance to vote him out of office. for right now you need to give as much latitude and time to see. you guys had control of all three branches 5 or six years ago and you saw what happened in 2006. it does not work now you have an opportunity at the ballot box. host: flint, michigan.

james on the independent line. caller: i'm calling about the clunkers program. a new idea. junkers for clunkers. we have a dealership and they have barely find vehicles -- and they are really fine vehicles. people will qualify, can trade in their junker for one of those so-called clunkers. host: rather than them being destroyed? what would be the advantage? caller: it would give me a better car, for one, and it would increase mileage for all the good cars on the road. i think it would be a great idea. host: your point is that you cannot afford a new car, but this would be an option. appreciate you calling in. "usa today" money section tells us part of the new credit card

law signed by president obama and kicks and today, issuers must give customers 45 days notice about changes. the most significant provisions of the new law, however, don't hit until february 2010, which include restrictions on rate increases for existing card debt and help ensure supply credit card payments and market to college students. the next call is gilchrist, county, florida. bear raid on the republican line. -- barry. caller: thank you for taking my

call. i'm a 72-year-old disabled veteran. my wife and i are in a dilemma. several years ago, needing money to take care of problems with normal bills. we have got in touch with countrywide, not realizing they were under investigation at the time. so, they came to us here. and they made us a deal that sounded too good to be true about giving us money, 40% of the value of our home and property, which was fine. and they promised us that upon the closure, after everything was done, a slight fee of $12,000, once we used the money to pay the things of that wave

would be furnished another 40%, which was very logical to us. but the problem seems to be that my son is in the american west -- red cross in washington and is in touch with people. he calls us and said, listen, dad, you do the loan with countrywide? correct? i said, yes. how was it arranged? what happened, son. they came here and we sat in the kitchen with my other sons and started signing documents very early in the morning, which was very good p. beard and one person cell phone rang and they said, my goodness, we have to leave, we have another appointment. so, we said what, we do? they said we will be back in a few months to destroy enough. they said the only -- to get this thing straightened out. they said the only way is you get these signed -- to sign documents without reading them. host: could you get to the take

away because we a lot of callers waiting? caller: i understand. we are seeking further help and assistance. we have attorney general, who is a wonderful person, and as people try to help us. host: what happened? did your rates go up and you are now having trouble? caller: this equation is the rate whenever fixed and went up and down and the truth of the matter is, we have been swindled and don't know quite what to do. found out from my son that countrywide had been given a billion of dollars to solve the problems with them and bankamerica and nobody seems to know where the money went. we are very concerned that our family doesn't lose our home along with the other thousands and thousands of poor senior citizens and veterans who live here in florida and other places in the country. host: are you concerned you may lose your home? caller: debri much.

scared to death. i had a seizure yesterday because of this. god's honest truth. host: have you called your congressional office in washington? at some caller: my son is a police officer and the other is very much in touch. pardon me -- it seems that the entire system, because of the way the country is in a mess, is sort of tied up and can't help anyone at this time. we do understand that they're not looking for an special favors. just looking for justice. host: good luck to you. thank you for making the call. shreveport, louisiana. shelton on the independent line. caller: i wanted to talk to mr. west. he was saying the united states was attacked because our way of life. i wanted to ask him, what about -- first of all, he was wrong

when he said that the taliban attack us. it was al qaeda, not the taliban. we overthrew the taliban in afghanistan, that is what happened, because of the fact that they didn't want to give up -- of the negotiations failed in terms of getting bin laden and bin laden's position was that he wanted the industrialized countries like france and the united states, and especially the united states, to quit meddling in internal affairs of that part of the country. mr. west was completely wrong.

