article where he says progresses are trying to reshape the national defect over biomedical technologies. "washington journal" is next. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> most lawmakers are back in their districts this morning as the week long presidents' day recess begins but it this morning. welcome to "washington journal." today is saturday. for the first 45 minutes of the program, we will be talking about filibusters' as the congressmen in their break. we want to discuss the use of filibusters. you can find it on

huffingtonpost.com want to get your thoughts on what the senator has to say. the number is 202ñi -- democrat, 202.737.0002 republican, 202.737.0001 independent, 202.628.0205 outside u.s., 202.628.0184 you can also reach out to electronically via e-mail. journal@cspan.org. or you can send as a twitter message, twitter.com/cspanwj. this is what senator harkin had to say "when many people think of the filibuster, it brings to mind the classic film mr. smith goes to washington, but senator

smith was a little guy using a filibuster to stop the special interest. today that has been turned upside down. it would benefit the little guy." he goes on to write, " republicans have filibuster legislation to provide low- income energy assistance to ensure our children are not exposed to unsafe toys and efforts to ensure that women are guaranteed equal pay for equal work." "the problem is not that republicans are using the filibuster to kill good bills, the larger problem is that republicans' discriminate use has made it impossible to conduct everyday business in the senate. on a daily basis, the republican minority stops bills from even coming to the floor for debate."

we want to see what you think about it seemed a filibuster. we will be more in just a few seconds. pursuant to go to the phones. knoxville, tenn. on airline. go ahead. caller: hello. good morning. how are you? host: i am fine. what you think about the use of the filibuster in the senate? caller: i think he is absolutely right on target. the filibuster destroys the government. it takes a minority to stop all legislation that is going on, i always thought the majority rules. in the senate, that of the 51 votes. i think senator harkin is on the right track. host: i want you to listen to a little bit more about what he has to write. he says, "currently it takes 60 votes to invoke closure, and to in debate and bring it to a vote. my legislation would prevent a decreasing number of centers to

invoke cloture on a given measure. on the first cloture at 10, 50 votes to be required. over days or weeks, the number of votes required would fall to a simple majority of 51 senators." what you think? caller: i think it is great. something needs to be done. we are not getting anywhere now. host: how many votes do you think -- would you like to see them go through before this are reducing the number of votes that necessary to invoke cloture? caller: i would like to see it start right now at 51. if we have to use descending or decreasing votes to get there, three at the host: most our next caller comes from sparta, alumni caller: i have been paying attention. my dad was a good person.

i paid attention to politics. i thought filibusters -- republicans wanted to put the filibusters out there. host: we are going to move on to dodge on the line for independent. how are things going in connecticut? caller: not bad. i just wanted to say that i do not remember the last time i actually saw a center get up there and filibuster. is in dallas and actually get up and talks? host: used to be the way it is. now it is basically a both that keeps them from invoking cloture. josh?

more from senator harkin. he says, "a want to emphasize that i am offering this bill with clean hands. i introduce the same bill in 1995 when democrats were in the minority in the senate. this is not about one party or another gaining an advantage. it is about the senate operating more fairly, effectively, and a democratically." it takes 67 votes to change the role. by introducing this bill, i want to shine a spotlight on the abuse of the filibuster and how that abuse is paralyzing our democracy and making a mockery of the concept of the majority rule. west virginia on airline for republicans. go ahead. caller: how're you doing. i resent the accusations against republicans being special interests. first of all, republicans only

represent, what you call, entrepreneurship without entrepreneurship and small business, you not have jobs. without jobs you are not have health care and everything else that goes with it. host: enter harkin right that he introduced the exact same bill in 1995 when the democrats were in the minority. caller: i want the filibuster and plays. if you did not have a filibuster, if so many people said no to the problem, there should be a stop to it. they should stop it. no matter who want to stop it, no matter what. it is a bad idea. you have enough votes saying stop this. we will start over.

what is wrong with this? we could get a good start. it is a good idea. it is not a special interest thing. i resented that. host: john on airline for democrats out of iowa. caller: i completely agree with my signature. it can incrementally bring down the way -- the filibuster is good at first. after a week, bring it down incrementally. sooner or later, the majority does role. -- rule. he was a minority with joe lieberman. a few years ago, the democrats were in the minority. host: what do you think about the thought from our previous caller who says that this is the

way of keeping bad ideas from going forward? caller: that is why i am saying incrementally do that. sometimes there are bad ideas. if you bring it up, if you have a filibuster, after a few days after discussion has been made, dropping down another level. -- drop it down another level. it is a bad idea to let this president, so, we will filibuster that. host: see the very much for your call. our next call comes from pennsylvania. mat on the line for independent. what do you think about senator harkin's idea on fixing the filibuster? caller: a completely disagree. the filibuster is with the few things that we have that tells protect us from our government

becoming more oppresseive and taking away more the freedoms and liberties of the united states people. one of the comments i would like to make it as long as they are bickering and fighting over things, we remain protected. host: what about senator harkin's idea that having this filibuster in place keys were from getting done in the senate? caller: that is my point. as long as they bicker, we remain safe. i am with the few people you will find that who believe in government is now working where much safer. we had snow, it was safer because they were not working. they are not getting anything done. when they need to do is start repealing laws and not anymore. host: eventually, that snow is going to go away.

here is a piece in the "walls journal." the president may still installed a controversial nominee to the national labor relations board using a resource apartment that would bypass senate opposition a former union lawyer is one of dozens of nominees who have been stalled by senate republicans. unlike others, it came to a vote before the full senate this week. he got 52 votes on tuesday, less than the 60 needed to overcome a gop led filibuster. we will continue this discussion as to the and other stories. florida, rachel, a democrat. caller: good morning. thank you for allowing me to come on. i recall when we talk about this filibuster, which the republicans have been using for every single bill that the

democrats are trying to get through. that is not what the filibuster has been for historic plea. there has never been anything like this before except during president clinton's term in office, the republicans closed down the government three times within a couple of months. it was near the ended the year. host: if you talk to republicans, they will sit with the democrats that slowed down the government. caller: is not true. the republicans literally cut down the government three times within a space of a couple of months. this is another way to close it down. it is another way of saying "no" to everything. they do not want anything done except when -- when bush was in, they went along with everything

he wanted. he went along with everything they wanted. there was one veto in eight years. i do not recall what that was. it is disgusting. they will not allow the other side to govern. they like a dictatorship. it is the same thing all the time. prevent the other side from ruling at all. they are not the united states citizens. they are not behaving like them. host: the fact that senator harkin tried to introduce the same bill in 1995 when the democrats are in the minority, that does not signal that this kind of filibuster in goes on of aside? caller: it may give a signal. i do not know what the exact thing was. i do know that what is happening now with 150 filibusters' in such a short time, that i know

is historical. whatever was going on then it was a puny by comparison. host: roberta on airline for independent. caller: that is robert. host: sorry about that. caller: i am glad you got me on. it amazes me to the ignorant of the callers. this is a republic not a democracy. we are represented republicans. the filibuster was designed to slow down. things are made to move pretty fast. in the senate, if you have more of a body [unintelligible] that is why the filibuster is there. thank god. thank you. host: thank you. next up is frank on airline for

republicans out of kansas. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. thank you very much for having c-span. i think that senator harkin is totally wrong. the senate should work very slowly. deliberately and consider these things. one problem i think that they have in the senate right now and some in the house, and it would be democrats cannot get it together. the democratic party is basically a party composed of many different interests. there is no underlying philosophy. you have the labor unions.

you have various minorities. you have women's groups. the democratic party is basically made up of these various interest groups, and they are not always on the same page. host: what do you think about the president possibly making a recess appointment, because he feels he cannot get the nominees through the senate because of the filibuster? caller: he could do it. it is allowed. let him do it. host: you do not see that as sidestepping the process? caller: i think it is legal. i think it is within his power. he is the president of the united states. yes. i would not have any problem with that.

the republicans have to take that into consideration when they go out. host: bertha on airline for the democrats. you are on the "washington journal." caller: i wonder why in the world that it is taking so long. i think they have held the bills that they should not have held up. whatever they tried to pass, if they have really stopped the government from doing their job. you think you can go on your job and say, i'm just one to say no to everything and continue to collect your pay? it doesn't make no sense. these people have not done anything for over a year. they get their salaries and they will probably get back in because of all of the polish people and the t backers that will put the my beckham. -- all of the foolish people and the tea baggers.

i am a nurse. do think i can go on my job and say i will not take care these patients that pay me. host: where one to leave it there. obama is making plans to use a ticketed power on action on several fronts. mr. obama has not given up hope of progress on capitol hill. he has scheduled a session with republican leaders on health care later this month, but in the aftermath of the special election in massachusetts that cost democrats unilateral control of the senate, the white house is getting ready to act on its own in the face of partisan gridlock heading into the midterm campaign. we will get back to that in a few seconds. michigan on our line for independent. what you think about the idea of

fixing the filibuster? caller: i just wanted to make a comment on initially his statement and had republicans have been holding up so much legislation in the senate. up until two weeks ago when the new senator from massachusetts was sworn in, the republicans did not have enough votes to filibuster any legislation. if you take a look at the stimulus package, and then if the republicans voted for it but it is still past. there were not enough republicans to filibuster things. to comment on the previous person who called that set for the last year there not done anything done because they had just voted no on everything, that statement is not true. they all voted no on bills but it did not matter. they cannot filibuster anything. i do not see where the good luck

on the republican side is. i guess i do not see that. host: thank you for the call. i want to let you know about our guest in this week's edition of "newsmaker." it is senator bob corker. he was talking about the feedback is been getting from republican colleagues since thursday when he agreed to try to work with christopher dodd on a bill to regulate financial services. guest: it is unpleasant. i have not tried to talk to a large number of people. i talked to a few. i have really good friends on the committee that i spend time with not just professionally but socially. it is not pleasant. senator dodd came forth in november when negotiations broke

down. senator dodd came to the committee markup with a partisan bill. i urged him publicly not to do that. let's create a bipartisan bill. he acquiesced. he stayed up on a saturday night. we set up a team where democrats and republicans teamed up, working on the sections of the bill. it is broken down. judd gregg and jack reed are moving along well. we are almost there. the doodd and shelby teams broke down thursday night. that is where both sides are. i feel like there is no reason the we cannot go forward. is a question of whether you

want to try to get to no or fly against a yes. that is what i have been standing. if we cannot pass a bipartisan regulation bill, i do not know what we can pass around here. host: you can see the entire interview with senator corker on "newsmaker" tomorrow morning. it is also available right now online, c-span.org. back to the phones. dallas texas, republican. welcome to the show. sorry. hold on. are you there? go ahead caller: republicans cannot stop anything. they did not have the votes. they were inside the democrats. i do not know where these democrats are coming from when they say republicans stopped

legislation. if they could not. they did not have the vote until scott brown can along. then all of a sudden obama went to meet with republicans and have open meetings with republicans. it is because of scott brown. this is a pony show for obama to work with the republicans. i do not think he will take one of their ideas on anything. it makes him look good. you need to correct your callers when they say that republicans are stopping legislation. they could not stop anything, not one single thing. i think tom harkin is doing is a baking it through their liberal agenda. thank you. host: would you be as enthusiastic about the filibuster situation if it were reversed caller: i would.

