militant group involvement in the recent bombing in you done that. following that, we will talk about the epa action over the last year to limit carbon pollution. "washington journal" is next.. .

; if you have called in the last 30 days, send us a message by a e-mail or by twitter. the item -- how can a on a

rebound? they have a very is gathering of political experts. the first says legislation cannot save you. and this is by the editor and author of "come back --" he writes that the success that voters want is tallied not by laws passed, but by wars one and prosperity enhanced. on the other side, this by the campaign manager for alcor in 2007, poetry and policy is her headline. she writes that to win in 2012 president obama and democrats must use the 2010 midterms to remind voters what they chose them in the first place.

we will continue to look at the various brands of attack from political experts on various sides of the economic spectrum. let's go to the phones, the first phone call from dartmouth, mass. on the line for independents. what is on your mind, michael? how can the president rebound, if at all? caller: i think he can rebound by getting unemployment benefits out to was. it is going on one month now. we still have not gotten a

check, and i know that my senator scott brown is holding it up. but hopefully, he will do something. the american public -- they went on vacation. we need our money. pretty soon we will be down there at the welfare offices. host: are you unemployed now? caller: one year and a half. host: the hold up regarding the extension of benefits seems to be in the senate. so, how would this tie into president obama? caller: it is the republicans who are holding it up, but it all comes down to the president. i think if they get this passed, his numbers would improve. host: this is steven from vancouver, washington, on the

line for democrats. your thoughts about president obama and whether or not he can rebound, and how? caller: i think he can. i think he needs to stop tried to please the republicans. he has done too much of that. he needs to start looking at what his own party wants him to do. host: what do you mean by he has done too much? caller: he was originally trying to bring republicans into all the changes. basically, they just put up a stone wall and said no. they became the party of no, as they say. he was still trying to please them. he went and had a meeting with them. sit down with them, and tried to find some common ground with them.

that is kind of his personality. it seems like he has always been that way. host: more from the sunday op-ed piece -- how can obama rebound? this is from stanley greenberg who writes under the headline "the gop's this will future" -- he writes that more than half of those adults it terrifying -- identified as republicans are members of the tea party. next up, new york, on our line for republicans.

caller: i don't think obama will over rebound until he turns to eric holder and asks him why the black panther case was thrown out of court? [unintelligible] you only have your voting rights, and when that is taken away as in philadelphia -- and apparently, obama is looking the other way. eric holder dismissed the case. that is ridiculous. host: when you go to the polls in 2010 and 2012, will this be the major issue for you? caller: it is high up on my list. host: good morning, wayne. caller: i have been getting -- i

don't think this obama guy will ever rebound because once the american people find out the sky was not even born in this country, he is violating our constitution, he will never rebound. all over the internet they're putting the birth certificate from kenya, africa. the news media is not covering it. i wondered why? the guy is not a naturalized citizen of this country. he is violating our constitution. host: what you put more validity in this or certificate you see from kenya, africa, then the reports from newspapers and a birth certificate that comes from hawaii? caller: because of that birth certificate from hawaii is a copy, not the original.

he needs to be impeached right away for violating the articles of our constitution because he is unqualified to be president. he is an impostor. he is ineligible to be the commander-in-chief of our military. he was not even born in this country. host: have you seen a newspaper notification that appeared in honolulu, hawaii the day that the president was born? that does not convince you either? caller: you are jumping back for months or even a year. the guy is a joke. it is out there. host: let's move on to west africa, on the line for independents. caller: good morning. host: what are your thoughts about whether or not the president can rebound? caller: i think president obama is the hope for the entire world, and i believe americans

should give him a chance to put america back on its feet. host: and how were you listening to us? through voice of america? caller: yes, right. host: when you speak your friends there in west africa, what is the thing that most want to see accomplished by this president? caller: i believe people want president obama to give americans jobs, and also of hope for the future. most americans used to have access to savings and loans, and it looks like with the banking crisis they have lost that opportunity. people really want president obama to give americans a chance to have access to jobs, loans. to just enjoy the american dream. because some of us here in

africa and not only feel proud of that, but also want to enjoy that. i did my studies at baylor university in texas, and really enjoyed the time spent in america. and what host: do you do there in west africa? caller: i lecture at the north american university here. host: more from the op-ed piece from "the new york times" -- this is written by the president of north woods advertising which did commercials for the former gov. jesse ventura, and paul from minnesota. he writes that the independents are not prompted by a party fealty to vote for a particular candidate.

back to the funds, mount prospect, ill., baba on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. most importantly, i want to thank the white community for helping to put barack in office. i have not heard anyone doing that. this man has gone through all kinds of aggravation and his presidency. i really do think of the republicans can convince independents and democrats against this wonderful president, whom it is a

beautiful connection to have to love the president, his wife, kids, and the country -- i can understand what the white community has been living for the last 200 years. if they can convince independents and democrats to vote against this man, president obama -- dun care, they need someone dumb like president bush to be in office so they can have 4000 troops that for false or. someone as dumb as the president was, and i loved his father -- i felt comfortable during the first or, but why did he grabbed his sons ear, and say, you're not going into iraq. but he never did that. that is why started to dislike him. host: we're going to long island, new york, on the line for republicans.

caller: i think there are two things he needs to do if he has any chance of rebounding. north 1 is the economy -- number one. he has created a very unfriendly environment for business, reflected in the unemployed rate. he needs to move to the center and let free enterprise flourish. that will be the engine that gives the economy going. with volume of regulations -- with all the regulations he is putting out and so was congress, no one wants to take a chance or to invest, or to employ. the other part of this is that he is an extremely polarizing figure. he was supposed to get the country together.

he has almost torn it apart. his justice department is basically becoming a department of injustice. he has to do something with eric holder. either have a talk with him, or get a more impartial attorney general in there. host: marcia, one of the other callers mentioned the attorney general as well, in regard to the black panther case. it is there something else specifically on your mind about the justice department, or is this it? caller: no, the black panther situation, and the trial -- i'm sorry that his name escapes me -- of the 9/11 terrorist.

it should never even have been a gleam in their right to try this man and new york. he needs a military truck. he is a terrorist. he was not a shoplifter or a bank robber. host: the middle man is what mark writes as adviser and pollster to president clinton from 1996, chief executive. it begins by saying the most important thing president obama can do as though clinton did during his first term is retake ownership of the center.

voters will reelect president obama only if they believe the president is on the move, creating and building things. washington, d.c., on our line for independents. ♪ caller: good morning, c-span. i believe the president can rebound, and a lot of people are suggesting that he should take the way that president clinton did during his first term. president clinton did not inherit two wars. even though the economy was not good at that time, president obama has to deal with the wars that are ongoing, and with the bad economy.

those are people talking about him not being a u.s. citizen -- i believe this is the reason why the naacp was talking. people have forgotten that his mother was a white woman. [unintelligible] this is all about racism. there is nothing wrong with eric holder. i believe the president will rebound, it is doing a great job, has more to deal with than any previous president of this country. i believe he will do great. host: also in the paper this morning, when it is about race, it is probably about age too. newt gingrich will go bust week with an idea to deal with america.

-- look up last week with an idea. he suggested they reach out to local chapters of the civil rights group and propose a series of joint town hall-style meetings around the country. he could be on to something if he means all americans old enough to remember when cigarettes were harmless and strom thurmond was a democrat. the tea party and the naacp represent this proportionally older memberships. herein lies a problem with some much of our discussion about race and politics in the obama era. we will get back to a little more of that in a few seconds. first, more calls regarding how the president can rebound.

nashville, tenn., on the line for democrats, go ahead. hunter? caller: i can't believe i got through. yes, sir. we just saw joe biden yesterday at the jackson dinner here in town. i believe that obama has a shot at coming back. first thing is have his bill as a governing based on fairness, honesty, opportunity. make it known he does not support greed or sloth -- either one of the extremes. the guy who says he is not from america needs to forget about them -- there is no way to change their minds. and i guess the one thing i would have told him was do not run a deficit higher than what bush did because now there

republicans have obviously got a problem with the deficit standing. so, we will have to be ready to take the gloves off when they come after him, and stand up for the working people. sloth and greed are not to be allowed. the courts are an atm machine for lawyers, and wall street is not the economy. wall street is to raise money for businesses, not for the goldman sachses of the world to bring home a couple of billion dollars per year. host: let's move on to seattle, washington, a client on the line for republicans. -- glenn on the line for republicans. caller: the presidency has more or the last 20 years into something it was never intended to. if you look at the words of the

founding fathers and the documents, washington did not even want to be president, but when to make sure he was as benign as possible. his role is to be a statesman, documents, and represent the u.s. -- not to spearhead a single thing. the president should never say "this is what i want." we should never care what our president wants. he is not a king. to the people who called in about afghanistan, you have to realize that president obama could have stopped the war, but did not. it is his war, and he is a warmonger. so, you people on the left to try to blame this on bogyman bush, it is not going to work. the last thing, this president could have been, because he is biracial, could have been the

biggest healing thing to ever hit the u.s. -- could have been the best president by simply being a moderate, and saying i am for healing this country, not a divider. we could have been well beyond this, but instead, too bad for the african-american community. george soros has had this guy in the coffer for a long time, and he is who is running this country. why did he give $1.2 billion twice in a year-and-a-half to petro, an offshore company in brazil owned by george sros? he could take in the amount of money to the people instead. here is some money to see your response back into society from the oil spill, but no, he was more interested in giving the money to george soros. host: in tuesday's of. washington post" they had this

poll -- six out of 10 americans lack faith in obama. the public confidence has hit a new low according to the latest washington post-abc news poll. our question and the question being posed this one in the op- ed section, how can the president rebound? jacksonville, fla., on the line for independents. caller: i was just listening to a couple of the commons there. one thing i just want to comment on -- first of all, when the president was elected and giving all his speeches, he did say that to get this economy back on

track, it was going to take the sacrificial work of everybody. middle-class, low class, high class -- everybody had to cooperate. those were his words. this is the first term he has been in. they need to give the man and opportunity. look what he is working with -- there was a war already begun, the economy was in the deficit, unemployment on the rise. he is only human. i think he has done a wonderful job, and i think he will rebound if everyone gives him a chance. look what he has already done. the healthcare plan he was putting in tact. i have not seen one person cents an office -- since he has been

an office to come down with doctors and nurses with the $241 million falsified records, or claims. that is a lot of money. can you imagine if they continue doing this for we would have been? another thing. host: let me ask you -- it has been nearly two years of the president has been in office. at what time does the administration own or claim the running of the country and all the problems that go with it? how longer the allowed to look back and lay the blame of seven problems at the feet of the previous administration? caller: because when he got in their whole lot of this stuff was already in tact. -- intact. you have to go along with contracts until they expire. some of this, we have to go

along until the agreement expires, and then he put into place what he or the people feels is better. as with the healthcare, they bulked against that. if he would not have gone and put that into place, they would never have found how much money they were taken away from medicare. so, there are a lot of things that have been under cover that people do not know. that is why we have a deficit. host: let's move on to maryland, on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. i think the president can rebound even though he has a lot of people who are against him, especially the other parties. i think evealso corporations are holding back on jobs.

