protection. following that, charlie cook, jennifer steffy, and david wasscerman to talk about the political reports. "washington journal" is next. . . host: we want to find out what

you think about the strength of the current economic recovery. here are the numbers if you want to get involved in the discussion. for republicans, 202-737-0001. for democrats, 202-737-0002. for independents, 202-628-0205. if you want to send us an electronic message, today would be a good date if you have called us within the last 30 days. put down the phone, send us an e-mail on journal@c-span.org, the twitter addresses twitter.com/c-spanwj. typical of what is being reported in many of the reports this morning, "a flurry of new economic data this week may pressure ben bernanke to act on his vow to help a wavering

economy hah -- economy the article goes on to say --

so, we are talking about the strength of the u.s. economy and economic recovery. our first call comes from fayetteville, north carolina. barry, democratic line, welcome. caller: the way that the economy is going right now, it was basically put on a certain track that is -- i would not say

plan, but the economy is revved up and they used different tactics through the banking industry and staff, underhanded, corrupt tactics to funnel the money into certain people's pockets. they have got all of the money and we are going to listen to them sitting here saying we have all of the money now and you have to feed yourself with no money but we got your money but we are going to watch to die now. host: what are some of these corrupt tactics that you speak of? where do you think that money is going? host: -- caller: first of all they were blowing money to people that they knew could not pay it back. where does it go? basically, ok, basically they have made it to where you cannot afford health care, but you have to have it.

the way i see it basically going, we are all basically going to be needing stuff and the people that control everything, like a game in the forest and all of that stuff, they will be controlling everything because we cannot feed ourselves in that way. host: in "the christian science monitor," this story --

host: next, call for, mississippi, on the independent line. caller: is not victoria, it is victor. host: sorry. caller: i often make mistakes myself, it is ok. host: what you think about the state of the u.s. economic recovery? collared coats terrible. host: why is that? caller: first of all, i had to go to the veterans hospital, 11 miles away, and i was charged

$1,122.80. they have not written to me, and i was -- they have written to me, and i was fully understanding of this, but that the bill would affect my credit as it went to the credit agency. i said not to them. i cannot understand, even for example they wanted to charge more for membership fees, but they wanted more money. i wish someone could explain to me why this is happening. host: are you on a fixed income? caller: sir, i am. host: these charges, did they affect the way that you can

spend and budget your money? caller: absolutely, i could not say if any more clearly. host: texas, scott, go ahead. caller: same story as always, taxation, regulation, and litigation, you have to get the tyranny of government off of the rear end of businesses. businesses are not going to expand until we see government reducing these three things. that is just all that there is to it. this president has not even a glimmer. he just don't know what he's doing. he is a marxist. he believes the government is the answer to everything and it is the problem, not the answer. host: let me read to you on -- from an article on the business section of "usa today."

it's sort of puts the ball in the court of congress. host: what do you think about that? is congress responsible for this? caller: absolutely, much of the regulation congress is directly responsible for. again, if you just reduced taxation, regulation, and litigation, creating a good business environment for business to do business, they will stop taking their jobs overseas. this is not rocket science.

host: democratic line, san diego, california. good morning. caller: yes, until we stop playing games with that the american people, republicans run a lot of these coveted businesses. they are a war happy people. i do not understand how people can vote for them. if we just got tiring -- if we just start hiring people and stop playing these games, they will put the money into the economy and make it work. they blame obama for what is going on, but that is not right, the christian, get the economy going, that is what we are paying for. host: what do you think is the thinking behind companies who are not hiring? caller: well, no companies are

hiring. people hired last month, tossing dollars into a hole, congress passed a bill for small businesses. host: in the op-ed section of "the washington post," they write about what they think the recovery is lagging.

host: back to the phones, woodwind, texas, mike, independent line, talk to us about your feelings regarding the strength of the u.s. economic recovery. caller: basically, as i understand it, president obama wants to double the exports, but of what? we do not make anything anymore, we have no manufacturing bases. no textiles, no furniture, no television. all of the equipment in your studio today and every studio

across the nation comes from outside of the country. we do not even make our own underwear. all of the underwear in my drawer comes from honduras and el salvador. it is not just china. it is all over. host: what do you see is a way to jump-start manufacturing in the united states? caller: and shutter -- unshutter all the factories. i do not know why they call them the pittsburgh steelers, they do not make steel there anymore. is that simple. look at the industry's that are left in look at the basics. go to the basics and look at why they left. host: thank you for your call.

the lead story in "the new york times" talks about this coming out of beijing. host: we are talking about the state of the u.s. economic recovery. our next call comes from corbin,

ky. jim, a republican line. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: the world is run by the people who control the energy. we are not exploring for energy. who is going to be in control? it will not be s. host: where do you see us going in terms of renewable sources? traditional sources? where can the u.s. strengthen its economy energy-wise? caller: it will not be else, -- it will not be us, we will be at the back of the line. we will be using solar panels in the dark. at night, what good is a solar panel? thank you for taking my call. host: virginia, reston, democratic line, good morning. caller: hello?

sorry, i was trying to call "washington journal" and i have misdialed. host: know, this is "washington journal." where are you calling from? caller: phoenix, arizona. host: go ahead. caller: without regulation we get things like the bank misfortunes and the problem in the gulf coast. the regulation -- deregulation seems to be causing more problems. people living here it to go ploys and other countries and other people, that does not fix the situation. host: what do you see as the balance between regulation of profit and growing the economy in the united states? caller: is out of balance but i do not know who is out there to put it back together, i am not

smart enough to figure that out. but i do not want my babies to have bad eggs. host: in "the journal" this morning, central bankers around the world were meeting at an annual retreat.

host: florida, independent line, william, yuan. caller: thank you, good morning. one of the biggest problems we are having in recovering from this recession and getting businesses going again, it is how the fdic is handling the banking system. i have not seen much written about it, but what is happening, the fdic, you may have seen it in your community, we see it in itself a lot. -- we see it in the south a lot. problems related to the economy, not necessarily related to predatory wrongdoing or robe practices, anything like that,

but return on the news one evening to see our banks being raided by the fdic and the fbi. there were many accusations of wrongdoing. host: what kind of accusations? caller: you know that the papers and the news alluded to fraudulent business practices, like the risky mortgages and stuff that were going on. banks down here were going to settle up the risky mortgages, headed up north for big financial institutions. you may have taken a hit on your 401 k. but it was not necessary for the fbi and the police to cordon off the bank. they were expecting an

examination from the fdic of the mandatory tarp funding that was going on. host: we are going to leave it there. the cover story this morning as this headline in "usa today," --

host: next, virginia, democratic line. go ahead. caller: good morning. lost my train of thought. the first thing, all of the republicans in the country cannot see the difference between the economy now and when obama first took over. even those that have been watching would be able to see the difference in the change in the economy. the lagging economy is only because the republicans have enough confidence to not reinvest that money as they have

tried to force obama to extend the bush tax cuts for the wealthy. host: i wanted to ask you, what signs of the recovery do you see where you are? caller: in virginia the unemployment rate never got that high. but the one bad point about it was governor mcdonald, he refused to take the stimulus money that would allow people on unemployment to get those benefits. he refused that, which i thought was very dirty of him, people needed that money to keep things going. he was a republican in he refused to do it. what the government could do now is give fannie mae and freddie mac back into the businesses of mortgages and let those returning soldiers purchase some of those houses on the market,

that would help the economy quite a bit. host: in the associated press this morning, the european commission says they have economic confidence in the countries that use the euro. "the main economic indicator raised, the main reason being another improvement in consumer confidence as unemployment concerns eased. the increase in sentiment still has hope that economic activity in the euro zone economy is holding up well, despite budgetary retrenchment in greece and japan." houston, texas, republican line, good morning. caller: i have a two part

statement. this first one is for the new world order. the reason that our economy is like this, you could not even protect yourself against germany, japan, and italy, how are you going to protect yourself against the russians and the chinese? america, where is your faith? host: we will leave it there and go on to the bronx, new york caller: people have been complaining about president obama -- bronx, new york. caller: people have been complaining about president obama. the stimulus, health care, the tax reduction, equal pay for men and women for the same work, general motors and chrysler bailout, 55,000 people coming back to work.

education is the pell grant, stopping the free-fall of jobs in the iraq war have been just about ended, i have got to tell you, white people should be falling at his feet. they are going to benefit more from these packages than anyone else. health care, who works? basically, flights. -- whitres. -- whites. having their children stay on until they are 26, that is a blessing in disguise. host: you do not see these policies helping racial minorities? caller: they will, but only a few. more white people will have pink slips because they are the ones with the job, but chrysler calling back 55,000 people?

