. . ♪ host: good morning, and welcome. today is sunday, may 9. afghan president karzai be in washington this week visiting with president obama to talk about moving forward in

afghanistan. that is the topic of an op-ed that mr. carr's i has written this morning in a "the washington post." -- that mr. karzai has written. we will get your views on the work ahead for both afghanistan and the united states. you can also send us messages via twitter and e-mail. we will show you those addresses in a few minutes. this is the of bed this morning. "the hard work ahead in afghanistan." president karzai writes that in any genuine partnership, this has not been an easy ride.

karzai goes on to say that the many sacrifices of both afghans and americans have led to tremendous achievements. we will continue with the discussion if you would like to take a look at that either online or in hard pocopy if you have "the washington post." we first went to chicken with jonathan martin at politico. he is the senior reporter there and here to talk to us today above yesterday's loss of the republican party convention in utah for senate bennett's, an

incumbent. the delegates voted 3 to one against his candidacy. the numbers were overwhelming, but did this come as much of a surprise to anyone in the room last night? guest: it does not come as a shock. senator bennett had had a hard time with the activist base of his party. as listeners know, a state run convention contains some of the most ideological activists in the party. there will come out on a saturday and spend the entire day of the state convention. they are driven by conservative dogma on the republican side.

senator bennett was in his third term, a respected inside player, not well known. he had a lot of respect inside the gop conference. he had a couple faults, one voting for tarp that have really hurt him back come. as a member of the corporations committee he had some trouble and spending issues as well. those things kind of haunted him. but of a gnat, he had a real problem -- an incumbent. being part of the wider establishment in the year that is seen as tough on the incumbents. -- that was other than that, he had a real problem as an incumbent. host: despite his three terms in the city was not able to outrun some of the items you listed? guest: yes, exactly. part of it was tarp, part of it

was his being an appropriater. the much larger issue was the fact that his 76 years old, somebody who had been in washington now for 18 years. he was originally to serve two terms and is now seeking a fourth term this year. those sort of process issues really did hurt him. those that challenged him show there may be time for new blood in washington to shake things up. when the process in you tutah hu facing not just a primary election, but are running in a convention -- that is ideologically driven, it will be tough to walk the line

ideologically. host: senator bennett finished third behind businessman tim bridgewater and the attorney mike lee. tell us about those two and the runoff that they face on june 22? guest: sure you get 60% at the convention. then there is a primary in june. part of the reason the bennett lost is a big national news, here is someone who is a three- time incumbent who has not only lost his bid for reelection, cannot even get on the primary ballot. both tim bridgewater and mike leigh are not well known, but only moderately known in the state -- and mike lee, of conservative.

much more purist conservatives and the more modern sense of the republican party. they appealed to the the tea party crowd. as far as their voting records, not that much different than bennett in d.c. with a fairly conservative record, but on spending issues may be more of purists. host: will there be significant opposition from democrats? or is the election in june of the fact election? guest: it is one of the reason why republicans in washington, even those sad to see senator bennett go, are not that nervous. this is a very conservative state, and a place where when it comes to state what elections, the primary is pretty much

tantamount to victory in november. whether it is bridgewater or lee who wins, will almost certainly be the center for utah. host: you can read more of jonathan martin's coverage at politico.com. we will get into our discussion guarding the afghan president karzai's visit to washington this week and his of bed and a washington paper. the first call comes on line for a democrat from harlem, new york. caller: hello, how are you? i just wanted to say that this afghanistan thing, i think it is a hoax. especially for the times square

bombing thing that just happened, it all leads back to we need to get out of afghanistan. there's no need to be there. it is too dangerous. it reminds me of 9/11, and also of how mayor bloomberg is trying to control the city through fear and terrorism, and now he wants to fly to london and look at his security cameras and all that. host: tom, on the line for democrats, out of detroit. caller: you know, i'm kind of confused right now about how i feel about afghanistan and as being present there right now. i don't know what karzai has in mind, what he will talk about,

but we have a lot of troops there. it is what? 120,000, or even more? the british had the same amount of troops in the 1920's, and they could not control any of the border regions. host: let me read you more of this morning's of bed. president karzai says "our common interest in fighting terrorism and improving security rests on building institutions to allow afghanistan to deliver all the necessary services and protect its people. to that end, it is vital that the afghan security forces be institutionalized and be equipped. what are your thoughts about

that? caller: it sounds great if that is what we need to do to pull out of afghanistan. i do not disagree with any of that. but i happen to feel that when the taliban does not want something to get done, it does not. and when they do want something to get done, it does. as with the poppy cultivation, the taliban are the ones to dictate to the farmers whether or not they will be growing poppies and it has nothing to do with the americans. when they know that the poppies exist, they surreptitiously destroyer one field and leave the rest alone because they know they cannot control it or destroy it. it is too much work. host: we will leave it there. more from this morning's "the washington tipost" a bit. it says here --

host: we continue our discussion on the hard work ahead, written by president karzai, and the next call comes from ted. are you there? [inaudible] all right, let's go to tom in new york on the line for independents. caller: hi, how are you?

the hard work ahead for karzai is indeed called for, but without american involvement there, the reason we're there is that the taliban did not hand over osama bin laden nine years ago. you know, that is a very slim reason to be fighting there. it is really all about the drug's there and a platform to attack pakistan. and to create all kinds of problems. host: let's go to twitter where we have a message.

this call is from wisconsin, sue. on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. i have a comment about else. i think that if we left afghanistan and got the heck out heckiraq, broadcom our troops home who are dying for nothing, then we would have less terrorism over there because we would not be out of they're terrorizing everyone -- if we got the heck out of iray and afghanistan and brought our troops home. host: it says a by president karzai that we greatly value and want to strengthen the strategic partnership. we have traveled for together. but the international effort in afghanistan still has miles to go.

we're not yet delivering security to large portions of the country. what do you think about that? caller: i don't know if karzai is to be believed. i know what he is saying, but i still feel that they have been in such turmoil for some many years -- i mean, everybody was in there and left. i don't know that the afghan government is doing enough to help its own people. i know that we are trying, but i guess my a big thing is why

should the boys be killed and wounded and come home? if this country will not shape up? that is just my feeling. host: the next call comes from moses, in bridgeport, conn. caller: how much more american blood and money will we continue to spend on propping up this corrupt regime? let's be real. these people, they're not really interested in democracy. they're just using the u.s. to acquire more. some who were born of some of this country, we have seen over the years, the u.s. is spending money to prop up this corrupt

regime. host: what you say that the afghan people are not interested in democracy? caller: they come i'm talking about the leaders of afghanistan. host: sorry about the confusion. caller: these people, when you look at karzai, just a few months ago he was attacking the u.s., claiming that if the u.s. does not stepup he will go back to the taliban. this is somebody for whom we are spending this money, to prop up his administration. in my opinioo, we need to find a better way to fight terrorism instead of keeping these corrupt leaders alive.

really, in my opinion, they don't have it in their hearts. host: on the front page of "the washington post" -- have of the next four days will show the shifting dynamics at the core of the u.s. effort in afghanistan. there are two stories under the headline of "bridge in the divide." both general stemming the crystal and president obama -- here it says in this column, during a white house meeting last month, a mama made clear that karzai is the chief u.s. partner in the war effort. in doing so, obama is seeking to impose discipline on an administration that has sent mixed signals about the legitimacy of karzai and his value.

also, under the headline "bridging the divide" they talk about the relationship between general stanley mcchrystal and ambassador eikenberry. the reporter writes that the u.s. ambassador and the top u.s. commander there assumed the posts amid lofty expectations that they could recreate the handing glove partnership that general petraeus and ambassador ryan crocker had while leading the war effort in iraq.

so, we are continuing our discussion on the hard work ahead with this of bed written by the president karzai. -- with this of bed written by president karzai. this is a jury of four republicans. tell us what you think about the hard work ahead as described by president hamid karzai. caller: first, those opium fields should be ruined -- blown up. the taliban, the al qaeda, all of their money comes from there.

every dime of it. it would not take the just a few minutes to burn those opium fields down. we get 90% of the heroin and the whole world from afghanistan. they cannot grow in the other crops that makes them the much money from that stuff. so, that's what should be done. host: so, jerry if you burn down the opium crops, will you were pleased with? the afghan people most heavily to support themselves, don't they? caller: whatever, wheat, corn, stuff like that. but the taliban and al qaeda -- that is where their money comes from. where they get their money for everything. host: thanks for your message. this one is from twitter.

host: back to the phones, no. but, california, richard. -- napa, california caller: we should call it what it is -- a criminal establishment in power there. karzai is a criminal and so was his brother. i want to echo about the opium fields. to me it seems strange that our bases we're setting up over there all along the same way -- the pipeline, that will be running through afghanistan and pakistan. so, there's a correlation there to me. 1 and lines up with the other. say what it is, it is about oil and protecting those oil interests there. let us go back in there to

spread the opium fields -- kill that. if they are so concerned about the afghan people, what of the oil companies pay the money? kill the crops, but the oil stays for the afghan people for leasing on the land. host: things. we will take a break from the discussion to check with tom baldwin, on the phone from london, the chief reporter at "the *." he will talk to us about the latest developments in the british election held last thursday. good morning. guest: hello. caller: that is the latest, are we closer to getting a government there in london? guest: yes, it is the same as before the election. by the constitution, gordon brown remains prime minister until he stops being so.

we will have a new government next year. the talks are going on as we speak. it is between the conservative party and the liberal democrats about where they can form some sort of deal which would give the conservatives the majority that they need in the house of commons to form a stable government. they are already talking about this as forming a condemnation -- con for conservative, dem for democrats and so on. it will be tawdry and you'll hear more about it if you are in britain over the next few months. host: there's a headline in the paper which says a 62% one the prime minister of now? guest: yes, there are certain annumber -- we have a three-pary

system now. there are many in a certain party who want gordon brown out. this possible for labor to remain in power without gooden brown, and for gordon brown to stay in power to see through legislation on the new voting system. there was talk about the current system been so discredited. there are all kinds of permutations possible here. host: is there a time line to give the coalition together? guest: no, but i think that there will be a point when people wonder why jordan brown is still looking up there after having lost the general election. there are also pressures from the markets who will want some former stability. when the markets stop trading on monday mor-- when the market stt trading on monday morning there

is a possible reflection of the uncertainty in the country. host: what is the play between cameron and clay from trying to start their own government in moving brown aside? guest: that is what they're doing today. what stops them as they are not natural bedfellows. the liberal democrats are pro- european. the conservative party's are skeptics to the point of being public. -- been phobic. the conservatives oppose forming a new government. it goes on and on. the liberal democrats are naturally progressive. for them to prop up our right wing party which they oppose locally on the ground would be big league for them.

