and politics. in a couple of ours conel conelia grumman talking about the addition of 1 million additionalpre school children. washington journal is next. >> republicans in mass have delayed the move to fill former senator kennedy's saet. also in the paper this morning, a consumer watch dog group has released documents showing what qualifies insurance companies as

a preexisting condition. >> the headline. a proposal to make preexisting conditions could help not just the seriously ill but those

considered to be themselves healthy >> that's from the "washington post" this morning. i want to give you a little bit of background on the group. they are called consumer wash dogs. they argue that -- the article

goes on to say consumers should be given the option to enroll in a government health plan.

>> for that pacific care document, declinable condition one of the categories. here is what it says. it includes some comments including the company involved.

this is reaction from pacific care. this is from the "washington post." >> we say all of that to talk about the set up of the role ofpre conditions.

so to your thought this is morning. on the role of preexisting conditions, would you agree certain expectations should be met or not. the lines are on the screen. email us at c-span.org or twitter us at c-span wj. >> first up, annie. good morning. caller: good morning. it's starting to sound very much like it is not health insurance but life insurance. there's a confusion at insurance companies. they need to move in to the 21st century. today, we have wonderful doctors and medicines. what is the point of all this if they find coors for things it

doesn't make any sense. >> should there be no list when it comes to preexisting conditions? caller: there shouldn't be a list. it just doesn't make sense. it is to the point that they don't want to insure anybody. host: democratic line morristown, tennessee. go ahead.

preexisting conditions. i was treated for them back when i did have insurance through my employ employer. >> right now, i am on disability. i have social security and medicare. i agree with the president. it should be illegal for insurance companies to deny people because of a preexisting condition. i would like to remind the democrats in congress what happened in 1994 when they

failed to pass healthcare reform back then. host: next to winter haven florida. alan on the line identified as a doctor. caller: yes. i'm a physician for over 15 years. host: how do you see the role of preexisting conditions in this debate? caller: that's the biggest thing we have to face. it is ridiculous to have insurance for health but it doesn't cover for medical condition. unfortunately the status of the insurance industry, it is insurance for healthy people. it is not meant for sick people. this is one of the things we have to correct.

insurance is for illness. insurance people rather have healthy people on their rolls. we node a safety net for americans. >> when dealing with your patients, you have to deal in conferences about those preexisting conditions. what are those like. to prevent cat strof yik events. i try to describe them in the medical plan so that they don't have to file for bankruptcy.

it is the process. unfortunately, you have to have an mba ôdegree. it is very difficult for an average american to pick up that information and make a decision by themselves. they need expert advice to really help through the right plan for themselves. this is why i think the public option is necessary to provide the safety net for americans to provide the incentive to modify the practices. >> newark, new jersey. caller: i have experience being rejected for a preexisting condition. if you are a violence victim,

insurance companies view that as being a preexisting condition. insurance companies are very corrupt. we really need healthcare reform. host: this information released by the group consumer watch dog. this was on their website looking at this issue including one from blue shield of california. this is documented australia of august 2006 this is called a declinable condition. listed below may be declined.

some of these you know such as aids a meemia, arthritis, basil cell skin cancer, several types of cancer. heart failure, cystic fibrosis. on the democrat line next is norm from illinois. go ahead. caller: the democrats, we just messed up by calling this

healthcare reform rather than insurance reform. what you are talking about this morning is exactly on point. when we love our doctors. we like our hospitals. we all know nurses who work in the hospitals and nursing homes. just looking at that list, i'm 61 now. i have already seen a half a dozen things that i have contracted over the years that would keep me from insurance. i have been blessed with perfect insurance my union negotiated for me when i was working.

>> describe your plan. is this a plan that gets thrown around as a cadillac plan? caller: yes. i worked for a major oil company and got a package to retire early. they were trying to get rid of people without laying people off. i pay $140 a month for my insurance people with less coverage are paying over $1,000 for their family. i would say i have the cadillac insurance. >> is it a concern of yours that one of the ideas is the taxation of those types of plans in order to pay for healthcare.

we have been reading about people who have been denied coverage. they say, you are not covered now. how much can it cost for me? i pay a few dollars more so other people can get covered? are we a christian nation? do we care about our fellow man or not? >> i wanted to share a story about a preexisting condition. i had taken a medication for which i had a severe reaction. i ended up in emergency. after i retired and was done

with the cobra plan. i started to find that this undiagnosed that this emergency room visit is considered a preexisting condition. i have not been to the doctor for five years i have been on automatic decline. every morning i wake up, i pray there's no lumps or bumps, no anything. i have to have a clean record when i go and reapply again. it's heart breaking. when i see the people at the tea

parties. any single one of them could have any type of event and then that could then prove to deny them healthcare. nobody is safe from the insurance companies. a friend of mine recently diagnosed with breast cancer. her company just changed over insurance companies. she is now insured for everything from there.

host: we heard from a doctor this morning. preps you represent an insurance company or something and want to chime in. we'll go to the line for illinois. caller: i am a little nervous. this is the first time i could call. it took me about 30 minutes. i have a preexisting condition.

>> what you are doing now needs to be on every channel, newspaper we are not aware. my problem is i had surgery and went for a mammogram. my credit report is all screwed up. they are charging me saying i have a preexisting condition.

i had to pay $152.90 for a mammogram because my insurance company said i had to contact my doctor. they are saying this is medically necessary. i'm a little nervous. i hope president obama and the congress with threes tea parties. estimately they have never been sick or they are lying. host: minnesota on the republican line. harry. caller: i guess i'm swimming upstream on this one. i'm 64 years old. when i was 21, i was diagnosed with two different conditions.

i have fibromyalgia. my wife has two issues with disks in her neck. i have never been turned down. insurance companies are not the evil ones. if you want 1950 costs in health insurance, let's go back to the 10 and 15 bed wards. you remember those? i do. you want to go back to not having private room, a nurse taking care of 10, 15 beds. i remember when they had four beds to one room. that was pretty exciting. you had the families of four people in that room at one time.

>> here's the problem. insurance companies have to make a profit. this terrible profit thing, what does it do? it pays nurses, maintains hospitals, buys new machinery, giving races to nurses. my wife is a nurse and has been for 20 years most of the time without health insurance because she's been a clinic nurse. to provide us with those private

rooms and all the stuff we get from them and expect from them. for us with preexisting conditions. a lot of people get stung and a lot don't. when i have had trouble. i called them up and we've taken care of the problem. host: you've never been deneed coverage or services or anything you would pay under your insurance policy? caller: we have had some clichs. we have a $500 deductible. i have no problem with that. i have to take care of that. i'm a tea bagger. i broke my back in 1970. i was uninsured. we paid that bill off. it took a few years.

we paid it off. host: we'll leave it there. appreciate the input. new york city on the independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think the insurance industry are like car insurance. i do believe you should be able to have preexisting conditions. the insurance companies have to make money. they are not going to make money by just giving any type of coverage to anybody. i am looking at the list. i think the list just doesn't make any sense. if i've been in one, two, three car accidents. an insurance company might look at my record and say, we don't know if we can insurance you at a reasonable rate, we are going to have to charge you.

i don't think it is right to expect to pay the same amount of money as somebody who has never been sick. i don't believe denying people for basic regular things like acne. host: we'll continue on this topic for the next 20 minutes or so. we'll wave in some other topics. the front page of the "washington post," it says

host: right next to that, a story looking at secretary of state clinton and a look at her. "a team player who stands apart." he goes on to write.

jo those two from the front page of the "washington post" this morning. california on the republican line. caller: the second to last caller if insurance companies make money, they'll put that back into nurse's pay and larger rooms. is that completely wrong.

that goes to the insurance company pocket. not that any nationalized healthcare would put saveings back. i want to talk about these preexisting conditions. it seems that even though they are not supposed to, it seems they have a way to find out whether you have some sort of preexisting past or whatever. it seems like the person just doesn't get the job and you never know why. even though they are not supposed to do that. host: republican line from colorado. caller: first time caller. host: welcome. caller: ok. even medicare has a thing for

preexisting conditions. another point i'd like to make. harry reid's own system, their kofrp system was government monopoly state run. it did not work, period. there is tons of newspaper articles and interer net stuff on this. nic when they were running it. now it is more efficient. host: what are your thoughts on preexisting conditions in this

debate caller: they don't want -- social security doesn't want to have to bite the now kofrp care. they have a law that says i can't get insurance to fight it. host: the independent line from arizona. you are on. caller: i appreciate that. my mother, just now back. went in for a stint. ended up with a quadruple by pass. alan is right. you have to go out there and

check. she's paying $163 a month for insurance for medicare and a different plan just for medications, not including, she just spent an eight-day stay in the hospital. i'm waiting for that bill. we do get private roams. these nurses here, out here, they are running seven people to one nurse. it's really rough. everybody thinks these nurses have it easy. they have it hard. my mother was very ill and became combative because she had an renal disif you cans that messes with your mind. these nurses don't have it easy. they are doing 12-13 patients a day going house to house.

