slavish in its nature. in our view, bohai prince of anglo-american cooperation had been when there was not only a close relationship between british and american leaders, but also the readiness to conduct a vigorous debate between them. that is how we have conducted ourselves, of being absolutely clear that whether it be mass of intelligence, or the like, but close alliance with united states is and will remain indispensable to the united kingdom. with imparted a frank message where needed. in my first speech as at a price eckardt -- foreign secretary, i argued that in standing up for the rule of law, we must be careful not to employ methods that undermined at, and reports a prisoner abuse and extraordinary rendition leading to the torture of suspects resulted in a lot of good will -- all loss of good will toward

american barrick the conservative government fully supports the par and initiatives by the barack obama administration. we're ready to work with our counterparts in washington from our opening moments. central to that work and the single most urgent priority in farm policy if and when we come to government will be the a predicate -- the eye -- the nato commitments in afghanistan. the conservative party supports the deployment of our forces in afghanistan. let me be clear that we're not there to copper that country but to bring about the situation where afghans can provide for their own security and livelihood while not presenting a danger to the rest of the world. in consequence, we believe our political objective in afghanistan should be tightly drawn and regularly review. a greater priority needs to be attached to the afghan forces. currently only 10% are deployed even though 40% of the fighting is there.

data forces cannot be in afghanistan forever. the acceleration in trade of the afghan army and other security forces would mean that time would work against the taliban instead of in their favor. alongside that priority would be the emphasis we give to working with our international allies and friends to help pakistan transform itself into a stable, prosperous, and democratic state capable of controlling terrorist threats inside and outside its borders, both committed to a secure afghanistan, and actively working to limit the extent of further nuclear proliferation. the multiplicity of british connections to pakistan, through hundreds of thousands of families, gives britain a particular role in supporting pakistan's democratic future. we will also seek to buttress american efforts to give new impetus to the middle east peace process, it is sizing the need for freeze on all new israeli settlement activities and

adherence to the principles as an essential part of moving forward. we will begin a process on our behalf of robust dialogue with syria, working to edge closer to up constructive role in the region and closer to a lasting peace -- peace deal with israel. the third vital aim of conservative farm policy is the beginning of alliances outside of europe and north america, bought all two british influence in the world given the tree that i outlined earlier. on his visit to india in 2006, david cameron said that he believed it was time for britain and india to forge a new special relationship, focusing particularly on fighting terrorism, protecting the environment, and globalization. india is also a leading member of the commonwealth, which has been valued on to the labour

-- which as been devalued in the labour gouvernment. it is extraordinary diversity offers some straight, a unique network of 53 countries spanning five continents with 30% of the world's population. we believe the commonwealth is a tool to be picked up and used more often, to help dialogue and conflict prevention, taking a leading role in addressing state failure by coordinating up future rehabilitation package for its former member, zimbabwe. get the commonwealth is not the only group of countries where we can recreate historic connections on a new modern basis. i have long argued that britain should embark on the elevation of its links with many countries of the middle east in the gulf. not only diplomatically, but in matters of culture, education,

commerce, and security. this should be done as a cross party, cross government initiative consistently over many years. it is strategically vital to be linked with many friendly muslim nations, and not only in the gulf, and not only political reasons. it is vital to make the most to expand our trade and investments. it is all round of strengthening as well as dealing with potential threats that are coordinated national security approach is designed to help us achieve. critics of a closer relationship with some muslim states will say that they do not -- they do not emphasize all of our democratic values. but it is a vital part of our world and understanding that we will not be applied tried before government in all the countries with whom we need for in the relationships. british leaders will always argued that democracy and freedom of the soundest basis

for national security and international peace for other countries as well as our own. yet in foreign-policy, idealism must always be tempered with realism, even though countries like many of the gulf states, making democratic reforms, will do so with varying paces and sometimes over an extended period. simulate, it is in our strategic national interest to have an effective and strong relationship with china. relations with china are also in -- often characterized by tensions over human rights. our approach has always been consistent in raising such issues and not to shrink from debating them with chinese leaders. at the same time, if we believe that the spread of nuclear weapons and the urgency of dealing with climate change are the greatest threat to the future of humanity, we must have knowledge that we cannot hope to solve these problems without working closely with chinese leaders. conservative government will

promote a sustained dialogue with china and the relationship in which even which there is sharp disagreement neither side will walk away. it is also not in our national interest to be in competition with russia. but a sustained improvement in those relationship will require a major -- a major effort on both sides. i made no criticism of the government for its poor relationship with guber -- with russia. many situations had made improve relationships impossible in recent years. britain must remain permanently the allies of the ukraine and georgia. but the reset button pressed by hillary clinton provides the opportunity for improved relations between moscow and other western capitals. the proliferation of nuclear weapons is an issue very difficult to deal with without a working relationship with russia. if it is in russia's h -- is in

russia's interest as well to deal with these issues. with a conservative government, the door will be open to improve relations with russia. we shall see if the door opens in return. the fourth theme of conservative farm policy is -- foreign-policy is the effect of a form of global institutions to allow international cooperation in the face of the threats i have outlined to be advance. this is clearly true in the economic area, where the focus of economic decision making these to ship to bodies like the g-20, and the united nations on which the conservative party shares the view of the current government, that the security council should include permanent membership for germany, japan, and other representation. we have no illusions about how difficult it will be to bring this about.