who is in that package? basically, whites. host: basically people that did not have jobs with chrysler before. talking about the situation in europe, they're right here -- host: camden county, new jersey,

democratic line, bill, go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i was amazed at how everyone seems to be talking around how to get the economy going and no one seems to want to tell the truth. yes, we do ship jobs overseas, but the whole point is that we need to take people who need to be retrained and encourage them to do that. when the republicans were arguing about the health care and all of these other things, no one talks about, particularly the media, about how well this president has been able to get so much legislation through, so much more than most presidents in decades.

still, the media does not say much about that. host: in "the baltimore sun," a couple of other items in the news, this one talking about the president's trip to new orleans over the weekend. most of this is how the store was reported on buying and "the new york times" this morning. -- reported on in "the new york times" this morning.

host: washington, d.c., republican line, william, good morning. caller: i wanted to correct that gentleman from pittsburg, talking about the steelers. i worked in the steel mills. the reason we lost that industry, they were paying koreans $2.50 per hour to produce steel in korea. that is what we lost that industry. the other industries, you have these guys on wall street, money managers planning so much pressure ceos to show profits every quarter, they pare the company's down to the bone and eventually the only thing left to do is send these companies jobs overseas. host: how would you go about raising the salaries of the

people that worked in the steel industry while keeping the cost of steel down and making it more attractive to builders in the united states? caller: the situation is so bad, i do not know how to fix it, i was simply addressing why we lost it. we had good wages in pittsburgh. the city was doing well. we made a living salaries and we did well until they started shipping the jobs to korea, where people were making $2.50 per hour. same thing with brazil. host: we are talking about the strength of the u.s. economic recovery this morning. we got this e-mail from south carolina --

host: gainesville, ohio, independent line, you are on "washington journal." caller: thank you, c-span, thank you for taking my call. i just kind of maintain that our economy is completely out of balance. it seems like in the past 20 years we have pretty much destroyed the middle class in this country. it seems to me that there are way too many people in the financial services industry, too many people working for the government, not the of people working in manufacturing. host: how do we maintain a balance? caller: we have to look at these free trade agreements, tried to restructure them, see if we cannot give part of our manufacturing base back. it does not seem like anyone in washington is willing to take the steps to go back and look at

the mistakes that we made in and really do something about it. if you look at financial regulation, it seems like it has been written by the banks and wall street. it does not seem like there is any hope for a regular person in the united states. host: in "the wall street journal" this morning --

host: princeton, indiana, bill, democratic line, go ahead. caller: one man said that it did not take a rocket scientist to figure this out, and he is right. i will tell you what has happened, it is the people and business economists who have come out, the accountants come out, looking to make an extra time. -- dime. not even thinking about the people that it affects. cliit affects several communities, not just one community. evansville is not far from me, they have a whirlpool factory there that employs several thousand people at one time, and now it has gone to mexico just

because of greed. it is all about greed. everyone gives the union a bad time, but the unions give people a living wage. a living wage is now not even close to what they should be. host: thank you for the call. we have a twitter message here from boring file clerk. host: i am "the houston chronicle," the new story --

host: akron, ohio, you are on. caller: i just wanted to say that i think it is impossible for america to survive global capitalism, like the man was saying, when the jobs overseas, why would any company who has a bottom line help america? host: how do we get more profits for the united states and keep jobs here?

caller: all of these regulations that we have, i do not see a way that it can be done. i think that this has been planned for a long time. caller: -- host: a plan by who? caller: deletes, d illuminati, the people that run the world. host: oil exploration in cuba is going ahead as the headline here in "the financial times."

host: eastlake, ohio, jackie, good morning. caller: the reason that these companies went to china, it was a bottom-line. the fact that it was slave labor where they did not have to worry about worker conditions. in the multinationals, what has happened is the multinationals have gone to china, giving up our international rights and properties, china is going to take over the country, not only economically, but militarily and we will be the losers. host: joseph, frederick, md., good morning. caller: i have got a few comments to make regarding the economy.

host: go ahead. caller: i would like to thank president obama for the stimulus package, it was a very big boost. and especially over the last year. as far as recovery is concerned, america is responsible for the recovery. we need to be responsible for our money. we do not have the stimulus in our own country to purchase things in america. host: in "the detroit free press" this morning, a story regarding the housing industry.

host: you can read more of that online at their web site. tacoma, washington, republican line, good morning, welcome to "washington journal." caller: good morning. host: what do you think about the strength of the u.s. economy? caller: the question should be for it -- framed better. what about the real u.s. economy and the people's economy? host: who are these people that are insulated from the real world? caller: the sector of our population from the city, state, county, and fed, making more than the rest of us, pensions at 12% increases every year, it

regardless of what the stock market does. union attorneys go behind the scenes and negotiate with whom? the same people they are representing. if that is not the biggest corruption you of our seen in u.s. history, then i do not know. the result is you have been insulated section of the economy voting as a block for themselves, not for the country. they are not doing what the country needs. they're just continuing to assume that a few rogue government with a top-down approach, we will have prosperity, and we simply will not until the government is reduced. until liability is reduced, you pay money to the fed every year. i could never afford a down

payment. for the gentleman that called in about the bush tax cuts and the rich, i am the rich. i cannot afford a home, i cannot afford the economy because i laid the golden egg for these feds. host: in your response here, " the u.s. recovery is stalling as a matter of economics, the balance of risk strongly favors further fiscal and monetary stimulus -- caller: i happen to believe that the fed is the problem. i am not cynical about it, but i think that when thomas jefferson said that those who control your money are stronger than the army, he was absolutely right.

anyone turning to the fed for results, i cannot understand it. if the fed was not controlling your money, if they were just doing what they were originally intended to do, buffering money into the u.s., we would be strong, but instead of manipulating everything, it causes an up and down. host: on the front page of "usa today" this morning --

host: also this morning in "the wall street journal" -- coast of gaithersburg, md., independent line, thank you for waiting. caller: your welcome. host: go ahead, sir.

caller: i am wondering where this country is going. originally i am from russia and everyone in that society is employed, going back 20 years to see how people did in the socialist regime. i think that there is a simple way to move the economy forward, make them interested in keeping the money here. personal entities, if a company has more than 50% of the work force outside of the united states, let them live in china under a communist regime. i am sure that they will come back to the united states. it is still a beacon of freedom.

they are living it. host: we are going to finish up with this op-ed in this morning's "philadelphia inquirer." talking about the rocket crash course -- host: the arraignment is today, we will have coverage, just go to our web site, c-span.org. we will take a short break and when we come back, we will talk about the week ahead in foreign policy, talking primarily about iraq, as well as the least. we will be right back. -- as well as the middle east. we will be right back. ♪

♪ >> yesterday i signed a disaster declaration for the state of louisiana. this morning i signed a state of disaster for mississippi. >> have a look back at how the federal government responded to the crisis online at the c-span

video library, all of it free, every program since 1987. this is washington, your way. >> tonight starts science and technology week on booktv prime time. talking about the future, the rapid advancements in technology, and its implications for the future, stephen baker on computer scientists and mathematicians that would like to predict and manipulate our behavior. that is tonight on c-span to. -- c-span2. >> digital video recorders and dvr, the impact on the television industry, as well as advertising. that is tonight on "but

communicator's." >> "washington journal" continues. host: yochi dreazen joins us from "the national journal." he is here and talk about things like u.s. foreign policy, welcome to the program. guest: thank you. host: this week the president will be talking about the drawdown of forces in iraq. the headline here, "no let up for some forces." give us the assessment of your situation -- of the situation over there. guest: practical, good but trending down, unfortunately. last week there were 13 attacks from all over the country. the political situation is totally and completely frozen, almost six months since the election.

most of the negotiations have stopped for ramadan. did you have six, potentially eight or nine months of total draft. host: in "the philadelphia inquirer" this morning, "two months to take a new vote could foster turmoil, the fact that they have not been able to come together could fuel more confusion." guest: this is the part of the world that literally invented the idea of negotiating in the dark. none of the people that won the last election, neither of them want a new election. no one in iraq wants a new election. i think that the outgoing u.s. commander that floated this idea is his way of giving him -- giving them a nudge saying that they will not wait forever.

