♪ host: the latest on yesterday's earthquake, the death toll has reached 300 in chile. president obama heads the but has been unable -- but as the

net -- bethesda naval medical center for a full physical today. newsweek magazine has its cover story today, the subject is their boss. for republicans, 202-737-0001. for democrats, 202-737-0002. for independents, 202-628-0205. here are a couple of the headlines on this february 28. as you might imagine, the earthquake yesterday is the subject of most of the stories above the fold. in new jersey, "earthquake brings chile, hawaii dodging tsunami."

nothing to the extent of the concern that was expressed yesterday. from "the miami herald" and "the houston herald," "a massive jolt." "rebirth of a nation" looks like this, "something that looks a lot like democracy is taking hold in iraq. might not be mission accomplished, but it is a start. a successful cents from damascus to tehran, freedom for the future of every nation. we will have more from "newsweek, if you want to put up the computer right now, derek is joining us from charlotte, north carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you?

host: fine, go ahead with your comment. caller: hindsight is 2020, our reasons for going there, but i would think that iraq is in a much better position now that it was. would everyone concur with that? host: we want to hear from you and others. let me -- let me read more from this article from 2003 by an "newsweek." this is president bush. "it will be a global watershed in the democratic revolution." greg, independent line. caller: i would like to say that

we have got to stop hosting the world. as much as we are a big, global power, we have got to shrink our overseas policy. it is bankrupting our country. if we are over 170 countries across the world with embassies and bases, we cannot afford it right now. host: more from "newsweek" writing that "the iraqis have surprised even themselves in their capacity, the flood of the polls as soon as they got the chance today, baghdad is papered over with campaign posters, and they seem to be cranking out more."

for republicans, 202-737-0001. for democrats, 202-737-0002. you can also send this to comment through twitter, twitter.com/c-spanwj. or you can send us an e-mail, journal@c-span.org. maryland, good morning. caller: it seems to me that it is possible to think that they are a better country. after all, we killed over 1 million people, 6 million refugees, destroyed their infrastructure, how can the question even be entertained whether it is a better country or not? it has been totally destroyed in the republic put in its place. host: there is a related piece this morning from the in the -- un secretary general to iraq, "

it represents a paradox, on one hand, we represent the direct interest of the global community in the future, but we must transform interference into engagement. will this be after one year of normalization for them? the shape of a new era being visible? but, down, pluralism is becoming embedded in daily political life, serious efforts are underway. oil production contracts provide solid potential for revenue management and say building." janine, new york city. good morning. good morning, jeanne? caller: how are you?

i do not believe in continuing the iraqi front. host: we will go to james in los angeles, independent line. caller: iraq is another quagmire. sunni's are not accepting this, it was a war for israel, you can read the book "transparent ckabal." stop the pro-israel lobby now before it takes america down. host: phoenix, good morning. please turn down the volume on your set and go ahead with your comment. we will try one more time. caller: good morning. i do not see this as the birth

of a nation. iraq is carved up in three places now. kurds, shiites, sunnis. i do not see this working any time soon. host: isaacs is joining us from new york city. good morning. caller: i do not believe it is the rebirth of a nation. similar to what the other gentleman said. their country has been destroyed. bush and what he did, lying in why we were going over there, i read news about what was going on over there now, some people are so impoverished they are selling their votes so that they

can survive. host: thank you for the call. more on the peace, "no one can say for sure whether their political stability is sustainable. many u.s. officials see themselves as key players." the cover story also available online, "a rebirth of a nation." something looking like democracy, "beginning to take hold in iraq." our guests later will include thomas defrank and april ryan, but next is chris from virginia. good morning. caller: i would like for someone to finally go into that country and take a look at their hospitals and schools. really put a real look at what is actually happening in the

country. they are still in the 1950's and 1960's. they do not have the medical care they deserve, we destroyed that country and put a bunch of people back in there that left the country back in the 1980's. i feel so sorry for those people, i grieved. i do not know how to make amends to these people, financially we cannot afford it anymore. i do know how we will be able to really really help them, and i grieve for them every day. host: thank you for the call. this could comment is from cindy. "so, can we bring the troops home now? -- now"? next caller, good morning. caller: i do not agree with the title, rebirth of the nation, i

do not believe in the hope and desire that they will be able to come like -- be able to become like the america that we are today, with no morals. i just hope that they will be able to be a moral, ethical country, independent of america. host: thank you for the call, this comment comes from doug. "bush was right, left was wrong, but noozweak is still carrying on with mission not accomplished. surprise. -- surprise." danny, is this the reverse of iraq? caller: i believe that it is, it will take a long time and we sacrificed greatly for this

country. this is really thing is kind of scary. israel is our friend, we cannot abandon our friends, we tried to do that during world war ii, it is a mess that situation. but at least as a nation we have to stand together. thank you for the opportunity. host: more from "newsweek." "iran remains a concern, they continue to fight for influence in iraq, including trade, religious ties, diplomacy, and covert links. since iran's: contested primary election last june, its influence has diminished. dennis, good morning. caller: i do not believe that.

iraq has a long ways to go. republicans, they vote for war, money, everything, i do not know why. they do not do anything. i do not get war. thank you. host: these other cover stories are also focusing on iraq and the cheap parties and the role of their organizers and activists within the party. "the tea party may not last, but they have affected the campaigns in this election. host: we will have more on this with larry's tha sabadeau.

"scott brown, where is he coming from? getting to know this very new republican senator." nathan, ohio. good morning. is iraq experiencing a rebirth? caller: i do not believe that they are. getting back to the hospital situation in iraq, i think that our government is trying to install a central monetary system in the middle east, something they are resistant to. a headless beast, if you will. host: this comment from twitter, "lawmakers willing to spend trillions in iraq and base -- cry foul when the president was to ensure that all americans can have health care." caller: our soldiers are the most important thing right now,

if we keep letting them die, there is no point in them being there. the death toll is matching the combat enemy numbers. i do not think it makes any sense why we keep saying there. we are not helping our troops when they come home, too many injuries and problems, we need to get out of there as soon as possible. host: the president is traveling to bethesda for his physical today and he will be meeting with his -- with the wounded troops. this comment from steve on twitter, "we cannot just say yes that iraq is going to rebirth as a nation, only when the u.s. leaves and iraq is able to defend itself from internal and external threats can we be sure."

steve, good morning. caller: we have an embassy in iraq that is the most expensive we have built in the world. am i right? host: if not the most expensive, certainly one of the most expensive. close to about $1 billion. caller: that is one symbol that we will be there for a while. all the contracts that we will give on rebuilding this area, if you break it, you fix it, like the elder bush said. we broke a lot of things in the country. people like cannot find jobs in this country, they should go over there once we get it stabilized and help to rebuild it. since we went over there and did so much destruction, we should stay over there and then

let them rebuild their own infrastructure and government. our people have made such big sacrifices in this country. a lot of people going to that country and they do not come back. host: if you have a chance to log on to the newsweek website, it is right there, saying "the real test of a democracy is not so much the behavior of the winners, but the losers. vice-president joe biden now chairs a monthly cabinet meeting to monitor iraq. senior white house officials say that the group is cautiously optimistic about developments there, the big picture in iraq is the emergence of politics. the most striking is that while

iraqi politicians have proved a noisy, theatrical, inclined to storm off and push confrontations to the brink, in recent years they have often held back. lee, independent line. good morning. caller: appreciated. thank you for taking my call. you do a great job. i am an ex-republican, independent for a reason. we were fraudulently put into the iraq war over whenever, to make it a democracy, but it was really to be in the middle east to support israel, which is why we are still there. i do not believe that this is the rebirth of a nation. i do agree with the man on twitter that you read a few moments ago, even though they

are going to have an election in a few months, shiites are not allowing independence to be a part of the election. you can read that in any newspaper that is an honest newspaper. i read "the new york times" with a critical eye. you can find what you want in there, they report it all. so it is put on the first page, some of that is on page 37, and you have got to read page 37. host: let me ask you a related question, the front page of "the new york times, above the fold, paterson facing a big question, can he govern? he announced on friday he will

not seek another term. caller: i have not got my paper yet, it's late. a tough question, he is more honest than the legislature far as i am concerned, and i am not completely qualified, there are so many national issues, i have given up on new york, but patterson is not all that bad. he is probably right to not run, no one wants to support him. if we did get the state legislature to be an honest legislature, that might mean something. can i take the opportunity to ask, real simply, an honest call in would be 25% republican, 25% of but the democrat, and 50% independent.

host: independence of the fastest-growing group in the electorate. caller: there you go. i know you have heard this before. we get the sometimes lying democrats and always lying republicans, everything being right in the country, they wave the flag. in order to counter these people, all we have got to do is cure too big to fail. very seldom is there a counter- party brought on. i know that that is true, the neocons, the news weeks, of --

neocons, "newsweek," they rarely out number the number of independent, smart people that are not taking money to be a spokesperson for the american enterprise institute, for example. host: call in again after 30 days to be a part of the dialogue. caller: i know, we have got to find more people like solomon. host: we love having norman on. caller: i know, but it is hard, with what happens, countering the establishment types that we listen to every single day, until we can stand them, like john boehner.

you have got to put someone on more frequently, or bring in more independent types, experts in their field. not these political people that are not experts. there is only one bernie sanders. if he is not done i will eat my soup, or something like that. he is one out of a hundred. he has to be on every week. host: we may have you come down to be on the program. caller: i would love to meet you and all the rest of the monitors. your program, i worry about, who was a, sometimes all we got was

how evil the muslims were and how we had to invade iraq. they are lying low now, but they're doing so by putting articles in "the times och" and etc. host: we appreciate the call. here is one of the many photographs in the papers this morning from july chilchile. "the roads, the neighborhoods, they have been ruined."

paul, thank you for being with us this morning. we found a report last week looking at the ethics investigations into charlie rangel, what is next for the new york democrat? ocaller: the investigation that was announced on friday regarding a trip that the chairman and several others in the congressional black caucus took to the caribbean for a conference. in this case the ethics committee concluded that the conference was slated as having been paid for by nonprofits, but it was in fact paid for by a corporation. while none of the members of congress knew this, the staff of

charlie rangel knew that it was paid for by a corporation. and since his staff knew, he should have known, and a folded into that. the next things on the slate for him are more substantive, more directly related to his conduct. he had a condominium in the dominican republic -- hard to say in the morning, where he was getting rent on it, but not declaring to the irs, he is paying back taxes on that now. when he went back to fix this financial disclosure forms, they found all sorts of errors. finally, last summer it was indicated that he had $500,000 worth of property that had not previously been disclosed that

all. so, it has been one year that they have been doing this review of this finances, his reporting, and recording correctly that he had paid taxes. any number of errors he has admitted to, but the question is if he is at fault. host: paul singer, he is facing a primary challenge, something he may not seek another term, what are we hearing from his district? caller: charlie rangel has been around for a very long time with terrific support in his district, but at this point is the most ethically embattled member of the house. there are more allegations against him than anyone else at this point.