i think it is good. i think we need to stop some of this legislation. i wanted them to get together. i want them to work together but not with obama's host: policieos using plants use executive power on several fronts. mr. obama has already decided to create a bipartisan budget commission under his own authority after congress refused to do so. his administration has signaled that it planned to use its discretion to soften the enforcement of the ban on openly gay men and lesbians serving in the military. the epa is moving forward with possible regulations of heat trapping gases blamed for climate changes while a bill is

in the senate. we are talking about senator harkin's proposal to fix the filibuster. san diego, democrat line. welcome. caller: good morning. i am opposed to senator harkin's proposal to fix the filibuster. i do nothing the republicans will ever vote for it. it requires 67 votes. i think it is going to work against the republican party in the long run. meaning the election coming up. congress has an all-time low and approval rating right now. they see this is an abstraction -- obstructionist program going on. 112 filibusters in 2009. in 2008 there was 50 a. in the '60s, there was an average of seven in a year. i think the american people will

respond in november. the latest polls show democrats are three points ahead. normally, 90% of the time, the one who wins the midterm will learn to predict when the president-elect and with the midterms. host: new mexico, go ahead. caller: i find it disingenuous to blame the government with the inability to get anything accomplished. little was accomplished. nothing was really accomplish the entire time. now become someone else's fault all together. regardless of what polls say, once you lose this, you are going to be moving further

right. i am thinking this is the only misuse of corporate control within congress or the senate. it seems to me like everything is completely controlled by corporate interests. they always blame it on the filibusters being used for corporations. host: thank you for your call. in the "wall screed journal" this editorial -- but " those on first -- they should familiarize themselves with reconciliation. it is just another word for nothing left to lose. that is the tactic democrats seem like it used to bypass ordinary legislative role and rail obama care and to law."

nancy pelosi announced this week that the democrats have set the stage for reconciliation. it is up to us to make sure the public knows this is not extraordinary. if to be a reflection on us if we could not convince people that this is not an unusual place to go. harold on airline for republicans. good morning. what do you think about the proposal? caller: i think the proposal is no good. i like it the way it is. without that, you could 9 have debate about things. all the colors called n and they forget -- callers called in and forgot the democrats had the majority for three years, not one year -- republicans lost

their last two years. as for all the voting goes and everything else, democrats had the party. the democrats are holding the democrats up. host: you are pretty much satisfied with the pace with which legislation is being passed? caller: i'm not satisfied with it. i tell you why. the smartest person that has been on the television so far is olympia snowe. she was right in the beginning. do not rush it. do it right. if they were to have her vote and listened to her, and i honestly believe that she is the only person that has made any comments on health care right now, she is a good person. she told the democrats.

she turned around -- you saw what happened. host: there is this article. democrats raised to regroup after gop reject job bill. their faces the possible defeat on president obama's agenda items for the year. democrats discussed ways to regroup before february 22 boavotes. such a small packet probably would not create a large increase in hiring. it is far less ambitious than the $150 billion legislation the house passed in december which includes large increases in unemployment benefits and new spending on infrastructure. houston, texas. democrat. caller: thank you for taking my call.

ridiculous but a i think everybody in the senate and house need to get their act together. at this point, and they cannot voteñr together and elect a dog. when people say do not rush it, they need to do both. i think the people making the rules and the laws need to listen to the economists or let economist decide. you had a nurse colin. -- call in. she called it right. the country is a life support. the family is standing out in the waiting room bickering about who will make the decision and to has got the upper hand while the country goes down implants. i think it is ridiculous. i think they will push obama to do something that really looks socialists. then everybody will be talking about that.

he cannot sit here and let the country fall apart while they are bickering. host: next up is maryland, good morning. hello? caller: hello. he pronounced it correctly. i am an independent. i do not see a filibuster. i have not seen one filibuster in the senate. harry reid need to get the republicans to stand up on the senate floor and redid the phone books during the business of the people. he needs to show them what polls they are. if he does not do it, i think the senate needs to elect a new leader. i would also like to see nancy

pelosi replaced, because they have not been able to accomplish anything with a super majority. the president of the united states needs to get off his butt and go out there. he needs to start leading. he is the head of an entire government, the executive branch. he needs to start acting like an executive and star leading this country. that is what he promised. he needs to start doing his job. harry reid and nancy pelosi to lose their jobs. if you cannot win with a super majority, then you are totally worthless. the republicans are the party of "np." guess what? they are right. the republicans are running the country. they have had their chance.

they did nothing for health care. they did nothing for the homeless. they have done nothing to curb the debt and spending. they were freebasing on our money. host: virginia, republican line. caller: the baby before this last caller got it on the nose. the filibuster is designed so that we do not go for with a process that everyone does not agree on. that is a simple way to put it. if everybody really want to dig into their brain and think about -- it is very simple. this is all about partisanship. nobody is getting along on either side of the parties. it is getting worse. the division is getting wider and wider.

they both have been using the filibuster for the last 20 years. it dishes picking up and picking up. it is not do anything. to blame the republicans or democrats is foolish. it is both of them. it is division. the division started probably just after reagan. it is not going to get better. we are leaning toward socialism, which i saw a poll this morning that said that 63% of democrats agree with socialism. here is an idea for them. move to a socialist country. host: where was that poll? caller: it is the main news program this morning. i was flipping through the channel. it had on the screen. host: all right. finish up. all right. florida, democrat line.

caller: that listen is difficult. -- is typical of the fox people on the news. the filibuster was to allow [unintelligible] -- populated states to have an equal voice. idaho has as much noise as new york. and forth gently, but unfortunately, with our election laws, they are really running washington now. it is cheaper to buy advertising. [unintelligible] these militarists and the

banking issues are in control of the states that really worked against the people of the country. this is an institution of law and gridlock. it has been hampering the country for the last 15 or 20 years. post-reagan, places like south carolina -- which is such a disgrace -- people are going to the senate and have nothing. there are poverty-stricken places. the our bankers. it is ridiculous. host: you have been using senator harkin's model as a basis. how many boats would you let them go through in the senate before you start whistling down the number needed to invoke cloture?

caller: i think it should be a democracy. majority rules. we have a horrible drug deal out in medicare, 51-50. this is where the soaring deficits are. i have not heard one person in power talk about the 700 that we have around this world. host: we will leave it there. in the financial times, obama aims to overcome differences on health reform. the right, "the white house said it will try to bridge the difference between the senate and house bills within the next 10 bills in advance of president obama's much awaited health care summit on february 25.

it came as lawmakers issued angry accusations that the democrats were acting in bad faith by trying to iron out differences between themselves and had a bipartisan summit, which you people in washington anticipate will yield a breakthrough between the parties." next up is missouri, for republicans. caller: good morning. i and 58 years old. i have been a lifelong republican. i voted for president obama in the last election. i felt like the democrats were taking it down the wrong road. i now consider myself an independent. filibusters to me are a joke. we have private meetings in washington, d.c. every day. they need to pick out two or three republicans and 23

democrats and threw them in a room and not let them out until they can compromise on what every the bill happens to be. when they come to the senate in a united front, they will show the other senators that they are serious about the bill. there is never going to be a bill passed everyone agreed with it. the republican democratic parties have all become a joke. i am a lower middle class individual. i have a lot of friends. we discuss politics all the time. we do not always agree. do you know what? we always come to an agreement, a compromise on what will be best for the economy, and the community.

why can our leaders not do the same host: thing the president of citizens united is our guest this weekend. here is what he had to say about the sec. >> to go back to 2004, we lived through the federal election commission rulings and the results of what we are trying to do as far as making moves. it had nothing to do with hillary clinton. hillary clinton was a vehicle. the movie was a vehicle. we knew we were going to run into roadblocks. michael moore made a movie. we decided to try and answer that. we were told by the federal election commission that we could not. host: you can see this on

sunday. take a look at our website for all the details. back to the phones. on our line for democrats is florida. go ahead. caller: good morning. i have a funny name. it is there. i -- not only am i for senator harkin's thing about ending the filibuster, i believe the filibuster is just symptomatic of something much bigger in our country. that is that we are currently going into the 21st century with an 18th-century constitution. even worse in the filibuster is the fact that in the senate, and senator can put a hold on the bill and not even identify himself. as we watch the other small nations emerge, they are moving.

they are making decisions left and right. what have we done as a government in this year? we have debated one issue, health care, all year. after it is over, i doubt whether we will agree. and must be restructured government -- unless the restructure the government, we need to start marking that up and tried to streamline it so if we have a major financial emergency like we had, we will be able to respond in a week or two weeks or what have you. the filibuster in stuff, republicans and democrats have used it to their to cause us to not be able to progress. host: dan quayle has been

getting more publicly involved in politics recently, endorsing several congressional panels. his son is entering the political arena. ben and quayle filed friday to run for the phoenix area seats of retiring. the younger quayle has lived in the phoenix area for several years, and members of his extended family until recently on the arizona public. his father announced as tennessee during an appearance on fox news." elaine on airline for independent. caller: i was startled by his comment about marking up the constitution. that kind of blew my thoughts away. the filibuster seems -- you should stop everything and agree

with it. if you do not agree with them, think of nancy pelosi, reconciliation is a mode. she just wants everyone to stay quiet in agree with her. plain and simple. that is not the way it works. host: you think having the filibuster is line to get more people to try to come to some terms of agreement? caller: i would think more terms of agreement. something that would help was and then they did in the '60s. instead of flying home to their constituents, stay around washington and have a barbecue together like they used to and talk about thit. if you do it on a saturday afternoon and it is in the public life for everyone knows each other, it is a whole different thing. they should do that in the '60s.