everybody thinks it is so great out there in the healthcare industry. i feel sorry for them. i really do. h preexisting conditions. illinois on the democrat line. caller: i'll ask the republicans to call in, who will pay for their health insurance if they loose their job is rush limbaugh? absolutely not. here's my point. you can have a condition and not

even know about it. let's say for example you go into the hospital with a major problem. if the insurance company doesn't agree, they'll try to get out of paying for any kind of major expense that they can. >> next call is from seoul, korea on the republican line. how are you hearing this program. caller: i get you on the campus network and sometimes on the tv player on the internet. host: you are calling on an

skype? caller: yes. host: go ahead. caller: am i correct that insurance companies won't be able to charge anybody anymore money for any preexisting conditions? that seems a little unfair that healthy people will be picking up the tab for people who are healthy. if i go to college and study hard, i usually make more money than somebody doesn't study hard. maybe i am naturally smarter, i am going to make more money than somebody else. the same goes with healthcare, in i work out and take better care of myself, maybe i'm lucky and born with good genes.

it doesn't seem fair you can't charge anything more for preexisting conditions. another question i have. i'm curious -- i'm covered by the korean health system. am i still going to have to buy an american policy? host: tell us about that coverage. caller: it works well for me. when i'm in the united states, i get my care through the veteran's administration. the only problems i've had is with my back. when i go to the doctor, i spend about $5. host: is that here or in korea? caller: korea. in america, i don't pay anything. there's many things not covered by the plan but i have never

experienced those. my understanding is this is no way the government can continue to pay for this system. host: why are you in korea? caller: i teach at a university here. host: thank you for your input today. woel go to the phone. robert caller: i wanted to let you know of an organization in boston called the medical information bureau. hospitals and doctors report to

that agency. when your underwriter is looking at your medical background, they can access that and look at preexisting conditions. you end up getting turned down because of that information. host: this out of new england in the national briefing conditions. host: long view, texas. you are next on the democrat line. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span.

other callers have really called in with the solution to this healthcare issue. insurance companies, they are there to make a profit. that is a total conflict of interest when it comes to healthcare. that is a right everybody should have. when you are sick, you shoeld be able to go to a physician. insurance companies make money insuring so many other things. people should not be treated like non-living objects like our homes and cars. money we pay out to them.  and collected by our government, it would be a far less amount.

look at the obscence amount made. healthcare is just about that. healthcare is making sure these doctors honor ways these providers are doing an invaluable service. we are people and americans, everybody should be able to go to a doctor when they are ill. people can't even afford that nowadays. host: arlington, virginia on the republican line. caller: i am calling in on an

official tax revolter. i actually wrote president obama and listed five things i think would help. having worked with insurance companies right out of college and being familiar with the system the one thing they need to do or should is create a tax incentive. when people change jobs when you

develop an affliction. you change jobs, you have a preexisting condition. the new insurance company may not recover. what they can do, it used to be let's take overall of healthcare. now it's just the evil insurance company. for insurance companies to expect preexisting conditions

>> talking about a book of he is as he had put together he called it a decade of transition. >> 41 pieces from the 1940's-1990s. the most are written in the

1970s. i think because things through political things were more in flux in the 1970s before than after as far as i was concerned. in 1968, i still voted for humphrey. host: died at 89. the last call today on the topic of preexisting conditions. richard on the independent line. caller: good morning. i happen to be part of an insurance company founded on most of the principals of trying to do the best for patients in

new york city. i would add that it is really impossible for an insurance company to call itself an insurance company unless it is able to underwrite. the only thing allowed is through preexisting conditions. in new york state, you are not allowed to apply for preexisting conditions or anything shifting from one policy or another. others are insured as a group. the others allow for establishing a rate that will cover everybody no matter what their condition might be. this is the principal of denying the conditions. somebody might want to come in to an insurance company to be insured for such a condition as

acne and have the treatment for six months and drop out of the program. you have to insure the entire pool if you want to do underwriting without underwriting. the only way is to have unlimited insurance. host: the bronx, new york. the last call on this subject. the next subject will be early education before children start school. we'll be right back.

>> today on america and the courts preparation for cases before the supreme court and thoughts on the use of cameras in the court that's at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> this weekend, best selling author, jon krakauer. "where men win glory." part of book tv's weekend. >> congressman ron paul wants to hold the federal reserve for the economic crisis. he talks about his new book. follow us on twitter for the latest schedule update.

>> in 1971 as a new york times reporter, neil sheehan write a story. this weekend, he'll discuss his latest. a fiery peace in a cold war. sunday night on c-span. >> c-span supreme court week is two weeks away with an insiders view of the court. >> this is the auto highest court in the land. the framers created it after studying the great law givers in history and taking a look at what they thought worldwide was important for their judicial branch to do. >> supreme court week starting october 4th on c-span. go on line now to

c-span.org/supreme court for virtual tour and photos. washington journal continues. host: on the 14th of september, you wrote an op-ed, the headline was "some blacks now have doubts about obama." guest: it intrigued me with what i saw. we saw a little bit of blacks fall in those polls. i thought it interesting. this discusses about race and how it plays in this whole process. it started to come up when we saw the tea parties and taun halls i looked at those numbers. what i found was there are perhaps 400-500,000

african-americans that are changing their minds. i wrote a piece about it and started getting a record response. they are saying we have changed our mind, this man doesn't rep our values nor what we wanted to see as change in the future. what's interesting about the polling data. it did not tell us was this out of the 16 million african-american votes or a general poll. that's an unknown. we don't know where these actually voters that voted for him. when we do know is that 95% of african-american votes did go for barack obama. we sdo know there is some shift in black thinking in this country. >> did it layout reasons for the disconsent? guest: they didn't. this is what i wanted to look

more into. what we have always known is that there are a segment of black americans that are not liberal. they continually poll that they are not liberal. 25% for the last 20 years. after january, they jumped saying we are evangelical and conservative. that group does not have representation when we look at race and the black community host: what have you made especially over president carter's statement? guest: interjecting race right now is like pouring gas on the problem. people disagree on the roll of government. i was here last week when the tea party groups came in.

frankly, i believe most of this discussion even from president carter is that the democrats have lost the healthcare debate. instead of looking at substance, they go to emotion. nothing pole ar eyes people more than the emotion of race. they interject race to try to distract us to what is really going on when it comes to healthcare. american people do not want excessive government engaged in personal decisions. host: our guest is with us. if you want to talk about these issues for the next 30, 40 minutes or so. do so in several ways. email at c-span.org or on

twitter as c-span wj. host: how do you think the president responds to this? guest: he says he is not responding. what we are seeing is the embody ment of left wing ideology and politickses in a black person. it makes it very difficult to get beyond his race and say let's talk about the issues of the day. this is not the first discussion about race since he's been president. every single time there is a push back, all of a sudden the talking heads are discussing his race. host: not an issue from the right? guest: i don't believe so. if it were so polarizing -- they racist they think are out there.

how would he have won. host: is joe wilson a factor in this as well? guest: i don't believe race was a factor. they are trying to say. what happened there is the emotions. the i'd logical differences saying we are going to do this. the president trying to overall the entire industry to call us liars. when joe got to the point where he said "you lie." the president was not telling the 100% truth at that time and we know that. we know that this has not been an honest and open debate. when you are talking about almost 20% of the american economy. we should all be a part of that

discussion. what we saw of the first four months of this year, the president thought they would rahm this through. one of the reason they want it do so quickly is because of the high support. host: talk about the comparison did the discussion we are talking about factor into what was going on in the convention at all? guest: keep in mind who the value voters are. the family research council are the evangelical conservatives. you are finding more discussion about religion. the tone is very quiet. it's more than the tea partiers. tea partiers are frustrated

americans who want their voices heard. they are saying we want our voices heard. we decided we wanted legislatures listening to our cause. value voters are activists around the country who come together once a year to get marching orders. host: star parker, our guest. the first call is on the democrat line from indiana. go ahead. caller: i just heard her say that black people were being a little bit not really understanding what he's doing. i'd like to say he's only been

in office for a little over eight months. i will support the president in what he's doing. he shouldn't even address the issue about race. he should let everybody else the issue about race. he should go forward with what he's trying to do. we should really give him an opportuni opportunity. i'm a 44-year-old male, african-american. i will support this president about what he is doing. the american people should really give him an opportunity. host: caller, thanks. guest: that's what a lot of people feel. what's happening in terms of the black community.