did the taliban -- jealous of us having general motors or ford? i wanted him to expand on what about our way of life did they attack us on? that is completely wrong, what he is saying. host: thank you. next up is annapolis, tom, democrats line. on a cut -- caller: what was calling about is some of the hate crime laws presently in effect. they have only been used against white men mostly pared i think they are definitely unconstitutionally -- white men mostly. i think they are definitely unconstitutional. the death penalty was overturned because the way it was applied, because the petitioners said it was used more frequently and more harshly against minorities,

against blacks, i guess, most of it. it is time we got rid of these hate crime walls. they are definitely unconstitutional and i am glad to see that finally some white people are getting involved in in this town hall meetings and maybe when they get rid of this health care reform but not all they will move and -- a debacle that will get rid of some of the hate crime and affirmative action laws that i think are also unconstitutional. host: beaverton, michigan. independent line. caller: first time caller. i would love to bring the perspective of a small-business owner to health care. i pay $1,400 a month for my health care. i think the problem is the pharmaceutical. my health care only costs 500 or something among the but the four

prescriptions cost over $800 a month. i go to canada and take a risk of getting medicine from canada for half the price. why can't the pharmaceutical companies lower their costs for the american consumer like they do for the rest of the world and not have the pharmaceutical companies but the cost on our backs for their initiatives to bring this medicine to the american people? host: clarifying question. are you paying for your message directly, or is it insured? caller: no, i pay directly. i can't afford to have a health plan and a prescription plan. i have to go to the mayo clinic every six months for a treatment. i'm afraid as a small-business person, from what i have heard, that they are going to take some of those things away from me that i have, that i paid for, and give it to -- i did not say

how our insurance can cover 40 million people with a government -- without a government health plan. that is a business perspective of what is going on and what this plan will do for the small business person. host: last comment from open phones, fred, wichita falls, texas. you are on the air. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would like to make a comment about, you know, most of the news media, when they cover stories, we don't get both sides. we get a lot of news media that have liberal views, and only one station that i see that at least they report both sides -- some things i hear on the fox station that i hear on both sides, i don't just hear one side.

if we can only just to be fair, fair and balanced, we can really get the truth. with these town hall meetings, it is not just republicans -- it is democrats at the town hall meetings. people do not like this program. and if we can just sit back and just give the people the truth. it is not no accident that fox has the highest ratings and they have all the talk shows. no accident. people are starting to listen. i wish more people would listen. this world needs to be truthful and not spending on certain size, both sides, be fair. i voted democratic most of my life, but the past four or five years i switched over because a lot of the things that are affecting my life. .

♪ >> as the debate over health care continues, we are interested in your thoughts. particularly if you are attending a town hall meeting with your member of congress. share your experiences on video by going online to c-span.org /citizenvideo. >> as the healthcare conversation continues, c-span healthcare hub a keep resource.

go online to follow the latest messages by twitter, links. you can even up load your opinion with the citizen video. the c-span healthcare hub at c- span.org. >> this fall, and to 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. "washington journal" continues. host: today's featured author is burt solomon who is a new book is "fdr v. the constitution: the court-packing fight and the triumph of democracy." what is the story telling us? guest: it is about 1937 when the supreme court had toppled pillar after pillar of the new deal and franklin roosevelt decided he

would deal with this. the way that he dealt with directly was to expand the size of the court to propose to expand it from nine justices from nine to 15, so that there would rule the way he and the majority wanted them to. host: what was the result? guest: explosion all over. there were huge amounts of emotion. we read about the town hall meetings recently and very much the same kind of thing was going on then. the most dramatic fight -- it was the most dramatic fight since the league of nations. many people were for it because the court was knocking down pieces of the new deal the people in distress in the great depression needed. but there were many opposed to living out not just the usual suspects. businesses like the court the

way it was, and so did conservatives, but there were many who got worried about franklin roosevelt having too much power. this was the time of dictatorships all over the world. many democracies had given way to dictatorships because of the stresses on the economy in the persian. hitler, mussolini, st alin were in power. -- because of the economy in the depression. there was much opposition that franklin roosevelt never expected. host: we want to get your phone calls of bell history and this lesson from history. -- about history and this lesson from history. we'll take your messages by twitter and e-mail also. why did you decide to write this story? guest: it was coincidence. i did not realize how relevant it was. i was reading an article in late 2005 about the harry admires

nomination. it talked about 1937 and how franklin roosevelt had lost the battle, but won the war. that was very interesting to me so i dove into it. only last fall when i read the galleys for this book did i feel like this was a deja vu all over again. the economy collapsed last fall as it did in the 1930's after decade of too much prosperity, craziness. everything felt similar. even to the extent that the supreme court was set up the same way with four liberals, and four conservatives and a big swing vote. the economic problems and the electorate chose a pioneering democratic president and a lopsided congress that was