have to assume that it will be hard, particularly of the other three find fault. even if his staff do something that he should have known. the next question will be if they find him responsible for something that he personally did wrong. there are already members, including democratic members, but are asking him to step down. this would make his re-election very difficult. host: how many -- how much pressure is he getting from democrats in the midterm election in terms of the republicans calling the democrats' poster boys for corruption in washington?

caller: this is a real problem. up until a couple of days ago, before this report came out, of democrats were standing behind charlie rangel. and the problem is that now there are democrats coming out and saying that maybe he should stand down. i suspect, given the next couple of days, republicans in the house will attempt to force the issue. i suspect that there will be some democrats voting for it. the speaker of the house has said that he should not be forced to step down yet, let's wait to see what the rest of the ethics reports come out to say. to some degree he is still within the process, it is not over yet. but it looks like it is becoming a harder position to hold it, even in the democratic caucus.

it is not inconceivable that the democratic caucus could break and divide substantially over the question. host: george miller is the democrat from california, chairman of house and labor, joining us on the newsmakers program today at 10:00, eastern time. here is what he had to say about congressman rangel. >> sometimes in politics you have to do difficult things. i can make a case for him stepping down, but i can also make a case for him getting his day in court. it is the ethics committee. i would hope that they would wrap up their work as quickly as possible in order to make a decision. i would think that is what he is entitled to. >> as a chairman, can he

continue to be effective in that position? >> it makes it difficult, there is no question about that. he and members of this committee will have to discuss that. this happened on friday and we have to review that. this is not about dodging the issue. we can try to do the right thing, but we also know that the right thing in and a political environment can be very difficult. host: george miller is joining us after this program, paul singer is with us now. caller code george miller, interestingly, is not just some democrat from the middle of the country on his second term. he is considered one of the closest allies of nancy pelosi.

also, by the way, he is also from california and takes their airplanes back and forth. they are pals. if george miller is saying that we need to think about this, that is in nancy pelosi's cabinet. that is not an irrelevant member of congress. host: what happens next, paul? caller: i do not really know. my suspicion is that next the republicans are going to call for resolutions to have him step down. i do that no whether that will be before the democrats have an opportunity to caucus. by tuesday morning there's going to be a lot of swirl going around washington about what to do, exactly, with charlie

rangel. we will see how long it takes the ethics committee. i think that the next move is a political move, not an ethics committee moved. host: more online epidote rollcall.com, paul singer work for that publication, thank you for joining us. caller: thank you. host: the cover story of "newsweek" has this point, "seven years later after the war began, something that looks like democracy is emerging in iraq. while that might not be a beacon of inspiration, it is certainly a watershed events in the mass of the undemocratic released. this comment from a viewer, "a

journalist cannot travel 10 miles from a secure base without coming under fire or hitting a land mine. what a great free nation." elizabeth, good morning. caller: my problem is that most countries have a way to take care of their seniors, going into their homes, i am on social security disability. i get $782 every month, a cut by $30 when we did not get a raise this year. it was cut by $30 because of the insurance that i have for my medication went up $30. congress gets there be raised, and they try to keep it under

board. and that bothers me. we have kids in this country that are going hungry, starving to death. that has been put under the cover. we need to focus on our country. nothing against or for iran, i believe in helping people out, and i pray for the people over their daily, sometimes a few times for day. but we have got to look over -- look after our own first. host: shell gets the oil contract in iraq, according to this twitter message. we have a lengthy op-ed from al

gore, taking into issue some other recent reports that some of the climate change data might be faulty. from the outlook section of "the washington post" "of the new red scare -- "the new red scare." "chinese do it better. they have an army of hackers and supersecret government agencies. asked googled. education, they are turning out engineers as fast as they're making toys. china is catching up so quickly in the military, they could make life on a u.s. aircraft carrier a perilous affair. they have gone from cheap clothing maker to america's

banker. at least they can build a high- speed train, energy? look out, red china is going green. our focus, iraq, rebirth of a nation, what do you think? caller: i would like to see rebirth of a nation in this country. that is my comment right there. democrats on one side, republicans on the other. host: we have a caller earlier that one of more independent haulers. caller: i would like to see more men and women on your roundtable. host: thank you for the call. "the new york times" book session, number one remains "the

book -- the game change." #2 is the tell-all book on john edwards, "the politician." "staying true" is no. 3. "i am ozzy" is no. 4 and "on the brink" is no. 5. nick, good morning. caller: as i recall, iraq, before the united states started messing with that, was a secular, modern republic. not a republic, a dictator, but they had the best health care in the middle east. women had a quality and it was a modern, nonreligious government.

since then, they have electricity sometimes, but not most of the time, women have to wear veils and be accompanied by men. suicide bombers are blowing themselves up all over. so, any relief you got from people getting killed by saddam hussein has been taken up by suicide bombers. host: thank you for the call. remember, you've also join us online on twitter. this comment, "iraq will be free nation when all the country become a green zone. big shot tied in a small enclave inside of capital all night." next caller, good morning.

caller: getting rid of saddam hussein has helped the peace and stability of the area. several very vital mistakes have been made by the administration. i am a republican, but when they established with iran initially to make it easier for the united states, that led to huge other problems. the war between the shiites in the sumy's, as well as the kurds in the north, all of these problems have created a huge division. talking on those television channels, there is no hope at all of a rebirth.

without the help of the countries surrounding iraq, not talking about iran, as they played a very negative role so far, but the other countries, their health is so much needed for the success and rebirth of a rock. -- of iraq. the united states must show more of the policies when it comes to the relationship with israel, helping israel by convincing as real that the mission in the middle east must be a peaceful one, as israel is a superpower. america must pursue a more objective policy in terms of peace, helping itself by

pursuing the legitimate and international laws. host: where are you from? caller: syria. host: thank you for the call. this comment from twitter, "what have we gained from our time in iraq"? "no, we can, it is hard to see how president obama is the objective is for a health care utopia woodwork. does not cost more but extends policies to millions? cutting carbon without damaging the economy or causing further job loss? huge spending without any additional taxes for the middle class? -- middle-class"? michael, alabama, good morning.

caller: when we get out of there is when we will really see. we should not encourage democracy using the barrel of a gun. we must remember that we were brought in under false premise. before it was very cosmopolitan, people were educated. now they have reason slave women. i am not so sure about it. host: from "of the new york daily news" we have this article, "obama's orders, give

reform done." talking about health care. our next guests are here to talk about health care and have a look ahead at the president's possible allied to meet his steps forward with health care. gary duncan would agree, this twitter comment, "most folks are too bitter about how we got into the war to realize how much better off the people are without a dictator." yesterday, john linder, a republican from georgia, announced that he would retire from the house. this story in "the new york times, he is the 20th house republicans to announce plans to retire, as well as 14 house democrats, with two more democrats not completing their terms. joe, new york, good morning.

caller: thank you for taking my call this morning. the rebirth of iraq is important, and charlie rangel needs to step down. the jobs that are here in the u.s., they're all working over here for lower wages, they are coming over here to take less, talking about good jobs over here, we have none for the americans, a senior citizens taking all of the available money, that is my comment about iraq, we have got to take care of our own house. the people over here are starving, little low on the

little children. they want to go back and forth about health care? everyone needs health care. rich people do not spend money on anything except for art work , they evade taxes and do not spend money to help the economy , for people are left to endure all the hardships, paying for the war, aig, everybody. host: the cover story is "rebirth of a nation." "it might not be mission accomplished in iraq, but it is a start." that has been our focus for the last 45 minutes. "why do we help them write a constitution with the guarantee of universal health care but we

cannot have it in the usa"? up next caller, good morning. caller: we hope and pray that iraq is able to reconstitute itself. we established an embassy many years ago. most folks will look at iraq as being rebuilt by employment, and getting rid of poverty in those areas. as an american citizen married to an arab, those areas are seen as not being addressed at all. drinking water is very hard to find. unemployment is way up. with what we are hearing, i am

told that folks are basically waiting to leave, and once they leave, other vendettas will be settled. i do not see a bright future for the country here. host: was the war a mistake? caller: being a veteran, i give props to all servicemen and women for their efforts, soldiers are doing what they are supposed to do. they would not even allow us to use the northern borders to come in, so i hope and pray that things do work out for the iraqi people. host: one more comment from a viewer, "bring the troops home, we need them living here, not dying there.

this cover story will be coming out in newsweek tomorrow, you can raise it today -- we did today online at their web site. we have bobbi jackson with a look at the topics and guests this morning on the sunday morning programs. >> thank you. healthcare is the issue on all of today's sunday shows, including a recap of the health care summit from earlier in the week. on "meet the press" will be nancy deparl, the john mccain, and eric cantor. on "abc's this week" they will talk with nancy pelosi, lamar

alexander. the guests on "fox news sunday" include jon kyle, paul ryan, and robert menendez. on "face the nation" you will hear bob schieffer with steny hoyer. kent conrad, tomñi coburn, and marsha blackburn. on "state of the union" they will speak with mitch mcconnell and nancy pelosi. you can listen to all five of the sunday morning talk shows starting at noon eastern on c- span radio, here in washington, d.c., on the web ads c- spanradio.org.

follow ups on facebook and twitter. -- follow us on facebook and twittered. >> i have always followed a policy in the capital of the u.s.. >> a different side of the nation's capital, from documentary filmmaker kike arnal. >> this weekend, a discussion on george orwell with george packer and christopher hichens, "afterwards," part of the book tv weekend. >> patrick leahy kicks off the technology policy exposition on "the communicators" at 8:00 eastern on c-span 2. >> "washington journal" continues.

host: our sunday round table this sunday, april ryan and thomas defrank. let me begin with this story that was under the radar at first, but got some attention from our viewers on c-span t2, a gentile partisan conflict in the senate is threatening to get a feel messier -- threatening to get a little messier." what is going on? guest: republicans are delighted that he is not running for reelection, but because he is a lame duck, he can basically do anything he wants without sanction from the other side, and he has put a hold on all legislation for the moment. not often that you hear someone

-- someone like harry reid refer to someone else's behavior in the senate as a moral, speaking legislatively and politically, holding up something as important as extension of -- as unemployment benefits. other senators have said that this is just a symbolic protest against democratic big spending and big governmentñi to spend it now and let the grandchildren worry about it later. when you deny people unemployment benefits, it is a political loser. this feeds right into the democratic charge that republicans are not interested in anything except for saying no, something you will hear from democrats and lot in the next several months. senator bunting is certainly within his right to do this.

