committee and we will be joined by a syndicated radio host to talk about his book. "washington journal" is next. . . host::the phone numbers are on

your screen. first, president obama's reaction to questions about whether or not general mcchrystal's job is on the line. >> general mcchrystal is on his way here. i will meet with him. secretary gates will be meeting with him as well. i think it is clear that he article in which he and his team appeared showed a poor judgment. i also want to make sure i talk to him directly before i make any final decisions. host: president obama yesterday. as we said, he will be meeting with general mcchrystal this morning. in afghanistan, the president of the country says general mcchrystal is the best commander of the war, and says he hopes he keeps his job despite the pagazine profile. in "the new york times" this

morning, they're talking about potential successors for general mcchrystal. they are thought to include general rodriguez, commander of the nato headquarters in kabul. another possibility is general demsey, who has extensive experience. another potential successor is general james mattis. some have suggested that general david petraeus could take over the afghanistan mission himself. "the new york times" in other publications talking about potential successors to general

mcchrystal. in that meeting today with his national security team, president obama will have hillary clinton, joe biden, tim geithner, rahm emanuel, and the list goes on of those who will be meeting with the president about afghanistan and pakistan. we want to know what you think this morning. should president obama fire general mcchrystal? marsha on the line for drepublicans, what do you think? caller: i do not think general mcchrystal should be fired. this is nothing but a witch huntt

pt is awfully funny that he is making these kind of comments about the war when his own fiancee was murdered by al-qaeda insurgenns. none of the quotations else was directly related to general petraeus. -- i am sorry, general mcchrystal. they were all mentioned by unnamed advisers. i would think that in this day and age of reputable journalism, someone would want to mention those names. host: what do you think should happen to general mcchrystal's team? according to the "rolling stone" article -- here is a copy of it. by the way, it is on our web site, c-span.org, if you're

interested in reading the whole thing. the inner circle has dubbed themselves team america. what do you think should be done? i think caller: they should be reprimanded for their comments. -- caller: i think they should be reprimanded for their comments. as far as you are mentioned that i cakenberry will be in that meeting today, i am not at all surprised. he wanted the job. host: linda on the line for democrats, good morning. caller: i think it is long overdue that somebody should be speaking out after eight years of all this war that was unnecessary and the legal.

for this colonel, i praise him. it is about time american people stand up and say we were wrong. host: marcus on the line for independents, good morning. caller: i am active duty. i know there are a lot of the general knows what he did. it's against good order and discipline in the military. he should be fired. that is why he asked to resign. i agree wholeheartedly. if we do this in the military, we should be disciplined. good order has to be maintained. host: you think it is an issue of respect in the chain of command. caller: yes, the chain of command needs to be complete all the way to the commander-in-

chief. it does not matter if the commander-in-chief is republican, democrat, or maybe one the independent. that is the only onway our country stood scaa survive. host: what message would it said if president obama does not fire general mcchrystal? caller::if he does not fire general mcchrystal, it would lead to good order and discipline breaking down. chaos could break out. i'm not saying now, but it will not be there anymore. that is why this is a major thing in the military. that's why he was called up immediately o the commander-in- chief and immediately to the white house. he is coming from afghanistan in

one day. he's not just going to sit down with the commander-in-chief. he is out. host: what do you make of his decision to have this reporter around? caller: i cannot believe he gave a whole month's worth of timeeto somebody from "rolling stone," which sort of slants to the left. i could not believe a whole month's time of letting this reporter walked around and listen to everything. we have certain things in the military that we do not want everyone to hear. this reporter was doing his job. of course he's going to go back and say what the general in staff has said. the general is not just in trouble, but also the staff.

they will also get fired. i want the whole team to be fired. send a message for good order and discipline in the military. host: we have a special line for active military this morning. we want to hear from you. on the communications team for general mcchrystal, "the new york times" says the civilians communications adviser, who set up the interview, has resigned already. on the back story of michael hastings and how he was able to get this interview, "the new york times" writes this --

host: also, a little bit about how the story came out on monday and yesterday, "the new york times" said word began to trickle out on monday night. it was not posted to the "rolling stone" website until 11:00 a.m. on tuesday. "time" magazine posted pdf files on their article on its web site.

host: karen on the line for republicans, good morning. caller: good morning. people are forgetting that general mcchrystal is not a robot. he is a warrior personality. he's gotten into the position that he is in for having strong convictions. he spoke to "rolling stone" and that is the price you pay with indented reporters. host: it does not sound like this reporter was embedded in a combat situation. caller: no, but there was a lot of openness that surprised me. i just think people are ignoring the fact that this is not a late personality we are dealing with. for general mcchrystal to do his everyday job, he's going to

curse. he's going to be stroog. he's going to have men and women around him who have strong and forceful personalities. host: a little bit about general mcchrystal, from "the los angeles *" this morning. it says, "general mcchrystal is a detail man."

3 host: toledo, ohio, molly on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. i think you should be fired immediately. you just noted the article about pat tilley. this is our military lying and it issnot right. we've been running in place over there for almost 10 years. the best thing president obama can do is into this war as soon as possible. they are eight civilization thousands of years older than ours. they do not understand our culture. they will never be like us.. they do not want us over there. we have spent enough blood over there. they are getting bombed every day.

we're never going to end the likes of the people in al-qaeda in the taliban. fire of tthe commander-in--hief, end the war, and get rid of this this respectable person. host: "the washington post" says this on the front page.

host: that is the front page of "the washington post" this morning about the back story on the afghanistan strategy. joseph on the line for independents, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for the military line. the soldiers need to be heard from. i'm a vietnam veteran. i hope that he does the right thing. the people calling in have the right to express their opinions. this guy is a loose cannon. he needs to go. not today. george bush said he listened to the generals on the ground. the generals that know this man -- if yyu listened to pbs last night, on "news hour" they told

you just tell this guy is. host: "the new york post" has this headline. oklahoma city, scott on the line for republicans, good morning. caller: yes, i have enjoyed your i have a constitutional perspective on this. any general that is involved in an undeclared war needs to be fired. they need to have never been fired. we had an opportunity -- dr. ron paul had a declaration of war issued as legislation. he was not for it, but he wanted to see how congress was, and nobody voted for it. he also issued a granting of petters of marking reprisal. these are the two constitutional solutions to an attack by

foreign power. both those went down in flames. you expected them to. the next question to congress, why are you giving this power to the president un constitutionally? the pressdent of this non declared war needs to be fired. any general in a non declared war needs to be fired, too. host: abc news with diane sawyer had an interview last night with the author of the "rolling stone" magazine article, michael hastings, end asked the reporter about his questioning to general mcchrystal. >> why did you do this? why did he say these things to you? why did he allow his aides to say these things to you? >> they were frustrated and they wanted to get that message out. the headline to me was that the war wws out of obama's control.

by telling the story through general mcchrystal, i think we were able to illustrate hat in pretty telling detail. host: we want to know from yyu this morning, should president obama fire general mcchrystal? he will be meeting with general mcchhystal and defense secretary gates. at 11:30 a.m. eastern time, the president will meet with his national security team on afghanistan and pakistan. "the new york times" says general mcchrystal should be explaining what wrong with his first major offensive, and how he plans to better it in kandahar, and they should all be working to come up with a plan for managing relations with afghanistan.

"the wall street journal" says w"the mcchrystal mess." host: the next phone call comes from georgia. good morning. caller: hello. i think obama -- general

mcchrystal has simply lost his opinion, and obama is going to respect that as a civil libertarian. obama does not care about being perceived as weak. host: you are in the military right now? caller: yes, i just got back from afghanistan. host: what is the situation in afghanistan? caller: righh now, we have the surge going on. everybody is very nervous and amped up in order to fight the taliban. everybody is excited because they believe we can do it. everybody is confident. they believe in the leadership and that we can't accomplish the mission. host: does everybody believe in general mcchrystal?

caller: we believe in all of our leadership because they're doing a great job. we have all the resources necessary. he has provided them. host: do you believe in president obama? caller: yes, i am a democrat. host: let me ask you about this headline in "the new york times" this morning that "warriors vexed by rules of war ." what do you think? caller: that is probably in response to the unnecessary casualties that the civilians in afghanistan have sustained. host: right. do you think it is a necessary one? caller: yes. host: more u.s. soldiers have been hurt beeause of it.

caller: it has to do with the what has happened in the past via the lack of restraint in the past. it actually hurt our soldiers in the long run, having an itchy trigger finger. that has hurt us in the propaganda war. host: dallas, texas, douglas on the line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. all of these perspectives have little bit of truth in them, but just remember when people came to president lincoln and said grant is a drunk and we need to get rid of him. abraham lincoln said -- the

greater principle is, he said -- grant wins wars. find out what he is drinking and send me that. host: in "the new york times" op-ed section this morning, "what would lincoln do?"

host: arizona, jason on the line for republicans, good morning. caller: good morning. host: what do you think? caller: i do not know exactly what general mcchrystal said. short of it being a treasonous statement, i do not think obama has any reason to fire him. obama publicly ridiculed

arizona. if general mcchrystal is fired for stating his opinion, obama should be fired for stating his. host: also in "the new york times" opinion section this morning, "truman knew he could not set a precedent, and one basic element in our constitution is civilian control of the military." baltimore, teresa on the line for democrats.+ good morning. caller: good morning. everybody does have good opinions, but i do want to say that as far as the general -- if

he is not doing his job, maybe this should have been looked at before. he's been in office for some time now. mmybe they need to take a good look at this and find out if he should be fired, and find someone else that could do his job. at all times, someone is always there to replace someone else. host: two e-mails from our viewers this morning. remember, you can also send us a tweet. another e-mail --

kentucky, rick on the line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. i am a a vietnam veteran. in corporations and businesses in america, you have to have order. you have to have charged and dismiss rules. i believe the president should pull the general in in private and discuss this with him. expllin what he is doing and keep this thing under the hat, and then let the public rule on his decision. as far as this collateral damage we're talking about in afghanistan, you are dealing with people that take innocent

women and children and they put them in front of them as shields. it is kind of hard to fire a weapon at your enemy when they're holding their 3-year-old son in front of them. when you have a mind-set of a country and their people -- is kind of hard to fight a war when they have a mindset that they do not care about their own loved ones. if you're going to fight a war, fight a war. do what it takes to do it. collateral damage will be on their hands, and the blood will be, too. it is hard to say that. host: in "the washington post" this morning, there is a

graphic that we will take a look debt as we go to the next phone call that comes from delaware -- we will take a look at that. we go to the next phone call. dean on the line for democrats. caller: president obama is not going to make in in polls of deeision -- is not going to make an in pollmpuslsive decision. i'm sure president obama will take a look at his entire career as a four-star general. someone commented earlier that obama needs to take control of the war completely. one of my favorite quotations from the presidents is from ronald reagan, and i am a democrat. "choose the best people and delegate authority."