there was an article in the "washington post" this week that said some are holding back on their cash reserves, making sure that they will have money, but at the same time keep advertising jobs. but they're not hiring people. if i were the president, if you go online to usa jobs, a lot of those are government jobs. i would make sure my administration would not have any type of jobs out there, no longer than 90 days. host: this morning in the new orleans paper -- jindal thrived in crisis. also, this morning in "the washington post" -- cap may erase sense of hopelessness in

oil spill. joe writes -- so is it over? joining us on the phone to update us on the situation regarding the capping of the well and the cleanup in the gulf is admiral thad allen, retired u.s. coast guard, now the national incident commander of the deep water horizon oil spill response. good morning. tell us, what is the latest on the cap that has been put on the deepwater horizon oil well? guest: yesterday we exceeded a 48-hour period where we were able to shut the well and maintain some pressure. we will go for another 24 hours

and assess where we are, and that will be sometime this afternoon. there is a quandary presented by the shut-in of the well. we have established pressure -- the good news, but it did not rise as high as we thought. we were looking for somewhere between 7500 and 8000 psi, which we thought would be the difference to of the top of the well from that being pushed up from the reservoir, but we are between 6760 hundred now. the curve on the pressure is consistent with the well with the treaty, but there is a question as to why the pressure islow, and crawls around two competing theories. one is that the oil released so far released into the and from the depleted the well and drop the pressure, or that the oil is escaping somewhere below, or there is a leak with a problem in the casing. bp and our scientific team are working on this and we agree to take readings on the bottom with seismic, acoustic, and so forth,

and look for the leaks while we continue to evaluate. there is some benefit to having the oil shut in and not been released into the army, but the real end will be when we do the bottom kill, intercept the well and begin to put it, as early as next week. host: tell us a bit more about the measure of the seismic activity. here in the washington, d.c. area we had a 3.6 earthquake earlier this week. we're kind of getting up to speed on the measure of seismic activity. tell us a little more about how the technology is being used in the gulf? guest: before they begin to drill the original site the had a series of hadruns, and created at time-phased, almost four- dimensional model of what it would look like down to the reservoir. there were different types of

rock formations. a very good indication of what they were drilling into. they did another run on april 26, after the event occurred. it was not quite as good because there were many problems with the pipe. but they got pretty significant indications. we have been taking the vessels that have find seismic sensors and going across-cuts a different angles, and shooting some large-type images through the rocks and getting a return to allow us a profile of the formation. we're trying to look for anomalies where oil might have moved into the formation, or my becoming towards the surface. host: there was an advertisement in the paper this morning in "the new york times" taken out by bp. the top one says that bp is taking full responsibility for the cleanup in the gulf, and are committed to keeping you and the american public informed. how informed is bp keeping you

on their activities regarding capping this well and given the situation under control? guest: we have a federal government signs team located in bp headquarters in houston, where the command center is that monitors the pictures and work on the well head. we ve been integrated with them since the start of the. there are daily meetings with the suns team and bp to try to talk about the competing theories -- between the science team and bp. i myself have daily contact with bob dudley, and we have several principles call for route the day for government leaders are briefed by the science team. that will continue through the weekend. host: what is the next briefing you have with the people from bp, and what kind of decisions we make based on that? guest: the science teams only drop the day. one team is looking at whether there is water is as do with the reservoir.

if so, the order will be on top of that. that will continue to put pressure there. if there is no water, it would account for the depletion theory. we have several teams looking at individual questions. about midday the will come up with their best estimates based on data from the last 24 hours, and about 3:00 p.m., those principles will have a conversation to decide on the next 24 hours, as we did yesterday. host: and autumn says that's a noa summer ship has been brought to assist on the monitoring of the entire seafloor around the welding are you concerned about leaks coming now that you have a cap on the initial will spring? guest: that is what i was referring to in making sure that we understand the nature of any

problems. while we're keeping that well under pressure, we don't want to cause any irreversible damage or allow oil to get to the surface. we brought in the pisces that has very fine sense in devices looking for things like methane bubbles. that is together with the seismic vessel also during this survey i mentioned earlier. we're also using rov's, hydrophones. we're really monitoring the sea floor. host: when can you expect the operation of the relief well? guest: they are at the end of putting the well bore down.

there within about four or 5 feet of the well right now, going down at a slight angle towards it, one or two degrees. by next weekend will be in a position to attempt a first entry into the well, the need to reinforce the bore they have built so far. host: give us the layout of what is on tap for the process this week? guest: we will continue to fight the spill on the surface. while we move to the new cap which we are testing now, the was a time where oil was going to the surface. we have gotten them in modest skimmers, and are trying to get it from the beaches or skim it before it gets there. so, the oil recovery will continue even though there is no oil coming from the well at this point.

so, what we're trying to cap it, our attention is also on the marshes and the beaches. host: thank you very much for being on the program. guest: my pleasure. host: in the weekend section, a spill into the psyche. peter goodman writes that more than the environmental catastrophe, the disaster has become a festering reminder of the disarray afflicting so many areas of the national life. we're continuing our discussion about how president obama can rebound, based on a section of

"the new york times." republicans, carol, go ahead. caller: i think the president is doing a very good job. he had to pick up and try to resolve what he walked into. instead of us complain, we need to go to the table and work together. once the issue is resolved, we know what the true issue is. we look at him and we can see, but look at all the gray hair he has gotten since having been in office. anyone can sit on the sidelines and talked. host: what is the true issue? guest: that he is an african- american young man. i have been here all my life and have gone through these issues myself. but i'm looking to the hills for my strength, and knows he is

doing the same. i believe he will make it, and make it to a second term. host: hold on. in a book with the washington post" and the opposition, sophia has a piece entitled "it is time for a black the tea party." give me some of your thoughts about the tea party movement, and how you think it is affecting the current administration? caller: i think the tea party issue may have been one issue when it began, but is another issue now. in socialism, they talk about the president. we can put all kinds of labels on him, but i think he is a decent issue. the tea party is not about

helping this country at all. when you get other people to come into the tea party that look like you -- then why are people who are colored in the tea party? host: just south of jacksonville, robert, on the line for independents. caller: the best way obama can regain his status is two or the tax rate for minimum wage. as it stands, i made $395 on my check, and now is down to $326. $40 of that was for taxes. i think that he should slow down and take one plan at a time. he is using so much taxes just to make his plans work.

host: from the ap, clinton aims to refine the goals of the afghan war. the u.s. secretary of state began a south asia tour on sunday in verifying the goals of the nearly 9-year-old war in afghanistan. hillary clinton landed in islamabad where she will emphasize the need for a afghan- pakistan cooperation. iowa, on the line for democrats. caller: i would like to start out by saying that i believe president obama will go down in history as one of our greatest presidents, if not the greatest. we look at all the obstacles he

has overcome, both from the republicans and democrats. i believe the rebound will begin with the november elections. if we can retain the house, if not take more seats, i believe we can strengthen a lot of the bills and agenda as he has that help the working class in america. people do not understand how their that things could have been a lot better. a lot of the bills he has been able to pass could have been stronger had he not have the obstacles he had to overcome. we look at health care, the last reform for wall street, for the banking. everything he has had to overcome he has had to give a little to get something passed. host: let me get your response to this part of the op-ed piece

about how president obama can rebound. this is written by edward, manager of ronald reagan's 1984 presidential campaign. stop the blame -- that is the headline. tim, your thoughts? caller: this is the thing that has really bothered me a lot of the republican back talk. we want us to ignore the facts. he lays out the facts of what the walked into, what he has had to overcome, yet the republicans come back -- the only come back they have o is theyh, yeah, his

playing the blame game. what do they want us to do? not to state the facts? -- the only come back they have is oh, yeah, he is playing the blame game. host: we will move on to the line for republicans. caller: i have a question about the job gap since the recession. the brookings institute put out an article earlier this month that said it will require, if you go with the number of jobs added during 2000, it will take up to 11 years for jobs to return to pre-recession levels. it will take up to five years if you go with the 1990's levels.

i think that will be president obama's biggest issue in returning to office after 2012. host: next up, west virginia, robert, on the line for independents. caller: hey. i'm conservative on economic issues and liberal on social issues. i am the swing voter, but it is not from the belief -- my belief is the only to recover is to put it behind you, and move on and fulfill campaign promises. we need a transparent government. if we see improvement, then we would forget about this. in the end, it will be no small

thing for his administration if he can make big leaps. host: senator john corning of taxes is our guest. during part of his composition he talked about what kind of fund raising the committee is reporting next week. -- that is john cornyn. >> john boehner in the house said maybe 100 seats are in play. [unintelligible] assuming there are republican gains in november, do expect more gridlock for 2011? or maybe president obama reaching out more to republicans? >> in terms of the expectations game we're either leading or tied in eight seats held by democrats. and all seats currently held by

republicans are candidates. if the election were held today, it would be very good. i am pleased with the direction we're going in. i think it will be a two-cycle process. if we elect a good number of reinforcements in 2010, and in 2012 there are only nine republican seats up, 23 democrats -- that gives us a structural opportunity to turn the corner. i am praying for us in on a tsu. host: you can see the entire interview later today, and online, and as and app for your iphone. huntington, west virginia, go ahead. caller: for the president to rebound -- which is kind of confusing because i have looked

at the polls, and i don't see there has been a major drop. i am surprised by c-span for reporting that. but he has to reinforce how much of obstructionists the republicans have really been. they have used every political maneuver to obstruct, to deny. that is why health care took so long. there would not even take a vote for three days. on top of that, it was the bush administration that did not prosecute the new, black panthers. you have to start calling people out for the truth, c-span. you cannot let people continue to live. they live every day, and you do not stop them. host: we will stop right there. we want to let you know that in a few minutes we will be talking about the 2010 midterm

gail russell chaddock elections of the christian science monitor and reid wilson of hot line on call. first, i want to show you a piece from c-span video journalist who went on a helicopter tour of the deepwater horizon explosion site in the gulf of mexico, and toward some of louisiana's coastal areas. >> on july 10, at the heliport in louisiana, c-span join several other media outlets for a tour of the area affected by the oil spill. you are looking at to grand

isle, louisiana, a barrier islands and coastal committee where many of the cleanup operations are taking place. off the coast of elmer's island, you can see a barge, typically used for drilling, but now being used for some relief operations. this is boom that has been laid to protect one of the many barrier islands off the louisiana coast. here you can see the south korean ship, an oil tanker converted to the largest oil skimmer in the world.

and this is the site of the deepwater horizon explosion. they're doing relief wells, and burning off gas, and many other relief operations.

here you can see oil near the surface at the leak site. "washington journal" continues.

host: for the next 45 minutes, a discussion regarding the 2012 elections, and politics that goes along with that. on the cover of this week's edition of "the christian science monitor" -- nancy pelosi, house of policy, behind the speaker's personal brand of power politics. tell us about her brand of power politics, and how will factor into the 2010 midterm elections? guest: to be asked to do something about whom so much is written, you have to dig to find something different. what strikes me about how she gibbons is how well she knows the back door to her members. she's been 40 years of fund- raising, and knows anyone who has ever written a check of more the $1,000 to the democratic party, and those who they are connected to. it is not the money.