the european union is also one of the institutions which must adapt to the changing distribution of world, economic, and " political change. this is not a speech about european policy. the european union needs to focus on the issues of global competition and others as well known. we have opposition to the great this centralization of power in the e.u.. we see the lisbon treaty as leading to more conflict within the you, between the president and i representative on farm policy, and a lot of democratic decisionmaking and nation states, a profound problem that the german constitutional court has raised in its recent decision on the lisbon treaty. institutional centralization will not suffice, and it been this places activity toward what you're really needs in world affairs, the political will to use that collective weight effectively and not focus on

practical results. this is true of its relations with russia but also starkly true of the situation in the balkans, where the eu is often failing to exert itself affected play, even in relationships with countries that when they hope to be members. most notably bosnia, all tilting on steadily between their past and their future. a lack the persistent international focus on those regions, until these countries are irreversibly on the path to join in the eu and nato, and determined the successes -- turn the successes of last decades into the successes of this day -- this decade. this is a major test of what the if you can accomplish in further repairs. as one person put it, bosnia's on the edge again with the key

you military at -- military force still here, and a full- scale mission, the eu has more leverage in bosnia than in any other country. well as say about their pretension if we will not act effectively to stop this dustup happening? he is right. grand vision and ambition are vain if the eu cannot demonstrate effectiveness in its common policies and its immediate neighborhood. it is vital that the eu does not give up on enlargement. i european union but not all bosnia of will have a hole near its center. i europe that turned his back on turkey will have made an immense strategic effort. this also includes the updating of international treaties, which are -- the most important being

been nuclear non-proliferation treaty, due for a major conference next day, quite possibly at the same time as our general election. i've given two lechers here on what needs to be done to strengthen the street and the power of the international atomic agency. proposals i have not discussed with the new administration in the united states, very much in line with president obama's speech in april. this may be the main opportunity to eliminate the nightmare vision of the collapse of the treaty, which could see the middle east, the world's most unstable region, festooned with the world's most destructive weapons. the current british government has been slow to develop ideas and provide international leadership on the reform of this treaty, leaving it until the end of their first term and the approach of the review conference to push any discerning initiative of iran. the future of this treaty

requires the maximum possible effort to persuade or to turn iran from developing nuclear weapons capability. again, we have long arguments that new american openings to iran has been made, but it needs to be followed by far tougher european union measures to show that there is a serious fight to defiance. european sanctions may count for much less soon, but today they still matter, and securing this policy is one of the highest priorities for whoever is british foreign secretary. the final payment a conservative approach -- is essential for us in britain to up hold our own highest values. i have accepted in a speech that our power to dictate to other countries how they set up all

democracy or human rights may actually diminish overtime. in many ways this makes it all the more important for britain to be among those countries that sets an example that can be inspiring to people across the world who are denied liberty or power over their own lives, just as it may encourage in the right direction those who have that power. 200 years ago in his most famous and shortest speech, my speech -- my hero said that in england has saved herself by her exertion and will i trust save europe by her example. we may have to recognize if there exertions may not have the desired effect, are examples must never be absent. this means that a british government must always be an advocate for political freedom, human rights in their broadest, not just legalistic, free trade and democratic decision making. we must always understand that terrorists who are motivated by contempt for our society will

only be strengthened if we weekend of values that hold it together, and the consideration of huge importance when we consider recent allegations of complicity in torture. our values also include playing a preeminent role in the eradication of policy in the spread of prosperity. -- the eradication of poverty and the spread of prosperity. it is measured more by that -- last by the dollars that we spend and more and how we are partners in change. this can be a force for stability rather than a permanent lifeline to help the needy scrape by. our conscience and common humanity dictate that we must help those at the mercy of a conflict in poverty. that is why david cameron has reaffirmed our commitment to spending 0.9% of our gross

national product on this. but this is not be the only driver of our policy toward africa. we should focus on good governance and bolster the democratic institutions that are the bedrock of more prosperous societies, and resolving their differences without resorting to the gun. developments along with effective diplomacy is one of conflict prevention, and needs to be used more effectively. relatively small sums of money spent on conflict prevention can avert the need to spend on at reconstruction aid. it is an alignment with our moral and national security duties. a foreign policy based on british values means that this will remain essential. the foreign-language services of the bbc should always be promoted and offended. these organizations are not part of implementing our farm policy but they are an important part of britain's contribution to an

openness and understanding in world affairs. these the the farm policy priorities that a new conservative government would bring with that, a major change to our decision making, the nourishing of the transatlantic alliance, the press and in deepening of new relations it beyond america and europe, a determination to assist the reform of international institutions and treaties, and the upholding of values and principles we hold dear here at home. my argument today has been that it will become more difficult over time for britain to exert on world affairs the influence which we are used to. but not impossibly difficult to do so, if we make the changes and select the priorities of which i have spoken. to do so will be to act not only in our national interests, but in the enlightened national interest to which i referred, for we have a responsibility to others as well as ourselves. britain will not disengage from trying to shape global events.

in trying to create and sustain a more peaceful world, we will always be at the forefront. but we will supposition and prepare ourselves that if the sky is dark and -- so position and prepare ourselves, that the sky is daranddarken, we will pre ourselves. >> william hague thank you very much for that quintet of priorities. look for it to your questions and comments. -- we look forward to your questions and comment. the person raising your hand. if you could stand, the microphone will come to you. please state your name and affiliation if you think it relevant. [unintelligible]

> >> there is. it doesn't imply either of those. we're skeptical for the reasons i have outlined that the developing european defense arrangements have duplicated negev. but one of the task it will be able to achieve is things like the development of the balkans. i was very disappointed to hear the discussion about withdrawing the remaining european forces from bosnia, which is absolutely the wrong signal to send to the various entities in bosnia at the moment. it signals a lack of interest and commitment by the

international community. so our attitude will partly be determined by test cases, whether it is possible for europe to add to its capabilities by adding its own defense capabilities and arrangements. i think we will be guided by experience on that but we will never support anything that undermines nato, that excessively duplicates nato, that threatens to undermine that in north atlantic transit alliance. we want to see whether this works, and the balkans will be a test case. the oiler>> [unintelligible]

he said that we were not slavish to the united states. would you be reviewing the treaties with the united states? dollars we had a debate in the house of commons last week for many expressed agreement with that, discovering that they would not vote the way that they indicate that it would in the past. the government did not maintain its majority. there will be some arrangement. we want to explore this before our general alexian, what needs to be done in this area. we're not making any specific proposal but we're clearly not happy with the way that it works in a moment. -- that it works at the moment.