host: the essence of the story this morning is that there has been pressure from allies to be more aggressive given republican tactics, senator shelby put a hold of all the president's nominees. guest: going back to the extension of unemployment benefits, many democrats are saying that it takes money to make money, and that to extend the employee benefits, you can funnel the money out into the nation. that is their premise and many democrats are saying that they have got to do this and they are upset about the jobs bill that does not do that. unemployment, especially the jobs bill, that is what they are contending. host: the president yesterday in

his radio address was talking about a way forward, here is part of what he said yesterday in his weekly address. >> these countries -- companies need to be held accountable when they arbitrarily deny care. we disagreed over the tax rates for small businesses and individuals. this would be the largest middle-class tax cut for health care in history and i believe it should be done. while we believe that americans with previous condition should get coverage, we had disagreements over how to do that. some of these we were able to resolve, some we may not be able to. we will not be able to resolve all issues. hopefully we will be able to find a compromise as long as both sides are serious about coming together to get this

done. i believe that we cannot lose the opportunity to meet this challenge. there are tens and millions of women they cannot wait another generation for us to act. small businesses cannot wait. americans with pre-existing conditions cannot wait. the federal budget cannot sustain these rising costs. host: get reform done, those are his orders? guest of the democrats believe that president obama came away holding the upper hand from last thursday's 6 hour 15 minutes summit. the democrat -- democrats believe that they can convince people, after being unable to do so for one year, the this is a populist bill with something in it for every american. the democrats lost control the

message on health care, but president obama and his senior aides believe that they have slowly begun to take a message back from republicans, they believe that they can do with 51 votes rather than 60 votes, and that they can get a slimmed down bill through congress. we will have more details in the coming week. host: even with 51 votes, there are still tactics that republicans can use. guest: all you need is 50 votes if you have the vice president their break the tie, but republicans can introduce analyst amendments. they're very skillful in parliamentary tactics.

even be sure that even if the democrats pull up a health bill with 50 votes instead of 60, republicans will do everything that they can to delay that. their tactic has been to delay and the night, and they keep doing it because so far it has worked as a political issue. guest: after the 6 hour 50 minutes summit session at warehouse, it will not necessarily be 147 republican amendments in the final bill. there is also this understanding that if it does not happen by easter, it simply will not happen because of the issues of the midterm elections. all or nothing right now, from what i heard of the summit. not necessarily common ground, but a lot of scrapping this.

congressman cliburn said something to the fact that he thought it was republican theater, stacks of information on the table. he mentioned -- i will not call out the names, but that it was all or nothing before easter. host: april ryan, a graduate of morgan state university, radio show host. thomas defrank has spent many years at "newsweek" magazine and is now the bureau chief for "the new york daily news." how is betty ford doing? guest: last time i checked she just turned 93. she is frail but hanging in there. she is still living in the same home that she and jerry ford left the white house for. host: i heard that the dale colorado home was on the market.

guest: they came into the house on track court in beaver creek, colorado. a beautiful home, overlooking the slopes. i knew a few months before he died in 2006, when i heard that the house was going up for sale, i knew two things -- they were never going back to this place that they really loved and i suspected that the end was near. a great house. the guy that owns it has tried to preserve elements of the presidency in that house. host: what with the last conversation you had with gerald ford -- what was the last conversation you had with gerald ford? guest: six weeks before his death, november 2006. i had a speech in palm springs

and that wanted to see him. his staff did not know about it, but i said i wanted to tell him goodbye. during my speech i got a call from his staff to come on over. it is difficult to talk about. we had this quick session in the study of his home. .

>> my question is, let's tell the whole storcri about this job deal. there was a really bipartisan job deal that was really large, and the inside of it was pay as you go. and then, harry reid, he wrote his own bill and slimmed it down and took out pay as you go. so senator bening is standing up for as pay as you go. and you know that as well as i do. so let's don't cruise fi senator bunning. i know how -- i listen to you all and everything, but come on, let's just be honest and fair about it. because i hate to see someone

get slandrd when they're really trying to get and stand up for the american people. and that's the honest to god truth. come on, let's be fair. host: thank you, tom. guest: come on, let's be fair. well, this president has been working on the issue of pay as you go. he is talking about let's go back to how many americans used to do it because that's some of the reason why the economy and the federal deficit is so out of control, because everything was put on credit or pay on time. and pay as you go is something this administration has been talking about as well as the former president, george w. bush. so that is definitely an issue. it may not make it in one place but it's making its rounds around washington. so it may land somewhere. host: i gezz guest: i guess the only thing i would say is the attitude of the caller. there's become a tendency in this country, if you don't hear

what you like, then there's something wrong with the reporter or to put another way. if a reporter doesn't bash somebody that you don't like, there's something wrong with the reporter. and i think it contributes to a lack of civility and courseness in the dialogue. back to senator bunning. i still think senator bunning is doing this for his own political reasons more than some high minded policy position. >> back to your newspaper. state of shame. and this photograph. a meeting that took place in harlem, new york yesterday. congressman meeks, congressman charlie rangel and reverend al sharpton saying leave lame duck dave alone. >> this has been a bad week for harlem politicians. the congressman rangle got a wrist slap from the house ethics committee which is still

investigating some of his alleged ethical lapses. they haven't made a recommendation on that. host: on that we talked to paul singer earlier, is charlie rangel going to seek reelection? guest: i think he will. but i suspect he will be reelected and i suspect at that point he will probably announced if not sooner that his next term will probably be his last. that's just a guess. i think he will continue to run for reelection. host: do you think he will maintain his chairmanship? guest: i guess i think so. charlie rangel is beloved in the house and has done a lot of fares for a lot of people for a long time on lots of different legislative issues especially since he's become chairman of the house ways and means committee. and i suspect, unless the house ethics committee suggests that there's criminal conduct, which i don't think thrizz going to do, i suspect that he will hang on to his chairmanship. host: that's assuming that the

democrats maintain control of the house, which could change. guest: tom hit on something. they're saying the same thing. they're saying that he is going to win. but the issue is they're concerned about his stamina, his emotional stamina. will he say i'm just done. so that's a concern after what he's been going through. host: let me go back to what your competitors at the new york post write. they have a picture of a yawning david patsen. gove's final days. the cover saying that the crumbling of dave patsen's accidental governorship comes as no surprise who say patsen love's the trappings of power but not the work. a couple of points, he take as daily lunch break from noon to 1:00 and no one is allowed to interrupt. a spike of activity comes, marked as suggested death time, a joke among stafferers as if real work is only optional. and also, a point in the "new

york times" is that the governor has not had any substantive meetings on the budget with law makers. guest: governor patsen does not have a reputation for being a super hard worker. i think that's fair to say. host: what do you think of this paragraph? guest: well. host: that's a white house photograph from the governor's meeting. guest: i think all these organizations sometimes look for photos that help illustrate their story and i think that picture does that for that story. guest: that's interesting. that was a picture from the governor's meeting, the meeting with the president. and it was a stakeout when they were all at stakeout. and it was interesting. i called him to come to the microphone because he was in the back, and this is one of the governors in the midst of controversy. and the telling thing after that, when all the governors broke off, there were two specific questions i asked governor patsen, and the issue

was, was one, is there tension between you and this white house? and he didn't want to answer. and ultimately at the very end he said let's move on to yes, there's no tension. and then i asked him what's going on with the ksm trial. and toum and i talked about this earlier. he seemed that he was about the business of new york at the governor's meeting and i asked him what about the trial? and he said, i'm meeting or talking with people from the white house today. so he did talk and the issue now is the fact that the trial is, they're still dealing with the issues about that trial but it may not necessarily be in manhattan. it may be in new york state. he is still carrying on the business of new york state. host: joining us from las vegas, democrat's line. caller: good morning. i would like every congressman and senator and federal employee to give up medical

insurance so that we can have the money. we're paying for it. the other thing is i want them to report all campaign contributions. all. not just from the insurance companies. all of them so we can determine why and how they're voting the way they do. thank you very much. guest: i'm not sure i would want any american to be without health insurance any time, but especially in hard economic times like this. maybe a better proposal would be or an ltnat proposal would be, and it's been suggested by a lot of legislatures, why don't we have congress passed a health care plan that is exactly like the health care plan they get. i think the answer would be if everybody had access to that plan, we probably would really break the budget because it's a very generous plan. and so we'll see. but i don't agree that -- i

just don't agree with the first premise of the question. host: did you want to comment? "new york times" sunday magazine, where scott brown is coming from. they talk about his resume, and they talk about his newest office which was the office previously used by the late senator edward kennedy guest: that won't last for long because that office was vacant because of senator kennedy's death. but if i know anything about the senate, it is a creature of seniority. seniority is just -- seniority and tradition are just about everything in the united states senate. and so before too long he will be getting less grand yose quarters, you can be sure. host: how significant was it january 19th election? guest: it changed everything. the winds of chake are blowing. -- change are blowing. many democrats many have

decided not to run and there is a concern for many democrats in this country of mid term elections. this is saying that the republicans understand that there is change. and they're playing off of the obama change. people want action now. and if you can say and make the clear case that, look, i can bring you back to prosperity, i can give you what you want, people are listening and they're taking that and running with it. so it changed a lot of things. and it also has changed the whay the white house has to deal with issues. that was a major. senator ted kennedy, he helped put this president of the united states in the oval office and then his office was lost to a republican. i mean, decades this man was there. so change has -- change has come to washington. host: this is what the cover story looks like, "new york times," where scott from is coming from as a very, very new republican senator. can you give some historical perspective to what this

election has meant? guest: he ts best news story in town. and he helped us along by voting with the democrats on a job bill. host: how so? guest: because he cannot vote in lockstep with the republican party in the senate. why? because he's got to be reelected in a couple of years. not six years but a couple of years in massachusetts, one of the most liberal blue states in the country. so he is very mindful of his core constituency and his core constituency is more liberal than conservative, more democratic than republican. so he cannot be just another republican robot in his votes. and i think voting with the job bill in a 70-28 majority i think made that point. i think he is going to surprise a few people in terms of some of his votes. host: let's go back to health

care. meeting at blare house, and as soon as that ended, the leaders went to the oval office, met with reporters including the republican leader of the senate, mitch mcconnell. >> had the opportunity to meet with the president today and discuss health care. and as he conceded and a number of the majority conceded, there are plenty of good republican ideas. the core problem is this. we don't think a 2700 page bill that cuts a half a trillion dollars out of medicare raises taxes by half a trillion dollars, drives insurance premiums up is a good idea. what we think you ought to do is start over and go step by step and target the areas of possible agreement that we discussed in the meeting today. frankly, i was discouraged by the outcome. i think it's pretty clear that the majority including the

president want to continue with the basically senate bill, which has even been made more expensive based on the president's recommendations that were put on the internet a couple of days ago. but we're happy to continue to discuss the areas of agreement. it's just that i do not believe there will be any republican support for this 2700 page bill that the american people are so overwhelmingly opposed to. host: this morning the "washington post" pointing out what we've already talked about, the reporting that the white house will release a revised version midweek probably on wednesday, will address some of the republican proposals put forth on the table. but what you were just hearing is what the republicans have been saying for the last few months. guest: for the last year basically senator mcconnell's remarks could be distilled into four words that we didn't just hear there. he said, frankly, i was disappointed. the fact of the matter is, it is the republicans have decided

it is in their party's interest to say no on this. and the president will in fact put out a new vision for health care and you can be sure that the republicans will say i'm glad he's incorporate add few of our ideas but we don't like this bill and they'll be talking about 2700 pages or 2400 pages. that is their mantra. they don't want this to pass. eric canter said we don't like this bill. and if they can't stop it from being passed, they want to at least delay it so that a vote that they're convinced a majority of the american people will disagree with comes close tore the november elections. so it's delay and deny. and so far it's worked. we'll see if it continues to work. host: and confirming what you have been reporting that the president does not want to start over. both parties had their talking points. the republicans say scrap the bill, start over. we heard that over again. the democrats saying we're