-- they used to do that in the '60s. i know this is a new era. come on. if you do none of the people you are working with, how would you work with them? host: maybe we can get them to fly down and have here a barbecue at your house. thank you for the call. we will take a short break. when we come back, we will talk about pakistan's war in the -- role in the war on terrorism. we will be right back. >> the book tv we king continues all day monday -- weekend continues all day monday this coming week, we are like in prime-time starting tuesday night with contemporary authors taking your phone calls and tweets.

>> updated and released just in time for presidents day. a tour of presidential graves said. the book is a unique and comprehensive guide to the you resting presidents. >> it is a wonderful way to humanize and personalize the past. to take and vince -- event and movements that seem remote. there is something universal about the fact that we will all one day be on our deathbed. we are all going to face growing old. we all have to wrestle with questions of immortality. those are some of the themes that run through all of this. it is also, frankly, and educating book. there are a lot of stories and

antidotes. it humanizes all of these people. >> available now from your favorite book seller. >> "washington journal close would continues. >> joining us is a ikram s eghal. welcome to the program. what does this mean? guest: that kind of group that i for 33 years ago. a few years ago, we merged with another group that is called g4s. it is the largest private security company in the world. it is multinational.

my company is the largest private security company in pakistan. it three years ago, we took over 30% of pakistan. i became the chairman of both companies. host: when you say private security firm, who are you providing security for? guest: mainly to embassies, consulates, financial institutions, multinational companies. of around the country, we have a lot of clients that need protection. pakistan has not been good for the last two or three decades. it is a booming business. host:ñr you wrote an item called

"countering insurgency and terrorism." it has become an epidemic in pakistan. to counter both this uprising. we have to deal with two insurgencies, one being the taliban in afghanistan, the other direct it toward terrorism within pakistan in the world in general. tell us more about what he meant by that. guest: basically, there is always a lot of misunderstanding about terrorism and insurgencies. insurgency is basically something that people get and fight, the government forces. terrorism is a mind-set that actually target innocent people. what has happened is that you have an institute in afghanistan. you have al qaeda on the borders

of pakistan. we have two insurgencies in pakistan one is not directed against pakistan. the other is feeding terrorism within pakistan. one of the insurgencies -- the other -- these direct terrorism against pakistan. these are the places where al qaeda held up in bora bora after 2002. after 2005, when pakistan surrendered, they attacked pakistan in a very determined and focused manner. that is why you see the we have more casualties because of the

insurgencies in pakistan. host: what did you see as pakistan's role m. winning the war in afghanistan? guest: pakistan is central to bring in the region when the war. you cannot win it unless you win it in pakistan. we have to have a lot of ambiguity about this prevent part of it is pakistan's own fault. we could not understand that the insurgency that was implemented would eventually turn toward pakistan itself. we did not come to grips with this. part of it was because they do not understand the difference between counter insurgency and counter-terrorism. in pakistan, we have an ambiguity. we have gone after the two insurgencies. at the same time, there are uncertainties on their border.

eventually, they will come toward pakistan. we will have to do this sooner or later. host: we are talking about pakistan's role in the war on terror. if you want to get involved in the conversation, the number is democrat, 202.737.0002 republican, 202.737.0001 independent, 202.628.0205 on the front page of the inquirer, the headline is similar to what is in a lot of the papers this morning. a major afghan attack begins in forces base would done on a taliban held town. they talk about the attack on of marcisia.

it is the largest combat operation since president obama order 30,000 u.s. reinforcement here in afghanistan. what do you think about this attack? what role did pakistan play in this attack? guest: i think the first thing to understand it you see the attacks publicize. this is exactly what pakistan did. the reason was simple. they knew that there would be bad guys that would have time to run away. we were faced with 2 million people that died. we took the risk. they can be uncomfortable.

and these they will not be dead. whenever you go and attack an area, the damage -- this is what happened. stanley mcchrystal has given time to minimize the damage of civilian casualties. that is the way to fix the insurgents. you bring them up to fight. they have a choice. they can run away and leave their hideouts. on the other hand, they have places where they have stored ieds and their own materials. that is a loss they have to bear. this is a very big step. it is important now because the pressure on the troops on the border is much larger.

three divisions of the pakistanis were embolic. -- in a bald. reda-- involved. the bad guys have been fixed to a big extent. american forces have been minimized. host: our first call from ohio. on the line for republicans. caller: good morning. i want to thank you very much for the pakistani effort. i do want to apologize for the back of the american health that the taliban and al qaeda it is able to go across and reload and

revamping come back over and our military. it is not the fault of our military but our government better they do not allow our troops to do their job. i just want to thank you very much for the effort and god bless you. host: your response? guest: amanda, thank you very much. this is what i want to say to you. i was brought up a good muslim. i had a texas mother who brought me up. ñishe taught me one thing. you have to fight for your rights. when you have to fight for your rights, you have to be clear about what you are fighting for. this is what we want to hear from the americans. the war in afghanistan is that line to be run in afghanistan. if you have to win it in pakistan. the army is doing what is meant

to. it is fighting the war. it is doing it successfully. just imagine this year, $18 billion have been allocated to the national army. for the pakistan army, $1 billion approximately. 90%ñi of that is taken. this is ridiculous u.s. it your act together and make sure you are focused on what you have to do. you have to concentrate on building of the capacity to fight and to fight counter- terrorism. i think there is a disconnect here you may win the war against the insurgents, but the fact [unintelligible] you have got to build up the counter-terrorism capacity. that is a must. >> mississippi, line for

democrat. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i spent a year in afghanistan helping the air force. i was going to be your opinion the do the drawings that we flyover, i know it is a remote area. -- your opinion about the drones that the flyover. i know it is a remote area. i did a lot of reading but i was there. osama bin laden when he was fighting russia said he was going to break pressure. he also said the same thing after 9/11. i let it your opinion on that. we appreciate your service. thank you. guest: first of all, let me talk about the drones. nine months ago, the drones were not very effective.

they do not have the support they should have in the pakistani side. now we know there are officers sitting across the border that are detecting drone attacks. nine months ago, you had one out of 10 successes. that is very important. why are drone attacks important? pakistan does not like it. those droned attacks are taking out the bad guys. look at what they have achieved. . .

concerned he's a terrorist and he must -- if he's alive he must be taken out. there is a mindset which is very brutal. that we have seen in pakistan at first hand. you cannot imagine. even as i speak, even yesterday, these people, suicide, they are trained young people who are absolutely innocent people. they train them in suicide bombing and send them. why don't they send their sons? why don't osama bin laden's sons sitting in iran or iraq or saudi

arabia why don't they send their sons? they send other innocent people, people in mosques, people in funeral, people in residential areas. this is mindless and osama bin laden is a terrorist and must be taken out. host: next up is pat here in washington, d.c. on our line for independence. caller: hi. i've listened to the wars that are going on and how we are putting resources to violence and so fort, violence begets violence, but i don't hear very much that's coming from the other side. right here at home, we're oftentimes asked to reciprocate and help in other countries and so fort and it's very draining on what's going on here in our country. there's not a lot of reciprocation from our country. they're asking us to do things for them. right now, we close our eyes and the things that are going on in our country, we call secrets. i'm reminded of many years ago

when rosa parks refused to get up off out of the seat. she was paying taxes. she was working like everybody else and she stood up. that's a form of violence as well domestic violence. it's a moral violence that is going on. we went through the courts and everything and we stood firm. we were very focused on that and i see a lot of that being rolled back now. once we address a moral unconsciousness and this economic time hit on everything and it's a worldwide thing. instead of using through money, our rain showers, our lives, and our -- why don't we concentrate on what we have done right and go back to that and build a boilerplate and try to spread it across the world? host: pat, what do you feel has been done right orxdçó should b conned to move ahead in afghanistan and pakistan?

caller: what has been done right is the fact that this gentleman is able to talk openly and to come to another country talking openly without it being call a secret and i think as long as we're able do that, we can have the dialogue that we're having right now as regular people, as regular since. host: ikram sehgal, your response. guest: pat, it's because of the -- of the american people that we live in a democracy. that is very correct. i can speak openly because democracy has been fostered in pakistan. if you did not give that support, we will live under that dictator. we be be an oppressed people like everybody else. but the morality is when you talk about violence, you're right. violence begets violence. where do you bring it to a stop? i think you have to take -- someday, and you have to talk

about the mindless violence that this terrorist spread. look at what they did in 9/11. if you look at -- read the newspapers and look at the internet. you will see every day thousands of -- you know, hundreds of people dying in pakistan from one reason or the other because of the violence begetted by these terrorists. you have to fight them someday. you have to draw the line. that is where we draw the line. i am very grateful for all the help that you give us. it is true. you've got to bring economic sustenance very soon. people remember the military part and do not remember the civilian part. the military part is only 30% of the battle. the 70% is changing the hearts and minds of people. host: the lead story in the "new york times" this morning under the headline "allies attacking big taliban haven in afghan

south," they write -- the operation dubbedmosta iraq which means together is the largest offensive military operations since the american l.e.d. coalition invaded the country in 2001. its aim is to flush the taliban out of an area by 75 square miles where insurgents have been staging attacks, building bombs and processing the opium that pays for their war. is this the kind of joint operations that you're talking about, sir? guest: absolutely. if you allow them a stronghold, if you allow them an area where they have impunity, where they can stay, with they can build bombs, they can do -- let us -- i just want to take you back to south of the country where it is the al qaeda stronghold. the inner quarter and outer

quarter where they traveled. they have underground hospitals. they have laboratories where they used to make chemical, you know, i.e.d.'s. they used to store -- unless you deny them all this, similarly, this operation is very important. it is important for two reasons. one, that it really accomplishes a military task. number two, psychologically, it brings home to the taliban that no place in the country is going to be safe for them if they do that. it may bring them to the table. and that is in the end, what you want to do. is that what you want them to come to the table and negotiate on your terms rather than from the strength which is rather not from a position of strength but from a position of weakness which would be totally wrong. host: johnson is our next caller in indiana on our line for republicans. welcome to our program.

