"washington journal" is next. >> we face a tough fight in afghanistan. and the insurgency that is confronted with a direct challenge will turn to new tactics. that is what the taliban has done to assassination and indiscriminate killing and assassination. moreover, any country that has known decades of war will be tested in finding political solutions to its problems and providing government's to serve the needs of people. ♪ host: you heard president obama delivering the commencement address to the graduating class

at the commencement ceremony at west point. the afghan effort tied to success in kandahar. it is sunday, may 23. "the new york times" reporting that kim jong il authorized the torpedo hit that sunk a south korean vessel in march, killing 46 soldiers. secretary clinton is calling for a more balanced economic relationship between our two countries. a special election in hawaii. the republican has won, marking the first time the gop winning a congressional seat in hawaii. it is the district where president barack obama grew up. we begin from "the washington post" and your calls focusing on afghanistan. we welcome your participation. 202-737-0002. above the fold in "the

washington post," the obama administration's campaign to drive the taliban out of the second-largest city is a go for broke move that even its authors are run sure will succeed. the that is the operation backed by thousands of u.s. troops and billions of dollars will break the mystique and the morale of the insurgents, turn the tide of the war, and validate the afghan strategy. there is no plan be. in a speech before the u.s. military academy at west point, the president called on nato to beef up its support in light of some countries that might be scaling back operations in afghanistan. here's more from the president. >> the burden of this century cannot fall on our soldiers alone. it also cannot fall on americans shoulders alone. our adversaries would like to

see america sap its strength by overextending our power. in the past, we have had the foresight to avoid acting alone. we are part of the most powerful wartime coalition in human history through world war ii. we put together a community of free nations and institutions to prevail during the cold war. we are clear about the shortfalls of our international systems, but america has not succeeded by stepping out of the currents of cooperation. we have succeeded by spearing those currents in the direction of liberty, and justice, so nations arrive by meeting their responsibilities, and face consequences when they don't. we have to shape an international order that can meet the challenges of our generation. host: the president at west point. "the new york post" pointing of

the candidate will remove 2800 troops from afghanistan next year. the prime minister of the netherlands drew criticism within his country when he tried to keep 2000 of his troops in the region this year. such moves coupled with the reluctance for an increased role in afghanistan sparked fears that other nato countries could follow suit. let's hear from you on this issue of the afghan effort. kandahar and u.s. efforts in that region. you can also join the conversation online at twitter dodge, -- twitter.com/cspan. good morning. caller: i wanted to say, our efforts in afghanistan tied to success in canada are, what we are trying to say is occupation of afghanistan.

to continue to call this a war, we are not fighting a war. they have an organized military. we are trying to establish enough -- set down some things, occupation. when we leave, we can have a puppet government over there. maybe we will start having oil spills over there instead of over here. we have been solidifying on all of those wells in afghanistan, or iraq, and by now, it is thought -- it is time to start acting like this is a military based on the war effort. this is an occupation to try to hurry up and locked down the oilwells over there. i think at some point, we have to come on home. host: thanks for the call. we concluded earlier -- there is no plan be. she went on to say the deadline is short.

it is anticipated the operation will form the centerpiece of a major strategy assessment due in december. our focus is the military effort in afghanistan and also the latest surge in kandahar. bob is joining us on the republican line from philadelphia. good morning. caller: my opinion is this is this is utterly insane, this administration's idea. what good is this going to do to cause this much slaughter there? we need to get -- the u.s. needs to stop thinking they're the police officers of the world and we can enforce by force of other people's lives in their country. this is an afghan problem. the have to solve it themselves. we have to get our troops out of

there. they will solve the problem. this is a political aspect to it. the administration wants to hide behind the flag and call themselves a wartime president and congress. they know they will get their clocks cleaned in november if they don't have something to hide behind. host: we will talk politics later. twitter comment. where are all of the democrats that called for troops to come home? president obama fooled millions of americans. c.j. has a piece in the international section of "the new york times." a challenge to open's luster. many afghan farmers grow poppy because it turns them more income than any other crop and because opium can be brought to the market any time after harvest, making it an ideal product for the uncertainties of a conflict zone. several farmers said in interviews they were willing to plant other crops in the fall and avoid the new risks that perennial turbulence of the

opium trade has created. you write that with fighting heating up again with the seasonal uptick in the taliban activity and what marines say is an influx of bikers, the state of the opium trade is a central element of the conflict between the american and afghan governments and a complex insurgents and a criminal case. it is a sector of the economy the administration hopes to uproot and thereby demonstrate progress resulting from the so- called afghan surge, which thus far has shown mixed results. blake is doing us from utah. good morning to you. -- blakey is joining us from utah. good morning to you. caller: good morning. i was just watching, and i was just wondering -- host: democrats line, good morning. caller: i am a disabled veteran.

i think what we're doing in afghanistan and iraq is truly unnecessary. we are not making any progress at all. what are we trying to gain? are we trying to gain these people's independence? what is it that we want? we have been there over five years. it was never about their lives. this is really stupid. they need to stop. host: how would you define success? what is our motivation in afghanistan? caller: we are not looking for the edge. we will never get rid of the taliban. we will not get rid of them, no matter what we do. hoss: thank you. another comment saying, we won in iraq!

"the new york daily news," one of the many photographs of the president at west point yesterday. "looking for allies at west. ." -- at west point." jay is joining us from alabama, republican line. caller: how're you doing this morning? thank you for taking my call. i wish people wouldn't learn to use the right language in discussing this war in afghanistan. number one, we are in some of the sophisticated writers about the situation. we are in a long war. death and the span is nothing more than one battle in this war. this is the third time that the enemy -- i will use that term -- has tried to cocker and destroy western civilization.

the press and some of our people who don't understand or do not understand that this war has been waged against us really since reagan's career when 200 marines were killed in their barracks. in lebanon. the only way you won a war is you destroy the enemy and/or his will to fight. now, they have, right now, under the obama administration, a leader that has accepted the fact that we are going to have to lose. in essence, getting out of afghanistan, whatever the deadline is, we have lost. these people will keep coming and coming and coming until they destroy our will to fight. i will give you an example. iwo jima.

the battle the significant in the sense, we lost 6000 marines in six weeks. that was president truman. we took 1000 prisoners out of that battle. he made the decision to still use the atomic bomb in japan. use it. we used the atomic bomb. we used it was. the japanese recognized that we were strong enough and have enough will to win the war. the idea of leaving afghanistan -- we are just a rendering. host: things for the call. a couple of stories we want to bring to your attention of the weekend. in new york, andrew cuomo is running for the democratic nominee for the democratic

nomination for governor. the primary is held later this year. the headline is he finally launches a crusade for governor. "the star bulletin" has this from honolulu. charles windsor in that election. wins thees kjdjou election. he got about 67,000 votes, just under 40%, trailing the state senate candidate. he will run again in november. this is a special election to fill the seat of the man who resigned earlier this year. annie is joining us from st. louis. good morning. caller: i love c-span.

host: we love our viewers. you make it happen. caller: the only reason we are in afghanistan is because of the poppy fields. i think our government has some kind of stake in the drug trade going on there. otherwise, we would not be there. i also believe that afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11. you know, i feel like those people are -- i have heard on talk radio that some people think that those -- the afghans are stupid because they are not going along with the plan. i just want to remind people that if foreign troops came over here and tried to tell you what to do and tried to take over this country, you would fight back also. host: thanks for the call. in "the new york times," also

posted on the drug report, the u.s. implicates north korean leader in the attack. kim jong il must have authorized the torrent -- torpedo was sold. the assessment was based on their sense of the political dynamics rather than hard evidence. the official as saying they are increasingly convinced that kim jong il ordered the sinking of the ship to ensure the succession of his younger son. more on that later in the program with victor cha on the situation in north korea. cocoa is in china and will be addressing the issue later this week. the south korean officials is expected to take this to the u.n. as early as tomorrow. dale from illinois, democrat line. caller: good morning, sir. the woman that was just on

really has my views. why are we over in afghanistan? really? why are we there? i don't think they had anything to do with september 11. another thing is, if the poppy we'd, whatever you want to call it, is sold in demand, why aren't we contract in with -- contracting with the growers so we can get them on our side, rather than the taliban being on their side? host: thanks for the call. host: thanks for the call. john burns had a piece, as american forces prepare for a pivotal engagement, a report to remember is the failure of an earlier time. weapons and talks may not be enough in the cradle of afghan

resistance. that is from john burns in "the new york times." "obama criticized bush for both wars and promised to end them in six months. let's see him explain why he has not." mike joining us from maryland. independent line. caller: please don't cut me off too soon. too soon. i member of d.c. 911 truth.org. basically, if you go to prison planet.com, there's an article about how the troops -- the poppy crops. the taliban have virtually eliminated all popping growth. you have a former corporate stooge in afghanistan.

all of our bases are long the oil pipeline route. all the countries we have invaded, iraq, serbia, afghanistan, one thing they have in common is they are not controlled by the european central bankers. it is all part of the new world order plan. host: thanks for the call. the next big congressional push on financial regulation, the headline, financial bill poses a big task for lobbyists. the body of the story is this. executives and political action committees from wall street banks, hedge funds, insurance companies, and financial sectors have chartres congressional candidates with more than $1.7 billion in the last decade, which must -- with much of it going to be industries that oversee the operations. the financial sector has enjoyed virtually front door access. silla brush as one of those

following the story. thanks very much for being with us. >> great to be with you. host: can you set the stage now host: can you set the stage now that we have seen barney frank and chris dodd saying he thought this could be wrapped up within about a month once the hearings began after memorial day? what are you looking at? guest: they said they are in the final stretch of this now. that is on the house and senate side. they bowed to send it to president obama's desk by july 4. there in the homestretch year. we are now in a conference between the house and senate. both sides say the architecture of the bills in both chambers is very similar. there are plenty of differences, but the basic architecture is

there. host: the word that is being used in a number of stories, including some of the reporting of done, is on the issue of derivatives and new regulations on that trading practice. specifically, what do democrats and those republicans who support this bill what? guest: one of the biggest differences between the two chamberses' that -- how it treats derivatives. it exacerbated the crisis in 2008. this is the key point of the legislation that obama has bowed to bring oversight to a market that is multi trillion dollars. one of the biggest differenccs as a provision on the senate side that would basically require banks to move their derivatives operations out of their banks and sort of spin them off. the house bill does not include

this provision. this has become the main point of contention of banks. they would seriously cripple their products. they argued it would. many of the federal regulators, including ben bernanke, have said -- have warned against this provision. but come it remains. it was part of the bill that passed the senate on thursday evening. it will be one of these questions in the next month about whether they are taking it out and what it is replaced with. host: you report of the democrats are looking at an increased tax on these hedge funds that could potentially raise $19 billion. who would be taxed? guest: this is part of a separate piece of legislation. it is called a new tax on

carried interest, which is a way that hutch -- hedge funds and other investment managers make money. this has been an issue for several years now. the powers have never passed a higher tax on such interest. hedge funds and other managers make money. some is taxed at capital gains rate. some of it is taxed at a lower rate. democrats searching for ways to raise revenue to pay for all sorts of new pieces of legislation, namely to increase jobs in the country. this tax on hedge funds is used as a way to pay for new jobs measures. it is unclear whether it will make it through the senate and house ways and means committee. it was included in the late 50's of legislation, but this has not been enacted and has not passed a chamber yet.