host: you touched briefly on the british markets and what they're hoping to see. if this new government is not formed by the end of the week, is this going to have some sort of long-term negative effect on the british market, and then by extension other economic markets around the world? guest: well, we do not know, france, germany, and most european countries have european countries have coalition governments. this guy does not fall for them. we're not used to wait in britain and the may be more sensitive to it here. perhaps the british market is more important than that of some other countries as london is a financial center. host: our final question for you, tom. at any point does the constitution in britain allow for the queen to be involved? or will this be dealt with only

by the politicians? guest: we do not have a written constitution which is part of the problem. this is governed by conventions. the queen, she will not want to be dragged into this. she will be advised by a senior civil servant, be advised by ministers. she will be hoping very much that they will come, the different political leaders of the parties will come to an agreement without her being dragged into the unseemly matter. the one thing she has achieved over the last 60 years on the turn is that she has remained above the politics. host: tom baldwin, chief reporter of "the times" things for checking in with us and explain to viewers what is happening in london. but to phones and a discussion on the op-ed written by the

afghan president karzai this morning. we're talking about the hard work ahead in afghanistan for the u.s. government and the afghan people. caller: yes, this is a maximum. -- matsuma. the principles of democracy may be universal, but the practice varies from one country to another. when it comes to afghanistan, the way we should construct the structure -- it should be different there than here in the u.s. we should be mindful of their local traditions and beliefs. and that is what has been difficult for us to penetrate within the afghan society because we want to impose the western structure of democracy on to them. secondly, the broad aligned to

the power of the taliban is centered around the drug- trafficking as well as the basis of that they have in pakistan. my strong belief is if we strengthen forces in pakistan and suffocate them there, and tell karzai that we're not calling to waive from the dublin we have set for troops, karzai will make sure that he restructure's his army. he has the opportunity, with his military given enough resources to fight. he will restructure so that they can fight the taliban on the ground of afghanistan in a manner of the taliban will understand, rather than using conventional methods to fight. host: thanks for your call their from maryland.

senator dick durbin talks about financial legislation in the process of legislating in "newsmakers." >> the lead into this story told the story. three consecutive state with the republicans voting to filibuster the bill, to stop it. meanwhile, to the left of that stage was the committee hearings of carl levin was lloyd blankfein and the folks from goldman sachs making a spectacle, which was witnessed by the world. republican leaders came up to say we are on the wrong side of history. now we see more amendments which we thought would be partisan, but are finding republicans who want to join.

my guess is in the and we will have a substantial number of republicans joined us to pass wall street reform. they realize that is where the public sentiment is. for them, politically they have made a mistake. >> do you expect the debate to be concluded within a week or so? >> that is a hard question. we will be broadcast on sunday, will not return to the bill until tuesday, the most work pretty hard with only three or four days in the week. i hope that we stick with it. there are many amendments. as we get together for the show, there are over 140 pending on the floor of the some. it is not unusual. in the end, the members must decide the most important ones. we have 53 members who have filed. it will take some time. host: you can see the entire interview with senator dick durbin on "newsmakers" at 10:00

a.m., right after this program. also at 6:00 p.m. this evening, and also on line, and as an app boyfor your iphone. karzai will be in washington this week for a visit with president obama has written this off. next is william from california on the line for independents. what are your thoughts? caller: ever since korea it seems like more time, money, troops -- and the results are the same. they have not won a war since then. americans need to wake up. why do we have bases around the world as if the entire world is our enemy? it is insanity. it goes on and on. it is no different from korea or

vietnam. there you have it. host: in the washington post -- plenty of reasons to worry. he says president karzai himself is a sign of u.s. worries about the feasibility of transferring security and government to the afghans. the anti-u.s. diatribes from a month ago have been papered over, but not the concerns about whether karzai can provide strong leadership there. he and his own family are widely seen as weak and corrupt and out of touch. karzai's arrival also highlights one of the trickiest issues in the strategy, namely the process of reconciliation with taliban that could lead to an eventual settlement. back to the phones, nashville,

tenn., maxwell on the line for democrats. caller: i have two quick points. since world war ii corporations have done nothing but make money. they realize time much of a moneymaker -- which should have relied when the duponts and people during the civil war began to make money. whether or not you win is not really important because of the actions of corporations. we have brought it upon ourselves. my second point, still about money. the afghans, if they kill the poppies, the store the fields, everyone starts. so we dropped the bomb to kill 10 million or 40 million people -- we watched them starve to

death. if we kill all the poppy fields, do we feed them for a few years? we give them other things to plan? no one bought into it when we try. those are my disjointed commons. have a good time. i really do appreciate c-span. host: this morning in "the new york times" the free-fall of thursday may prompt new rules. it makes sense only when applied uniformly. when the new york exchange suspended trading on thursday, the sellers simply move to other exchanges with fewer restrictions. in some cases, the supply of the buyers of those exchanges already have been exhausted. it caused the computerized trading programs to offer shares of lower and lower prices. oversees the nation's equimark goods require suspension in trading only in the event of a broad market collapse, the find

at of at least a 10% drop in the dow jones. more on our discussion regarding the hard work ahead in afghanistan, this is got from boston. caller: good morning. host: what your thoughts on what president karzai had to say? caller: i tell you what. this guy's in the driver's seat over there. he has had a tough time. he is a walking target. if he can maintain his leadership role, i think he deserves the support of his people and the people here. even though there's a lot of corruption there, as there is still in iraq, there's a lot to be taught from iraq to apply to the south -- general stanley mcchrystal who is a special

forces guy is right on point over there. we have learned a lot from the success of the surge in iraq. if given a chance, we will see similar results. for many years things were not going on in afghanistan. the focus was on iraq. now that the focus is on afghanistan, applying the same tactics, we need to give it a chance to work. we also need to keep the heat on pakistan as hillary clinton was saying. host: should there be a time frame involved? or how would you mark success enough so that u.s. forces can begin to withdraw from afghanistan? caller: i don't think there should ever be a time frame. you will only give the other side the opportunity to sit back and wait until you are gone. in the meantime, the can only wait until that day.

we should always maintain a presence there. the he should never be off. the heat should be even more on pakistan, or a least as much as on afghanistan. you cannot fight a proxy war. -- they heat should never be off. to their credit, pakistan has been doing a darn good job. we should support them as much. host: the lead item here, the greek-blows ripple outward from asia to the u.s. the recovery could slow down if your slides back into recession. the increased global in sunday threatens to slow the recovery in the u.s. were jobless has finally picked up after the deepest recession since the great depression. it could also inhibit consumer spending, as stock portfolios shrink and loans are harder to come by.

the article goes on to say that the crisis is so perilous for your that the leaders of the 16 countries who use the currency worked into the early morning saturday on a proposal to create a so-called stabilization mechanism intended to reassure markets. on sunday the finance ministers from all 27 countries -- we go -- all 27 european union states are expected to gather in brussels to discuss the possible -- to discuss, and possibly approve the proposal. we'll talk more about that in a few seconds. that to the phones, n.j., on the

line for republicans out of alabama. -- jay, on the line for republicans. caller: i would like to compliment your call-taker who was very pleasant. i wish that people could comprehend that we are long -- in a long war. some of the more sophisticated riders are starting to use the term "the long war to give we have improperly titled these battle -- [inaudible] afghanistan was one battle, iraq was one battle. this concept that we ignore is incorrect. we are in a battle in a long

war. for example, we had the vietnam war that was one battle in the cold war which we eventually won -- thank goodness. also, let me review a couple of figures here. host: lend me ask you -- bring this to a close for me. how do we conclude this battle, or keep it from growing into a larger war? caller: you win the war when you destroy the enemy and his will to fight. we have not yet destroyed these people's will to fight. it is partly based on religion, so i don't know if we can. host: thank you, jay. this morning in "the washington post" -- joe biden urges the resolute european action to halt the greek crisis. the vice-president met on

saturday with the spanish prime minister and tried to walk a delicate line of encouraging a more forceful and unified response without appearing like a heavy-handed intruder. you can read more about the vice president's trip in this paper this morning. on the line for democrats, good morning. todd? caller: yes, hello. this is for democrats? i want to comment on the afghanistan topic. host: by all means, go ahead. caller: i first of all do not believe we should be there, and do not believe there is too much hope for the situation there. we are there many for the protection of israel and for

that oil. there are almost 200 countries in this world, yet we are the main ones concerned about that area. there is something wrong there. we follow the king james version of the bible, and that is the main reason we are over there. someone ought to do a biography on king james to find out what kind of man that person was. host: here is another headline. it concerns robert gates and his vows to shrink the pentagon. i'm sorry, let's try for richard on the line for independents, from new york. caller: good morning, i am happy

to be on today. i want to make a comment about the computer glitch on wall street the other day. host: but actually, we're talking about go road ahead for the work in afghanistan. any thoughts? caller: we should not even be there in afghanistan. no army has ever nevebeen able o anything except to spend a lot of time and troops, and leave with nothing. let's face it. host: two items from "the new york times" -- the state's move to allow overseas and military voters to cast ballots over the internet in november using e- mail or fax, partly because of new regulations proposed last

month by the federal agency. this morning, the former alaska government and nixon official is dead at 90 years old. hickel, who was governor of alaska, and on the critics by his ricocheting the points. you can read more about the in the paper this morning. next up, lexington, neb., on the line for republicans. caller: yes, i would like to comment on the corruption in afghanistan. -- in the afghan government. we have a tendency to criticize other governments when we have

our own problems in our own government as far as corruption. host: so, how do we solve the corruption in the afghan situation? caller: we just need to leave them alone and let them do their own thing. we have our own problems in government to figure. we have spending we can not contain, people who do not pay their own taxes. let's leave them alone and take care of our own government. host: thanks for your call. it is commencement season and peoplpeople of all types are scattered about the country making commencement speeches. the first lady michelle obama is out making her first address. this is yesterday. >> there is no way that i could ever fully measure all that my own mommy has done for me.