>> [unintelligible] >> we think that this is welcome cooperation. the new grouping of the european parliament has already secured the chairmanship of the internal market committee, an indication of similar things that it will be able to do. our colleagues are people of the solidarity movement, who oppose communism, who helped bring about democratic transformation in poland. some of the people sitting in the socialist group and the european parliament were among those supporters of communist regimes in the past. i don't think we taken a lesson from politics about who we set

within the european parliament. we welcome that cooperation. this is the party of the president of poland. we think that this will certainly be successful. >> what did you -- what is your view of benchmarks for the success and afghanistan [unintelligible] >> i think what he would say and what everyone is saying is what you mean by the taliban. it does not firmly applied to many dissident groups, many who are supported in afghanistan. it has always been a part of afghan and will be in the future, making sure that some of the people who have been fighting on the wrong size

continue to do so. that is all look a local lovell and the national level as well. i don't think he was saying anything new there are particularly controversial. -- were particularly convert -- controversial. -- or particularly controversial. we want the creation of a non corrupt police force. clearly not an easy thing to do with the experience of the last few years. but this has to clearly contained within it -- provide for the knowledge that made up forces cannot be there forever. the press that we would take is to give statements to parliament about our objectives in afghanistan, about whether we have attained an, about the

military situation there. we don't think that there has been enough openness about that by the current government. they have been in the strongest position in the controversies of the last couple of weeks if they gave more regular, open reports to parliament and the nation about what is going on in afghanistan. we would take that approach. >> you, sir, with the glasses. you could stand up. >> [unintelligible] >> it is important to have identification. that is understood by people from alternate pipeline routes into europe. it is something we have to be

much more conscious of in britain over the next decade than we have the last 10 or 20 years. we have left ourselves with a period of serious exposure and in energy security over the next -- toward the end of the next decade. we're very dependent on imported gas now, and probably coming in liquefied form, on long journeys over the seas. i think we have to build that into our policy. that is part what -- of what our national security is designed to do. that means happening have a great relationship with russia, the sort of relationship we would want. plenty of european nations including britain having plenty of other sources of supply as well. that is a common-sense answer to that.

[inaudible] >> is all longstanding commitment, made when david cameron stood for leadership of the conservative party. there's a consensus in british politics about it. we do not want to break a consensus. i think it would become a matter of -- you become a matter of immense controversy if the conservatives were to do that. it is right for us to continue with the commitment that we have made. this is part of a very long-term commitment tand it is true that our national gross national income would look very

different. but our commitment to helping developing world's influence the policies of africa, should not change as economic recession or recovery is come and go. that is something david cameron feels very strongly about and the shadow cabinet supports him in feeling strongly about. we felt it right to restate that commitment tfor 2013 and beyond, notwithstanding our current economic situation. >> view, go ahead. >> [unintelligible]

>> i think we -- i do not think that we should be reconsidering sanctions policies. we hope for some tightening of the sanctions, as well as european nations and britain. i've been arguing that the effectiveness of such policies are in decline. that will be much less than 20 years or 30 years. i don't think that at the moment we have an alternative to those policies, but in my experience of meeting people from burma who are in opposition to the regime there, they want us to maintain the u.k. and u.s. sanctions that we have on burma and the moment and intensify them. i think we have to be predominantly guided by them in that situation. they would see the abandonment or relaxation of sanctions as

taking pressure off the burmese regime. that will not be our approach unless the views of opposition figures and activists in burma on the subject were to radically change. .

>> even that is not clear at the moment, in the current government. that is not to say that that minister will only deal with the commonwealth, but it will be among the designated duties of the minister, certainly. a lot of good work has gone on on this, and along 12 years in opposition. an excellent work by a lord howell, who has championed the idea of doing more in the commonwealth. the central insight is that in a networked world, this is a remarkable network. it is important to grasp the notion that this is not an imperial idea anymore, to use britain is no longer in that position. britain is not in any other since the leader of the commonwealth. it is one of many leading

nations in the commonwealth. this is one of the most remarkable networks that exists on the planet. the example i gave in my speech was about zimbabwe. that is the kind of thing we have in mind. who is best placed to put together, when the time comes, to be able to help the people of zimbabwe with the construction of their economic framework, with security forces without a properly functioning democracy? it is the commonwealth nation that are in the perfect position -- it is exactly the sort of thing the commonwealth should be doing and should be working on now. we should be pushing that idea within the commonwealth. it is impractical areas like that as they come up, and the

commonwealth as a tool to be picked up and used. not to be oversold. i am not claiming it can turn into some other form of international body that is equivalent to the united nations. clearly, it cannot, but there are tasks that the commonwealth could very easily perform, and we will be looking out for those tasks. >> [unintelligible] >> the best thing i can do is refer you to the speech i have just given, because that is the statement in one paragraph about the approach to china, where i talked about sustained dialogue. i talked about vigorous debate at times, and we have that of course with chinese leaders. i talked about the importance of a strong relationship with china, particularly on nuclear