host: silla brush is following the senate debate on financial regulation as it moves to conference, which will happen after memorial day. let's go back to the story this morning. lobbying efforts have been under way on this bill. the report in pointing out that this is a fund-raising cycle for members of the house financial services committee, which they say has become a magnet for deep money from wall street and other contributors, especially as congress moves to finalize this legislation. there's nothing new in this. lobbying continues and it is perfectly legal. what influence will it have on the final outcome? guest: their advocacy groups on the opposite side on most of these issues. they have had a great deal of influence throughout the year and a half this debate has been going on.

in many. , the financial lobbyists have either lost some battles or seen the goal post shift against their favor. in other areas, they have won. it takes the provision we discussed earlier about requiring banks to possibly span of their derivatives unit as a provision that was not in any legislation until april. they have been working this issue extremely hard since january of 2009. this is something that was late in the game. it is always hard to say. it is a one-to-one correlation between lobbying and the outcome. they have worked just as hard as lobbyists for banks. they have had many successes. host: silla brush for "the

phil." you can read more by go been to -- by going to thehill.com. our military effort in kandahar. the president talked about it yesterday at west point. >> we toppled the taliban regime. we must break the momentum of a taliban uncertainty and train afghan security forces. we have supported the election of a sovereign government. we must strengthen its capacity. we brought hope to the afghan people. we must see that their country does not fall prey to our, anemones -- common enemies. there will be difficult days ahead. we will adapt. we will persist. i have no doubt that together, with our international partners, we will succeed in afghanistan. [applause] host: from "the new york times"

international section, a challenge in opium's luster, a product that creates a lot of revenue for the farmers in that region. it is one of the dynamics in our effort to take control of an area where the taliban has control outside of cobble -- kabul. republican line from texas. good morning. turn the volume down on your set. go ahead. are you still with us? caller: yes. i have a comment and a question. host: we will come back to you. we are getting echoes. turn the volume down on your set and go ahead. we will go to dan in connecticut. good morning. caller: good morning.

thanks for taking my call. i think the whole effort in afghanistan, the fact that we're doing all of this for karzai, i do not really trust karzai. i do not think he is that great of a guy. we have young men and women dying over there for comment karzai -- hamid karzai. it does not sit well for me. if we were to pull out of there, people say it would cause chaos, but i do not think so. if we pulled out, how long would it take for a terrorist attempt? when there be one in the u.s. the next day or the day after? it seems pointless. we have been there longer than in iraq, spending all of this money. i do not think it is worth it, especially when you have karzai running around talking about joining the taliban. he is not mentally stable. we should not have men and women dying for him. host: anyone who does not know

why we are in afghanistan -- afghanistan should what "charlie wilson's war" for a little background. are you still with us? caller: this is my first time calling in. i am republican. i do not understand why we're over there in afghanistan. they have been fighting for many, many years. we are over there trying to stop them from fighting. but, i also have a question. why are we sending more people over there to get killed and it

is doing no good? i mean, it is -- there isn't a reason for us to be there to start with. host: thanks for the call. "the near post," "supreme slum." a photograph of sonia sotomayor. this shabby housing project will be named after the supreme court judge, but the residents would prefer justice. her name will soon grace a bronx housing project so run down that it nearly failed its last federal inspection. the new york housing authority sang it will rename the houses after its most famous former resident next month, fuelling speculation it will happen on june 4, when she is in town to give a commencement address.

a former associate justice, sandra day o'connor, has this this morning. "take justice off the ballot." each state has its own method of choosing judges, from lifetime appointees to partisan elections. judges with lifetime appointments are not accountable to voters. elected judges are affected by political constituencies. a better system is one that drexel balance between like an appointment and partisan election by providing for the open, public nomination and the appointment of judges, followed in due course by a standardized judicial performance about tuition and, finally, a yes or no vote on which citizen approved the judge or vote him out. if you're interested in our new book on the supreme court, it is available online at c-span.org. interviews with the current nine justices, and also a

documentary. its session took place this last week of the library of congress. it included remarks from justice stephen briar. that will reader to the -- reair today. stephen, good morning on the republican line. caller: good morning. how are you? i have a strong feeling we are in afghanistan fighting a war we will not win. i think we should get our troops out of there and get them ready for this thing with korea. i think korea will sneak up on us. host: we will talk about that later. the afghan effort tied to kandahar and success there. john is joining us from toledo, ohio. caller: good morning. first-time caller. i have tried to get through many times and i have always gotten a busy signal. this time, i was able to get

through. people of lost interest in the wars. you do not see as much news about it. you see a lot of unimportant things. the reason i believe we are in afghanistan is because of pakistan. pakistan is very unstable. i think we are in -- sticking around in iraq because of iran. we are kind of pre-ready to act if we need to. i think that is the reason. i think one of the mistakes we made a right off the bat was the fact that there should have been a war tax. even right now, i know it would be political suicide, but i wish they would have a war tax to pay for this. host: think the call. donna has this comment. the conversation continues online at twitter.om.

soldiers are dying for heroin, oil, and gas. we have been in two countries for nine years with no military. bloomberg's business week, uh- oh, looking at trouble for the euro. the inside account of the health care debate and how from a meeting last august resulted in a change in direction within the obama white house that resulted in passage of the bill this year. national review, visit beautiful arizona. the fence of the new immigration law. we will be addressing that later this morning. "the national journal" has the four legate freedom. activists have been making progress in the hinterlands on behalf of farm animals and other creatures, and now they're in washington. alabama, good morning. independent line. caller: good morning. i do not see the logic of us

being in afghanistan. i do not see what they had to do with 9/11. i can see in some kind of cynical way why we are sending our soldiers from iraq to afghanistan. we are looking at a young people coming back from graduating from college and how there are no jobs for them. can you imagine the streets when the young people come back? let's suppose we were not fighting in iraq and not in afghanistan. all of those young people coming back, no jobs in a depressed economy. mental problems, health problems. do you think our nation would be able to assure that? i do not see why we are over there. on the other hand, if they come

back, there will come back to a society that has no way to really accommodate them. thank you. host: thank you. a lot of newspapers featuring graduation today on this sunday. you va has graduation ceremonies later today. have the students celebrating from graduation at cal state fullerton. next is steve from virginia. good morning on the republican line. caller: we are in afghanistan because if you look at iran and afghanistan -- iraq and afghanistan, that makes iraq -- excuse me. that makes iran surrounded. we have to make sure that iran cannot have any adventures, especially with nuclear weapons. there will have to be a hostage rescue thing in about -- and about 20 things will have to be removed from the influencing of

iran. the people are on our side. those religious fanatics run the country. they have the place torn up. if you bring all of the soldiers home, they will run for congress and impeach the president. host: ok. that it? thank you. we appreciate the call and the comment. the atlanta newspaper this morning, looking at the cost of incarceration, per day, per person, just under $50 per day. community-based program is about $16.40 per day. next is suzanne from california, democrat line. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a comment about the entire situation. i believe if we were to entice

the people, or the population, with money, or whatever it took , they would ultimately turn against all of the insurgents or the no-gooderse over there. that is my comment. host: 4300 students bask in the glow of their success at virginia commonwealth university. a comment from joe on the question we're focusing on, afghan efforts and whether or not it is tied to success in kandahar. a war of this type is against libertarian principles, but i do not hear anyone saying it is cookoo. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. there are so many people calling in. if we do not stand up to radical is lamb, somewhere, we will have

to fight them here. people, don't forget. radical islam is real and these people want to hurt america. thanks for taking my call. host: let me go back to the other issue. this is written up in "the national journal." is stability a realistic goal? the focus is the financial regulatory reform bill. it is saying like other reforms that financial overhaul is choose a massive reorganization in favor of shifting over state functions and responsibilities among several agencies. the federal reserve system will continue to audit big national banks and some state-chartered banks. the two others will split the rest, as they do now.

back to the situation in afghanistan. steve joining us from boston. good morning. caller: i want to correct some people. i keep hearing people calling and saying afghanistan has not reached [inaudible] al qaeda was being supported by the taliban. that is why we went into a afghanistan, to go after al qaeda. it has only been nine years. people should not have that short of the memory. saying afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11 as false. i believe the reason president obama does not want to pull out as he does not want to get the right wing of this country up in arms. he is playing bipartisanship like he has all along. as long as he feels the threat from the republican party that

the pulls out, you will be called soft on defense and the typical stuff that gets thrown a democrat, he will continue. i think they all need to [inaudible] what did we learn from vietnam? host: are you listening on xm? caller:sirius. host: we wish we were on sirius. the president wants more support from the allied said the concern that canada and the netherlands may pull out of afghanistan. caller: those countries are getting tired of it. we're spending money. two surrender. this is their country and they

will fight until the bitter end. host: here's more from the president at west point. >> the threat will not go away soon. let's be clear.3 small men on the wrong side of history. they lead the nation. they lead no religion. we may not given to fear every time a terrorist tries to scare us. we should not discard our freedoms because extremists try to exploit them. we cannot succumb to division because others try to drive us apart. we are the united states of america. [applause] we're the united states of america, and we have repaired

our union and outlasted communism. we have gone through turmoil. we have gone through civil law area we have come out stronger. we will do so once more. [applause] host: the president at west point. we will hear more about his foreign policy initiative later this week. he will visit with the italian president and travel to san francisco to visit a solar facility. he will welcome the blue devils to the white house. jim is joining us from vancouver, independent line. caller: good morning. can you hear me? i am in the guard. i have served in iraq. i know exactly when we get there. we are not they're fighting an enemy. we're just an occupation force. those people will shoot at us and do whatever they can to harass us. they have an unemployment rate

of about 80%. halliburton, these private contractors are over there doing the job. most of those people doing the jobs, halliburton as hiring them from places like india or the philippines. they get people from countries who are making $12 an hour in a combat zone is big money. i was really surprised when i came back from iraq. there was not a darn thing going on in iraq that was being accurately portrayed in our media. the only reason why we're there is for the oil. host: when did you get back? caller: i got back in 2007. all we did was sit on the basis that overlooked the oilfields and refineries. that was it. there was no fighting. basically, here's what was explained to us. we were told we could not fire

back at the enemy when they shot at us. you know? if we did, we would be prosecuted. we're so the wets. if that is by people are coming back with ptsd. host: you may remember when there is discussion whether or not the u.s. would participate in the world's fair. china is the host of the first- ever world's fair in that country. hillary clinton was there in part because she helped raise the money for that effort. this is the story inside "the washington post."

you can read more of this morning inside "the washington post." cal is joining us from georgia. good morning. caller: good morning. i have not heard much about the problems we're having with sending our soldiers back and forth to the areas of iraq and afghaniitan. i saw an interesting program the other day on public television about the search -- surge and the problems they encountered in iraq and it can stand. our soldiers are overwhelmed by repeatedly being deployed to these areas. and for what? these soldiers were given a duty of picking up dead bodies,

or because of both the explosions that we encounter from the bonds that are obeyed by the people, how are we to tell anyone what they're to do in their country? after a while, it becomes exhausting. we don't have the money. we have 10 percent unemployment. how do we expect to change other countries when we are broke ourselves? we need our soldiers. our soldiers are not getting the proper care from the constant mental problems that they are encountering. i also heard that we are also having a lot of heroin addiction and drug addiction from our soldiers, especially in afghanistan. host: ok.