there are those that are evangelical and don't agree with this president. the caller said he's only been in six months. within that six months, we have seen a lot of activity. it is true the president did away with some school choice or vouchers. parents came washington and said what are you doing? of course they didn't get the media because they were all black. we saw what he did to undo all of the protection for those no the womb. there was push back. when you think about the abortion rate in black america today, for every two pregnancies, one is a borted.

there is large concern. there are many instances where african-americans are upset too. host: orlando, florida on the republican line. go ahead. caller: star, i'm a huge fan of yours. i hope you'll talk more about your organization. there seems to be as much now against obama as there was going into the election and the excitement about him possibly becoming president. i don't think he's changed his values or his mind. do you think people just weren't paying attention or they were so caught up with the possibility of having a black president that they voted for him without paying attention to the values he he is spouses? for example, he hasn't changed

his mind on abortion? were the black people just not paying attention? guest: well, blacks weren't the only ones to put him in office. about half of the voters were black voters. many republican voters were frustrated and left their party. there was excitement throughout all communities. . . . any

changes. we should make them small steps. on healthcare, of course there are problems. the answer is not a government overall or option. >> as republicans in the house and senate, how are they performing as far as resisting the efforts? guest: some is what we saw in congressman joe wilson. there have been many attempts by

the republicans to put their ideas on the table. on one hand, we are going to hear we are going to have open debate. when the republicans try to get scomplesive language, for instance to stop abortion, they said no. when we asked for language to make sure illegals are not covered. they said no. republicans have put forth many ideas. in fact even have bills running around there, under current of course, yet these ideas are being rejected. host: star parker. president of cure. we look at the war on poverty over the last 40 years and ask

questions out loud. why are we looking at the poverty rates and more out of wedlock birthrates and despair. we would like to interject new ideas to solve some of our old problems. host: what does this administration propose to fight that? do you counter those arguments? guest: that's another challenge. this administration promotes the same thing we have been doing the last 45 years. they want the government to control education. they don't think we should look at family life and start talking out loud about personal responsibility and the obligation to be self sufficient. you were talking about preexisting conditions. when you think about preexisting conditions in the poorest communities. the government has been controlling their decisions why is obesity, high blood pressure and aides killing this

community. the president and my organization would be on opposite sides. we want barriers being removed. i would like to see them investigate acorn and hud. hud has been for years telling us they were going to close the gap between homeownership and the wedgier and poor. they have been sayingñ they wer going to help poor people with decisions to get into the great american dream of owning a home. when we saw instead was government programs that ended us all in a housing crisis. what is hud's mission and what are they accomplishing. everything they are not doing right, we should get rid of host: it doesn't line up with the previous administration? guest: it doesn't. hud has been on the books a long

time. there are those of us that argue needed to be done. going back to old ideas to give vouchers to vo ownership in property and one day buy their own tlchltz a lot of things we should be rethinking out of the great war on poverty and the great society and look at new ways to solve these problems. host: chapel hill, north carolina on the democrat line. caller: i'm african-american and voted for obama not only on his race but ideology. the healthcare debate you say we lost but polling by the huffing

ton post recently says people support. they would be willing to go out because they would take whatever they could get. some people don't have it. most people would support it. even on the line they had this morning with people calling in from the democrat line to the independent line to the republican line, it was overwhelming disgust with the preexisting condition cause. the hard left you keep talking about, the last election republicans lost, not only did you loose seats but bills independent of contenders. somebody could have voted for republican and still voted for bills. the reason you were defeated. you allowed the hard right to

become your voice. i say with these tea party radicals, keep it up. you are giving us votes. guest: the tea party ralliers are very different from the hard right he is talking about. they wouldn't want to be in that category. there are those that are proud members of the hard right. we look at the bible and have adopted a biblical world view. anything consistent with that, we are going to want to challenge. one thing, redistribution of wealth. because somebody has something somebody else wants, it's wrong to hire somebody to take it from them. the idea we can take from others without their permission, you

are always going to have push back from the hard right. i'm not sure i would put tea partiers in that category. on the point are there black liberals? of course there are. we are talking about a very complex community and people that have never learned what it is to live free. they have not lived in a free society as a free people. black business community is less than 3%. the black middle class works for government or government funded organization. they don't know what it is to make a payroll and make hard decisions about their lives. black communities have gotten education through the government. government schools. we don't know what it is to go outside of that and say this is a better place to be. black communities have always had somebody else pump health insurance for them. they don't know what it is to

look for other options. i am not surprised that blacks are polling as well to say we like government options. they like government options in everything. we should be allowed to have discussion about this. what has happened is that any deseptembering voice in black communities, if you consider yourself a conservative or say blacks should rethink these things you are out cast and get death threats and dialogue shuts down. we have not moved as a community of people into the great middle class or prosperity that this country offers. host: are you saying if they adopted more free market ideas those things would change? guest: absolutely. we know when we have kids in

private schools, they fair better including those that come from very at risk situations. engaging them in private education makes a difference. we also know those who have invested their money long term in the stock market have fared better than those who look only to social security as their retirement. granted in a down turn, you may not fair as well. what we haven't done is done it on our own. those who have invested through companies in 401 ks know that this is a better place for us to be. those who have invested in their own homes. .

caller:, to thank her for her work and your courage. i deny know if there is anybody out there who expresses the views of the end evangelicals better than her, black or white.

bonn i see a disconnected between their conservative values and their political decisions. i think you answer a lot of that in your last answer. i wanted to ask you, they are going to have michael eric dyson on later. i want to hear your thoughts about how he would address these same issues and how your views would contrast with his? thank you again. guest: you're welcome. he will be opposite of my views. i did a column. it was about what the new arena should look like under barack obama for african-americans. every single answer was more government. it seems like we get to the point where government has not done such a good job in our communities already. i told many of my friends and colleagues, we do not have to go to great britain to see

socialized medicine. we can go right into south- central and see it. could we fare better? every time somebody speaks out, maybe we should consider some of the self-help solutions that a ban on the table for a long time. one person is told to retract those ideas. i think you will hear the same thing from michael eric dyson as you have heard from the naacp. do they have the interest of some? yes. but they do not have the interest of 30% that are evangelical and conservative. my group is here to represent that group. this group knows that if they speak out, they will lose their job. one woman lost her job for speaking out. many are fearful. many told me not to let them

know they are -- not to let others know they are associated with me. i know from the humble beginnings i have come from, america can work for me with me changing my attitude, perhaps it can work for others, especially those who are in total despair in our society. i appreciate the opportunity to talk about evangelicals. we have opportunities to express our vote. that is where we do connect to the tea party. people want to talk about the signs of the tea party. they want to imply that they are racist. some of them do not get out much. you should see the signs that the homosexual marches against religious people. the children that are there. the shaun -- signs they show for

march for life -- what our children are exposed to because of the violence of those that are opposed us? let us not say this is raised again. this is healthy for a democracy to be able to express yourself through a sign or protest or vote. host: 1 percent of about the disconnect. -- one caller talked about a disconnect between blacks and evangelicals. guest: we have seen that. i do not know if they are an educated about what the liberal democrats now represent. over time, we have seen the democrat today is not the democrat of yesterday. when you start thinking about the ideology's the start of driving the party plot from --

platform, you say you except what this doctrine is saying. the party is about the philosophy. the philosophy of the democrats is a clear heart left. the philosophy of the republicans is on the right which is to protect the family. regarding the black vote, the inconsistency -- what is consistent is that the christian world that the democrats are going to see to their economic interests. what happens if you years back in ohio, it came back down to if we are going to build our religious interests or economic interests. host: birmingham, alabama on our independent line. go ahead. caller: i have been watching

your show. this is very enlightening. obama is one guy. we are blaming everyone in the white house for all of our problems. that is not working together. this is a cold united states. we are saying and everything we are discussing is that we are separate. we are so separate, how can we ever find peace and togetherness like we should and build this country back up? we can do it by hand than by worrying someone healing our financial woes. it is very cantankerous. the attitude makes me feel closed in myself. i believe you do a great job and

the thing you have defended our admiral. it is going to take more togetherness -- not looking at racism or religion or just the problems. let's talk about more solutions. we need to stop all the finger- pointing and we will be ok. guest: this is an ideological war. it is not about we are all americans. we are in a cultural war. you have a secular world you against a biblical world view. it was clear that in one society was rooted in a judeo-christian ethics. now people have push themselves into every major institution in society that have a different world view. they have no basis outside of

situational ethics to say what is right in what is wrong. people are not accepting this. religious people cannot accept this. when you think about the protection of life, unity from this administration is viewed as conformity. we will not accept that. were there those in the 1850's who protected the rights of the slaves? abraham lincoln had to say during the debates, he said a house deep bided cannot stand. we cannot continue like this. -- house divided cannot stand. we cannot continue like this. we are still fighting and protesting this. those that are interjecting race

right now, i am offended by it. we have had an abortion doctor and a pro-like sun holder last week -- sign colder last week. he holds this sign to let people know about the moral question of abortion in our society, and he was gunned down. for people that keep saying that race is a factor, they are polarizing this. they are pouring gasoline on a discussion that we have to have. we have to have an ideological discussion. host: our next caller. caller: good morning. this is my first time calling. if i appear to be nervous, i apologize. star, you are saying so many things on many levels that are wrong.