democratic. some of the parallels were astonishing. host: who are the major cast of characters? guest: president franklin roosevelt, who was pushing to have his policy ambitions brought into effect, the supreme court with the swing vote turned out to be a man named robert -- owen roberst. ts. -- owen roberts. is the second from the right on the back row, the most junior justice. the chief justice, charles evans hughes, also played a key part. he ended up opposing openly the president's plan to pack the court. host: was his own ideology? guest: he was a liberal

republican, a progressive republican. he was appointed by hoover. host: and who were the important players in the legislature? guest: a senator from montana, a democrat, progressive named burton wheller. he had been a new dealer straight down the line, the first of new york to back franklin roosevelt for the presidency in 1931. he had impeccable new deal credentials. he ran on the progressive party ticket in 1924. he was as reliable of a new dealer as there was in the senate. he was much offended by the grab for power by the president. he thought the president had an attempt to imbalance the government in and of the ways, so he led the opposition. host: what was the reaction of

the white house when this very important supporter, this center would break from them on the issue? guest: there were quite disgusted. they tried to get him to meet with the president and he said no, save the meal for someone who is possible to persuade. host: one of the things from the book -- the majority leader of the u.s. senate the eyes of a heart attack. guest: he dies and the building is still standing. he was a powerful an interesting majority leader, joseph robinson, a democrat from arkansas. he had really helped to new deal power, many of the loss to the senate. he probably with some misgivings agreed to support and push the court-packing plan. he had a few votes in his hip pocket he did not even tell

people about that he thought would by a slim majority get a compromise proposal passed. when the senate was just getting to an actual votes, he was very hot -- it was very hot in july. late at night he was reading the congressional record, past midnight in his stifling apartments. he got out of bed and apparently had a heart attack. it killed the proposal because he had the votes that no one else could summon. host: let me read one quote from your book to give a sense. "his plan to enlarge the court for nine justices to as many as 15 to packet as the opponents decry, was by all accounts constitutional. the nation's founding document was silent about that."

guest: yes, the constitution says nothing about the number of justices on the car. it has changed many times. 5, 6, even as high as 10 during the civil war when lincoln was worried that only by a 5-4 vote had the no. upheld the seven blockade of ports. but it had stayed at nine since 1870 and not moved since then. it moved quickly and was the former president hoover brought a first into the public dialogue. it is an old term. back in 1870 the court went from seven to nine and president grant had these two appointments to me.

they reversed an important court decision on whether a legal tender would be legal to use. that is paper money. from one year to the next the court said no, it was not. and maybe 10 months later the court decided it was a kid. the term had been around for awhile. host: we hope some of you history buffs have interesting questions for us this morning on the 1937 plan to pack the court with 15 justices to tip the balance in his favor for the new deal program. it was his proposal not only about the supreme court, but what did he want to do? guest: he was for all layers of the federal judiciary. the idea was if addresses had reached 70 1/2 years old and would not retire or leave, and additional justice could be appointed to sit alongside the

old guy. his ideal was also to include the supreme court. host: how many justices were over 70? guest: six of them. host: were they all unified in their dislike of this proposal? guest: yes, and the thing that personally hurt franklin roosevelt the most was louis brandeis, was are the most -- deeply offended. he had a longstanding relationship with franklin roosevelt and was deeply offended that roosevelt would consider him too old to carry out his duties. host: this is a photograph of that very judge. let's go to your phone calls. here is rob on the line for democrats. caller: yes, i wanted to ask the

gentleman a question and make a small comment. who would rule on the constitutionality of such a court packing? what -- how would they overturn it? would it be the supreme court themselves? if so, what is wrong with packing? you already said that it has been packed. abraham lincoln did it. it has been as low as six. the court changes with the deeds of the constitution. guest: there is no constitutional problem and no one said there was. it was up to congress to decide if the number of justices were to be increased. the problem is the president it would set -- the precedent.