closer than you think. we're about 70% there. what's going on? guest: well, there's philosophical difference about cost and paying and then you have the debt. and the issue is everyone -- the senate republican bill is not going to raise taxes at all. they're saying that their savings will help pay for the bill. and so is the white house. but the issue is both sides really understand that something has to happen. now, if it happens now or if it happens way down the road is a whole nother thing. but at issue, you have health insurance reform and also insurance reform going hand in hand. and that was the beginning. that's what the call was at the beginning. and this country is seeing anthem in california talk about raising rates by 39%. and you have other states doing it. so something has to happen because right now with one in every six american dollars goes to health care. also, it's pushing up, what is it the 17% of the american

economy is on health care. so something has to be done because these insurance companies already starting to see the hand writing on the wall and raising rates already potentially raising rates. and americans who don't have coverage will not get coverage. so those sides see that but something has to happen at some point. host: in a related piece in the "washington post," tom defrank, the role of lobbyists, reacting to the president's recent statements that he will move ahead on the legislation. helleds insurance companies have enlisted hundreds of lobbyists. the pharmaceutical industry also targeting the president's plan which includes an extra $10 billion in cuts from the industry. the ramped up effort is particularly evident among conservative advocacy organizations also lobbying against this bill. guest: there's a furious effort against this bill. they don't want to bill, they want to kill it. i want to go back to something april said. the reason the president

doesn't want to start over is that he knows if he starts over there's no chance of a health care bill before the november elections. and the problem for that, for the president, is he has got to show between now and november that he can lead. there are a lot of polls that show that, a lot of independents who voted for him and some would argue independents made the difference for him. a lot of independents are disappointed from him. they expected more. so there's an acute feeling in the white house that they've got to win something. we've got to do something so we can say you elected us to lead and it's tough, we haven't gotten any republican support but we're leading. we're passing thing. so to start over would be basically an admission of failure on health care. guest: one of his campaign promises. host: we'll go to the independent line from columbus, georgia. good morning. caller: good morning. is there a way i can address congress on health care? because essentially this bill

is dead. bipartisanship is just another word for obama being spineless. and this bill will never pass as long as the congressmen can imbought. is there a way to change that or is there any way i can get my suggestions to congress? host: have you contacted any of your members? caller: well, i live across the border in alabama but i'm on the georgia line. my representatives is mike rogers but he is republican. i don't think he would want to hear my ideas. my ideas are basically include a public option and the american people are so misinformed about it that it will never pass. host: you might want to give

him a call. although you might say that no democratic support for -- guest: democrats are saying in the house that the health care bill is going to have a hard time but it's going to pass because of the public options not included. at the beginning when all this started towards the end of last year people were saying if the public option is not included we're starting back to northing. this is what democrats are saying and now republicans are having the same mantra. the public option is not included but still provisions for those who are low income. you have these exchanges. there are provisions there. so just keep in touch with your representative. call, e-mail, write the president of the united states. write -- the white house. you can't e-mail the president. but write the white house. maybe his letter will be one of the ten letters that the president reads every night.

also, talk to your senator. write your senator and write your congressman and let them know. host: tom defrank, as the president made his way around, he gave a polite hand shake to many of the republican senators. but he gave a warm embrace to senator tom coburn, republican of oklahoma. what's their relationship guest: this isn't the first time that's happened. at both state of the union speeches, as the president obama came in, he and tom coburn, who is probably the polar opposite politically of president obama on the issues, they gave each other a very warm embrace. so i think there is a personal relationship there that transcends party and ideology. but i have made a note to myself to check on that and i haven't done it. host: you can just see as he works the room and there is senator eensie, senator john mccain and senator lamar alexander and then tom coburn. that's the moment.

guest: that's not the first time that's happened. on at least one occasion president obama has had a private meeting with senator coburn in the oval office and nobody said what that's about. i think they are good personal friends. host: in the "washington post" this morning, the legislative path remains treacherous for the democrats as senator reid and speaker pelosi try to assemble the votes. the white house and congressional leaders now have about a month to pull together majorities in both houses. but right now they don't have that majority. correct? guest: no, they don't. they have to work to make people come into the fold and they have to make some deals. but at the end of the day, from what i'm hearing from some of the democratic leaders, it's going to happen. but there's going to be a fight before it happens and they're saying before easter. guest: one of the reasons there will be a fight is that the

emerging strategy seems to be the house has to pass the senate bill. so you have one piece of legislation that has passed both houses of congress and it's the same bill. so that can be signed. and then you have to persuade house democratic liberals who think the senate bill was too weak, too lame, and too much of a capitulation to the conservatives to sign on to another piece of legislation through the reconciliation process to take care of -- to add a few things that the liberals like in the house. and that's going to be tricky. host: so at thursday's meeting more for democrats in the house and the senate as it was for republicans in that room? guest: i think it was for republicans to just show why they hate the bill and to wave their arm busting copies of the legislation. but i think it was for the democratic strategy was to let the republicans hang themselves saying no, no, no, no, no, so the democrat ks now say, and i

think you're going to hear this in the weeks ahead and days ahead. i think the democrats are going to say the president extended not only one arm but bodes arms and the republicans slapped him down so we have no choice but to go and get this done with a 51 vote somewhat radical procedure. but it's in the interest of the american people. and if you saw any of this session on thursday, the democrats will say it was clear that by trying to be bipartisan the president was treated poorly so we're going to just have to do what we think is right for the american people. host: if you're not watching the olympics dade, you can watch the session. we will be broadcasting the session throughout the afternoon here on c-span or you can watch it on line. let me get to john who has been waiting from dallas, texas. republican line. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i wanted to make a few comments about the health care bill and

some of the positioning that your prop gandist reporters are trying to make. the american people do not want washington control, washington rationing, and more taxation. they do not want it. this idea that trying to -- that the democrats are going to win some great talking points by saying that the republicans of the party of no is ridiculous. fundamental fact is, is that the american people do not want this bill and it is the tone deafness and the absolute radicalness of barack obama that he ignores the scott brown election, who ran specifically against the health care bill, that he would in fact bring it back up. this is a job killing bill. it is federal bureaucracy out of control. and there will be absolutely nothing that the democrats will gain. and, as a matter of fact, there is bipartisan agreement in the

house and senate today that they do not want this bill. the house, the democrats have 79 seat majority in the house and they can't even get a majority of the congressmen in the house today to vote for this ridiculous bill. host: let me take up on your point and also share with our audience what senator tom coburn had to say in his weekly address yesterday. >> this week i had the opportunity to join president obama and my democrat and republican colleagues for a summit on health care. we had a respectful and constructive discussion. while we listened to one another, i'm concerned that the majority in congress is still not listening to the american people on the subject of health care reform. by an overwhelming margin the american people are telling us to scrap the current bills, which will lead to a government takeover of health care and we should start over. ununfortunately, even before the summit took place, the majority in congress signaled our intent to work together.

instead, they want to use procedural tricks and back-room deals to combine the worst aspects of the bills the senate and the house passed last year. guest: senator coburn's remarks yesterday were exactly the right tone. he is not using words like john about rizzf ridiculous and stupid and prop gandist and all that. and i should say, john, i'm sure you think i'm from new york but in fact i'm from texas and i think you know where arlington, texas is. it's about 15 minutes to the west of you. so, but coburn was effective because he wasn't sput urg or talking about 2900 pages, he was just talking about the issues. and i think republican leaders with senator coburn's tone are much more effective than some of the rhett rick tigses that we've heard a little bit on the republican side.

i thought coburn's reply to the president was very effective. host: len from princeton sent us your e-mail. by the way, do both of you twitter? guest: i tweet. guest: i don't but i've been told by my 14-year-old son that i'm missing the boat. so i'm probably going to do that. i think it's good. host: did you tweet that you're on the washington journal this morning? guest: i facebooked and everyone let me know they were watching. host: here's a question from the "washington post" abc news poll. which would you prefer? the surnt system -- current system or a universal health care program under which everyone is covered under a program like medicare that's run by the government? 62% favored medicare for all. 33% were opposed. guest: interestingly enough, health care is so important and

the issue of prevention of health issues and wellness is what's going to drive the cost down. and this is what this administration is trying to push, promote wellness and trying to keep the cost down. and once you do that, they're saying that this pays for itself. and everyone is concerned about the cost. and the cost is this exorbitant, a trillion dollars. but if you go out and have no insurance and the federal government has to pay for others and the prices again from state insurance go up, it's going to cost triple that of the current plan. so both sides again, the democrats and republicans, even though the polls show that americans don't want this, they understand the impact in the long run of what would happen if we don't have some kind of health reform in this country and insurance reform that goes hand in hand. host: michelle malkin who writes nor the washington example anywhere calls it a

dance. while the republicans came off well, the six-hour blow hard fest waws monumental waste of time. obama care theater tied up resources as the white house readies its plan b. this washington box office bomb is a prelude to a much bigger legislative horror still to come. guest: well, won't we know where she is coming from. i think we put her down as a no on health care reform. the fact of the matter is the one thing -- i'm not an expert on health care but one thing i do believe is that one thing where i think president obama has the high ground is when he says if you want higher premiums, bigger budgets, bigger budget deficits, do nothing because that's what's going to happen. actually, anthem of california played right into the white house's plan because that allowed obama to say, see, i've been warning you for a year. you haven't paid attention.

look what's happening. and we're going to see more of this. and that i think helps him with his populous appeal. host: one of the things we'd like to do is explain some of the terms including budget reconciliation. conis a question. can you please comment on the history of budget reconciliation useage in the senate. when it did it become the nuclear option? guest: harry reid said last week, said it at the health care summit that budget reconciliation has been used 21 times on -- and certainly it's been used on things that you wouldn't expect it to be used on. i read yesterday i believe in the "washington post" that reconciliation was used to pass the original cobra legislation which allows people to maintain their health insurance even after losing their job. that originally was pass d under the reconciliation process. reconciliation was used by the republicans to pass some of

george w. bush's tax cuts. so the notion that this is an extreme measure is not correct. it is an unusual measure but it has been done for political purposes before by both parties. host: and senator obama very critical of the reconciliation process back in 2005. guest: he might have been critical but guess what, he's leaning on this now. and, again, it's 50 senators plus the vice president and they know it's going to happen with the vice president's vote. host: joining us on the democrat's line from frenchville pennsylvania. guest: pennsylvania is up in the mountains. host: where is frenchville guest: in the middle of the state, where poor people live. host: we're glad to hear from you, richard. caller: my first comment for you people, and i tell this to people all over the country. i'm a small business man so i deal with a lot of people. host: what's your business? guest: caller: heavy equipment, repairs and parts, construction

and quarry industry and stuff. host: how has business been? caller: believe it or not, as the economy gets poorer, these people can't afford the half million dollar machines so they have to repair their old ones, so fellows like me can gather up the off-fallings and make a living. they have to repair their equipment so i furnish the parts for it. america was made great by hard-working intelligent people. and now we're destroying it by a bunch of over educated people who never did anything constructive, never did any value added business. all they're doing is opening boxes made in china somewhere. that's not value added. and here we are destroying our economy with a health care system that is completely out of control and no one can afford any more. my small business people can't afford the $1,000 per employee

that they're hanging their small business people on today. host: thank you richard. did you get your point in? i want to make sure. caller: also, you're talking about tort reform. my wife was literally butchrd in a local hospital. we're trying to put 27 months she can't sit up in bed by herself and we're trying to get a court case started. and they have that tort reform they're talking about is so complicated that i'm having trouble getting medical people to testify that the hospital did not use right. it is absolutely nonsense our legal system today. host: thanks for the call. guest: he is someone who is experiencing a lot of issues. and what i would say to you again, and i understand you're experiencing something personal lifplt but beyond that, the issue -- some of the issues that you brought up you said about health care being so expensive.