racism is not only coming from the left. glenn that made a statement that president obama had a deep- seated hatred for white people. that was a sickening to me. there are signs that there are racists that we see. i am a proud liberal. i am a proud democrat. i am from the south. there is a lot of hatred for obama because of the color of his skin. i am not saying a majority. if you look at the republican party, you can tell who is running that party. i want to make another point. i apologize for being so nervous. the unborn death rate is a concern, but where are you in the death penalty? i do not see authorizing of poor iraqi babies that were killed in

this useless where we have had. my last point is, president obama is the first president who has worked so hard tackling some any issues. he has been fought tooth and nail from day one. i am extremely proud of him. he is the best president we have ever had. guest: he is not the first president who has got an opposition from day one. we saw that with president bush before september 11. this is what we do as americans. getting to the question of racism, you are right. i am sure there are racists in this society on both sides. race is an issue regardless. what we have to say is everybody in the republican party racist? all of the races in the republican party -- that is not correct. it is racist for somebody to

say that black children cannot learn in a private environment or forced into a government school. it is just as racist as a black people will never be able to learn to save or invest their money, so we will force them into a social security system where we know they will die before they recover all the money they put into it. it is racist to say that we are having health care discussions say that people will not be able to look at private insurance options and choose one. we can keep throwing that turn out on the table and act like everybody has to be all pure or not, or we can say let's move beyond the name-calling and talk about the issues of the day. on this issue of the day, with health care and the expansion of government from the stimulus to the auto industry and banking industry, you are right. there is tremendous push back from the right against barack obama policies because we do not agree with them. host: our next call is from new

jersey. caller: good morning. i am furious about education. look at the inner cities. what is the drop out rate and more people -- and they get more money. . . a a a a a a

so there are challenges that are confronting us and we do need to have honest dialogue about what they are. but when race is interjected the honest dialogue shuts down and we have to defend ourselves and who is racist and who is

not. for people to say that all of the republicans are racist and they only put a few of you guys out on the front line they are being unfair to thinking african americans like myself who, beyond and above the republican party, have given deep thought to all of these issues. host: you can find you'ren cure.org. thank you very much. coming up, another viewpoint from georgetown university. before that i want to tell you a little about our "newsmakers" program. it's representative mike turner as our guest. he is of ohio, the top republican on the house armed services subcommittee that overseas missile defense. you can see this little bit an exchange that he had with reporters about the president's cancellation for a plan for missile defense in eastern europe and what that may mean for russia. >> it did drive them crazy the

fact that we would have large interceptors that they said they feared would be at some point could be armed with nuclear war heads right next door where they had very little warning. >> they have 3,000 tactcal nuclear weapons right there? i don't buy that they have -- here's the point i think most important. i don't buy that they have a reasonable basis to be asking for a concession for us in a defensive system, therefore i don't buy that it's a concession that we should make. >> if russia were putting in large interceptors in cuba, we wouldn't have a problem with that? we've been through that. >> cuba's a different issue than europe. >> but we are putting these in their back yard. i think if the shoe is on the other foot, would you feel threatened at all if russia was putting large interceptors someplace in our own back yard? >> it's a nato endorsed system.

it's not a u.s. solely advanced system. nato endorsed it. it is to be part of an integrated nato system. if you're saying we shouldn't do it because it's in russia's backyard, then you're saying we shouldn't be there. >> i'm saying we, if we had bigger fish to fry on strategic arm reductions and on iran, we might want to concede them a point. i think that's what the obama administration is actually doing. >> here's my point. one, i don't believe that even if the goal is laudable for increased relationships with russia and bringing them to the table in a way that's meaningful and shows that we want to bring them to the table, i don't believe the defensive systems are the way to do it. secondly, i don't believe even if the president believes these systems should be on the table, that the risk of moving from 2013 to 2020, the u.s.

capability for icbm protection for iran is worth it. that's a risk i would not have taken. host: representative mike turner on our "newsmakers" program. you can see that full program tomorrow. if you want to see it again tomorrow evening, you can see it at 6:00 in the evening. our next guest joining us from georgetown university, sosheyoling profession. the author of this book, can you hear me now? it is the inspiration and insight of michael eric dicen. our last guest contends that race serves sometimes about a distraction of real issues. guest: i think part of the problem is the metaphor and the direction. if you see race only as a negative, if you see racism as only being interjected into a debate as opposed to being revealed or the inevitability about speaking about race at

the same time. i think part of the problem has been in recent discussions is obama being the victim of racism on the one hand by the vit roll that has been unleashed against him or is it that it's merely idea logical and political difference? how about both? how about the fact is that there are bitter partisan divisions in this nation that are also exacerbate bid the presence of racial animus. and i think that mr. obama certainly is doing what he must do. he's saying i don't think it's about race. it's about the fact that americans are suspicious about the impact of government on their lives. he's absolutely right. but there is also racial hostility. after all, what is a president dressed up in cal hari or pig my uniform have to do with left or right? what does a water melon patch have to do with left or right? what is the kind of dismissile of him as the figure we owe respect as the head of the government have to do with left

or right? so underneath all of this is a very powerful undercurrent that has to be engaged. and i think president jimmy carter had an enormous amount of courage to say as a southern white man who loves america and an undeniable patriot, when i look around and take the temperature of my people but also that i'm disappointed by, i see the racial hostility, the racial resistance and i understand that it must be dealt with and openly acknowledged. of course, he's been nearly hung in eefy as mr. obama has. and i think we have to be quite honest and open so we can get beyond it. but we can't get beyond it if we don't go through it. >> so how do you engage in that dialogue? >> we're doing it now. but we don't want to do it slip shod or hap hazardly. i think what we have to do is get ahead of the curve. mr. obama has been extraordinarily courageous when

it comes to the economy. when it comes to dealing with the issue of health care. put race on the same setting. give race a cabinet position metaphorically speaking. and by which i mean by don't treat it as something that you've got to respond it, it's horrible so i have to deny it, or we're so obsessed with it. let's deal with race as a feature of the american political landscape. mr. obama in responding to some of the vit roll has said, look, there's an ancient problem and it gezz back to the beginning of the republic. is government a good thing and how can it impact our lives? race begin with the republic as well. so when mr. obama cites the genealogy of democracy and looks at this question of skepticism, about the government's role in our lives, race was right there, slavery was right there. the question of what to do with black people is right there. at the very beginning of the foundation of american democracy, the very roots of american democracy are

intertwined with this question of race. so we have to talk about how combit pacts our lives, how it shapes our position. and it's not just mr. obama. if we can dismiss some of the issues against mr. obama, what do the people in corporate america have to do to substantiate the claim that the evidence the existence of racism is something that's part and parcel of american culture? so it's not just about mr. obama in the white house, it's about what we as americans are willing to do and say and believe in response to some of the realities. host: our guest with us until 9:15. the numbers are on the bottom of your screen. as far as the discussions that we've been talking about, talk a little bit then, you talked about corporate america and those who have to deal with this issue.

what do you mean by that? give an example. guest: look, there's people who can't dress the way they want. their hair styles seem to be offensive. they have to worry about whether they can wear locks or braids, whether they will be dismissed. so there's a decor rum that has to be observed. all americans have to yield to a certain degree to that but there are real, if you will, touchy questions about what is appropriate for people who decide that their natural hair is best for them as anybody else gets in the up in the morning and goes to work. or they have to be concerned about glass ceilings that turn quickly to concrete. how do we talk about upward mobility for upper middle managers who have hit a desiced cease to their own upward mow built? does it mean this is a tough economy and the jobs are not as plentyful? ofpk that's it. but there are also racial conversations. there are racial conversations

in terms of the schools that we have in america. if we have a disproportionate concentration of resources in suben schools and in the inner city they get less than half of those resources, they don't have lights that work all the time and theat that works all the time. they have horrible text books, they don't have the best kind of resources to be able to compete. so when you look across the board, even health care is being driven in part that has racial fallout, mrs. obama has talked about the gender inequities in health care. the same thing can be said about race and gender and class. the new specific says about hah,000 people a year are dying as a result of lack of access to health care. a lot of people happened to be people of color. poor people use health care as a stop gap measure, they use the emergency ward as health maintenance. how do we write that wrong?