it is the political intelligence, the knowledge. repeatedly, she has pushed those critical, difficult votes. when her legacy is written, she will get credit for that. host: reid wilson has this article called "battling irrelevancy" -- in truth, neither party structure is monolithic, and but they're becoming weaker as political power and the money the comes with it diffuses outside the beltway. gail russell chaddock talked a little about the money the speaker was raising. talk to was a little more about that money, and how it is being defused outside the beltway, and how that may affect the election? guest: that is right.

not only lately are we seeing members of congress raising all this money, and the political parties raising all this money, but now all subgroups are establishing themselves to run the same kind of campaign ads. it is millions coming in. at the moment it is fairly unregulated, given some consequential court cases over the past year but changed the way federal election law works. these groups are less regulated than a normal party committee, have to do less disclosure. they can be relatively anonymous and secret. when this money comes in, nancy pelosi may control a lot of the money that goes to members themselves, but when there are $300 million that republican allied groups are expected to spend, the money members themselves raise becomes less imported mig of this has

weakened both parties -- becomes less important. this has weakened both parties. we have seen a weakening on both the right and left. it contributes to gridlock in the washington. senator bob bennett, a big knock against him before he lost, was he had worked together with a liberal democrat from morgan on his own version of the healthcare bill. the bill did not even come up. the simple fact they worked together was enough to have republican primary voters in the utah very upset. if that is the standard to be used, that is what this outside money is really doing. host: is your contention that the deregulation of the political financing laws levels the playing field for republicans tried to regain control of congress? guest: it has allowed more money to come into the republican

side. it has at the same time allow more money to come in on the democratic side. the main case that has thrown some much turmoil into the system was called a decisioa dee out in january. it is these as we see just before the election. lately the labor unions have been using that as much if not more than corporations have. they spent $10 million on the race against senator blanche lincoln of arkansas. it has opened the door to more money from both sides, both liberals and conservatives, as opposed to democrats and republicans. the party structures themselves have less money to deal with. if you are a big donor is can write a big check to either

party. the money goes to feeding the building, repairing the elevator, paying the security guards. it means not much of your money is going to political advertisement. if you write a $1 million check to one of these outside organizations, all but $1 is going to advertising, straight out the door. host: gail russell chaddock, will the deregulation of campaign financing make it easier for speaker policy and democrats to raise money they need to hold onto power in congress? guest: it is a wild card at this point. i have heard arguments that corporations will be reluctant to spend money, especially if they have become identified with issues. it can hurt them in difficult economic times.

the fact is, we do not know. members are very concerned about this for the reasons we are discussing. it is a big unknown. it will be an election cycle that is true difficult for incumbents. host: your top two issues you think voters will be thinking about in 2010? guest: jobs, and more jobs. the economy is so huge that it eclipses all else. host: and your guest: thoughts she is right that the economy will dominate everything. this election is turning into a referendum. host: we're talking about the 2010 midterm elections and politics that go with them. if you would like to get involved, give us a call.

you can also send us messages by twitter and e-mail. the first call comes from fresno, california, john, on the line for republicans. caller: ok, guys. here's my question. let's make an assumption that on this 2010 election in november that republicans take back the house. my question is this -- is there going to be as much obstructionism from the democrats as there is from the republicans right now? . .

when you only control the house basically you're a counter weight to the president. the president is still doing the initiating. now, you might try, as newt going rich did articulate a program of your own, something like the contract with america. but there's almost no indication that republicans want to do that right now. i think they think they can take back the house without articulating anything. that voter concern about the economy and the president and executive power would be so much that it will dwar of

everything else and they don't need a program. once you come into power without a program you don't have a mandate. even if you have the presidency which you don't. so to answer your question, democrats clearly are going to oppose what republicans do, but i don't see much sign that they're going to use their power in the house to do much of anything other than counter the president. host: matt on our line for democrats. go ahead. caller: i have a question and i would like an answer and then a response from the lady, please. first, what exactly does the christian science monitor do? what do you all do? guest: it's an international daily newspaper started in 1908. i think what distinguished the paper when it started out was a rigorous sense of balance. it was there at a time of

yellow journalism when newspapers started wars. and the founder felt that the members of her church and others needed to understand what the real issues in the world so they could pray about them. but they are not members of the church. they share a view that a balanced approach. and people think of our balanced coverage and international coverage. host: did you have a followup? caller: real quick. and please don't cut me off. i just first, how do you feel about people maybe that read your paper, how do you feel in these times where this country is falling apart? it's very scary what's going on in our country. how do you feel about people who vote bible and not

politics? and i believe that organization like yours should be illegal. guest: i think if you read the paper you'd be hard-pressed to find a religious point of view except in one article there is a clearly marked religious article that talks about spirituality and the event of the day. but i think if you looked at the views, half says tooly ral, half says i'm too conservative. but no one says i'm too religious. host: i hear all the other ones except me. caller: sorry. all these polls we went thri in the last segment. when these polls are taken, are they taken with people who just have hard land lines or are they takeen with cell phones or i pods or computers?

and if it's just hard line how do you get an accurate poll? host: are you concerned about the inaccuracy of the polls? do you think that may have an effect on the outcome of the 2010 election? caller: well, if they're only sticking to one segment of people who have land lines in their homes and they're not hitting the kids out riding around with the cars with their lap tops, i think it would be a biased poll. you would probably be getting more from elderly than younger or middle-aged people. i've got a land line. host: thanks for the call. your thoughts on the polling that's out there. and how much do the politicians actually pay attention to that when they're going to meet with their constituents. guest: every politician will say of course i don't pay attention to the polls and yet they can't get enough of them

just like we can. the caller brings up some interesting points. there is a new move towards including a number of cell phone users in every survey. i myself don't have a land line so i would fall into that cell phone user category, although they do screen for media so i wouldn't make it far in the poll. so there are clearly levels of polling, some of them are great, some not so great. take a look, there's a great company called mason dixon. they do surveys from a number of organizations, a number of newspapers, they were the ones behind the harry reid poll that came out and has harry reid leading by 7 points in nevada. they are seen by a we will-respected pollster. they'll do a number of polls. and then there are real concerns here. there is a story going on at the moment. the liberal blog daily coast has been paying for a number of

polls conducted by a firm called research 2000. well, now that blog thinks that these polling -- and by the way, every poll makes headlines. every poll leads some newspaper somewhere. the poll that -- rather, this company is now thought to have fabricated a number of their surveys. so that leads to obviously some mistaken conclusions. they've got some polls very seriously wrong and now they think they didn't conduct the polls in the first place. that's why everybody has to be more careful about polling than just saying have you seen the latest number? i'm ahead by 5 or behind by 5. it makes a large difference in who, what, how it was conducted. who the sample is. if i go out and survey a thousand self--identified democrats and say that president obama's approval rating is 95%, that doesn't represent the entire country. there has to be the appropriate weights, the appropriate amount

of each person, each demographic group in every survey. there are even polls that still do it the old-fashioned way. the clumduss dispatch does an old-fashion poll that mail out ballots and those are returned and that's how they base their polls, and they get it pretty close. host: next up, jim. go ahead. caller: good morning. i'm on a cell phone, too. the election i guess a little over three months away here. my concern is that as a republican and i think the republicans are making a major error here in thinking that the dissatisfied electorate is going to go in and sweep them back into office. i think what they need is they

need another contract with america or contract on america, the democrats labeled it. they need a specific list of factual items that they will guarantee if the american people, you know, as much as a politician can guarantee anything. but that they will guarantee for instance start number one can the economy, number two with the deficit, number three with immigration, and lay out specific facts. people want facts. if they think people like me, i'm not going to go back vote republicans because i'm -- i think that the republicans are just as cruddy as the democrats. unless they can come up with we want something concrete and factual to change this country. host: before i let you gow, if you're not going to vote for republicans or democrats, who are you going to vote for?

caller: well, i sat out the last election, i can sit this one out too. because unless this election proves to be a water shed moment for the country, there's going to be a lot of people sitting out the election, i'm afraid. guest: the argument you just made is one that's being made very powerfuly within republican leadership right now. there are people saying exactly what you're saying. take an example. the race to replace john murtha in pennsylvania, southwestern pennsylvania, i went around with the republican candidate tim burns who is running ads against nancy pelosi. some of them pretty funny basically saying let's get rid of this all-powerful monster, sort of 50-foot bubble held crushing cities. and the poll suggested that was enough. she is very unpopular in that part of the state. and yet, the democrat ended up winning by eight points. and after that race, which republicans really thought that

they would win, it would be a big symbolic victory, a lot of discussion was made just like you're saying. look, we can't just expect that disappointment with the democrats will give us back the house. we need a program of our own. so you might want to start peppering republicans like comments you made today. guest: one interesting thing about the nancy pelosi situations. republicans have used her as a cudgele against democrats. and in every single race in which they highlight nancy pelosi as the big bad boogie man they lose. nancy pelosi is very unpopular but voters don't care. voters are in the case of pennsylvania 12 they saw it as a contest between tim burns and mark crist and mark won that race. now, you have got, as republicans are talking about nancy pelosi it's clearly been a losing issue. so that's something they're starting to realize and i think

she is going to play a diminished role in their ads come this november. host: next up, tony out of california. go ahead. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say yes i'm a liberal and we love you, nancy. we think that she does a great job. the republicans are the ones that hate her and we think that she does the job that she was chosen to do. and i think just want to say that everyone, independents, democrats, republicans, that the republican party has been the obstructionist party and has failed to pass employment benefits for millions and millions of americans, and if they think that people are going to vote for them with that record and the fact that they're the runs us into this economy, i think they need to rethinks. host: i want to tack on this twitter message from mr. happy

4807. guest: there's going to be a dropoff from 2008. the number of people who came out and voted was huge, absolutely unheard of. the most people who had ever voted before. in -- democrats really need those first-time voters to come out again, and the democratic national committee is setting aside $30 million to turn them out again and saying you voted for president obama for the first time, you voted come in and vote one more time. keep the democratic majority that he needs to pursue his agenda. that being said, independent voters have largely made up their minds on this administration and the democratic congress and it is not favorable.

independent voters are the ones who not only created the democratic majority in 2006, expanded it in 2008 and gave president obama the white house, they are going to play the key role in this year's mid-term election. the enthusiasm gap is significant but it's not huge. it's not overwhelming. the democratic base will still turn out to the polls, the republican base will still turn out to the polls. the difference is the independent voters have broken largely so far away from the democratic party and towards republicans. one interesting thing as we're talking about this idea of a new contract with america. or america speaking out is what the republicans in congress are trying to label it as, how they're trying to gather their ideas. they are walking a serious tight rope here as they dream up these new solutions, this new platform. the moment they put anything

out will be the moment the democrats attack and say, look, this is a choice election between democrats and republicans as opposed to simply a referendum on the democratic party. once you get into that choice election, that's where republicans start to lose seats that they might otherwise win. they need this to be a referendum on president obama and democrats. >> host: two items this morning that mention the tea party. how much of an influence is the tea party going to have in the mid-term elections? are they starting to heat up? guest: the nice thing is no one really know what is it is. but what it does is give democrats i think a very powerful tool here. let's say that the republicans decide not to listen to what

jim just suggested. now, we're not going to come up with a program of our own. democrats will say you know what their program is? it's sharon angle in nevada. tea party candidate defeated the candidate that the national republicans had hoped would win. harry reid, senate majority leader hoped she would be his opponent because some of her positions, such as getting rid of medicare scare people. so if republicans don't come up with a platform of their own, democrats can say, sharon is their platform and that's what they will do when they're in power. so like it or not, democrats will have someone to oppose even if they have to fabricate it. host: your thoughts. guest: that's absolutely right. and the tea party is a movement that a lot of people -- it's a movement that the media is clearly fascinated by. we've talked about it nonstop. it's in the paper every single day. and jourmists are going to

these meetings, these gatherings, and every now and then people says something that's completely tauf rocker and does not represent the average mood of the tea party. but it's fair to say that the tea party, if it can be defined as anything. it can be defined as a concern with spending, a sort of general the people who show up with these rallies are most concerned with government spending and the reach of government. but that leads to a whole bunch of sort of off your rocker kind of ideas that aren't necessarily in the mean stream or are completely outside. and you're exactly right, that's where republicans start to lose seats when they show up or when they don't offer any idea and democrats are able to say u -- democrats don't want to run against sarpe, you are sara palin, the person whose approval ratings are much less of president obama.