weapons and environment and climate change, and of course, in the economic area. it was there in the speech i have just given. >> i saw a few current members sit up in their chair when you spoke about the importance of the institution. if you are thinking we need to resurrect the right working class, or are you talking about resurrecting certain capacities that may have lost in recent times and the need to be rebuilt? >> i mainly talking about the working relationships. clearly i see the foreign office and the foreign office ministers and central and leading role in the new national security framework i have outlined. i also visualize them working much more closely with the prime minister of the day that i think

has been the case. i think that is something that whitehall response to and enjoys, and that is something that will help the foreign office to have the role that it should always have had in government. it may also be about the way the foreign office works internally. i think it has been through some difficult periods. i was alarmed to see its staff survey to three years ago produced very negative results, whether people thought that their work was recognized or whether they were properly rewarded within the foreign office. it is also true to say that such surveys have shown considerable improvement since then. i do not want to come in with any blanket condemnation of what has been happening there, but i think it has been through a time of difficult morale, sometimes low morale. that is why i say that the

ministers who are in charge of the foreign office must be conscious of ensuring it is for the long term a great institution and across government, through that national security framework. >> thank you very much again. [applause] >> william hague spoke at the international institute for strategic studies earlier this summer in london. recent polls show the conservative party with a 15% lead over prime minister gordon rounds labor party, with national elections expected next spring. you can watch more on this at any time by visiting our website, c-span.org. >> coming up, a look at media

coverage of the health care debate. then on "q&a", and later of another chance to hear from british conservative party leader william hague. but military and foreign analysts look at current and future capabilities of the russian military. live coverage from the hudson institute forum tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span2. george mason university president alan merten on the role of higher education and training information technology professionals. monday on the communicators on c-span2. joining us now for a discussion of if anything and everything. ron, and lilnda, she is a

political correspondent for the christian science monitor -- that is lilnda. so, the obama family goes off for a week of fun. there will begin to run ads in that local market. would you make of this? guest: it shows two things -- the president never truly goes on vacation. he can put on a good show of being at the beach. he does not have to turn on his tv. he can to net this out. president obama is pretty good at controlling what he pays attention to. he manages his own the time. host: here is this headline that obama tackles the health care reformers.

he has been trying to do that all week. how is he doing in this critical area? guest: it shows how far behind they have gotten in this fight. i think they're really taken off guard. they should have been out in front. these things have not just popped up in the past week. we have been hearing about them for several weeks. it took the white house along time to respond. i think that he is behind the eightball. they should have been pushing back on these harder, sooner. host: what is your response? guest: perhaps there were a little over-confident. they had their strategy and felt good about it.

their strategy was to do not what the clinton administration did. instead of having one white house-crafted bill they handed to congress, they allowed congress to come up with their own. then you have multiple bills. there are different pieces with different elements that opponents can grab onto and exploit. host: john mccain's voices out there again. he says president obama will have to draw up proposals for a government-run health care insurance option if he hopes to reach congressional agreement. guest: john caine's voice probably does not mean a tremendous amount at this point. -- john mccain's voice does not mean much at this time. there are others that are stronger voices.

nancy pelosi said i cannot pass a bill through the house that does not have a public option. stanley hoyer the next they said he might have to take that out. you're getting a lot of mixed messages. the consensus is building towards not having the public option, but that causes a lot of problems for the president on the left. that is a very dear part of this proposal to liberals. it is kind of a mess right now. host: we would like for viewers to comment. to call in for our guests with questions. we have been covering a lot of these town hall meetings in their full forms. jean taylor, a blue democrat, held one of these earlier in the

week. >> i would hope by now that everyone in this room is aware that i'm not going to vote for the healthcare plan. [applause] ok. plays, one at a time. quite honestly, it goes back to an $11 trillion debt, the fact that the medicare trust fund will collect enough money between now and 2017 to make its annual operating expenses. host: linda, just part of the

problem that the president seems to have on the democratic s ide. guest: yes, he knows how to play his district and he is someone president obama can i count on. guest: yes, it is amazing to see the crowd exploding in applause when he says he will not go for the healthcare reform. part of the reason democrats are in some much trouble is that the president has gone so far so quickly. if you took this bill and the spending involved, you might have been able to get everything you wanted to do with the first thing you have done. but they have done bailouts, all these other things. this i think is really a

pushback especially among the conservative democrats. host: the first call from folks. first, let's get the voice of the president out there as he defended the healthcare plan. >> first, no matter where you have heard, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor under the reform proposals. if you like your private health insurance plan, you can keep it. if your employer provide to health care insurance, nobody is talking about messing with that. if you do not, we do intend to provide you high-quality affordable options. that is not just poor people without, and in fact many poor americans have it through medicare. mostly it is working americans who do not have health care, or small business owners, or self- employed.

we want to give them a menu of options to choose from and a little bit of help in terms of making premiums more affordable. host: the president is on vacation now. will there be a vacuum on the message? guest: i think that there will be a quieting down. this week. -- time this week. one said that he has taken the president -- advise the president to take some down time. he says especially in the senate finance committee need to give them time to work on some legislation. cool it down, pull it back. it is proudly good advice from someone who is a real expert in

this town. host: as you cover politics -- we're looking at 2010 already. what are members thinking around the country? guest: typically, the president's party loses feet in the first midterm. the democrats had two tremendous cycles in a row. you had a lot of democratic members in republican districts and some will go, for sure. not too many people are confident that the republicans can take over congress in one year, but they can always hope. the ideal would be a rerun of 1993, 1994. but there is a different feel to this time. guest: charlie cook is a veteran

handicapper. he sent out a warning signal for he sees democrats losing may be 10 or 20 seats. he said it could be as many as 26. what is troubling to some of these vulnerable democrats is that just like in 1993 when they did the deficit reduction program, a freshman congressman from philadelphia cast a deciding vote and lost her seat the next time. the problem was that that deficit reduction program did not kick in until well down the road. you can see the same thing with this health care bill. even if they get something passed, taxes will kick in before people see a benefit from the program. it gives republicans and a project be over the next year.