it had been done before, but there were fears if it would happen. if one party were to control the presidency and congress, that they could use that also to control the third branch. then all three branches of government would be under their control. host: here is another passage from the boat. -- from the book. would you take a moment to go through each one of those examples? guest: yes. host: thomas jefferson? guest: john adams, his predecessor, appointed a second cousin of his, john marshall, to become chief justice. host: he is now considered the

great chief justice. guest: he was and he created the concept of judicial review that allowed them to knock down laws as unconstitutional which had not before been the case. so, the federalists who still controlled congress changed the nature of the court -- confirmed john marshall and changed the number of justices to take appointee's away from jefferson. jackson who was the great populist from the west and the first lower-case "d" democrat this like the power of the court to which the electorate could not at at because the justices are appointed for life. once they are appointed you have no control over them. abraham lincoln was worried

about the court, that it would fracture the ability of the union to fight the war. host: richland hills, republican, betty. caller: good morning, i agree with what franklin roosevelt did in a time of crisis, but what i'm worried about today is with this healthcare reform. roosevelt was for the citizens of this country, but this party in power -- it cannot be. in the healthcare reform it will allow people to get help who are not citizens. they have taken out and put down this amendment that would get them verification of citizenship. host: thanks, i will not draw you into the healthcare debate. i would just let her comment

stand. chicago is next. pete? caller: good morning. i would like to ask the guest -- franklin roosevelt is an aristocratic, pompous, wealthy man and homerun with a lot of what the people. but also the fact that he was the champion veto president, vetoing over 300 acts of congress -- is unprecedented from his attempt to pack the supreme court was of course, just arrogant because he was told it would not work. he continued. i wish to comment on that. guest: he was aristocratic. he was in his way arrogant. he certainly showed in the course of this debate the great deal of hubris, but he never

pretended to be anything other than he was. so, he was not talking down to the american people. one of the real powers and authorities of his presidency was his ability to speak with respect to the american people. when he was preparing his first fireside chat shortly after being elected in 1933 he looked out the window at one of the workmen who were disassembling the bleachers that had been set up on pennsylvania avenue for the inaugural parade and decided he wanted to speak to the american people in a way that that workman could understand him. but he was not talking down to him, but appealing to the best in that workman and to the most responsible in him.

he had a serious respect in a way that really worked. it is not an accident that his photograph was on millions of americans walls for many, many years, more than most presidents we have ever had. host: we have a photograph of one of the fireside chats. talk about how he used those tests to sell this corps proposal. guest: he did. he went on the air to give his best arguments for the proposal. and there was some success of it. in this one he had a hard time pulling the country with a mean of the country was evenly divided. scientific. polling had just begun. -- scientific polling had just begun. results were always a model. if people had to say yes or no,

by a few percentage points there would always say no. if they were given a third choice, it would come out in thirds. as many as 85% of the words that he used were among the most thousand commonly used words, and there were short, anglo- saxon, punchy words. his language as almost as regular, common, as abraham lincoln used in the gettysburg address. host: good morning. caller: good morning. i disagree with your speaker regarding franklin roosevelt's concern for the common man, particularly how he treated and army. his court-packing scheme showed the checks and balances in our country are a mess. what we have more federal judges

today then we have representatives? we are no longer representative republic. with more federal judges and representatives the court has leaked over the other two branches. guest: well, one i submitted evidence that the majority of the country had a great deal of affection for him, including the "common people" -- he was elected four times. no one before that had been elected more than twice, and now of course, they cannot be. the federal judges has to do with the expansion of the condemned. some of the early increases in the supreme court and in other parts of the judiciary was because more states and people were added. in fact, the checks and balances were nicely in this case because

in fact the proposal was defeated by the senate. it never did take effect. host: our guest burt solomon is a long time in a journal for the national journal here in washington me know he has covered the city, court for many years. guest: i have had three books. host: as a reader i found your scenes filled with rich details. what rooms looked like. what people were saying to each other. what people were. how did you find so much be done? guest: it was so much fun. lots of newspapers, diaries, memoirs. to me what makes history come alive is the feeling of being there, knowing what people sound like and what rooms look like. there is a lot of material out there. some of the fireside chats and other speeches that were given

are on -- they are recorded. you can go to archives and the library of congress and listen. it is great fun. i also tried to include a lot of dialogue. all of it real, from news accounts, memoirs, transcripts, all sorts of places. if you look hard enough, you can find. host: ark., on the republican line. caller: i have studied this and it is my understanding that president roosevelt wanted to force the court to make decisions according to what he wanted rather than according to the plain language of the constitution. i think the problem of the court is the madison decision that allowed the review.