part of what mr. obama is trying to do is make sure it's not something that's the preserve of the elite or unfortunate. and that has inevitable racial consequence. >> we have people lined up to talk to you. go ahead. caller: yes. first of all, i just want to say thank you for taking my call. i am a black conservative, and i was a tea party in washington, d.c. -- at a tea party in washington, d.c. and being black and being very sensitive to race, i did not see anything at the party that indicated that the people there were racist. what i can tell you is this. as a black conservative, i am proud that barack obama is the president. however, we strongly disagree with him on policy issues. we do not like the socialist

tendencies that he has. he has nothing to do with race. it has everything to do with ideology. but i can tell you this right now. when george bush was president, or even up until now, if you go down to baltimore and you ask black people what they think about george bush, you're going to hear a lot of racism. we need to move past this racism issue. this has nothing to do with racism. this has everything to do with ideology. and we need to be able to examine the president and be able to debate him or do not -- because we disagree with the direction he is taking the country. he deserves to be examined. host: we'll leave it there. guest: he certainly does. i think the critical examination of the presidency

is something that should be part of the course. the recognition that the person i oppose my debate opponent, my political opponent, that person across the aisle is not the devil and is an american citizen equally invested in making sure this country moves in the right direction. the problem is, houfer, to the caller, that even though you can look out and say i didn't hear anybody hurl a nasty remark, some of those posters that had him decked out in what they perceived to be african gear were offensive. the vit roll directed against him, we want our country back, there are cold words being distributed and we can't pretend we don't get the code words. they have inbuilt applausible deniabilty. no, we didn't mean that. so the reality is, you mean we

live in a count wri where for too years we practiced slafery, we engaged in practices that prevented people from liing in certainly spaces. glenn beck are calling him a racist. his ability to be president because he's not really an american citizen? don't tell me as an innocent observer of the american scene that we can't come to the conclusion that yes there are bitter partisan politics at stake here. but there's also enormous rankor generated out of the fact that this is an african american man who dares take the helm of a government to which he was dually elected and is moving forward. there is a kind of rissral and tangible resentment of that and i think we aublet to be honest about that. caller: yes. i really enjoy speaking with you and i feel like you

basically speak from your heart from coming in a black community living a black person's life. you know, contrary to clarence thomas, i feel like you held true to this identity. but i would like to speak about race is this. you know, if we look out through history, no one can deny what happened with slavery. most people in the war that was killed in the united states happened during the civil war when these people did not agree with one another. what has happened is you had a slow process and barack obama has become a symbol of the united states now, because now the average black person can actually tell their kids that you can become anything, the president or whatever. this is not race. race is come again to the forefront because you have a lot of people, most of them in the south, they're feeling challenged. they feel like they're losing something instead of gaining

something by everything becoming equal. at one time slavery was legal. you can change the laws all you want. but until you have people to change, nothing is going to be different. people thought that george bush was leaning towards certain things and certain issues just like they think barack obama was. but the main thing is this -- what about all the people who voted for during the election with george bush? we had a legitimate reason to protest and riot and stuff just like these people in iran did. host: we'll leave it there. guest: there's no question that the history of race is bitter. we have to be honest about it and at the same time that mr. obama certainly does symbolize the hope and potential not only of african american people but of all americans that we can transcend some of these bitter divisions. but how do we negotiate some of

this? do we pretend that we're an ostritch? or do we confront it? i think mr. obama would do himself a great service and the nation by taking to his bully pull pit and engage in the issue without becoming obsessed. and look at the response. mr. obama's comment calling the rapper can yes west a jack as for his obstrep russ intervention upon the reception of an award by taylor swift. and then when he weighs in and he's praised for it by the way nearly universally. on the other hand, when he questions the motive of white came bridge police by saying that they acted stupidly. didn't even call the white police stupid, then he is reviled and nearly has to apologize, has to have a beer summit at the white house with the offending and the offended parties, depending upon how you

perceive it. here's a world class, if you will, famous icon who is globally recognized being criticized by the president though not in public. and he's being praised for it in an anonymous white man whose actions many have concluded were still problematic because you're trying to arrest a man in his own home mr. obama can't weigh in on that. and there are many other examples to suggest that mr. obama can use his bully pull pitt to engage us. he has an extraordinary capacity to bring people together. but you can't unless we talk honestly about what separates us. and he would be better not to keep putting out racial brush fires, by engaging the issue. i think there's a nervousness in the administration suggest that let's leave this stuff alone. it's not going to do right, it's not going to be well and your poll numbers are going to slip. but i'll tell you this issue is not going anywhere. it would be better to get ahead

of the curve and proactively engage. not by dismissing it. the president says it's not about race, many people who are on his side believe that race at least plays some role here. so if we can't get any purchase on the recognition that race continues to make a difference, we're not going to be able to have much progress. host: so more speeches like we saw in the campaign. guest: absolutely. and not to make a moral equivalent. i think one of the problems perhaps in his approach is that he makes an equive lens between black anger and white resentment of perceived black progress. at the expense of white brothers and sisters. i think that's not a moral equive lens. there's no equive lens between jim crow law, the denial of legal opportunity to african americans built into the nature and fabric versus white brothers and sisters who may have legitimate qualms or quibbles with practices meant to right that wrong. there's not a moral equive lens

there. so when mr. obama says are some people against me because i'm black? i'm sure. but there are more who votted for me because i'm black. caller: can you hear me? host: go ahead. caller: ok. first of all, i'm black. i'm not ignorant. i think i've got pretty good sense. and this thing about carter, i would never say that carter was [inaudible] i think carter just expressed an opinion. what i see about jimmy carter was as soon as he made those statements, it seems as if he provided cover for everybody else to come out such as yourself, now you're going to run rampant with this race thing. like in the presidential issue. everybody was on hillary clinton's side until the white people of power voted for obama. that's what irtates me.

i have my own mind. i cannot -- i'm not a democrat any more. i can't stand this victimhood mentality. it upsets me. i've got sense. i don't need some commentator on television telling me to be on the right side of history. i mean, that's ridiculous. guest: good. and whoever said that said you should think they're ridiculous. i will take the caller's point as an independent that obviously he is a critical and self-reflective man and thinks for himself. that's fine. tell me, who is a greater victim here? when i see white brothers and sisters who have for the most part benefited extraordinarily from the good graces of the presumption of innocence in regard to their race, they're not racially profiled, they're not targeted by the government for systemic exclusion from opportunity. and then to suggest that they

have been put upon by the american government or by president obama's policies, i have never seen as great a reveling in victimhood than that. so please spare me the notion that african american people or latino people or gay and less ban or transgender or women or other minorities who simply want to claim their rightful place in the american pageantry of democracy are somehow being victims because they're acknowledging the deficits and if defects of a system that doesn't allow them to perform even as they are the best examples of what happens when opportunity is provided and despite the obstacles and impedments that are present they go on to achieve. that's what we like about mr. obama, about oprah winfrey and colin powell, that's what we like about barry bonds and magic johnson michael jordan kobe bryant. so these are people who are example ms of the incredible ability of america to allow

people the right to overcome those impedments. but we can't pretend those barriers don't exist for millions of other people who will never be in the headlines, who will never be in the main stage, who will continue to be subjected to arbitrary forms and cacreeshes expressions of racial animus and hostility. that's the danger of only focusing on mr. obama. look, what chouse does he have? does he cry in his beer, yeah, the reason they're jumping on me is because i'm a black man. he can't say that. but at the same time he must create space to debate this issue in the broader culture and we have to quibble with his characterization of that racial conversation and encourage him to go forth. during the campaign he talked about the fires urgency of now. i think he's been tending towards gradualism. let's get back to martin luther king junior's fires urgency of now. we've got the hope. let's get the audacity. host: good morning, on the republican line.