here she is. [applause] this woman who tries to take absolutely no credit for who ibm, for some reason, she is mine rock. she has pulled me up when i stumbled, has pulled me back when i run out of line, talk a little too much -- she will snap me up. she really does push me to be the best woman that i can be, naturally. as a professional and as a mother, and as a friend. she has always, always been there for me. as our family has grown, she has managed to expand her love for all of us. and raising our goals and the what does with my mom -- oh, i'm

not going to do this. it is a beautiful experience. host: that was a speech the first lady gave up the white house on mother's day. sorry about the mixup on that. in a few moments we will have a discussion on u.s. immigration policy with clarissa martinez. first, a look at discussions for later today. >> topics will include the attempted new york city car bombing, the gulf of mexico oil spill, and the u.s. and global financial markets. the guests on "meet the press" will include eric holder, and "this week" will speak with eric holder and former new york attorney review. the show hosted by chris wallace, the national security adviser for homeland security,

and also the committee chairman joe lieberman, and the ranking republican peter king. on "face the nation" -- those with the senate banking chairman chris dodd, and senator shelby, and the admiral allen. the next show, richard shelby, florida democratic senator bill nelson, among others. you can listen to all five talk shows beginning at noon eastern on c-span radio. 90.1 fm in the washington, and on the web, and also on facebook and on twitter. >> this weekend, on2 on. today, new books from first

ladies. -- this weekend on c-span2. 10 years after doing the crime, piper spent 10 years in prison for delivering cash for an international drug ring. find the weekend schedule on line. and follows on twitter. >> senator dick durbin is our guest today on "newsmakers." today at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern. "washington journal" continues. host: we're talking about u.s. immigration policy with clarissa martinez. before we get deeper into the policy, tellus your views on the law recently passed in arizona,

and how it works into your organization's stance? guest: we legitimately believe that people are frustrated over the broken immigration system. we are terribly frustrated by it. and we agree with the governor that the federal government has not done its job. but we also think it is not an excuse to add even more chaos. we believe that this law, unfortunately, has the function of sanctioning the racial profiling of the latino community in the state. it is 30% of the population. so we are completely opposed to it. host: one of the stories last week, the headline is most citizens of arizona back the new immigration laws. it says that a poll conducted by it says that a poll conducted by the behavior research center and

released last wednesday found 52% of citizens of arizona support the measure with only 39% opposed, and the rest undecided. guest: it is not surprising. even in colorado in 2006 there was a ballot initiative. pulling at the time showed the majority supported the initiative, but not because they thought it would fix the problem, but because they were so frustrated that they wanted to send a message. we completely understand the frustration in arizona. but in this case and many others, we're adding more chaos to the broken system. here we will be beyond immigration and getting into racial profiling. host: in "the new york times" they have about 51% saying is

about right, 36% senate goes too far, 9% that it does not go far enough, and 4% have no opinion. moving forward in the discussion, there have been calls from various groups, talking about boycotting arizona. the headline in "the hill" from earlier this month calls to boycott arizona over immigration law and that it divides democrats. guest: our organization joined hands of with liberal leaders and national civic organizations last week to join the boycott. if you look at our history, it is not something we do. we really grappled with the decision. we consulted with our community- based organizations in arizona, corporate partners, and other allies. people pretty much said this

goes so far and, that something so extreme requires an extraordinary action. we do not take the decision lightly. we know a boycott will affect not only people who oppose the law, but also those who will be the intended victims of the law. again, we're not only talking about undocumented immigrants here, but u.s. citizens and legal residents. the majority of the latino population there are legal. it is one of the reasons we decided to go forward. host: clarissa martinez is our guest for the next 40 minutes, talking about u.s. immigration policy and the law recently passed an arizona. if you want to get involved, here are the phone numbers.

our first call comes from las vegas, brian, on the line for democrats. caller: i think people have this immigration bill all wrong. we are for reform, without a doubt, but people seem reluctant to admit -- and i will guarantee -- will take a few officers who were going to racially profile, and i was profiled by the los angeles county sheriff's department in 1999, and it is not a good feeling. unfortunately, some officer will do wrong, and will be blown out of proportion, and everyone will say, see, i told you so. we know that racial profiling is not legal, but i can guarantee you, mark my words, it will

happen. it is not a good feeling at all. no one -- even the governor herself said, i don't know what an immigrant looks at. my question is, how will we as citizens guaranteed without a doubt that every law-enforcement official in arizona will not be performed? if you can answer that, no problem. but my wife and i now we're going to buy property in arizona -- until the fix the problem, we're not buying property or visiting the state of arizona. host: before i let you go, when you were pulled over by the officer, what -- what was the reason he gave for pulling you over? caller: no, in 1999 and was driving my girlfriend's sports

car at the time. i was coming from boxing practice. he pulled me over, got me out of the car, handcuffed me, put me in the back of his cruiser. i was asking what i was doing -- was a speeding? he said no. then i asked what he pulled me over -- he said that he ran the place and it came back as a warrant in my name. he said that we think it is your wives after i said that it is not my car. trust me when i tell you, the racial profiling will happen. host: we will leave it there. guest: to this point, law

enforcement in arizona is split on this issue. there are several sheriff's to have already spoken up, saying that ranging from boll is racist to say that it will lead to racial profiling, there is already a police officer in arizona who has filed a lawsuit saying there is no way we can ask law-enforcement to implement this law without using racial profiling. so, i think it is not just our opinion. to the caller's point about what is happening in arizona, we appreciate the governor's words their racial profiling will not tolerate. my question is, why has it been tolerated up until now? people who live in phoenix and a certain county have been dealing with a certain sheriff who was notorious. he is facing lawsuits from u.s. citizens and legal immigrants

who have been caught up in his outfit. host: next, a call from minneapolis. caller: yes, i would like to make a few points and speak as long as the last guy. americans are objecting to the fact that approximately 30% of the felons and federal prison are illegal immigrants. we object to the fact that they are draining our social programs, to the fact that mexico would never allow us americans to come into their country illegally, get on their welfare program, take jobs illegally, steel identities, and up in federal prison to the tune of 30%. also, la raza means "the race." she accuses us of racism when we all know where all -- where [unintelligible]

. . .

but when you are saying that a huge population of the state is suspect, how do we get law enforcement to focus on the criminals because now everybody has been thrown into the category of suspicion. host: save the public is now another twitter. talk to us about the economics of this. not only from the perspective of immigrants, legal and illegal who come to this country to work, but also the economic ramifications of a boycott if this situation is not recommendied to your

not recommendied to your satisfaction. guest: well, on the economic index of comgration, i think what we know is we neglected the immigration system for the last 20 years. so what we have had is a lot of employers in the u.s. who are needing these workers and though our legal system is not working so that people come through legal channels rather than with a smuggler, workers and employers are still finding each other. what we need is a system that fixes the legal immigration system so that we can do away with illegal immigration. and right now, the interesting thing is that even in the context of the current economic environment with obviously a lot of us are feeling anxiety, the majority of americans who support a notion of requiring people to come for work, pay their taxes as a way to leveling the playing field for all taxpayers and for all workers. in terms of the issue of the boycott, as i mentioned we do not take this lightly because

as selective as you may be, this is going to affect innocent people. again, in collaboration with national civil rights organizations, unions, and corporate partners, folks have felt that action needed to be taken. and there is precedents for this before. there was a boycott against the state of arizona when the state refused to recognize martin luther king's birthday. the holiday. and at that point, it was a similar discussion. but eventually, i think people coming together and taking an action allowed that to come forward. and we hope that in this case a law that is so extreme can be recommendied through these actions. host: our next call, comes from dave in austin, texas. on our line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. and thanks for having me on. i've got a question on the immigration. with everybody getting together

and representing the illegal immigrants that are coming to the country, why isn't any of this going on in mexico itself? and also, why -- what would be wrong with us accepting the same immigration rules that mexico has? guest: well, i don't know what kind of immigration rules mexico has because i actually am an american and i'm working on trying to fix our system. i agree that a lot of what draws immigrants here is jobs. if there were better economic conditions in many other countries, probably many folks would choose to stay home. but we do have a very powerful magnet here that is jobs. and if you look at what has happened with the flow of immigration, you will see that actually when we started hitting economic bad times, that flow started to diminish. and so a lot of the arguments about why people come here i think kind of got cleared up in that context. and i think it is right now

where that pressure is up because you as employers are not saying i need workers right now and those workers are not pressuring to come. but it actually creates that opportunity for us to figure out how to fix the system. and that's why i really hope that folks who are legitimately frustrated with this issue, as we have been for now 20 years, that we can join together and demand that the white house and congress work together to fix this problem. host: next up, democrats, arlington, texas. welcome. caller: thank you very much, and thank you for taking my call. i am so grateful for c-span. however, with ms. martinez this morning, let me say first of all, civil rights has no issue here. because the illegal comgrants have no rights. in texas, we have discovered

lately that the illegal immigration problem here is so intense that the number of people who receive benefits in the state of texas is larger than the population of 22 other states. the drain on the economy is so intense and so overwhelming that if you went to the homeland security website, you will find the billions of dollars that the united states is sustaining because of illegal immigrants. host: let me ask you, how would you go about remedying this situation? caller: listen, as far as i'm concerned, people walked over the border. they need to walk back over the border. al sharpton has got up there and said he is -- this is a civil rights issue. this is not a civil rights

issue. host: we'll leave it there. guest: well, i think d.h.s. a couple of years ago tried a program where they said anybody who wants to get deported come to our office and we will do it. and i think you can probably count on your hand the number of people who did that. so to carol's point, if we so to carol's point, if we simply expect that people are going to walk back 20 years neglecting this problem, we haven't seen any evidence of that happening. so the reality here is that we do need to figure out how to fix the system so that people do not continue to come in illegally, so that we take away some of the incentives that bad employers have to hire vulnerable workers and pit them against u.s. workers. and so the only way to really do that is to restore the rule of law by putting smarter measures in place to secure the border and make sure that we

have a way that verifies the authorization of workers to work. but, at the same time, to carol's point, people are not leaving. and i think that when we discuss whether it is feasible, viable, practical, or even moral to round up 10 million people who many of them have u.s. spouses and children, u.s. citizens spouses and children, whether we as a country either from a cost perspective would like to do that, whether we think that's feasible, or whether we think that's moral. and i think americans, we are very pragmatic people. that's where we come to the conclusion that we need to fix this system, figure out how to require people to come forward and get good with the law and then concentrate on those who continue to skirt. host: you posted an item on the huffington post two months ago in march with the headline mr. in march with the headline mr. president, congress, the time

for immigration reform is now. in your opinion, what specifically can the white house and congress do to try and remedy this situation and walk back the law that's already been signed into effect in arizona? guest: well, actually, as the governor said, one of the reasons her state acted is because the federal government hasn't acted. and that's where is a lot of the problem. on the one hand, the arizona law is going beyond comgration. it's sanctioning racial profiling. but in the issue of immigration, we know that the federal government is the one that has the jurisdiction to apply and enforce those laws. so here, what we're saying is this issue has been debated to death in congress over several years we have many members of years we have many members of congress who are there now who have voted to reform the system. we cannot continue to let politics stand in the way of every major problem that our nation is facing because the reality is that the problem doesn't get any easier.

host: who are you talking to on capitol hill and what exactly are they telling you about what they want to see done? guest: well, who weeks ago, a band of senators came together with a proposal that follows the bipartisan architecture senator shumer and senator lindsey graham from south carolina have been discussing for months in a way to try to unstick the process and create the platform for an open bipartisan solutions driven conversation. what it includes is some of the measures that i think many folks have been talking about for years, smart voter enforcement, employer verification, a system that requires those here illegally to come forward, pay fines, pay taxes, learn english, and fixing our legal immigration system so that we don't end up where we are today in a couple of years. so that kind of proposal came forward. it actually includes a lot of elements that republics have been supporting.