i think this is what's happening on the hill on both sides of pennsylvania avenue. you talked about cobra. they want to make sure that people are able to move from one job, carry their insurance to keep costs down to move from one company to another company without having to have insurance go up or lose the insurance. also, issues of preexisting conditions. at this six-hour meeting you heard from one person, one federal law maker who said if he did not have the kind of insurance that he did because he had hip replacements, two hip replacement surgeries and other issues, he definitely would not have the kind of insurance, he would have if he didn't have insurance from the hill. so your issues are going back to the point i think to a certain extent of what they're trying to do. and, yes, the american public does not -- these polls are saying they don't want it. the tea party was outside of blair house protesting saying that. but these lawmakers understand the ramifications if nothing happenses your insurance costs

will go up higher. and we wish you well with your wife and current situation. host: front page, below the fold. high profile white house social secretary steps aside. leaving after 14 months. and this morning, inside the a section confirming that juliana smoot is the new social secretary. she is former national finance director in the 2008 presidential campaign. why is this news? guest: well, because this is one of the first departures from the senior levels of the obama white house. and it's also news because she is a kind of ffo, a first friend of obama. she is very close to the obamas and extremely close to michelle obama. she is part of what some people call the chicago mafia in the white house. and she is the first to leave. the other reason it's news is because she was at the center of the storm about the gate crashers, the celebrity couple

who talked their way into the white house for a state dinner honoring the indian prime minister much to the chagrine of the white house and the secret white house and the white house social office. she is head of the social office. the notion that she has just picked this moment in time out of the air to go back to chicago and do things that she wants to do, it's not particularly credible. host: i'm going to put you on the spot. if she was forced out, who pushed her? guest: i think -- you know, i haven't even talked about this since all this happened. first, let's go back to the previous issue. it was about the fact that you had people come into the white house who could have endangered the lives of the prime minister of india and the president of

the united states. president obama said on cbs that he was angry when he was asked. he said i'm angry with everyone involved. and it's not -- the issue is not necessarily about a personal personality. it is about, one, about the duty of that position and what that position entails. and then the first and foremost issue is the safety of an american president. the american president, the historic american president who has already had security issues, threats on his life. and also, the prime minister of yained, whose life was threatened before. and look at what happened in mumbai, the bombing in mumbai. so granted this was an innocent issue with the falla his doing something for bravo, the reality show, the house wives of d.c., there's still issues. you and i have covered the white house together. you understand the white house is a madness place for the crazies. and that's what the issue is, the safety and security of any

american president and his guest and his family. and i think things were happening prior to, but i think that might have been the nail. host: speaking of covering that white house, did i read that you are second behind helen thomas in the longest serving reporter covering the white house? guest: i'm certainly proud to be associated with the great helen thomas, who when i was a rookie at the white house and knew nothing, helen in her typically gracious and generous way took me under her wing and helped me. and i will never, never forget that. but my first trip with the president was to tennessee in august of 68 with linden johnson. so i go back a way. and some would say maybe that's too long. but that's my story and i'm sticking to it. host: a lot of history this morning. a couple of e-mail comments. this from russell from north carolina saying you say one out of every $6 goes to health care but not like the money goes up

in smoke. that money pays a lot of workers, like nurses, doctors, respiratory therapists, insurance agents, customer service and so forth. it also gow paying for the upkeep of hospitals. guest: do you realize that the cost of health care is two to three times that of inflation, and that is from the joint centers from political and economic studies, a gentleman who also works at howard university. so it is a major cost for this country and for private citizens. host: andy has this comment. i do not understand why national health insurance is such a bad idea according to republican party opinions. the system has been working very well in israel for many years and republicans and democrats do not say a word about it. are you familiar with the israeli system? guest: no, i'm not. but there are other places that there's essentially universal health care and it seems to work pretty well. now, every country is

different. so you can't necessarily transpose another situation on ours, but it's pretty clear that there are some instances in some countries where there is all but universal health care and it seems to happen without huge inflationary price increases or a lot of complaints. host: we're talking with tom defrank and april ryan. jack says, what is april ryan's twitter? guest: april d ryan at april d ryan. i think that's it. i'm so new to twitter. host: we'll go to carry at wisconsin. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm glad that the republicans are listening to the american people. we do not want that 2,000 plus bill we have read it. we know what's in there. it wouldn't be hard to start

issue by issue and pass bills. they pass bills rather quickly. the insurance pooling across state lines could get passed very quickly. we could do these small steps. it doesn't have to be an all or nothing. and that's what tea parties, the town halls were all stating to all of these representatives. that's why you are having to go to reconciliation. most of the democrats now are stasting to listen to their constituents. we don't want this. just go item by item. keep it simple. it doesn't have to be this mish mosh of taking money from this program from medicare, what knot. so and the -- as far as the tone of john and what not, you're just hearing the frustration of the american people because you are still not listening to us. we do not want obama and the democrats 2400 page bill what is in there that is going to take away rights and what not. and doctors, you're not --

you're saying the american medical association is behind us. this is not true. regular doctors in all these communities are saying the american medical association is not speaking for them. and folks, you're not being trudesful with us and we know it. host: thank you. just a followup comment and then your reaction. obama care will be the final nail in america's coffin. the country simply is broke and cannot afford another entitlement program. that's from john stinebeck. guest: i'm always a little dubious of people who say we. clearly, he doesn't like the obama health care plan and clearly eetsdzear majority or close to a majority of the american people do not like lots of provisions in the obama health care plan. but i don't believe it's going to be all or nothing. the legislative history of health care over the last several months has been obama's original proposal has been scaled back consistently because he hasn't been able to

get enough votes for a grander plan. so while i still think the odds are better than even, there will be a health care plan of some sort passed, slightly better than even. i don't think it's absolutely certain but it's more likely than less, it's going to be a lot less than he wanted because that's all he will be able to get accomplished. host: joining us from new york, republican line. we welcome you. caller: good morning. this is for mr. defrank. and i won't use me or we. i will ask you two questions. with respect to senator bunning, who is retiring, being forced to retire, i don't know, from the senate. so what's you suggested it was a political ploy of some kind. is he planning to run for some elected office as president continue this or some -- i don't understand the term

political if he's retiring from office. i don't think he's going back to pitch for detroit. guest: i don't think he's running for me political office again. again, i think republicans really wanted him to retire because republican leadership thought that senator bunning would have a very good chance of losing the kentucky senate seat in the fall. so they've been pressuring him for quite some time. and also, senator bunning has a reputation for being out of even the republican mainstream. that's all i was really trying to say. host: and this for you april. please inform april that the choice is not the two. the choice is the solution that preserves individual liberty. guest: interesting. i'm going to tell you, it's so interesting to watch the dynamic and i've talked to people before. ron walters, who used to be

over at the university of maryland. you know, it's interesting how the american public sometimes may say one thing but it's still pushed there. and, again, like i have said, we watched in that six-hour meeting. the republicans want it. the republicans want it just as well as the democrats. how it is put into place is another thing. but they are looking at it as we understand you don't want it. just trust us. and we're going to try to make it easier for you. so both sides understand it is something that has to happen. i'm not for it, i'm not against it. i'm just telling you what i see as a reporter. host: and this comment. i'm an american. doy want the government to take control of health care. he says, i do think it's worth paying more taxes to get it done. guest: one of the things that i like about the american democracy is that it is a vibrant and resilient democracy with plenty of opinions, and we've heard all of that this morning in these calls.

there's no right solution, there's no wrong solution. the only thing that i have a problem with over the last several years is as i said earlier, the dialogue has gotten nasty. if you don't -- if i'm not hard enough on somebody you can't stand, there's a problem with me. and i think the coarseness and the incivility -- we need a jerry ford. i mean, jerry ford used to say i really believe that we can disagree without being disagreeable. and that was the way he functioned first as a house minority leader and then as vice president and president of the united states. and that's sort of down home -- you don't have to have a winner and a loser on everything. that sort of sentiment has gone and i just think it's cheapnd our discourse and our dialogue. and i don't think that's a good thing. host: you've written how many books on the ford presidency? guest: just the one in the fall of 2007. host: let me conclude with a couple of other points.

some news from the sunday morning from the other programs. speaker nancy pelosi appearing this week saying that the tea party is what she calls an as tro turf movement. guest: that's hard but i'll tell you this, this has made change. they have made change. they have made their voices clear. and people are taking note. for instance, the six-hour session with that summit was indeed to come back to say, ok, i'm going to keep my campaign promise, transparency of a session that was on c-span. so, you know, the tea party is a party -- it's a collective group of americans, a large collective group of americans who need too be heard. every voice should be heard. and that's one of the great things about this country that every voice should be heard. and they're making their voice loud and clear. you may not like it but they have a right to say what they want. guest: and they have had more of an republican comb pact on

the republican party. the question becomes, can the tea party movement take over. i don't mean that in a per jortive sense, but to dominate the republican party. and a lot of republicans are concerned about that because they worry that the, if the tea party movement becomes the dominant force in the republican party, it will move the republican party further to the right in a country where elections usually are won in the center. host: and the speaker of the house, also appearing on state of union. all of the programs air on c-span radio on xm channel 132 but the points she maintains is the democrats will maintain control of the the house. 49 democratic seats are in district that is were john mccain won in 2008. guest: exactly right. the democrats have a problem. but at the moment, if the election were held this coming tuesday, i don't think the republicans would pick up 40 seats in the house.

but for the good news for the democrats and the republicans, i suppose, as the election is not next tuesday, it's the first tuesday in november. host: tom defrank, always a pleasure to have you here. please come back again. april ryan, good to see you again. will you come back again? guest: any time. guest: thank you. host: we're going to take a short break. when we come back we'll turn our attention to afghanistan and more politics. but first, as we always do, a look at some of the leading events and issues that shaped washington this week as viewed by a few of the leading editorial cartoonists from around the country.