what is the point of having four-star generals if obama cannot demonstrate the ability to control most of the war through them? right now, the president is working very closely with the poorest economy in generations. host: i want to get your reaction to this article in "the washington post" this morning. he says, "the clock is ticking, mr president. the time to change things and get the right team in place is now or never." caller: of course, i'm sure the president has a deadline in mind. in any situation, and in any project where you have someone in charge -- in this case, the

president of the united states -- there needs to be a little flexibility, understandably. i'm sure he will make every effort to bring our troops home. i'm in the process of trying to join the army right now. i had the opportunity to speak to several enlisted soldiers. from what i've heard, when they say they have been deployed over to afghanistan and iraq, it does not sound like a really extreme situation where theyyare afraid or being attacked. situation. i think the july 2011 deadline is feasible. i think president obama is a smart man. he has surrounded himself with a good staff. he does not try to take everything on to his own shoulders.

host: a judge has been under the moratorium on drilling, citing potential economic harm to businesses and workers. "the obama administration failed to justify the need for such a blanket, generic, and punitive moratorium." also, "the wall street journal" ken salazar could make asuggest- decision on a case by case basis. also, "the washingto"the new yo" notes that the judge in this case, according to public records, owned stocks in

transition in 2008 -- transocean in 2008. pat on the line for independents, good morning. caller: first of all, a general goes through a lot. there's a lot your accountable for. you are under a microscope. everything you say or do is recorded and looked at. i think general mcchrystal has done an incredible job out there. sometimes people make mistakes. there are things he should not have said. unfortunately, when you are a general, it's hard to move past that. i've spent three years in iraq and two in afghanistan. i am well qualified to say that. there are times when you are

scared out there. when an order comes down from the president, it is taken care of. we do what we have to do to make it happen. host: should general mcchrystal stay on the job? caller: absolutely. host::despite this tradition of respecting chain of command? caller: again, everybody makes mistakes. host: some have pointed of that this is the second time general mcchrystal has shown poor judgment in respect to the chain of command? caller: he should be disciplinee by the uniform code of military justice. if you break

regulation or a militaryylaw, basically, you can be given an article 15. that is the basic disciplinary action. it can include loss of pay grade, loss of pay for two weeks, extra duty, and things of that nature. host: 1 the were said he should lose one star. what does that mean? caller: that is a loss of pay great. host: is that a big deal? caller: it is a pretty big deal, especially at the rank of general. you are talking about 10 years to get a star. that would be 10 years of his career that he would be set back. host: charles on the line for republicans, good morning. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: we do not even know what

this man said the second time around. people are trying to compare him with truman and lyinccln. that is ridiculous. at least they called the enemy by name and they delegated that they wanted to win a war. this man has not shown me that he wants to win a war. i feel sorry for our service men. it's my understanding that they get orders from their platoon sergeant when they go on a raid. they also have a lawyer that tells them what they can and cannot do. to win a war that the way -- we would have never won world war i aoor world war ii under this man's direction.

with truman in japan -- you do not win a war this way. host: this is an article in "the new york times." he does a comparison with the surges in iraq and afghanistan. host: and in other news this

primaries and runoffs yesterday in several states. joining us on the phone is david, a political reporter. let's start with the headline in south carolina. guest: it was very significant. indian-american female, sort of breaking the glass ceiling in that state. she has launched herself on a clear trajectoryyto be a leading figure in the republican party. host: also out of south carolina, there's a story about thurman's son losing, and the state has elected an african

american. guest: right. this is another historic moment in a state where dixiecrat politics ruled the state years ago. you can see the demographic changes are clearly making big changes at the electoral level. americans and women.ican- the republican party says this is good. thht is why you see a lot of national leaders like mitt romney and sarah palin involved. host: tim scott, who would be the first black republican in congress since 2003, will represent what district?

what district in south carolina are we talking about? guest: i do not have the district in front of me right now. host: but the fact that he will be the first african-american republican -- what does that mean? guest: it is very considerable. j.c. watts was the last -ppepublican in the house. it is significant for the party. now this is someone they can point to and have on television to show diversity. they began to do that the with michael steele. this is an obvious, physical symbol that people can point to and say that this is diversity. host: in south carolina, in the fourth congressional district, what happened there?

guest: the third house incumbent lost this year. if you include the party switcher in alabama and in west virginia, he becomes the third incumbent to lose. he was defeated because people did not think he was conservative enough in this district. this is another anti-incumbency storr. the conservative base of the party did not think he was living up to the standards and values they wanted. host: david, thank you for the update this morning. we will go on to college park, ga., where ronald joins us on the line for democrats. we're talking about whether or not president obama should fire general mcchrystal.

go ahead. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: first of all, has anybody consider the possibility that general mcchrystal wants to be fired? anybody with any common sense knows when they go against the policies of their superiors, they are subject to some type of disciplinary aation, including dismissal. host: you think he did this on purpose? caller: yes, i think he did this on purpose because i think he wants to be fired. host: larry on the line for independents, good morning. caller: i'm amazed by the guy from ggorgia. in thinking the same thing -- i think the same thing. he wants out. he would rather be known as the

guy fired by the president then the guy who lost the war. -- than the guy who lost the war. i'm amazed by the uy from georgia. i think he wants to be fired. you don't go to "rolling stone" and accidently sayythings. is this the same general who covered up for the football player who was killed on his watch? host: we will continue talking about what is next for afghanistan. coming up, we will be talking to james kitfield, senior correspondent for the national journal. he will be joining us shortly. we'll continue talking about the meeting today with general mcchrystal and what is next. first, an update on the negotiations happening between financial regulation.ers over%-

philiwhat will happen today? this is the second week of negotiations. guest: today and tomorrow will be very telling on the issues that remain. barney frank and chris dodd both vowed to finish the talks by the end of thursday. the biggest issues remaining today and tomorrow relate to the part of the bill known as the volcker rule. basically, it is an effort to limit or ban trading by banks -- what is known as proprietary trading. host: silla brush, go ahead.

guest: the other outstanding issue is the extremely controversial provision from senatoo blanche lincoln to restrict trading of derivatives. host: that made the front page of "the wall street journal" this morning. this is the front page of "the wall street journal." basically, she wants to -- what is she trying to do, mr. br ush? guest: that is related to a separate provision in the bill, but something she is pushing for a bank in her state. host: on the volcker rule, in ""he washington post" there's a story that senator brown is

trying to change some language for a bank in his state, as well. guest: in may, he raised concerns about the volcker rule and its potential to impact banks and other insurance companies in his state -- in his home state of massachusetts. he raised concerns about that, as well as the hedge funds. his concerns were not entirelyy addressed in the senate's. he received letters from chairman barney frank in the house saying that his ccncerns would be taken up when the house and senate met in ttis conference process. we will see, maybe by as early as the end of today, if his concerns are satisfied or met halfway, or not met at all.

host: could he be a key vote? guest: when the bill host the senate, four republicans supported it. scott brown was one of the four after heereceived those letters. i think it's pretty clear that democrats wish to retain his vote, as well as the other three republicans who supported this. yes. host: "the new york times" business section has this headline this morning. guest: yesterday, the senate side basically agreed to the outline. they want to change several provisions.

they have not fully agreed on the exemptions. it appears that auto dealers are on the verge of a very major lobbying victory over the strong objections of president obama, chairman barney frank, senator chris dodd, and the pentagon. sort of the full force of the administration -- if they are successful, it will represent a very large lobbying victory. host: thank you very much for your time, silla brush. we will take a short break. when we continue, we'll talk more about the meeting president obama will have with general mcchrystal about the comments that he made to "rolling stone" magazine. we will be right back.

♪ ♪ >> this weekend on book tv, alex heard. and jere van dyk. sby indian tiger schedule at -- finds the entire schedule of boat booktv.org.