>> and jeff has an article in this morning's "new york times" with a flurry of endorsement palin tries to influence primaries one year after leaving public office behind, definetly stepping down as governor of alaska. guest: defy ntly stepping down is a great phrase. she has played a big role and won. she's got a great record in picking these primary candidates. everybody from nicky haily. take a look at susana martinez in nume. she's gone to a number of places. the next challenge is in the upcoming georgia, where she's picked secretary of state who is running second or third in the polls and now she is

getting some momentum. so sara palin brings with her a clear following among the hard core republicans. and those are the people who turn out to vote. so if those people are told by her, hey, this candidate has the blessing of sara palin they're going to do well in the primary election. she doesn't have a perfect record. guest: of course, if you pick the winning candidate in the primary are you ensuring that that candidate loses in the general? democrats are delighted with some of the picks that she's made. host: back to the phones. al on our line for independents on the washington journal. caller: good morning, folks. a couple points before you cut me off. the first point is this. my honest opinion the last time i called in, similar topic. i think the american people are going to vote republicans into the house and try to balance

out the congress as a break water against an all-democratic party run operation. and i say that because i think there's still a lot of anger out there that the health care bill and the wall street bailout was rammed to us and we are very as a middle-class person, i think the middle-class is really p.o.ed at that. we're pissed that no one has paid attention to us. we're the one who foot the bill yet like a child with a credit card they just went spending crazy and now we don't know what the bill is going to be on this. but we know it's going to be big and we know it's going to be bad. and i think that the republicans are using the same strategy that the democrats used in 2006. host: are the members of congress in the house and the

senate are they ignoring the electorate on these issues? guest: well, i think you're going to see a lot of focus on what has been done for the middle class. but that's eclipsed by what people experience in their life. if you're still unemployed, even if they do as expected on tuesday pass unemployment extension, unemployment insurance extension, you're still unemployed. you'd rather have a job. but i think the point the caller made is absolutely right and there is an impulse that is verified in polls that americans like checks and balances in government. and there was great enthusiasm for president obama and democrats controlling the house and the senate. but even and especially among some democrats disappointment about what they've been able to produce. but on the republican side it's genuine alarm. this concern about spending isn't restricted just to what

reagan republicans, the example of the meltdown in greece and europe frightened a lot of people. and the sense that the government deficit, you know, 1.5 trillion and counting, should strongly by moderates as well as republicans, and i think it's a factor in probably every election this year. host: albert on our line for republicans. go ahead. caller: thank you. i really appreciate the thoughts and research that these two reporters bring to the table. i just wanted to say that i've been a life-long republican and i am totally disappointed in their gimmickry. that guy, with the glasses for the republicans, i think his name is canter, i'm not sure. and then boehner. even mitch mcconnell. these guys have no credibility.

they have stalled and they're awful people. and i don't see any leadership there. the r.n.c., the guy there, he's ridiculous. they have rush limbaugh. i'm really and truly getting out of the party. i just don't understand them except for the fact that they defend corporations, and corporations are just ripping us terribly. i'm really tired of it. and i don't see everything these people are talking about except for the fact that our country, our jobs have gone overseas. and it was supposed to stop and it hasn't stopped. host: thanks for your call. guest: one thing that we've seen over the last couple years is that republicans are really struggling with their own identity. and by the way, it will be important for the party to realize, i think that if they win in 2010 it's no -- it's no

rubber stamp that rationized there agenda. in fact, it's going to be sort of a boomer rang effect from republicans. the last caller brought up a point about anger. that's, this anger he said isn't new. it's there's still anger out there. and al is absolutely right. the anger happened in 2006, it manifested itself in a democrat majority in congress. it happened in 2008. it manifested a clear rejection of the bush administration and an increased democratic majority and democratic president. now it's republicans turn to be angry and that's going to manifest itself in some pretty significant gains come this election. but even if they win, their agenda is not going to be valid dated. they're going to have to come out with some of their own ideas. eric is going to play a big role, john boehner is going to play a big role, mitch

mcconnell will play a big role in that. but members of congress themselves are going to have to put together some kind of solution. that's what the 2012 candidates, the folks running against president obama will play a big role as well. they'll be able to lay out their own policy ideas. then that will lead to yet another fracture of the republican party with tim pole entive saying one thing and sara palin saying another, all trying to get votes from iowa and the new hampshire voters. host: mitch on our line for democrats. caller: yes, a registered democrat life-long. but the direction of the democratic party i'm not happy with it at all. and i'm not the only one. so i don't think i'll be voting for democrats. host: when you say you're not happy with the direction that the democratic party is going in, give us a specific thing that you're dissatisfied with. caller: well, talk of cap and tax. also, this health care. but the one thing that gets me

is democratic party at one time was for working people. and it seems like when you're a government today. we're not out here in the working class out here since the 70s we've been getting hammered. swrobs don't pay, the benefits aren't there. so they want to give government the best benefit packages that can be had. so the democratic party doesn't represent me as a working person any more. host: address that man's concerns, please. guest: that's a really big issue. republicans are looking for you because the case they're making is that the obama administration has been focused on the public sector, not the private sector. republicans on friday pulled together 16 private sector organizations and basically

asked them what would it take for you to hire again. and tried to link toyota what the obama administration is doing. there's so much uncertainty that's going to be required of businesses with these mandates with health care, so much uncertainty that's going to be required of businesses in this new financial regulation package. republicans are using that to craft exactly the argument you're making, that this is good for the public sector, good for public sector unions. bad for the private sector that needs some sense of stability and some sense tax cuts, for example. republicans will go back to that argument. democrats have a huge decision to make in the next few months about whether or not to renew, extend the bush tax cuts. and the arguments are going to make, the republicans, are your point. your voice is exactly the one republicans are looking for.

host: edmund on our line for independents. caller: thank you for having me on. i'm a redge registered independent. i'm against amnesty for illegal immigrants. and i think that the republican party is going to win overwhelmingly come this next election because people are really upset at the devastating thing that is obama is doing like suing arizona for trying to enforce the immigration laws, like misspending all of the stimulus money. that stimulus will not work the way he spent it. a he was so -- and the health care bill, i'm so upset at the democrats for being lying to

us, for not being open, and for being so dishonest about it. i wouldn't vote for a democratic incumbent. i don't care how bad the person that's going to get replaced -- replace them is. host: will there be much blow-back for democratic candidates because of the obama administration's position on the arizona immigration law? guest: well, i don't think so specifically because of the lawsuit that the administration is pursuing against arizona. at tend of the day, people are voting based on jobs. anybody who is going to vote based on immigration is probably already voting for the republican candidate if they want to curb illegal immigration. any candidate who is actually talking about immigration issues is going -- is likely to be a republican. then again, this is one of those sort of stories that is going to have an impact 20 years from now as opposed to

right now. as republicans talk about immigration, they're starting to be very careful in the way they do so. they don't want to irritate hispanic voters. they're now the largest minority population in the u.s., the fast est growing, and that's there's going to be a generation of hispanic voters. i had a republican consultant say to me that if hispanic voters start voting the same ways that african american voters do in overwhelmingly favoring democratic candidates, you're not going to be talking about how win back florida when you're running for the presidency. republicans are going to be talking about how not to lose texas. these are some very read states that are going to have huge hispanic populations. and as republicans, some on the republican base begin to use ludge that makes hispanic voters very uncomfortable, ludge about deportation and -- i don't want to get into an

entire immigration spiel right now. but as republicans use some of that ludge, they're turning off hispanic voters. that will have a dramatic impact for a very long time to come. host: thank you for being on the program this morning. in just a few minutes, a discussion of the terrorist movement with herman cohen, former assistant secretary of state for african affairs. you're watching the washington journal. we'll be right back.

host: herman cohen is a former secretary of state for african affairs in the first bush administration, and is here to talk to us about terrorism. first, tell us who or what isal

shabab. guest: it's an outgrowth of an islamic organization that began around 1990, called islamea. and it was started by sued nizz missionries. and their objective has always been to islamize somali society. and they have become more and more radical as the years have gone on and now they changed their name toal sbab which means the youth because they are trying to recruit as many youth as possible, give them guns and help them take over power. host: what, if any connection, have with al qaeda. guest: they're trying to become a member. and the attack in uganda a week ago today was designed to say, see what we can do. we can really be part of your organization. because if they become part of al qaeda they get money and they get all sorts of support.