and the idea that the constitution is a living document. we have changed by feel. what do you think? guest: i think the constitution is not nearly as clear about what things mean as you were perhaps suggesting. there was a scholar who was active in the court-packing fight who wrote in 1941 about this. he says there are 6000 words in the constitution. only 150 of them really matter for determining meaning. things like liberty, necessary and proper, due process, no law. what did this mean? reasonable people can interpret those words and phrases differently. they all make sense. so, a justice must decide what liberty means. it does not necessarily mean what the founding fathers believed it to mean.

people can legitimately read different definitions into those words and it has a huge effect. host: the next question or comment for a burt solomon comes from new jersey on the republican line. caller: hello, i would like to know -- you said earlier that fdr might have lost the battle, but ultimately won the war. isn't that pretty much what happened? even though legislation failed one by one the justices started retiring and stop ruin against the new deal. wasn't it ultimately a successful attempt at intimidation? guest: yes, he did win the war. some of it was by intimidation, but some not. he won the war before he made any appointments at all. in the middle of this fight the swimming justice, owen roberts

who have been voting with conservatives all along in order to knock down pieces of the new deal switched sides and began to vote with the liberals. roosevelt and people around him believed they had intimidated him into doing that, but the fact of the case which was not known at the time is that his first switch had already happened about two months before the proposal was ever made or anyone knew about it. it had not been made public because he had switched on a particular case involving a minimum wage for women. one case in june of 1936 he voted with conservatives to knock it down. that was with the new york law. 10 months later he voted with the liberals to a pulled in nearly -- and almost an identical law from washington state. he switched sides a few more times during that spring after

the proposal was made. it is hard to know what was in his mind. he burned all of his papers before he died. host: we are speaking with burt solomon concerning the court- packing proposal of fdr. this is robert on the line for democrats. caller: yes, i would like to know how this justice, how much they were against roosevelt when world war ii when we were attacked by the japanese, that he made camps out there in arizona and put all japanese citizens in there. that is one thing i think we should do with the muslims. now we're having a war with the muslims. we should put those in the united states over there. i'm understand all the justices

and their more against roosevelt when he did it, but he did it and we won the war. guest: well, they did uphold the japanese internment camps. some justices later said they regretted that vote. but by the time of the war had broken out roosevelt had had the opportunity to nominate all but two members of the car. the court really was his at that point. host: we have gotten a number of messages from twitter. one to to know whether another motivator was the 1933 plot against roosevelt by ceo's -- a business plot. it involved people like j.p. morgan and dupont. do you know anything about that? guest: i have heard about it, but know very little about. he did not really need an additional butter. he and business were not getting along already. host: robert, from indiana.

caller: yes, i am a first-time caller. host: welcome. it is an experience you can survive, a promise. caller: many people believe that fdr was for the people, but did he not have the emergency war powers act enacted, linked to the trading with enemies act enacted by the wilson administration? was that really an act that helped the american people? guest: i would submit as evidence that roosevelt was for the people, their willingness to let him over and over. he turned out to be an enormously popular president and still is. host: the expression "a switch in time that saved nine."

guest: this refers to the change in vote from the minimum wage in new york which the court not down and then the minimum wage in washington state which the court approved. the climax of the fight is when this happened. humorists in washington of which there are a few did say that they took from the ben franklin maxim -- there was truth to it. when the court switched sides after zero when roberts changed his mind about how to interpret the constitution, and so the court ended up accepting and indoors in, or at least improving the various new deal laws that the democratic congress had passed -- if the

court was doing what the president and electorate wanted, all of the reason for taking this scary step to change the size of the court and way it operated, there seemed to be less reason if the court was doing what the people wanted. host: when fdr had opportunity to make appointments to the supreme court, did he appoint those under his proposed age limit? guest: yes, he did it all along. host: did he really have a philosophy about that age? guest: no, no philosophy. his real motivation was to change the way the court ruled. age was too clever of an idea that his attorney general had found as a way to justify what he was doing. he really had no interest in age host: at all tell us about that