>> if you cannot make up your mind based on what you have read in based on what you have heard, you do not deserve to be on the senate judiciary committee. >> take a look back at elena kagan's previous speeches at the c-span video library online. >> "washington journal" continues. host: james kitfield, senior correspondent for the national journal, is here to talk about general mcchrystal. what is the latest? guest: reportedly, he is carrying a letter of resignation. usually, when this happens, he

offers his resignation. it's interesting. he's not only meeting with president obama. he is meeting with national security team -- obama's national security team. it was a very strange article. i read it a couple of times. they all go to a bar. this reporter is totally iembedded. a lot of his aides are telling him what the boss feels about certain people. it suggests obama is intimidated by the military. he was at odds with joe biden. he is at odds with the ambassador, ikenberry. he calls holbrooke a wounded

animal. he talls about general jones as a clown. as i should say, they said that. it's not clear that this is coming from general mcchrystal's mouth. he has been poorly served by his aides in this instance. he will be in a room today with a lot of the people that he and his team have really disparaged. host: what happens today? who will he meet with first? guest: i think he will first meet with president obama. and not sure of the order. they will have both of those meetings. host: the white house guidance for today's meetings only includes the 11:30 a.m. meeting with his national security team on afghanistan and pakistan. it does not include these one- on-one meetings. why is that? guest: i suspect it will come after tte other meeting.

i think president obama will want to hear. he will be facing a lot of questions. president obama meticulously encourages people to be forthright with their opinions and then makes decisions. i suspect that he would want to hear general mcchrystal's answers toothese questions. why a "rolling stone" reporter -- there's a history of "rolling stone" magazine's coverage of the war. it might have been more suitable to his previous jobs. there's not a lot of separation between leaders and the list

enlisted. it sounds like he has adapted that culture to a four-star commander. it's very locker room. it's not really applicable to a higher headquarters like he is running now. that raises quustions about his judgment. host: are you familiar with his inner circle? caller: no. host: what is the pre cedent for firing a general? you said he will offer his resignation. guest: you will remember that general mcchrystal is in that job because they fired his predecessor, who a lot of people felt was poorly served. he basically said he needed more troops.

there's plenty of precedent. admiral fallon was in a solar situation in that he was talking to a reporter from "esquire." -- fallon was in a similar situation. host: does that come from the president himself? cguest: abbolutely, or this could come from secretary of defense gates. he is in the direct line of command. the word will probably come from gates, but this will be the president's decision. this is that the top of his agenda.

this is extremely important to the president, anddthis is why this is an agonizing decision, i think, for president obama. the one hand, it's a terrible time to change leadership. the war is not going well. there's concern that we have seen a lot f finger pointing when things go bad. when things are going bad, fingers start getting pointed. there's a lot of talk that this is indicative of -- as the war starts to stall, we are seeing a lot more divergence in the senior military team. that's a very bad thing to happen when you're entering the tough phase of a war. host: if he does not fire him, how will he reprimand him? guest: he will basically, rhetorically, taken to the woodshed.

he will explain that these views do not express the full list of his feelings. i think that's possible. the article honed in in a way that does not express his full opinion about these actors. the silver lining is that the president could use this to send a signal to all of his team, including ikenberry, the u.s. ambassador who has been feuding with general mcchrystal and president carkarzai. i could also easily see him firing general mcchrystal and saying there's no way i could go forth at this critical period with a general who has seen to

lost faith in me and my team. host: what message will descend to the rest of the military -- what message will this sent to the military? -- what message will this send to the military? guest: senior military leadership understands that he was out of line here. he understands that himself. he could potentially be subject to a court martial under article 88. a military officer cannot do that. he clearly stepped over a line. iido not think it would be particularly crushing to the

morale of the rest of the military. they are fighting a war. this is a distraction. i do not think president obama would be vilified by the senior military ranks. they all know that he was out of line. the question is, how much will he have to pay for it? there is a danger, and there are a lot of conservative commentators that say this shows a sign of weakness. the question is, how he does it , and what decisions he makes going forward. they're much more concerned about this time line that obama put on this whole effort. because the war is stalled, the timeline looks like a problem. you know, if you had to weigh

the scales, if you do not fire him, one of the negatives is that it could be perceived by some as a sign of weakness. on the other side, if general mcchrystal came up with this strategy -- he designed it. he has been implementing it. .

caller: how can president obama have conffdence in his ability to carry out his orders? he is a general of a war. that is a huge thing. much is given and much is expected. he wants to speak to the general directly. he wants to judge for himself. you have toospeak to him yourself. guest: fair enough. i disagree though. there are two issues. judgment and character. he showed by granting the "rolling stonn" reporter, that kind of access. a lot of the generals i have been imbedded with, if they hear

tall like that, the tamp it down. poor judgment. he has impeccable character. he has not seen his wife in mor+ than a few days, maybe 30 days in the past nine years. he has been on the front lines fighting. he apparently is a great field leader of men. i think many americans, they would want general mcchrystal to be leading them. he made a poor judgment and he did so before. this is not the first time. there could be some transition from special forces-type culture to leading a more transparent effort that he has not gone in

terms of dealing with the media and with his civilian masters. that could be a problem. we have seen that raised a few times. it is up to the president to judge him. is he so important that he needs to use this as a teaching experience? get on with the experience of war. host: 1 viewer said general mcchrystal knew what he was doing when he allowed this reporter in there and he allowed this type of discussion to go on. other articles noted he is a detail-oriented type of person. guest: i have talked to people3 they do not think he was trying to send a shot across the bow. basically he has gone off

whenever he has asked for in terms of his strategy. he got his 40,000 new troops. he got his strategy. he has no gripe. i do not perceive this -- read the article. this is not a shot across the bow. -pit was a bunch of military gus who seem not to understand when a reporter was present. they have not raised the issue. i have been in this case, this situation many times. never were you allowed take this conversation and maybe they were confused. i think this was a blunder. i do not think he wants to send a message to back off. host: the adviser who allowed

the reporter access has resigned. cnn was quoting michael hastings saying he had his recorder out in the open. they could see he was recording what they were saying. guest: then it goes to what poor judgment to think that this should be on the record or on background. you cannot attribute it to win aid. aivete.ows a night of the it is confounding. that is the problem here. he has not been used to dealing with the media. host: shreveport, louisiana, on the republican line. caller: good morning. i want to comment on you. i have been watching c-span for 10 years off and on since i have

been disabled. i miss going to work. i really miss my work. you have been catching a loss of heat from the right and left. i have been watching c-span 10 years. there is nobody -- nobody that does the job you do. you do an excellent job. host: thank you. caller: you press issues, you dig. nobody does it better than you. you are the best, gal. here goes. he hit on if there was alcohol involved. i know it is noo an excuse. let's let everything get out. there is nothing better than our service men and women in this world.

left destroying our military. i am talking about it engagement, loitering upper -- lawyering up. what about the gays in the military? guest: the gay issue -- we do a whole show on that issue. it is unpopular and some think it is time we got over this. host: one of the newspapers was talking aaout the distrust in the military and some of that related to obama trying to overturn "don't ask, don't tell ." this coming from military people -- democrats are fickle and they do not stick with it. this started in vietnam

with how pres. johnson started that war. president carter was seen as a hollow army. then reagan increased the amount of money to the military and restored them. that is part of the narrative. republicans are stronger on the military. then clinton had problems with gays in the military. he was resisted by the joint chiefs. that was very rocky. president obama is very aware of that and did a number of things that work mitigated against that feeling. he kept on a republican secretary of defense that was popular with military leadership. he put a lot of senior military

guys on his security team. jim jones. the u.s. ambassador to afghanistan is a former three- store ambassador, eikenberry. there was no time for a shakeout. i think that the most important thing was he basically double doon and adopted a strategy3 win in afghanistan, or try to lead us to a place we could accept. that is what the military was hoping he would do. to ay that president obama has sort of roiled the fetters of the military and secretary roiled the feathers

of the military. obama has done a lot to mitigate that kind of distrust. that would have been -- it would have lived up to those kinds of suspicions. i don't think you can put this on president obama. he was going to readdress gays in the military. that has been addressed. how you implement that is up in the air. there are some people in the military that think these men and women have fought alongside. host: germantown, maryland. caller: insubordination at the general level since a serious message. it is more than poor judgment. it is a breach of leadership and

it frightens me to think there is only one person that can run our military. what if something else happened to mcchrystal? host: who could succeed guest: he is not indispennable. that is an important pointt if this rises to the level of insubordination, the president will fire him. i don't know what general mcchrystal will say in that meeting. i have a few questions for him. if it rises to the level of insubordination, he will be releasedd he is a three-star general. there is another who is running

the day-to-day war and he would probably need the least amount of time to get up to speed. you mentioned general petraeus himself. general petraeus has spent an awful lot of time deployed in war zones. it would be asking an awful lot to go back and lead this war after pulling our asses out of iraq. there is a general dempsey who is now leading the u.s. army and he has been mentioned. in marine corps general was key -- there are any number of generals who can step into that role. you hope you could find one who could get up to speed quickly. there are replacements. host: we're talking with james

kitfield and what is next for general mcchrystal and afghanisttn. we have a special line for u.s. military. washington, d.c., tony on the democratic line. caller: mcchrystal is done. hello? host: we are listening. caller: mcchrystal is done. by the time he gets done with the meeting with the present, he is over with. i cannot believe this guy is still a commander. you have to remember pat stiltilllman. -- tillman. he lied. guest: he was in the chain of

command and the signed off on the award he was given. at one point, he sent up a letter that he knew that there was something not quite right with theecitation that said he was killed by enemy fire. he knew things that he was not saying. host: i saw that the president should be careful about referring to how pat stillmtilln died because it could be embarrassing. guest: he was killed by friendly fire. the family was critical of how that was handled. that was a strike against him. it did not stop him from being host: 1 viewer said he saw it lose one star. guest: you cannot cripple your general and send him back out

there. you have to trust this guy to get the job done or you get rid of him. you cannot cripple him, knocking him down level. there is another three-star general in the theater. you cannot do that to a general. it would undermine his authority. host: it would wipe away 10 years, 50 years. guest: it takes 40 years to get four stars. if you wanted to be vindictive, you could relieve him and then knock off a star. they would not knock off a store and send him back out. the lot is there for situations like this -- they would not knock off a star and send him back out. it would be a judgment call from

president obama. i did nothing he will use article 88. it is fair to say that you know -- it is there to say you know the code of justice to let officers know what is expected of them. he has overstepped that in some ways. he has been contemptuous of his chain of command. you can have a debate about whether it was meant to come out. it would serve no purpose. does he stay or does he go? i suspect he goes. he has served our country, nine years of war. that would send a bad message to the military. is the president's prerogative to chop his legs out from unner him. host: richard on the republican

line from new jersey. caller: republican voting for obama. kindest fore weakness. the president is more informed and willloffer opinions on how this will be handled. as far as how mcchrystal responded, i think that sets precedent. if he fired his press aide because his press aide did not do the right thing, he is trying to set a precedent. what about these other people? will they be allowed to comment about him without fear of a prize will or punishment? i just think -- without fear of a prize wipunishment? i don'ttunderstand the basis for these comments from him and these other people.