thanks for the crop. gary had this comment. president obama did run saying he would pull out of afghanistan. just the opposite. let his plan have a few years to work, and then let's see. the look is joining us from st. louis. good morning to you. caller: so many people cannot understand geopolitics. host: i am sorry. we missed the first part of what you said. caller: it seems like so many people -- it is about geopolitics. the control of resources, markets, and we have a long record of sponsoring state terror, dictators. we have 700 bases in over 100 countries. we are based on every continent except antarctica. it is colonialism. instead of armies, with the do it with basis. everything else from this is a

red herring. host: thanks for the call. this comment from someone described as a maverick. coming up on "newsmakers," midterm election politics with chris and holland. one of the issues, how active will president obama be for democrats running for reelection? >> the president will take his lead from members of the house and members of the senate as to where he can be most effective campaigning for them. there are some places where the president is strong. there are some places where he is less strong. he's a great national spokesman. he is the best at making clear what the stakes are in this election, the importance of moving forward, and the consequences of going back to the same economic agenda that got us into this mess. >> will republicans be making a mistake if they come out the selection as a referendum on the

president? if they run against barack obama, how successful will that be? how much trouble will that cause your candidate? >> i think that would be a big mistake for republicans. if they want to do that, go ahead. they did test drive that strategy in pennsylvania. the ads were trying to create a bogeyman out of president obama, out of speaker pelosi. the voters said, we will not be distracted. we want a candidate and a congressman who will focus on the issues that we care about. we have a choice. that will be the choice of a vote for space in these upcoming congressional elections. two candidates, two competing views of the future. the main difference is going to be that the republicans prescription for the future are the same policies they had in the past that create this mess. host: we hope you tune in at

10:00 eastern time for "newsmakers." chris van hollen is the chair of the democratic national campaign committee. the program also shows at 6:00 p.m. eastern. bobby jackson is keeping track of the programs. >> the topics on the sunday talk shows will include the midterm elections, also the gulf of mexico oil spill, and the resignation of national intelligence director dennis blair. on "meet the press," you will be hearing pennsylvania democratic senate nominee joe suspect. john corning chairs the national republican senatorial committee. robert menendez as the chair of the democratic senatorial campaign committee. on "this week," the host will be talking with the republican national committee chairman

michael steele and tim kaine. the guests on "fox news sunday" with chris wallace will include michael steele and tim kaine, a former alaska governor sarah palin. on cbs, you will hear about schaeffer with robert gibbs. joe suspectsestak and lamar alexander. candy will be talking with guests including tim pawlenty and ed rendell. bp pose a managing director, bob utley. you can listen to all of the sunday morning talk shows starting at noon eastern on c- span radio. nationwide on xm satellite radio 132. follow was on facebook and on twitter. >> on june 28, elena kagan will

testify before the judiciary committee. confine the key moments from previous confirmation hearings online at the c-span video library. every program since 1987. it is washington your way. >> in some ways, everything give you an idea of what their thinking at that moment. >> terence samuel on "the upper house with rector nighttime "q&a." >> what are you going to do about the economy? all they have to walk for is the single economic policies that created the mess to begin with. >> the head of the democratic congressional campaign committee, chris van hollen, on voter sentiment, today on "newsmakers. "-- "newsmakers."

host: alex isenstadt is the political reporter for politico. let's begin with this headline in honolulu. charles djou got it, and defeat in two democrats. your reaction? guest: it is a win for republicans. they win. it was a previously democratically-held seats. 7% of the vote was for barack obama in 2008. this is not entirely unexpected. we know that national democrats pulled out of the race earlier this month. host: and kansas ran for the senate, saying he might run again. he stayed in the race. there seem to be divisions within the democratic party in hawaii. guest: you cannot discuss this without understanding the local

political factors that really drove this race. you had senators and daniel in a way -- inouye and akaka. the senators stood behind him. you had a situation where democrats were bound for the vote. the map was not there for democrats. host: the headline from a colorado paper is referring to andrew roman off -- roumanoff. ken salazar is not the interior secretary. what happened over the weekend? guest: you saw roumanoff picking

up some of the votes. this is a continuation of what we have seen for months now, picking up the support of political insiders in colorado. host: michael bennett is now running as the outsider. guest: it goes to show you that incumbents now realize it. bennett feels he has to run as the outsider in order to avoid the fate we have seen other incumbents face the cycle. host: andrew cuomo launches his crusade for governor. a similar headline in "the new york post." details in "the new york times." in a direct confrontation with a legislature controlled by his party, the democrats that he would pressure lawmakers to state publicly whether they would embrace essential changes, including disclosing their outside income, ceding control

of districting to an independent panel, and submitting to an outside ethics monitor. guest: clearly, the attorney general is seeking the former mantel in this race. it is not a surprise. it goes to show you how the incumbent is trying to take that outsider status. host:paul was supposed to appear on "meet the press." from a the third time in its history, the guest backed out aa the last minute. >> he has gone dark after what has really been a difficult three days of the campaign, since his dominating when on tuesday. basically, he found himself under a wave of criticism for comment that he has made about

whether he ould have voted for the civil rights act. basically, his campaign is trying to steady the boat. yesterday, they have a unity summit with mitch mcconnell, who had endorsed his primary opponent. host: the philadelphia "enquirer," front page. "party machine." he says the outcome challenges the notion that the white house and other big shots in the party can clear the field for the favored candidate to avert a bid price of -- a divisive fight. the candidate is running in a year when the voters are mad at the political it's publishment.

-- political establishment. fewer voters have ties to vote for infrastructure. guest: so why colleagues -- some of my colleagues wrote in this new age of politics that some endorsements are done from party bosses and the establishment from the white house. to what extent do they make much of a different right now? we have seen the white house braced for michael bennett in colorado. we come to find out that those endorsements do not make much of a different right now. host: let's get your phone calls. you can join the conversation online at twitter.com/cspanwj. let me ask you about the margin of defeat by arlen specter.

did that surprise you? >> i think it became fairly clear in the days leading up to the race that he was not going to win this race. , look. it is surprising if you consider the fact that he has been a huge part of pennsylvania politics for three decades. he lost to a two-term congressman. that is a pretty big deal. host: the 12th congressional district, there was focus on a race republicans helped to pick up. the playbook from the special election is not complicated. make the election a choice between two local candidates, not a national referendum on the democratic party, or the state, or the nation. establish republican from the outset that do not let up. guest: one of the things democrats benefited from in this race, it is fair to say it is a stronger, sharper method, tied to the local issues. we saw the democrat in that race

really honing in on some of the local economic issues that matter so much in this district. the republicans are focusing on the broader attack on nancy pelosi and washington democrat. that may not have worked as well. .

>> this conclusion of the senator. >> absolutely. and i think for senator bennett and for others, seeing your career sort of ending like this is obviously a difficult thing. i think, though, what senator

bennett faced with the tea party isn't unlike what we're seeing democrats in other districts and other races face as well, which is general anti incumbent sentiment. so what you're seeing with the tea party is unlike what you're seeing with articlen spector being booted out this week. host: from cage brill, -- dr host: from cage brill, -- dr came bridge, illinois. caller: know, with the republican victory in hawaii can be seen as a win for republicans, i think the significance of winning in a district where obama was born may be lost on many republicans since about 57% of them seem to believe that he was born in kenya, which just might confuse them. but with the defeat of arlen specter, do you think the age of the centrist politician,

sort of playing both sides against the middle, for their own tower base, do you think that's on the decline given the rise of the tea parties and the idea logical litmus tests? guest: absolutely. i think that's a really great point in terms of some of the parallel we're seeing, whether it's arlen specter, whether it's senator bennett maybe in colorado if you want to add him to that list maybe. and i think a lot of what they're facing is accusations from the each base of the part cri that somehow they're not conservative enough or liberal enough. and that really is impearling many incumbents. i think you want to look at south carolina bob i think liss who is being conserved by the right of not being conservative enough. and there are others as well

you can add to that list. a lot of these incumbents who are in trouble, you know, in primaries is because they're being accused of not being liberal or conservative enough. host: in 1995 we saw a democrat in the house, republican in the white house, democrats getting control of the house and senate. jody has this point. our country does this when we have a democrat congress and republican president or republican congress and democrat president. guest: that's going to be the point we'll probably hear this fall. we need more of a check on president obama and we would like to see more republicans in off. and if you disagree somehow with president obama's agenda one way to check his power would be to put more republicans in congress. host: the caller referring to senator arlen specter.

guest: well, look, i think that arlen specter from the moment he switched parties last year really faced, if you look back on it, a uphill battle. in terms of convincing democrats that he was one of them, after 30 years as a republican, he faced a difficult challenge. to some, specter was sort of a force of centuriesism, which is now maybe going away in congress. but if you look at his battle

over the last year, it was really a difficult one. host: this is what it looks like from the national section of the "new york times." but inside is a quote. it is from harry reid from his 2008 book. guest: and there are plenty of other quotes and visuals from that were damaging to spebter in this race that you saw joe sestak rule out in the final days, some which showed specter right alongside george bush, some showing him alongside sparpe. not the kind of images you want to see running in a democratic primary. host: one of the the most effective political ads. guest: and they played that in a heavy rotation round.

host: joe from philadelphia as we look at the front page of the enquirer. good morning, joe. caller: good morning. i just want to make mention to the arlen specter race, i mean, i think a lot of people are missing the boat in the sense of everyone that who is run, you know, the different races in virginia, new jersey, and so forth, with the arlen specter race, a lot of it has to do with the obama agenda. i think a lot of people are i think a lot of people are rejecting the obama agenda right now. also, the fact that we mentioned earlier about specter changing from republican to democrat i think hurt. and in pennsylvania 12, i think the reason why that candidate won there is because he ran on a conservative platform. and i think that you're going to see a lot of democrats in

these upcoming elections try to run on a conservative platform although a lot of them are although a lot of them are liberal, as is joe sestak. so it's going to be interesting to see, you know, in november to see how that plays out. host: thank you. guest: just one point, i think the caller mentioned the notion of a rejection of the obama agenda. i think you'reegoing to see republicans kind of seize on this victory they had in hawaii last night as somehow evidence that there is rejection of the obama agenda even in a very deeply democratic district like when we saw in hawaii whether that's fair or not given the sort of unique dynamics of that race i think you're going to see a lot of republicans going to the morning shows this morning and saying look, even the democrats in the safest of districts aren't safe any more because voters don't like the obama agenda.