attorney general. guest: homer was a political hack from connecticut. he had been a democratic party chairman, three times the mayor of the stamford, connecticut. he was not originally supposed to be attorney general. a senior senator from montana was chosen who died three days before the inauguration. fdr had to make the appointment fast. homer was a tolerably good attorney general. he had some popular. -- he had some popularity. he was riding a huge tome about the history of the justice department at the time. -- he waswriting that at the time. he found a proposal during the wilson administration to add,

appoint additional judges, lower court judges when they reached 70 1/2. some of the charm from his standpoint was that the former attorney general who made the proposal was now one of the arch conservatives on the court giving them such fits. when he ran into this idea, this was too good to resist. host: next from fort wayne, indiana, on the republican line. caller: thanks, my observation listening to my grandmother and mother about fdr and the similarities to president obama today are basically that these two presidents are so similar for one simple reason. they want control, big government, and want to speak to

the people from a higher authority that we do not know what is good for us. president obama having some of these czars today that is totally illegal -- these presidents are nearly socialist in their views. guest: they are certainly ambitious in policy, ambitious in what they think the government ought to do. roosevelt had a problem with hubris in this case that made him a better president. obama, we do not know that yet. host: you talk about parallels with politics today. we have been reading many profiles about rahm emanuel. tellus of abouttommy? >> hguest: he was a very young,

had been a valedictorian at brown university, and had been before a law clerk for oliver wendell holmes. heat and homer co-wrote a lot of new deal the decision. cullen was quiet. tommy was the arm-twister that roosevelt would send to capitol hill and elsewhere. he was the one sent to capitol hill to get this passed. host: how good was he at that? guest: pretty good, but not in this case. host: conn., cliff, on the line for democrats. caller: hello, this gentleman is talking about a franklin roosevelt. i wanted to ask a question because i was only a baby when this happened. what happened with the

nuremberg trials? what constitutional right did roosevelt or truman have to push these trials? was there a tree? -- was their a trial? was something broken as far as a tree? guest: i hate to disappoint because i really do not know. the nuremberg trials happened afterwards. butone interesting thing is that the chief judge at the nuremberg trials was a supreme court justice, robert jackson, who had been a fairly close aide to fdr before his appointment. some of the best material that i found in terms of the appointment of hugo black who was franklin roosevelt's first choice for the court in 1937

came because robert jackson was in nuremberg and many other justices were. there were many letters written to keep roosevelt apprised. those letters from them were very useful. it gave behind the scenes material that i would otherwise not have found. host: this photograph from 1935, 1936 was the year when the supreme court went into its own headquarters bottom. you have the photographs of its in the u.s. capitol building. right below that is the black and white photograph of the chamber that is so familiar to us inside the new accord bottom. when the court was housed inside the of capital did it operate differently? -- which is the new one inside the new court building. guest: pierre, when designing

the new a capital said we would put this here and that there, but there was nothing concerning where the accord would be. it was shoved aside. i find it shocking that the third branch of government would be physically located in the basement of the of capital. but i guess it did not really bother anyone else. it was like that for many years. the force behind the new building was william taft, the only person in american history both president and achieved it justijustice. he wanted a separate building for the court as president, and then as chief justice he made sure that it happened. host: here is a terrific project. we have been allowed by the court to bring high definition television cameras inside the building.

we can record all of the public spaces, our work inside. we have had sit-down interviews with 10 of the current and retired justices about their jobs and the building itself. all of this will air beginning october 4 in a portrait we're calling a "the supreme court, americhome to america is the hit score." you'll be educated about this and it will all be available on a website when the new court term opens. the next phone call is from new hampshire on the independent line. hello, joseph. caller: i have two points. one on the japanese internment camps. i have always thought of that as a big blemish on american history.