caller: yes. i am not pleased with the republicans of knowing everything, you know? but what i'd like to say about these mercenaries or security companies, you know, they're, to me, when you have to hire somebody by -- buy their loyalty, you're buying a leaky vessel and i think personally, this man might be honest but a whole lots of them is too much of a chance for them to become orchestrators of terrorism. and i don't think the united states should be spending their money on mersnares, patriotic soldiers just like i was is what you can hang your hat on. and what they're doing, they're the rich people's watchdog. bankers have run our country. i applaud the new deal on this

that they put some controls on greed. but for the last several years, everybody that goes to put controls on greed why, they're accused of going to socialism. well, that's all i got to say. thank you. host: mr. sehgal, your response to our last caller. guest: i think there is a misunderstanding about the role of private security companies, my company and i'm proud say that, we are not involved in the role that is, which is generally taken which you hear about, you know. you hear about black water stories, et cetera, my company is a private security company, which is not mercenary. number two, the fact of infidelity. i have had about 18,000 guards in pakistan. for 23 years, we've not had one case of infidelity.

and by the way, 3,000 of guards belong to those area which travel, fatah areas, we've not had one case of fidelity. now there are security companies and security companies. we have a statistic role to play. when we become active and act as and very correctly, if you act as army unit is supposed to, that is incorrect. that is a bad role. that is a mercenary role but our role is a passive role. somebody that tries to come to a building and you've got a guard. that is a role that like a security complining ours plays and it is important. because private security has a role to play and it takes the -- i would say the amount of effort tat the public security companies have do off their shoulders. host: ikram sehgal, does your

company operate exclusively in pakistan or do you have members of your security team working in afghanistan as well? guest: no, sir. we are exclusively in pakistan. i'm a joint venture operation in pakistan. of course, it is in 87 countries. it also has role to play in afghan, but not with pakistanny personnel. host: we're continuing our discussion on pakistan's role on the war on terror with ikram sehgal. our next caller is from ohio on our line for democrats. mark, go ahead. caller: yes, my question -- well, comment. it's more or less that i don't understand why we're still in pakistan, afghanistan, fighting a war that we really have no -- we have no business over there fighting in the first place. the republicans got us into this mess and everybody's mad at obama for not getting out which

he should. we should leave their problem to them. that's not our problem. we don't have no business over there flirting around for no reason because we didn't create this mess. we should just let them do what they do and worry about our troubles that we're having here in america. we are suffering. small businesses are taking a beating. mortgage rates are low now, but we have our communities look a mess. host: we're going to leave it there, mark. mr. sehgal? guest: yes, i agree with you. why should americans die fighting in afghanistan? this is our war. give us the tools finish the job. but we do need support. that is it. i agree with you totally. this is our war and we should fight it and if there are any guarantees to be taken, we should take it, but you have to support us and give us the tools to finish the job and we'll do

that. host: the u.s. military is setting up training centers inside pakistan. can you tell us what kind of work is going on in those training centers and will those troops eventually see action on the border between pakistan and afghanistan? guest: pakistan has paramilitary course which acts as a barter ranger. that is one which the special operation command is carrying out to build up the capacity to take on the batter -- batter arrangement. if they do the role effectively, you will have much less trouble that what has happened. they date back in the 19th century and neither the capacity to tackle insurgents neither the potential neither they have the logistics or the training. now the united states is providing that training through a special operations command and

i believe, i do not know personally but i believe that tremendous work has been done. as far as the other operations, what the pakistan army needs is helicopters, night vision devices. it needs a whole lot of stuff to do counter-terrorism. we have an anti-narcotics force. we had a tremendous drug problem which we took out because the united states d.e.e.a. help us set up the anti-narcotics for me to say i believe if now, the united states ended the narcotic force so that the army does its own work and the insurgency does not get involved, that is already to go. host: back to the phones. plano, texas.

liz on our line for independence. good morning. caller: good morning. wow. there's a lot of subjects here. first of all, i agree with the man earlier that said that blackwater is a mess. and i would like to also ask the gentleman on the television if this same paramilitary group works in the cashmere area. -- kashmir area with india. that is really a tense situation. and i would also like to ask -- we have a lot of street gangs here in the united states and they are really basically domestic terrorists and i believe this sounds a lot like what pakistan's going through although on a much more highly armed level. as you said, 30% is military. the rest is hearts and minds. if we think about what these terrorists are inviting to the civilian population, what types of things they are given -- provide dosh these people, then

there's no recruiting tool. so that's really, gosh, this is my one call and i want to say so much but i will refer back to y'all because i don't want to host: liz has given us some stuff to work with. mr. sehgal, go ahead. guest: i do not know if they are working in the area because that is an indian territory. i don't think the indians would allow them. but the fact of the matter remains that you know, when you talk about hearts and minds like you've got the fatah, the federal administer traveled areas, you've got a 100 people and you've got 95 people without

jobs. you've got to give them a means of livelihood. we warned fatah return to a free zone. the united states hands idea of reconstruction zones. r.o.z.'s. that's a good idea but must be expand to include the whole of fatah and then the locals will have reasons to protect their means of livelihood and he's the way to go. because at the moment, unless you give them a means of livelihood, whether it's taliban or somebody else, at the end of the days, you've got to have a participant solution to t a long-term solution and it's to provide a means of livelihood and i very much agree with you. that is the way to go. host: the last caller mentioned pakistan's relationship with india and i wanted to go into that a little bit further. this is a "washington post" article that came out a couple of days ago talking about pakistan and india holding talks later this month. theñi --

host: the united states has been urging the two downs help stabilize the region where the neighbors have been competing for influence. talk to us a little bit about the relationship or a little bit more about the relationship between india and pakistan and how that relationship affects the situation in afghanistan overall. guest: well, you know, we have a good dialogue going which has been broken off because of the bombay attacks. india has been a hostage to this mantra that pakistan should do more as far as terrorist is concerned. there is no doubt pakistan must deal with terrorism and we are dealing wit. but the dialogue between india

and pakistan is a must. i have fought two wars in india and one of the greatest proponents for peace in -- i'm one of the great proponents for peace in india. south asia are going nowhere. they're always going to be going in war which is not good in pakistan or india. that dialogue must be taken up without conditions when the bomb buy -- mumbai attacks it is the largest in that region. what is happened if you look at all the borders of india, it has problems with all of its neighbors. china has got 17 zphabes no problems. where as india has seven nightclubs and problems five of them. it is the leader of that area and it to go the extra mile to

ensure it establish that's that area. it has got everything to win. as economic powerhouse, it acts at the capacity to build up the country. india must understand that. unless we have peace with india, we are going to stay in our district and no man's land forever. host: save the rubble has this message to say -- guest: it is possible. it is not only in there are terrorists. there are terrorists in india. they are there for the last 40 years and they are not doing india any good. they control 70 of the 600 districts. they take revenue from them. it is possible. but like i said, india has to go

the extra mile and not become hostage to non-reactors. and that is so, we will alms be in a situation where there is any dialogue, they will come in and stage an incident and we will be back to square one. host: we're talking pakistan's role on the role on terror with ikram sehgal. we've got about 10 minutes left in this segment. back to the phone. keith on our line for republicans from connecticut. go ahead. citizenship good morning. first of all, this is -- caller: good morning. i don't feel, i don't believe our country should send the pakistani government or his shadow organization another dollar. we need jobs here. we need, you know, health in america. we shouldn't be sending all its money to another country. and second of all, i don't believe the judgment is -- gentleman is over there fighting terrorists.

i think you are fighting people who are displaced by the elite. he should know that bin laden is dead and has been dead and he said our country already sent $1 billion to help. down dow know how many places that can be stopped to foreclose with $1 billion? host: tell us a little bit the pursuit about osama bin laden. is there any evidence of where he is or when he might be captured or kill guest: we really do not know. there are indication of cedar hi we is in iran and may have gone to yemen. one does not know. but osama bin laden some time back and there has not been any real evidence that he is alive.