and aside to this. this is a great opportunity to quell what is happening in the gulf. guest: it is interesting. his aides certain poorly here. it's not clear whether they were set up by the press aide who did not communicate the ground rules. they were putting words -- if they were putting words in the boss's mouth,,it shows poor judgment. a lot of these guys are special forces guys that he brought over that may be part of the problem. certainly everyone understands his job is on the line.

he serves at the discretion at the president. i would not be all surprised if the president releases him. host: if you listen to what the white house said yesterday during their daily press briefing, it suggests that it would be hard to save his job. guest: i think he was taken to the wood shed a bit. i do not think he tipped his%+ hand. it is a pretty agonizing decision. the most important thing is the war effort. stay or go? which is better for the war effort? that is a decision thatti am glad i did not have to make. it is a tough one. caller: thank you. i saw this a bit last night with one of the networks and they

said he started bashing him from the get go, before the blooze was laid out. the war is won at home and you make these comments and they get back to the american public and it will not bode well. can you imagine this happening in the corporate or the private world, someone doing an interview with his boss and saying these things? thank you. guest: there was clearly -- it gets to a bigger issue -- is it indicative of a fracturing of the team, this running of the war? clearly general mcchrystal has been at odds with viie president biden, but there clearly left a

bad taste in the mouth of his aides and maybe him. biden will be the first one to pull the rug out when the timeline hits. eikenberry -- he felt betrayed by eikenberry when a cable said do not increase troops, karzai cannot be trusted at the same time general mcchrystal was looking for a surge in troops. it makes the question of can it work together well back to the table. jim jones, calling him a clown, one of his aides, i have no idea where that came from. there seems to be the kind of insular tightknit group that i would expect them -- you are

making very strategic-level decisions and you are dealing with the press every day. it doesn't seem like they get that they are at a different level of war and strategically they are saying these things out loud. guys on a corner and a bore can say these things. saying it in front of the boss, it does show a poor command culture, and you wonder if they made a good decision. host: democratic line, brady. caller: we have a serious problem here. the general's comments show where we are any nation right now. our country -- we are a nation that needs to be concernnd about america becoming a failure as a

nation. this is prevalent in the military, our legislative branch, and our executive branch. our state, local, and all of the levels of our government and within the american citizens. we are forgetting about patriotism and loyalty. caller: don't cut me off to quick. james, are you -- have you ever been in the military? guest: i have not. caller: what about the truth that the general mcchrystal might be telling about these people? nobody has spoke about the truth. let's talk about the truth. the general has been over there nine years. he knows what is going on.

the man in the white house has occasions. host: what about this being the truth? guest: it is revealing of the truth. the truth is often seen through different perspectives. let's say the truth is appaaently he has not forgotten that biden opposed him on the strategy and there is some concern that biden is in the other camp. the truth is he has a difference of opinion with carl eikenberry who does not trust karzai. there is some truth that that is not the kind of relationship we saw with journal traces -- general petraeus. there is light between these

guys. the special envoy rolf that commissioner holbrook is playing has ruffled some feathers. gerald mcchrystal is the one american -- general mcchrystal seems to have a functioning working relationship with president karzai, which to play on president obama's decision. the one guy whh can get along with him. if i get rid of him, especially in terms of getting some of the taliban peeled off, what happens to them? there is all kinds of truths. there are some truths that are not free to be voiced. they should read article 88 of the u.s. code of military justice. you may think and feel

contemptuous but you cannot foist that content. there are truths -- you cannot voice them. if that is the way see things, the productton charges of court martial. caller: this question is for mr. kitfield. i am concerned in our country. i get tired of hearing republicans attacked the democrats, democrats attacced republicans. in the real world in any field, military, corporate, public sector, school systems, someone openly attacks their supervisor in an off key comment. don't you feel they should be held responsible?

in most cases, it will be a resignation. guest: i think a resignation is very much on the table. this is not exactly like getting drunk at the christmas party and criticizing your boss. it is like getting drowned on the satellites placed in a huge multinational corporation, and that word leaks out. you say stupid things about the ceo and it somehow gets to thee top. that is why it is not a shot across the bow. is almost impossible for me to conceive of that. it is like poor judgment on a dysfunctional culture that allows this kind of thing. i doubt whether it was p

purposeful insubordination. this was not that instance. host: the "rolling stone" article can be found on our website. silver spring, maryland. caller: hello? host: you are on. caller: people believe he should be fired. i want your uest to, and -- show some backbone in being a democrat. i'm from charleston, south carolina. i had a caller from the south referred to obama the boy. one said he was called a man

this morning. the south, there are 10 military bases. myrtle beach, darlington, parris island, buford, charleston -- is somewhat about economics. i think obama needs to show the backbone. with all of your guest has said, you still have these disrespectful calls -- i think mcchrystal shows that, too. host: let's get a response. guest: that is part of what he is hearing and maybe also from his military team. that is in play here. do you look week if you let someone like this criticize the whole civilian team and not pay the price for that.

that ways into this. other things way into it as well -- that weighs into this and other things weigh into it as well. fired -- they fired mckiernan quite abruptly. he served honorably in afghanistan. secretary gates has lopped off the heads of more generous than anyone i have seen. the air force -- he is not shy about ffring. it is possible we will learn today that he will be fired. it's also possible that president obama will say that the war effort is the primary focus. how does firing him affect the

war effort? if it is better for the war effort, i could see president obama saying to use it as a moment to tell the civilian team and the military team that they have to start working together. the stakes are too high for this petty backbiting. it will be a learning moment for president obama. host: ohio. caller: this war is that this is one of the longest wars, 10 years now. most of the prisoners have been held for four years. thee dealing with getting right materials and accountability and enough equipment just to save jobs in the gulf. we're dealing with lives over

here. it is very difficult to just give up lives because you are trying to appeal to people to get the right supplies. the generals do need the right support. i will hang up and hear your answer. guest: that is why i keep going back -- i do not believe this was purposeful. he has done all the support from president obama that he wanted. he won the argument about the surge in troops. he won the argument about president karzai. he has gotten most of what he wanted. there still seems to be the sense on his inner circle that they cannot trust the civilian masters to back them up. they have been supported. you can see it as being -- some

of the uestions he will be asked this morning. we have been backing you up at some great cost to our own political base. most americans are tired of this war. we have back to you. why this contenmpt? host: james kitfield, for being hhre. we turn next to a new water. a judge has blocked a ban on deep-water drilling. we will speak to a shadegg john about will drilling, but -- talk about oil drilling, but first headlines. >> and indian american woman has been back to run for governor.

an incumbent congressman loss. so did a hopeful washington state democrat. this propped p -- the government agency overseeing offshore oil drilling will have an internal team assigned to do with the performance. the investigative team will look into allegaaions of misconduct and respond quickly to emerging problems. there will be a senate subcommittee hearing today. ken salazar will be at that hearing. live coverage on c-span radio and c-sppn3 television. he had been in charge of the

operations in the americas and asia at will report to tony hayward. more on the oil spill coming up in a moment on "washingttn journal." the federal reserve is expected to leave interest rates at record lows and to keep them there for awhile. those are some f the latest headlines on c-span radio. recounts aard re trial. 45 days in a dark cell after being captured by taliban fighters. he writes about it in "captive." find the entire weekend schedule at booktv.org.

and join us on twitter. >> learn more about general stanley mcchrystal. watches c-span appearances with the c-span video library, free on your computer any time. it is washington your way. >> "washington journal" continues. host: john shadegg is here to talk about a whale drrlling. -- is here to talk about oil drilling. this is a story yesterday in "the new york times" quoting the epa administrator, and co-chair of this mission to look at this.

any moratorium would require the industry require safer drilling they wouldand that's be markedly strengthened. he said you cannot do that fast enough. look at the history of washington. a congressional hearing revealed the five major oil companies relied on an inadequate plan to+ respond to an offshore oil spill. guest: what is wrong according to the judge's opinion is that it is capricious in the sense that is not written the way his comments are written. they are not imposed on deepwater drilling in the gulf until they do those things. if you said we will have a moratorium until the major oil companies rewrite their recovery

plans, i think it would rewrite them quickly. if they would impose this on bp, which i think was dealing with risky practices, i ask them a series of questions. they disapproved of the techniques that bp use. -- used. bp has been in engaged in a risky pattern of conduct for some time. other executives knew that but did not know what they could do about that. but the judge's opinion makes it clear that you could write a more focused moratorium that set untii you impose these safety requirements, most of what the criticism is about has not been on the recovery plan. most has been on how bp

proceeded as it went to cap this well. it was going through the process. eds said this was about cumin, not system failure. -- it was about human, not system failure. that should of been red flag number-one and they should have done something different. it wws -- they should have done a pressure teet of the well. instead of reacting to the problem properly, they took the wrong decision. you could impose a new set of safety provisions. the pressure test show there is resubmit., we submitted

there appears to be no basis for the selection of six months. the comments that say there are things that can be done is in agreement with all of the oil executives. things the government could require that we do for safety. thhy say they already do those things. but rewriting the recovery plan could be a part of the order issued by secretary salazar. i think that is what caused the judge to throw it out. in law, i used to practice in arizona. i practice with the attorney general's office. there are rules. the government imposes a set of requirements. it passed to have a reasonable

basis. in this case, the majority of the scientists that wrote the report on which the mooatorium was based leader came back and said secretary salazar or somebody change our report after we released it. they say we believe the report, the report they wrooe does not justify the moratorium as written. it will not contribute -- it pill not contribute immeasurably to increase safety and the changes made in the wording of their reeort are counterproductive to long-term safety. i think this judge was pressed. you have eight of the scientist who wrote this report and it will not add to safety.