to say that we should round of muslims and put them in camps like that is tremendously ignorant, i think. that congress pushed through taft's term limits on the presidency but my understanding is that republicans were responsible. soon afterwards ike gamelan who arguably was tremendously popular not and could have been collected more than twice. has there ever been any significant challenge to that? guest: i think that it came up again when ronald reagan was about to leave office. many people wanted him to have a possible third term. but it was not powerful enough to get anywhere. host: were they mounting a

constitutional challenge? guest: that would have to be new legislation. host: next, new hampshire on the independent line. guest: yes, it it would have to be another constitutional amendment which would have been very tough. host: go ahead, please come jerry. all right, sir, i am sorry. let's move on to the democrats' line in madison, wisconsin. are you there? caller: yes, i am. i will be 88 next month and i remember fdr. my father was a political junkie until he tried to pack the supreme court. that changed his opinion. but fdr was a great man.

the fact that we did not have a revolution during the depression you can attribute to franklin roosevelt. also come his wife. guest: i agree with you entirely that there was some feeling in 1932 that this was the last shot this country had in avoiding a dictatorship. that things were so on edge and the economy was in such terrible trouble and it was not clear that this city and the central government would respond effectively enough. now we just consider this an idle nightmare, the possibility that we could lose our democracy, but in 1933 because of hitler, mussolini things

looked. scared looked host: the column mentions eleanor roosevelt. -- things looked a lot more scary. host: did elenore roosevelt get involved in the court packing? guest: no, and she was away a lot. and she kept going out of washington and all over the country. one of the problems with the court-packing fight people have said is that roosevelt had no one around him at the time who could say no to him in the way he would listen. he had had an intimate aide named louiss howell who was really the one who got roosevelt to be president. that saw the possibility in roosevelt even after he had polio. that is something we take for granted now.

the idea that a man in a wheelchair could be elected president of the united state. we overlook that because roosevelt was elected four times and we already know that, but if you look at it from that point of word it was much more impressive. louis howell had died the previous spring and there was no one around roosevelt except maybe for eleanor and his bright-hand woman missy, whom he would listen to, but neither were involved. harry truman was in the senate. he voted in favor of it, of packing the court, but he also -- in my book i say basically it the court is doing with the country wanted, what was the point of doing it? but he did vote for it. host: the next question from

hampton, new jersey. caller: good morning, mr. burt solomon. i intend to read your book. let me read you something from "the newly *" from saturday in 1937 -- but said that he is in the -- lehman was a progressive governor and the gut the bill passed. one of the thing about roosevelt. my parents voted for him as i and the rest of our family. i remember when he passed away. my mother collapsed in tears and something i had never seen my mother do. roosevelt had to overcome some much ignorance in society, so much opposition from the

opposite party. it is the same today in so many issues. i wish people like the senior citizens would not be in such fear and they would use their heads. thank you. i intend to read your vote. guest: thank you. one of the important episodes in this fight and how it played out was when the governor of new york who succeeded roosevelt -- lehman became governor when roosevelt became president. he wrote a letter released to the public that he was against this court-packing. that did have an effect and roosevelt was very upset about that. host: march 29, 1937 he called twice in one day to say this is the gateway to the liberals era. would you explain? guest: this is of the swissin time stayed -- this is switch

in time that saved nine. it required a misinterpretation of what congress was permitted to do. for example, the interstate commerce clause. and there are other ones -- they had been interpreted in a way to prevent the central government from stepping in on people's behalf. if there is a mismatch between a worker's leverage in negotiating salaries and hours, versus the employers' leverage, the question is whether the central government can step in on the workers' behalf to make the employers pay a certain amount per hour.

you can interpret this one way or the other. when owen roberts switched and interpret it in the liberal way, allowing state legislatures or washington to step in on workers' behalf, this would change everything. what happened was the change of heart became public on march 29, 1937. and from then on, and since has been accepted that the federal government and state governments can step in with social legislation. host: why didn't its [inaudible] >> it is in contrast with black monday when the recovery act and other important pieces of legislation were toppled by the

supreme court. host: ill., on the line for democrats. caller: perhaps roosevelt felt justified that the supreme court had become a political animal. it was proven when republican- appointed judges intervened in the election and appointed a republican president who would then appoint more republican judges, powered by succession. it proved the supreme court is a totally political animal. it perhaps should be restructured and a way to be a judicial, not connected so that the president cannot appointed judge. host: you write that the supreme court has always been political. guest: yes, from the very beginning. if you go back to john adams appointed john marshall to get at thomas jefferson, that was political. it has been all along. to some extent it has to be.