host: what do the troops there think about the drawdown? do they have faith in these security forces? guest: the answers range from some people did not know that it was happening because they focus on the day-to-day concerns, some people say it is a great thing, because it was embarrassing for iraq, who is very nationalistic, but in general they think that they are good enough for internal security, but they could do nothing against a foreign force. host: "the commander of american forces in iraq will leave the country on wednesday after four years there." what kind of transition will be taking place regarding the command of u.s. forces remaining in after he leaves?

guest: it is amazing, forces will have shrunk significantly. by the time that he believes there will be under 50,000 left in the country. for the most part, advising and assisting, combat breaking out at any time. for the most part, the mission has changed to training, largely confined to bases, focused mostly on training. host: we are talking about u.s. foreign policy in iraq, pakistan, and elsewhere in the least. -- in the middle east. if you would like to be a part of the conversation, give us a call. for republicans, 202-737-0001. for democrats, 202-737-0002. for independents, 202-628-0205. you can also send us messages using e-mail and twitter.

in "the washington post" this morning it talks about officers that are weary and humble. give us a sense, of months the troops, how do they feel about their presence? guest: some of them are moving into their sixth tour, they feel they have survived and seen signs of progress. the troops in afghanistan, they felt that they were the forgotten soldiers, but now the people in iraq wish that they were in afghanistan because that is where the action is and iraq has become the forgotten war. host: shifting gears here, talking about the peace talks that will be happening in washington later this week --

host: your thoughts? guest: that is a very big factor. israel has dramatically reduced the attacks, which has allowed them to increase their operations in the west bank. there targeted assassination program has also reduced violence. the west bank is growing very strongly. this is part of the top territory run by the former world bank official palestinian prime minister. they have stability and economic growth. host: we will get back to that of bed in a moment from the

brookings institution later run in the discussion, but right now we are going to the phones are in georgia. doug, you are on yochi dreazen. -- don with yochi dreazen -- you are on with yochi dreazen. caller: people this morning were trying to ask the president if he is muslim. i have one comment, president obama is the best double talk her i have ever heard in my life. every time he changes or does something for the country, i am one of those people that has no faith. i am really sorry and i hope that he does do something for the country. host: have you seen any concrete

evidence that would lead you to believe that the president is a muslim and not a christian? caller: part of his comments are about how he wants to impress the muslims. he made that statement, i heard him on television. host: wanting to impress them does not mean that he is one. in several instances he has said he is a christian. host: true, but if you want to believe, but that bosc would set a lot of people -- but that mosque but sets a lot of people. host: how is this controversy playing in the middle east, yochi dreazen? does it matter to the people in israel and other parts of afghanistan? this controversy we are having

in the united states regarding the president's religion? of guest: where it is a big story, unfortunately, other parts of the world where we would like to not be a big story. places where the president is deeply unpopular and many of the conspiracy theories see the war as a war against islam. it is playing very big in some parts of the world. host: independent line, donald. caller: i am shocked, i did not realize that things were so wonderful in the gaza region and that the palestinians were flourishing so well. i was under the impression that eight ships were being blocked and terrorist israeli troops were killing people. thank you for the update. as far as the iraq war is

concerned, this is a trip -- complete tragedy that never should have happened. saddam hussein was completely cut off, and basically i think of this war was inspired by the israeli lobby in the united states, who was pushing for us to invade iran. host: yochi dreazen guest: to clarify, i was talking about the west bank, not gaza -- host: yochi dreazen? guest: to clarify, i was talking about the west bank, not gaza. the question of whether or not it back is worth it, that is the question that should be guessed right now. what does it mean to go from combat advisory to 50,000 troops? those are the trees, the forest is that now that the war is winding down, is it worth it?

thousands of lives lost amongst the iraqis, billions upon trillions of dollars spent. seeing if it is worth the and this is victory, if we could move on for one moment, that is what makes the president's speech tomorrow night so tricky. this is a war that he has promised to wind down, but how will he decide to frame it the phrase we keep hearing is winding down the war responsibly or something similar. host: this deadline for withdrawing the troops is actually set by president bush. given the situation in iraq right now, if they did not have that party and fast deadline set by the earlier administration, do you think that the obama administration would have pulled the troops out at a slower pace?

guest: a great question, i have thought about that myself. my answer is probably not. remember, when the president bush was signing this treaty with the iraqis, the afghan war was an afterthought. if the obama administration had made the same decisions on afghanistan that they did, they simply could not keep the number of troops in iraq that they had during the surge. host: the next call, from sebring, florida, democratic line. go ahead. caller: thank you. in iraq, it seems to me that the violence is going to be inevitable. this is the exact same scenario that we went through in vietnam that was part of the atrocities after we pulled out of vietnam. like the outcome in vietnam, that country has finally settled into itself. host: yochi dreazen?

guest: in some ways i think that is the best case scenario. i do not mean that facetiously, but for this to be a stable country, it has to be a country where all three groups reach agreements that they can live with. it might not be the answer is that we like as americans, but you are right, did send the message, and i am not trying to make light of the fact that for this to be stable and long term, that is what has happened. host: you mentioned afghanistan, this is from "the wall street journal" this morning. .

has been questioning virtually everything general petraeus wants to do. the obama administration fired stanley mcchrystal because of critical comments he made. petraeus has said he wants to do a range of things, come all militias in afghanistan. karzai opposed it. he wants military population

moving in. even hearts and minds, they said that is not for americans to do. afghans will win afghan hearts and minds. these are major concern, but the fact that the last ditch american general with any credibility is being rebuffed again and again is a bigger concern. host: if the story continues to take traction, how much more difficult will it be for general petraeus to achieve his michigan in afghanistan? guest: people who know internal karzai say that he is a deeply paranoid man. he very rarely leaves his compound. he is always worried about foreign spies. if he believed that all of this advisers are on the cia payroll, you can imagine he will become

even more host: yochi dreazen is here to talk about u.s. foreign policy, afghanistan, pakistan. elsewhere, the conversation continues with christian, arlington, virginia. caller: christopher. thank you for taking my call. if they are winding down in iraq -- all i was reading the paper the other day -- why would the state department be contacting me to thousands of people who will be risking their lives in iraq after troops are pulling up? what is the purpose of that, does that mean more contract people? guest: that is a great question. you are seeing the military

mission it will not be led by the state department. iraq remains dangerous. for the 2000 employees of the state department in iraq, they will have a veritable army of contractors for security. it may be one of the half-dozen companies but estimates that we hear from the state department are that they may hire a thousand to cure the contractors. you are right. you will have thousands of contractors putting their life on the line, but that is a function of military drawdown. host: next phone call. caller: i was wondering how you think these muslim countries feel about the propaganda that we are promoting, here in america, in the run-up to the

war. there seemed to be some from demonization going on on tv. [inaudible] what do you think about how that plays out, policy? guest: in part on the world where there is already suspicion about the u.s., a belief that our actions in afghanistan and iraq, that this is part of a broader war on islam, this adds fuel to the fire. my personal sense is that there is a delayed reaction to the

9/11 attacks. in the immediate aftermath, president bush went to muslim prayer services, declared this long to be a religion of peace, with the damage conducted by individuals. i think that kept in check a lot of the fear that was kicked up from this attack. it is interesting, nine years later, those feelings that have been kept in check, are beginning to bubble of the surface. host: 01 to talk about the peace talks that are happening this week. there was an op-ed in the friday "york times -- "new york times." settlement activity has slowed significantly.

he writes -- your thoughts? guest: i think his third and fourth point are overly optimistic. the palestinian policy is not united. we spoke about the west bank, which is under fatah. gaza remains under control of hamas. it is unclear if they would reunite with the west bank. as you know, the details that matter. jerusalem remained tricky. what do you do with the temple

mountains? east of jerusalem? what about the right of return for all israelis of all political stripes? it is not clear if that is satisfactory to the palestinian public. host: will they take this opportunity to hammer out those details you talked about? guest: it is hard to get into that type of state that martin writes about. but would abbas is -- mahmoud abbas is the leader of only half of them host: our conversation with yochi dreazen continues with keefe. caller: just a couple of

comments. the earlier caller was 100% correct. i am an african-american. president obama is the biggest doubletalk her i have seen in my life. by following his actions, i am sure president obama is taking troops out of iraq to go into iran there is no way we can win a war in iran with troops in afghanistan and iraq. that is my first comment. hopefully, a lot of these born- again christians listen carefully. the so-called jews in israel right now are not the jews from israel. negros in america are the original hebrew is.