i think his hand was forced. host: some legal expprts suggest mr. salazar could make -- they are not in compliance with relevant safeey staadards. guest: i think that is what they should have done from the beginning. from what i have learned from corner cutting, unsafe practices, other things at bp, i think a blanket moratorium st. bp must suspend drilling or that maybe bp should suspend all drilling until bp cleans its act. and i think cells are could issue an order that says -- and i think mr. salazar could issue an order that says we will reinspect them and impose a

moratorium on a case by case basis. i'm not worried about bp. i'm worried about the damage this has done. i do not want a spill like this to happen again. bp has economic resources. practices, it is appropriate to stop their driiling. host: public records show that the judge has large investments in oil companies, in particular transocean which wassrunning this rick for bp -- running this bp. for be guest: if he is an investor, you don't have to disqualify yourself. i would doubt that he kept this

case and made this ruling if he in fact had a conflict. it raises a question. i think you have to look get the rules of judicial ethics. if he broke them, that is a%+ serious problem. host: what is next for the committee? guest: the committee will continue to hold hearings and gather evidence. we're frustrated. we have had in oil company executives and a different subcommittee had in the head of and learned from that testimony. some are disgusted by that testimony. we have not had in the mines and responsible here.hat was%- you can see from early reports that its conduct was irresponsible.

one thing i think bothers people living in the gulf rea -- the government had an agent that was supposed to check the practices some people were either being bribed or had become under the influence of some of the oil companies and were not doing their jobs. that same company will punish us and i think that is a problem and i wish our committee would bring in the officials that ere negligent in doing their oversight job. what is the point in government oversight if people do not do their jobs correctly? host: what should happen with mms? guest: every american needs to know we have the best safety regulations. they are being implemented and

we have confidence that the government officials -- people guarding the chicken house are doing their job, which appears not to have happen. host: should you take away the responsibility of inspecting them? guest: i think that is a possibility. i do not think they should be combined. i do not think he should give it to a system that is charged to protect the environment. i think regulation of safety is different from protection of the environment. the agency should be looking at environmental impacts. the agency insuring drilling is done and we should keep them focused on each of their separate functions. host: let's go to the phone

calls. caller: i am informed through the media. if louisiana wants to overcome the moratorium on drilling, would the state be willing to assume full responsibility and waiver, holding all the parties responsible? guest: the state of louisiana was on a plaintiff in this lawsuit. the plaintiffs were business interests who service these wells. there was a company that runs the ships that takes the supplies out to the oil host: they said they do not like thii moratorium, either. guest: are there others who are

willing to step in and say, we think we are safer and we will hold harmless the people responsible? some people might be willing to say that. we do not think this is the right remedy. one argument that was made in the court hearing was the less we produced domestically, the more oil will have to import. an argument can be made if tankers or less safe than drilling, then by relying on more important for oil will increase the cost of oil and gasoline and giving them more of our money. tankers appear to be less safe than drilling operations.

by importing more, we increase rather than decrease the rest ofoi oil spills. i think it should be on the table in and informed discussion. that is what the coort ruled. what is magic about six months? there was nothing in the government's case to support the selection of six months. host: 4 myers, florida -- fort myers, florida. i will put renee on hold and we will try to get that straightened out. there is a private legislation that is being negotiated in the senate right now. the house passed a bill earlier this year on cap and trade. what would you like to see in an energy bill, final legislation

related to the gulf oil spill? guest: i think we need to ensure that practices in the industry are safe. one of the points made in the report is that the thousands of -- the industry standards are where they should be. all safety precautions are put in place. if we do not currently require that when tests are performed during the capping of the well, if those tests show a problem, they must stop and if there are safer drilling practices than those used by bp, which should put all of those in place. i do not think we should put into place further restrictions on production of domestic oil. two years ago we got into a debate on energy policy.

we need to move to renewables as quickly as we can but that is not something we will get to tomorrow. we need to produce our alliance on foreign services. but to make this as safe as it possibly can be, but let's not wipe it out. host: deeroit, michigan. caller: i would like to know, if coming to the open market? the oil in the gulf. guest: this waa all domestically produced oil. this is not imported oil from other countries. we import oil from canada, mexico, the middle east. this would be domestic oil.

all oil goes into a world market. this was consumed here in the united states. we produce about 40% of what we need. we import the other 60%. we become more reliant on foreign oil and we ship jobs and money overseas. someone comes by tanker. host: the oil they were killing four on this rig -- the oil they were drilling for -- guest: there is a difference between drilling and production. this was a drilling rig. they found the oil. the next phase would have been to put in place the necessary mechanisms to bring it to shore.

they had found the oil. host: jefffey in connecticut. caller: i was wondering for mr. salazar, isn't this considered for jury what he did -- is and is considered forgery? guest: i don't think it is3 appropriate. if you handed a teaching assistant eighth report you had written and the teaching assistant was supposed to turn it into a professor and if he did not, you would be angry. i would like to see the committee: secretary salazar and say, how is it -- assembled a panel of 15 scientists. they wrote a report. somehow you change the report

before you release it to the public. you change the report before you gave it to the president. i think it is part of what caused this judge to reach that conclusion. it is unusual for a group of scientists to say, if you change the report. you imply we agreed with what we handed to the president. i think the caller raises a good question. there is no hearing scheduled to ask secretary salazar why he changed the report. overnight, secretary salazar has announced he will impose a new moratorium based on new evidence. really? let's see. he had scientists come in and give him the scientific basis for the current moratorium. then he changed the report. did he call those scientists back? what is the basis for the new

moratorium? are we really playing politics here? i think the point made earlier, let's look at the specific things that need to be done. it will take time to do that before we can safely put wells back into place. host: the judge wrote that the administration failed to justify the need for such day "blanket, moratorium on gas drilling." given what you said about the type of war-torn he put together and how it has been put together, should he resign? guest: it would be premature to jump to that conclusion. everything is being done premature.

that is, as soon as the incident occurred and the deepwater horizon blue up and sank -- blew up and sank, they did an inspection right off thh bat. very few violations were found. those that were found were minor. it looks like things are fairly safe with regards to the implication of the current r igs. in this instance, it is pretty clear that bp was cutting corners. did not go.hoe some see this as a red flag. cement job. maybe we need a regulation that says when the cement shoe does

not go in place, you have to redo it beforeeyou proceed. i do not think it was appropriate for secretary salazar to change the report. the scientiits who wrote it said apelike moratorium is not the answer. it will not measurably reduced risks, which may be a risk that may be greater than that of the oil spill. he may have to explain why he changed the report. but what we know right now, i do not think he should resign. we need to stop the spill. for all americans, we need to get this industry back up and running the second that can be done safely. doing things correctly, i do not see the point of punishing

everyone. it is not seem to be an aapropriate step that a rational government should be doing right now. host: new jersey, john. thank you for waitingg caller: i would like to thank c- span for this in-depth reporting. it is very helpful for the public. i sit and listen to the congressman talking to the gentleman in charge of bp, and a question asked about what they were doing or the tar there were picking up with the sand and putting in plastic bags and he said it was being put in a ttash i almost, out of my chair. why putting this toxic product into a dump?

guest: i have not question the president of bp. if that is an accurate answer, it does not make sense. it is my belief that all of the oil been recovered is either being burned to get rid of it as quickly as we can, or is being collected so it can be refined and recovered. that is what i would assume would happen with those tar -pballs. host: michael, good morning. caller: good morning. they say they have tried everything and proceeding with it.

there are a lot of spills and sponges. they have different types of equipment in, and if they could take some of things to in therew it down in order to stop it, that would probably help. host: john shadegg? guest: there are thousands of suggestions. this is one i had not heard. one suggestion is to pack steel wool into the opening. one would have to hope that they are doing everything humanly possible to stop the flow of oil. guest: are you keeping tabs on what they are doing everyday? guest: most of what goes on in this kind of instance those very public.

everybody kind of knows the various steps they're taking. they do have a 24-hour hot line that has been there since day one where anybody, including this caller, can make a suggestion and say here is how i think you should stop the flow or stop the oil that is headed toward the shore. host: mike in ohio, good morning. caller: good morning. i do not want to sound cynical, but i feel president obama is not trying to stop oil from coming onto the shore. can create -- i really feel that way and i hate to say that as an american citizen. goodbye. host: i think the caller represents the frustration of lots of americans. for example, turning down foreign investmentssthat were willing to come here and do scamming, relying on technicalities in the current law, not coming into congress and saying we should suspend the jones act if it was in fact

keeping those vessels from coming here. the pressdent devoted a good half of his speech to policy changes about energy rather than fixing this problem. i think you get that kind of reaction, and i think there are americans who are genuinely concerned. host: there have been politics for this issue. representative joe barton was in the media last week for comments in his opening statement ttat he made. what do you think of representative arton's decision to do that, and should he stay onnas the leading republican in the energy and commerce committee? guest: i think it was in appropriate -- i thought was inappropriate for joe barton to apologize to the ceo of bp. at this well, not just in this incident there are -- not just

there are reports that you will find 700 violations by bp at the same point in time when the other five or four mmjor oil companies have their hands full -- 6, 8, 12 violations. i think the key is getting the criticism it deserves, and i think to the extent -- i think bp is getting the criticism it deserves, and it is bp debt is clearly bad actor here. we may find out to a greater extent than we currently believe, baby to a slightly lesser extent, but i think it is clear that bp was cutting corners on this well, in this capping process. as i mentioned in "the wall street journal" article, this appears not to be a systemic problem in the industry. this appears to be a bad actor. that is another part of the issue of the moratorium, and one of the issues by the judge. when you have an incident like this, you need to look at if it is systemicc i do not want to make a

dangerous analogy, but when an airplane goes down, you look at aircraft and try to find was a mechanical problem or human error. if yoo do not know the answer, you might say we are going to suspend flights by that aircraft, that particular design of aircraft, to find out if there is a design defect in the aircraft, in the engine or the air frame. you do not take out of the air every single airplane of every single design unless you find something that this system-wide. one of the problems with the moratorium is that there is not evidence yet of a systemic problem, throughout the entire industry. there is clear evidence that bp was cutting corners, and in this well was engaged in risky conduct that we now know, from talking to the spouses of some of the people killed, some of the other workers, that some of the workers said, "i knew this was a bad well, they were cutting corners." 1 got some publicity by saying

that he rewrote his will and told his wife that he would get killed, and in point of fact, he was. >> what about mr. barton staying on as the leader of the -- the leading republican of the energy and commerce committee? if republicans win back control of the house in 2010, joe barton would be the chairman of that committee. guest: that is a decision for minority leader bay near, and the committee that makes those decisions. i'm not on that -- minority leader john boehner. the committee makes those decisions. that is not the view of the vast majority of republicans. he needs to recognize that when he speaks, he speaks for a lot of us. his remarks have done immense damage of changing the focus from what it ought to be, which is how do we fix this problem and who is at fault. clearly, in my opinion, bp was at fault.