guest: although if the economy is doing better -- and that is the trajectory -- if people are feeling better about the economy by november 2010, then the democrats will not get slaughtered. host: here are phone calls for our two guests. this one is from california on the independent line. caller: this is an interesting exchange. i'm really nervous and appalled by what i have seen over the past few weeks from the citizens, my fellow citizens. on the far right we have people who profess even a spiritual position the so's we are our brothers' keepers. the only thing they seem to be concerned with is who will pay

for it. people are dying because they do not have health care. i personally am the caretaker of a man who worked all of his life. his job was outsourced. he lost his insurance. he got sick. he had no where to turn. over the course of two years he was in over 0100 diabetic, and his kidneys were failing. his side was leaving him. -- he had over 100 diabetic failures. this was someone's family member. there would not want it to happen to them, but because they are in position where they do not have to worry about their health care, they feel is ok to let other people died. they are just arguing about how much it costs at that time. guest: yesterday i thought the

republican response to the weekly radio address from the president was interesting. he repeated many criticisms of the democratic plan and acknowledged that there is a big problem with healthcare in this country. what tom priced from georgia said is that we do not want the status quo, but just want to make change through market forces and personal responsibility -- that is tom price through georgia. democrats say that is the usual, what we have been doing and it does not host: let me add another clip from the town hall. this is from a republican congressman in california. citrus heights, calif. was where he took the question of belt citizens receiving the same health care as people on the hill.

>> in consideration of the bill before various committees on my republican side of the aisle we tried to do with the question by saying that if the public option were part of the program all members of congress would be required to be in the public option. [applause] interestingly enough in one committee it was adopted and in another it was voted down. i do not know whether it will be in the final package. it seems that the mechanism where people have options to make choices that we have as federal employees is one that american people ought to have, but i will expand it beyond the four or six options by allowing americans to have access to the different options available in all states. so that people can decide brother then my deciding among

four which you can choose from. guest: what you heard from dan lungren was this conservative idea of the government tried to force something on you. sort of this class difference. it is a very common thing. he also talked about republican response to the healthcare issue which is free market, more choices. let's let the market worked its out. guest: i agree completely. host: let's move on to los angeles on the republican line. caller: good morning, i think that the last speaker was where i was standing. thank you.

host: alexandria, va., your thoughts this morning? caller: the american people ought to remember lessons. the government has figured out that they can scare the hell out of the american people. they give us the iraq war, the medicare bill -- they never put in money in there for it. they have put in these bankruptcy laws that destroy the american worker. people need to realize that $2.50 billion per year is going for health insurance every year. 30% goes to health insurance companies for no reason. people in this self for the base of the republican party is in need healthcare, but are willing to give up everything for ideological reasons -- people in the south. host: let's hear from our

guests. guest: this really speaks to the fears many americans have about government. many people point out the irony -- people standing up in town halls waving their medicare cards sent to get government out of health care -- well, that is government in healthcare. guest: and there is this backlash too big change quickly. we have seen many big changes of the past eight months and are proposing to see more. health care is an issue that affects people very directly and personally. people who are at least comfortable with what they have are very afraid and susceptible to these arguments that the government will be telling you what medicines you can and cannot get, or that the

government will ration health care. the president will say that the insurance companies are effectively rushing your health care, but people prefer the devil they know. there is no plan, but various plans and pieces. host: tie this to the broader economy, if you will. if there were to be more good news about economic conditions, would that improve the chances of healthcare? guest: i think so. ironically, at the beginning of obama's presidency there was a" "do not ever let a good crisis go to waste." the economy is in desperate trouble and because of that we can jump in to do a lot. they have done a lot. they did this stimulus package.

they bailed out the banks, the auto industry. instead of having their ramp up to healthcare reform people have big change fatigue. but if the economy starts to move upward people will feel less insecure. this was too a little change in obama's message. he is talking more about the impact of reform on people who already have health insurance. he is telling people that there will not be rationing. he says if they like their doctor they can keep the doctor -- i am not entirely sure that is true. host: llinda feldmann is a political correspondent for the christian science monitor. she has worked as a middle east editor, foreign affairs writer, and worked as a moscow bureau

chief. vaughn is a contributing editor to politico and a news editor at cbs.com. he was educated at the university of colorado at boulder. our next guest, joe, on the independent line from kentucky. caller: good morning. i'm sorry that the moderator is worried about that ad, picking on our poor president, following him up in new england. but i have a question here for the lap dog from political. he was a lap dog for the democrats on cbs, and the whole political bunch is for the democrats. when obama and his family went to the grand canyon there was a woman leaning over the rail, and i think it was the first lady of this it u.s. --

host: we will let it go. . guest: this is the political and varmint we are operating in at this point. people have firm ideas about what they ideasin and what is right and wrong and are passionate about that. -- they have firm ideas about what is right and wrong. it is not bad to be passionate, but it is how we settle disagreements. we fight over ideas. what obama said he would try to bring into this town was more openness, working together more. republicans will say that the president may have tried to work together with them in the beginning, but his democratic friends on capitol hill have not done anything to work with republicans.