they are massacring muslims across the country right now. host: talk to us about the first part of the statement, concern that troops are being moved out of iraq to eventually go into iran. guest: i think the concern makes some sense, but if you look at any sort of planning for a strike in iran, no one is envisioning ground invasion. perhaps sustained waves of air strikes, but i have not met anyone in government who believes a ground invasion in iran is possible or probable. host: india's "washington times" -- -- in the "washington times" --

your thought? guest: i think americans could do something if they chose. their systems are much weaker than ours. if the u.s. chose to strike iran, they would have the ability to do so at land, and effectively. to that, of course, is that iran would strike back as well, and they would close the strait of hormuz. host: if coalition forces are preparing for some sort of attack, with the iranian power

structure get ready for such an attack, would that bring them to the negotiating table to say there is a way to work this out? guest: i think there would not be a sign of a visible buildup. i do not think this would be like iraq where you have troops on the border, days of preparation, and then getting the order to cross. you would have airplanes coming in by surprise. the second part of the question, unfortunately, their spine is stiffened already, unfortunately. host: last phone call comes from california. helen on the republican line. caller: i just read an article in the journal of foreign affairs about remaking the middle east and corn policy.

one of the things that i noticed, the point of it, american and foreign policy is not adjusting to the changes of political alliances in the middle east. one thing that struck me was the role that turkey is playing. and syria, as peace brokers in the middle east, regarding iran. we have some of the most unlikely country becoming more radicalized by american-born policy -- american foreign policy, such as saudi arabia. that you have these actions that are becoming more moderate in their response to peace

broking, which we regard as primitive, like hamas. i want to know your reaction to this article. guest: there are some interesting points. turkey had been, for a long time, and a quasi-ally. they had been a friend of the u.s., israel, but has since moved to much more is on this point of these. on the other hand, you have saudi arabia, who has been neither friendly to israel or the u.s., and now there are all kinds of quasi-secret talks between them and israel because of iran. these sunni gulf states are terrified about the iranian nuclear program. a colleague of mine had an

interesting piece talking about a possible strike in iran. the saudis would allow planes to fly over their territory. the fact that they would contemplate cooperation with israel militarily is a comment on the culture which you described. host: yochi dreazen thank you for being on the program this morning. we are going to take a short break. when we come back, border security.

>> yesterday, i signed a disaster declaration for the state of louisiana. this morning on sunday disaster declaration for the state of mississippi. >> as the nation remembers the fifth anniversary of hurricane katrina, c-span has all the videos. >> tonight start science and technology week. digitally save your memories. a future with "total recall."

in "thenumerati" the scientists who want to manipulate our behavior. >> join our conversation on the american revolution, the making of the constitution, sunday with paul to prize winner morgan would. -- gordon wood. noon eastern, on c-span2. host: mark borkowski is the assistant commissioner of the u.s. customs border and protection policy and acquisition office. he is here to talk about the secure border initiative project. first of all, what is the project, how is it supposed to work? guest: as a contact, it was a

broad policy, and initiative of the homeland security policy, to look at the totality of things needed to secure the border. over time, it has become more focused on two elements. one was the construction of the physical fence along the border. there is another technology element, the ability to have fixed cameras on towers, other systems, that will collect information at the border, get that information to the border patrol, so that they can more effectively act on that information. we have the technical infrastructure and technology. host: in the "usa today" they talk about the human element.

how does the human element play into that? guest: when we talk about border security, we talk about three elements that have to be combined in a constructive way to provide that security. technology is one of them, tactical security is another, and the third is personnel. the third is probably the most robust in capable of those elements. we use the first two to make the job of the personnel a bit easier. talking about national guard, cbp officers, they are the ones that have to enforce the security.

host: in this report on "the brownsville herald" -- talking about the failure of the program started under the bush administration. let me get your response to the statement by the judge that it is an utter failure. guest: the physical sense is largely constructed, as it says. that does seem to have a significant impact.

that was done largely on schedule and on cost. when you talk about failure in the program, we are frequently talking about the technology called fbi net. that has been way behind schedule and cost. i think we would characterize that as a failure, at this point. however, it has been deployed in two areas of the border, and we're checking out its operations to see where it makes more sense to deploy. host: we are talking about border security with mark borkowski. he is the assistant commissioner of the acquisitions department. republicans, 202-737-0001. democrats, 202-737-0002. independents, 202-628-0205.

again, if you have called in last 30 days, today would be the day to send us a message through e-mail or twitter. alvin, go ahead. caller: when we look at border security, the number of illegal aliens right now is 20 million- plus, why was there no concern about the illegal aliens crossing the border? guest: there has always been a concern about the border, but frankly, the concern was heightened after 9/11. the border being a porous represents a potential threat. we have always been concerned about the security of the border but that to charity has been heightened. most of the people here in the

country, although here illegally, do not seem to be a threat, criminal acts. we are concerned about drugs, weapons, smuggling across the border. that is why we are taking significant increase steps. host: mark from carmel, new york. caller: you made a statement about illegal immigrants being here, not a high threat to commit a crime. being here illegally itself is a crime. as far as technology security, i do not think that will work well. building a fence that would really keeping them out, manned by security cameras intermittently will it possibly be in better way than to spend

money on technology. that is my statement. guest: first of all, i think there is a lot of confusion about ball. it is not a crime to be -- about the law. in is not a crime to be here illegally. -- is not a crime to be a very illegally, although the way that you come here does matter. the funds that we have does not prevent people from crossing the border. it delays them. to allay people's progress, so we have time to respond to a incursions over the fence. normally, that response is done by border control. technology can augment that because the offense.

those three things together makes sense. you could conceive of hundreds of thousands of border patrol agents perhaps covering that, but you could do the job with a lot fewer people with the right technology infrastructure. host: this tweet says -- guest: i am not sure what the reference to fraud is, but it is not true that nobody goes to jail. we are selective in what we prosecuted as we need to be. there are people that go to jail, especially people smuggling other folks, drugs into the country. people who are a threat, who are repeat offenders. at the ports of entry, if you fraudulently present yourself, that is a crime, and is

prosecutable. host: how tall is the offense? guest: 15 feet to 18 feet in the area where it is a pedestrian deaths. host: what do you say to critics who say that the only thing this will do is increase the production of 20-foot ladders in mexico? guest: we never expected this to stop people from coming through. this just takes them more time. host: next phone call, a corpus christi, texas. arthur. caller: is any effort being made, perhaps along certain zones, to watch the gulf coast

for certain incursions'? it was reported on fox news, on the bottom of the screen, some malia members of al qaeda had already entered the country through mexico. i was worried about matters like this, especially something being released that is water-borne. host: in the "philadelphia inquirer" on sunday -- guest: when we talk about the gulf coast, pacific ocean, atlantic ocean, that is a joint effort between customs and the border security.

the question, do we use drones, unmanned surveillance? we do expect to purchase a maritime version of that. we also have a pretty extensive air force which also been told the waterways. so yes, we are watching the waterways. host: these water-functioning drones, what are their capabilities? guest: they can go quite a ways. they can operate 10 hours. they have various cameras, radars, infrared sensors, as well as maritime sensors. host: of baltimore, maryland. caller: i would like to explore

further what the previous caller was interested in. have video cameras, surveillance equipment that can pinpoint cars on city streets from satellite to? -- from satellites? i do not understand why not come under surveillance of our border between the u.s. and mexico, why we do not sweep the border and augment the wall system, which is as you said, a slowdown. it will not prevent people from coming through. tell me more about that and why we do not focus our attention on that kind of aerial surveillance of what is happening on the ground. guest: actually, we do.

we have 155 aircraft along the southwest border and we have some pilots that watch. we also have three unman devices surveiling the border. the aerial technology, while powerful, it tends to move. we need to augment that with something that can much larger areas all the time, as opposed to areas that it sweeps. so we do have aerial surveillance and we are buying other technologies to watch other areas, all the time, to complement that aerial technology. host: rick, hartford, conn.

good morning. caller: i hope you will allow me to complete my call. good morning. first of all, you seem to be portraying an image that our government is doing everything it can. it is not. it has been missing in action, we know that. we need troops on the border to protect us, seal the border and then developed the border for long-term maturity. two, you said it is not illegal to be in the country. it is not a crime to be here illegally. i heard from an attorney who had an interest in expressing in the put like that because he was going to make money.