host: independent line, michigan, chad, good morning. it is interesting hearing representative shadegg simultaneously protect the zero industry, saying that -- and simultaneously attacking president obama or democrats in general. it's interesting listening to him suggest, using terms like "domestic reception." i was watching him dance around that issue. anyone who understands how the industry works, the oil is fungible. the idea that there is somehow domestic oil is a complete canard invented by conservatives. guest: i do not think i have attacked democrats. there is in fact oil that is produced domestically in the united states, but i said in an

earlier answer that there is a world market for that oil and is sold everywhere. i would be interested if the caller can show that this oil was going to be sold around the world. we do import 60% of our oil. as for defending the oil industry, what i'm interested in defending is the american consumer. every other american needs a supply of energy. we cannot get all the energy we need from green sources at this point in time, even though that might be the ideal. we are trapped in a world that requires oil to fuel our vehicles and to move commerce in this country, if we take negligent or irresponsible steps in dealing with a crisis like this comet impacts every host: the ap reports that general mcchrystal is at the pentagon this morning meeting with folks over there and explaining his comments to

"rolling stone" magazine. general mcchrystal will meet with president obama before the president meets with his national security team on afghanistan and pakistan. mr. shadegg, if you could weigh in with your thoughts on what president obama should do here on general mcchrystal? guest: that depends on the conversation they have. p believe that winning the wwr and standing behind the troopp in the field is the single most important thing to do. it is pretty clear that general mcchrystal regrets the interview, that it was a brief interview and he apologized immediately for its. the president is the commander in chief -- apologized immediately for it. i think what all americans want is to see us get our work done and get our troops home as quickly as we can.

host: the president's meeting with his national security team will take place around 11:30 eastern time. your next with mr. shadegg, linda. caller: number one, i would like to answer -- i would like for him to answer the question -- what did president bush and dick cheney have to do with it? also, what i would like to say, until they -- if it was a regular citizen doing that, we would be in jail. i cannot even steal a bag of chips and get away with it, but yet they are doing this and getting away with it. guest: i think it is well known that president bush had invested in the oil industry and perhaps headed a drilling company at some point in time. i think that vice president

cheney was, i believe, the head of halliburron for a time, or at least a high-ranking official there. i cannot really answer the question beyond that. i would agree with the caller that to the extent that we find out that there were willfully -- that they were willfully nngligent, or if their work criminally negligent decisions made that resulted in the death of the oil well workers, i think they should be punished to the full extent of the law. i hope she really did not mean that she steals bags of chips, but the law should be the law for every single american, every oil company executive ought to be in that line. host: what do you do about the the lack of regulation that some say has led to this situation, and the mms not doing their jobs and getting certain perks from

the oil industry over several administrations, including republican administrations? guest: i think it's a very serious concern, and americans have the right to expect that the government will do its job and do it well. the mms has failed to do its job under both republican and democrat administrrtions. i think there ouuht to be a housecleaning, a whole new set of standards imposed on those bureaucrats. people do not think about this, but congress really has two jobs. one is to passslegislation. if, for example, it passes laws that require that there be a safety standards set for the oil industry, or the airline industry or any other industry. but a second job of the congress is oversight to ensure that the administration, the executive branch, is fairly and accurately and fully enforcing

those laws and those regulations. in this case you can look and see -- i do not know that the congress has been doing its job. in oversight of mms to make sure that it was doing its job as the fair arbiter. the american people deserve that from their government. host: the financial times reports this morning that president obama will be meeting later today with a bipartisan group of senators working on energy and climate legislation. in the meeting will be reset rakowski, republican of alaska, richard lugar, lindsey graham, and joe lieberman. republican line, go ahead. caller: i had a question. $2 billion was given to a brazilian oil company down there. i believe george soros had $900

million invested in it. if the oil wells are shut down and they move somewhere else, who take their place? guest: i think the caller has a great question. one of the concerns about an overly broad moratorium is thht these rigs, which are multimillion dollar rigs, will be moved to other parts of the world, perhaps including south america, brazil, maybe off of africa. and they will never come back. when they leave, we lose the jobs that are now held by americans that work on the rigs. we lose the jobs of all the people that work on the supply chips -- the supply ships and all of the steel manufacturing and everything associated with that industry. your point about mr. soros an

illustrates the point that we have a lot at stake. we have american jobs, the american economy at stake, and if we act irrationally, if we enact an overly broad moratorium, not based on things like the weather -- not based on things like whether or not a given oil well is safe, there are long-term consequences for jobs and america and the economy as a whole. host: representative john shadegg, thank you for being here. when we come back, we'll talk with ed schultz, msnbc anchor and the author of this book called "killer politics." we will be back to talk to him, but first, a news update from c- span radio. , coming upon 9:15 here in pashington, d.c. stanley mcchrystal is in washington from afghanistan to see his boss in person shortly. first in the oval office and

then in the president's regular monthly war meeting in which the general usually participate by videoconference. two military officials tell the mcchrystal is prepared o submit his resignation. the louisiana judge yesterday struck down the obama administration's 6 month ban on deep water oil drilling in the gulf of mexico has reported extensive investments in the oil and gas industry, including stocks in transocean ltd., which owned the deepwater horizon drilling rig. he is in 19th and 93 -- he is a 1993 appointment of ronald reagan. the 20% is far below the more than 90% required to build a nuclear weapons. but u.s. officials are concerned that iran could be moving closer to the ability to reach weapons-

grade level. toyota motor corp. and honda motor corp. said today they have stopped production of some of their car assembly plants in southern china after a parts supplierrwas hit by more labor unrest. the walkouts of the japanese carmakers are slowing output and adding costs when both companies have been ramping up production to meet strong demand. finally, a deal that would resolve lawsuits, filed by nearry 10,000 police officers, firefighters and construction workers over their exposure to toxic ash following the 9/11 attacks. they will go before a federal judge in manhattan today. the juuge has indicated he is in favor of the deal but that he would give opponents a chance o speak. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> this weekend on c-span2's book tv, alex heard recalls the

1995 trial of willie mcgee. another author writes about -- rights in "captive." sarah lesson with an inside account of rupert murdoch's purchase of "the wall street journal." join us on twitter. more than 30,000 viewers already have. >> learn more about general stanley mcchrystal. watch his 20 c-span appearances at two public hearings, defense department briefings, and other events with the c-span video library, free on your computer any time. "washington journal" continues. host: joining us this morning is ed schultz, author of "killer politics." thank you for being here. guest: good morning.

good to be with you. host: let's have you way yen on general mcchrystal, who is expected to have a one-on-one with president obama before the president meets with his national security team on afghanistan and pakistan. what do you think should happen? guest: i think the president has to take politics out of this, and i think he will. general mcchrystal has put the president of the united states in an untenable position. you cannot have the lack of discipline and loyalty, and you cannot have these kinds of things that were said openly to the media and maintain the trust that level of performance that our military needs. this is not just a one--ime issue with general mcchrystal. he has somewhat of a paatern of being a loose cannon, so i think he has backed the president into a corner. there are probably lots of other generals that could step right

up and would not create the administration or the country, this kind of unfocused problem. the president needs to move on. he needs to thank general mcchrystal for his service in this position, but it is time to take a new direction and i think the president needs to fire this general and move on. host: also in the news this morning, on the backside of the front page of "the wall street journal" is a piece about remarks made yesterday by the majority leader in the house, steny hoyer, saying we need to look at raising taxes on the middle class if we are going to address the deficit issue. what do you think about that? you say you represent the middle-class. this is something you bring up in your new book. what do you think about democrats raising taxes on the middle class? guest: i think it is wrongheaded. i think it is the wrong direction to go. one of the problems we have in this country is we do not have

the middle class being able to utilize and be able to keep disposable income to keep our economy going. in the book i document clearly where the bottom 20% has been of income earners for the last 30 years in this country. how the middle class has been really suffering, and how their disppsable income is nowhere near what it used to be, and how their expenses continue to go up. and how the top 2% has flourished. it is all about big money, not about right or left or republican or democrat. the pressure on the middle class is really stagnating this economy. until we start focusing%on the income earners who have been hit the hardest, i really do not see this economy turning aaound. i have -- i think we have hit a new normal. i think 8% unemployment and uppers could be around for a long time unless we change our

direction and focus on how we are going to move the economy forward when it comes to creating jobs. i would like to respond to the last segment you had with the congressman. this is a classic washington response. his party, the republican party, has repeatedly over the last 10 years set the table for the outsourcing of jobs, set the table for corporate profits, set the table to go against the working folks of america and the middle class. but when a moratorium is placed on a big oil company and big oil runs the congress, alllof a sudden he is worried about those big oil rigs being moved to other parts of the world. i do not think that the mainstream media in this country speaks enough directly to the heart of the issue. who in the congress really cares about the middle class? i think they are all guilty.