so this is a way of saying we want to join. host: now antitisspate my next question. tell us more about this attack in uganda and is this kind of like a group of pledges trying to show the brothers in the fraternity that they too can be a member of the fraternity? guest: that's a very important aspect. but there's another aspect. because of the instability in somalia and the fact they haven't had a government for 20 years, there's been a lot of fighting among clans and militias and war lords. and the african union tried to establish a central government there two years ago krks which is inside the capital city but is fighting to really keep power. and in order to help them, the african union sent peace-keeping troops. some of them are from uganda and some of them are from bur understoodi. so what they're saying is we're going to punish you for trying

to put troops in there. host: we're talking about al shabab and terrorism with herman cohen. if you want to get involved in the conversation. the phone numbers are on the bottom of your screen. what's been the reaction of the obama administration regarding the emergence ofal shabab especially in light of this attack in uganda? >> guest: he said this is very dangerous. we've got to fight these guys because the next thing you know we might have an attack on a united states territory and uganda is a good friend of ours. we want to help them. so what in effect he is saying is we have to help the africans fight this. the africans have troops there. we've been giving them aid, we've been giving them arms. what president obama would like to do is augment, send more troops in order to really stop

these people before they can hit us in the united states. host: what evidence is there out there that al shabab wants to extend its violence beyond africa? it seems like right now they're just trying to make a statement in africa what evidence is there that they want to extend this beyond africa and eventually to the united states? guest: well, we've got their own statements. anybody who is fighting us, in other words, the united states supporting the african yune, and american forces are in the area. and they have exercised their ability to kill individual al shabab leaders either with drone strikes, rocket strikes, or landing troops in helicopters to pick people off. so we are the declared enemy of al shabab and i wouldn't doubt their efforts to try to hit us. host: tell us about who they're led by. guest: he comes from northern

somal ya. somalia is so disintegrated over the last couple of years that the former british part of somalia have declared their independents. and one of the parts in the northeast is called poonland. and he is heavily islam sized. he has been brain washed by missionries from pakistan and saudi arabia. so he wants to have a taliban-type state in somalia. host: and does al shabab, is some of their feelings about the americans and the united states, is this a hold-over from when u.s. military forces were in somalia trying to keep the peace there? guest: i don't think so. that's too long time away. i think what motivates them is the fact that we are supporting the african union, which is supporting the transitional federal government in moge

dishu and they want to overthrow this government and take power themselves. so they see us as standing in their way. host: our first call for former assistant secretary of state herman cohen comes from gains, florida. marcus on our line for democrats. go ahead. caller: hey. essentially i just wanted to say that what this seems to be is kind of a predecessor for things of the future. i mean, essentially what these people are, are a group or a coalition mounting up with ones that seem as though they're more organized and more powerful and more well armed than other individuals and essentially what they're going to do is quantify and also become stronger due to the radical joining up with people. essentially what we're seeing in the united states as well with different minorities such as the hispanic population as

well as the african americans. people of what you would may consider a lesser standing. host: mr. cohen. guest: well, these people are not ten feet tall. and also, they have the type of ideology that the somali people reject. in the areas that they control, they forbid people to sing and dance, to go to the movies, even to play soccer. and the somalies do not like that. and i think they're like an alien body that the somalies will reject. yeah, they have a lot of guns and their leadership are all somalis have fought outside of somalia. they've been in afghanistan, iraq. and the ordinary somali fighter is excluded from their ruling councils. they have a lot of foreigners and somalis don't like foreigners coming in and telling them what to do. so i wouldn't say that these guys are going to win.

i think they're going to lose. and one of the reasons that they exploded those bombs in uganda was to show we're strong. but they're really not that strong. host: next up, georgia, dixon on our line for independents. caller: i've got a question. the background of course is that how can i say this politely. mr. cohen is a kind of imperial functionry. and much of what he said about somalia is not true. but the one thing that he did say that was true is that the united states is landing troops and helicopters there, are fascinating people and throwing drones and cruise missiles into the place. host: what did he say that wasn't true and what is your evidence of that? caller: well, his whole narrative about al shabab and terrorism and the rest of it is the same kind of war rhetoric that we had from the bush-cheney era that justifies our involvement in somalia.

we are the reason why somalia has no government for the last 20 years. the somalie -- it sits on a top of alake of oil and we want that oil and the somali people won't accept any government that will give us the oil. the questions that i had for mr. cohen is, why does he think that america needs to manage an empire in africa? host: before i let him answer that, what was the united states' tie to the al shabab attack on the folks in uganda? caller: i have no idea about that but i do have an idea about -- oh, come to think of it, the reason for that would be uganda and brunedi and rwanda are states that the united states used their army to invade other countries. host: we'll leave it there. guest: well, the united states is not managing an empire.

we have no colonies in africa. we never have had any colonies in africa. and the thing to remember about somalia is that the transitional government that's trying to gain power in the capital city was organized and helped by the african union, not by the united states. they had many, many mediating sessions and they have finally got alling the -- all the different actors in somalia together to choose a federal government which is now struggling to remain in power. the u.s. is helping the african union. the u.s. is not directing anything or managing anything. we are just supporting what the africans themselves want. host: next up is washington, d.c., elizabeth on our line for democrats. caller: i'm wondering where, when we tell the african union to stop the flow of guns?

the is it possible? because if they can control that, because who is supplying them with the ammunition and guns? sfwoo guest: that's a very good point. and if you look at the map of somalia, you see that it's very, very close to yemen and there are all sorts of boats going up and back between yemen and somalia. and it's very, very hard to stop the flow of guns coming out of the middle east into somalia, especially when there's chaos in somalia. there's no government. so movement in and out is very easy. and also it borders on kenya. now, kenya is a friend of the united states, they don't like al shabab but it's hard to control the borders. so anybody who has access to guns can easily access somalia. host: next, on our line for republicans. sorry we just lost them. tell us a little bit more about

what the administration plans on doing to try and quell this growth of al shabab is there anything they can do diplomatically or might this involve the use of military force either unilaterally or in conjunction with some of the countries in the african union? guest: one thing i can assure you is the united states government is not going to send troops to somalia. we had a bad experience in 1993, and we're not going to do that again. plus, we are fighting wars in afghanistan and iraq. the whole focus of the united states right now is that this is a problem for the african union. the african union has to step up to the plate and do more. they've already sent 6,000 troops to somalia in a peace keeping role, not in a fighting role. what i anticipate now is that maybe they're going to shift over into a fighting role and there will be more troops being sent from eetsdzyopeya and

uganda, maybe to other countries. by exploding those bombs, al shabab declared war on africa basically. they're killing fellow africans. so the united states is going to say, africa, this is your job, and we're here to help you. we can help you with money, with arms and advice but we're not going to send troops. host: we're talking with herman cohen, former assistant secretary of state for african affairs under the george h.w. bush administration. he also served in five african countries and twice in france as the american ambassador to senegal with dual accreditation to gamba and he also served as the chief of mission for 14 months in zayare. our next call comes from allen town pennsylvania from democrats. joe, you're on the washington journal. caller: i have a question for mr. cohen. do you think that the united states should attempt to fight

terrorism around the world? guest: well, that's a very good question, too. as long as terrorism is aiming to hit the united states, or our friends, you know, we're not just worried about ourselves, we're worried about our friends out there, we have to cooperate with the europeans, with the pakistanis, with others to stop this because it is a terrible threat to civilization. and i think we have to be careful. look what happened in 9/11. all that began in afghanistan. who knows where it's beginning now. it may be happening in somalia right now. host: next up, michigan, ken on our line for independents. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i just had a couple comments because i was listening to this guy and he was talking about how easy -- i'm a little nervous so please bear with me. he said something about how easy it was and accessible for them to get weapons from using

boats to go across this little canal, i believe the suez canal. but -- and how much chaos is in this region. you know, it sounds a lot to me like the united states. if you've got money, you can buy guns. if you want to cause chaos, you go rally or protest. so what's the difference? what's the difference between them and us? and i'm going to end it at that. have a nice day. guest: that's interesting. the difference is that we have law enforcement in the united states. we have governments that can enforce the law. if somebody has a gun legally but then uses it for some illegal act, they can be arrested and sent to prison. somalia doesn't have anything like that. if you kill somebody in somalia nobody is going to come after you and arrest you. it's total impunity. it's anarchy. host: the response by al qaeda so far to this, i hate to go back to the fraternity

reference, but this pledging by al shabab to try to become part of the larger al qaeda movement, is this something that they're welcoming? guest: i think it is. because the leadership of this al shabab movement are people who have been out there fighting with al qaeda in afghanistan and in iraq, and also somalis, also people who have come in from abroad. you have pakistanis there, saudis, yemenis who are fighting with al shabab and they must have been fighting in their facilities. one of the problem is can you trust somalis to be part of your franchise because it's such a chaotic place with so much anarchy you never know what's going to happen next. host: arkansas, on our line for democrats. go ahead. caller: good morning, gentlemen. mr. cohen, you mentioned something about we're not an empire, which i agree.

however, i want you to verify something for me if you would, please. i have read that we have 177 military bases in 84 countries, and troops in about 700 different spots in the world. my question to you is, does that not de facto form a military empire? guest: well, giss you could argue that. i think our bases are all in countries with full agreement with the host governments. we have not imposed ourselves, to the best of our knowledge, on any government saying we're having a base here whether you like it or not. we're all invited and we pay rent for any base that we have and we cooperate. we train. local government forces. so this is not the same as when the british and the french were

out there saying we're here and touf follow our orders and we're going to be in charge here. we've never had that except maybe for the fill pins and puerto rico and cubeo perhaps. in africa we've been totally away from any sort of colonialism. and the africans appreciate that. host: former assistant secretary of state cohen retired from u.s. foreign service in november of 1993. he is currently a consultant for century aluminum corporation out of monterey, california, and also the advisor on africa to contour global corporation in new york. a builder and operator of independent power plants worldwide. houston, texas, on our line for republicans. dale, go ahead. caller: yes. i'm calling from secretary baker's city. i know mr. cohen. guest: hello.

guest: two questions. first, it was under your watch that the current dictator in ethiopia took place. second, i think the rise of al shabab is really the lack of democracy in the region. the people have nothing to look forward in ethiopia and sudan,. so really the people have given up. and the lacko just alternatives under the bush and also obama administration for hope for change for democracy for free market. nothing is going right. so my question is, that whole region can explode to a very chaotic situation. and [inaudible] in the region. host: where are you from originally? caller: from ethiopia. host: how long ago did you leave? caller: in the 80's. just so sad because really that

there was so much machine nation. you know why somal ya -- hello. guest: really, it was under the carter administration that somalia was pushed towards invading ethiopia. and that is caused the chaotic collapse of somalia. and i think the u.s. needs to step up. not necessarily militarily but pushing for democratty in the region. host: sorry to cut you off. you've given us a lot to work with. guest: i agree with your basic premise. the absence of democracy and the inability of people to say what they want and get accepted is the core issue. the absence of democracy, the presence of authoritarian dictatorships is a great cause of instability and tension. i agree but. what can the united states do

about that? well, the united states has been promoting democracy. look at the budget on democracy promotion ever since the administration i worked in, in bush 41. there's a lot of money being spent in democracy promotion. and a lot of african countries have arrived at the point where you can have an election and the incumbent gets beaten. look what happened in ghana recently and happened in malli. so slowly but surely democracy is taking hold. the last place where i see democracy taking hold is in the horn of africa because there's so muff tension. ethiopia against somalia, islamic fundamentalism. clans fighting clans. so i don't expect democracy to come there very soon. host: south dakota on our line for independents. caller: good morning. this question is for herman cohen. good morning, sir.