>> for the next half hour, we want to turn our attention to the latest developments in afghan. we have the former special envoy to afghanistan from the bush administration. thanks very much for being with us. guest: thank you. host: let's talk about the operation in margea. how are we doing? guest: we're doing 59 but this is the easy part. the strategy is called take hold and build. and we're in the take part. that's largely concluded. we've seized it. it was largely controlled by the taliban. they've been largely expelled. but take has always been easy in afghanistan. it's holding and building that's the tougher part. and that's to come. host: there is a piece this morning in the cover story of news week magazine looking at iraq basically saying that democracy is taking hold in

iraq. is it taking hold in afghanistan? guest: i think that's a hard question to answer categorically. the afghans latest opinion poles in afghanistan show pretty strong support for karzai, pretty strong support for the government. and remarkably enough, satisfaction with an election that was largely viewed by the international community as badly flawed. at the same time, they may be satisfied because they don't attach all that much importance to elections and they're satisfied with a result that everybody thought was inevitable anyway. iraq is a more advanced country , higher levels of income, higher levels of literacy. more familiarity with modern ideas. so i would say that afghanistan has advanced remarkably toward

democracy considering where its starting point was only seven years ago. but it's still probably not as advanced as in iraq. and in iraq, it's still pretty fragile. host: you've heard the line that many people say that president is the president of kabul, that there are leaders calling the shots in afghanistan. guest: i think that's a bit of an exaggeration. but it is certainly true that the afghan government lacks the capacity to provide substantial public services of which security is the most important public service but also things like electricity, water, schools, and health to its rural populations. it's made some progress in that regard. it's still very dependent on the international community. but it's certainly not confind to kabul. host: can you take a step back, whether the french or the soviet union and now the u.s.

trying to turn things around in this country. can you give us some history, why has this been such, for lack of a better phrase, such a tough nut to crack? guest: afghanistan is inaccessible, it's land locked, it's very distant. the terrain is very rugged. the population is very poor. and rather ferocious. it's a warrior society. it has a reputation for xenophobia, for not liking foreigners, which is somewhat exaggerated. the iraqis generally don't support the american presence. that's not true in afghanistan. the majority of afghans wanted the u.s. and nato there, and the u.s. and nato still have a much higher acceptance rate in afghanistan than they do in iraq.

for instance. but for all of the reasons i've suggested, it's a very difficult place in which to operate. host: is there a difference between the taliban and al qaeda? guest: yes. al qaeda are arabs. the taliban are afghans. the al qaeda is motivated largely by a global ideology. the taliban is motivated by a nationalist ideology. there's some overlap and there's a good deal of cooperation between the two, but they're distingish wrable. host: our guest, served as george w. bushes envoy to that country. our phone lines are open. you can send us a comment at journal at c-span dggetorg or send us a twitter comment. joining us from cleveland. good morning to you, democrat's

line. caller: what i want to say is we're willing to spend trillions of dollars to fight afghanistan because of that 9/11 situation. but we lose 45,000 people over year because they don't have proper health care insurance, or proper health care, we are killing our own people for al qaeda. al qaeda celebrates. all they have to do is put somebody on an airplane with a balloon full of explosives and we spend a trillion dollars but we don't want to recognize that our fellow americans are dying every day, 45,000. that's a lot more than we're losing in afghanistan. host: thank you for the call. and her comment is representative of a lot of the comments we got this morning earlier when i asked you about the question about iraq. and that is where we put our resources and how we see cut backs in this country as we try to fund the wars in afghanistan and in iraq. guest: i don't think it's

necessarily an either/or situation. we should be able to do both. there are resource conversations and congress and the president have to make those kinds of judgments. but i think most people would agree that national security and domestic health for our population are both priorities that we need to address. host: this comment says war is not the answer. peace will come when all parties sit down and talk. is that even possible in afghanistan? guest: the answer is yes. at some point. the obama administration has indicated a willingness to negotiate certainly with lower levels of the insurgency, the taliban in order to bring them over as the u.s. successfully did in iraq where it put most of the sunni insurgency on the american pay roll back in 2007.

it's also expressed a willingness to talk to higher levels of the taliban but not under current circumstances. the view, and i think it's the correct view, is that accommodation with the higher levels of the taliban isn't likely to make much progress as long as they think they're winning. and until very recently, they have thought they were winning and they probably were winning. at some point, when that momentum is reverse ds, the prospect of negotiation contributing to a peace is more realistic. host: we'll go to tom next on the republican line from chicago with james dobbins. good morning, tom. caller: i've got a quick question. what does it mean when you have a political roundtable? what does that mean? host: for us here? caller: it's a yes. host: it's a discussion of politics and news of the week.

caller: why did you have to have two people that the only other channel they appear on is msnbc, a liberal station? why don't you have a lib -- conservative? when was the last time you have a conconservative when you were hosting? host: last week. who do you want to see on? caller: anybody that's conservative. you have tom defrank and chris matthew's hot tub buddy and what's her name from there, obama's girl. my god, why don't you have a conservetive on, please. if you want republicans to watch this show any more, why don't you have a balance ds roundtable. host: i think we do. we try to mix it up here as well. of course we had the cpac conference last weekend here on the program. do you have a question for ambassador dobbins? caller: you had two liberals on this morning. everybody knows that.

and yes, afghanistan is going well. it should be followed up with more interaction with u.n. peace keepers to make sure that peace is kept beyond the battle lines. and hopefully when you're in the bush administration you're a bush supporter and not a screaming liberal. host: thanks for the call. keep watching. i think over the course of this program, whether the washington journal or our network, you see every point represented. thank you for your call and thank you for your toes. guest: i served both presidents bushes and also president clinton and others. back to john f. kennedy. host: let me go back to kennedy this morning. . .

caller: that person was utterly disrespectful for you. you have conservatives on frequently. i've seen that often, sir. please, you have had a lot of people on there. the bottom line, we went into afghanistan because of our support for israel. we have no business being there wasting r wasting billions of -- being there wasting billions of dollars while we go broke. how long will this go on for? host: we'll get a response. guest: there were contentions that u.s. support in iraq had something to do with israel, but this is the first time i've heard someone suggest that u.s. policy in afghanistan had

something to do with israel. it clearly was in response to the attacks of 9-11. i don't think there is too much of a connection. although one could argue the attacks of 9-11 were a response by arab extremists to american support for israel. one could make that argument. i would suggest that u.s. policy -- i think that the suggestion that u.s. policy in afghanistan is a result of our relationship with israel is without basis. host: "i remember hearing in 2001 that afghanistan would cost pairs $60 billion." guest: i think it is important for viewers to recognize that these kind of interventions do turn out to be quite expensive,

and that one should carefully calculate those likely costs before engaging in them. that is something we failed to do, for instance, in iraq. host: our next call is from lafayette, louisiana. caller: good morning. i think you do have a pretty good show on both sides. what i want to say about afghanistan is that from the beginning it should have been said that it was going to maybe take -- it could be a hundred years to finish that. these people that are global in their attitude need to be defeated, and you can't have a timeframe on it. one other question, if i could, about the health care. if they would just pass the health care deal where everybody is involved in the same thing, its congress, the government workers, the president, everybody gets the same deal on health care, i think they would pass it pretty easy. host: we go to kate joining us

from dayton, ohio. caller: thank you for taking my call. first i want to make a request that you guys have somebody on to discuss the lancet report that the bush administration brushed under the rug about the number of deaths, because in our mainstream media there is nothing about the deaths and injuries based on that pack of lies. i had the pleasure of talking for a number of hours with a student from afghanistan who is studying in ohio on a fulbright scholarship. his father is a retired brigadier general who fought against theñxi mushadin with th russians. his father said the same thing, that the only way to engage with

the taliban was to engage the more moderate taliban members to come to the table and that to take their concerns about what they consider really the dark side of the u.s. being -- you know, permeating their country where they, the taliban want women covered from head to toe but some people consider here in the u.s. that freedom is putting naked women on the front of playboy magazine. so they really were afraid of that part of our culture. so i want to talk, to ask you about the more moderate taliban and also a program that amy goodman had on, it was an irish documentary called "the convoy of death" the afghan massacre where several thousand taliban members who surrendered suffocated while being transferred. i wanted to ask you about that.

what do we do? if a taliban member wants to surrender, are they in fear of dying? what would happen to a surrendered taliban member? host: that was a lot there. we'll get a response. guest: in terms of talking to the taliban, negotiating with the taliban and bringing over members of the taliban, i think this is a topic that's gotten more attention recently. the obama administration's view is that at the tactical level commanders are certainly encouraged to try to persuade taliban fighters to make peace, to come over, and to lay down their arms. at the national level, talking to the top leadership of the taliban, the american view is that this is something that has to be done by president car size -- karzai and by the afghan

government, that we shouldn't be negotiating on their behalf. and president karzai has on a number of occasions indicated his interest in talking to the taliban leadership. in fact, he has even offered to meet personally with mula omar. he also sent representatives to meetings hosted by saudi arabia with taliban leadership. these meetings haven't produced anything of great substance. as i said earlier, the taliban leadership aren't going to be interested in this kind of accommodation, as long as they think they are winning mill tarle -- militarily. but in terms of trying to persuade the taliban fighters to try to lay down their arms, there is a large-scale program funded at almost a billion dollars. i think japan is contributing about half of that sum.

it is designed to provide lively hood -- livelihood to insurgents who lay down their arms and are prepared to start a civilian life. it is a situation that was offered before where they were offered livelihood in exchange for laying down their arms. a number of taliban did put down their guns and didn't receive the work they had been promised. the effort now is to do a more substantial job in that respect. i think we'll see lower level insurgents but not in as decisive numbers. as i said, negotiations at the

higher level are probably not imminent. host: let me go back to the eastbound -- eb and flow of the rib with president karzai. he is the duly elected leader of that country. how would you describe that relationship? guest: i think both sides are trying to maintain a1 relationship. i think the obama administration slipped a bit in its initial treatment of karzai. i say that not because the criticisms weren't justified but politic. the fact is karzai was going to win the election. there was no one who could compete with him invj2 terms of name recognition within and therefore

somebody who was about to be elected to anotherúq÷ five-year term was probably an impolitic judgment. i think the administration continues to have its doubts about president karzai. i think to some degree those doubts are justified. but i also think that karzai is being criticized to a large degree for exactly the kind of personality for which he was chosen in the first place. we wanted somebody -- we weren't looking -- the international community and indeed the afghans back in 2001 were looking for someone who could unite as many afghans as possible. not for someone who could be a decisive leader who could get results. what we have is someone who is a somewhat charismatic political figure who doesn't antagonize members of his constituency when he can avoid it. he tries to have as big a

constituency as possible. it does mean there is a toleration for the kind of corruption we find trouble some and which -- troublesome and which undermines the long-term prospects of success. host: this is what our twitter page looks like.dl@ twitter.com/cspanwj. go ahead. caller: how can we actually afford a war like this, and then we cannot even afford health care for our own country? something is wrong with this picture. i am a full-blooded american and i support the tea party because they are trying to talk to the

american people. i am a full-blooded american and i am proud to be one. i am wondering why it should take that many years to get a country like that organized. guest: it is a good question now why nine years after we initially went into afghanistan we made so little progress. i think the short answer is that for the first four or five years we invested very little in the effort. american resources and american attention were diverted rather quickly from afghanistan to iraq. we put in minimal levels of economic assistance and military resources into afghanistan. we became serious about afghanistan, recognized that it was going badly, and began to substantially reinforce only in 2008, the last year of the bush

administration, and so i think in many ways we should date our efforts in afghanistan not so much back to 2001 but to 2007 and 2008 when we began to get serious about the problem. >> paul has this e-mail question saying will the taliban ever be a political group that can take part in governing? weren't the roads that led through margi a drug route that helped finance the taliban forces? i would like to hear about that. guest: the taliban certainly could potentially participateosn afghan politics. if there ever is a negotiated solution to the politics, it will possibly revolve around

constitutional changes in the system there and provisions which would allow taliban participation. the taliban is, however, very unpopular in afghanistan. i think most of the polls show no more than 6.4%. i think one of the reasons it is difficult to construct a negotiated outcome is that the taliban are probably pretty aware that they would not fare well this a -- farewell in a system -- fair well in a system that requires one man, one vote. host: a news story from super bowl that many people killed when a truck is hit with a bomb.