caller: yes, sir. good morning, gentlemen. in form of a question, a few of them, i guess. to start with, why is the president of the united states even being talked about as far as his race? he is the president of the united states. respect the position. i mean, why are you even refering to the president as a black man anyway? why is being half black, half white automatically make you a black man anyway? he's the president of the united states. i live in georgia. i was born and raised in south carolina. why is somebody not screaming about the congressman from south carolina and his action towards the president and the disrespect for the position of the office, period? as a republican, i'm appalled. i have lost my respect for the

party. i will be voting democrat. i'm a ronald reagan republican. he was the first president i was able to vote for. it was beautiful times. you know, it was great. but now they've gone so politic that it's outrageous. i mean, personally i was against the idea of some of the blout money and because i didn't -- bail out money because i didn't think it would work. the market's up. it's improved. so apparently he's done something right. you know? at least he's doing something. host: thank you. guest: very good comments. the reason we speak about mr. obama as an african american, you said half white, half black buy racial president, because obviously we've never had one before. when you have the first one you kind of mention that stuff. huh men have been president, only one of them has been an african american. and i'm glad that white

brothers and sisters are quick to claim half of mr. obama. i understand that. i was driving in a car in a recent book signing and a white gentleman told me he's half of us. there are a lot of buy racial people in prison too. i want you to claim them as well. there are a lot of bye racial people not doing well. the reality is in america by  racial has often been reduced in rather truck lant fashion from one thing versus the other. the one drop rule suggested that even if you had one drop of black blood in you you were considered black. especially the black-white divide, even though we know race is bigger, it's been the ragor artery through which the blood of bigotry has flowed. so people are obsessed with that. and how much that blackness counts and costs. tiger woods is racially mixed and yet those who want to hurl insults and eep that's at him

don't see his thai side. so we know it's been a dominant, if you will, characteristic and property when in the bodies of human beings who are america citizens or other thrussout the world. so we have to give creedance to multiple racialism. they don't have to be black or white. they're both. how do we acknowledge that? black people fear they'll be treated disloyally because they're considered black until they come into success. so they're suspicious. on the other hand white people, not most but those who are believe that a little bit of black blood sullries the situation so to speak and the gene pool is somehow compromised. so it makes people on both sides who have narrow viewpoints quite nervous and i think we ought to open up that conversation. but barack obama invites conversation of pride, of recognition, of celebration.

and not only for african american people but for the nation. the nation ought to be proud that it has done this thing. but the election of one black man cannot dismiss all the issues that black people embody. if hillary clinton was elected president of the united states, it wouldn't mean that misonly ni has disappeared. it wouldn't mean it's gone. it wouldn't mean that women make 7 o cents on the dollar of what a man makes. so the symbolic capital of mr. obama's ascent certainly should recognized. on the other hand, we can't pretend that he has dismissed all the problems. so the callor's position about respecting the president, absolutely right. mr. wilson has been appropriately reprimanded. i think his ties to proconfederate viewpoints have to a b acknowledged and i think the underlying racial animus and hostility has to be taken into account. as a factor that is not to be

dismissed. host: cleveland, we go next to our democrat's line. go ahead. caller: good morning. and good morning c-span and thank you dr. dicen. i've got to throw this at you guys. if president obama did nothing to save any of the banks, all the industry, wouldn't they be talking about him what they didn't do? guest: absolutely. it's a great point. the reality is the man is extremely ambitious. president obama has come in starting like a fire cracker and he's got to get the stuff done and he's got to get it done in a way that both pleases the american public as much as possible but also in his own mind satisfies the requirement that he exercise prudence and jude dishes intelligence about what to do. so he bails them out and he says himself that a lot of people are suspicious about the

role of government in trying to do this stuff. so when the banks are faltering and it topples the economy, we're in economic hell. what do you do to revive it? you've got to help them out. what about the automobile industry? this is an american symbol of our success and determination to provide opportunity. when henry ford offered the dream of a $5 wage a day to work, that really catalyzed upward mobility of millions of americans. they were drawn to detroit, michigan with that dream. african american people in particular who had been denied opportunities in the south with this economy, that really was rooted in old-style slavery and of course in terms of share cropping, found new opportunity. the steel industry provided the same thing. so that the automobile industry's decline is really a referendum on the ability of american capital to remake itself. and mr. obama has to seize the reins in order to do so.

so the caller is right if he does nothing, he's jump on. if he does a bunch of stuff, he's jumped on. so to come down the middle and figure out how do we get the best. but at the same time, use the bully pull pit of the presidency to leverage his popularity and his authority, because he's more popular than his policies to make certain that he has enough breathing room to try to get some of the stuff implemented. . .

that is different than racism. there are different characteristics that constitute us as human beings. our viewpoint, our ethnicity, those are beautiful. we do not want to bleach ourselves and the notion of what is. but we do want to erase racism which is the television -- elevation of one group whether consciously or unconsciously. what we are saying is, let us have all the points -- viewpoints and ethnicities

recognized. a lot of people think that because we have a decline in by is, we have gotten rid of racism. but racism is on autopilot. we have to understand that. host: independent line from tennessee. caller: of what is a good morning to c-span and to you. you're one of my favorite authors. guest: thank you. caller: as far as kanye west, and others, i think obama was jump on the issue regarding henry louis gates jr.. i think he was praised for the kanye west comments.

we constantly debate and fight instead of supporting our president. i am not a democrat or republican. i am more of an independent. i think a lot of times it america keeps fighting each other, we are never going to progress. we will never move afford but stay the same because of these issues. i would like us to take a step back, live at the issues, and praised the man for whom he is. he is a great president. i do not agree with some of his political agenda, but i think his moral fiber is there. i think we need to support the president a little more. i supported george bush. you have to respect the president. i think mr. wilson showed

disrespect by column the president a liar. i think you disrespect the office of the president, you should be penalized for that. guest: there is no question that he is an extraordinary human being. he is a man of enormous intelligence, poise, a tremendous sense of humor. he listens to all sides before rendering a decision. he is capable of absorber in massive amounts of information and integrating them. his prudence has grown by leaps and bounds. the exponential increase of his presidential demeanor comes with the office. the office should be respected. that is not to deny the legitimacy of critique of mr. obama. people can engage in serious discussions that oppose him.

to undermine his integrity and insult his character by virtue of our disagreement is not acceptable. i think the caller is absolutely right. mr. wilson was extremely disrespectful. that this respect is rooted in our perspective of what is right and wrong, what is acceptable and not to acceptable. mr. obama occupies a high spot, the most powerful man in the world, that has generated some resistance racially an ideologically. host: the fact that mr. wilson apologized to the president, do you think that was enough? guest: in the african-american community, where you did it is where you get it. if you misbehave in public, that is where you get discipline. if you didn't mention public, do

not go out in private to apologize. -- if you did it in a public, do not go in private to apologize. you should come to the public forum where you dissed the president to extend that apologize. here is the function of white privilege operating. anybody can acknowledge that they insult the president. but there is a way to prevent people from a knowledge in what is commonsensical to others to abide by principals in adequate when they are interacting with a black people that they have somehow been interrupted. that ability is barragan -- to be humane and civil in a spot where you are apologizing to the person you offended.

there is an inability to acknowledge their legitimacy. host: republican line from arkansas. caller: my question is, maybe the region -- me being a southerner from arkansas, if i dissent about the people obama surrounds himself with, the people that are so far left, i do not know anybody democrat that even remotely things the way that some of these people do. they are off the chart. that is my descent. it scares me to be honest. it isn't not about obama's skin

color. it's the people he is surrounded himself with. it has nothing to do with racism. it is just scary. i have one question. during the last election, i was not happy with any of the candidates on the republican side. [unintelligible] i think one lady did not choose to pursue a career as presidency because of how she was treated as secretary of defense. guest: there is no question that a lot of people are scared and outraged. i cannot call it the left. we can call it more progressive for some soft liberal, because the will left are at home saying, if they think that is left, wait until they get a when

the bus. you have to have some humor when you make -- wait until they get a win td of us. you have to have some humor when you make a call like left or right. the caller said that mr. obama strauss himself with some people -- surrounds himself with people that are questionable. one man is a remarkable young man. we should be very careful in this country that curtails the talent that comes into the ministration on the right or the left because of their political position prior to taking it because they had a life prior to that time and they express themselves. i think some of the scariness --

i must disagree a bit with my friend from arkansas. some people who are progressives pickle those that are right wing, sinn -- versus those that are right wing some are concerned that the first black president is bringing a whole host of people with him -- race at another layer. there is a lot of skepticism because of different things he is doing. impends begin to create their own perceptions about what the race is about. they begin to formulate very disturbing conclusions about other people.

that is why we have to constantly intervene. if babies can do it at an early age, there is no question that those of us that our older to have inherited some of our prejudices and biases across the board, we have to be honest about that and try to resist that. host: democrats line from baltimore, maryland. caller: i truly do believe that the things we are seeing magnified in the media, especially from the right is a small minority. because the media focuses so much on them, it brings in the question of is it everywhere? i commend the republican caller who called in and talk about joe wilson. that was absolutely unconscionable. they know what they are doing. the people that claim that they are scared, where were they when

bush was in office? between the wars, i was never convinced that we could have gone to iraq. it had nothing to do with al qaeda or 9/11. this president comes in office with the country being in the worst condition, any president would be dealing with a whole lot right now. for them such as hannity and rush limbaugh and the republican congressman come in and demean him, it shows me that they are trying to all press him. guest: there may be a seed of contradiction in the question. i think she is right. sometimes, mr. obama seems to agree with her, that a small

minority of people are given a bullhorn to amplify their bigotry, they're biased, and their view. far beyond what is needed. >obama wants to make certain that the prevailing view points are met with some others that are more deeply rooted in reality. when she talks about rush limbaugh and glen bike, maybe it is more systemic then we realized or maybe it is more deeply rooted than realized. some of this exists, but the masses of americans want to do the right thing. they want to see the president do well. the systemic problems that have nothing to do with individual dissent from his policies, but rather structural policies of

the economy. it has to do with health care that is being denied disproportionately to people of color or in prisons. when we began to look at -- beyond our individual views, and we look at the systematic issues, that is what i deal with in my book. we have to engage them. in my opening chapter, i talk about mr. obama and the promise that he represents, his enormous courage, his brilliance, and some of the challenges that prevailed. host: you can read his book. thank you very much. guest: thank you for having me.

host: we want to take a look at the opinions of an editorial cartoonist.