so we think it's a viable way to now start moving in the solution direction. host: back to the phones as we continue our discussion regarding u.s. immigration policy. caller: i've been listening to what she's saying but they're not taking into conversation that they're draining the state of california. we are an illegal city. it's so full of illegals until other people can't get into housing. they can't get -- if you go down for commodities, there's illegals all the way down the line. some of these women have babies one right after another. and they can stay here. they also, they're into housing authorities. they're into section 8. their husbands work. their husbands work. they're not supposed to be living with their husbands. but they continue to get

pregnant one right after another. you see them their husbands drop them to welfare, you see the husbands drop them off to buy groceries. but they're not living with them. zphroo so we are where we are. how do you fix the problem, in your opinion? guest: my problem is, if people want to work, let them come over here legally. or start a work program. that's fine. but we've got to do something about this problem. california should be standing beside arizona, not putting stuff against or whatever they're doing over there. i just get so frustrated because i watch this. i've lived in california all my life. and let me tell you, i worked in the fields. families worked in the fields. the government has taken the families out of the fields and brought the i will legals in. and that's wrong. that's wrong. let the families go back to work. there was no problem in getting

the field work done before. i don't know what's wrong with our government. host: before we let you go, there was an item on the christian science monitor website last week, and it talked about california leading the call for boycotts of arizona. on tuesday, seven members of the los angeles city council signed also on tuesday, san francisco gaven newsen proposed an immediate moratorium on city employees traveling to arizona. caller: i think they've got blinders on. i don't know what's wrong with california. every one of these people that live in california that they're in office, this is all they think about. money. host: we'll leave it there. guest: well, again, it's very clear that there's a great deal

of frustration with the issue of immigration and the fact that this system is broken. i kind of get a little puzzled when i hear members of congress who actually have jurisdiction to fix this problem rail against federal inaction on this issue. and the only thing i feel at that point is like, wait a minute, aren't you a senator? aren't you a member of the house? well, it's your job to fix this. and frankly i think the american voter is getting frustrated with what they feel with congress is this is too hard. we can't do it. it's a huge problem and we can't fix it. or, this is a huge problem. the federal government needs to act and i'm going to need to do everything in my power to stop them from doing it. i think that if any of us had a job where that was our daily response, we would have gotten fired a long time ago. so i think it's time for leadership in congress. i think the white house needs to step in a little stronger or much stronger.

and i think the republicans need to really put their money where their mouth is about really intending to fix this once and for all. host: phyllis from countryside, illinois. caller: good morning. and happy mother's day to all those out there. and i'm going to be 72 years old next month and you've heard me talk before on citizenship. most definitely it can be earned. and i'll tell you how. as a professional planner all our president has to do is call all the troops home, save trillions of dollars. now, to the illegals that are here, hey, you want to be a legal citizen, we're going to give it to you by letting you earn it. get down to galveston, louisiana, tennessee, help repair build, clean up. ok? give them housing, some kind of shelter and food. ok? and give them $100 a month.

in the meantime, they clean up that mess and all the areas. now, if they sign up and they do this work, they will then become legal citizens. become legal citizens. in the meantime, to stop the i will legals from coming here and to be able to pay for this type of program, all our president has to do is call the troops home. we would save trillions of dollars. we have 700 military bases. bring them all home, put them on the borders, put them at the ports. and another thing. stop it with the free trade. do something about equalizing the pay structure. host: we're going to leave it there. thanks for your call. guest: well, i think that people who sell the disaster -- saw the disaster that happened after katrina saw that a lot of immigrants came in and were part of the rebuilding process. but the reality is that many

were brought in by unscrupulous employers and end up either not paying them and definitely not able to provide a path to legal ization. because an employer can't do that. because that's why again we need the federal government to need the federal government to act and create a system that is not going to allow those batted actor employers to game those playing by the rules, and also in a way that undermines the wages and labor protections for our u.s. worningers. that's one of the things that we can do through immigration reform. in addition, right now we have a legal system that doesn't work. so if you're a legal system either for families to get reunited doesn't work, or for employers when they need them to bring workers legally, obviously we don't have those kinds of pressures right now. but if that system doesn't work then it feeds the illegalty. and that's what we've been

seeing. host: how do you change the legal system the way it stands so that people who are lig and so that people who are lig and working in the shadows lose their skepticism of what the process is and step forward and become part of the system? guest: well, right now the issue is that there is no line for them. i think a lot of us think that coming here, you can either choose to do it legally or illegally. the reality is that for a lot of the workers here in an illegal status, those channels, those legal channels are not there. there's about in any normal year there's about 5,000 visas for those kinds of workers. for those kinds of workers. and when our economy has been booming there's more employers trying to get workers. and like i said, i've been able to find each other. what we need is a system that is regulated as opposed to just people finding each other. and that way, people can do so legally. for those who are here, if we create a way for them to come

forward and register with the government and go through background checks and pay taxes, actually the majority of them would do so because it is not a good thing to leave, to be livering in undocumented stasstuss. host: buddy sent us this e-mail from high point, north carolina. talk to us about this enforcement and going up against the businesses that actually hire illegal aliens. guest: well, right now we have a system where employers are supposed to verify the

eligibility of the workers but i think there's a lot of ways to get around it. and the proposal that democrats put on the table a couple of weeks ago actually calls for the use of technology to be able to implement a system that is tamper proof and that is tamper proof and that employers are going to be able to follow. host: a biometric system. guest: they're talking about a biometric system. i think there needs to be debate on what form it takes. but some have discussed that look we have a social security card that hasn't been updated in forever. it's very easy to make copies of or to commit fraud. what if we make that something that is tamper proof, that then employers can verify. so i think there's ways in which we can reduce the job magnet and also make sure that magnet and also make sure that good employers are not gamed by bad employers. and again, that goes to the point. if we do those things, then we can prevent bad actor employers from gaming the system and also pitting u.s. workers against

vulnerable immigrant workers. because that is a race to the bottom. we need to change that equation. host: our next call from jimmy in michigan. on our line with democrats. caller: host: jimmy. all right. let's go to brooklyn. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have two comments, and i will take my answer off line. ms. martinez, you've mentioned that you don't know what the immigration rules are for the country of mexico. i think you're being disingenuous. and it is true, i think that you really have no basis in commenting on u.s. immigration law without looking at the comparative countries' immigration laws. i happen to know just from 2 debates that mexico imprisons gaut mallance and hon turns who

crs their border. we also know how abused those immigrants are. so if you want to talk about u.s. immigration, you really should be more informed about the other immigration laws of other countries so you can say, look, the u.s. immigration system isn't that bad compared to. secondly, you've been making a lot of comments about following the rule of law. the rule of law that you're seeking to change though. the rule of law now is that the immigrants are illegal and have to be deported. part of your rule of law is you keep mentioning of how they have to learn english. that's not the rule of law. and you apply that to the pakistanis? to the french? to the jack nizz? i mean, -- japanese? what i hear from you seems to be a very ethno cent rick type of immigration reform. you're not taking into account that we take immigrants from all around the world. and laraza, which means the race, we hear about these

stories of t tea partiers being white men. tell me, how many white men are part of laraza? host: ms. martinez. guest: i must have forgotten where i mentioned that the type of immigration reform that we're talking about and that the country needs applies only to mexicans. i don't remember saying that. because i don't believe that that's the kind of immigration reform that the country needs. so i've never mentioned anything that would imply that i'm asking for an ethno centric proposition. i don't think there's anything about saying that you're going to require immigrants who are here illegally, regardless of what background or country they come from, to learn english. i never thought that was an ethno centric thing to say. i'm a little dumb founded by that. but anyway, what i would say is that as the caller i am familiar with the human rights abuses that have been

documented in mexico. that is different than to say that i know to the letter what the imgrigs laws in mexico are. but what i would say is this. i don't think the u.s., that we are the country that says, hey, you know, people get incarcerated free press gets incarcerated in other countries or journalists get jailed. so if we don't have a free press here, it's ok as long as we don't jail people. that's not the kind of comparison that we as a country comparison that we as a country engage in. i think that we hold ourselves to a higher standard. and we're not here talking about special rights for anybody. we're talking about an orderly system that restores the rule of law. because right now what we have is chaos. host: next up is donna on our line for democrats. pennsylvania. good morning. caller: yes. i just wanted to agree with her that the federal government has to do something. i mean, this is ridiculous how

long this has been going on. and nothing's been done about it. and now the republicans are fighting it. and also, -- host: give me a specific. what does the federal government have to do? guest: well, they have to come up with a plan to keep these people here that are already here. you know, you can't just send those people away. you know? we're the ones who screwed wup these laws, with not making the laws. so we screwed up. and also, the employer. you know? i mean, they wouldn't come here if they couldn't get jobs. host: we'll leave it there. we also have this e-mail from carl in salt lake city. after your first caller stated that 30% of all inmates in the prison system are illegal immigrants, i started looking for confirmation on the internet. internet. only lou dobs claimed that is accurate while others say the source is closer to 7%.

fear and prejudice seems to be driving much ozzthf discussion. at least that's the way i see it. guest: this is an issue where passions run high. i also think it's an issue where there's much more misinformation that there is information. but at the end of the day, whether people are citing the right figures or the wrong figures, and frankly i heard a lot of wrong figures being cited today. but what it speaks to is the frustration. we as americans are legitimately frustrated with the broken immigration system. i think that congress continuing to say year after year for now over 20 years that we simply can't fix it is not acceptable. the issue has been debated year after year. i think enough members of congress know this backwards and fords and now the different elements that can help up fix the problem. and their lack of willingness and their lack of willingness to do so leads to laws like the one in arizona which are less

about immigration and more about racial profiling. host: our last call from ray mond in maryland. on our line for independents. good morning. caller: hello. i agree, i think that this is a really big issue and i wouldn't say that just deporting everybody back would be the right thing to do. but i mean, i would definitely agree that i think maybe some kind of program should be put kind of program should be put into place where like there was a caller before you said that some kind of work program. you know, some kind of road to immigration, to become an legal citizen. so there has to be something. but there also should be other things put in there. if you a flon, i think that felon, those type of things should be looked at. and immigration should look at that and deport people back who are felons. there should be heavy fines for

companies who are hiring illegal immigrants. and i mean, it's a really big problem. host: and we'll leave it there. guest: i completely agree. look, as an american citizen, in any immigrant for this matter, they don't want criminals in their community. so the system should require people of otherwise good moral character to come forward, pay their fines, pay taxes, learn english, and get legal. and also get criminals -- we'll do criminal background checks. criminals should be deported out of the country. i couldn't agree more. i think it's a problem that has haunted us for too long. we need to fix it in a way that levels the playing field for all workers, restores the rule of law, and gets the legal immigration system working so that we are not back in this problem again. host: claire isa martinez is at

the national council of laraza. you can get more information on their organization on their website linked through our website. thank you for being object program. -- object program. host: in just a few minutes we'll be talking about the republican party and going through all sorts of items in the news per tange to the conservative movement and the republican party. but first, we want to take a look at the past week through the eyes of a few of our nation's editorial cartoonists.