guest: the afghan press and people have been critical of the u.s. and nato for civilian deaths that have occurred as a result of u.s. and nato activity. this comes not as the result of not u.s. or nato activity but insurgent activity. the u.s. has taken a lot of risk on the part of our own troops in order to minimize civilian casualties. as a result the number of civilians getting killed has gone down. the numbers of civilians getting killed by u.s. and allied forces has gone down dramatically. a number are still suffering as the result of sue fide side bombings and other -- suicide

bombings and other attacks by insurgents. host: caller. caller: good morning, mr. dobbins. i actually did three tours in afghanistan. let's be blunt. the importance of afghanistan is not so much afghanistan itself. there are natural resources. it looks like the dark side of the moon. there is not so much there for us. however it is neighboring iran and pakistan and flooding into india. that's a significant piece as well. one comment there. second karzai. let's be blunt about karzai. he's getting down in the south, the opium growth. through that corruption that you know very well, he's having

daily discussions with taliban that are mostly sitting five minutes or 10 minutes away from his office. it is not done in a public forum, but it is getting done. and the last question that i have is, my concern with afghanistan is because of the tribal, because of the geographic separation, the people of afghanistan are in that bottom first or second wrung of the hierarchy of needs. host: let's get a response from mr. dobbins. guest: i think that is right. the bigger the american interest in pakistan, al qaeda continues to be bordered between afghanistan and pakistan. it has been largely in pakistan for the last nine years. that's since 2001. that's because of the efforts the u.s. was able to put on them

in afghanistan, which drove them in to pakistan. the panny government has -- pakistani government has begun to take the taliban fleatnore -- threat more seriously and has collaborated with the u.s. in attacking candidate. but pakistan has remained concerned about extremist movements in these regions. u.s. activity in each, one of the motivations, one of the rationales for american engagement in afghanistan is has to do with stablizing pakistan. that is to ensure that these extremist movements stay in check on both sides of the border.

host: in addition to his pofingte in kabul and afghanistan, our guest has been special envoy to kosovo, bosnia, haiti. he is now affiliated with iran corporation. ambassador dobbins, thank you for joining us. guest: thank you. host: coming up, a gentleman that came to washington, d.c. to get beyond the monuments. kike arnal is our guest tonight. >> "in the shadow of power. what is this picture? >> this is a homeless guy begging for money. >> why did you put that on the cover?

>> it's dramatic to see why we are so close to the -- damnic to see him so close to the white house. >> you started photographing these in 2003? >> i started in 2003. i basically finished by the end of 2006. >> why did you do it? >> why did i do it? >> i came to do an assignment in the year 2002 in washington, d.c., and it was our nation's

capital. i was always picture about the monuments in the t-shirt. then i discovered the beautiful washington when i came myself the first time. i saw the mall, the monument. then while shooting this assignment i discovered another washington, and that propeled me -- that gave me the desire of this discovery, like peeling an onion, like what is beyond this monument, those neighbors on the other side of the anacostia river. >> the book is called "in the shadow of power." we invite you to join us fo for the full interview tonight -- join us for the full interview tonight on "q & a." >> one of the discussions on "meet the press" hosted by david

gregory include the director of the white house office of health care reform. arizona republican senator john mccain. also, house republican whip eric cantor. on abc's "this week" they will speak with nancy pelosi and lamar alexander. the guests on "fox news sunday" hosted by chris wallace include senate republican whip john kyle, house ranking republican paul ryan, and new jersey senator robert mends chair of the democratic snorl -- senatorial campaign committee. senate budget committee chairman kent conrad. texas republican marcia blackburn. on "state of the union" mitch mcconnell as well as nancy

pelosi. this starts at noon eastern. 90.1 f.m. here in washington, d.c. nationwide an xm satellite radio 132. on the web at c-spanradio.org, and you can follow us on twitter. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are pleased to welcome back a familiar face to this slow and the author of "the chrystal ball" larry sabato.

guest: there are two ways to look at the trends. one is based on sta activity cal -- statistical analysis. that suggests the republicans will pick up 30 house seats. we think it is between 27 and 37. let's remember it is february 28. you and i have been around a long time and loads of things were going to happen between now and november that will lift that number or lower that number. host: chuck todd on his morning daily rundown said we have already seen massachusetts flip to republican and now delaware and illinois have the potential of becoming republican seats, barack obama and joe biden's respective seats. guest: yes, those are two perspective seats.

there are several others that can switch -- arkansas, nevada. michael bennett is certainly a candidate for switching. when you go down the list, it is obvious that republicans are going to drastically cut the democratic margin. look what democrats are not able to do with 59 seats. think about what they are going to have as of 2011. they are going to be lucky to have 52 or 54 seats. they are going to be lower than that. how are they going to get it done if they can't get a health care passage with 59 senators. >> do you think the house could flip and become a republican house? >> the important word there is could. >> look, if it is between 27 or 37 in february and it takes 40 to turn the house over to republicans, it is obvious that a flip is a possibility. it is a very real possibility. i don't personally think it isity a probability.

again, it is february 28. the election is november 2nd. host: charlie cook indicates he thinks it is a strong possibility. some of those districts are those john mccain won in 2008. guest: yes. if you look at the overall picture you will see there are 83 truly competitive seats, but by more than 2-1 they are democratic seats. they are seats -- steve, this is really important and it is often missed. it isn't just about health care or president obama's popularity or the economy. a lot of this election is structural. that is -- midterm elections often are. the democrats won over 50 seats. where are they? they are in suburban and areas that normally vote republican. this is the first republican year since democrats won more than 50 seats. they are going to lose a lot of

those seats. right there it tills tells you it is going to be a republican year and republicans could at least come close to taking over the house. host: what's happening in that arizona senate race? guest: i still think john mccain will get renominated. in part, i think because he's taken this challenge from former congressman hey worth -- hayworth very seriously. he should take it seriously. republican primaries can be dominated heavily by very conservative voters as we're seeing in the texas gubernatorial process. so if you take it seriously and have the support that mccain has, you ought to be able to win. host: web ads have bime a new -- become a new phenomena in american politics. and we don't have the ads ready,

so we will get them ready. we'll go to tom from detroit. go ahead, tom. caller: good morning. host: we wanted to hear from you first. we didn't want those ads to get through. caller: thank you. i sort of see myself as reflective of the general populous in this country. i'm 62 almost. ultimately it seems to me the american electorate tends to, when pushed, will receive back to the center from either side. you know, i voted for clinton because of his fiscal responsibility. his other matters were of little concern to me. you know, i voted for george bush, and i think he and dick cheney were at an -- i don't

know what they are. they are not true republicans. they are something else. but anyway, i think the country, i think this gentleman is right. i think the country will swerve back to the center and maybe a little right of center. that's where the country generally goes. host: larry? guest: this person sounds like an independent. he has clearly voted in both directions. independents have moved back from the democrats. they sided with the democrats in 2006 when the democrats took over the house and senate. they sided with the democrats in 2008 when president obama won and democrats increased their margins in the house and senate. now for a combination of reasons, including spending, taxes, debt and i think the overall bad economy, independents are moving back to the republicans. independents voted overwhelmingly republican for governor in new jersey and virginia last november and for

senator brown, the new republican senator in massachusetts in that special election. host: welcome to the program. caller: good morning. i just want to comment. the democrats, they won the last election. r president obama is our president. i have heard nothing but derogatory statements about him and about his administration. i would vote for a dog catcher before i would vote for a republican. i am basically an independent. i have voted for republicans, and i have voted for democrats. this tea party deal is destroying our country and the republican party is right in the middle of it. thank you. host: thank you, jamie. guest: obviously democrats hope that voters like that caller show up in great numbers. if they show up in larger than

expected numbers in noffer, maybe democrats can cut those losses. i do think, though, they are headed for losses. it is almost inevitible given the historic imperative for mid-termñx elections. elections are cyclical. they are like the economy, they are like life. they are cyclical. they have had two strong democratic years. we are likely to have a strong democratic year. that doesn't mean 2012 will be a republican year. that is very much a question mark. it will depend in large measure on the president's popularity and the state of the economy in 2012. host: from the opinion page of "the new york post." "aides tell of laziness and deceit."

guest: it is amazing you could have a governor resign in disgrace two years ago and having this next governor forced out of the re-election race because of all kinds of problems, and yet when you look at the scene in new york, you will find that probably attorney general cuomo will, if not opposed, a very heavy favorite ñ kirstin gillibrand, she also has a chance to get elected to a partial term, to hillary clinton's term. that is mainly due to the weakness of the republican partó in new york. they are down to a couple house seats. the historic average is seven or eight house seats. they have to do better in places like new york if they are to get a majority of the house of representatives again. host: steve rudin -- rudy

guilliani considered a senate bid and opted out. did that surprise you? guest: no, that's been his way for a number of elections. i think the one that surprises me more pitachi could defeat gillibrand if he runs, but it is not certain he will run. host: i think we have the ads ready. we'll go back to show you what the john mccain campaign has put forth and follow that with the response from j.d. hayworth. >> obama is completely illegitimate for u.s. president not only for -- for two reasons. not only because he didn't provide the place of his birth but because he has to be a u.s. citizen.