15 minutes of open phones. "the new york times" this morning talked about a bank's restricting pay. they are addressing issues of f. the effort is also meant to be a credible alternative to the call by some european leaders for specific limits on bonuses to financial executives, an idea opposed by the obama administration.

officials from europe and the treasury are negotiating over compensation and other financial industry regulations in advance of a summit meeting next week in pittsburgh of leaders from the g-20. that is some "the new york times" this morning. there is a story in the interior pages of the new york times looking at non-profit spending. this is by a federal appeals court in the district of columbia . pining bluff, ark., you're up

first on our independent line. caller: i want to commend the president for continuing to operate like he did during the campaign and not in gross and himself with the race issue on a day-to-day basis. he is sticking with policy issues. living in the south, it is very evident that race is a major factor in his opposition. you cannot ignore it. you must continue to recognize that race is a factor and continue to try to encourage people to be civil. you cannot have a person sitting in the congress heckling the president. we have to learn to be civil. we still have time to make progress. host: our next call is columbus, ohio on our republican line. caller: i tried to call in

during michael dyson talking. since the president is biracial and i have kids that are biracial, i know what is going on. i live in a community where there are blacks, whites, asians, hispanics. we all talk about what the president is doing and not doing. you see all of these people who say they are scared to come out. where were all these people when george bush was the president? he lied and did all that. you never saw that. it amazes me when i look through the channels. fox is always saying, let's jump on this. it is amazing that people want to come out and talk about the president. i think we have a good president. we have to give the man a chance to get some policy going. that is all i have to say. host: the kansas city, missouri,

democrats line. caller: i commend president carter for speaking out about the americans that are using this platform or any platform as a racial thing against obama because of his race. i think it is ok to demonstrate issues -- against issues and oppose things that perhaps the president is advocating. we should do it in a manner that was really britain in our constitution. we should do it by the ideals and principles that our founding fathers illustrated and demonstrated. the third thing i think is that we need to realize that we have allies and foes.

during 9/11, do you think the terrorists or read about if they are gay or straight, black or white, jew or gentile? we must get a united front and we must not allow our enemies to use racism against us. there is a weakness that we have. we do not want our enemies to use that weakness against this great country. thank you. host: this is about the leader of the international monetary fund. we need to define what the long-

term growth model will be. gary, indiana, good morning, go ahead on our independent line. caller: good morning. on a positive note, i would like to say how hard and i am by having someone as logical and forthcoming as star earlier on your show followed by michael eric dyson. negatively, but i would like to address is this only idea of capitalism or what passes for capitalism in this country now

and the only markets that we created where we take people out for health care because of pre- existing con -- conditions to make the market more attractive. the only competition that exists -- phony competition that exists. some hide on their shows that they do not have qualified people to argue against them because they cannot justify some of the ridiculous positions they take. i have the same concern about c- span, one of the few open and free dialogue places that you can have. it is upsetting because even this you hear republicans and conservatives at times. markets are saturated with

conservative corporation. there is so little ability for relief free-speech and dialogue to go on. that is what is frightening to me. host: new york on our republican line. caller: i feel that dr. tyson conveyed -- dr. dyson conveyed a certain things -- look at what he says. he called everyone bipolar as saying that anyone who disagrees with him as a disease. i think everybody should resist this type of man and fight

against the fascist president and his far left agenda. thanks a lot. host: democrats line. caller: good morning. i like to mention a couple of things. when a person is hired to do a job as president of the united states, we should let them do the job. the other comment i have is concerning health care for the illegals. i would like everybody to think about having a health care system that does not include a certain segment of people who are here whether illegal or legal. what happens with their health care, it affects everyone. i think it is a demand for people to feel like you can have a segment of people in this country and not provide health care for them, because they will

receive health care because of the oath of the doctors take. these people will receive health care. people need to be more realistic about what we are dealing with. they are here, they go to school with our children, we work with them. host: the "new york post" this morning is looking into the marriage of bank of america and merrill lynch. the bank's management misled

shareholders according to one source. orlando florida on a republican line. caller: the morning. as a black man, i am sick and tired of us black folks getting caught up in this democrat and republican what ever. part of what the republicans' problem is is that they do not have enough minorities or blacks out there to talk about this issue. there are a ton of us out there, but we are never the ones that are called on the shows to discuss race relations. it is difficult when the party -- not that whites cannot talk about it, but the perception is that it is creating a reality for a lot of people. if you find blacks able to have this discussion and race relations can be discussed, i

respect michael eric dyson. i would love to be able to talk about these things. he is no blacker than me, and i am no blacker than he is. we can have these discussions. host: we have to leave it there. one more call on our independent line. caller: good morning. i think more and more of us need to come to the forefront and face the fact that race is a big issue. a lot of people say race is not this and it is not that. i actually went to the tea party in in washington. i ask questions. a lot of people told me it was a bad move. i asked questions about what they did not agree with on obama and nobody could tell me.

they danced around all the issues. they cannot tell me what they did not like about health care, the money being issued out to certain companies to help them help others in a recession. they cannot tell me the things they did not like. that goes on both sides. most black people who are not conservatives or republicans, they are in the position they are in because of their color. they are only as high as they are because of their color, because they do not want to be received as a racist. host: we have to leave it there. we are out of time. i want to thank you for all of your calls. we are changing topics now. we are going to talk about early child education. we will talk with our guests in just a moment. i want to let you know about our q&a program. our guest is the author of a

book. it discusses the ultimate process. >> i would pick up where i left off the last time. i would take him through the forest. he was a very -- burniernie a vy thoughtful man. he wanted to make sure that you were the person to tell his story. at first he was a bit standoffish. then he became very cooperative. >> how old was he when you first

met with him? >> he was in his 80's. he was in excellent health. he had all of his mental faculties. i told him, i have to have your entire record from the very beginning from 1932 including all of his reports, good or bad. he did not have that. i said you have to submit it and asked for it. we need it. he said he would get it for me. he did. he told all of the people to talk to me and tell me the truth. they led to others. i was wasting the grim reaper because these are older men. -- racing the grim reaper because they were all older men.

i. 120 -- i didn' 120 interviews. i believe riding in narrative form for history. i believe in catching that segment of history which is in the minds of memory. if you do not catch it, it is gone forever. >> that as our q&a program. you can see that this coming sunday evening at 8:00. on your screen right now, joining us from chicago is the executive director of the first five-year fund. early education before can again -- kindergarten, what was done? >> this act was passed out of

the full house. a lot of attention was paid to the funding mechanism regarding student loans. the early education community is thrilled about it. some of the savings would go towards building high-quality early education facilities. host: tell us some more details. guest: it would be $8 billion over eight years or depending on how things come out in the senate, $10 billion in 10 years that would go towards improving the quality of early education on the state level by improving teacher quality, cordoning services better, by helping parents-and often better, higher standards, higher accountability measures.

it is a bit of a patchwork system. this would give it more coherent. host: it the money is given to states, doesn't come with conditions and requirements -- does it come with conditions and requirements? guest: yes. it would be similar to the race to the top fund in the stimulus. the states would compete for this. there would be two different kinds of grants in the bill. one would help them further develop their system and improve quality in the state. the other would be for states that are not very far along and would be helping to develop their earning -- early warning systems. host: can you explain more about what it does for children before

they start kindergarten? guest: we spend a lot of time and money and effort saying that the education starts at 18 months of age. a low-and come child is already a year and a half behind the average children. they have heard a 30 million fewer words than children of professional parents. the best way to deal with the achievement gap is not to have one, to eliminate it before kids start in kindergarten. this is an effort toward that. you'd be amazed at how many children show up in kindergarten having never read a book, not knowing what they are for, never having a pen or marker. a lot of kids start off significantly behind which causes teachers to have to spend a lot of class time doing make up work with them when they could be moving all their students forward.