host: joining us is richard vickry, the chairman of conservative hq.com. we'll get to that in just a second. he's here to talk to us about

he's here to talk to us about the future of the republican party and its relationship of the tea party and the state of the overall conservative movement. last sunday you wrote an op ed from the title of an old school conservative, advice for the tea party. and one of the things you wrote about is that with the emergeance of the tea party movement for the first time, i sense that it may be possible for conserve toifs actually shrink the federal government. you go on to say that some of the tea party's greatest the tea party's greatest strengths also present formidable challenges. how does a leadership movement and a lack of a single leader continue to grow and gain power? first, how does the tea party movement in your opinion have the ability or have the force to reduce government when the democrats and the republicans haven't been able to do that for the last 20 or 30 years? guest: i could go on for two hours on that very subject alone. host: we've only got 45

minutes. guest: i'll condense it. when i got involved in politics in houston back in the late 50s, conservative movement rested on a two legged stool, which was national defense and economic issues. and we would get maybe 40, 45, 47% of the vote with the two legged stool. that's not very sturdy. then in the late 70s we added a third leg, that is the social issues. and the three legged stool is fairly sturdy and we began to win elections. in the 1980s, the republicans won three landslide elections, reagan's two terms and bush in 1988. but that hasn't been enough to downgrade government, to reduce the size and scope of government. and with the tea party movement, i see it as a fourth leg. leg. now for the first time in my life we're sitting at a table and i see, rob, how we can actually reduce the size of government, go back to the

vision of our founders. and i never saw how we could do that before the tea party movement came on. i could see how we could show government down and not grow quite as much if a republican was in. but i never saw how we could turn everything around. but with tea party now, how could that happen, well, the tea party movement has many wonderful qualities. and maybe their most important quality is that they are independent of either party, republican or democrat. one of the things you're seeing in today's world, there's a wonderful book called the star fish and the spider. and the idea is you cut the tent kls off a star fish, they grow back.

you cut the he had of a spider off and no more spider. those things different spaniards mude north to arizona. and for 200 years they tried to subdue the appatchies and they couldn't because it was a couldn't because it was a leaderless organization. you can wander here and there. and now, we live in many ways in a leaderless organization in this country here. you have wick peedia, you have craig's list. craig's list is decimating the craig's list is decimating the classified ad section of every major newspaper in america, in a very pleasant way think of al qaeda and the effect it's having on the world here. and the tea party movement, because there's no spider whose

because there's no spider whose head you can cut off, that's its strength. host: we're talking about the future of the republican party, and we would like you to get involved in the conversation. you can do that by giving us a call. the numbers are on the bottom of your screen. before we go to the phones, this was on the front page of the "washington post" this morning. give us your thoughts on what happened out of utah and when senator bennett hhs been unseated and how much of the tea party movement do you credit for that unseating. guest: well, i think a great deal of credit belongs to the

tea party. the major lion's share of the credit. what you're seeing today in this country is a large number of people are feeling that the leaders of america's major institutions have betrayed the trust that the people put in them. they haven't solved our problems. our problems are getting worse. and so it applies to democrats as well as republicans. but not only the political parties, rob, but the major institutions, banks, wall street. main stream media. my own religion, the catholics are having a lot of leadership problems. people are feeling that the leaders of our major institutions have let them down. and senator bennett was a good man but it's just maybe time for him to move on and let some new people come in who feel that they can solve these problems. because the bob ben ets of the world have not solved the problems. not only that, they've made them worse. every day, more and more debt

is piling up. and people just feel we need to try something new. the old leadership has failed us. we need new leadership. and by the way, reagan when he ran for president in 1976 said we need new leadership unfettered by old ties and old relationships. and bob bennett and all the other senators there for the most part with few exceptions are fettered by old ties and are fettered by old ties and old relationships. and the tea party movement, we want to change the leadership not only in the political parties but many of the institutions in this country. host: our first call comes from indiana. democrats. go ahead. caller: good morning. tonight ask a question of the gentleman this morning. you say that you've never seen a party be able to overturn the current situation right now. and you think that the tea party can do it. i have a question that and a

comment. and my question is, is this. you can't have a smaller government and have a global economy. because that would go against the natural law. the natural law is you have to have balance. therefore, we already know what the consequences for having an unregulated global economy you understand what i'm saying, it would be chaos. so while i'm not for big government, i'm also for disconnecting from a lot of the economic strands worldwide. look what happened in greece. we can put our economy together. but because we're connected globally these people can fail and it drags us right back down. host: thanks for your call. guest: rob, the major part of america's economic problems are caused by the government. it was big government that caused the problems. flooding this country with easy

money. money. and insisting that banks and financial institutions loan money to people who are not credit worthy. this goes back to the 1970s and the federal reserve system is a big culprit here as well as fannie mae and freddie mac. and it's big government that and it's big government that has caused this problem. it is not the american people. of course we need certain rules and regulations to govern a global economy. but the problem that we are facing now is caused by government and the government is not the solution to our problems. host: next up, john out of arkansas on our line for republicans. caller: you have been one of my heroes forever. it's such a pleasure to talk to you. and i would like to ask you two quick questions. number one, we just heard on c-span the lady from laraza talk about illegal immigration. talk about illegal immigration. first, can you discuss that? secondly, i would like to ask you, i think, and just your opinion. i think it's time for not necessarily someone who has

never been in politics because they don't know what they're doing as far as organizing, raising money which you have to have. have. i think it's time for a kind of new face like obama was. he was a new face. had been a senator. can you talk about some of the new faces who might be our leader for the 12i election to replace this horrible president. thank you. guest: well, the last part of his question in terms of new leadership. the conservative cause, conservative movement has had a lot of problems in the almost 50 years that i've been involved. but i think, number one above everything else is we have had a lack of leadership. every once in a while we'll have a barry goldwater, ronald reagan come along. but that's been very, very seldom. so our number one need above everything else is for new leadership. and i see a fairly strong bench out there.

i'm very impressed with senator demint. mike pence in the house. paul ryan in the house. we've got a lot of new young people. are they going to be ready in 2012 or sooner? we'll have to wait an see. but i think for the long haul, i'm encouraged. and i'm just -- we've just been very, very lacking in good leadership here. a lot of times people get confused with the republican and can the conservative. republicans have had lots -- we've had lots of good republicans out there but not many good conservatives. in terms of immigration, we do have a serious problem in the country here. and there's something that the leadership of this country is not understanding about illegal immigration. republicans, quite frankly, and democrats. it starts with securing the border. and there's something that our leadership that is tone deaf.

people want the borders secured. and that's everybody. hispanics want the borders secure. everybody wants the borders secure. you're not a real country if you don't have secure borders. host: i was going to say, secretary of homeland security addressed that a little bit in an article in the washington times last week. secretary napolitano said the mexican border is not as secure as it could be though the obama administration has shown an absolute laser-like focus on that border. guest: that may be so but the american people don't understand that. we've heard that rhetoric from as long as i can remember from republicans and democrats. and i don't think the politicians in washington really understand how the people people about securing the borders.

that's what happened in arizona. people who don't live in arizona, live in new york or chicago don't understand how the people of arizona could pass tough legislation. but they don't live there with these people's problems there. and so and another problem, rob, is these politicians try to do everything as once like the health care bill. they want a 2,000 page bill to solve our health problems. what's wrong with taking small steps here, a bit here and a bite there so begin to solve our problems with smaller steps instead of trying to do something that's ominous, thousands of page legislation that the american people don't understand and frightance them. host: next up, massachusetts, on our line for independents. good morning. caller: i first wanted to speak about the tea party people and i was going to suggest that they really should take their

energy and create tivity and go down to wall street and demonstrate. but i also want to speak about the immigration or illegal immigration situation. my answer to that is to indict the employers. and if the employers were indicted, there would be no reason for the people to come to the u.s. i love history i'm ut67 years old. -- 77 years old. and looking back on history, whenever a nation's economy go sour, we attack the poorest of us. i can remember and i'm sure you are young enough to remember when the economy and germany went sour, they had all kinds

of turks, the people from turkey were in germany working doing a wonderful job that the germans didn't want to do. they were very happy to have them. host: we'll leave it there. thank you very much. guest: yes. in terms of demonstrating down at wall street, wall street certainly overreached. they were greedy, they made various and sundayry mistakes. and americans are justifiably angry with much of what happened with wall street. but they're not the main culprit. the main culprit is the political governing class of this country. that mortgaged our children and our grand children's future so that they could have votes to get reelected today. and it's the desire of these politicians to buy votes, throw lots of easy money out there. let people move into homes in

an ownership capacity that were not -- didn't have the money to pay their mortgages. it's just outrageous how these politicians have tried to mortgage our future to buy votes for their reelection. host: next up, robert out of connecticut. caller: i would like to ask a question. would there be any difference or how much difference would there be with another party in congress? the reason why i'm asking that question is because in many cases they agree and in many cases they don't agree or they argue different situations. where they do agree where that's -- that's where it benefits both parties. for example, political

donations. social security. $2 trillion taken out of there by congress. and they're taking it out on us senior citizens. because i've had that experience where they cut my benefits down, given me a little more than half, and transferring the rest to medicare. host: thanks for your call. guest: well, the caller asked about another party, in other words, a third party. and i think that would be a disaster from the conservative perspective. in my lifetime, rob, i have been involved at the national level of helping conservatives take over the republican party. first, goldwater in 1964, reagan in 1980 and then the going rich revolution of 1984. so conservatives can take over the republican party. reagan talked about we needed a barty with bold colors. he talked about no peal pass

teles. and the republicans have lost their way. and that's why i don't think as conservatives that we're going to get to the political promised land until we get new leadership. in many ways we're like the biblical jews who had to wander through the desert for 40 years until that generation of failed, flawed leaders had passed. so we're going to have to have new leadership. america's not going to follow john banor in the the house of representatives, mitch mcconnell into the political promised land. they want some people who have not betrayed their trust, people who have been faithful to their conservative principles. it's not going to happen overnight. but i think you're going to continue to see younger conservatives move up into the political leadership and at that point in time i think we're going to see the conserve tives occupy the republican party and become the majority party in the country. the leadership of the past hasdom -- in the republican party has so damaged the

republican party brand that only 20% of the american people identify themselves as conservatives -- as republicans. 20% say they're republicans but 40% say they're conservatives. so that tells you that there are a lot of conservatives out there that don't like the republican party. so also, the two-party system, republicans and democrats, have rigged the rules to keep third parties out. they have written the rules in such a way that it is almost impossible to launch a successful third party. and if conservatives were to get involved in a third party it would mean that liberal democrats would govern america for generations to come. host: this was in the "washington post." knut gingrich, enemy of himself.