but i think he is alive for a symbol. that's my opinion. as far as zawahri, he's very much alive. we went into south afghanistan, he had enough time to take he and his own small group out. now, i am 90% sure he's probably left the region and probably gone to yemen or some other area because i don't think there's any place that he can hide in afghanistan. that is my own josh beckett. -- conjecture. host: ikram sehgal from pathfinder g4s. he writes sin kated --

caller: if you wanted to get somebody that knows about terrorism, you've got the right guy right here. i know here in the united states, if you have workers on strikes and you want them terrorized or you want families terrorized, you call -- that is one of the sleaziest company in the united states. they know how to terrorize workers. and i know how they how to terrorize people over there. host: let's move on to kevin in austin, texas. good morning caller: good morning. as far as winning the hearts and minds of the people in pakistan, when they discovered the u.s. military is using depleted uranium, it will be hard to win their hearts and minds. we have hundreds of thousands of u.s. veterans that served in the first and second gulf wars in afghanistan that are suffering the effects of this depleted uranium, not to mention there's

probably millions of civilians in the countries that are being attacked. i really don't see that the u.s. can win the hearts and minds and i have to question who the real terrorist is. to me, it's the u.s. military. host: mr. sehgal, tell us about the folks there in afghanistan and pakistan. do they believe that the u.s. is there to help them or hurt them? guest: before i answer you, i want to go back to frank from california. you know, he set off something that i want to tell you about. 1971, 39 years ago, a u.s. marine saved my life. he left the marines and became -- joined the "lapd" and -- lapd and became a detective. he is the man that saved my life. he's won my life. that is to start with. as far as the question is concerned, as far as, you know

the u.s. military, yes, there has been because of the propaganda war fought by the bad guys that has been a lot of bad vibes in pakistan. this has to be countered. it has be followed because the media, whatever happened, the media, you cannot imagine at the other day, i was reading a book and he wrote about the effect that even one sound bite can have on the entire operation. it is very important for us to win the hearts and minds through the media. the correct and the way to do so is to be credible. i want to go back about the gentleman say about g4s. 800,000 employees who do not think they're terrorized by anybody. host: wes lynn, michigan, michael on our line for democrats. you're on the "washington journal." caller: yeah. good morning to mr. sehgal. i would like to ask mr. sehgal

about the inherent corruption that has not been mentioned so far this morning regarding pakistan military officers, pakistani politicians, pakistani since, and also mr. sehgal mentions the hearts and minds. we have to win the hearts and minds. -- of the people. hasn't he known for a long time that afghanistan g.i. -- afghanis and the drug lord have won the wallet and the bank account thofse pakistani military and the politicians which he has conveniently not mentioned this morning. and i would like an honest answer. thank you. host: mr. sehgal. guest: yes. certainly, i would like to answer it. if you go back and read the articles i have written, there

is a national reconsolation directed to give amnesty to politicians and anybody else who is corrupt. i've been writing that for decades. that corruption has to be fought. and there is corruption among the politicians and there has been corruption among the army officers. there is no doubt about it. this is something that has to be confronted. you are very right. and i am not going to make any excuse about it. this is something that has to be tackled. now, you have seen what is happening in pakistan recently. the judiciary has struck down the national ordinance and has put the government, all the people who have been targeted for corruption back on the stand. they have to now go back to the course and clear themselves. that way, the judicial has been built up. there is no doubt. even the army which was i am sorry to say and i accept that the some of the officers who are

corrupt. look at what's been happening for the last two years. instead of fighting for the bank owners, the army is fighting the war. in that, they must be supported and i am one of the people who say that loudly, that while you do that, they must also go back and tackle those people who gave them a bad name. there's no doubt ab it. and as far as the judiciary is concerned, it has become a strong zpution we must support it. now, as far as in looking at the hearts and minds of people, you know, it's very easy. there's a very nice phrase to say it. you cannot vent it overnight or you cannot vent it in a space of years. and the way to do it is the dem way. the democracy has to be sustained in pakistan. unfortunately what has happened is that because corrupt people were allowed -- allowed to come into part and sustain it, that

is the united states must set a zero some policy towards corrupt leaders. the united states must not accept the bank account of any corrupt leader having the bank account in the united states or for that matter, european -- why be him crisk about it? if -- him crisk about it? -- hypocritic about it? host: if opportunity to find out more information about ikram sehgal and his organization, go to their website pathfinder9.com. we'll take this last caller for republicans. frank, go ahead. caller: thank you. i would like to suggest that d.n.a. lends itself to what happens. they have been countries or whatever you call now for a

thousand years or so. they haven't got it. our position should be see who you think is going to win and stay with the winner for whatever it is. it's just a matter of life with them. host: mr. sehgal, do you see how -- when there will be a period where things will change over there? guest: i'm very optimistic. i think what we have seen in the last two years has been a turnaround in the thinking in pakistan. pakistan used to be -- about corruption and about terrorism. we've seen first of all, the people come out of the street against corruption, bring back the judiciary into power and then we've seen what happens to them. that was a present danger to the state. when that happen, the government resolved itself and finished all

the liquidities in their policy and went out the terrorists in a concerted manner and they took out the terrorists in six weeks, something which they felt has not been done in six years but six weeks. they went after south afghanistan. once the ammunition is replenished, once the troops are rotated and the logistics have been built up, when we have done with our shortages of helicopters and nitrogen devices of which we have not a single one, we will certainly go after the other guys, the network, if they do anything, give any sust not to answer any terrorist in their midst, now, the fact of the matter remains the support has to come from somewhere. if that support comes. we do not need the manpower. we need the material support. and that unfortunately is something that is nice to think for itself what its own strategic needs are and what its

threat perception are and decide whether it makes sense to put the funds into afghanistan and pakistan. host: thank you for being on the "washington journal" this morning, ikram sehgal. host: in just a minute, we will be talking with douglas wilder. but first, we want to show you a little bit more of our interview, our newsmakers interview with senator bob corker of tennessee. in this part of the interview, he talks about whether he senate needs reform after months of filibusters and acrimony among republican and democratic senators. >> i don't think the institution needs ref. i just had a long talk with an editor in tennessee about this same topic the other day. i'd hate to see us move away where a 60-vote senate.

i do think that the cloture issue was brought fort far, far, far more than necessary. >> what i think needs to happen is not the institution, it's just the attitudes that exists. i mean,, i -- this is -- i'm probably here during the most negative time in the u.s. senate. the forces here in washington itself just the various interest groups and the destructive nature. i actually sort of wish, if you will, i hate to talk southern here, but i sort of wish that since across our country could

experience what happens here during a contentious legislative debate and i don't like it. one of the reasons that, look, this is a very awkward place for me to be, this whole subject we're talking about right now as it relates to financial reform, but to me, unless people are willing to step out and say look, we know there's a way to get to yes now, we can do that without foregoing principles. unless we have more of that occurring, you know, the destructive forces that exists here win. >> "washington journal" continues. host: former virginia governor douglas wilder joins us now from richmond. good morning, sir. guest: good morning indeed. how are you, sir? host: just fine. in a recent ed, you wrote that it was time for the president to make some changes to his

advisors. tell us what kind of changes you were talking about and who do you think needs to go and who do you think needs to stay. guest: well, i was trying be constructive in terms of suggesting that if democrats want to continue the momentum that has taken place in the past 18 months or so in terms of the ex-elections, particularly in 2008, we -- election particularly in 2008, we got to start showing that people who had the ideas for change and hope and who went to the polls and voted for the president and that party have something put on the table and when you look at the losses that we've sustained in virginia, the governor's race and new jersey at the governor's race, the ted kennedy seat as some have called it in massachusetts, and that senate seat with scott brown and when you look at the special election losses that we've sustained, people are saying do we really have the right person in charge of the democratic party as the chair?

my friend and former governor tim kaine. that's one of the persons i've suggested that the president might need to reconsider. you want to look to victory and look to wins to see what you've done. and then the. -- president is the person in charge. he's got to look the people around him to advise him as to whether he's getting the best possible advice from those people. so i guess i've included just about everybody in that suggesting as to what should be done. host: last week, you wrote he, the president, must overhaul his own team, replacing the admittedly brilliant advisers who helped elect him with others more capable of helping him govern, getting elected and getting things done for people are two different jobs. guest: that's right. host: give me the names of somebody inside the white house that needs to go and somebody outside the white house who you think needs to do the job the

president should be doing. caller: there are numbers of persons outside of the white house qualified. i've already given you the name that i think we need a strong combative chairman of the party, the national committee chair. someone who is willing to go in and engage and fight and to give the arguments for making a difference as to why democrats should be elected. in terms of the people in the white house, i would say this. it's not a matter of replacing. it's a matter of adding or strengthening the advice, broadening it, making certain it just isn't coming from one group of people as you pointed out, i did write and say it. listening is one thing. hearing is another. you hear noise but you don't listen to it. and to the extent that a number of persons who have been involved in electing this president. they are saying what's in it for us? when do we see the jobs being a

number one priority? when do do we see a restoration of building out inner cities and the president being an excellent -- made an excellent speech when i was mayor in saying that our cities should not be considered -- of metropolitan growth. they are the solutions. i was so impressed with that. i know others are impressed with it. now they're looking to see where is that effort? where is that stimulus money? is it really going to redirect growth in our cities and to make certain things take place and the advisors those people who should be saying mr. president, a lot of people want to see that change. they want to see that hope. put something on the table for them. host: our conversation with douglas wilder, former governor of virginia if you like to get involved, please call us at the

number on our screen -- host: you have encouraged then candidate obama to consider tim kaine to be his vice presidential running mate but then last week, you write though i discussed with tim, what i was doing relative to the vice presidency, he and i never had any discussions as to whether he should be the national party chairman. there are several reasons why i felt then and do now that it is not a good fit for tim, the party or obama. so you're willing to make him the number two in the obama administration but you didn't want to support him as the chairman of the d.n.c. why is that? guest: well, it's not an oxymoron. it's not anything difficult to understand. i think when tim kaine came out as the governor of a southern

state that historically has been against the kinds of efforts that were being advanced and spoken for by the candidate obama and broke with that tradition, i thought it was bold. i thought it was something that was deserving of consideration for the vice presidency in terms of executive strength and in terms of whether that person should be considered and he was considered and interviewed and spoken to. and i think because of that boldness, he should have been considered. now, i've talked with tim about that when i was suggesting it and he -- and i spoke about why and if those things should happen, what might take place. when i said i never spoke to him about the other position, because it's different qualifications. the national party chairs got to be someone who is ready to get in and mix it up, talk it up, fight it out, and he has raised

money but to produce money and to get it at the grassroots level and to develop yearning and that desire for winning and to make people feel a part of what's taken place. that hasn't happened in that period of time and that's why i'm saying those are the reasons i think we need to make a chance if you want to win. you don't have to listen to me as i wrote. look at the results. every time that people have had a chance to show how they feel about things, democrats have for the most part been take an backseat. host: let's mix it up with some of the viewers and listeners. our first call comes from carolyn on our line for democrats in lexington, kentucky. good morning. caller: good morning. as far as the party chairman whether it's the republican or d.n.c. chairman, i think part of the issue has been is that the republicans themselves have fought such a hard campaign against president obama's