you, sir, have just used sophistry. it is illegal to be in the country if you are undocumented, and it is illegal to enter the country illegally. for due to say that it is not illegal to be in the country illegally -- i do not know what you are talking about. you seem to be misrepresenting the facts. guest: there are two things here. it is illegal to be in the country undocumented, but it is not a crime necessarily. if you park illegally, it is against the law, but it is not yet a crime. i am trying to make the distinction between an illegal act and a criminal act. coming across the border is an

illegal act. being in the country is illegal. -- although perhaps not criminal. host: you say is illegal but not a crime, and to many, it sounds like you are splitting hairs, losing support of the people out there. guest: i agree with you, it is splitting hairs, monday national dialogue has gotten to be such. when someone says something is not a crime and there is a backlash, well, they do not know it is a crime. well, it is. then we end up in this issue. it has harmed our ability to

have a rational dialogue over this difficult topic. host: mark borkowski is the assistant commissioner at the u.s. customs and border protection agency. he has also been a program executive for robotic lunar exploration program, and the mission directorate at nasa headquarters. active-duty in the u.s. air force. add your web site, cbp.gov, you can find some information regarding the northern border project. cbp has begun a modest technology development along the border to address the needs and of vulnerability is of the northern border, maritime environment, as well as stand- alone technology that will

provide immediate operational benefit. explain this northern border project and how it differs on the southern border. guest: on the northern border, we do not have a great deal of technology. 99% of the illegal traffic that we have is on the southwest border, however, we are concerned about the northern border. in a couple of areas, we have deployed remote surveillance systems, cameras. we have about 250 of them already on the southwest border. we have begun to survey certain areas, such as the st. clair river in detroit, the niagara river in buffalo. that gives us some idea of the activity happening around those rivers without having an agency there. we also have truck-mounted

cameras that are mobile that we have deployed there. obviously, the north has a different environment and whetheweather. host: your previous work with nasa, is there anything regarding space and equipment that can be used to patrol the border? guest: certainly, there are some system that may give us capability. we also use certain space systems for communication, obviously. but the real lesson for us, a lesson for the department of defense, as well as nasa, had to

do with how you develop, by the systems. -- buy these systems. fbi net, one of its perceived failures, it is that it did not apply these lessons to the program, and we paid dearly for that. certainly, there space systems that apply, but they're also management system that need to apply as we purchased the equipment host: from cnn -- what is off-the-shelf technology, and why is it necessary to take this money

from sbi net? guest: as i discussed earlier, that is way behind schedule. border security is critical and we cannot wait any longer. there are areas where we need technology now. take that money and apply it to things that we can buy today. when we designed sbi net, we did not do the analysis we should have done to say, is this the most cost-effective way to put security on the border? are there cheaper systems that are almost as good? did we make the right decision for the use of money? the secretary took that money away for two reasons. we need time to analyze this and decide if it makes sense to buy more of it. host: give me an example of such

technologies. guest: the bulk of this money went to mobile systems, truck- mounted cameras where the driver can look at their system and respond out to other members. we have about 40 of those on the southwest border to date. they have been very effective. a good part of the money has gone to that, and we should begin the delivery of new systems here soon. host: next phone call for mark borkowski. caller: good morning, mark. i am concerned that you announced the homeland security lady is involved. you say fences do not work.

how do is to keep people of their country? correct me if i am wrong but i believe the u.s. and canada are some of the only countries that allow free movement along their border. guest: first of all, the secretary is involved. i can assure you she has been upset with our progress. secondly, i do not think i said fences do not work. i said that they do not completely stop people from coming into the country, they delay the progress. the comparison could be made with the u.s. border and others but our border is not a militarized sound. i know there are some people that believe it ought to be, but our belief is this is not a military zone, it is a border between neighbors, friends. the idea to get the rights mix

of technology, personnel is crucial. i hope i did not leave the impression that it does not work. the funds coming in and of itself, does not secure the border. in combination with people and technology, can secure the border, if used properly. host: patrick on the democrat's line. you are next. caller: i have a small business. i do some international dealings. i wind up needing many internationals who want to work with us, and i always check -- i wonder what kind of technology we really need to solve this problem? unlike some of my racist brethren who have called, i wonder why we are focusing on the illegal population, the

undocumented immigrants, when the beeper who are hiring them are far more illegal. they live in this country and they go out of their way -- tyson chicken, mining companies -- to hire illegals. they say is a pretense at americans will not do this work. i remember when you could earn $12 an hour to do this work. and then it went to $5 and if you talk, we will get you deported. we know there have been programs that have helped mexicans come across the border. we know our tomatoes cost very little because we have slave labor. to we think these mexicans come here because of the weather? are we that naive or that racist? i hate to use this analogy, but

if you put sugar in the middle of the floor and ants come to eat it, you cannot just keep on stepping on them. we need to be scooping up the sugar. host: gracie on twitter has a similar thought -- your response? guest: first of all, you both make a great point because what they are getting to is border security is about more than what happens at the border. and as long as there is a magnet that draws people in, unable to find a way to get in. that is why we struggled with this concept of immigration reform, this concept of worksite enforcement. we do have worksite enforcement

programs. there is in department dealing with immigration and customs enforcement, and it is their job to deal with the interior enforcement. they are very much focused on worksite enforcement. with respect to what happened on the border, we are still concerned, not so much about the granma picking lettuce, but people who want to do harm to this country. people who might want to bring in weapons, drugs, people who want to smuggle in other people, essentially for slave labor. those are our concerns and those people are not impacted by the kind of immigration reform we are talking about, so we have to be able to respond to all kinds of threats there is a question about the right kind of response to that. what i talked about earlier, making sure that what we spend

our money on is the best use of our money. host: conrad on the independent line. caller: good morning. i do not believe illegal immigrants, especially from mexico, are coming specifically for jobs. think about the 1990's when proposition 13 was passed in california. unfortunately, it was overturned by an organization and one judge who went against the will of the people. some of these people are coming to get on our benefits, education, welfare, and possibly

on the social security system, after they get pregnant. these are the benefits that they can take from us, and cost us in the long run. you may recall many years ago the chinese had this problem, too, and they build a huge wall. it is a tourist attraction, at this point. it would be a cheap way to maintain people coming over from the border. guest: in terms of where we have the offense, we put in in areas where we believe we need to delay folks progress. we do not have it in places where it does not do anything. in the areas that are very remote, where people would have to walk for days to get anywhere, any offense that would

buy us 15 minutes of time does not seem to be a cost-effective way to protect the border. again, we do not believe the best stuff from people coming over the border, it slows the progress and gives us more opportunity to respond. ultimately, it is law enforcement, customs and border patrol agents, who are responding to the people come across. host: lisa, eldorado springs. good morning. caller: my would like to address some issues. technology is awesome. i am 50 years old. the technology we have now is tremendous compared to years ago. we have many elderly people in this country that have gone to

war, worked all their lives and have paid taxes, and they are not as eligible for benefits, and they are suffering, to buy their meds, and we have this influx of people coming in. personally, i think bankruptcy is where this is going. you cannot pay out more than what is being put in. it does not take an economist to figure that out. we?aren't because of the drugs come on the bad things happening to the american and mexican people, why aren't we making this a military cross point? why is this not totally covered by army national guard?

why is this not taking care of? let's not be so books more and where we cannot see the forest from the trees. guest: we are using our military in one is an effective law enforcement function in the country. i think people are concerned about putting the military on the border. traditionally, we had used the military for military events, not law enforcement. the question is, do we have adequate personnel, technology, infrastructure, and it is -- is it a effective when it is applied? if he go back to 2000, we apprehended 1.6 million people coming across the southwest border. of course, more than that tried, but that was our representative

-- apprehension. this year, we expect one-third of that number and we believe that reflects a significant improvement in our ability to deal with people coming across. people are surprised to hear that often because maybe there is a sense that the border is under better control, but we believe that the tool that we use our effective. there are clearly areas that need more work. arizona notably. that is one reason why the president has said national guard to there, another 1000 national guardsmen and with the supplemental. we have found the tools that we applied to work. we probably need more of them, but where we have applied them, make a significant difference, and we intend to continue using those tools. host: karen in illinois. you are on with mark borkowski.

caller: i want to think c-span for what they tell the people. i live in a small town in the midwest. 5 miles from my house is what we call the mexican mafia. these people are coming over to have a business of their own. they do not want to pick fruit. they want a business. in that town north of me, there are five or six businesses that are manned by them. -- ran by them. i believe it is the state's fault. they need to be able to and fro what is happening in their own state. host: sorry about cutting you

off, i thought you were finished. guest: the issue is something for the courts. i think we all understand, people are here illegally and we have not been successful in controlling that. we would argue that we are continuing to make more progress. this goes to your other point. border security is not just what happened at the border. it is also about enforcement activities in the interior of the country. i suggested that we have increased resources going to that. host: talk about the increase cooperation between border protection on our side of the border in your mexican power -- counterparts. guest: we have a program coming up shortly where we will have a joint communication system along the border so we can communicate

better. so there is communication, and dialogue, there are ways that we can get in touch. typically, if there is an act of violence against a border patrol agent that occurs to somebody on the other side of the border, we have the ability to call mexican authorities to respond to it. host: gainesville, florida. go ahead. caller: thank you for the show. thank you for making a difference between criminality and illegality. at the same time, the government needs to start doing things differently.