if knut gingrich is no longer, in your words, one of the leaders of the republican party or a leader of the republican movement, is he still relevant to the movement? guest: absolutely. knut gingrich is a major political figure. he is a major republican leader. he has a significant contribution to make to the political community, the political discussion in this country. i'm glad he is there, he is very articulate. he is most of the time on the conservative side. but i don't think, quite frankly, conservatives have the confidence in him that he is a principled conservative. he did when he was speaker mass

ively increase spending and he has been part of the old boy network. i hope he runs for president. i think he would be good for the country. he is very articulate. he art clates more times than not a conservative vision. but as reagan said, we need new leadership unfettered by old ties and old relationship. and the republican politicians in washington now for the most part are fettered with old ties and old relationships. the republicans are all over fannie mae, freddie mac, all of these corporations that have contributed to our financial problems are supporting these politicians, and we need new politicians who don't have those type of relationships, can come in and sleep clean like a new broom does. host: we have this call from england. welcome to the program. guest: my sort of question is, because there have been a

severe lack of representation in the british election on u.s. media lately. so often seen with the switch of the political allegiance within the country, essentially going from the labor patty to put it in u.s. ladgewudge, the democrats in this country, to the party which my preference which is the conservative or the republicans, if you wish. i'm just wondering, how is that going to altar u.s.-u.s. relations, edd u.k., u.s. relationships especially the u.s. has a democrat government as opposed to where we'll have a conservative coalition in the u.k.? and how do you think that's going to fair off two nation sns host: still with me? guest: yes. host: how much of a kinship do you feel to american republicans? caller: i feel a very strong kinship to it because we share

many of the same value systems that you guys do. but obviously we have to because in american politics you throw about the use of god quite a lot. even though i'm a christian, we don't do that so much because it's just fround upon over here. but certainly our key values are the same. host: thank you for your call. go ahead. guest: well, it's sad that the british conservative party is conservative in name only. it really isn't conservative. the -- some people feel sometimes that the american democratic party is the second most conservative political party in the free world. again, going back to reagan. dade cameron, the head of the conservative party in the u.k.

really did practice pail pass teles he did not draw a bright line, he did not draw a trump theat the people could rally around. maybe that's why a few months ago he was expected to have a strong working majority but now he as a plurality and not a majority. that's because the conservative party is not really conservative except in name only. the caller made comment about we use the word god. well, it's more than using the word god. america is a country of faith. and we do have strong religious views and values here. and that i think goes to the heart of why we are the great country that we are, because we did put our trust in god. and i think that the rest of the world would be well served to go back to the biblical principles. host: richard vigry, and we have another 20 minutes left.

give us a call if you would like to get involved. our next call from california on our line for democrats. -- republicans. caller: yes. the last thing the tea party needs is leadership, traditional leadership from wearkeds from either the republican party or the democrat party. i support this -- my comment, by citing a little bit of history. the republicans love to throw around reagan's name. but what they fail to remember or dent want to remember, that reagan came in with a promise of not increasing taxes, and he after a while realized that government can't spend without increasing taxes. and he was responsible for one of the highest tax hikes. which is why clinton walked into his presidency with a surplus. but due to clinton he deregulated the banking system, and promoting the fannie mae freddie mac debacle with subprime bad loans, which is

one of the reasons we're in this great recession. and then bush popped into the scene, our last bush president, and he did not like to raise taxes so he didn't raise taxes. as a matter of fact he cut taxes. but he did not like to cut spending. you know, looking at this, i realize that the washington d.c. leadership is the worst thing that could happen to our country right now. the best thing that is happening that we do have a leaderless movement called the tea party. we do not need to assume any of the bad habits of our washington, d.c. politicians. host: before i let you go, if the growth of the tea party movement continues to a point where they might be able to put up a viable third-party candidate in 2012, would you campaign for that candidate? caller: yes, i would, because i feel that any candidate that rises up from the tea party

would be formed by the needs, the needs of the people. they would truly represent the people, which is what is the tea party is all about. it's about shifting power from a washington, d.c. politicians to the public. host: sor troy cut you off. we want to get some response. guest: rob, i agree with most of what the caller said. i don't agree that we should support a third party candidate for president. i think that would just elect another liberal democrat. lead to the reelection of obama, almost certainly. but she talked about the strength of the tea party movement was that it was leadership. and i can't emphasize too much. that is the key. and we don't want the leadership for the tea party movement to come out of washington, out of political community. 75 to 85%, rob of the tea party people that i have talked to were not involved politically

two years ago. this is about 15 months old. i've spoken to many tea party groups, and i ask them, were you involved two years ago, four years ago? and 75, 80% of the time the people just have gotten involved in the last year or so. so that is so exciting as i said earlier, the fourth leg of the conservative move. ment. and it is independent. and one of the weaknesses that the conservative cause has is that in the last 12 or 15 years, conservatives became an append damage, they became an arm -- appendage. they lost their independence. and so i think we also need a lot of new leadership in the conservative movement. we need this conservatives as well as the tea party people to be independent of the political structure here in this country. and that has been a major problem for conservatives that became too close to the

republican party. host: jeff on our line for independents for philadelphia, pennsylvania. welcome. . . caller: i see them as being against the federal government when a democrat controls. this arizona law, which is an expansion of government, ronald

reagan ran a record deficits. i do not see them being against spending. i do not see them at being against spending when george w. bush was expanding government more than any other president. what do they believe in? it seems to me that they only believe the conservatives are the only ones who have a legitimate right to govern. everybody else is not legitimate. guest: the tea partiers movement -- the tea party movement is less than 15 months old. they are beginning to formulate a belief and the focus of where they want to spend their energy, but this is a revolt of the middle class, for the most part. it is people who have not been involved politically. they have been the producers. they are the people who pay the

they are the people who pay the taxes that we are able to run the government and all these programs that people are unhappy with these days. this revolt of the middle class against our countries leaders. it is the institutions that have betrayed the people that they are unhappy with. cuts across party lines. republicans, democrats are very unhappy with the leadership. they are unhappy with big banks, the leadership of unions, mainstream media, organized religion. -- entertainment, hollywood. you go down the line, across the board, these people feel that leadership of this country has sometimes lied to them and almost invariably has betrayed the trust people. in them. rob, there is no guarantee that this is going to be a lasting movement. i think it will. i hope it will.

but this is a brand new phenomenon we are experiencing. that is why i wrote that article. i had advice for the tea party, different things they need to do. do not start a third party, remain independent. support small government, constitutional candidates. i think we have a good chance of turning everything around. for the first time in my life, i see we could go back to the vision of our founders and have a government that represents the people apple local level. i never saw how we could do that before -- that represents the people at the local level. i never saw how we could do that before. we need to turn that around and go back to a small government country. tea partiers people give us that opportunity. host: richard viguiere has an op-ed in last sunday's "the washington post". advice for the

conservative -- t party. caller: the last two callers school for my thoughts, but there is a quote from teddy roosevelt. he says the government exist for the welfare of the people. he is one of my heroes. i am a democrat, but he has a lot of stuff i like. clinton was last one to balance the budget. i remember when he was on the road to paying off the national debt and ailing greenspan made the comment that may not be a good idea to pay off the national debt. we have people down here -- i live in a farming area -- we have people here saying they talk about the tea party thing and about obama spending. i heard a guy talking about obama spending. he is getting $40,000 per year from the government. every couplethe land

years or two. there is a man who gets more money and does not do anything. the rich is getting a lot of government money. these people were getting -- were in good shape before these programs. guest: the caller is right on. i have a favorite uncle who passed on who used to complain about all these welfare programs. without catching his breath, he would talk about -- our congressmen will be here in the community next weekend. i will talk to them about how we will do more for our farmers. we need more government help. the nice thing about the two- party -- tea party movement is these are people who have come together and realize we have to do things differently.

the old ways of everybody putting their hand in the cookie jar is just not going to serve our country in the future. that we are seriously damaging our children, our grandchildren's future if we are not careful. sooner than later we could look like a country of greece. we have to change things. we have to change the way we have been thinking and working. the caller talked about clinton balancing the budget. he was president when it was balanced. but that was a coordinated effort with republicans and democrats. one of the interesting things, rob, is that government rose the least when you have a divided government. -- grows the least when we have a divided republican -- divided government. when i was young, the seniors of the party talked about a balanced government -- balanced budget. i bought into that. i heard in the 1960's, 1970's, 1980's -- and in the year 2000.

in january, 2001, it stopped. now the republicans said the white house, the house and senate. they had everything. it was, just kidding. we did not needed. we did not want the democrats' spending money. the same with the democrats. when they have all the power, like we have in washington, they are spending money like there is no tomorrow. i was tempted to say that they were spending money like drunken sailors, but that is not true because drunken sailors spend their own money. i think the tea partiers movement is an opportunity to change that. i hope the movement does not operate only in the republican party. i hope they try to influence the democratic party and served as a fourth, a third force, pulling everybody in their direction, just as the left has had a third force organizations like unions,

consumer groups, environmentalists, feminist groups pulling people to the left. i think we need a movement and it is on the horizon now that will pull all our institutions, not just the political community, back towards responsible -- responsibility. host: there is this headline -- chickens are taken over the senate race in nevada. this is talking about the race between the republican senate candidate and she is trying to replace -- replace harry reid. gop candidates comment on bartering for health care may help the struggling -- the effect of this particular candidate is it getting so much attention when she is running against the majority leader. does this speak of the re- emergence of the republican party or the weakening of the democratic party? guest: the problems the democrats are having does not

have a lot to do with republican opposition. republicans came late to the battle, so to speak. perhaps the first person to go up there and challenge the democrats, obama, was rush limbaugh. early on, he went out and said he hopes he fails because he knew he would advance a socialist, hard left agenda. he did not want that agenda to go for. other talk show hosts joined in. alternative media -- are wrote a book some years ago called "america's right turn." a little exaggeration at that time. my eyes were bigger than it reality. it is the new an alternative media that leveled the playing field. it has caused obama to have so many problems passing this legislation, because without talk radio, cable television, the internet and direct mail,

obama would have signed his health care within five or six months after becoming president and much of his agenda would be law. the republicans now are coming along, but the major leadership is stilllbeing provided by those who are not in public office. host: killingworth, connecticut. our live for republicans. good morning. caller: i have two quick questions. i am 81 and watch your program religiously. i watched the senate on c-span 2 for years now. my first question is come up with regard to new leadership, i would like to know what your guest thinks of term limits. and the second question is, as i say, i have watched the senate for many years, and i have been impressed more than any other senator on the floor by the

common sense of senator tom coburn, and i would like to know what your guest thinks of him. i will hang up and take my answer of the telephone. to what appeared guest. -- than. guest: i am a big fan of senator tom coburn. he is a handful of republicans -- he is one of a handful of republicans who is a constitutional conservative. his colleague jim demint is a rising star. i spoke to him a few days ago. reminds me ofhre he barry goldwater. it was back in the days when we did not have the leadership. we did not see how we could come to power, and barry goldwater was out there providing that leadership that jim demint is doing, and coburn is his ally in the senate.