>> obama knows he was adopted in indonesia. if he had a hawaiian birth certificate, we would have seen it now. >> for every race across the country it would be great if people can confirm who they say they are. >> the sad fact is, questions continue. until president obama signs his name and in fact has the records revealed, the questions will remain. >> the only difference between these people is that only one is running for the u.s. senate. john mccain character matters. >> citizens across america are rising up, standing up for

liberty. from townhalls to thejx+ nation mall. we the people took a stand in new jersey, massachusetts and won. now the torch of liberty comes to arizona. j.d. hayworth heard our call to take on moderate john mccain. now we can reclaim a place in the senate. for the people of arizona that are conservatives, do your part. join j.d.'s campaign today. >> one match, one winner! the conservative or the moderate? >> i'm j.d. hayworth and i approve this message. >> your reaction to those ads. >> the mccain ad was rerun of 2008 on character. ok versusly j.d. hayworth is hoping to win this long-shot challenge to mccain based on the energy of the tea party and the birthers, the people who® question whether obama was born

in the united states, and i should add that the evidence is overwhelming that he was born in hawaii and the birth certificate is valid, but he's attempting to tap into that sentiment. if there is a sentiment that can produce an upset, the tea party, the anti-immigration group and the bergers, as i said, i don't think that will happen. this is a tumultuous election year. anything can happen. host: and what is the most recent? guest: the most recent was a more perfect constitution to see if that could stimulate public discussion. it has done that. some people agree, some people don't. host: part of that discussion is the senate. is it dysfunctional?

does the national need to change the rules whether it is a 60-vote requirement to end filibuster or one senator to hold up legislation, we saw it this past week, we saw it before with senator@m÷ shelby of independent guest: it is the least firble part of government. congress as a whole is not an efficient part of government, shouldn't be, and the senate is the least efficient. i think you could make a good argument that it is so inefficient that it prohibits normal circumstances. even when you have, as the democrats had for years, 60 votes, it is difficult to get things done. you can go the route that you just suggested, steve, which is changing the filibuster rule. if you really want to talk about change, then you need to talk about the natureukq of the sena two senators per state. when thek4p founders set that u

the largest state had about 2 1/2 times the population of the smallest state. today that ratio is 70-1. california has 70 times the population of wyoming. when you add up all the small states together, you find 17% of the american public elects 51, a majority, of the united states senate. we know 41 senators can actually run the senate. 11% of the american public elects 341 senators. now, the founders were concerned about the tyranny of the majority. they were right to be concerned about minority rights and the tyranny of the majority. i think you can turn that around and say what about the tyranny of the small minority? isn't thatm(á legitimate concer, too? it's worth an argument. that's why in,ñ wrote the book. rñ to have an argument, and we're having one.qw

host: paul, we welcome you. caller: i have been a tortured republican for a long time, but it seems like the republican party has left me. i was a deficit hawk. i voted for perot a while back. now i just see the republicans just horrible fiscallya'o. they talk like they are going to help small business, but all i ever see is that they are helping the big businesses. on the health care, it just amazes me that the big story isn't that people really want a nonsubsidized public option, even republicans i talk to, and the democrats i think are 80% and they don't even talk about it. and the housing deal, i just don't know where to go. nobody does anything that the

people want. that's my comment. guest: thank you. this gentleman sounds like another independent. this gentleman has recognized what a number of americans have, and that is that both parties have problems in different ways. look, the reason why democrats are hesitant, at least some democrats during congress or at least has been about the public option, is because it reinforces those stereotypes about the democratic party, that they are a bunch of big spenders, big taxers. on the other hand, you correctly point out that during the bush administration with a republican congress during the almost six years of the bush term bush and the republican congress doubled the national debt. you can portray both parties as being fiscally irresponsible in different ways or unresponsive to public opinion in different ways. maybe that's the general siss of support for the tea party and some other independent groups.

host: over the weekend this latest ad from governor crist in his campaign to be the republican nominee in florida. ♪ >> why do you believe that illegal immigrants shouldn't be counted in the census? are you surprised that the republican governor is pushing for that?

>> i am surprised. on the one hand, i don't think you can round up 12 million, so it is important to ask that question. host: this has been one of the most recent efforts by the crist campaign. we should point out the election is still 5 1/2 months away. guest: that is really crist's remaining hope. he started out 40 points ahead. he was a popular governor. he was assumed to be the next governor from florida. he's now 20 points behind a little-known conservative$v challenger rubio. that was a good ad. it had a lot of pieces to it

that struck notes that might to take a lot more than that to regenerate charlie crist. there has been some talk -- and the crist camp has denied it -- that crist might run as an independent. you point out it is a primary five months away. that's a long time to play out a campaign. i would have to say charlie crist is in deep trouble. host: john is joining us from ohio. good morning to you, john. caller: good morning.b3 i don't understand why republicans on health care want to scrap it and start all over. it is like they are saying to me the bush administration didn't happen. let's start fresh with the obama

thousands of americans have lost their jobs, have lost their health care due to the bush administration. as far as the weapons weapons -- weapons of mass destruction, i don't think there is one republican right now inú real time that can show me those weapons of mass destruction, but they can probably show me an american without a job, and they can probably show me an american without health care right now.q host: will health care pass? guest: the democrats have a chance because they have 59 senate votes and a majority in the house. but this thing started out being a climb of a shenandoah foothill with the kind of majority democrats had in congress and a new president that had gotten

53% and had run on health care. there was a good chance of health care happening in that year. there are going to be books written about what has happened. it is incredible that the democrats blew this opportunity in obama's first year. i think now instead of climbing a shenandoah foothill democrats passing health care is more akin to climbing mount he have rest. it is possible. maybe the planets will align just right and some of the democrats that didn't vote for it in the house will come on board. these things are possible, but it is going to be very, very tough. >> this is from richard who says, professor sbato -- this is from a professor sabato. if a candidate announced that he or she would not accept contributions from a person other than ordinary constituents, could or should

that person wen win? guest: yes, if that person could raise enough money. i think the odds would not favor that individual unless that individual were in a district that favored his or her party. i've heard these arguments for year. i understand why the argument is made. in an ideal world you would have perhaps only local contributions. you would also make the argument that since members of congress effect all of us, the committees they are on affect all of us, we all as americans have a right to give something to them. this is one of those endless questions about health care reform. steve if we live long enough, we will stillz talking about it. host: tea partiers say the bush

administration grew government. guest: they can take from of the credit and blame of growing government. both parties have responsibility in that. maybe you support the growth of government, maybe you oppose it. it seems unfair to point to just one party. since obama has taken over, you can certainly say that the stimulus plan, the health care plan the other bills that have either passed or been proposed by obama would, in fact, substantially increase the deficit and the debt. of course a lot of that is structural and it would have happened even if mccain had been elected. i like to put it this way -- george bush in a republican congress dunled the -- doubled the national debt in eight years. president obama and the demmeds are on track to double it again. that frightens just about everybody including democrats in office from obama on down.

let's hope they do something about it. host: this is a picture of a cup of hot tea. it is called "a complex brew." quinton is joining us. good morning. caller: good morning to you both. really quick point. one is that the republicans will never regain the majority until they get either the blacks, the gays or the mexicans -- i'm sorry, the latinos in their corner. they have to go after one more demographic in order to tip the scales. until that happens, i don't see them regaining any seats. guest: that's a good point, but here is how i would answer it. this is a mid term election.

i'm guessing the turnout will be 40% of all those age 18 or over. compare that 40% to the percentage that turned out in the presidential election of 2008. 63% of americans age 18 and over voted. so you have a tremendous decline between the presidential and the mid-term election. this is standard operating procedure. who doesn't show up? i sr"-term electrics it is democratic leaning groups such as mine -- elections it is democratic-leaning groups such as minorities that do not show up. minority groups will be a majority of americans. over the past 20 years minorities have given approximately 7r5% 6 their --

75% of their votes to democrats. if minorities are a majority of the electorate and 70% is going to democrats, that tells you how most of the national elections are going to turn out. so republicans absolutely have to find a way to attract minorities, to attract young people, to attract women, to attract groups that they have not been able to win substantially for the last 20 years. host: do you tweet? guest: i do. my staff and i kid about this. i'm a dinosaur. they said he could do facebook or myspace or something like that and i could tweet, and since it is 140 characters, i figured i could do it. host: one e-mail from a viewer

who says "if the 2010 elections bring in republicans we will rue the day. the republicans have one answer to everything, tax cuts. we cannot cut a trillion dollar debt with only tax cuts. once we are out of the recession, only the democrats sanity." and he refers to bill clinton. guest: reagan was lucky. his recessions were well timed. his deepest recession was the 1981, 1982 recession. that recession was the deepest since the great depression. but when did it end? the last quarter of 1983 and first quarter of 1984. perfect timing for his re-election. president obama hopes he will have the same luck.

host: carl from augusta, mississippi. what is your comment? caller: i am a fan of senator mccain and i voted for him. i'm not a resident of arizona but i don't know why you would go for someone who doesn't have any experience when you have a man that has given his life for this country. he's given dedication to this country. he doesn't have to do this, but he stays in there fighting, and he's not a quiter. why would you vote for someone that is inexperienced? i think we're learning from our current administration, and i don't want to make a lot of comments about that, but senator mccain deserves to be senator as long as he wants to because he's still in there fighting. that's all i wanted to say. host: did you want to respond? guest: that's the mccain argument. obviously the hayworth argument is that conservatives have long been at war with moderate john

mccain. we saw that in 2008 when the conservatives were disillusioned with the presidential campaign, so they see this as an opportunity to get a more conservative senator in arizona. i think the gentleman has well summarized the mccain pitch. host: caller? caller: i wanted yourñi thought on campaign contributions and can congress correct that? guest: you are referring to the citizens united decision and a lot of people are concerned about it because they don't know the extent to which corporations will take advantage of this. i tend to believe they won't take advantage to the degree that some critics fear. but it is true that the decision may have opened up another

loophole permitting corporations to give to nonprofit groups that don't have to disclose their donars, thereby in a sense washing the money. will.i.am just -- we'll just have to watch very closely what happens in this election. if it turns into a major problem, it will increase the momentum for reform. there already is a substantial bill for reform that is being pushed for hard by senator chuck schumer and others that will correct some of the problems that many feel were corrected by the citizens united decision. you may get a reform bill ahead of the general election. if you don't get that reform bill and there are major problems in the ways that i'm suggesting to you, i think you will get one after the election. >> our viewers liked your discussion on the u.s. senate. vicky says "one change in the constitution that should be made

is the repeal of the 17th amendment. the original design of the government was for the senators to represent the interests of the states and as such they were to be elected by state legislators." guest: that is actually a correct comment. when we went to popular election, as the writer suggests, the basis for the senate was dramatically changed. now, you are never going to move back to state legislative election of u.s. senators. utah has proposed this. it hasn't even passed in utah, ways very conservative state. the people will never give up the power to elect u.s. senators. i think you have asked an important question. what is the nature of reputation in the senate? how does that compare to the house? how do the pieces fit together in a way that can produce good government for the people of the united states? so it is good that you are asking the question.

host: a look at senate races -- colorado, illinois, indiana, kentucky. caller do you have a question? caller: do you think the pro-life movement that is sprouting up with our african-american folks and our downs syndrome kids are going to be an impact on the vote? secondly, i think that thing "go to meeting" why not have our senators stay in their home states and have a go to meeting type conference? guest: on the first question, keep in mind that minority voters, particularly african-americans, have the strongest democratic partisan identification of any group in the electorate. as a consequence, even when they

disagree with democrats on issues like social issues, like abortion, for example, they still vote democratic overwhelmingly. my answer to your first question would be no. to your second question, and i'm showing my age and why i'm not going to be here in 20 years, what was it again?%vñ host: i'm looking at a at which timer comment -- twitter that asks is there a way the republicans could lose their momentum? guest: if the economy regenerated very quickly. if unemployment dropped from 9.7 to 8.0 or somewhere in that vicinity, which is unlikely, i think that would help democrats significantly. if president obama for some reason, god forbid, another 9-11, became very popular, then you might have an effect like 2002 when president bush was able to add six house seats and a couple senate seatshi