president obama is finding out how difficult it is to change the tone in washington, as all presidents have discovered. host: here is this piece. it is finished this way -- in last year's campaign debate, obama like to cite his unlikely a kinship with tom coburn as proof that he could work with adversaries. if he insists that enemies like this are his friends, that they can be placated by reason, he will waste his of virginity to affect real change and have no one to blame but himself. guest: the partisan thing in washington is very fascinating. on a personal level you have a lot of bipartisan foreign ships, teddy kennedy who is famous isor with orrin hatch.

but when you get into the public arena with high-stakes people really did become members of their party. there is still bipartisanship. the senate finance committee has this group of six who have been working very hard, even on recess, talking on the phone. it is the laskey committee to come out with its plan on health care reform. bipartisanship is not dead, but it is hanging by a thread. guest: the system, ironically, works. you have@@@@r

i think there is less bipartisanship in washington than there was 20 years ago, when you had bob dole and some of his old guard. you do have a little bit, it is just hard to see sometimes. >> and republican caller named keith. for seven years every time president bush went on vacation the media would say, should he go on vacation? there are two wars going on. now there are two wars going on, the economy is collapsing, and the country is almost at civil war. we do not hear any questions like that from the media now. president bush went to crawford,

texas which is a mini-white house. for seven years we heard and saw about the coffins. you said all this stuff during president bush, but the media does not seem to have the same -- even the peace rallies were going on and now you do not hear anything from that group. guest: it is true that prism bush did take a lot of heat when he went to crawford. but he did not take any heat in his first year. president obama is a only a little over six months in office. he will naturally get a little bit of a break. the president will say, and he complained about quite a bit this week, that the media -- and

it is funny how this goes around and around, that the media has really hyped up the controversy over the public option. when really it is his administration and those who speak for him who have started this controversy. host: a little more about politics -- the cover story here in the christian science monitor. never mind the big names, meet four rising stars. who are they? guest: i did not want to write about eric cantor and all the other usual suspects who are seen as near the top of the party and maybe leading in the future, or the people who are running for president in 2012. it is just a little early. i decided that here was a party in distress. they just got slaughtered two

election cycles. who still believes in this party who maybe has good ideas? i found in taxes former solicitor taxested cruise who is running for another position -- very smart, ivy league- educated. colorado is the same media you have this whole collection of young turf. these people in their '30's who will not wait for anyone. you have a 33-year-old running for the governor of colorado against the incumbent democrat. he must win his car running against his old boss, a former member of congress. in new hampshire you have a kelly who was the state's

attorney general who is now running for gregg's senate seat. she is a bit of an unknown, but a fresh, female face and a party desperate for women. . . he just spent eight years as mayor of st. petersburg, a democratic city in florida. by all accounts, he did a fantastic job and was reelected by a very wide margin. he knew how to work with all sides. he says he does not even know on his staff who are democrats and who are republicans. all these people in total, what they want to see is a party that gets back to basics. there is not a big fresh agenda that the republicans have.

what they are saying implicitly is that president bush led the party sort of off into a ditch, and they could take it out by getting back to the principles. >> i think of people like morocco rubio in florida who is taking on a very popular republican governor for mel martinez's senate seat and this is somebody who you think, how would you take on this governor? he is one of the reason that is john mccain won the nomination because he endorsed him. that's how popular he is. on the other hand, he is not popular among conservatives. and he has become a poster boy of the new conservative hufement. and if he doesn't end up winning will probably launch himself into a very nice career nationally and end up being a governor or senator from florida before he goes on to do something else. and again, hispanic, cuban, who would speak to the hispanic

vote, something that the republicans desperately need. >> back to the calls. caller: thank you for take mig call. i would like to know why won't anybody talk about the fact that the v.a. workers are getting bonuses and -- [inaudible] everybody talking about people getting bonuses, why won't you talk about the v.a. getting bonuses. >> another opinion. any thoughts? guest: i didn't see what he is talking about. the v.a. is a problem. people who are supporting the public option always bring up medicare as the example of a government-run health insurance plan that works. but you have other government

health care plan that is don't really work as well like the v.a. system. so i think both sides have some good arguments to make there. host: let's hear from detroit. caller: hello. i would like to say that a long time ago when i was in history clats, my history teacher used to say when you forget history, is the going to repeat itself. and i think the government owes social security money because they took money out to fund the vietnam war, world war one, and world war ii and they never repaid social security. also, if one person worked one day out of a week for just for health care, there would be enough money for dental, life insurance, optcal, surgery, any type of insurance that you

need. the only thing, the only health care problem that we have is in capitol hill that they have their hands in the till too much. >> thanks. any thoughts? guest: well, i do think history is a great teacher but you can learn too much of it. there's an interesting op ed in the "new york times" this morning about whether obama risks becoming an l.b.j. type figure because he is fighting a war in afghanistan, one that's winding down supposedly in iraq, but also trying to make these big social changes at home. and can he risk -- does what's going on overseas put him at risk of losing his domestic agenda. and you've got to look at that, there are some similarities. but every incident is different. every presidency is slightly different. and if you get too mired down in looking at what happened before is exactly what's going to happen now, there are important lessons to be

learned. host: we can review "new york times" legacies. maybe he'll win the battle. maybe his the economy will bounce back. linda, what do we know about afghanistan? what is happening? what could happen? and what it all means back home. guest: we now have 68,000 troops over there. it's one of those tar pits that has bedeviled the world for generations. i mean, just ask the russians about their experience in afghanistan. it's one of the sort of wildest, i don't want to say primitive but least delved countries in the world and it's really become obama's war. and this is an area where actually conservatives are pretty happy with him because he is following the trajectory that was started under president bush and he is really