in terms of the term limit issue, it would be nice if we did not have to have term limits. we have term limits -- it is called elections. most politicians have agreed to the rules so that it is very difficult to turn them out of office. one of the secrets of campaign finance legislation is it is to protect the incumbents when you put ceilings on how much money a person can give to kennedy directly, that protect the incumbent. -- it can give to a candidate directly, that protect the income and. incumbent. nobody is very far from having hundreds of news channels available to them on the internet, radio, television, magazines, newspapers, and the

idea of giving up half a million dollars to advertise their reelection campaign is i think the scandal. host: oklahoma. brian on our line for independence. do you share the last caller proceed view of senator coburn? caller: he is a good as far as constitutional principles, but he is still statist, expanding the role of government in our lives. where were you with an ron paul two years ago and why do not support him for the presidency? ron paul went head-to-head with obama with his platform. abolish the irs. end the american empire, get us out of our worldwide empire. stopping the illegal afghanistan and iraqi wars in bring our boys home. support our troops, bring them

home alive. now. that is the platform the republican party should get back to if they want to get back to small government, a conservative. conservative. you speak of barry goldwater and ronald reagan. you do not speak of ron paul has the conservative credentials and has had them for 30 years. guest: by in a big fan of ron paul. in fact, my marketing and advertising company supported him in a major way when he first ran for congress in 1976. we did a great deal of fund- raising throughout the country to finance a mailing campaign and ron paul's special election when he ran in 1976. so i go back 35 years with ron paul. i am a big fan. host: i want to get your thoughts on joe the plumber who got a lot of attention in the 2008 campaign and was pictured

-- then no washed tim "washington times." he was elected tuesday to oversee the republican party in his state. is he part of that new republican party you are talking about? guest: he is. he is a small businessman who saw the country moving in the wrong direction. he saw his business suffer. he saw a situation whereby he is working hard, sacrificing, taking risks so that other people can live comfortably off of his work. that is kind of where we are in this country right now. it is evenly divided. a few more people on the producer side, but we have a country that is fairly evenly

divided between those who are producing and those who are consuming. we are almost at that tipping point. if we get to a point where those people could take from government significantly outnumber those who are the producers, then i do not see how our country survives. host: richard viguiere, thank you for being on worcester this morning. we will talk about the airline mergers -- thank you for being on "washington journal" this morning. we will talk about the airline mergers. we will take another look at the sunday morning talk shows. >> the main subjects will be the gulf of mexico oil spill appeared in new york city attempted car bombing and the u.s. and global financial markets. "meet the press" a -- guests will include attorney general eric holder. jake tapper will talk with mr. holder and rudy guiliani. the guest on fox news sunday

will include john brennan, the deputy national security adviser for homeland security and for counterterrorism. also the senate homeland security committee chairman joseph lieberman and the house hall and security -- republican peter king. on face the nation, you will hear bob schieffer with john brennan, also the senate -- chris dodd. and on cnn's state of the union, john brennan, richard shelby, and the democratic florida senator bill nelson. you can listen to all five of the sunday morning talk shows starting at noon eastern on c- span radio. nationwide on xm satellite, channel 32. and you can follow us on it and twitter. -- facebook and twitter. dick durbin will be our

guest on this morning's "newsmakers". "newsmakers", today on it 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.. >> ted leonsis tonight on his book "the business of happiness." his documentary about the 1937 massacre and what it means to own a sports team. tonight on c-span's "q&a". "washington journal" continues. host: joining us is an aviation policy expert talking about airline mergers. the most recent -- there was a big full-page advertisement in the "the washington post" -- let's fly together. united and continental. did my network just get better? or is this for the profit of the two airlines involved? guest: all the above.

one of the reasons for doing mergers is a large, global, corporate contracts. that is what they are competing for. a couple years ago when we saw the delta and northwest merged, that created the first global airline. united and continental will be able to compete with delta. you can fly from any point of the world to any other point in the world. on the consumer side, that is the benefit. host: why couldn't we do get beforehand? guest: you could, but you had to fly in two different airlines. it gives you the ability to bid for the largest contracts out there, where you have people like exxon mobile flying at the front of the plane, along as a mileage and giving you the biggest fairs. host: you mentioned the other merger. how is this one different from the first merger you mentioned? guest: they are not that much

different. you have to large national airlines that had incomplete route maps. -- you had two large national airlines that had incomplete route maps. now, you have a new delta air lines that can fly anywhere in the world. continental was a very fine airline. it had a lot of frequency into latin america. unita had very little frequency. continental could not have -- could not have direct flights into the pacific rim. you combine their airlines and you have an airline that can fly anywhere in the world. host: you are an author and editor of a handbook of economic airlines put out by aviation week. some economists have said that with fewer modes transfer to -- of transportation that competition would be less and

there would be no incentive to keep prices line. and there will be higher ticket prices. guest: we have a lot of airlines in the united states. we have a big united into a big delta. we have a large southwest which is low cost. we have jetblue and airtran. they hang on it as a discipline on the industry and tell us what we can and cannot charge. host: if you want to get involved, the number is 202-737- 0002 for democrats, 202-737- 0001, for republicans, 202-628- 0205, for independents. we will take your comments and questions on twitter and email. we will not restrict the calls in terms of frequent flight miles. by all means, give us a call and let us know what you think. tell us how this merger is going to work from the announcement

that was made to when we will actually see the different -- i believe it will take united's name and continental's logo. when will we see these planes on the tarmac? guest: a year or so down the road, probably two or three. they take a presentation to the department of justice first. they have to approve. it. both airlines shareholders have to approve it as well. large airline integrations are nontrivial projects. it will take three years, even after the department of justice, if they do get approval. it takes awhile to integrate and retain all their planes. we're looking at two to three years down the road. host: what will the department of justice look at? guest: that will look at how this will impact affairs in the united states and globally. their main interest is the united states. they will look at this closely.

this is a big airline. it will be a lot different than what we went through on the delta and northwest merger. a different administration, a different policy guidelines, different people. this will not be as easy as the one we did with delta and northwest. they will look at very carefully. carefully. it will probably take a little bit longer to make a decision. host: our antitrust concerns? guest: the senator from minnesota has a voice large opposition to the merger, as he does to all mergers that take place in the airline industry. there are concerns. this will be looked at carefully. host: will there be hearings? guest: of course. we are looking forward to them. host: our first call comes from port st. lucie. on our line for democrats. ron, are you there?

go ahead. calle caller: i am an ex airline employee, and i went through deregulation. i retired at this time. right now i see there was no point in the regulation, because we will end up with one or two major carriers in this country. the regulation caused me a lot of heartbreak and lots of problems -- the regulation caused me a lot of heartbreak and lots of problems. why did i have to go through it if prices will skyrocket in with one or two carriers? host: before he answers the question, give me as specific example of what your job was and how you were hurt by deregulation. caller: i was an aircraft mechanic. host: how did deregulation heard

you? caller: the airline are worked for went bankrupt because of deregulation. we were the first to go bankrupt. he will know who i am talking about. guest: well, interesting question. we will not end up with just one or two airlines. that is simply not true. we will end up with two or three large ones or 20 or 30 smaller ones. some of the smaller ones will start growing in size, especially in the united states, as the larger airlines, legacy airlines like american, delta, in the united have become more international. that is were the biggest affairs and the most money is. in terms of deregulation, fares are much lower than they were then. and -- in the airline industry, we take prices from the

marketplace. very difficult to appraise what you want in the airline business -- to price what you want in the airline business. the costs have gone up enormously. our revenue has not. that is why a lot of airlines have gone bankrupt. host: matt on our independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am concerned about this merger because the banks that merged have gotten to the point where they are too big to fail. i think this could possibly happen to these airlines. i do not think it is in the best interests of oz or our country to let this merger goes through -- of us or our country to get this merger. it is to obey. -- too big. guest: if a large airline were liquidated it would be a terrific thing because you would have 700 planes on the ground --

a horrific thing. you would have 700 planes on the ground. since 9/11, we have seen fewer airlines liquidate than ever before. if a large airline is on the brink of liquidation, what we would more likely see then liquidation would be the debt holders would come in and take over most of the equity recapitalization of the airline. i do not consider that a bad thing at all. it is a fairly likely during the next 10 years. i am not worried about liquidation. from jouycyce philadelphia, on our lines of democrats. caller: i am a former twa employed. our company merged with american airlines. i am most concerned about how the employees will be protected by their benefits, security,

pensions, insurance is, which my insurance was canceled by american. i am concerned about how and where -- there should be some sort of provision that could protect us from these mergers. host: american airlines bought back -- guest: american airlines bought the assets of twa in 2000. they would use that as a kind of lever -- reliever hub. after 9/11, traffic diet and the entire twa operation was shut down in st. louis. most of the employees lost their jobs. this is a major issue. i do not know if new health care will take care of this or not, but certainly, i note with a lot of people keeping their health care benefits, losing them in mergers is a big issue. host: the people that work on

the ground, or pilots, or flight attendants, does it make a difference to them between a takeover as what this woman described and a merger? guest: it makes a very big difference. in the case of twa, it was not a merger. all the employees were stapled to the bottom of the list in terms of how long they had worked there. when layoffs came, they were the first ones laid off. that is why this lady found herself in distress. host: they said we want the planes ,the hubs, but not the people. guest: in the merger, you are integrated. it is more stacked. host: but people in both airlines, both continental and united, there are some people that will lose their jobs

because of their, will there? guest: yes, there will be. host: on our line for republicans. jeff. hi. caller: yes, i am and airline employees. i am concerned about the employees within northwest-delta buyout -- a buyout, not a merger. the scary part is the ceo of and then he went with united healthcare. the scary part is he brought northwest into a huge bankruptcy which the employees are suffering from. he will be the ceo of the number two airline in the world. it is scary for the employees as

far as future jobs. i want to know how you feel. host: thanks for your call. glenn tilton is the ceo of united. jeff is the ceo of conti nental. tell us about those two guys. guest: interesting contrast. jeff, energetic. jeff spent his life in the airline industry. he will run the company. tilton will not be involved in the day to day operations. tilton's an interesting person. he had been ceo for about two weeks. i had dinner with him, and the

congressman from minnesota and a person from the department of transportation. he spent the evening talking about consolidation. that is what he believed in. he is a true believer that there should be fewer companies. he just came from the oil industry where he oversaw a bankruptcy and a company is consolidating. he is a true believer in this. this guy is very aggressive. he is adroit. he handled the pilots union and a very interesting way in continental. delta has the best contract for pilots right now. he offered them that but -- plus a little bit more. he's very bright, very culture-oriented. continental is the best airline to work for by far. they have been the best managed. united airlines over the last 15

years has been problematic. tilton started out with what i would consider a very inferior management team and over the last two years, united is the most improved. lton e end of the day, titlto got his merger and brought in a good management team. line forriis on our independents from california. caller: last week we were scheduled to go to new york on jetblu. it was cancelled. i thought once you have a contract with an airline, even if they do not have enough passengers it needs to be service. guest: we have excessive numbers

of passengers right now. at the fares we offer. each planeload has 80% of seats full. it could blow the that the plane was taken out because of maintenance -- a could well be that the plane was taken up because of maintenance. the lack of passengers was not the reason. host: richard in kansas, on our line for democrats. caller: i am up wondering about the domestic carriers like southwest. will there be mergers domestically from smaller airlines? guest: good question, kid. that is the question. the current ceo southwest airlines is talking about this. he is not opposed to a consolidation.