host: our guests will the talk about early childhood education. we will talk more about the program she is with. if you want to ask her questions, call the number on your screen. you can also e-mail us or go to our web site for more information at c-span.org. guest: we want to see 1 million more active kids get high- quality early childhood services in the next five years. we are a nonprofit organization. this was created by a private- sector group of moderate and a worse -- of bonds revenueentrep.

they look for the best philanthropic causes with the greatest returns. they realized that early childhood education that is high quality provided the best returns for their philanthropic dollars. there is an emerging body of research out there that shows this could give you the biggest bang for your buck. if you invest in them early on, you do not have to spend a lot of money on remedial education or special education. host: in economic terms, the money that the federal government wants to set aside, is that used or where does the money come from? guest: as we build up our

system, we will need a more significant investment. in the k-12 system, and you have school buildings and structures that most people understand. you have a school board and superintendent. people jenner -- generally understand how things work. we have separate child care centers with early childhood education. it has a mixed delivery system. there is not a lot of coherence. it is important to build a system that is coherent and make sure that kids are ready. there is measurable progress by the time kids reach kindergarten that is important. we feel like $8 billion over eight years or whatever it turns out to be is an aids -- significant down payment. host: the say that because the fed has not acted on it?

guest: that is right. they may go up to 10 billion. host: our guest is the executive director of this program. our next caller is from tampa, florida. caller: good morning. i have a lot of respect for your show. this is the only news show that does not have an agenda they are trying to put out. i wanted to make a point. i have been a preschool teacher for 13 years. with the new qualifications during towards the fcat goals in schools, there have been a lot of changes as far as the classifications of titian's and what is being required of them regarding education -- of teachers and what is being required of them regarding education.

the government is making some of these changes in classification. it is costing a lot more than what the teachers are being paid. i need to stop working as a preschool teacher to be able to stop -- to usupport my family. as a teacher, you are being forced out of what you are good at doing and the changes are not just to find what you are doing. guest: this is important. part of what these grants could go towards is raising future compensation. it is an essential piece of raising quality because you want to increase teachers in the

room. we are talking from first to age 5, not just preschool. you need to start at birth. the need for highly qualified teachers and teachers with degrees is preferable. we are slowly moving toward requiring bachelor degrees in early childhood. they need to be compensated for that. we need to treat them like the professionals that they are. those are the ones that high risk children need. host: republican line. caller: before we start, i have seen numerous emails about this

and received no response. in the past, this is aside from the topic of today, since president bush is no longer in office, i did not see support down below for obama. can you answer why you stopped doing that? host: our lines reflect political philosophies. that is all i will say because i do not want to stray away from the topic at hand. caller: this again lady keeps talking about we need this money. i would like for her to address if there has been any valuation

of the costly effort we made in busing students from the inner city. there was one effort made in st. louis. it shows no difference. millions of dollars were spent bossing them from the city. i thought head start was supposed to be solving the problem that this young lady is talking about. we have spent millions of federal dollars on headstart and money has been wasted. host: what about headstart? guest: i want to address issues about early childhood. we are not talking about

spending new money. this is money that is already being spent. it is just redirected. we are not talking about new dollars here. for early headstart, fewer than 3% of kids that are eligible actually receive it. it may sound like a lot of money, but we are not reaching as many kids as we could be having an impact on through those programs. in the most recent reauthorization of headstart, they significantly increase the teacher-quality standards so that half of them have to have bachelor degrees. that will go a long way in improving the quality.

the model is good at focusing the entire child. headstart and early headstart are just a couple of vehicles. there are child care settings where children are. we have to address where they are. not just in headstart for early headstart host:. nabisco -- host: another caller. caller: to you have the exact number? can you speak about the requirements of your organization with it being increased to $10 million? guest: i believe is hr 3221 that is the bill in the house.

they are competitive grants. this will be a competitive grant process. estates will compete for the grants and will decide how they dispersed that money in a way that complies with the federal standards that will be imposed. host: our guest was a member of the editorial board from the ""chicago tribune". how did you end up in your position? guest: i was in journalism for 23 years. i was on the editorial board for almost eight years on the "chicago tribune". i was almost an advocate writing about things i cared deeply about. i thought it was time for me to try to do something.

my mother was in early childhood development. it is very near and dear to my heart. host: greensboro, north carolina. go ahead, please. caller: hello. i have several questions. i agree with everything that this program can bring to the table, but i have several questions with regards to the competitive grants. i know you mentioned it was on the state level, but i need a little more clarity in that regard. is it going to be for these

individual early childhood institutions and the director of those institutions to compete for these grants? my concern is the level of the grant writing experience, will they be able to effect a plea compete for this? there is a gap. guest: this is going to be, and they have not worked out the exact details yet, but i believe it will jointly be administered at the federal level by the department of of education and health and human services. these types of agencies will be applying for this. i think one vehicle that they will likely be going through our

early learning advisory councils. that is one vehicle that set the agenda for the state in the early learning. at state level, those decisions will be made on how money will be distributed. host: how does the obama administration way in in this effort. guest: they came with a new way of looking at education. they came into office where they seek a continuum from birth on. if you want to effect college attendance were high-school dropout, you need to start from first to age 5 and address early educational issues there.

they brought that new from work in. this is something that obama talked about in his campaign. host: call on our republican line. go ahead, please. caller: thank you for taking my call. i was interested in this topic because i feel that if we do not learn from history, we are doomed to failure again. you mentioned the head start program and that it was not reaching the children that it was intended. i am a baby boomer. those transitions that were mentioned later in the earlier segment are regarding the loss of the 70's. -- laws of the 70's. are there not certain things that we can utilize for what we

are attempting now? you mentioned accountability earlier. personal accountability must come from the parent in early education. how do we reached the parent? guest: that is a good question. parent involvement and parent skills training is in this legislation. that would be a very important component. i think states would have an advantage when they include something meaningful regarding parent involvement. in a good quality program focuses on how to involve parents. in oklahoma, you have some shining examples of very high- quality early childhood education. i was in oklahoma city a few days ago and the secretary of

education was opening a new high quality early childhood facility for at risk kids. by the time they emerge from that program, they are performing just like middle- class kids. the parents are involved and become very well-informed advocates for their children's education. host: this effort was part of a student aid lending package. does it affect the ability for students to get money for college? guest: this changes the student loan program so that instead of having private banks handle a lot of these long, the government would be handling those. right now i think it is about 30 banks around the country that are handling this but with government guarantees and government subsidies. the government is basically

already funding these loans by their guarantees. by shifting it back to government control, that would save an estimated 87 built -- $87 billion. host: how long before money starts going out to state once it is signed into law? guest: hopefully by next year sometime. host: independent line. caller: i agree that increased opportunities are needed for early childhood education. in florida, we have a system that allows parents to have pre- k opportunities at no cost. the one thing i like about is that all different groups are involved. there is not one government-run choice. any program can qualify for that money. you mentioned that this would be

a state-run program that would allow for different opportunities. is that the case? guest: that is absolutely correct. it would support all kinds of different -- it is a parent- choice system, it is would go towards existing programs. it is now -- not all government programs. some are private-public partnerships. host: do you have another question? caller: i would support a program like that because not every program is good for every child or parent. to have an opportunity of choice -- and have the education of the parents if that is available and get them involved. guest: the whole aim of this is

to not not reinvent the wheel. host: democrat line. caller: i would like to ask you why aren't you looking into young adolescents so they can use the internet and tv rather than go to school at all? guest: we would like to take on all the ills of the world, but we are focusing on the early childhood which is complicated enough. we think this is the area and all of the research says this that show if you get a child by

kindergarten ready to start school, they are prepared both cognitively and a socially and emotionally -- they are able to work in groups, pay attention, have motivation, develop a work ethic, these are all of the things you learned in early years. if they have all of these skills, and so many children do not have these skills. all of the other problems follow such as health, mental, be happier -- behavioral, academic problems -- they are easier to address and are much costly. host: if the money goes through, is this new oversight from the education department about how the money is spent and who was going to be responsible for that? guest: i think it will be jointly administered by the department of education and the department of health and human services. there are people in both of

those agencies that are meeting constantly. they are meeting constantly and are in sync. this is new that you will have both of these agencies. this is a health reform and an education reform. something that is essential long-term to improving our economy. host: you can find out more about their work at their website. thank you for your time this morning. here is what is on the show tomorrow. we have one person from harpers magazine and steven more of the wall street journal.

the obama presidency so far is the topic and limit -- and news of the week. the criminal justice will talk about the latest fbi reports on crime in the united states. at 9:15, the author of what americans really want really. it is dealing with public opinion in the united states and explores the five things that people want most in their lives, jobs, their red, and the family. that starts tomorrow at 7:00 a.m.. also the newsmakers program available to watch. thank you for your time. we will see you tomorrow. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]