we have a bunch of environmental problems, but at the same time, we are the ones that prefer the government in mexico and south. for propaganda purposes, we claim that the cubans can come over here, although it is illegally. if they come here, they become legal. in fact, we used to pay them to come to the united states. host: mark borkowski? guest: i think you make a good point on how complex this issue is. border security is a multi dimensional problem. it is not just about sealing the

borders. it is about foreign relations but other government. a complex problem and we often focus on just the border, and we do that at our peril. in order to deal with the types of questions that people are raising, it takes all of these other activities, in concert with border security. host: gao released a report earlier this summer, he security border initiative, dhs needs to follow through and better manage key technology programs. tell us about some of these programs that gao thinks it needs to be managed better, going forward? guest: the program i am familiar with is sbi net. many of the failures we have identified as management failures. the gao has commented on it many

times, we have made steps to improve it, but we need to better understand what we are getting into. we think we are getting there, but we are not yet there. host: colleen, new jersey. you are on "washington journal." caller: i have a few questions. what i am listening to this morning is scaring me to death, really, really scaring me. we are basically human targets, here in the new york city area. you have many people asking you why you have not put troops down there on the border.

you want to maintain a friendly correspondence with our neighbors. we also do, but we have been attacked. it was not/11 and we are terrified. that is the way we live here. we live here expecting that. to hear all these people who are frightened and terrified -- the american hiroshima pilot, he is on the moves. he has been in mexico. nobody is writing about him. he has rented a place in mexico and canada. he is the third largest threat to the country. normal.eak let's protect america. let's put troops on the border. host: there has been a lot

discussed this morning. you talk about this being in law enforcement issue. is there any thought to changing the philosophy, from making this more of the national defence issue, and might that open up the way to put more national guard troops on the border and relax the concerns of people like colleen? guest: it is a national issue, so you could consider in a national defence issue, but what do you want the military doing? there are many threats to this country. i lived in the country and i am concerned about an attack as well. threats come from many different directions and we have a variety of resources. we have the military, border patrol, coast guard. the question is, what is the right resources in the right situation?

when we talk about putting the military on the border, we are taking it away from its other functions, which are equally important, in terms of protecting us from all of these attacks. these things can come from anywhere, so yes, we have to secure the border, but we have to be concerned about over three overseas -- overseas threats. we need to have different elements to respond to different threats. the response at the border, which is affected, had been border patrol and technology. could we do that if we thought we needed to, if we thought it was the right use of resources? we probably could. we do not at this point. we believe the resources we are applying for the most effective for the job. host: baltimore, maryland.

you are on with mark borkowski. caller: good morning. that problem could be easily solved if they crack down on the contractors and everyone hiring the illegal mexicans. if there was no work form, they would not come over here, would you think? guest: certainly, we think jobs are a major draw for these people. i understand the argument about benefits, hospitals, but it seems to us the bulk of the draw is the opportunity for jobs. there is an element that is responsible for enforcing the law hiring these people. there is also technology available and there are a registration kind of programs where employers can check whether or not the people there

about to employ in the country are here illegally. there is a supporter of enforcement, but it is going to have to grow. eliminating the drogba eliminates a large part of the problem. that is part of the totality of the approach to border security. >> how much of this program involves reaching out to members of the community to get them involved? how far does that go? guest: it does involve reaching a lot to the community. when we built the fence, we have all kinds of open houses and town halls. it was a very controversial things. and in some areas people wanted fence. in other areas, they did not want id blocking their view of the rio grande river or their

use of the park or farmland. we expect to do more. one of the things that the secretary directed when she directed the reassessment was more out of reach and dialogue with the public. host: we have been talking about the border security and technology with market borkowski. thank you. we're going to take a break and when we come back, an examination of the 2010 house and senate races. we will have that right after this break.

>> coming of later this morning, in discussion on threats and attacks on a federal administrative law judges and recommendations on how to better protect judges. randall friday that the administrative law judge and president of the administration of law judges. live coverage from the national press club's right after "washington journal" @ tevamie stern live here on the state -- by 10:00 a.m. eastern live here on c-span. two rallies, on the 47th anniversary of dr. martin luther king's "i have adrienne" speech. -- "i have a dream" speech.

>> yesterday, i signed a disaster and a declaration for the state of louisiana. this morning i signed a disaster declaration for the state of mississippi. >> as the gulf coast marks the fifth anniversary of hurricane katrina, look back at how the federal government responded to the crisis on line at the c-span video library. all of free, every program since 1987. >>, tonight starts science and technology we are in "book tv" prime time.

"book tv" in prime time tonight on c-span2. craigslist kibo president tom rogers and affects president john lun prounced -- >> tivo president and fx president tonight on the communicators on c-span2. >> the c-span networks provide coverage of politics, nonfiction books and american history. it is available on television, radio, online and social networking media sites. and we take c-span on the road with our digital bus and local content vehicle. is washington your way, the c- span networks now are available in more than 100 homes -- 100 million homes.

"washington journal" continues. host: we are continuing our summer series on "washington journal" this week. if you have been turning in at this hour you have seen as two different subjects. this week we are calling to look at politics and what goes into campaigning. on tuesday we will get political ads and their impact on electoral politics. and wednesday, the role of in attendance this year. on thursday, the science of polling, its accuracy and our fax elections. and on friday, a political fund- raising in light of the recent decision by the supreme court. but today, we will look at the 2010 senate and house races. with me is the cook political report gang. charlie cook leave the -- to lead to the publication as the publisher. jennifer duffy and david wasserman also looking at house

races. thank you very much. guest: it is the first time we've done anything altogether on television before. host: give us the macro picture of what we're looking at. i have heard that the demand -- the dems will keep the house and know they won't keep the house. guest: it is looking tougher and tougher. if you look at it from a macro, top-down perspective, it looks like it's going to go republican. the race by race count is not quite there. david will go into much more of the micro political, but from the national perspective, when you take in and turn out how independents are swinging and all these dynamics, it is

looking tougher for democrats to all gone to the house. my hunch is that they are going to come up short. host: it was said on friday that they're going to cut out, -- he did not say the executive like that, but it looks like dems might cut out here. guest: it is looking like certain people probably cannot be saved and these people can save themselves over here without any help. those're going to save who are right on the bubble, still salvageable, but need help. it is the process that the republicans went through at this point in 2006. host: how about the senate? guest: six months ago, three months ago, it was absurd to say

that there was any chance the republicans could get a majority in the senate. now, i think it is tough for them, but not observed. you could count 11 seats that could possibly go republican that a few months earlier before barbara boxer's race became very close, was fine gold, category -- and west fine gold. the numbers are getting bigger, but more likely than not they will come up a little short. host: jennifer duffy, do you want to add to that? guest: no, i think charlie is right. three months ago, you could not have given up the seats. but the races that are too close to call right down 10 to proportionately -- this proportionally fall to one party or -- they tend to disproportionately fall to one party or another.

in 2006, one party won 89% of all of the seats we had in tossup. now we have three democratic seats that i think republicans will win, plus eight tossups. it is not a pretty picture for democrats right now.

they may be expressing their discontent with the candidates. this is not a wedge issue election in any way. when the economy is good, you see those kinds of what i call the little issues rise up. host: jennifer duffy? guest: bigger picture, i cannot disagree with charlie. this is definitely a big issue. on the race side that the caller asked about kayaleh -- on the races that the caller asked about, to me, these are

absolutely the most important races. amar rubio and kendrick meek and a charlie crist -- what is fascinating about this is how dependent all of these candidates are on each other. mariko rubio needs to run a good solid race and consolidate the democratic vote so that drove across canada take much of that. kendrick meek can consolidate -- so that charlie crist does not take much of that. the kendrick meek also needs to consolidate the republican vote. independence made break the vote here. -- independents may break the vote here.