probably would be open to a merger on the right financial terms. it would be interesting to see what they do. that is what we are waiting to see. host: this merger between united and continental had more to do with access at overseas markets. guest: that is correct. soon you'll be seeing southwest flying internationally. mexico and canada. when theyh get their feet wet, you will see them flying across the continent in larger planes. host: will that make them, but southwest, jetblu, will that make them more ripe for takeover? guest: southwest as a larger market. they could buy american airlines. host: so, it could start some kind of a turf battle.

southwest might be thinking, if we are bigger than they are and we are domestic, why don't we buy ourselves a international presence? guest: i do not think they want the cultural problems of integration with a large legacy airline. it would not surprise me if they bought small, low-cost airlines with cultures similar to their own. host: jimmy, our independent line. caller: he pointed out the benefits of the merger, the prices and tickets will go down. he has not said the other side. when businesses get to obey, -- too big, they can set their own prices and there is nothing you can do about it. like the oil industry. being too big is not good,

because it what's more -- puts more control into big business. they begin to regulate themselves. they cut corners like they did with that oil rig. one more example is walmart. they give cheap prices, which is good. it is a good benefit. but they ran so many small businesses of business that walmart, buys most of their stuff from overseas. they do not hire the people that the small grocery store is what higher. once they rode everybody out of business, they will not keep their prices low forever. they control the market. guest: thank you. i hear questions like this often. amongst the cities, travel

between cities where most people fly, we have competition. we have the least amount of competition in small, rural areas. you might see something like that happen in small areas. in large population destinations, there is competition. people travel for business but they do not always travel by airplane for leisure. they can get in their cars. they can stay home. host: we are talking with the daryle jenkins, aviation policy expert and author of the handbook of airline economics, put out by "aviation week." guest: we are updating it. host: eventually you'll be able

to find us online or your local bookstore? guest: both. host: salt lake city. our line for republicans. steven. caller: i had the experience of traveling to southeast asia a couple times a year -- philippines, singapore. philippines, singapore. there is a remarkable difference in the quality, customer service between airlines such as singapore air and domestic airlines like united, which i had the experience of flying back from singapore. how does your guest explain the ability of these foreign airlines to provide such better customer service? thank you. guest: good question. i agree with you about singapore

air. it is voted in the favored airline of international travelers. asians have a different culture. they have a different view of service. there is a different relationship between men and women over there. host: if you happen to go to singapore. if you want a flight from new york to paris, singapore airlines will not be able to help you out. guest: you'll be able to connect through one of their places precautio. caller: good morning. i am curious about this merger. united and continental -- one operates in the northeastern quarter. why not trade routes for these international markets? have continental flight to south america, and partner up, like other international partners.

why does it make economic -- why doesn't make economic sense to jam them into a large company -- why does it make economic sense to jam them into a large company? shareholders? cp-t: he's talkinga bou about o-chairs. american airlines and british airways have this. certainly a perfectly good way. the way they do it is through antitrust immunity which is a virtual merger. when you have two companies get together like united and continental, they are taking the co-chair alliance and they are combining it to all routes. you get more synergy in terms of cost and in terms of revenue. host: for those with frequent flier miles under 200, explain hub and spoke and how that plays

a part in this discussion. guest: why are there no direct flights from idaho falls to washingtionon, d.c.? there is not enough traffic to have direct routes. she would fly from idaho falls to salt lake city and from salt lake city to washington. the reason you have hobbs is there are a lot of communities to do not have enough traffic to justify direct service. host: united's hub is where? guest: chicago. they also are very big at dulle is in washington. they are big in houston and newark. the new headquarters will be in chicago. host: york, pennsylvania.

william on our line for independence. caller: just wanted to tell a quick experience i had flying in madison, harris . airport.rport, small i am talking about customer service of the airline's. flight left at 7:30. we walked in at 7:05, a candidate refused to give us on the airplane. i could not understand why they could not get us on the airplane in 25 minutes. the customer service was horrendous. it makes me wonder how they can stay in business when they treat their customers like that. i cannot know of any other company where you can pay your money, did i do not know of any other company were you pay your money and get nothing in return

i had 25 minutes. i could have been to the gate in 30 seconds at that airport. you have no recourse of action to get your money back. they did not only not give me a disservice i ask for, they kept my money, and said it would cost me another $200 to fly out the next day. if i ran my business that way, we can giggle about this, but i would be out of business. guest: customer service has suffered in the last couple of years. planes, when they have turned around its small destinations, there are certain things the cabin crew has to do to the plane. the plane can be on the runway and you cannot get on. those are the reasons. customer service is a problem. it is something the airlines need to be aware of. i hope it will spend more attention on this in the future. host: our line for republicans,

from pennsylvania. caller: i have a question regarding the future of american airlines. all the big carriers are going with mergers, but american is staying with its quarter post a strategy. all the good dance partners are gone. i want you to comment about american airlines. formally the world number one. guest: i personally doubt they will do any merger activity. i think they will continue with that policy into the future. host: you have twa being taken over by american. continental merging with united. to use that metaphor, are there any dance partners left? guest: the pretty girls probably have been taken. you have u.s. airwaves, a niche

airline, dominating on the west coast. american does not want to do any more mergers. for democrats our line in michigan. sheila, go ahead. caller: hi. i am wondering because i am an employee of a delta connection carrier how he thinks the merger will affect the wages of employees like me and also crew members. when we fly for the big airlines, the merger of excess, but so far we have not noticed any difference in how the wages have been addressed. host: where do you fly? between what cities?

sue st. i woulrk at marie. we only go to detroit. guest: i have bent your airline in your city. -- i have been to your airline. they are finding incredible ways to use mergers to their benefit in terms of leveraging pay wages. as you go down the food chain, their ability to leverage becomes less and less. it probably will not translate into much of always fo-- much of a raise for her. host: there was an editorial in this morning's "the new york times", and the question is posed as a wide merge?

considering the recent airlines recent track record -- guest: i think the economic rationale is revenue. you see some cost benefits, not of the same magnitude as revenues. the idea of this economically is increasing your revenue base to the point where you can sustain yourself during a large, economic downturn. host: the timing of this merger -- it will take anywhere from 12 months to 18 months to come to fruition. this is nothing to do with the upcoming travel season? fort lauderdale, florida. our line for independence. caller: good morning.

the question i have pertains to the airline alliances. my big question is, seeing that continental used to be closely affiliated with northwest, before the merger between delta and northwest, do you foresee american airlines -- is it possible that a u.s. carrier can merge with a world carrier like british airways or air france? it seems to me like the airline alliances you have -- united and continental in the same airline alliance. then you have northwest and delta, which is in the sky- something alliance.

isn't it more of the alliance that is playing more of a factor than the airlines itself? guest: good question. we are talking about alliances. airlines group into alliances to have more plausible travel -- to have more global travel opportunities. you put your coats on each other's flights. if you are flying into georgia on delta, you may end up in pakistan -- the problem with doing global mergers is you have united states laws which forbid foreign companies from owning a certain percentage of domestic airlines. you have a lot of countries that have the same type of laws applying to their national airlines. in terms of american and british

airways having a merger between themselves, not likely under this administration. host: pennsylvania. our live for republicans. gabriel. caller: i wonder how destructive this process will be when they merge together. i was on a plane to florida, and i could not get good service. do you think this will be of very intensive process when they tried to merge these two organizations together? guest: a perfectly good question. we have seen times when it has been a nightmare. delta-northwest was about as clean a merger as we have ever seen. you might have had a day of disruptions. you had times when you were switching technological systems, where there were glitches. there always are. dealt -- delta and northwest

gave us a playbook on how to do good integration. united and continental is enough into operations that they will be able to handle this. host: john, our line for democrats. go ahead. caller: this is a question about how the airlines have tried to save money at a cost of the customer. before 9/11, it was recommended by the government to reinforce all the pilot cabin doors was $65,000 for each plane. would you can see that 9/11 never would happen if those doors were reinforced? guest: that is a great question. i honestly do not know what they would have done. the people who were doing this were excessively bright, well trained. if we had reinforced cabin doors, it might have happened that 9/11 may never have

happened. host: sarasota, florida. our line for independents. caller: i have been in the travel business for over four years. it started with the de regulation. you mentioned about competition and the prices being lower. neward airport to sarasota costs well over $300, because continental is the only carrier. with multiple carriers, you can buy a ticket that is low. competition will lower prices, not raise it. if there is no competition, the prices will only go hotter. guest: i hear this often on connecting versus direct routes. it gives travelers and enormous

amount of choices. if you are able to get a direct connection, you do pay more. you save yourself about to 2.5, 3 hours on time. host: we are queuing up another one. we have a story from abcnews.com. obama administration gets tough on airlines. what is the administration getting tough on? guest: the tarmac delays. this will be a contentious issue. we see that thunderstorms start in june. we had three instances where travelers were not taking off travelers were not taking off the coming into a destination and were held on planes for eight or nine hours before they were let off this is the impetus for what the department of transportation -- 3-hour tarmac delay rule.

if you are on a runway, waiting to take off, at the end of three hours, that plane has to turn around and come back. if it does not do that, they are subject to a fine of $30,000 per passenger. we did an analysis of the longest tarmac delays, of five hours or longer, at 90% of those admitted to their destination. it will be a big issue this summer. airlines, after two hours, will start canceling their flights. with planes being 80% and 90% full, those flights, it will take three days for people to get to their destination. it will be a very contentious issue all summer long. host: essentially, this merger will not have an effect on those regulations. guest: none, whatsoever. host: you are at the mercy of the pilot and the people who are

giving the pilots instructions. guest: which is the government. host: new york, new york. caller: good morning. i used to fly from new york to las vegas once a year. 10 years ago, i took national. they went under. america west emerged with u.s. airways -- merged with u.s. airways. they canceled all those flights. they used to have four flights a day. they fly no more directly. what i was getting at is, will the mergers and -- will there be less service? guest: from new york, you can get direct flights anywhere in the world. if you're going to las vegas or

somewhere else, you have an opportunity to get direct flights. host: we want to interrupt this conversation to let our viewers and listeners know that politico is reporting that president obama will name to more u.s. thecitor general, to be next nominee for the u.s. supreme court. she was born in new york city. attended princeton university. as a master and philosophy from oxford university and a j.d. from harvard university law school. she was a law clerk for supreme court justice thurgood marshall from 1987-1988. an assistant professor at the university of chicago law school. an associate counsel to the president from 1995-1996. dean of the howard university law school from 2003-2009.

u.s. solicitor general from 2009 to the present. i graduated from hunter college high school in new york city in 1977. you can read more about her on our website. we will have more on this is the day goes through. we will have plenty to morning on "washington journal". we want to finish up with this last call from boise, idaho, on our line for republicans. caller: i am an employee with one of the smaller major u.s. carriers. i was curious about the future merger prop -- possibilities for the low-cost, smaller carriers. i will hang up and listen to your answer. guest: boise is one of my favorite towns. there are merger possibilities of low-cost airlines.