conservatives and liberals -- there is not a strong enough focus on what built this country, where the priorities are. big oil givee to the congressional members. the middle class does not. so i think it is pretty classic that congressman shadegg is so worried about 100,000 oil jobs being gone when we have lost every sector of our economy. and we stand here idle and do nothing about it except talk about giving more tax cuts to the rich and enjoying the+ trickle-down that they think is going to work. not going to happen. host: i was going to ask you about the trade deal, one law thaa you point to, but that is something that president bill clinton was in support of. guest: he was, and he made a mistake on that. he also made a mistake on the

telecommunications bill. it is where the money is. wherever the money is, you can follow the decision making pattern. i am a true staunch liberal. i am a progressive. i believe it has got to be about the people. i believe that the people's vote has to count, that the people's priority has to take precedent in washington and not the big money. this is where seriously, in my opinion, we are harnessing the country to the true great as we can achieve. host: we will go to sunny politicians, florida. barry, go ahead. caller: i am a longtime democrat and iberal. i agree with everything you said, but what i do not understand is why the middle class and the lower middle class vote reeublican. i can understand that the rich and the millionaires vote republican because that is their interest and they do not care

about anyone else. but why does the middle class and the lower middle class, the people that work onprofit vote republican? i do not get it. guest: well, i think you're seeing some changes take place. in 2006 there were four senate seats won by the working people of america. that was before president obama came on the national political scene. i think this progressive movement is continuing. then of course the majority won in 2008 in the house and the senate and the presidency. but now we are at a crossroads because progress is that liberals are looking themselves in the mirror and asking themselves the question, who do i trust now? because the agenda is starting to fade away from what the progressive thought that they were voting for. now we have steny hoyer

suggesting -- maybe he is just3 should have a tax on the middle class. let me answer that -- absolutely not. i just finished a series of seven town hall meetings across this country, and thereewere a lot of americans who are spitting mad across the country about this economy. they do not care about%+ republican or democrat, they care about what is in it for the countryy your answer as to why they vote republican, i think it is culturally changing. i think that we have been ssmewhat smushed by the media in this country, which is far more conservative. the new media in this country, talk radio, which reaches 20 million people a day, has had a major interest -- a major influence on how people think. this push button society of giving it to me quick, making it easy to understand, do not bore me with details and get to the

next subject. we have to be more diligent when it comes to consuming the facts and understanding how this is all playing into it. i think you're right that there are some cultural issues out there and they do not even know why they are going to a particular candidate. they just feel comfortable because that is how they are told this is the way it is. it has all come home to roost. we are seeing our infrastructure in this country crumble, crumble at a local level when it comes to law enforcement, when it comes to public services, when it comes to retirement funds, when it comes to education. the four tellers are under attack, and i write about that under the book. host: we are talking with ed schultz, the author of "killer

politics." first i want to give an update about the meeting between president obbma and general mcchrystal. he will meet with him at 11:45, and we will perhaps have some news coming out of that in minutes here. you are next with ed schultz. go ahead. guest: i am not a very good speaker, -- caller::i do listen to msnbc every now and then. i grew up in a middle-class family. everybody worked for the unions, so i grew up a democrat. as time went on and i have seen more and more what the democratic and liberal community in this country -- the republicans are not perfect, but i will tell you, i have seen the democratic party going further and further left, and it kind of

turned me off. especially with this president here, pushing his socialist agenda -- host: let's get a response. mr. shultz? guest: this is a classic color. a socialist agenda to do what? the president has been accused of a socialist agenda when it comes to health care? what about the agenda of the corporations, while we have seen people in this country who are losing their insurance because they got sick? there were no protection whatsoever. what about all the bankruptcies that we have had in this country, personal bankruptcies, because people got sick? sir, i ask you, can you control your health? what is your plan for your family if you lose all of your personal belongings because one of your family members got sick? the country has made determination. we have elected a president who said he was going to address this. this is a major victory for the

american people, that no longer is a pre-existing condition going to keep people from getting insurance. no longer can insurance companies make a determination that because you got sick you cost too much money so we are going to have to drop you. these are two major changes. if you're under 26, you can stay on your parents' policy. this is a start. if you want to call that a socialist agenda, go right ahead, but he fact is you can still choose your doctor, your insurance company. you can still choose whatever kind of medical procedure you want to do, but the runaway corporations and the way they have gained the covers both left and right, has taken us to the point where the people have fought back. and something good to place in the last 18 months in this country, changgng something for your democratic family or the families -- if your father gets sick, and i know you do not want that to happen, the insurance company cannot drop him anymore.

they used to be able to do that. host: one of our viewers says, "how are the poor or middle class helped if things cost more?" referring to your comment about jobs being shipped overseas. guest: there is no guarantee that things will cost more. we have given tax breaks to corporations that have given them incentives to ship those jobs overseas. now, we are at a crossroads in this country. we have to make a determination whether we believe that having 10% unemployment for a long period of time is the direction that we want to go. do we understand that the social pressure -- do we understand the social pressure that that is going to put on the country, the economic pressure that it is going to put on the country? i do not think that is where americans want to go.

we are going to see a real surge of buy american, a loyalty to american products because i think the middle class folks in this country have seen exactly what has happened, this attack on labor that has taken place, that all of a sudden it is ok to reduce wages or attack people's pensions. we are all sea -- we are also seeing age discrimination because there is a race to the bottom line. it's not good to pay anybody. we have to have somewhat of a push for economic patriotism and reinvestment in people. we have to understand that people make the difference. if we do not value that at every level, we are not going to be the country that we can be. we are not going to be the country that we were at one time. we still can achieve greatness, but we have got to get the big money out of politics. we have got to get what is destroying the middle class in this country and reinvigorate this country with breaks to the

middle-class. and a real focus on job creation. i think the president is trying to do that, but the way the congress is right now -- all the bickering that is going on, and there is really no bipartisanship to speak of that+ addresses any of this -- i think we are in for a really long struggle here. -phost: naomi on the republican line from jacksonville, florida, go ahead. caller: good morning. i wanted to talk a moment please. this is a whole lot of talking that this man is doing. sometimes i listen to him and sometimes i cannot. my husband and i argue about msnbc. i listen to it because i see how it's talk. that is what i feel. -- because i see how idiots talk.

that is what i feel. i am a woman of color, and people -- how did mr. ed get where he got? this is how people work and what corporations do. corporations hire people. why are you so down on corporations and people who hire other people? and we get up there by working hard. corporations get tax incentives to hire people and get people to start their own businesses. host: mr. shultz, the "wall street journal" has a headline that echoes the collar's sentiment, that "business group s say that the obama administration is hostile o jobs." shareholler rights to nominate directors, expanded damages for pay discrimination, epa

regulation of greenhouse gases come and restrictions on oil. guest: those are all pro-+ corporate and anti-worker. this president and this administration has done more for small business than any president in the last 30 years. there are more tax incentives on the table, more incentives for small businesses could to go out and do things. we never saw this under any other president. but the money is tight, and until we loosen up the lending practices in this country, we are not going to have it until smalllbusinesses have access to capital. the president is doing everything he possibly can. in fact, the republicans are not even matching him on any of this stuff. they think it is all about the corporations and the top 2%. in the book, i documents -- and i want this lady to read this book and come back and tell me i'm wrong -- the number of foreign countries operating in

this country that do not pay taxes -- does she think that is a good thing? is it a good thing for corporations not to pay their fair share? i am not here to say that all corporations are bad. they do hire people, but they have also ship the lot of jobs overseas because we have set the table for them to do that with tax incentives that have come back to hurt the great american middle class that built this country. so when does the little guy get a break? i am a small businessman. i have my own broadcast company and i have a construction company. i can tell you about all the things that you have to put together to make a construction company work. we have gone from eight employees to 20 employees over the last year because of the stimulus package. we put some people back to work. there is some growth. there are incentives on the table for my employees. i do not have to do this. i could just go fishing at the

lake. but we have got to have some type of leadership at every level of the economy, and those who have lived the good life and those who have had the fortune of making a few dollars, to put it back into the kids, to put it back into the use of the country, to care about the infrastructure again. i do not see corporations doing that. i see them caring about the foreign countries and getting cheap labor. do you know what cheap labor is going to do? it is going to take this country down, and the disposal income -- the disposable income is starting to rot away for americans. i would like the lady to read the book because i think she would have a different opinion. host: georgia, mike, democratic line. caller: i really have a high respect for yyu. i watch your show every chance i get. the real unemployment is at 18.9%. that is why -- i know on your show you have had -- i am in my

50's b. when you get in your 40's and 50's, you will not even get a call back on a resume or application. it is 18.9%. until they bring the good jobs back and in these wars for no reason, i do not think anything is going to change. guest: i have to agree with you. we have not figured out how we are going to pay for the conflict in iraq and afghanistan. we have to figure out -- you know, we are having a hard time paying for our own infrastructure. afghanistan is the place where empires go to die. i write about this in the book. you have to go back to 1221, the last time anybody went into afghanistan and got anything done that materialized anything.

unless we have during this, and on the payroll of the united states, unless we have -- unless we have ghengis khan on the payroll, i do not think we are going to accomplish anything. we just write the check for another $33 billion to go off to afghanistan to do whatever the heck we want to do, and we have a general over their bad mouthing the president and the process. it is almost comical how it has gone over the heads of the american people on the conservative side. and i will be partisan about this, about how they think we are safer, how they think this is not having an effect on our local economies and our local infrastructure. it is. unless we address this -- you

know, since we went into iraq, no one has asked me to sscriffce anything. my taxes have not gone up. no one has come to me and said, "ed, we have to get a little more out of you to help pay for this." we have not even ask the 2% for sacrifice. -- the top 2% for sacrifice. we can just take our thumb and we can put it right on the working folk of america. now you're trying to get blood out of a rock. so what is our next move? our next move is, as i write in the book, do not give up. your vote means absolutely everything. it is up to us as a people to hold politicians accountable and follow the money and continue to work hard, just like we have made some progress when it comes to small business incentives. just like we have made some progress for equal pay for

women. just like we have made some progress with the chips bill, with the health care bill that has passed. there is a lot of good things that have happened that have never happened in the last eight years. sooif you want to measure success of the progressive movement and how we are addressing the big money in politics, i think we have had a pretty good run here in the last 18 months. despite all the is obstructionism that is taking place in washington, how the republicans have decided to check out on every leeel and every issue and played the blame game. i think that we are frustrated moved ast enough far enough. we are a little impatient, but i point to the fact that there have been some good things that have taken place. this idea that washington cannot do anything -- washington will do what we want them to do if we stay engaged, and our vote can