the elected branches have some authority to appoint and confirm. the hope is that by having life tenure that the politics can take a bit of a back seat, but only by a bit. i agree, bush v. gore, at least in one of the judges involved boded as if they had been in the voting booth. host: there are so many boats to except cases, they accepted about 80. what was a like in the 1930's? guest: there were many fewer petitions to have the court appeal. they accepted many less as well. host: fewer t han 80?

guest: i think so, but am not sure. -- fewer than 80? caller: yes, i am 84 years old and lived through the depression. i know what went on. and a pretty well the history of this country and the constitution. if the new deal was not pattern from joe's stalin's deal? october 6, 1970 -- 1917, he went into that -- he was inaugurated march 4, 1933 and he took that act that the federal reserve presented to him and went straight to the congress on march 9 and the granted it to him illegally. it went to the supreme court in

1935 and they ruled against roosevelt. in 1937 he changed supreme court members and it went back to the supreme court and the change the last sentence of the 1917 act and said we were the enemy of the federal government and therefore it was legal. we have been under that act ever since. that is the reason we have the agricultural department, federal food system, and all this other federal government interfering in private industry. guest: well, there are many ways to read the constitution. that has changed over time. franklin roosevelt's new deal was the stepchild of teddy roosevelt's new deal.

the were5th cousins. franklin roosevelt idolized him and followed his example closely. when franklin roosevelt was in college while teddy was president the other guys at harvard laughed at him because he would go around saying bully, as his famous cousin liked to do. host: this your ones you to compare them on the selection of truman. guest: i do not know how to react to that. next is detroit to ,hank? caller: this is the most

educational program on tv. i really enjoy the fact you can listen to other people. we give our opinions. host: thanks for watching, sir. caller: back when bush was installed after the debacle down there in florida where it went to the supreme court and gore was 600,000 votes ahead on the national action, i have always been confused by that. i think that was the most unfair decision that could have happened. it changed the history of the world. when we have these delegates --

if you looked at the whole system of democracy is just not fair. we have a guy holding up the health care program that this president has been issued -- conrad. and my wofe has more people in high school band this guy represents. millions of people in new york have delegates. i am confused because there is so much static your. it is not coming out right. host: banks. he is talking about the power that small states have over the large. it reminds me of wheeler represented a small state in the senate but had a big role in the court-packing program. guest: he very much did.

the number of small states also affecting franklin roosevelt's thinking in how to go about this. one of the alternatives was to have a constitutional amendment. she was afraid that if it had been passed by congress that a few million dollars spent in a few small states could block any constitutional amendment. wheeler was the original compromise because the small states were afraid of the large states taking over everything. each state got two senators. in this case it made a big difference because a lot of the opposition to it came from the smallest. host: illinois comepaul? caller: -- illinois, paul?

caller: our family, friends, relatives worst on slaveanti- rooselvelt. but in retrospect i think he was correct in trying to modernize the supreme court by expanding the commerce clause. you can hardly imagine a modern national economy if it had not been for the supreme court finally understanding that the federal government had a role in interstate commerce and the expansion of the costs, the regulations with regards to accidents in industry -- there

is a whole range of things. guest: the earlier interpretation of the constitution in regard to the interstate commerce clause, if there were a steel factory in pittsburgh or a coal mine in west virginia owned by a larger , national steel co., the earlier interpretation said this coal mine, factory is in a single state. that's it. therefore, the national government has no authority to control anything there. no wages, working conditions, but ever. what happened in the spring of 1937 with the chief justice hughes who masterminded this argument said this is out of whack with how the country really works.

the crucial case had to do with jones still company. if there were a factory in pittsburgh that had a strike he said this would definitely affect interstate commerce. therefore, because the lack, absence would have this effect on other states that this really was a national economy. by insisting on regulating it as if it were not just did not work. it was out of touch with the way that the world really worked. host: here is one of the. we have spent so much time talking about social networking and its influence on the political outcome. here is the 1930's version. franklin roosevelt