host: from the national review. partisan towards bob erlich. partisan towards bob erlich. what kind of a race does he face? guest: i don't think martin o'malley would have really faced significant challenge, i wasn't expecting him to. but i think bob early getting in the race does turn this into a contest, a seat that he is now going to have to fight for. this is going to be an interesting race, and two guys who clearly don't like each other too much. host: and yesterday the "washington post" talking about how governor o'malley are

embracing the obama agenda. guest: shows you how in governor's races particularly what you're going to hinge on state by state issues, you're going to see erlich move much to the center. host: next, reporter for politico, go ahead, nate. caller: i must make a correction at first on ron paul, basically saying that rand paul was asked a question and agreed to whether or not he agreed with the civil rights act. that is not correct. i watched the interview and the question was did he agree with the separate lunch counters. pnd he could not answer that question. he more or less trended towards bringing in guns and businesses

having the right to include whoever they wanted to. and he never got to answer that question. that was a question about not a question about whether he agreed to the civil rights act. but that was his true conviction. but my question also is this. well, first of all do you agree what i just stated and my last question is this. the republicans have held tower and now it's about dividing america. and if you look at americans must wake up because the republicans are not for the american people they are for big businesses. you take the financial reform, you take the immigration bills. and what do you say on that topic, sir? host: thanks for the call. and this self-described democrat also weighing in saying rand paul said what boehner and mcconnell believe but will not say. guest: look, i think that clearly rand paul is going to

have to smooth over some of these controversy that has erupted in recent days. i think you're going to see him take a lower profile in the next few weeks. that seems to be what the campaign -- it used to be he did a lot of interviews. clearly he was open enough to appear with rachel mado. the question is can the fire storm die down the next few months or do we learn more that somehow they keep flaring up again? host: next, south carolina. good morning. welcome. caller: good morning. i just -- hawaii will not be a bell weather for the fall. i just want to make a couple comments about the tea party. i believe it is organized and financed primarily by dick army freedom works and maybe some of freedom works and maybe some of the crew left over from jack

abenauf special interest and that, really, when democrats argue against it they always bring up race but i kind of see it has more maybe in an apartheid capitalism where it's primarily the baby boomers in 48 who were able to take advantage of the post-world war ii economy and kind of earn a little bit of privilege. and the reason that there's no faces of color in there is because it wasn't until 64 that the civil rights kicked in allowing that group of people to start to take advantage and position themselves with a little bit of wealth and power, and that we kind of alienate a lot of people when they throw out race, which there's going to be some of that, there always is. but primarily it's more about money and that the baby boomers just they don't want to come off what they feel they've earned. host: thanks for the call.

guest: look, clearly the tea party movement, no matter what they believe, i think clearly they're more focused on fiscal issues, on budget concerns, and on taxes. and this is basically what the tea party emerged as has been anti-tax group and -- movements, and sort of directing that anger towards washington. i don't know if that's terribly new but what we've seen them do is bring that in a movement fashion. host: let me go back to the 12th district in pennsylvania. guest: he said he was against the health care bill. he said he was against -- pro-gun, anti health care bill and anti abortion. he ran, mark crits, the former capitol hill staffer ran as a

conservative. it is fair he ran against elements of the obama agenda. host: a lot of conversation from rand paul. guest: you know, it's actually interesting, i think his decision to appear on the program clearly he walked into some i think probably fair to say unfriendly territory to a certain extent and i think that rand paul seemed to recognize that and afterwards he said he probably shouldn't have done so. he maybe exposed himself to criticism. i think he's going to be much more careful to do that in the future host: the results yesterday in the special election. the special election. guest: you know, the interesting point that democrats made immediately out

of the gate was about more than 50% of the voters in this district picked democrats in this race, which is a legitimate point it seems to me. and the question is whether he can win this race again in november. the argument that republicans are making is that at least privately, hawaii has a propensity for reelecting incumbents. host: and the governor of hawaii is republican. guest: she is republican. there is some republican in hawaii though it is a very democratic state and this is a very democratic district host: and the first time a republican won a house seat in two decades. next, virginia. caller: good morning, i don't believe it's so much anti incumbent as it is anti career politician. those two are perfect examples of that. and to all these people who say that republicans are

pro-business, well, thank god for that because we need jobs. we don't need anti-capitalists running our country. and didn't the democrats take over congress in 2006 and we had a convenient resession had a convenient resession right before 2008 election just like we always do every time there's an election? and it's a lot easier to talk yourself into a recession. we don't talk about your career we care about our country. god bleds america. guest: -- bless america. guest: i think the caller mentioned the economy and that's going to be a big issue come november. a lot of voters are going to make decisions on their pocketbooks and how well democrats can convince voters they're resting with the economy and dealing with the challenges facing the american people is going to be a big deciding factor in determining who has control of congress come 2011.

host: we covered the speeches tuesday evening including rand paul in kentucky and saying he held his victory party in a private members only club. the tea party who voted for him would not be welcomed. >> this is a reflection of the great uncertain if i that surrounds a lot of the tea party candidates. and the tea party movement is a diverse movement. it's not a homo genius movement. but we are finding that a lot of the views of the tea party candidates are out of the mainstream. that they don't represent the middle in american politics. and they are driving these republican primaries farther and farther to the right. people are signing statements and pledges that lock

themselves into positions that are out of the mainstream in a lot of these issues. host: again, bob bennett, senator from utah who lost has a piece this morning in the "washington post," jimmy carter's example from the tea party. guest: absolutely. one point i would make. if you look at some of these candidates who are running, whether tea party candidates or tea party driven candidates, you know, there's actually a bit of a difference. there could be this play of chris van hollen, he talked about tea party candidates, very interesting. congressman john yarmutsdz now is going to face a tea party candidate in kentucky's third district. one of the few candidates that's actually had success

electoral. so what we've seen is candidates themselves have struggled pretty mightly in these primaries. host: we also asked congressman van hollen, the chair of the democratic campaign committee how acttive they'll be. this conclusion with his piece, obama's queezey party. guest: well, there's no question that president obama is the most popular figure right now in the democratic party. democrats are going to use him where they can and we're going to see if it makes a difference. but, look, president obama campaigned for martha cokely from massachusetts, she lost. he backed specter, he lost. a question we raised is just to what extent does the

president's backing really mean in these races. i think republicans are making the point that just because president obama is backing you doesn't give youuthe big enough advantages to necessarily win these races. host: let's go to car sonya in greens borrow, north carolina. caller: good morning. i was just calling to just make this statement. the pundits like politico and huffington post and all the other parpse and blogs that you read are saying that the american public is anti-incumbent. and i'm a baby boomer myself, ah years old. and what i think and what i feel and what i tell young people that i talk to is that it's time to get -- get old people out of the politics, put in some young people who will have their interests in mind. that's what i feel about the

tea party because once i saw who they are, they're me, they're baby boomers, retired people who are collecting all these benefits afforded to them and they do not want to do anything such as pay higher taxes, which i pay taxes, and so that the next generation, which are my children, and they don't want to pay for those things so that these children can have the same opportunities that were afforded to us. so that is my comment. and first-time caller and thanks for c-span. host: well, thank you. caller: one point that the caller brought up which think is an interesting one, the motion of the american people somehow being tired of long-time incumbents and people have been in congress for a long time. i think that's a sentiment we might be seeing in some of these races across the country, especially if you look at one

interesting trend is the house chairmen who is being challenged. it's interesting that these powerful chairmen who have incredible fund raising aprati, you look at charlear rangle who is getting challenged and david obey who retired, and there are other committee chairmen like ike skeleton who are getting challenges. and the point of their opponents are making in all these races is that it's time for a fresh face, time for someone new. host: this is from james ard. could this help his campaign? the polling has not come out but we could see some this week. guest: we probably will. it's interesting because it's interesting because kentucky is a conservative

state. and we're going to really get -- it's going to be interesting what kind of impact there is. i think he still remains the front runner given that it is a republican leaning state. the question is how well can the question is how well can this campaign quell the damage. host: one of the nonpartisan ash ters of this senate race is charlie cook. he has come out of this toss-up race list. he begins in the democratic 18 seats held by democrats up for reelection this year. first on the list is blaven lincoln in arkansas. guest: and i think there's sort of this widely-held belief that gin like she only got 40% in the primary against the lieutenant governor in that state, the math would sort of dictate to you that she faced a very difficult go of it in this

upcoming runoff. it's going to be just the general, the math and the laws of politics would suggest that it could be difficult for her to get the 50% plus one to fend off. host: also on the list in colorado, michael bennett, we talked about itier faces he ll second in terms of his ballot placement.. host: and the question is for the matter is whether his success in these sort of insider driven democratic party caucuses is whether they translate over to a broader elect rat in that primary. caller: host: connecticut still a toss-up. guest: it's been a busy week in politics. the "new york times" ran that explosive piece about how he

was running for chris dodd's seat how he was perhaps less than straightforward about some discussions he had publicly about whether he served in vietnam. and the question is now to what do those hurt him. host: if there is another example of his exaggerating the truth or lying what impact would that have compared to if it was a one-shot deal? guest: that's sort of the question. a lot of reporters are looking into past statements, public statements that he made in which he discussed vietnam or his military service or for his military service or for that matter his lack thereof, and the question is what else comes up. i would make one point is that the campaign has i think to a certain extent over the last week done an effective job of sheding some doubt on the reporting done on this piece and in sort of connecting the

mcmaun's campaign -- one of his republican opponents, her role in providing the "new york times" with information that was used in the story. host: and the other republican, rob simms. could this help him? guest: certainly he has been trying to play that up. this weekend, mcman ended up winning the endorsement of the republican convention up there on friday evening. simmon's says he will still go on and challenge him. but that's a fight to take on blumen thal. host: good morning. caller: good morning. one of the things i like to say, i can't pronounce your last name so i'll call you alex. one of the things i wanted to say is that politicians have -- what people don't understand and the media and those who are scoring everything that's going on trying to get a pulse on

what's happening with people who, with voters who are really just fed up with washington, what they don't seem to get is that they're tired of the lying in politics. not only are they tired of the lying in politics. they're tired of intelligent people who have determined that moral truth no longer is expected and that everything is complicated like we're little kids out here and they think that they can tell us through their news media and outlets their news media and outlets and things of that nature what we're feeling. host: your response. guest: i do thing there think there is a fatigue with politics, the american political system and the way things work up here in washington. and that is driving some of this anti-incumancey to a certain extent. host: next, judy on the republican line. caller: hi.

host: we're talking about the governor's race in maryland. guest: bob of course and michael steele was his lieutenant governor, i would like to see him win again because o'malley as the democrat's do have run us into a hole. but i think both republicans and democrats do that. the gentleman from new york, democrat, was very, very good. he was absolutely right on. i think what we're seeing is just an arrogance of pour in washington that, quite frankly, i'm 66 and i've never seen it. i'm 66 and i've never seen it. both republicans and democrats look at us as though we are stupid. they take 205 million of our money and give it to israel and 45 billion to greece and we're giving money all over the world yet we have nothing to our own people in nashville and the gulf coast. you know, we're seeing a total

disconnect and the gentleman from new york was right, they lie. and they lie all the time. and they think that we are stupid enough to not be able to figure it out. and i tell everybody i don't care who it is, republican or democrat, vote every incumbent out. that's the one thing, the one power that we have. host: your sentiment seems to be the sentiment of a lot of voters around the country. how long have you felt this way? guest: i have not been this adamant as i have been. i do believe in term limits. i promoted a term limit measure in my own county and i do think that career politicians should not be there. however, maryland has some good politicians. they have just gotten to the point where you call them and they say, oh, yeah, ok, we're listening to you and then they

go and vote the way the party line tells them. we should not be controlled by the two major parties. both doing exactly the same thing for big businesses and unions instead of people out here who are trying to keep their homes, pay their bills, and be good citizens. host: and quickly. just tell us a little bit about yourself. caller: how old are you? caller: i'm 66. i've lived in hyattsville for over 40 years, i've been active in prince georges politics. i charlede two charter amendment committees and one for term limits and one for tax limits in the 90s. and i do watch c-span. i'm one of your junkies and watch politics, and read everything religiously. i watched from rachel mad ow to chris -- to hard ball to fox