my question to you is, sir, what is our involvement or has been our involvement from back in 93 when we were first there, actually we were even there earlier or we were there with the marines and what not? as you know, we left in the early 90s after our special forces went down there in moge dishu and that turned out to be a blood bath for both sides. we lost a lot of troops, of course, and our black hawks and what not. but what exactly is our position on this issue with al shabab? and how are we going to i guess how are we going to come up with some kind of defensive naubnaub become a lack, with the problems that we have right

now with our bordering states with mexico for instance? to me it seems like we're all spread out. guest: well, let me give you a bit of historical background. the government of somalia collapsed in 1991. it had been a pretty nasty corrupt dictatorship from 1969 to 1991. it collapsed because there was a lot of internal fighting. ethiopia was supporting insurgents and it finally gave up and died. and it was not replaced by anything. i myself helped negotiate a replacement government but it fell apart within months. so in 1992, a great famine developed in somalia and the international community as it always does sent a lot of humanitarian assistance. but since there was no government, the only people there who controlled things were war lords and they were

taking all the humanitarian assistance and all the food and trying to sell it and trying to make a business out of it. and tens of thousands of people who couldn't afford to buy anything were starving. so president bush said we've got to do something about all of this starvation going on, and he in cooperation with the u.n. security council sent u.s. troops there. and the u.s. troops did a wonderful job of ending the famine. between november of 92 and march of 93, everything was taken care of in terms of getting humanitarian supplies through. at that point, the control over the operation shifted to the u.n. and the u.n. tried to engage in nation building, which is an extremely difficult thing. and during that time, u.n. troops were ambushed, u.n. troops were being killed by various war lords. and the government in power in washington at the time, the

clinton administration, decided on an operation to try and get the chief warlord, a fellow named idid, and this is what resulted in black hawk down, the great tragedy where about 25 american rangers got killed. at that point, president clinton just said we're going to get out of there. but we did succeed in ending the humanitarian disaster that took place. host: next up, lake placid, florida. on our line for democrats. caller: mr. cohen, there's no american colonies on the conetnent of africa. if i'm not mistaken, back in the 1800, the white politician carved out a country that's named now as lybia. if you look at the flag, you will see that flag resemble the united states flag and it has one star. can you explain it to me?

guest: thank you. i think you made one little mistake there. the country is not lybia. it's liberia. but you're quite right. in the early 1800s. there was a movement that said, well, if slaves are going to be freed, they have no place in the united states. this was a certain philosophy of certain people. let them go back to africa. so money was collected. there was a foundation set up and several thousand freed slaves actually agreed to go to africa and start a new country. and they landed on the west coast of africa and they founded the country of liberia. now, this was never a colony of the united states. it was an independent country. and i think a lot of the former slaves or the descendents of slaves would have wanted to be a colony of the united states, would have gotten a lot more assistance. but it's been an independent country since 1824. it's been a good friend of the

united states ever since then. and i think right now finally the united states is giving them a lot of assistance because they've gone through a lot of hardship. host: next up is atlanta, georgia, mitchell on our line for republicans. you're on the washington journal. caller: i just have a couple questions and comments. referring to the al shabab and then al qaeda and afghanistan and you made a comment a few minutes ago about 9/11 originating or the issues of 9/11 and the terrorism and stuff originating in afghanistan. and from what i've read and studied, i don't see that to be the case. i see that 19 of the high jackers -- 17 were saudis and then i also see that the training camps that they supposedly went through, these

couple that went through training camps in afghanistan, the training camps were not terrorist training camps, they were training camps that we apparently that we had set up. . . caller: adam just wondering

what mr. cohen sees as the ability for all qaeda to recruit? guest: the reason i said that 9/11 began in afghanistan, and i am not an expert in that part of the world, is that that is where the al qaeda central was headquartered. it with the headquarters of all of their activities with bin laden. whether the hijackers came from saudi arabia or other places, i think that is not as relative that the fact that all the planning for this attack and others started in afghanistan. that is why president bush 43 attack there. he wanted to get rid of the headquarters. of course, you are right. the 9/11 high jumpers were trained in flying in florida. they got visas and came to the united states to learn how to fly. we did not understand the reasons why.

al qaeda central was in afghanistan. after we destroyed their headquarters, they moved in the mountains of pakistan. if we have been tracking them ever since. al qaeda essentially has people all over the world right now. host: some experts have said there are deeper divisions. is it possible this organization a collapse in upon itself because of the divisions before they even get up and established? guest: i'm expecting it to collapse. the essence of life in somalia is that people are loyal to their clan. they are not loyal to the national government, which does not exist. they believe in their extended family. within our chicago -- within al shabab, eliminating clan loyalties is just unrealistic. you already have other muslim

organizations sense of they are the real friends about qaeda, not -- of al qaeda, not al shabab. they are a very strict form of islam that they do not want. they want to go to the movies. they want to sing and dance. they want to watch and play soccer. the women do not want to yield -- dinallo to be unveiled a 100%. they will reject them. host: philadelphia, pa. on our independent line. caller: this could be a comment or question. i know you mentioned a lot that the u.s. has not played a capitalistic or imperial power and leave -- power in africa. no one is discussing the fact

that the u.s. propped up the dictatorships, as the ethiopian people say, who oppress the people as long as they were in favor of u.s. foreign policy. he gets how many millions if not billions of u.s. aid and he has an iron fist as far as a pressing the right of anything, any opposition. the list can go on. why is it a hypocritical statement policy as far as the democracy, the people can have what they want, they can have this, they need a government. when it happens in gaza and they say they want is long and they do not want the corrupt governments -- and they say they want islam.

as soon as the taliban and leave town, the so-called government forces the u.s. propped up government comes in, -- host: we will leave it there. thank you for your call. guest: if we were to have no relations or cold relations with every of authoritarian government, we would have no diplomacy. i agree with obama's policy which is we must talk to everyone. we must communicate. if we think their governments are too authoritarian, we need to try to persuade them to move towards a democracy. just boycotting everyone will not achieve everything. we need to work with what exists and try to improve things. host: manchester, united kingdom. go ahead. caller: first of all, thank you

for bringing of this issue. it does not seem to be in the news often. i am from somalia. america has not done much since the central government was run out. america does not seem to have a terrific plan. they train them and say this is helping the we have not seen much help. people expect something. the u.s. government does not seem to -- we cannot see any greater health -- help. what can the secretary tell the somalis? guest: president bush 41 cents a

lot of help to somalia in 1992. i was part of that operations. they saved tens of thousands of somali lives, people dying of starvation, women and babies you saw on television dying of starvation. the u.s. helped to d that terrible famine. i do not think somalia's should say we have done nothing for them. this is nonsense. because of the way we're treated in 1993 when somali should doubt our helicopters, i think the u.s. as lot of grievances against some of the somali people. right now, we will not send troops there, but we will help the african union which wants to stabilize that country, support a legitimate government in somalia, would send in their own troops that are getting killed and then people who are getting hit by terrorism. we are supporting the africans who are in turn trying to support the somali people. host: former assistant secretary

of state, her and colin, is our guest for about another 10 minutes. -- hermann, when it is our guest. an airline for republicans on " washington journal." caller: i wanted to give you a little perspective on this. somalia was a fractured for a long time with a lot of war lords to create a lot of problems for people with corruption and found no role of government which is actually something contradictory to the somali society which is as long. -- is islam. a lot of people get real fat up with the corruption and wickedness. they formed something called the i.c.u. in 2004-2005. they reached out to the un. they held negotiations between the u.n. and in kenya.

kenya host of the negotiations. the united states refused to talk. they instead it is sent over the ethiopians, probably, in 2006 or 2007 and then came in and refused to talk. they went ahead and went to war with the ico, killed everyone, caused a lot of damage. that made it so foreign invaders could come in with their righteousness. this is why you have al shabab today. host: tell us about the islamist union and how they fit in. guest: i am happy you brought up the union after the chaos when the government failed in 1991, a bunch of people, mainly islamist clerics, and businesspeople, intellectuals, especially in mogadishu said they needed to

released form neighborhood groups that could provide justice, education, and some security. this was the birth as, as our caller said, the islamist courts union. in 12 neighborhoods of mogadishu, the capital, these islamist courts were established. they were remarkably successful because they were able to thwart the war lords. they had an armed wing. the war lords were eased out. it was starting to be of peaceful in mogadishu. by 2006, most of mogadishu was controlled by these islamist courts to got together and formed a union. it was looking good. i was supporting them at the time. a lot of somalis living in the united states said this was the hope that we can bring peace to somalia. unfortunately, the islamic courts union was infiltrated by

the script that i mentioned earlier -- by this group that i mentioned earlier. their job was to try and take over the islamic courts union. one thing that they did was to try and attack ethiopia. this is knowing that the ethiopians would come in and hit them hard. this is exactly what happened. the ethiopians came in and they scattered all of the armed forces of the islamic courts union which gave all of the power to the extremists. they went underground. they hid in mogadishu. when the ethiopian said occupied, they started guerrilla warfare. this was the beginning of al shabab. the u.s. did not help at the time because, as the caller said, we did not deal with the fifth islamic union because of the word "islamic -- we did not deal with the islamic union

because of theord "islamic." we did not talk to them. i thought that was probly a historical error. host: north carolina on our line for independents. caller: first of all, you have 12 million people over here illegally. if you take in 12 million people and say, look, you go fight in the military. when you fight five years in the hot zone we will give u.s. citizenship. you take them and go over there and you start pushing to you cannot push them anymore. you take the people in prison. if you have a 20 year sentence, you good africa and to help fight, you help stabilize the people over there that want a country that they can run. you go into the presence. if they have a 20 year sentence, go in the hot zone and they get

to walk. it is just that simple. guest: on the fourth of july vice president biden was in iraq to be with the troops and he presided over a naturalization ceremony where non-americans who are fighting with the american forces were given citizenship. i think that is along the lines of what you suggested. i do not think this is available to illegal immigrants this is available only to legal immigrants. host: our last call, charlotte, north carolina. darwin on our line for independence. caller: where is [inaudible] i am from liberia. we had a civil war. now, these guys can go to

afghanistan, pakistan, train, and come back. that is what they are doing. they need a way [unintelligible] guest: it is hard to keep people from traveling. some civil have passports and travel. they look ok. they go and get trained and then they turn into terrorists. we are trying to stop them, but it is not easy with millions of people travelling every day. host: former assistant secretary herman cohen, thank you for being on the program. in a few minutes, a discussion on the epa's carmen dioxide regulations on the ben -- with ben geman. >> coming on the noon eastern on c-span radio, read errors of the tv network talk programs.

topics include tea party politics, mitchell elections, and the gulf of mexico oil spill. at noon, david gregory talks about the fall elections in the senate with the chairman of the national republican senatorial committee, senator john corn and -- cornyn. that and look at the upcoming house races with the democratic and republican national congressional committee chairmen chris van hollen. on a 1:00 p.m., vice-president joe biden talks with abc. they host representative james cliburn, the democrat from south carolina, the house majority whip, and congressman mike pence of indiana. he is chairman of the house republican conference. then a discussion with david vitter. on "face the nation," the talk

about immigration within bill richardson of the new mexico. then a discussion of two-party politics with naacp president and the president of t. party 365. then on "state of the union," talking about mitt party elections with mitch mcconnell and look at house races with steady hoyer of maryland. -- steny hoyer. by sunday tv talk shows began reappearing at noon eastern with "meet the press," "fox news sunday," "face the nation," then is cnn's "state of the union."