policy, they've stayed together as party of know and i think president obama has some of the smartest and most educated people to be around him and i commend him for that. i also commend president obama for reaching out to both sides even though he doesn't get credit. the best thing he's done as change-wise for his people around him is bringing in the gentleman and i don't know his name who helped him in his campaign and you can see the change just over in the last month since that change occurred that president obama is now leading instead of following. and when i say leading, he's coming out, such as his february 25 health care summit where both people are going to be at the table with him. it's going to be televised. so that the american people can watch for themselves and see the interaction for theirself and not rely only on media and sound bites and commercials and what's being paid for by both the

democratic party and the republican party. we really want to see for ourself that hope and change is coming and i truly believe it is going to come and i commend president obama for who he has chosen but also for brinking back in this gentleman, i wish i could remember his name. it's really made the biggest difference for the last month. host: go ahead, governor wilder. guest: i think she's referring to david bluth who is his campaign manager who is brought back to health and strengthening and it's commendable as well and it's a recognition my judgment that you need to bring additional help. i don't disagree with the lady at all. i think that he had one of the most brilliant teams assembled that you could imagine to get him elected. we're now talking about governing. and moving forward. the stimulus package, did that money turn around the economy when you saw how much was put out there? should there have been a

developed health care plan submitted to the congress and then say look, this is what i want you guys to pass rather than to say you guys passed what scompull we'll talk about it and then -- you will and when you start seeing the kinds of plays. obviously, we're going to be involved in the afghan war and it's going to cost money. when you start talking about cost, democrats have got to be careful that they don't become a part of the tax and spend mentally that people have excused them of for years. host: would have been your former constituents is calling from williamsburg. randy for republicans. go ahead. caller: good morning, governor, it's randy o'neal here. i would like to offer you an striation come to charles city, elementary school where i've

been operating my bike trailers to improve the health and wellness of the children whether it be in urban or rural schools, people can work together and solve these health problems. as i believe, p.e. teachers are our public option since they're the ones who grade and assess the health and wellness of families and their abilities to learn and the environments they come from that foster that learning. host: randy, what do you think about the current administration and some of the governor's thoughts about making some changes? caller: well, i just resolve myself to think positively in the future and that's why i focus on children. i can't worry about big government when there's so much work to be done in the likes of charles city, newport news and richmond. and once we help our children learn how to improve -- host: randy week, going leave it there. governor, do you have any response to randy's call? guest: well, he can send the

invitation and i will respond appropriately. host: next caller from richmond, virginia. welcome to the program. caller: gonchingse i was very disturbed by your comment. tim kaine was a much better governor than you were. we've had a lot on the policies and i just don't get it. i don't understand why you support privatization of abc when that's the only revenue-producing agency in the state. so please explain yourself. thank you. guest: well, the only question you've asked me to explain is the abc privatization. my suggestion was that pursuit

to a study that was asked for by governor mark warner, we put in a study that showed that we could achieve several millions and hundreds of millions of dollars if the state got out of the lick err business and privatized it and that was the study. the governor said he thought the study was excellent. he legislature at this time has shot it down in the first sections. as you know, governor cain as we left the state with several billion dollars of a shortfall and he had suggested that that would be limited by personal income tax increase of over $1 billion and the legislature has rejected that without a single person voting for it including democrats. not a single member of the house of delegates voted for that

including the person who put the bill in. and so if you're talking about needing money, it's not a question of how you tax to get that money, you talk about what you need to cut down in terms of spending. i always believed in niceties being something you put next. necessities are the first thing you should do and that's when i was governor when i left office. when i came into office, my administration had over $2.2 billion shortfall. i didn't raise any taxes, not a dime. and left my successor with money. and moreover, that started virginia being selected and elected as the best physically managed state in the nation for two years in a row starting with my administration. host: sir, in the last gubernatorial election, were you approached by the administration or by d.n.c. chair tim kaine for

the candidate si? >> the president did and he and i talked and i told him that the two things that i could not support. one, the democratic candidate said the first thing that he would do if he were to be elected were to be even before he was sworn in, to be in a group in december to see if they could go out and tell him where they could find ways to raise taxes on the people. i felt that raising taxes on a recession would be the exact wrong thing to do. you need to talk about cutting spending. you talk about cutting down on what you are allocating in terms of tax dollars. the second thing that the democratic candidate said he wanted to do was to remove the ban on the numbers of handguns you could buy for a month.

virginia has a present law of one gun a month. the democratic candidate says he wanted to lift that ban. unfortunately, that air has been poisoned so much that even this session, just this week, a committee in the general assembly has even recommend thar that ban be lifted so we would be more hand guns being proliferated in the scombrites for those reasons and others, i told the president i couldn't support the gentleman and i did not support the gentleman and i think the reasons now are pretty muchçó been coming fort to see r forth to see why oirs are not. host: next caller is sasha for democrats. caller: good morning and thank you so much for c-span. i just love c-span. anyway, i have a few  our president. first of all, i think senator harken is on the right track. we need to keep the filibuster but we need to reform it.

secondly, all branches of government, all workers in the legislative, judicial, and executive should as of right now take a 20% discount in their salaries and that money should go to help our budget. >> [laughter] caller: thirdly, i think our legislatures are congressmen and our senators should rechoose from any bill which they personally benefit or any bill they helped lobby for or against. they should like the judicial, recluse themselves from on that vote on the floor and that mite help all that money that's going to congress which is corrupting ander verting our system of democracy. and besides which, i think democracy is more important than capitalism. thank you. host: governor wilder? guest: obviously, she wasn't questioning me about anything. any numbers of persons who would like to make many of those recommendations bit hold my breath before some of those will

take place. host: the item that senator harken talked about as far as fixing the filibuster, were that to happen, do you think it will help this president or any other president get more of his agenda passed through the senate? guest: one of the things that i've always been questioning as to why you need to worry about that. if they want to filibuster, then let them filibuster. people say that, but it's very difficult for someone to stand up and talk for hours upon in. i think the governor of pennsylvania say it pretty much the same thing. you got 60 votes. you've got 59 votes. put what you've got before the legislature, take it up, vote it up or down. you want to filibuster, fill bullest, fine. but you're going to have to filibuster forever. let's put that to the test first. host: kentucky bell, 1957 sends us this message from twitter

writes -- governor wilder, do you think the tea party movement has exposed the democrats? guest: i think the tea party movement is a separate entity in itself. it is showing people who are thirsting for a voice, thirsting for a forum, wanted to be heard. saying we're not going to go away and they're not. i would haste on head that it would be a mistake for the tea party for people to confuse them with all being somewhat left of center, right of center. it is composite of a lot of things. and consequently, it's not to be ignored. host: back to the phones. oakland, maryland. harry on our line for republicans. go ahead. caller: governor, i used to listen to you years ago on wrva. i enjoy that. i'm a republican, but you seem to just have a lot of good

common sense about you. and i had mire you quite a bit. i think mr. obama needs to get him somebody like a dick morris, somebody like that who tends to look more of a candidate rather than take any kind of partisan stand and try to mold the candidate in the direction that the voters, that the people want. what has happened in my opinion was mr. obama has made the same mistake that -- mr. chairman clinton did. when he went there, he aligned himself with pelosi and reed and kind of said you do your thing and they have, and it's not alst what the people want. mr. clinton did the same thing but he was smart enough to get himself an advisor after his first two years. it took him back towards the center. he tried to take on some issues that are pretty far left in most

people's opinions and he's not really done anything in terms of accomplishments that you can say this is something that you can build on. but like in the health care bill, if he would have given in such things as possibly tort reform or portability, he may have been able to gain five, 10 republican votes and got himself an early individual. instead what you've got right you is groups like the tea parties, people that have formed because they're frustrated. washington legislating from far left and you don't drain a swamp by flooding it. host: we're going to leave it there, harry. thank you for your comment. guest: well, first of all, i would like to say that i want to see and i think the vast majority of people in america want to see our president do well. he is all of our president. he represents the entire nation and to the extend that that is

the case, he's -- forget the partisan divide right now, and let's get ideas and resources from wherever we can to directors in ways that shows that we are getting the best bang for our buck. reaching out for other people, across across the aisle, i don't have a problem with that. i try to do that when i governed in virginia. i want to thank you for the kind remarks that you've made. but i think the president is a very smart person. he has an earnestness about him. he has inspired so many people that so many people believed and still believed in him. they want to see many of those things that he's -- hope and change come into zprution they're saying now, when can we see some of this? what's taken place that makes us believe that we're going to be able too get a job? that we're going to be able to

have a mortgage for a home? that we are not going to be reading about people giving themselves millions of dollars worth of our taxpayers' dollars in terms ofñi bonuses and eventually, some of this is going to spill out and come down to us. yes, we've talked about health care but are we going to get anything near what has been devised or what has been talked about and if so, when and if not, what is going to be the real agenda? and these are the kind of things that people are frustrated about. put something on the table that we can see and identify with. host: in this morning's "washington post," this headline, "g.o.p. gets formal invitation to health care smut." it talks about the white house formally inviting the republicans to the february 25 summit. and michael sheer writes -- the only way to show the president he is serious about

bipartisanship is to scrap the bill by the senate and the house and start over. and they have suggested that they might not participate in the summit unless he does so. your thoughts on that. is the only way to get this thing done, the health care summit is to scrap everything and then start from scratch? or is there somewhere where this can be saved? guest: i would think that we get together. the white house has invited them to the white house. go to the white house and if you want to say that to the president while you're at the white house, say that and let him tell you why he feels he shouldn't scrap it. i don't think this posturing by either side helps the american people. i don't think saying what we would say and what we might not say -- sit down. talk as lyndon johnson used to say, come, let us reason together. if we're going to disagree, but let's be agreeable to the extent that we can disagree. let me hear the better parts of what you've got to say.