news. so i try to get it all so that i know what each side is saying. host: thank you. caller: thank you. guest: we've had a lot of callers talk about anti-incumbency and talk about their anger in washington. one of the key questions facing democrats and for the matter republicans is to what extent do you run against washington? and is that going to be enough? pennsylvania 12 taught us that voters are also caring about local concerns. so do we end up seeing some sort of blend from these candidates running in 2010? zpwroo a very robust conversation on our twitter page. it's twitter.com/c-span wj and corry pointing out that rand paul's honesty may do well in primaries but in general those extreme ideas will not do well independents and democrats. %-

guest: and as you said, we're polling this week. it's going to be interesting. my hunch is that this race is closer now than it was perhaps a week or two ago. we're going to have to see how well democrats and attorney general who is a democrat in that race can make up some of the ground that they are behind following these comments. host: also, we're going to see more debate in the coming month and a half, the conference committee hearings which we hope to tell vise here on crnspanch. and function the crooks in wall street and big banks don't need regulation you need to be in a nuthouse. let me turn that into an mid-term question. guest: i think regulatory reform legislation will be somewhat of an issue. but i think what you're going to see is much more broadly a

focus on the economy and focus on tax and spend issues,, particularly from conservative candidates. host: and wayne joining us from florida. caller: good morning. that comparison between jimmy carter and the tea party is, it couldn't be more wrong. jimmy carter was all about big government, big taxes. he had under his administration or this domestic policy we had high unemployment, we had high inflation, and we had high interest rates, all three at the same time. the economists said that couldn't happen but it took a liberal like carter to do it. the tea party is about cutting spending, reducing taxes, making government smaller, more opportunity for jobs, there's no comparison there. i lived through the carter administration, and it was

probably i would say the worse administration that i've gone through in 60-something years. host: let me jump in. in fairness to senator bennett i think what his point is that jimmy carter ran on a campaign without anything to back up what he wanted to do in the country. ronald reagan ran with an agenda to change the country. and that's what he was saying. like those who voted for carter because they were fed up with nixon, the tee party is made up of people fed up with washington. but there needs to be more than ang tore get results. guest: we will there is more than anger. they have a plan. that's why we're in the position we're in, look what happened to the housing market. look at immigration right now. has either one of these parties dealt with any of the problems we've had effectively? no. government is too big to manage, it's too big to be effective and it's too big to

pay for it. the tea party is right on and i believe that's where our leadership is going to come from. it may not be these next two elections but it will catch on and it will be the direction of this country people taking their country back. host: thank you. guest: well, you know, i think one of the questions obviously as you just referenced he brought nup that piece is the tea party not having a specific agenda or platform. but what's interesting is republicans are determining what to what extent do they want to lay out an agenda, a very specific detailed platform of their own. sort of like what knut gingrich did back in 1994. that's going to be a question for them as well. host: there are 18 republican seats also up for grabs. i want to go back quickly to two top races as viewed by the

political report. that three-way race in florida, and congressman meek from a gentleman who says he will spend millions of dollars to get to nomination and charlie crist now running as an independent. host: absolutely. i think that the florida race is a very dynamic. it's somewhat, it's been dynamic and unpredictable from the very beginning. we're going to have to wait and see how much support charlie crist can again up as an independent. it remains unclear how much support he can get at this point, i think. host: and in the kentucky race, the one person we've not talked about, jack conway, defeating the lieutenant governor by one percentage point last week. guest: and conway a strong candidate, although i think this race more about rand paul in this one-week-old general election. that was a tough primary that

conway survived. and we're going to have to see what kind of a general election candidate he is. host: alex of politico, thanks for joining us. and our audience can log on to politico.com to read more of our guest's work. and of course we'll continue to follow the races and debates and post all of it on line at c-span.org. we're going to turn our attention to the issue of immigration and the situation in north korea and south korea and a spark that could cause more concern in the diplomatic community. but first, some concerns as viewed by cartoonists around the country.

host: good morning. guest: good morning. host: the issue of immigration this week in part because of the president from mexico. the president from mexico. we're going to show this. but he took aim at the arizona law saying it was misguided and the president in his appearance with him in the rose garden earlier this week also agreed with him. is it misguided? guest: i think it is. i think what you need is federal immigration reform. i think what they've tried to do is create a state law that in a lot of ways parallels the federal law and in some ways is perhaps in conflict with that law and it's certainly going to -- it's certainly going to lead to some profiling and other problems related to unauthorized immigrants and authorized immigrants and u.s.

citizens and the like. so i think it's a probbematic law and it points out the need for federal immigration reform. host: but how so? guest: well, what the law does is this. it says that if a policeman has a reasonable suspicion that a law is being violated, it can arrest the person. once it arrests the person, then the policeman has to have a reasonable suspicion that the a reasonable suspicion that the person is unauthorized. and it's unclear what that might look like. i mean, does the person look or sound differently? do they wear shoes that are beaten up or the like? i mean, how do you have a reasonable suspicion that somebody before you is unauthorized? these are fairly complicated questions under federal law and they require people untrained in these issues to determine them. so to think that state officials could make a judgment like that. and what they would make it on is unclear. i think that's problematic. host: we realize it's early, we

host: we realize it's early, we would especially enjoy hearing from those of you who live in arizona. the numbers are on the bottom of the screen. also send us an e-mail or join the conversation on line at twitter. proponents of the law say they're here illegally and that's the bottom line. they don't have the same rights as american citizens. host: how do you know that they're here illegally? that's the issue with the arizona law. how do you have -- what's the reasonable suspicion attached to it? how does a policeman, once they arrest somebody? and some of these arrest ds are going to be totally legitimate and some of them are going to be for relatively minor. somebody hanging an air fresh anywhere on their rear view window. window. so you have a person before you, how do you know that the person is unauthorized? that's really the question. where does that reasonable suspicion come from? and people are very, very worried that it's going to be how the person looks and how

the person sounds. and that's not a good way to administrator our laws. -- administer our laws. guest: the president of mexico spoke about the issue as he spoke to members of the house and senate in a joint meeting of congress. >> i am convinced that a comprehensive immigration reform is also crucial to securing our common border. however, i strongly disagree with your recently adopted law in arizona. it is a law -- [applause] it is a law that not only ignores a reality that cannot

be erased by decree but also introduces a terrible idea using racial profiling as the basis for law enforcement. and that is why i agree with the president who said the new law carries a great amount of risk when core values that we don't care about are reached. host: and when there's this this morning from the washington examiner criminalizing immigration. asks mexico in one of the points today is that the mexican president has one of the most dangerous jobs in the world because his country is steadily being taken over by drug cartels that think nothing of butchering anybody, often in the most gruesome manner. host: they're facing enormous problems there. so but i'm not really sure exactly thou how that applies to the situation of people here in the united states that are in the united states that are trying to make their lives,

working hard. you saw that in the case of the little girl who asked the question of michelle obama. these are not drug dealers, these are people trying to do the best for their families. host: which is my next question. we're going to show that video. for those people who want to leaf mexico because of the situation, whether economic or drugs or family reasons, get here to the u.s.? and vice versa. those who are here illegally now, how do they get into a path of citizenship? a proposal put forth by president bush which failed and now being put forth by president obama? guest: i think there's not good ways for people to come legally. and that's part of the problem. if they're fleeing persecution in mexico, there's the possibility that they could come to the border and seek political asylum and increasing numbers of people are doing that based on the drug violence, whether journalists or people that have been kidnapped or the like. but to come through normal

legal channels is very, very limited ways for people to come legally. and people aren't trying to come in significant numbers right now. in fact, the border patrol arrests are very, very significantly down due to the economy and due to the effectiveness, frankly, of some of the enforcement programs. but when the economy was good, there were only about 5,000 visas for people to come who were not skilled laborers. and yet, you know, 500 to 800,000 people were coming per year and they were basically finding jobs here. so there's been this disconnect that president bush recognized at the time and that president obama recognizes now between labor market issues and our immigration policies and that needs to be brought into line. and at a time like now when the economy is poor, ostly you economy is poor, ostly you wouldn't have a need for as many workers but when it's good, there ought to be a way to match employers with workers. and that was basically the bush proposal.

now what obama is saying is that we have 11 million people here and actually those numbers are going down meshably anyway since the economic downturn. and, you know, let's face reality here. we're not going to be able to deport them all and it's probably not good policy to try to deport 11 million people. remember, a lot of these people have u.s. citizen children, there's 4 million u.s. citizen children in the united states with unauthorizzd parents. so that you need some way, you need some way for these people to come out of the shadows and begin to earn the right to remain in the united states. and that's basically what obama is saying and what bush said as well. host: well get to your comments. donald kirwin our guest. you can get more information by logging on to their web site. our first call from phoenix. caller: i want to address your

guest's, something he said. he said how are they going to be stopped and no profiling? i'm a person who knows these people, have been working with them the last 20, 30 years. the majority of the vehicles that they drive are a wreck. i mean, they just stick out saying, here, stop me. that's how they're going to get them. and then they're going to say let me see your license. and they're going to say let me see your insurance. they're not going to have these. then they're going to get arrested, go to jail. and from jail that's where they'll be processed right. that's not done by the police forces, that's done by the county sheriff lockup. also, just so you'll know, it's election time here in arizona. and they passed this law just to try to appease the people. they're not going to do a damn thing because they've got laws on the book now, and if they on the book now, and if they wanted to pick these people up

and remove them from the country, they could have started a long time ago. host: thanks for the call. one other point. guest: i think it's going to be very difficult for people to prove citizenship in a lot of cases. and the fact is, it's not so obvious. what the law says is that if somebody is violating the law, of course the police ought to pick them up and arrest them. but once you have a person before you, how do you determine whether that person is unauthorized or not? and, frankly, unauthorized people and authorized people have beat up shoes and vans and the like. the like. it's not a question of should the law be enforced? the law should clearly be enforced. there's significant problems. there's a significant federal program that is moving fairly

quickly to screen people who are arrested, people in prison and the like and those kinds of programs have problems but they enjoy fairly wide support. the question is who is to do it and who is trained to do it.3 officials are, state officials aren't. also, it detracts from kind of the police's ability to do their main job, which is to protect and defend the public. immigrants and illegal imgranths think that calling the police is going to lead to the deportation of themselves or family members. so that a lot of police forces are quite reluctant to kind of have this kind of requirement. host: our next call is susan from santa cruise, california. republican line, good morning. guest: caller: i think it's a little disingenuous. first of all, this is a federal law that's being passed in arizona. i mean, the federal law -- this

law is simply trying to force the feds to follow their own laws. laws. we already have a federal law on this. and this president, we have calderon come to our country. do you know what they do to mexico if they catch southern people coming in that are illegals? they shoot them in the head. and to be lectured by him to make sure we're doing in our country to make sure that 22 billion keeps floge back to mexico. and phoenix has turned into the number one kidnap capital of the united states because of what's going on there. holder hasn't read the bill, president obama hasn't read the bill, napolitano hasn't read the law and they're coming out on the sunday shows the week before they're admitting this than this is a terrible law and is going to cause problems and these people are going to be arrested. arrested. and then two days ago, ice said we're not going to deport them. so the american people know

what's going on despite of all the disingenuous lies. host: one clarification. she hung up but, robert gibbs the white house press secretary did say that the president has read the arizona law. elick holder testifying last week that he did not read the law. guest: i think that the law, what you could say is that the laws an example of frustration with the inability of the federal government to enforce the immigration laws fully. i think that what president obama would say is he's working very, very hard to enforce the law on the border, border patrol growth has increased very significantly, there's very significant workplace programs, there are vs significant screening going on of people in prisons and the like. but you have an issue with 11 million people who are unauthorized here that you need to address. while you also enforce the law