you have obviously the most popular incumbent in harry reid, with the senate majority leader, but he is running against someone who has a not a lot of experience on the campaign trail and is prone to engage in her mouth before her brain. but the thing about nevada, there is another option on the ballot. it is called "none of the above." if you do not like your candidate, you can vote for no one. that might actually save leader reid. independents are not breaking strongly in the new direction. this will be closed until a election day. host: let's go to libby in nantucket on the independent line. do you have a specific race that

you are watching? caller: we are here for the summer. the we reside in connecticut. are you doing all of this behind a desk in washington? and on to chris matthews become operative dean april that the democrats were going to lose, we are here -- and on to chris matthews, predicting in april that the democrats want to lose, we are here. these people are absolutely out of their minds. host: have you ever voted for republican? caller: have i ever? certainly, i have. guest: how many states have you been in the last 12 months? caller: we have been in at least six. guest: i have been in about 35, 38 something like that. i am out there a lot, 150

nights, 200 nights per year. i am out there a lot and poring over data. we are not sitting behind a desk in washington, i assure you. host: can you talk a little bit about what goes into doing your job? because that is part of the series this week. and what goes into politics, the industry of it? guest: jennifer and david are meeting with candidates all over the country. how many house candidates have you met so far? guest: close to 100. guest: jennifer, how many have you met? guest: 50, 60. host: why is that important for you to meet with the candidates? guest: any candidate could do their own polling income of with their own conclusions about the race, but in terms of accuracy

in past election cycles, the ability to take the candidate polls, -- pulse, and see if they represent the values of their district. that gives you an idea of how they're going to progress and what that is going to be. host: do you know what it takes to win? guest: a lot of candidates, and with a poor idea of how you run a campaign and what it takes to win. and one of the things i ask them to do is to tell me their life story. if you cannot tell me your life story, how will you tell it to a voter? and the hard questions, how will you answer to the voter? we do these questions about their background and let them talk freely and let them know that we do not play gotcha. it is a very honest exchange

with these candidates. i call it kicking the tires. you would a non by a car without looking at it and as driving -- you would not buy a car without looking at it and test driving it. host: and candidates are willing to meet with you? not a problem to get set up with these meetings? guest: no, the only candidates that do not generally come to see us or the self funders. -- are the self funders. these political elites, a lot of them get our stuff. this is a way for the candidates to communicate with their potential donors. the self funders, they do not have to come by and kilovar are our rear ends -- and kiss our rear ends.

but you do not get frequent- flier statements with our meeting with a lot of people all over the country. unless somebody is a traveling salesperson, they're probably not getting around this country and seeing as many people as i am. host: let's go to dela on the democratic line. is there a specific race they you are watching? caller: jazz, pennsylvania. i do not think these people have very much credence by comes to pennsylvania. their calls are off by about 32% in their calculation. forget about it to my id is over. we have increased democratic legislation -- registration by 300,000 people since the last election. take a look at registration and forget the polls. thank you very much. guest: show me the poll that we took, since we do not take polls. jennifer, did we?

guest: no, we said it was going to be a very close night. it is funny. i have watched arlen specter for so long that he always beat the odds. my feeling was that he might be, this one out. that was not the case. -- he might eek this one out. that was not the case. it remains a very close race. one of the things i would like to say to the caller about registration is that just because you register with a party, why does not mean you vote with the party. we see that all the time, especially in a state like pennsylvania that is so incredibly diverse. guest: it is one of the older states in the union in terms of average age.

a lot of times you will have people registered 40 years ago with a party, but have not been voting reliably that way in a long time. host: susan on the republican line in winfield, go ahead. susan, are you with us? i think we lost her. let's talk about missouri, because that is one state where the president wants to win this year. he lost it very nearly in his present -- a very narrowly in his presidential race. guest: mike skelton in missouri 's fourth district represents a swath. he has been there since 1976. he wants to turn his campaign into a referendum on his record helping the military in his district bring back dollars in

the armed services. his republican opponent is very closely identified with the social conservative movement in the district. sarah palin has endorsed her campaign. it will be tough to see whether voters in the district who have stood by ike skelton will stand by him once again. guest: i like to call masorah, one of the swing yes -- i like to call missouri one of the swingiest of the swing states. the outsider in this race comes from a long line of political

officeholders. her father was governor, mother in the senate. her grandfather was in the house. democrats actually went on the air against her opponent this weekend with a very tough at. -- with a very tough ad. onst: i'd like to jump in that one. if you were going to say what is the microcosm of challenges facing democrats in this election, it would be missouri. number one, the challenge of getting the african-american vote out of st. louis and kansas city. this vote was so mobilized in

2008 and they are not mobilize right now. getting the college students at columbia in university and elsewhere. they're having a huge time getting their base mobilized, and at the same time, the small town, rural voters and older voters, perhaps in the central part of the state, they have turned against democrats very strongly. you can see everything you need to see right there in missouri. host: let's go to dallas, texas, fred, you are on the diyala -- on the air. caller: in the past i have voted for the democrats and republicans, both the st. tickets and mixed tickets -- a straight ticket and next tickets. my concern is not just the economic part of it or the other side issues, but the main concern that i have and that my family, co-workers and go more

to have is the direction that the country is headed and where we see -- what our perceptions are of where the country is headed. if we look at the individual person and we do research on the individual person and see what he has done in the past. the party makes no difference anymore. host: is this playing out in every single race, or is this a specific district or senate race? guest: i think borders fundamentally do not trust either party. they're open toward the possibility of voting for an independent, but rarely do see an independent candidate come along that is not sort of more of a fringe candidate. what you see is people swinging back and forth. in 2006, independent voters voted for a democratic congress by a 16 point margin.

in 2008, they voted for senator obama by 1/8 point margin. so far this year, they have been swinging -- by an eight point margin. so far this year they have been swimming toward republicans. they do not think they like the change they got and they are swinging over the other direction. great party voting is at the highest level in the last few alexian's then in modern -- last few u.s. actions than in modern history. host: maria, democratic line, you are on the air. caller: i just want to say that i do believe all the people here, you have no dissenting voices here. everybody is on the same page, and i totally disagree.

i think barbara boxer will survive. but when it comes to harry reid, you do not want to say that he is ahead, but he is. i do not think that you pull the young people and the black people. and i do believe that because republicans are voting on things like unemployment, things the newspaper that you are not pulling people on, i do not think they will pick up as many seats as you think they will. again, hispanics, muslims, blacks and gays -- i also think that is going to be a factor. guest: the thing is, and on not blaming one side or the other for anything, but when president obama was sworn into office, the unemployment rate among african americans was 12.6. and right now it is 15.6. among hispanics it was 9.7.

now is 15.1. for recent college graduates, the job market is the worst it has been in 35 years. these are the people that pushed democrats up to these incredibly high levels. right now, they are not happy people. they are not enthusiastic. that is one reason why the gallup poll, for example -- a new numbers will be coming out today. a 46% of the republicans are enthusiastic about voting this year compared to just 23% of democrats. and there is a new poll in the "wall street journal" that shows a huge gap for republicans. our job is just to call them as

we see them. if democrats do not like what we are saying, guess what, they look badonis that things for democrats just as we said they did for republicans in 2006 and to assassinate. host: you must here -- for just as we said they did for republicans in 2006 and 2008. host: you must hear a lot from these candidates. next yes, go ahead. caller: when you talk to people, do you ever ask them and why are you a democrat? why are you republican? i have started doing that.

i spoke to an educator and his answer was, my parents were. ridiculous. another person said -- oh, a retired schoolteacher. this is supposed to be an intelligent person. she said, i have to think about it. host: the u.s. than the question? -- do you ask them that question? guest: you have heard the chairman of the beach for policy asking -- of the dccc asking. that is such a huge advantage for them when they can tie the democratic incumbents to washington.

in delaware, democrats have a shot of were -- of picking up a republican seat that is leaning their way right now. democrats have lieutenant governors -- the former lieutenant governor of delaware john carney in this race. he could pick up mike castle's seat and there could be a split in the delegation there. host: next yes, go ahead. caller: i am a cpa. republicans say they do not believe in government, so why would you hire someone who says they do not believe in government to run the government? the other thing is, some people

have radios in the background when they are working. i usually have c-span. i would watch the hearings because they have discussion about tax laws and the future of the tax laws. without fail, every bill that republicans put up hurt the middle class taxpayers. and worked to the advantage of the really wealthy. that is what turned me off on the republican party. guest: one of the questions that pollsters like to ask is, do you think government should do more to solve our nation's problems, or do you think government is doing too many things that are better left to businesses and individuals? we have never been lopsided one way or another, but over time,

we see it change a little bit. but we started seeing a switch about a year ago. -- it is which among independents about a year ago. host: and that was an independent voter. guest: yes, we have seen a switch that the government should do less revenue than do more. the credit crisis into timber 2008, we have seen to the extent -- in a september 2008, we have seen that to the extent that they can, people have been saving more and spending less. they have been investing more conservatively. i think the numbers came out recently that for 30 months in a row people have been investing in bond funds than mutual funds. -- rather than mutual funds. we are seeing a cocooning down among peoples in the stock market drop 800 points in one day.