i might even agree with some of it. and you need to hear the better parts of what i've got to same. you might agree with some of that. rather than to continue to take totally different opposite sides and views, sit down and talk. that's what the american people want. host: back to the phones. akron, ohio, mike on our line for independence. you're on with former virginia governor douglas wilder. caller: yes, not only am i an independent, i like to consider myself a true patriotic. i do not vote for obama. i do not vote for clinton or bush. my record is a perfect 0-10. but i -- guest: [laughter] caller: but i never ever hope nerd president to fail. sometimes i predictsed failure and sometimes i was right, sometimes i was wrong. but as a patriot would never hope for any democrat to fail. why has obama and his spokes people allow certain people in the republican party get away

with saying they would hope that he fails? somebody like rush limbaugh could get away with it because he is not a patriot in any shape way or form. nonetheless, he and anybody else who publicly state that they hope the president would fail should be called out and say how could you possibly be a failure? predict failure, that's ok. hope for it, no way. .

dubois no need to continue to argue with those people. there are far more people willing to sit down and work together. the unfortunate thing is we need to explain it to people. take health care for instance. with the amount of money that went into it, the american people never had it sufficiently explained to them in a manner as to what was being talked about in done.

we could have said, we could go back and get more when we needed, but let address -- let's address the immediate problems. host: we have a democrat calling out of baltimore maryland. caller: hello. but just wanted to say that we knew who was in charge of this. how come the administration does not reach across and talk to this person and bring him in to the fold. even a guy in florida, obama seems like he wants to stay away from people that seem like they

are strong and ready to fight. how will your relationship with howard dean be? >> we have served as governors together. he is a friend of mine. i think he did a tremendous job as the dnc chair. look at what was brought about. i do not know what the relationships is with others. i hope that he is still included in the deliberations and discussions and the direction. >> assuming that the president will not call for the resignation of mr. kaine, what can be learned from dr. dean? guest: i do not know if they

talk or have had the occasion to sit down. you have several elections coming up. there is a seat in pennsylvania. the real question is if the democrats moved out of the house which is a possibility that they could lose some seats in congress, it will be very difficult to see how we are going to talk about a mandate and in the absence of its -- when you look at recent polls showing democrat may not be as strong as they have been comic it suggests they needed to reinvigorate those people that could make a difference or change and can provide hope for the future.

that needs to take place as soon as possible. host: you are on the line with "washington journal." caller: i do not understand how mr. obama says he is trying to get money to the people to help the economy, but he takes billions of dollars -- we are not getting the money. he should give us all $1 million a piece which is about $300 million, a charge us taxes on it and let us pay ourlp bills and o on our way. [laughter] i do not think that is going to happen. i think the frustration on behalf of a lot of people is that when you consider the increase in the national debt

and nations to buy securities and invest in america and consider likewise that jobs are a indicator of a lagging economy. the unfortunate thing is that people are now out of work. they need jobs. people with one or two degrees cannot get work. those with a lack of education are further down the road. people are saying, what can we look to with some degree of the mediacy? that is why it is so important for the president to address the job market question, to address the need for infusion of cash into stimulus money is so that

it filters down to the people. ñihost: canton, ohio, independee one. caller: i am so glad i got on. i wanted to make a suggestion regarding congress and the filibuster's and all that. i do not understand why they cannot form a group of professional people that are civilians that could sit in on meetings as a group and offer an opinion as a unit. they could break up this filibustering. they are not impartial. they would have professional opinions. you could change the content

based on what the economy is now introducing. secondly, i would really like to know whose idea it was to freeze the in come of social security recipients. i think it has been frozen for a couple of years because of the non-inflationary a status of our economy. the seniors are a big part of the buying majority consumers and prices are still going up. seniors are struggling to meet their budgets. then they turn around and freeze the income for a couple of years. whose decision was that? why was that not explained more? and the third thing is the

credit card. how can the credit card companies charge 23 and 28% interest to the american consumer when the savings rate is 1.5%. it is such a big gap there. i cannot understand how the government cannot put a cap. host: that is a lot to work with. guest: the first thing is to advise the legislature of certain things. sometime focus groups are independent or partisan. he find out what they are saying. they give an opinion that is usually conducted by the media.

i would be very surprised if you have the legislature surrendering what they feel is the elective rights to decide on behalf of the people there represent what is taking place. should they have more people involved? i think they should. in terms of the credit cards and the amount of interest, that debate has been going on for a number of years. people are still speaking about it. you see the abusers and the exorbitant rates they charge in terms of interest. is it fair? many people feel very upset about it.

host: our next call comes from virginia on the democrats' long. -- line. caller: you have access to the president. when person was elected -- he was elected and clear during his campaign with respect to health care. he said that every defense, he spoke about it. this should not be an issue where people did not know what he was going to do. you have to tell him not to scrap this bill and starting all

over. that is a republican trick. he should not do that. that would be a big mistake for him to do. this health care bill must pass. guest: i think it is important for republicans and democrats to get together to come and discuss it. it shouldn't be thought through and people should discuss what can be done. what is there that both parties can agree to? you cannot tell me to believe that there is not something that everybody can agree to? past that which you can agree to. past that which is achievable. if you cannot get it all as one time, at least get the best of what you have and move on. host: one person from the new

york times has made certain remarks. do you think the president will get the message and shake things up? guest: i would hope that the president's stance with what he is committed to do. we have to look at what can be implemented and accomplished. he wants to fulfil his dreams and his promises. i have not read to the extent that it will be stopped. it is a much more difficult job once you are in the hot seat in in that position. you have the ability to do it. i wish him well. host: our last call comes from myrtle beach, south carolina on

our line for republicans. caller: good morning, governor. i want to make a few statements about the comments made by the gentleman who it disagreed with rush limbaugh's ability or right to say that he hopes president obama fails. he did not want him to fail but his policies to fail such as cap and trade. another example is the stimulus plan. it is no different from the democrats wanting george bush's improvements in this so security program to fail, fail in iraq. senator reid on the floor of the house said that iraq is going to be a loser. george bush is a loser. i get tired of people taking certain things out of context in making an issue out of it.

guest: it is not what to do but how you do it. it is not what to say but i do say it. some confuse the public in terms of what they mean. i think a lot of people have come away with the idea of mr. limbaugh's statement of very calculated that he wants the president to fail. that has not been corrected by mr. limbaugh. he has had every opportunity to say, i hope the president does not fail. host: thanks for being with us on "washington journal." guest: always good to be with you. host: we will talk with neil

monroe on biological cloning. we want to show you cartoons first -- actually a look at the week's news through the eyes of the editorial cartoonists around the nation.

there is an article that has been written. what does it mean? guest: it is intended to be a

political counterbalance. it is progress of bioethics. -- progressive bioethics. the terms are in much dispute. they share an differ on many things. it is an effort to match public expectation and social rules for biotechnology.

this who marched from we opposing this research. i understand their concerns. we have to respect their point of view.

after much discussion, the fate and the proper course has become clear. the majority of americans from a vast political perspective and all police have come to a belief that we should pursue this research. host: what issues are still outstanding from that speech? guest: all of them. to some extent, the president has moved the bar in a natural progressive direction. president bush has many areas of controversy in bioethics. whether the federal government should fund research. taken from stem cells from human embryos. president bush allowed funding.

president obama allows a broader number of funding taken from a variety number of embryos. it is not clear how this is going to turn out. president obama has talked about compromise and emerging values. that is not a libertarian free- for-all. we do not know what will matter as far as regulations go. many are willing to limits would people are willing to do and what they can do. it is controversial to prevent people from doing what they can and what they want to do. >> we are talking about the politics of biotechnology. if you like to get involved in the conversation, give us a

call. you can send us an e-mail or twitter us. ñiñrhow does the public feel aba embryonic stem cell research, cloning, and other examples of biomedicine? guest: the public has different minds on this. they want the medical research, but do not want to put a price on it. they have told people and the majority of people according to one, 57% support researchñr on cells taken from embryos. they are created and the cells

are taken from them. it is bad to kill embryos for medical research. 57% of people support that in general. 70% of people support federal research on stem cells not taken from embryos but adults or left over material at birth. both sides argueçó which is more potential. but in general, they do not want to be regulated just like any other business. they oppose research. in the question of what people want, they want medical research at the lowest possible price. host: in your article comedy " a founder of the seattle -- you quote a person regarding public

opinion. is this going to be a major issue in the 2010 election? guest: her argument is basically that progresses need to change the focus of the conversation in a way that suits them. there are many issues coming down the pike. in general, the embryo cells are valued because they helped drug companies develop new products. they are like human lab rats. on the other hand, stem cells taken from adults can be used by surgeons to create patches, repair organs. they work, but they are more expensive and harder to do.

there is a complicated battle between different business ógroups and political factions against each other. that is not easy compared to what is coming down the pike. it is likely that we will discover new ways to use creatures such as bacteria or bugs to find ways of designing children already in utero. you can buy services to have a fresh light eggs for certain traits and the ones you prefer implanted in your wife. the general trend is to allow more manipulation of humans throughout their lives, before birth, at the very end and naturally politics played into this decision. host: manchester --

manchester, democrats. caller: what is it so impose -- important for clowning? i understand stem cell research, but cloning, i do not understand why science or the government should do cloning of people. guest: in a wide, diverse world, that are always going to have people that want to clone themselves. it is in the tiny percentage of the world. the purpose is for medical research of new drugs. if you are going to develop a new product, you want to test it as carefully and as accurately as possible, especially a drug product. if you make a mistake and you sell the product, you waste $500

million worth of investment. if you sell it and it turns out to be harmful, you have heard a lot of people and it costs you a lot of money. the companies want to test and develop the drug as cheaply as possible and test them as effectively as possible. the best way is to test drugs on people as early as possible. the best way to test them on people is not to hire people off the streets and inject drugs into them. poor people or sick people to not turn out the best results. that is why a clone is more helpful. the contest huge amounts of compounds and potential drugs against a standard human cell to get effective results. the idea of cloning is to get small quantity of cells that are

normal for standardized testing. think of a giant warehouse full of live rats or twins that are exactly the same. create --ñi warehouses' full of dishes of cells. it would be for heart attacks, cancer, diabetes, which many people want to fix. host: arizona is next on our line for independents. caller: i would like to know about the expo planets? guest: the what planets? host: let's move on.