very significantly. very significantly. i think the caller is right that the treatment of mige rants in mexico leaves a lot to be desired and is very, very problematic and very troubling to anybody that pays any attention to it, and that does need to be addressed. but what the state tries to do is tries to create laws that mirrors federal laws in a lot of ways but it doesn't do that in every case, and i'll give you an example. you have to have a reasonable suspicion that somebody's in the country and unauthorized status. there's no crime for being here in unauthorized status. it's a crime to cross the border illegally and the like. so they've basically created in this law and in other similar laws, what they're trying to do is make it a state crime to just be here in aunutsdz rised status. and that's what the reasonable suspicion would attach to. host: our guest, donald kerwin,

and you refer to this moment last week as mrs. obama and the mexican first lady traveled to a suburban maryland elementary school and this exchange which generated a lot of attention. [inaudible] >> my mom said i think that she she says that barack obama is sending everybody away that doesn't have papers. >> that's something that we have to work on, to make sure that people can be here with the right kind of papers. right? >> she doesn't have papers. >> we have to work on that. >> host: that exchange from a silver spring, maryland elementary school. guest: i think that's very guest: i think that's very troubling and that's the face of immigrants in the united states. i mean, we don't know from a 7-year-old what her status is,

what her mom's status is. so it's not really fair to kind of talk about that particular case, i would say. but the reality is there are a lot of families, about 9 million people in the united states in these mixed-status families, a parent who is unauthorized and a child who is a u.s. citizens. and if that's the case in that family, it's hard to see how deporting that moth ser going to be a good solution. of course for the family but also for that community, for the school and the like. and it points, i think, very strongly for the need for some kind of omple comprehensive approach year that yes involves enforcement of the law but involves taking care of those families and earn the right to remain. and that would be president obama's point. host: this in the commentary section of the washington examiner.

guest: i don't know if it's being misrepresented. people are very fearful that what it's going to lead to is to profiling and they don't, a lot of people don't agree with the approach that you can possibly deport your way out of this problem. you know. it would be preclusively expensive to try to deport 12 million people and it's very unlikely that you can actually kind of do this all by attrition. so i think what people are saying is that you need some kind of a broader, more competencive approach. and i would say yeah but people probably do support it as a sign of frustration that this problem hasn't been fixed year. -- yet. host: is this part of a problem?

guest: the demand for drugs in the united states is an enormous problem and it's absolutely true that the guns flow north to south. and that's widely recognized at this point. host: mike from new york city. caller: good morning. i have a couple of comments. first, everyone is knocking arizona because of their laws. and their profiling. but rest assured, i'm a new york city resident and it happens here every day. we have a stop and frisk. and gest who is getting stopped and frissked? if you wear bagie pants look like a hip-hopper they throw you up against the wall and search you. and one more thing, i was a union square, they had a rally there for the immigration rights. if you tell people that you are anti-illegal immigration,

they'll brand you as a racist which is nothing but the lie. and the media never crects them. no one is saying that immigrants here, people are racist, we just don't want any illegal immigration. but if you say you're anti-illegal immigration, they want to brand you as a racist. thank you very much. guest: well, to answer the question, of course people that are in favor of adherence to the law, that doesn't imply that you're a racist by any stretch of the imagination. i think that people that look i think that people that look at this problem, though, from a to z think that there needs to be a solution that would allow certain people to here in the united states legalize their status and to create a better legal immigration system hopefully so that we're not in this kind of situation in the future. but, you know, of course people that are opposed to illegal immigration and even immigrant

advocates don't like the notion of illegal immigration. and the immigrants themselves don't like to be put in the situation where they're illegal. so we need -- it just points to the fact that we need a comprehensive approach to the law. host: our topic is u.s. immigration policy, a specific look at arizona's new law. this is from fred who has this twitter questi. guest: is a child born here -- host: if you're here illegally and you have a child, is he or she a u.s. citizen? guest: yes. under the 144h amendment of the constitution, people born or naturalized in the united states and subject to its jurisdiction are automatically citizens. so we have birth riggete citizenship in the united states. host: and you referred to ice, which is the immigration customs enforcement.

the "washington post" taking a look at the numbers in terms of those illegal immigrants in this country from the year ending september 2009 eist, again the u.s. custom enforcement removing about enforcement removing about 388,000 illegal immigrants, a 5% increase over the same period in 2008, when the agency deported about 370,000 illegal immigrants. the agency deported almost 300,000 in 2009. the rest were left on their own pour to stay or leave. guest: the deportation is up. it's not all illegal immigrants. some of these people are actually under our laws lawful permanent ressedents who have been here years and years and have done something to make them deportable. . .

caller: how can you continue to say what you are saying when you know the federal law is weaker than the -- the arizona law is weaker than the federal law. if you are illegal in this country, you have to carry papers on you at all times. is that correct? guest: it is actually not correct. it is a law that's basically not enforced. i don't know that it has ever been enforced to be honest. it is not true that everyone who is here illegally needs to have

papers. people that come in as non-immigrants, too. the immigration laws are very complicated. there is a registration requirement and a documentation requirement for people to come in formally as immigrants or not immigrants, but there are other catagories of people that come in that don't have papers. caller: it is simple to me. attorneys, people in congress way too long. we have laws not being enforced. it is not just one political party. it is both. guest: that's true. i think the immigration law is very complicated. it is about as complicated as the tax law.

caller: my -- host: my wife and i worked here legally as engineers for 10 years but are unable to obtain green cards. why should i will lells get it? guest: there are certain visas that allow people to come in and work temporarily in the united states. i'm not sure what visa he's under or that his wife is under. i would say this, there are a broad category of people who have been approved for visas and are waiting in backlogs. most of these people have been petitioned for by family members that are u.s. citizens or lawful permanent residents and there are millions of those people in

backs and waiting to get their -pvisas. and by any of those proposals -- actually, obama depuzzn't have a formal proposal rate right now, but congress has had comprehensive immigration reform would have first given visas to people who have been in line and waited for them before giffering them to people who are unauthor used. so it would likely be many, many years before unauthorized people would be able to earn the right to remain in the united states. host: earlier this year the confirmation hearings for sotomayer 678 -- how will this congress this year deal with immigration? guest con that's a good question. i think people realize it would

take a lot to get a comprehensive immigration reform bill. it would probably require it would probably require bipa rtisan support and the president heavily engaged in the issue. while there is ai chance, there is not a good chance. host: good morning. republican line. [newline]caller: i would like to ask your guest is it fobble for him or any future guest that discusses this problem to put on display the arizona law and the federal law and show where there federal law and show where there are problems. how the arizona law has more problems than the federal law. and by the way, it doesn't look like the federal law is being enforced. i don't blame the arizona people for saying we have to do something. how many more people have to be killed for the administration to

notice we have to do something. guest: what the arizona law tries to do is track the federal law. what you are up against is federal laws are basically the supreme law of the land. there is complicated case law related to when states can act in an area where the federal law, you know where the federal government acts so comprehensively as it does in the immigration law. what they have tried to do here is track the federal law, make state requirements and in a couple cases it looks like they have gone beyond the federal requirements. some of those provisions may be difficult than some of the federal rules. i mean, yes, it does reflect some frustration in terms of enforcement of the law. enforcement of the law. you have the last two

administrations saying you kpt just enforce the law to fix the problem, you have to change the law. loft: a suma -- summation of what some people have said online is that these people are doing jobs that other people don't want to do? guest sure, they do very, very difficult work whether it is garment industry work or working in restaurants perhaps or farm labor work or working in chicken processing plants or meat-packing plants. these are very, very difficult jobs. it is not that u.s. citizens won't do them, it is just that traditionally they haven't wanted to do them in sufficient numbers and certainly at the pay that's offered.

unauthorized people will do it. there is a concern there that the unauthorized are used to push down wages and working conditions. that's a real concern. to me that argues for real enforcement of the labor laws, as well. >> are they taking away the jobs of u.s. citizens that would take jobs in this time sfl guest: i don't think it is one for one. in other words, if you deport 100 people working in meat-packing plants those are not going to be completely replaced by u.s. citizens. it is more complicated than that. host: tiffany is joining us from north carolina. go ahead. >> one thing i find interesting actually, i am a democrat and just everybody that has called in this morning whether they are independent or republican all

seem to have the same idea which is interesting for three is interesting for three different parties. my question is that the whole thing with this immigration law in arizona, you know, people talk about the people that are talk about the people that are here illegally that have children. they knew when they came here they came illegally. now it is our problem because they have children here who are u.s. citizens. i don't understand why it is so difficult to see -- illegal is illegal. illegal. you question work ethic. in north carolina we have a lot of people from mexico and south america that work here. work ethic is mazing and great people. great people -- i know from my work in the congo, -- do you

know how long he's worked to get his children here? 12 years. i find it unfair that someone is working so hard to get their children here legally and people can just cross the border and everyone says, oh, that's ok. >> of course they are not casually coming across the border and easily coming across the border. they are dying in significant numbers themselves trying to numbers themselves trying to come across the border just to support their families. i would say that, you know, that we were talking a little before about huhful permanent residents. a very significant percentage, it is not known how much, but many, many hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people that are unauthorized here have actually been approved for family-based visas. they have tried to abide by the

law. these are the people unauthorized and have decided instead of wait ling for visas sometimes 10, dwelf years, sometimes 20 years until numbers become available to stay with family members here in the united states. as a result of that, they are unauthorized. they are going to have to ultimately go home to pick up their visa with no guarantee that they will be able to come back. these are the kinds of laws that these are the kinds of laws that need to be reformed as part of a issue. >> until 2008 mexico's law would pass heavy fines for illegal immigrants saying it reads an ausm lot like arizona's law and now under current law it states law enforcement brief their legal presence in the country before attending into any issues.

guest: the question is, is the mexico law harder than the arizona law? host the point of fox news is, is it fair when you have mexico sprg a law -- guest: i think mexico has to get its self together when there are people coming into the country. there are very high rates of rape. it is surprising to me that the people that support the arizona law are modeling it on the mexico law. caller: this doesn't seem to be that big of a problem. that big of a problem. you don't have to worry about deporting the illegals. what you really need to do is take a serious stand on

arresting and putting in jail the people that hire the illegals. if you walk iito a c.e.o.'s office and handcuff him and the human resources manager and take them out and take their picture, that's going to solve your problem. host thanks, michelle. >> i think that's kind of the approach that they ought to be taking and that they are moving in that direction. that is their priority is to gg after people that facilitate large-scale migration whether it is the smugglers or the employers that hire significant numbers of unauthorized people. you have to do that. that's more effective enforcement. it is more effective to go after criminals and prisoners and national security risk and go after employers that hire large numbers of unauthorized people than it is to actually try to than it is to actually try to deport, you know, 12 million or

11 million unauthorized people. that is not effective law enforcement. those people show the need for a more comprehensive solution to this problem in some kind of way for them to obtain legal status. you are right, that is a priority and we should be doing more to go after employers that abuse and hire unauthorized people at greater rates. host: grace has a solution. host: grace has a solution. why can't we fast track duel citizenship allowing these people to go back and forth freely? guest: i think the idea of having people going back and forth is the right notion. what we have found is there are a lot of people that did used to go back and forth, they used to visit and work here seasonly or whatever, and now they don't because it is so difficult to come back. you do want to create kind of a circular migration based on the needs of both countries and if

that's possible, that's the kind of solution we should be after. host: tom is joining us from portland, oregon. go huh head, tom. caller: we have lots of people illegal here from many other countries, so you don't have to profile them. they are here. this is all a joke. we have one man that's been here 26 years as an illegal alien, has two kids, has a nice job, and he's also going to school to become -- work in law enforcement. how can you go for a law enforcement. guest: i don't know about that particular situation, but it seems to me someone who has been here 26 years or 30 years that

has u.s. citizen children that has a career here, long-standing job and ties in the community, that's exactly the type of person who ought to be able to earn the right to remain. host: donald kerwin is the vice president of the migration policy interests tute. thank you for joining us and sharing if you are -- your view on this point. guest: thank you. host: one of the questions, rand paul.