overcome the big money, the dirty money in politics. i think the blessing in disguise and all this with what has happened noo in the gulf has been a real awakening to a lot of americans about how we are addicted to oil, and secondly, how big oilcan own -- how big oil can own any politician. host: we have about 20 minutes left with you. augusta, georgia, frank on the republican line. caller: good morning mr. how muchand ma'am more should government takeover, -pin your opinion? guest: first of all, let's talk about the car loans and the car business. that was not a takeover, that was not a bailout. that was a loan. the reason why the president and

the administration and the democrats and the congress decided to loan the car business money is because they did not want to see hundreds of thousands of jobs and the ripple effect go through the economy.. affected every sector of our ecooomy, and that was an attempt to take tax payer dollars and save an industry and save the car industry. if we had not done that, your local car dealership probably would have gone out of business. if we had not done that, it would have hit the plastics industry, the electronics industry. there would have been a ripple effect throughout the manufacturing sector that we would not have been able to maintain. now, in fairness, let's be fair about this. this was not a bailout. this was not a gift. this was a loan. these car manufacturers are being held accountable, that they have to pay this money back. i am of the philosophy there are

times when we have to do something for the american worker. you take a sports team that says i'm going to leave the market until you build me a status. what do people do? they build them a stadium. but that is ok because that is the economy. what about our jobs? the obama administration saved hundreds of thousands of jobs, and when the economy turns around and we have a buy american focus -- your scene truck and car sales started to go up by gm and ford and chrysler. you are going to see these jobs continue to be maintained. host: i just want to let our viewers know that general mcchrystal has arrived at the white house just moments ago. bloomfield, new jersey. clark, independent line. you are next.

caller: i think you're doing an excellent job in moderating. i do not see why so many people call in. they are really off the wall. you do a great job and you always do. mr. shultz, i watch your program. i can take about five minutes before i just cannot handle it anymore. i have to change the channel. you use words, you twist words and deceive people. i can give you an example. nafta -- you say the republicans killed that. well, nafta was actually -- al gore took full credit for that, sending jobs overseas. host: we will leave it there and getta response. guest: in my earlier answer, i said that was one thing that the clinton administration did that

was the wrong thing to do. apparently the gentleman did not hhar that answer. host: next call, democratic line. caller: there is a fundamental issue thatti think a very large part of the american people do not understand. our country is run on a capitalist system, which means the government, the corporations, it is just basic economics. there is a lack of education. people do noo understand that money is king in it is, it will be, until we change some of our laws, some of the way that the government interacts with the company's. president obama is a very intelligent person who understands the bigger picture, and unfortunately we have many people in this country who only can see past next week and that is about it.

host: given what the viewer just said, can i ask you, what is the first law you would change to address her concerns about money and corporations and politics? guest: universal health care. i fought hard for universal health care. i believe that affects every american. i believe that woold change our economy and would have a ripple effect throughout our country that would be the best thing we could ever do. other industrialized nations have it. we do not. we have a for-profit system. for-prrfit, as the lady said, that money rules everything. it is not about the people but the money, and i think we have a distorted priorities when it comes to health care in this country. we do not have the best health- care system in the world, and we do not have the best outcomes, although the republicans will tell you that we do. the fact is thattuniversal health care -- if you're asking

me, the first thing i would do, it is that, universal health care. it would help small business, corporations. it reduce the cost and make us a healthier country. host: on taxes, mr. schulze, this viewer emails in and says, why don't you go with the republican idea and go with a flat rate if you are so upset. the answer is flat tax ensuring government." guest: well, the flat tax would even depress the lower income people in this country even more so than they are right ow. i do not believe the flat tax is the way to go. i believe we have to simplify our tax system, and i do believe that because of the financial straits that we are in right now, we have got to get more out

of the top 1%, and we also have to get more out of corporations to pay their fair share. there are way too many loopholes. host: some liberal economists have called for a value-added tax. guest: i am not familiar with how detailed they want to get on that. i do believe we have to simplify our tax system. we have too many laws. i do not believe in a flat tax, and a value-added tax -- i think everything should be on the table, but i am not totally familiar with where they want to host: arkansas, diana, on the republican line. caller: hi, ed. we people out here are not stupid, and please do not cut me off too quickly, greta.

we remember the car dealerships that were put out of business when the -- how would you like for somebody, for the government to say there are oo many talk shows on the air, you have to go, you have to go? that is exactly what they did with the car dealerships. they told the onns who they thought were not making the profits to go out of business. host: mr. shultz? guest: quite honestly, if they had not done that, all of them stood the chance of going out of business. if we had not loan the car industry the money that we did, it would have been horrible. we would have lost even more than what we did. there is going to be some pain, there is no question about that. there will be a lot more pain

coming before we turn this whole thing around. but i think that we get caught up in wordsmithing. number one, it was not aa bailout. it did save jobs, and there was some hardship, no question about it. host: next phone call comes from manhattan on the independent line. caller: i am an independent. my whole life who works hard tor make $50,000. here is why i call obama a socialist. when you say it was not a takeover of the car companies -- no, indeed. but during that loan period, the administration was in a position to pass a law giving customers, everyone who bought a car, $8,000, from me, who pays taxes.

now my taxes are going to subsidize other people pause health insurance. finally, when he talks about a flat tax or a value-added tax, the lowest 40% of wage earners pay no income tax at all. guest: that is not true, but whenever. you have some of your facts twisted there, sir. the fact is, we would have seen mmre jobs lost had we not stepped in and done this loan to the auto industry. that is a fact. now, if you want to see more unemployment checks go out the window and grab more of yourr unemployment, your insurance money to go to that, that is fine. but jobs are a good thing, and creating jobs and saving jobs are a good thing. shipping them overseas is not a

good thing. i am glad that your job has not been outsourced overseas because you are exactly in the target -- the $50,000 a year guy whose job is going overseas. so we have to be recommitted to what we are going to do to rebuild this country and rebuild our infrastructure. i just finished a town hall door, and i was in chicago, madison, minneapolis, seattle, portland, denver, and i have more planned as well. everywhere i went, i ran into people in their 50's who cannot get back into the economy because we are looking at age discrimination right now that needs to be addressed. we do not value people anymore. we makk a determination that we may have to pay them a little bit more and we are looking for cheaper labor all the time. what this is doing is pushing down the standard of living in this country because we have got

trade agreements that obviously are putting pressure on the american worker and the middle class. until we address that and the bigger picture, we are going to continue to see that. until we set the table for taxes, we are going to see more of this take place. we have corporations -- and, sir, you must not be in ffvor of this -- corporations with offshore mailboxes not paying their fair share, doing business in this country. why will the republicans address that? why won't the congress address that -- why won't the republicans address that? why will the congress address that? host: i wanted to get your reaction about joe barton keeping his seniority on the energy committee. guest: it does not surprise me. the republicans are not going to

take on big oil. this is now a benchmark issue for americans coming into the+ midterms. if the democrats lose the majority, this man will be in charge of the house energy committee, in a far more powerful position than he is right now. this is a guy who stood up and apologized to british petroleum after they circumvented the permitting process, infiltrated the government, did a shakedown on people themselves when it came to cash. the stores are and less as to how they have operated, -- the stories are and less as to how they have operated. now this guy is going to be possibly a chairman of the committee that did not deal directly with this? i find it amazing that republican leadership does not have the character and the insight to care about the middle-class to make a change

here. they are horrible in the image business. jay on the go to democratic line in west chester, pennsylvania. caller: i have one comment and one question. first off, thanks to c-span for giving americans a voice. there are so many different factors when it comes to this decline of our country, and i put that in quotes. one is a taboo subject that not many people touch on, and that its unions in the country. the prices that they add, $30 an hour for a man to push a broom and that is the only job he will then there are so many others, so many other runs to that ladder. guest: 'm shaking my head because this is all part of the

culture in this country right now, let's attack every working person that we can. and if they have the right to organize, we will take that away from them. workers' rights are what built this country, and to have fair bargaining power in the workplace without retaliation or retribution is an american thing. to negotiate fairly and honestly collective bargaining is one of country great. to say that someone is making too much money is really wrong. and to be concerned about how much someone else is making i think is wrongheaded. we should be championing the talent of the union worker, the safety in the workplace, the human rights that takes place that we have that other countries do not have. this is about who we are as a country. do we not value the people that we educate? do we not value the people that do the work that live in our communities? this is so wrong.

greta, if i may just a moment, i think this plays into this is page 60 of the book, and it deals with workers and it deals with education. there was a conservative broadcaster yesterday on his radio show who said we need to abolish -- abolished -- public education in this country. let me put it up against this number. according to a 2006 u.s. census statistics, college graduates make $20,000 more a year than high-school graduates. those with advanced degrees make an average of $80,000 a year with high school dropouts making less than $20,000. if we have the conservative line of thinking out there that we are going to vilify public education, and educated country+ fares much better economically and socially. but we have a prevailing thooght out there by conservative talkers that public education

has totally failed and it needs to be -- the word was "abolished." this country is under attack by ideologues who believe the money should run our government. it is killer politics. that is what it is, and unless we address these fundamental issues that made this country great and reinvest in the institutions that are the strong foundation of this country, we are not going to be the america that we were. we are at a crossroads. we have a priority list that we have to pay attention to. either we value the american worker, or we do not. either we value the systems that made us great -- you know what the great thing is about public education? when the door is open, everybody is welcome. everybody has an opportunity. if you have a disability, if your child is gifted, if you are a minority, it does not matter. public education, the door is open, everybody is welcome.

that is the most american thing that is out there. and glenn beck says we should abolish american education. amazing. host: we want to try to get in one last call or maybe a couple and then have you respond. on the republican line in cincinnati. caller: yes, i do a radio show here. the auto industry was not just loans, they purchased stock in general motors. you also come across as being anti-capitalist. i find it ironic that you have no problem with a person making $30,000, but when a company is profitable, you attack the higher rates. guest: corporate profits have gouged the american consumer. ceo profits have gone through ceo profits have gone through the