caller: i am a christian. morley, this creates a challenge for me. it seems -- morally, creates a challenge for me. it seems that man is trying to play god. we have a scripture where got a new jeremiah before he is sworn in his mother's womb. if you believe in the bible and that god is the creator of the universe, you have a problem with this. if you believe in god and he is the creation of all thanks, you tend to listen to the wisdom that comes out of the word of god. we basically go back to the garden of eden when man decided

to disobey god. host: without going back that far, is the support of this research -- will it play a factor in who you vote for this november? caller: absolutely and many other christians -- it definitely will. guest: that view is legitimate, but not scientific. you can do whatever you want. others say i believe embryos had very little moral status and we should be able to use the materials for medical research to do good things. this goes far beyond the disposition of embryos.

there are medical bills, medicare and medicaid is growing. their arguments on how to pay for and of life care. there are arguments on how to manage that argument for ailing people and money could be spent somewhere else. another question is addressed. -- is drugs. should we test them on people in the united states, china, africa? those are some of the current disputes. there are many disputes such as how the in vitro fertilization market should be regulated. women can select if they want a

boy or girl or certain attributes. libertarians believe it is a free-for-all. everybody does their own. medical research in the free- market will produce many benefits. that seems perfectly rational. conservatives say, perhaps, but we need to remember that certain things are bible even if you cannot value them in the marketplace such as -- are invaluable even if they do not have a value in the marketplace such as human life. progressives believe we should regulate business to the benefit of the week. others say, we should promote medical research because it will help everybody including the weak.

this is a significant obstacle that faces these groups that could change the national conversation. host: on our line for democrats out of chicago. good morning. caller: i was listening to his dissertation where he was talking about the spectrum of medical research. his conversation seems to be at the intellect of a not see nature. the whole reason we fought the second world war is to get rid of these psychotic idiots that were dying human life to less than one penny. how does he defend himself against this? guest: i am not supposed to take

a position or side. i am supposed to tell you what is going on in an unbiased fashion as i can. i have to use my voice carefully. if you do not like the tone, i am trying to be even-handed. host: let's take our next call from damper on the line for independence. -- independents. caller: it says in god we trust. [unintelligible] where does this group come from? i do not believe they come from got it? why does the government put it on themselves to come up and do

all of these things, calling it all of these things, for what? that is the same way cancer and all these things exist guest? guest: the people want treatment for medical diseases. host: you talk about a new effort by the progressive to refrain this debate. they believe it has been distorted by conservatives. who of the progressives in this argument and the conservatives? is anyone making headway in this debate or are they at a standstill? guest: the conservatives are groups that are often christian and non christian.

these make the arguments that businesses should be regulated in order to protect the social values such as support for unborn humans. part of their argument is based on religion and on and a secular philosophy. on the liberal side, some are more libertarian minded and some are more regulation-minded. libertarians would say we should not have significant restrictions on abortion because it would restrict women's right to choose abortion.

with that right, they could make their own choices. the others say if you do not regulate medical research, most of the benefits would be delivered to the rich. they prefer a designed to protect the weak. they do not put as much emphasis on protecting fetuses from medical research. they would try to protect old people and people involved in medical testing. they want it to go to a wider variety of people. host: next up is john on our program. caller: i want to know if he agrees that this biological research is tending toward by a

reproduction -- bio reproduction. are we going into an area where we manipulate and limit a certain desirable quality and even said that that quality would enable any individual born to assume a role if we had an asexual reproducing to perfection society. i think it is the worst form. guest: that is a common argument. we are heading towards a situation where people to design their children before they are born. some say, they can design out

potential diseases such as boehner ability to cancers. they can also -- they can also designed trivial things such as a here caller -- a hair color. medical research allows people to do this on an unreliable expensive way now. over time, the trend seems to be to give people more advantage to design their children. whether it is good or bad -- it is not what i think but what the voters think. the trend seems to be moving in that direction. host: go-ahead on airline for independents. caller: i like to counteract

some of my christians view that stem cell research is an ethical. it is an ethical if you think you are smarter than god. if you believe he is omnipotent and he has a grand plan the, and a plan for all human life -- if you believe in the bible where it says before god knew you, he knew you before you were born. i knew you before you were in the bone. i believe in all of those things. how can any of us on earth know what god has planted? how do we know that he has not planned for some of these millions of cells to actually be found in research to cure things like multiple sclerosis or brain damage or any kinds of things

like that? the biblical argument against stem cell research holds water for people of a certain belief. if you believe god is omnipotent, it does not hold water. we do not know what god is thinking. quite the big issue is whether embryos should be used in stem cell research. guest: there are theological arguments. they are not based on dogma and theology. different religious groups have different perspective on embryos. host: next up is on the line of

democrats from georgia. caller: if you believe killing an embryo is wrong, you cannot accept a heart transplant for any other scientific medical research that we have developed today. if you can accept a heart transplant, he should be able to accept stem cell research. guest: heart transplants are accepted if the hearts donated by the dead person have been granted. the ethical dilemma comes for people that -- it is missing for

whatever reason. they want to frame the debate towards the advantages of medical research. that is regardless of the source of advantages and court's questions as to how information -- and toward questions as to how information should be shared. judging by this question coming today, they are behind the eightball on this one. host: how much are the restrictions surrounding it for the government is going to pay for it, shows up in the

senate's or health -- or house health care bill? guest: abortion is the capstone issue. that issue is decided many years ago. the public has never agreed it -- to it. the issue dominates this area. the abortion question is taken

out of the political era. any question over this becomes a question of who gets these issues. in the judges decide whether companies and researchers used embryos and the like? that is the capstone overarching issue in this area. host: we have jail on the line for republicans out of miami. -- jill on the line for republicans out of miami. caller: i am excited about this research. i believe god has given us the knowledge and ability to do this research. i am concerned about unscrupulous scientists in corporations. guest: i think it is reasonable.

there is no reason why one should trust a scientist over a business in. each can do certain things in different ways. you are entitled to regulate them. there are enormous benefits like many aspects from medical research. many of these benefits have already been realized. you do not have to hand over this to experts. host: next up is a person from denver. caller: it something went wrong with the comb like qualities of humans, what would you do? -- clone like qualities of humans, what would you do? i think you should adopt a similar formula to one i know about.

what would you say or do if god came down wwhile you are talking about this. i do not understand why you are cloning. the abortion in the health package -- if a person cannot take their own life, how do they have the right to take the life of another person? guest: of course things can go wrong with cloning. to some extent, someone is going to clone. a twin is a clone, for example. a couple of people -- cloning by

itself -- you could make an argument saying cloning create another human. the counter argument is if you are creating humans to order, you are also controlling them. on the left, progressives are saying we should have no reaction to cloning from birth. some say we should object to it. some would say, we should regulate it. before you to cloning for birth, you do cloning from research. you have to get that right first. .

guest: we try hard to be even- handed. you have a lot of state in this

debate. there is reason to believe that serious disabilities will be treated with stem cell research and other related technologies. it must be very frustrating, you can get 15 years to get a drug to market. ççthat is terribly tough and painful. disabled people call me and say, when are we going to get a cure? frankly, we are going to get them, but it is slower than anyone wants. the chores and treatments may come in different ways than what we expect -- the cures and treatments. scientists are amazingly ignorant and and they have done a magnificent job at uncovering information, but they keep discovering new stuff.

the scientist would tell me that there are no stem cells in adults. there are no prospects of two hours.+ they were wildly wrong. ainl=?!eusys as they go from one mistake to success and ford. for disabled people, there is great hope, but it takes a lot of time to get these things done. host: next up is colorado, republican line. caller: i was wondering if you could tell me a little bit about your definition of cells versus fetuses. as a catholic, i am confused about the definition and i was

wondering if you could highlight the ideological viewpoint between what they sell is and what a fetus is. guest: everyone can agree, more or less, a fetus would be a complete human at an early stage of development, dependent on the mother. a human life first begins as an embryo and works its way to a fetus and onto infant. the fetus is a completeç workig çhuman, obviously notç?;vçqe enough to survive outside the womb. but for stem cells, most stencils are taking -- taken out

of embryos at a very early stage. this is what scientists areç learning to do. a few cells from the embryo, grow the cells into 20 different functions. they take one set of cells and turn it into a liver. then you can test. you can take another set of cells and gradually grow them until they become muscle cells. you can test drugs about muscle. then you can grow another line of cells and cast into a pancreas and you can learn more about other diseases. by cultivating the lines of cells, you can learn a lot about

the body. some people say, the easiest way to grow a salle is just like the human do it. "the embryo into a fetus. -- grow the embryo into a fetus. this has been on approved, very risky. it is not done now --unw3approv. çpeople predict a time where large numbers of particular types of cellsçç -- we're not there yet. host:ç cindyç on our line for independence. caller: my question is, my understanding about genetic research is that they made an error in the beginning where

they assumed that there was more genes than there was. there are more complications in the interactions, so when i carry that over into agriculture and genetic manipulation that they have done and these new crops that some people have developed allergies to, i want to ask the question if he knows that there is any correlation between the use of genetically engineered crops and the possible effects and the timing and the overlay and the possible effects of the mystery and what is going on with the bees. could genetically engineered crops be the cause of the be crisis?

guest: there is no way as a journalist i can know that. this stuff is too complex. yourç original point about underestimating the nature of genetics is a valid. scientist and a journalist have had a mechanical view of genetics as if all the genes would unfold and combine and create some sort of lego-like human. çthe genes are far more complex than we thought. there is an additional layer of biotechnology that makes the genes work differently. we're still learning and they are learning. mistakes will be normal as they deliver remarkable advances from day to day. your question about the farming is interesting. in terms -- social

conservatives do not worry about farming and biology. they believed it is great because it increases food and reduces the cost. on the left, there is a group that says we should regulate farming and agricultural technology because it might damage the environment. that question is almost entirely within the left. in effect, the standard position of the two parties is flipped on biological issues. republicans believe in a free çmarkaon agricultural biotech, while on a human by tech, at democrats are more free market. caller: i am so torn by this issue because it seems to me that there are too many things that we do not now.