>> we are finding they are driving these farther and farther right, people lock thems selves in positions that are out of the mainstream on a lot of these issues. host: the democratic perspective with chris van hollen. "news makers" airing in about 45 palestinians. some of the other sunday morning shows already airing. now a preview. >> topics will include the mid-term electrics. also the gulf of mexico oil spill. what's gling going on on capitol hill? the resignation of dennis blair. the guest stars on "meet the press" include joe seftack. the chair of the -- and the jersey senator robblet menendez. on "this week" they will talk

with michael steele. and democratic committee chair. and democratic committee chair. the guests on "fox news sunday" include sarah palin. on "meet the nation" joe gibbs and lamar alexander. on "state of the union" guests include ed rendell and minnesota republicanngovernor tim polen tefment. also the bp managing director. you can listen to all five of the sunday morning talk shows starting noon eastern on c-span radio here in washington, d.c. also on the web at c-span

radio.org. follow us on facebook and twitter. >> monday, preparing for cyber-attacks. dan lungren on "the communicators" on c-span2. >> on book tv, michael graham against acquisitions -- vement accusations on the left. find the entire weekeds schedule at booktv.org and follow us on twitte. >> just weeks after the british election which produced a new prime minister and a coalition government the queen will

announce her legislative objective for the new session. we'll travel inside the house of lords for one of britain's most celebrated 0 cages. live tuesday morning at 5:30 eastern on c-span2. >> wurnl continues. -- "washington journal" continues. host: joining us is victor chaw. he served with the bush administration. good morning and thank you for good morning and thank you for being with us. guest: thank -- good morning. host: there was this headline, "americans conclude the north korean leader authorized attack on south korea."

>> well, i think part of the conclusion is based on the nature of the regime in north korea which is about the most centralized system that exists in the world today. very little of consequence happens in north korea in terms of domestic policy without an ok from the top of the leadership. so something as ok as this, the sinking of a south korean ship with a north korean torpedo it could not have but been authorized by north korea leadership. host: 46 sailors were killed in that attack. and davidangor pointing out that kim jung-il, who is in poor health, wants to make sure his son succeeds him. guest: they have only had two

leaders. the first was kim-o-sung, and then he passed power over to his son, who is now in poor health and seeks to pass power over to his third son who is only 26 years old, has had really no experience. yet, this is a family succession that we've seen in north korea since the founding of the state. >> the secretary of the state is focusing on economic issues in china but tomorrow she is expected to address sanks that the asouth korean government wants to have the u.n. deal with. what specifically does south korea want and what should the role be of the u.s.? guest: we don't know exactly what the south koreans want because they announced the results of this investigation on friday. i think we are expecting they will announce measures starting this week. but i think what we'll probably see is the south korean

government enacting first measures unilaterally with regard to tray trade with the north. there still is remaining trade that fakes place, the import of various food items, and i think the south will want to stop doing that. another aspect will be that the south will want to take this to the u.n. security council. it is the most grave and significant military attack since the korean war and therefore merits security council ateng. i think one of the things secretary clinton will be focused on is that if this issue does go to the u.n. security council, can they count on china's support. host: why did they do it? guest: this is a good question. we know so little about the iner workings of the north korean government, we can only speculate. there are speculations. the first is this is a direct

act of retaliation for the altercation that took place between the two koreas in 2009 when we believe a couple north korean soldiers, seamen were killed. another potential explanation has to do with the leadership succession and that the younger kim is looking for a way to validate his credentials as a leader by basically hurting the enemy. the third possibility is that north korea has a run-away nuclear weapons program and they may not kneel -- they may feel they are nuclear weapons state and invullnerable to attacks from others. therefore they may be trying to get them to come to the table and give them things without disruption. host president obama sent a

letter to kim jung-il about a personal dialogue or diplomacy between our countries? between our countries? guest: i give the administration credit for trying this at the very beginning. president obama came into office and said he wanted to move forward on the agreements that we reached in the bush administration on north korea, and basically offered north korea a better path in return for their nuclear weapons. unfortunately the north responded to that with a ballistic missile test in april of 2009 and then their second nuclear test in may of 2009. while administration was right to put that vision out there, and i think they still believe in that vision if the north is heading down that path, right now the focus has to be not on reestablishing deterrents.

reestablishing deterrents. host: there is this article "lessons," and his conclusion. "the proper response is to give up the i illusions of engagement and methodically and coolly treat the north as the rowing state that it is." >> i agree with that that the near-term policy for the white house and sec clinton is taking measures that reestablish deterrents on the peninsula. for 60 years the pensla has remained at peace because the north has been deterred from any convention that slie violates the armistice. therefore the first team step, whether it is through the u.n. or sanctions so to reestablish deterrents. once you do that, you can talk

about other sorts of things to move us back to a path of -- in that sense i agree with the piece. although, it gets to the point where people is have a hard time determining what should be the measures that should be taken to reestablish that dederns. you want to do enough so that the north koreans are deterred from doing this again but you don't want to actually start a war. host: our conversation is with victor cha a former fellow at starn and harvard university and you had six-party talks. who were the other five parties and what roles could they play? guest: the two koreas, the united states, russia, korea. all of them play an important role in trying toll convince

north korea not to doe these kinds of things, but the most important partner is china. china has the most important influence on north korea. they are the only ones that they are the only ones that continue to have a trade relationship with sneasnea. unfortunately thus far the chazz have not been helpful in terms of this. they have been basically protecting their little communist brother. host: what do you think hillary clinton is saying? guest: we have many things we disagree with on china in terms of climb ate change, human rights, but this is one thing on which we should be able to agree which is that the united states and china do not wann to see the renewal of hostilities and we do not want to see a nuclear north korea. if we can't get this one right, we do have a lot of problems. i think that secretary clinton i think that secretary clinton in particular will look to china

to be responsible in the u.n. scoun -- security council when this issue goes there in the coming weeks. hoflte: host: how much trade takes place between these two countries? guest: for the past 10 years there was something in south korea called the sunshine policy which is a policy of engagement with the north korea -- north koreans with the idea this would get the north to open up. during those years there was a high volume of trade and interaction with the north korean regime. a lot of it going in one direction. snow -- now i think if the more conservetive government decides as a result of this torpedo thinking to cut off a few hundred million dollars in trade that now exists between the two countries, that would be a significant sanction. host: we'll take your calls in

just a moment. just a moment. join the conversation at twitter.com. a broader question about how north korea survives in today's communication age we have seen the fall of the berlin wall back in 1989 and yet this continue continues to -- i put in quotes -- survive. how so? guest: the strength of this regime has been the weakness of its people. this is a recommend eem that has closed off its access to the outside world, as could opted outside world, as could opted its leadership and run the party from a small circle. meanwhile the rest of the population lives in complete absence of any normal standard of living. the average north korean child is about -- the average north korean 8-year-old is about 12 pounds lighter and 7 inches shorter than the average south

korean child. so it really is quite a terrible state of affairs. the regime manages to survive this way because its people really have no say in the really have no say in the future. host: what does pyong yang look like? guest: it is quite well laid out. it is what you would expect to see in a communist capital -- wide thoroughfares. when you look at the people on the streets, you see things you don't expect to see. for example, you will see very old public telephones with people lined up for 20 in a row clearly trying to make their only phone call of the day. very few cars on the street. very little street traffic despite the wide thoroughfares. this is a country where people do not have cell phones. people don't have telephones in their houses. if they are lucky enough to have a televvsion set, it has two channels i which are both north

korean government channels. the irony of this is that north korea sits right next to south korea which is one of the richest country's in the world. it is the eighth or 11th largest country in the world. it is the most wired country in terms of cell phone and internet access. this disparity has nothing to do with the people of korea genetically. it all has to do with politics and this government. caller: good morning, victor. i remember the bush administration saying that north korea was part of the axis of evil, and i don't know if the obama administration still feels that way. it just seems strange to me that we're not doing more as far as sanctions are concerned.

to address this issue. if makes me think that maybe if this were to happen in the middle east, if this was iran did something against israel, i am pretty sure we would have been in there right away doing something. so it raises questions and i think this topic is larger than can be answered in one sitting in a did i or a week, but thanks very much. guest: thanks. guest: thanks. you are absolutely right. this is an extremely complex problem. it is one in which there are no easy solutions. on the one hand, north korea is this poor deprived isolated country, particularly at the end of the cold war, that has no friends except for china. how difficult a problem is this? it ends up being quite difficult because there is no easy

military solution. you know, north korea, the you know, north korea, the capital and the artillery in north korea sits literally minutes from south korea where you have a population of some 20 million and over 100,000 americans living in the city of seoul. so there are no good military so there are no good military options. the diplomatic path, although it has been a long and difficult path has, on occasion, resulted in some positive joith outcomes. so i think everybody remains committed to the diplomatic track. the problem right now is that the chinese are not cooperating as much as we would like them to be. they are, again, the ones that can put the most pressure on the north to come to the table with genuine intentions. host: our guest victor cha the author of a number books including "nuclear north korea."

jason has this comment, "what happens between north and south korea is their business. not mine. don't spend my money unwisely." should we care? guest: it's a good question. i think the u.s. has had a long time-honored relationship with south korea. south korea is one of the third-largest ground contingent third-largest ground contingent in iraq. they were one of the largest contribute tores in terms of assistance and p.r.t.'s in afghanistan. they have peacekeeping operations in lebanon and east timor and other places in support of peace and stability around the world. so when the neans take out a ship -- north koreans take out a ship killing 46 and easily could have killed over 100 sailors if the rescue mission had not been successful, that is a threat not just to the peninsula, but it is

a threat to maritime safety or a lot of commercial traffic goes through. a lot of the goods that come into this country come by ship from that part of the world. so this is a threat not just to korea, it is a threat to u.s. commercial interests and u.s. allies, allies who also help us around the world. host: robert crawford says we don't need american troops getting caught up in korea's mess. u.s. needs to stop playing world police. [newline]caller: thank you for taking my call. i think china let those people get the nuclear weapons. china could have stopped them way before this. this gar beige about we have to get the -- garbage we have to get the chinese, that's crap. china is their al eye. if they didn't want them to have nuclear weapons, they wouldn't have them in the first place. if you look at us now, we're

over here in this war, we can't go over and do anything about this anyway our troops are bogged down and everything. north korea knows this. this is the perfect time for them to go on a hunt. so it is all our fault. and i think we need to go into a and i think we need to go into a self-defense that we are not that super power that we used to be. people around the world don't fear us the way we used to be because we let our weakness get exposed during -- when we went into iraq. now we need to look at -- we need to bring our troops home. we are spending money over in for nothing. what's going to be is going to be. and the last thing i want to say -- hello, sir? host: yes, we are listening to your comments. you still with us? caller: yes, i'm still with you. if you look at the things now, when we went over there, we told sadam, do you have these weapons

of mass destruction? he knew he had it. we found nothing. what do we do? we hang the guy. we kill him and hang his country. we are going to get these other countries to come up, let us go over there and inspect their country when they look at our record. host: are their lessons in afghanistan? guest: i think it is apples and oranges. if you had to draw one lesson it would be those who oppose the invasion of iraq and afghanistan and would call for multilateral talks and diplomat dwrick means would look at the north korean case and say, well, that appears to be what 20 years of u.s. administrations have tried to do, which is not seeking military solutions, tried to bring countries in the region, again china, russia, and japan around a table to seek some sort

of diplomatic solution. i think if anything, that's one of the major lessons of these six-party talks with regard to north korea. on china, you know, the difficult thing here is no one should expect that the chinese are going to start putting a littte bit of pressure on north korea because we ask them to. but what i think what everybody is it trying to get the chinese to recognize is that it is not in our interests but in their interests to take more zeps in terms of trying to reign in north korea. china normalizes relations with south korea in 1982. everywhere except in north korea. since then china and south kkrea interaction, business, amounts to about $200 billion a year. china-north korea business, on the other hand, amounts to only about $2 billion a year.