-- iraq is winding down, afghanistan is winding up, and nobody can see an end in sight there. host: trudey writes in the philadelphia enquirer. quick afghan exit is a dangerous idea. the taliban remains a strong threat and is allied with terrorists in pakistan. they point out in the piece that a recent poll indicates 51% of americans say they believe it is not worth fighting a war there. want to add anything? guest: not only it's not just afghanistan, it's really pakistan. it's control of -- it's a lot of this is a fear that extremists and the people associated with terrorism and al qaeda and the taliban will take tover country of pakistan, which is a nuclear armed country. now, that's a little paranoid in the sense that the military in pakistan has pretty good

control over itself, but it's not an unrealistic fear. and pakistan is a very key ally to us right now. we need to make sure that that country remains stable. we've seen it being unstable just over the past few years. so i think that afghanistan is part of that bigger overall strategy that we have to address right now. host: while we're on this topic, let's get to this headline. there's a new c.i.a. report coming out we think tomorrow and the report says according to some that the c.i.a. used a gun, a power drill to threaten a detainee. they stainled a mock execution. what kind of traction does a story get like this as it starts coming out this week? guest: i think it does get some traction. usually just whatever their views are going to be their views. there are people who think that especially at that time, i believe it was 2002, people

take the 24 approach and say whatever we need to do to get information that can keep the country safe is what we need to do. you hear former vice president cheney continue to make that argument even after he's been out of office. there are other people who believe that this is not what america does, that we're better than this, that we don't treat people this way, we don't let our people be treated this way. and i sort of think people see that through the prism of where they come down on that issue. host: linda feldman talks about the red cross. they're talking about a u.s. shift. they're going to give detainees names, something the red cross has been looking for for years. guest: i don't have anything all that to say about it. guest: i do think that does speak to the sprobs that problems that president obama has in trying to settle the gitmo issue. that was one of his promises

when he came into office he was going to shut down gitmo and everything was going to be great. he found it's a much more difficult think to do. and he has done thing that is has outraged his supporters on the left, such as keeping the photographs classified, saying that we're not going to bring some of these prisoners and we're not going to shut down gitmo right away. we'll do it eventually. he's finding that murky issue of how should we treat these people a little more difficult than he made it seem in the campaign. guest: and when congress gets back in the fall, the clock is ticking on closing gitmo. he said he would close it by january and he still has a lot of work to do. so when everybody gets back, there's going to be a lot on the plate. host: let's hear from south carolina. joe, you're on. good morning. caller: good morning. i just want to say hello to two proud members of the media.

i also want to make a quick point about medicare. she's really touted it a few times this morning already and you have some clinics in this country who don't cover medicare patients. obviously they must be doing it on a payment basis. you have other clinics that do cover medicare patients. obviously those must be accepting the fact that there are cash paying and insurance paying customers that are medicare patients. so if everybody was on medicare then we would have doctors who would not want to work for those pay scales. i don't know how that system would work. you lambast insurers, insurance companies, but they in essence subsidize a lot of the unpaying people or the people who can't afford to pay as much. so can if you take the private situation out of it you're not going to have as much money in the system and you're going to v to ration health care. guest: nobody is talking about taking private insurers out of the system.

i know that's the fear among some that a public insurance option would squeeze the private insurers out of the game but that is not the white house's intention. what they want is to more competition because you have so many markets in the this country where there isn't a lot of competition with insurers. so this idea that the entire country would be on medicare is not on the table. guest: on the other hand, the president sort of undercuts his argument on that score when he cites the post office as a good example. it's either the public option. it's either a competitive entity or it's not. and right now we think the post office is not necessarily competitive. host: caller now from florida. democrat's line. caller: why does the media now, when you get a panic, they always have, especially on health care, like i take the monitor every month and i --

but both of you seem to appear on the right side. and, i mean, i have lived through from detroit as the head -- as a ban quiet captain and heard all the first things in 1977, turnover, come down a whole convention of computer systems and i was really upset because i said to them, everybody's leafing detroit. this company downtown that had a six-foot sign moved out. and i had the newspaper, he said, don't worry, twilea. information, we're going to rule information. and whoever controls information controls the world. and i really think that this comes basically right to this. people are being told something

which is creating so many falsehoods and so many lies and -- because it's desperate. we're the only civilized country that doesn't have on health care. insurance companies, corporations control this country now. and, i mean, we as individuals watch and listen to tv and i mean we're seeing not both sides. and i can't understand it. guest: i disagree. i think we have a very vibrant environment. it's changing. it's in a tremendous state of flux. i'm glad you read the monitor. the monitor itself is an example of that. we're not weekly -- and we're on line. we don't have daily print. print is especially in turmoil. but you can get, you've got talk radio which kind of leans

consunnytive and you've got cable tv and politico which is fantastic just for the energy and moment by moment updates. politico is not just from the left or the right. it's got a mix. so i am pretty happy with the media environment as it is. guest: i think that it is going, undergoing changes that are so fast and so dramatic. nobody knows exactly what it's going to look like ten years from now. but on the other hand, it is not, no longer controlled by editors who live in new york city and who all sort of hang out together at cocktail parties and they produce the evening news and the "new york times" and that sets the agenda for the country. we are now in a situation where you have blogs, you have web sites, you have complete flow of information. and that makes things confusing sometimes. it's nobody sitting at the kitchen table over dinner any more watching walter cronkite