>> they are the towering figures. they are all different. they have their different talents. they have their different dangers. >> this weekend, on his trilogy of books of russian leaders -- lenin, stalin, and leon trotsky. more about their relationships and their roles in developing their form of communism. that is tonight on c-span's "q &a." >> keyspan is now available in over 100 million homes bringing you as a public service crated by america's cable companies. >> "washington journal"

continues. host: ben geman is here. caucus -- talk about this and how may play in with legislation there are currently trying to get to conference right now. guest: these seven fascinating to watch. what has happened that thanks to a 2007 supreme court decision, epa can book that emissions from automobiles, and a range of other sources. what is happening is that under the obama administration it is starting to very slowly move ahead. we already have rules in place them to limit emissions from automobile tailpipes. what is coming down our requirements on large sources of stationary greenhouse emissions. power plants, factories, oil refineries, that kind of thing. these are very controversial. there are a lot of industry

groups, republicans, and some democrats who are quite concerned about that. there's a bit of hope among ad -- among advocates that the specter of these regulations would finally prodded congressmen to act on a climate change will. one of the biggest regulations that will start taking effect early next year would be the clean air act requirements for things like power plants. host: the legislation so far has only worked its way through one side of congress. tell us about that. guest: that is right. last year we had a very sweeping bill go to the house just a few votes to spare. then it hit a brick wall in the senate. the house measure was a very broad "economy-wide cap and trade bill." in hindi's big roadblocks in the

senate. then there was senator kerrey, senator joe lieberman, and up until a few months ago, they were trying to negotiate a compromise version of the bill that would try and please all parties. graham has dropped out. but kerrey and lieberman are working on is a much more narrow version of the bill which would make the supply to electric power plants only. host: what are the chances that this would get done before this part of the term and before the senators go home for the august recess? guest: in the senate, they want to get some form of energy built on the floor by the break. some of this would relate to the gulf of oil -- gulf of mexico oil spill so there is toughening of energy standards for oil rigs and increasing liability limits. those are things they will put in there. then there is a suite of other things that steer clear of

these greenhouse gas limits but would still fall under the general heading of clean energy provisions and energy-saving provisions, things that incentivize, wind, solar, alternative transportation fuels, to try and dial back the use on oil. all that looks like it will show up in some form. what is less clear is whether there is anything approaching 60 votes for a climate peace. majority leader harry reid in a spectacularly vague statement said they will do something with the utility pollution. since then we've had a flurry of negotiation over what the power plant green house gas peace will look like. whether they can get 60 votes is on top. host: we're talking about the epa and carbon dioxide of regulations with ben geman of "the hill."

if you want to get involved, the numbers are on your screen. you mention the oil spill and how for a little while the focus had been taking off trying to get the legislation to the senate while everyone was focusing on the oil spill. now that there is a cap, do you think will be easier to get the focus back on getting this legislation now before getting home in august? guest: i think the administration is breathing a sigh of relief. there conjunction with bp to finally stop the leak has been a political liability and a bit of a distraction. i do not think it has taken the focus from the push to do an energy bill. the have reiterated that it wants to try and get that done before the break. again, the president was very careful to say when he spoke on friday morning that even though they have successfully stop the flow of oil from the blowout well that this is an interim

step and that the ultimate solution to this will be the relief wells which are slated to be done in august. i do think you will see the senate pushed before the break. it is hard to guess, but i think rather than plunging completely on a very broad bill, what they might do, rather than post -- pushed the whole thing off after the break is too narrow this down until they can get 60 votes, go home, campaign on something, and claim victory. host: they say half a loaf is better than none. is this even have? guest: it depends. in some ways, this is a very bitter disappointment for the energy community and the liberal democrats who want to see steep cuts in the greenhouse gas emissions. when the president took office and you had democrats controlling both houses of congress, there's a sense that this is finally the moment to do something aggressive and get these steep cuts in emissions. again, and has been a big

disappointment to see the house bill hit this roadblock in the senate and then the economy taking has made it much more difficult to try and push forward any type of legislation like this. there were bigger priorities for the white house such as health care. for a lot of people this is a disappointment. with that being said, you will see an effort by environmental groups to get behind at least getting started and doing something on greenhouse gas emissions beyond this energy-on the approach. that would be the bill that tries to boost the clean sources but steers clear of emission limits. host: our first call comes from why not, minn., on our line for independents. caller: i have a comment and a question. the question that i have is -- hello? the old bill that went to the congress had elimination for companies that made cement.

in the u.s., most of the cement companies are owned by foreign entities, mexico, european countries, france. they come over here and they make their cement in the u.s.. this accounts for 8% to 10% of the world's carbon dioxide. why would they exclude companies that were foreign entities that come over here and pollute our air? what does that happen? why is that a good idea? i am so disappointed. guest: on a not entirely sure that the provision -- about the provision that the caller is talking about. there was a provision in the house bill that senators from the manufacturing states want this to show up in the bill that would shield energy intensive trade exposed industries like

heavy manufacturing. this would essentially say that there is not a global deal in case and that they are taking their own steps to get steep cuts i emissions. in order to get an advantage for these companies, they would be hit with a terrace at the border to make sure there was a level playing field between the foreign manufacturers and domestic manufacturers. as far as the specific and the caller was referring to, i am not sure. host: let's move onto david from new york. caller: thank you very much. thank you for c-span. i have followed energy policy for years. i have seen how every time there is aimed -- a sighting problem or energy policy the democrats always seem to block it.

they are against nuclear power, particularly in new york, which emits no greenhouse gases. they are against the use of coal, clean coal. they are against hydraulic fracturing in upstate new york for getting natural gas out of the ground out of the shale formation. everything. they seem to be against it. whenever it is, they are against it. how can we provide electricity for the jobs of the future if we cannot get the energy we need? host: ben geman? guest: the caller talks about democrats being against nuclear power. that is interesting to watch. for a long time, the environmental movement was against nuclear power, and it largely still is.

you've really seen it democrats essentially saying if the cost of getting republican votes on the climate change package is going to be of really new subsidies or incentives for nuclear power, that is something they are quite willing to embrace. to be fair, i think some of the support those deeper than that. the obama administration is quite supportive of nuclear power. they announced the first round of the loan guarantees around $8 billion to be going to companies to build new reactors in georgia. i think there has been a few that nuclear power is going to be part of the max going forward especially because it does not emit greenhouse gases. steven chu is a nuclear fan. certainly, while some liberal democrats will say that nukes are about, nuclear has found a place in the mixture of these

proposals. host: jim on our line for independents from dubuque. caller: i'm wondering if anyone has looked at companies like goldman sachs setting up carbon credits. this will amount to hundreds of millions of dollars in profits, trading these derivatives like what they did in housing and other derivative markets. it will be a windfall for them. i think it is contributing to the hysteria of global warming and what not. they are already setting the markets. host: jim, thank you for your call. guest: this has been a huge issue in this debate. the potential carbon emissions trading market, if there is a

wide range, the bill, they are very fast. these markets could range potentially into the trillions of dollars. all the proposals that are out there, in one way or another, have called for some restrictions on preventing the kind of wild west atmosphere and this free-wheeling. differ proposals go further than others. collins and cantwell have put out their own climate change plans that would freeze out the big banks from the carbon market. they are not happy about that. they see some real opportunities here. the proposals from kerry and lieberman would try and ensure some strict oversight would not ban it entirely. there are different views. some people say the goldman sachs's of the world should have

no place here. others say they do provide values and services and that if you want the markets to be liquid that you want to have more players involved and not just the people with a direct obligation to reduce ratings with each other. do i think that if there is finally, bill, do i think the banks in furs and now? no, but i think in the wake of the financial crisis there will be an effort to make sure they just do not run wild. host: market out of new jersey on our line for independent. caller: i'm a candidate in new jersey's fifth district for congress. i think this bush is the agenda and makes it harder for businesses to compete. i think it is about time regulations in the epa are directly responsible from congress and the senate. i also believe that the carbon tax trade-offs -- do you want

rules in place to actually attack the american people? that is fine, but it should never be done off at a profit. the problem is there is too much money involved in all this stuff and it needs to be taken away. host: ebn gem -- ben geman? guest: there is a lot of hostility which is a factor of this debate. boast -- both sides know that. but you have republicans and some more conservative democrats saying we need to block the epa from regulating greenhouse gases. that has been the rallying cry. like the caller said, this could be very damaging for business. you have the administration and democrats saying this is why we should have the climate change bill. for example, when the epa can now with the final roll laying out how these requirements will cut gases, john kerry's immediate argument was this is

why we should pass the climate change bill. what you're seeing is, the big question that might even be resolved later on this month before the august break or before the end of the year is whether congress will do anything to create their own admissions -- emissions machine or proposals waiting in the wings that would let kiki temporarily from regulating greenhouse gases. what happened was the proposal a few weeks ago which would completely nullify e.p.s.'s ability to regulate. that did not get nearly enough votes to pass. senator rockefeller, a real advocate of the coal industry would have a waiting -- a plan waiting in the wings. eft promised him a vote on that. i think that may pass, actually. it depends on how it plays out, but it has a much stronger shop. host: any chance that lisa jackson will be traveling to

the hill to try and prod the senators to get this thing passed? guest: yes and no. the president has been talking about energy a fair amount lately including in the oval office speech he gave on the oil spill. he met with a group of senators at the white house the other day. the administration has walked a fine line here. what they have said is that they want climate change legislation and they want to price carbon. the have also indicated in love themselves a fair amount of wiggle room. that is their position and they want comprehensive climate change in legislation, but then the follow that up by saying the recognize there are a lot of good ideas out there and they want to work with both sides. i think they're trying to negotiating a scale back, but i think they need some political space to sign a bill that has no climate change provisions in it. host: ben geman with "the hill" and blogs on their environment

and energy blog. you can find those for "the hill" on thehill.com. jacksonville, fla., on our line for republicans. go ahead. caller: i have a surprise for everybody that just might delight them. it turns out that carbon dioxide, which is the problem with greenhouse gases, combines with calcium oxide, lime, to form calcium carbonate -- cement. now, all you have to do is couple carbon dioxide to a solution of calcium oxide and.