and we have seen that with the voters as well. voters are less receptive now to the idea of an expansive government than they were two or three years ago. and that with a wind at the back of republican candidates in a wind in the face of the democratic candidates. it clearly seems to be happening right now. host: danny on the line in atlanta, georgia. good morning. caller: president obama has said that republicans are calling on and asia -- counting on an major from the nation. i just do not see how the republicans as a wall can take back the senate -- as a whole

can take back the senate. alan grayson will win. in my opinion, the floor dade is the bellwether. host: let's get your opinion on this. guest: alan grayson, he is a puller. the difference here is that michele bachmann represents the most republican district in minnesota. alan grayson represents a district that is by no means democratic. when you have on race and running against a candidate who may be a conservative republican, but a boring conservative republican like dan webster and just won the primary on the republican side last

week -- who just won the republican primary last week, i think a large share of the vote goes to independencts. i think any incumbent should be worried. 40% of voters are standing with alan grayson renown. i think this race is bound to become much closer. host: jennifer duffy, the caller was from georgia. the georgia governor's race is number two on your list here. guest: it represents something of a phenomenon that we see. there are five former governors who are running for their jobs back. one is in georgia, bob barnes.

he has been out of office for eight years, but would like his job back. he is being challenged by a former republican congressman nathan deal. you have seen barnes troubling stayed pretty much apologizing for his first term and saying he would like another chance. deal is regrouping after a tough primary runoff. he does have some ethics problems the democrats will remind voters of on a daily basis. i think this is going to be a close race. host: we have about 15 minutes left with the coca of political reporting. -- the cook political report gang. next call from indiana. caller: if you compare this race

with 1994 with newt gingrich coming in, is it similar to that? guest: you have that sense that all politics is local and then you have these brave elections. in 1994 you had a pub -- republican wave and in 2006 a democratic wave. it is not exactly the same dynamics that existed in 1994, but close enough. democrats had a lot of open seats in that election, lot more retirements that left them vulnerable in a lot of ways. but on the of iran, the economy in 1994 was -- but on the other hand, the economy in 1994 was stronger. the elements are not identical, but for all intents and purposes, this is comparable.

it tends to be a referendum on the party in power. and it is by neera. people are not happy with the republican party. binary.it is by ner i tell my republican friends that voters do not like you and have not forgiven you, but the good news is that this election is not about you. this is about the democrats. but in this kind of environment, as jennifer suggested, any incumbent needs to be worried. even under normal circumstances, incumbents -- well known and well defined incumbents do not get a lot of decided voters. and once you are over 50, no matter and what your margin over

your opponent, things get tougher. we are seeing polls, david is seen polls come in and -- david is seeing polls come in where a democrat is running against a republican that is basically unknown and running even. david, was the statistic you had about the number of incumbents that were behind at this point? guest: there were 32 democratic incumbents that have trailed rs.ir republican challenge at this point before labor day, there were only 11 democratic incumbents against republican challengers. host: next will call, houston, texas, henry, independent line. caller: i want to ask two quick questions.

how is this going to affect life in texas? and now that the floodgates have been opened for corporations, how will this affect republicans? guest: governor perry is running for what is a second full term for him. i actually like this race. i think is a very interesting race. one, because democrats are very competitive in a cycle like this in texas. perry has left no stone unturned. they have the idiom hard on the integrity, education, the budget -- they have hit him hard on thintegrity, education, the budget. the bad news is that governor

perry refuses to bait bill white because he has not released his tax returns. that is one exchange i'm looking forward to. guest: on the citizens united case, i think this will have a lot less impact than people seem to think. allowing groups like that to use their on treasury dollars as opposed to political action money, but treasury dollars on behalf of candidates -- my hunch is that with a couple of exceptions, you will not see is changed much in this country. 20, 30 years ago you would see up.any's lineulining but they have cut costs and done

everything they can to boost productivity, and they did not go through all the pain -- and they are hoarding money because they are opera -- apprehensive about where the economy is going. the thing is with unions, they are not really excited right now. they will do a lot, but they will not go 100% out either, i think. they're not really happy with what the democratic press has done either. many of these companies feel that their survival is at stake and they will jump in whole or did they. but the average company, i do not think there or to stand up in front of a shareholders' meeting and say your profits are lower because we spend your money, your shareholders dollars deposito give to candidates. i do not think you will see that.

to them, they see it as a survival issue. when people see it as survival, they behave differently. they may like red jerseys better than blue jerseys, but they did not draw of this money at candidates. host: jennifer, tell us about the candidates in california. guest: you have about -- you have meg whitman and you also have a former governor, jerry brown. this is a very close race, which i think surprises democrats. they find whitman to be a very broad candidates. she has really worked this. she has been on the arnot for about nine months continuously, which is not an easy -- been on

the air for about nine months continuously, which is not an easy thing to do in california. the other great race is the senate race, something i did not think would end up at the top of a column. barbara boxer is running and her opponent is carly fiorina, a former ceo of hewlett-packard. not spending quite the money that boxer is, but she's very feisty and aggressive than giving boxer a tough race. host: susan, with that, go ahead. caller: i'm calling from california, and my observation is that the american public that

you speak of, moton -- mostly , isblican represented theire proposing that we are going to have and asia. we are not. -- we're going to have amnesia. we are not. california's economy is in trouble. we have a republican governor who put it in that problem area. ms. whitman is running on a republican ticket. she is not going to win. you cannot buy an election. and by the way, your panel does not represent diversity because there is no one there representing the democratic vote at all. host: we will leave it there.

weigh in on how much attention barbara boxer is getting from the white house, fund raising in campaigning, and will that continue? guest: it will continue. the president has done these events for randy vice-president will -- for her and the vice- president will be out there. the party needs to do whatever they can to help her. the problem is, we call it the great scene called for money. -- the sinkhole for money. host: here is james, republican from california. caller: i think a lot of people are confused, it seems. we do not have a democracy.

there are witnesses to a democracy that we are not ready for yet. host: what are you driving at? caller: we do not have a healthy enough electorate to really be able to make these judgments. and lately, we do not even know what right and wrong is. host: what kind of judgment are you talking about? caller: and change it into what works and does not work. one thing that does not work is a state of territorial organization. [unintelligible] otherwise, i do not have freedom of speech. we're working from iran president -- premise as to -- we are working from a wrong premise as to what a state is. host: we will leave it there. next call, go ahead.

caller: the house race in my district, which is the first term incumbent, martin heinrich, john perella, the republican, and the albuquerque journal this morning said that heinrich's behind by six points. i heard you say something about if an incumbent is under 50, [unintelligible] verses bharal, who is 41. how much is health care affecting the decisions that they are making? guest: this is a fascinating house race. there are two competitive house races out of the street -- the three seats in mexico. democrats are more likely to hold on to robert d. because it

is a more democratic district than in southern -- hold on to the albuquerque district because it is a more democratic district and southern mexico. republicans need to make inroads in the hispanic vote if they are going to win other districts. i expect hispanic voters to make of the least 30%, 35% of the electorate this go round. the polling here has been mixed. we have seen heinrich thursday very positive. there was a poll -- we have seen heinrich stayed very positive. we do not really know how this race is going to be governed.

democrats are probably on their way to losing of least 40 seats. guest: i think you could broaden it back up and say, democrats need a few things to happen. number one, they need unemployment to come down and come down a lot, and it just does not happen. the second thing they need is a public perception of the health care reform to have fundamentally changed. and it has shown very little changed in that. and the third thing is, democrats need to control that. we have seen north korean ships and south korean ships, the deep water rise in mess, the crisis in europe.

it has kept them from being able to make up all of the time that was devoted exclusively to health care and meanwhile, the economy is still in lousy shape. we are facing a tough election. the house is in grave danger and we have republicans attacking as back in 2006 when we are talking about the likelihood of democratic gains. caller: -- host: st. louis, missouri, go ahead. caller: listen, democrats -- all caller: listen, democrats -- all i've hea