china knows by its future by any metric is with the south, is with the more prosperous democratic and free south. so it is really in china's interest to try to help to prevent this regime from disrupting the peace in the region. host: if you are listening ton c-span raaio our conversation is with victor cha. this next twitter comment is sort of tongue and cheek. it says "true fact: at one point kim jon il was the largest consumer of hennessey cognac in the world." the world." >> there was a lot of comment about his engaging in indulgences. what this speaks to is the fact that you have leadership in

north korea that we don't know a lot about, that is clearly on the path to amassing a substantial number of nuclear weapons. now it is doing convention aggression in affecting u.s. interests in asia, and that's the bad combination. host: who is north korea's biggest al eye? guest: right now their biggest ally clearly is china. it is unfortunate but after this torpedo incident on the sea south korean ship china has been acting like north korea's defense lawyer in the court of public opinion which i think is difficult for many because the investigation into this torpedo that took down the ship involved not just south korea but the united states, south korea, britain, australia and sweden. and they all reached a conclusion that this was a north korean tore peedo.

yet the chinese tint continue to act as if this didn't happen or that the north was not responsible. everyone talks about china's rise in the world today. if you are going to rise as a great power, you have to act responsibly and this is not responsibly and this is not responsible behavior. host: our next call is haziz in arizona. caller: i guess i have a comment and a question. at the end of the cold war the soviet union became very unified. we should remember that reagan phrase, "mr. gorbechav, tear this wall down." why are we keeping the koreans

apart if we fought for, you know, the two germanys to be unified? unified? isn't a rational person come to the conclusion that had we built with not the -- north korea earlier after the collapse of the swune swoon -- soviet union maybe having them come to negotiation table they could actually be one unified korea? guest: i think you are right, there is a lot to be learned about the example of germany and the unification of germany at the end of the cold war. at this time, as you will remember, the south koreans also reached out to the nean -- north koreans to lead to a peace treaty on the peninsula.

there still is no peace treaty. there only is an amistice that ended the korean war. and something that would lead them to a brighter future without the military threat they pose on the 38 parallel. there was tried, i think, for over 10 years to try to get the north korean regime to head in this direction, and they have chosen not to do it. the reason they have chosen not to do is is because the leadership in north korea faces what is basically a fundamental reform dilemma that -- which is, they need to open up their closed economy and their closed society in order for the regime to survive, but the process pf opening up, that process will eventually lead to the demies of the reeg regime and the leadership. this is the core reform dilemma that north korea continues to face today and why they continue to remain as isolated as they

do. host: he picks up on the reason behind the attack and the negotiations between the south korean government, secretary of state cliiton and others, they try to avoid playing in mr. kim's hands by en-- theory of the intelligence agency that mr. kim authorized the attacks to establish his authority. >> they don't want it to sound as though this is business as usual. so, again, it is a fine line to walk, because you want to have a strong enough response dep that recognizes how serious an attack this was such that they will be deterred from doing it again but you want to avoid war.

host: and yet they are saying no retaliation will come back to harm us. guest whatever the acks taken, guest whatever the acks taken, preferably not military ones but harsh diplomatic ones, north korea has to pay a price. caller: i see a large parallel between the countries of the mexico and the u.s. with the difference in economic situations. i see a lot of parallel with the human rights issues we're having in the united states. i can't help but think there may be a similar power struggle in korea. i wonder if you think a woman such as our secretary of state will be able to have any effect or if it will be something that is well received in the chinese government if it just irritates them to have a woman go over and tell them what to do.

host: interesting question. caller: you know, if it irritates the chinese, they should be used to that irritation because the past three secretaries of states they have dealt with from the united have dealt with from the united states, the chief diplomat from the united states, have been women. secretary clinton, dr. rice, and secretary albright. so i would imagine that the chinese understand that when these people come over because these people come over because of the positions that they hold they speak with the authority of the president of the united states. i have no doubt that secretary clinton is over there right now trying to work with the chinese to get the right sort of outcome on this north korea problem. host joe has this approach. he says, i know war is bad but can't we just spare one preditor drone?

one drone for one torpedo and we're even. guest: we have to remember this today is the most militarized border in the world. the norg has a 1.1 million-man army. one of the largest armies ever deployed on a demilitarized zone. if a conflict were to break out this would be a war that the united states and the -- would win, but not without huge costs in terms of millions dead and trillions trillions of dollars in damage. this is essentially the problem that we face on the peninsula. we want to do things to prevent the north from disrupting the peaceful status quo, but we want to do it in a way that won't affect markets in asia which affect markets in the united states. and don't put at risk hundreds of thousands of americans and

american allies in the city of seoul. >> good morning. i am curious. i can't see how a country can have peace without strength. it seems like there has got to be some form of retaliation. host ok. thank you. guest: ok. again i think doug puts his finger 0 p the dilemma which is how do you fashion an appropriate response so that the north feel they are being punished for what they have done but doing it in a way that doesn't promote an all-out war. host: he points out they rarely issue public statements. he said there was a firey sounding warning saying it would, quote respond to any military retaliation with all-out war."

guest: it is time we get used to north korea blustery rhetoric. the key decision-making body that supports kim in the north korean system. so we have to -- we have to take those comments seriously. host: next is adam joining us from texas on the independent line. the secretary of state addressing neigh today. and later this week as the south korean government prepares to issue sanctions toward north korea and asking for u.n. assistance. go ahead, adam. caller: my question goes in the path that carrer worked with north korea to give them the reactor that helped them to have more electricity because they are isolated and he tried to use peaceful solutions to get them

the reactor so they would have more independence from electricity and didn't [unintelligible] win the peace prize in the 1990's for trying to work a peaceful solution? host: we'll come back with a follow-up. please stay on the line. guest: president carter played an important role between the 1993 and 1994 nuclear crisis in north korea where it looked as though things were getting quite tense because the north basically removed fuel rods from the reactor which was a significant step toward moving in the direction of having plutonium from nuclear weapons. president carter went on a peace mission to north korea and basically worked the outlines of

what eventually was an official deal between the united states and the clinton administration and north korea in 1994 in which the north was provided with interest energy assistance in return for giving up their nuclear programs and eventually moving toward civilian light-water react orse. -- reactors. that agreement fell apart in 2002 when it was found that the north while they made this agreement were secretly pursuing a second nuclear weapons program. host: and follow-up? caller: in 2003 -- and the american media did talk about this -- but i had a friend overseas and he heard this talked about, that korea launched a couple mifrls from the pacific coast 2,000 miles away from the coast to the coast of california. they do have the range to hit close to hawaii and other places.

did they actually fire mifrls -- missiles? guest: north korea does have longer-range ballistic missiles and they occasionly test these to all the countries in the region. what we know today is that north korea does not have the capeability to reach the continental united states or hawaii. they do not have a demonstrated case to do this with their ballistic program. although they are clearly trying to move in that direction. the most significant recent missile test was in april of 2009 where they tested a three-stage missile that was able to over-fly the japanese arc hefment plelago which was a significant advance of their

capeabilities. host: twit tefment r comment, "sorry, the u.s. money in the south korea dry up if korea unites. hillary clinton, gates, bush, obama, pentagon benefit from conflict." guest: i don't agree with that comment. it is more than a military alliance. we have a free trade agreement now that is waiting approval in this congress and in the south korean legislature which is the most significant -- commercially significant free-trade agreement buy -- bilaterally. it is the second largest agreement next to nafta and would create hundreds of thousands of jobs here in the united states. this is a relationship that is not simply the sort of military-based cold-war alliance relationship that it once was 40 years ago.

host: if you want more information, the web address is cfis.org. mark is joining us from california. caller: good morning. i am a u.s. military veteran. my father was in the korean war when he was about 18. i would like to thank my father on national television because not only did he never ever say anything about the korean society for which he fought but he spoke highly of the people and the work ethic of the people . my father grew up poor in central illinois and it left a great impression on me. i actually felt a lot of love through him by the way he spoke. not because he left a girl over there. i think he spoke highly of a woman who would come and clean the marines -- and her work

ethic. i was sfationed in okinawa at age 18. then in my late 20's, early 30's, i was in operation team spirit. i got to see the korean society. i see korean americans. one thing victor didn't mention, and i'm not necessarily that proud of it, the tremendous heart of the korean people in the vietnam war that worked. most american marines that are listening to this conversation from outside cleveland know that u.s. marines have a tremendous alliance. just their society in general, just their society in general, the work thic, their industrial percentage, work ethic runs at the world's highest. if there is anyone from north korea listening, and i see it in victor's face, the north koreans and south koreans are one people. they love each other. host: thank you for your comment

and your service. guest: thank you, mark, also for your service to this country. i think you are absolutely right, that the united states and south korea have been and south korea have been partners not just on the peninsula but in the region and around the world. we often forget when this relationship was first created, many, many years ago, that it was a quintessentially cold war alliance where we al eyed with an anti-communist, but not at the time democratic country, against the soviet union. since then south korea has made one of the most successful peaceful transitions to democracy in world history. it stands today as really a model of the success of the american cold war speerment -- experiment after the second world war. so it is a long and deep relationship. host: just a couple minutes

left. two complents comments left. joe waiting on the republican line. cowl caller: just to refer to the last caller, my mother grew up in southern illinois. my brother was killed in the korean war. he would write letters back to my mom and to her family saying north korea was a real bad place . so it is not the nicest place in the world. some bad places, some are worst ttan others. that's a bad place. my question is, what are the chances in your opinion, how could this be done, that north and south korea become the same country again? guest: i think that is certainly the aspiration of many people, that the two countries unify under the south. president obama when he met with the south korean president last

had a joint demonstration where they called for a future korean -- korea unified. i am terribly sorry to hear of your loss. one of the most moving trips i had made was when i took a trip to retrieve the remains of american soldiers killed in the korean war. it was a dull mission but we were very successful in bringing back some of those remains. host: quick question, tony? guest: it is not necessarily a question as it is a statement. everybody knew when north korea got ahold of nuclear weapons that they were going to basically hold the world hostage. that's what they are doing. iran is going to do it next. don't anybody ever see that by waiting and being indecisive it is going to cause bigger problems down the roa