-- and bingo you have cement. host: any surprises? guest: there are some companies and entrepreneurs that are looking at the idea that one way to deal with these carbon emissions is to have a cement making process that does incorporate some of the materials as a way to capture them. more broadly, capture and storage largely through trapping this in the source of power plants and putting this away underground, that is a sort of technology that a lot of people feel will be important going forward. certainly they have new funding, incentives, and so forth to handle that. as far as sequestering carbon and cement, i have heard some things about it, -- things about

it. host: on the line for democrats. go ahead. caller: i have never called before. i have watched a few documentaries on different epa studies and what not on how these will be regulated. i think it is funny how everyone in the united states now has to drink bottled water when a onetime make it drink our water right out of the faucet. now they're talking about how new york and how they can offer had a test -- cannot frag test. demarcus they cannot get to it. -- as they are pissed. host: we believe it there. guest: the u.s. has a lot of natural gas by being able to

trap them. a lot of the gases trapped in rock formations. the way to get to them is called hydraulic fracturing. it is a high pressure of certain chemicals and other things to allow the trap the gas to flow. what has been so controversial is the extent to which these technologies which are being employed are creating a big risk to ground water and drinking supplies. the epa just launched a big study of this question. there are a lot of interests on both sides. this is been a real boom for the u.s. natural gas industry. even though it is a fossil fuel, the greenhouse gas emissions profile of natural gas is much higher than that of coal or oil. on the one hand, there's a lot of support for coal as electric power, but this is something that t. boone pickens' stock about -- talks about is for use

in vehicles. there is a sense here that if we do this massive expansion of gas drilling that we will see some environmental contamination. that question is front and center in the ongoing epa study. host: in this article in wednesday's talks the "usa today." towards the end he writes this would be obama's best chance to enact anything close to a comprehensive energy legislation if the midterm elections fall into historic patterns. after president clinton failed to pass the health care bill in 1994, it took 16 years to get it done. if this does not pass and there are major gains in the house and senate on the republican side, could we see a 16 year gap between now and when they pass any sort of major energy legislation? guest: yes and no.

but it depends the question is about energy or climate. energy bills come around under both parties every the years. it is not the end of energy legislation, i do not think. whether or not we will do anything that specifically mandates reductions in greenhouse gases and puts a price on carbon, so to speak, it could very well be the end of it. i think it is interesting and is kind of amazing actually. i think it is very possible that as a country, we are deciding how to deal with this in any way that requires mandatory reductions. it looks like the best hope right now is this very, very scaled-back plan that would only address emissions from power plants. i think if we do see these big gains for republicans in the midterms, that --, i think it is possible and will be a long, long time. that is not to say we are not doing anything about greenhouse gases.

there are a lot of proponents for reductions. they will tell you that the way to deal with it is to boost funding for technologies like carbon captor and storage and to have a range of other proposals that would also boost the use of low emission energy technology, vehicle efficiency, without the emissions regulations. and all remains to be seen whether there is a failure to pass crime legislation whether there would be a successful effort to block the epa legislation. that is a big turkey question right now. host: that's good back to the phone calls. old town, fla., you are on a "washington journal." caller: i understand this carbon bill passes that our electrical bills are going to double. host: what makes you think that?

where are you getting that information? caller: the signs were you go to pay your bill, they say do not vote for it because the money will go into political pockets. nothing will get done. it will wind up that our money will be taxes and wind up on some golf course. host: do you want to address his concerns? guest: a lot of the debate is about whether or not climate legislation would be a big hit to the consumer's pockets. the epa studies have actually concluded that it is not the case. they have done some runs on a bill that passed the house last year. they have done some modeling on this legislation that john kerry and joe lieberman introduced. they said even the broad version would have some effect on household costs, but the estimated it is very modest. but they think would be on the order of roughly $80-$150 per

year ballpark. there could be regional differences there the fat -- depending on the power, but they recognize that this is a huge potential political liability for them. they are bending over backwards to have different provisions in the bill that would, for free, get out some of the emissions allowances. the requirements that power plants must pass the savings on to the consumer. with that being said, some of the studies funded by interest groups estimate that there would be much more substantial costs than what the epa is estimating. yes, thus far the federal studies show that the effect on household costs would be fairly modest. host: on a republican line, drawn out of greensboro, north carolina. caller: i have a question.

has anybody ever done a study on what the effect of the interstate highway systems that we put in since the 1950's and the paving we have done of parking lots and everything else in this country and other countries has had? is that deducted from the climate change that is shown in these studies? guest: whether or not the existence of the asphalt itself and so forth has been an effect on emissions directly, i am not sure. certainly the expansion of the u.s. vehicle fleet has had a big effect on emissions. ballpark speaking, about one- third of our emissions come from the electric power sector. another one-third comes from driving vehicles. that probably does not quite answer the question, but it is a system that enables an increase in driving which will have a corresponding increase in emissions. host: in new york, go ahead.

caller: i have a comment to any question. which should i give a first? host: whatever makes you happy. caller: with any of these is that the price of coal from the mines said that if we end up devaluing our currency that china can still buy as much coal as they want and bernard regardless of what we tried to do for curbing acid emissions? that is my question. my comment is that the climate change, and the current trading, i see this as musical chairs to try and get in shape for a marathon. you can spend a lot of energy, but it is probably the least productive way to spend your energy. i do not usually agree with exxon on things, but just

adding a pack of a few dollars per gallon makes a lot more sense. when is this country going to wake up? europe has a solar panels on their routes. countries are planning an electric grid. from what i hear, a car can regenerate way more than the 40 miles per gallon it drives on average every day since the with solar power. we are hostage to industries that do not want to give up the cheapest technology they can use. host: frank, we believe it there. guest: a couple of things. the caller mentioned china. one concern is that even if the u.s. goes forward with an emissions reduction plan that would create a higher cost for fossil based feels that other countries, china and india, that are big users of coal would not

go forward and that it would be doing very little or something on the margins to change the overall increase in the margin that some increase to ourselves. the competing view their there -- there any hope for a global emissions pact which a large -- which largely fizzled in copenhagen is that it would be very difficult to get an agreement to the kyoto protocol absent some kind of action. host: sheffield in the united kingdom. welcome. caller: how is everyone doing across the pond? host: just fine. what is your question or comment? caller: considering how much power corporate america has on blocking this kind of legislation, do you think it would be better for the american people to actually nationalize

their energy system? when to give back to the american people, is that a proper energy policy like in the u.k. and especially europe? guest: is that nationalizing the energy companies themselves? two callers ago, someone mentioned a carbon tax. exxon has gone against the grain and says that they believe the most elegant solution would be to scrap these kinds of byzantine cap and trade proposals. basically versions of it are still on the table. they want to go with a carbon tax. you can read a couple things into that.

one is they believe it is a better way to go. they are advocating for something that does not have legs politically. certainly no lawmaker will come out, or very few will come out, and said a bill proposing a tax because that would be even more difficult to get a climate leisure -- climate measure through. host: on our line for republicans, good morning. caller: can you explain the three components of our atmosphere? oxygen, carbon, and the other elements? we start playing games with the carbon content of our atmosphere, what will happen with the other two elements? will they be out of whack? what will that do to a combination of the air that we breathe and to our climate? host: think you. we will leave it there. -- thank you.

guest: i am far from being an atmosphere scientist. a lot of the debate does circle around the carbon concentrations in the atmosphere that have been rising very quickly for, relatively speaking, a brief period of time. them going -- they have been going up and up since the industrial revolution. that is why there is concern i have in this increase in the aggregate level that have this rapid increase which will have destabilizing changes in overall temperature and weather patterns and events. host: joe in san jose, calif., on our line for democrats. caller: you're talking about natural gas. i saw the editorial on that on television. my question -- and some of our senators say this is nothing to it. why not put those guys out there in montana?

have them stand for months, drink the water, and then give us a report. they say nothing is happening to the water that these chemicals are polluting. i think there are like 39 states involved in this. i think that would be interesting to listen to the comments afterwards. guest: that is an interesting point which gets to the heart of the debate over natural gas and over hydraulic fracturing in general. there are several proposals in congress that would alter the way that this practice is regulated. one might force the companies to disclose the company -- the chemicals and fluids they are using in the process these. -- in the processes. something that past and republicans with democratic support in 2005 exempted certain

types of these practices from regulation under the safe water drinking act which the epa administered. the industry is fighting back pretty hard against those bills. their argument is we have this boom going on that is good for the cup -- good for the country, an increase in natural gas. if you put these federal regulations on state regulations it will be on economical to have these companies really continuing to produce this much. proponents of the halliburton low poll said that in 2005, there is just now reason -- just no reason why there should not be a force of disclosure. caller: host: -- host: mike on our line from pennsylvania. caller: the government has their agenda and they figure out the money behind it. obama is saying that your income

taxes will go up, but everything you buy goes up because of regulations and the cost. like the gentleman just said, your heating oil and electric might only go $100, but they know the something for free. where does the free come from? that is from my taxes. it is like a shell game where everything is getting expensive and there are crunching the numbers. host: ben geman? guest: the epa estimate was for a yearly increase in household bills. the idea behind some of these climate plants is that there would be both a revenue source and a way to sort of offset consumer costs. the revenue source at least eventually phasing in these permits. some of the revenue could be used to offset the costs on consumers. it does raise some interesting

questions such as can there really be a guarantee that consumer costs will not skyrocket? again, the modeling thus far says it will be very modest. what is interesting for the whole debate, since we have had such a hot summer here in washington, d.c., is how little is focused on climate change. there is a lot of debate on the economic effects of these measures. in the related questions, the advocates of the climate bills have sold them on the ground that these will be job creators. that is something the administration talks about. the more you put a premium on clean energy sources, the more it becomes a real economic engine in the u.s. and we will turn to take back our lead and lost to germany, china, and some of these other renewable industries. that is the first message. the other thing that emphasize a lot is the idea that this

improve the security posture of the u.s., to have more energy developed here. that argument is in a rich little bit when you only apply this to electric utilities because that does not have anything to do with our oil consumption. we have not used oil for power in any real way since the 1970's. when you take a transportation fuels, it takes at the argument that this would affect our reliance on foreign oil. to bring that back around, what has been absent from the debate or at least in the background is the idea that one big reason to do the bill is to prevent this catastrophic runaway climate change. it is interesting that the message has faded. we just had noaa report this has been the hottest year on record going back to 1980 so far. we have new data on the level of warming, yet in the political battle is not have that much. host: nick out of atlanta,

georgia. go ahead. caller: it was interesting that you mentioned the the temperatures going out. those temperatures were heavily weighted in urban tempt -- in urban areas. for you to come off and say that the increase to consumers would be "modest" is arrogant at best. it shows a bias. my question is this. when we give the government control over the carbon trading, would that give them the ability to determine who wins and loses in the marketplace? guest: a couple things. it is hard to fathom -- i did not feel like i was going to be arrogant by putting out what was in the studies by the epa in the energy administration. secondly, picking winners and

losers has been a real part of the debate. if you sort of say we're going to incentivize this or that technology, that does something that takes power away from the government and puts government in the role of sandy's of the technologies that we really like. on the other hand, yet advocates saying put a price on carbon and let the chips fall where they mate. that is to say if you have a technology that is showing itself to be lower emissions that you will well. if you're technology is very high in emissions, but no one is saying they both go with this particular technology. those are the two competing strains. host: this says any regulation will make the price go up. is that true? if so, or if not, what would make a person like fishinsam say that? guest: fixedly there are costs.

it is not a magic trick that we will have this bill. there are industries that will do better and certainly do worse because of this. the question as to what extent can the costs be mitigated? as the last caller suggests, there is some real data out there. in some studies funded by the manufacturers they have shown that the cost would not be merely as modest as what the epa is suggesting. host: our last call from kansas city, missouri, on our line for democrats. hello. caller: i think one thing that people who talk about the market's are missing is that we are already picking winners and losers by subsidizing the oil and gas, particularly the accompanies. 88% of all