bring you the knews and thinking this is the what the world is. now you can get the information you want. i think now people seek out the thing that is they agree with only which i don't think is necessarily a healthy thing. and i also think it provides more information, more balance, more voices means -- but it's confusing sometimes. host: you mentioned a lot going on in the fall. but in terms of government in general, there's the swine flu and the approach to it. lead story, swine flu campaign waits on vaccine. the subhead says only third of supplies expected. they might not have enough. guest: there's more to dealing with the anticipated rise in swine flu cases than just the vaccine. there's been a lot of sort of public education going on about washing your hands and

especially with schools, keeping children home from school. they're not anticipating shutting down schools as they were doing last winter when this first came up. but there's definitely been a lot of preparation on this. host: jim, hi there. caller: hi. thanks for taking the call. one of the things we all agree. i see both sides. they say that medicare is working. well, maybe if we start with medicare, this is just a suggestion and maybe some thought and maybe somebody could look more deeply into this. but medicare is taking care of the senior citizen. why can't we do ahead and take that and begin first with those that need it just as much as the seniors? that's the youth of today. those that are newly born to ten or 12 years old need that as just as much as senior citizens. let's start with that for a year or two. let's see how well that

progresses. then we approach the next group of people that may need it more. so that could be the 40 to 50 group. guest: they do have programs, schip covers children and that's a government program. i think that this is sort of the way that the administration is approaching a lot of this is through what will eventually bring down costs, what will eventually make this whole thing work will be preventative care, others stressing preventative care a lot. they're stressing let's save money on the lower end when we're spending so much on the later years of life. but it goes to show you that it's such a complicated issue both economically and politically. there are no easy answers and every issue has a very complicated and difficult component. guest: and when it's the government getting involved -- another issue is obesity. if uncle sam is telling

everybody to eat right, there is this talk about taxing sugary beverages, it could go down a slippery slope where there's this perception that the government is doing way too much sort of invasive advice. guest: and i think you hear that. this is the philosophical argument that we're having and you hear that. we don't want the government in our lives. we don't want them to tell us how to eat, what, how to behave. we will take responsibility for our own actions. and there are those who say you don't, and we end up paying for you. so it's a broad philosophical argument. host: at the same time, there was this headline about the clash for clunkers program, as the program winds down. what's the legacy of this program? guest: i'm fascinated by it. when the government is giving away free money, why not line up?

i'm not surprised it did so well. but gm hired more workers. but what happens down the road? what you've done is consolidated a lot of demand for new cars. these are people who probably were going to buy new cars anyway, so you condensed it into this short period and the auto dealers are all excited they're selling cars. but is this going to lead to another big hit on the auto industry? now that the government isn't giving money away any more, are people going to stop buying car? guest: the administration held this as a tremendous success and in some sense it has. but his critics would say it's an example of why government can't control the economy. just what you said. it's a short term prap program that's wildly popular but what happens when it's over? and they've not been able to administer it to the satisfaction. a lot of dearlies are frustrated. it's a microcosm of when you

have a government program how long it can take. host: caller from cleveland. caller: i would a couple of items i wanted to discuss briefly. first, i have a son who is in the marine corps and the callers and people were talking previously about afghanistan. i'm concerned that our current president has tabled any cost increases for the military. he has currently i believe is limiting to some degree pending general mccrystal's evaluation the number of troops in afghanistan. afghanistan historically has been an impossible country to dominate. our job is not domination, our job is to go in and help the afghan people. and as one of the panelists pointed out, to protect pakistan. i'm really concerned that this president will lose his initiative and lose his concern because of political concerns

in the u.s. and the unpopularity of this war. so i think i hope he has the fortitude to follow this through and to handle it properly. the other topic i wanted to talk about briefly had to do with health care. the statistics that i have seen are about 30 to 40 million people in the u.s. who are listed as uninsured. about 10 to 15 or so i understand are illegal immigrants. there may be another 15 million people who are in transition between jobs. and there's another 4 to 5 million people who refuse to sign up for care that's available to them. if you distill that down into let's say 10 or 15 million we could provide insurance for those people who are uninsured than a lot less money than we're currently proposing to completely nationalize our health care system. we have one of the finest health care systems in the

world when you have people from england and other countries and canada coming here for procedures that are not permitted or are not financed under their national plans and their countries. the problem that the president has is he doesn't have a plan. he has no distinct plan. he only has ideas. the house has passed a bill, the senate has no bill, and he isimply not leading. thanks. host: go ahead. guest: that's the problem. there is no bill right now. and that's probably -- linda alluded to this earlier, they believe they learned from the clinton effort in the early 90's that rather than have secret meetings then formulate your health care plan and try to ram it down the throat of congress, you let congress come up with it. we see how messy that process can be and i think if the president ends up getting a health care reform bill it probably won't resemble a lot of what he wanted in the first place. and he may be able to take some

credit. but by handing the initiative off to congress he sort of gave them the go ahead to, this is your deal. i'll give you the broad parameters. whether he gets what he wants i think it's really up in the air. guest: and when you dell gate to congress that brings in the lobbyists, which also has a huge impabblingt on what they end up doing. so i think in the end the caller talked about the different pieces of the uninsured population. first, they're not going to -- they won't insure illegal immigrants, so take them off the table. i think in the end people believe we're not going to get universal coverage out of this. there's no way. congress can never do anything that huge in one fell swoop. but if they can take care of a chunk of that now,

>> tomorrow on "washington journal, a talk about the budget. terry o'neil, president of the national organization for women discusses health care, a proposed abortion amendment in one of the health care bills, and why she thinks women should support single payer health care. also, author mike evans talks about his book. "washington journal," live at 7:00 eastern on c-span. coming up next, it is "q&a" with a former aide to robert f. kennedy. in remarks by william hague, bridgette -- british conservative party shadow secretary. then a discussion on government efforts to protect the internet.

the common wealth more often.