at 7:45 dahlialithwick. at 8:30 representative rob wittman, and we'll look at the upcoming election with bob cusack of the hill. "washington journal" is next. .

bob woodward, author of a new book, said that scenario is on the table on cnn last night. take a look. >> in of the talk in town. a lot of people think the president is a little weak and in 2012 he will have to run with hillary clinton as his running mate. in all the political conversation and that the sides you have -- do things like that come up? >> it's on the table. and some of hillary clinton's advisers see it as a real possibility in 2012. president obama needs some of the women, latinos, retirees that she did so well with during the 2008 primaries. so, they switched jobs. host: that was bob woodward last

night on john king's show on cnn talking about the possibility of an obama's clinton ticket in 2012. we want to get your reaction. if you go to the draft report, you see on the front page that they have a link to this -- the udge report. if you click on that it brings you to cnn's political tigert where it has the story about whether or not this is a possibility. this morning we want to get your reaction to that. even if you think it is too early to be talking about that as well. room a political story says bob woodward did not offer any evidence that it is under consideration by either obama or clinton. it says a senior official says any suggestion of replacing bided with secretary of state is off base. obama is happy with biden as

vice president and clinton as secretary of state and he wants them to keep on the web they are doing. that is what the story says in "politico." 1 democratic source says the rumor has been circulating among clinton's supporters, one source with ties to the clintons said there are so many rumors gardner around, but i don't believe this when it is true. what did you think this morning? obama-clinton ticket in 2012? what would that do for obama's chances in 2012. cambridge, illinois. eric on the democratic line. caller: good morning. hillary was under consideration for vice presidents bill last time.

i was a little cautious because i know of her neo-conservative foreign policy positions. but so far there really has not gotten in the way with her important -- appointment this time around. and in my view, i would think that the vice-presidential pick, she would have less influence over foreign policy as a vice presidential pick and she does right now. cautiously i am supportive of this. host: sarasota, florida. alex on the democratic line. what do you think about this? caller: i think it would be a great team but i do believe president obama will have a big issue about the latino voters because he still has not done

anything about immigration reform. it seems like he will have an issue about that by 2012 if he does not do anything about it. host: we will go to steve on the independent line in new york. you are next. obama-clinton ticket in 2012? caller: i think even putting mr. biden at state for defense. he would not mind that. thank you. host: if you are reading bob woodward's new book, obama's wars, inside the book he talked about hillary clinton's decision to become secretary of state and that she consulted with her longtime pollster when she was trying to decide whether she would take the position.

what she said about his thinking is this -- that is from a bob woodward possible. by the way, he will be joining us on the journal this friday to talk about this new book. little falls, new jersey. derrick on the republican line. obama-clinton ticket in 2012? caller: i am asking why clinton would want to downgrade her

power since the secretary of state has more power than the vice president. host: why do you think that? caller: vice-president say has always been a ceremonial office. while secretary of state involves foreign relations. host: michael, democratic line? caller: i think it is a fantastic idea. hillary been vice-president -- being vice-president would be like getting ready to run in 2016 and at the she would have an excellent shot and i think she would be an excellent first female president of the united states. i really hope it happens. i think it was a smart move. hear fromho want to republicans, too. we have got a lot of calls from democrats but doesn't concern you at all that it would dampen republicans' chances or the think it strengthens a potential

republican candidate in 2012? we want to hear from you as well. that caller just mentioned 2016 and in bob woodward's new book, marked penn had that as an equation about whether not hill. clinton should take the job. she would only be 69, the age ronald reagan was when he took office. rhonda, democratic line. good morning. caller: i think it would be a great idea for have agreed to join the ticket and i agree with the last caller that she would be set up to be president for 2016 which is what i am hoping for. host:. , pennsylvania. tom, republican line. good morning.

caller: what you are looking at here is the reason why middle america, the middle-class has lost faith in politicians from both parties. we voted obama into office with promise of a change in direction. now we are looking at another political maneuver. we voted obama into office and his agenda becomes -- he puts geithner and summer is in charge of the financial situation. it this is really sick. middle america is are worried about what makes america work, not what is a political maneuver. host: who do you think -- is this hypothetical came through, who do you think would be the best republican candidate out there to challenge and obama- clinton ticket. i would not vote for any republican and any office. not a single one of them.

host: i thought you were calling on the republican line, have you voted republican in the past. caller: i have always voted independent and i have been a republican in excess of 40 years. and i am telling you that these people have totally lost touch. this is how we wound up with all of the jobs being shipped overseas, because bill clinton thought it was a great idea to play ball with the republicans. host: massachusetts. maureen, independent line. caller: i would love to see an obama-fill every ticket for 2012. as the other caller stated, it would put her in a wonderful position in 2016. i was a hill every voter. i love the clintons. host: phoenix, arizona. independence. caller: yes. host: we are listening. you are on the air. caller: all right. it would be a very difficult to

get for the republicans to counter, but frankly, where is this coming from? bob woodward. what does he know? we are reporting and talking about this as if it were fact, as if it were a fait accomplis and there is nothing there. the obama administration denied it. what other prove it is there other than the opinion of bob woodward and i don't think he is actually part of the process. it would be a challenge for republicans, though. host: why is that? caller: it would be a hard to get to be. hillary brings in the elements that obama does not have. and republicans right now car floundering in general. host: bob woodward will be on the program on friday at 8:30 a.m. eastern time so if you want to ask about his sources of this, go ahead. charlottesville, virginia. warren, independent line. caller: i think it would be

absolutely a terrible idea. considering the fact that hillary clinton and her supporters strong arms obama to get into that position, me, myself, i am not a fan of the bushes any more than the clintons and to have three presidents and the white house is a completely bad idea. they will completely undermine obama every chance they get. host: hold on one second. use said the strong arm hillary to take the position. caller: obama, yes. you remember when they had in the elections they had plenty of heavy supporters mentioning they would not even vote for obama. so have president obama, vice president clinton and previous president bill clinton, too many captains on one ship and it would create a problem. host: a little bit more about bob woodward's book about her thinking and how she went about deciding whether not she would take the secretary of state job. it says this --

spoken by e-mails but with mark penn -- host: washington, d.c., my god, republican line. caller: i think this whole thing is political maneuvering. i don't think you can deny that. a lot of these decisions are made about deals and i -- hillary was offered the position of secretary of state during the campaign as an incentive to get

her to step out of the way because at the time of the convention, the momentum was awesome and it would have thrown the democratic convention into a many side -- many ballots situation where they had to take many balloted figure out who the nominee would be and they did not want that. hillary was offered this to get out of the way. they did not have a specific fondness for the obamas. it would be a strategy on her part. i think it would be more likely she would be ready to challenge barack obama for the nomination in 2012 rather than take a vice- president say and wait until 2016 because i think she is going to be -- is one of the most impatient politicians. host: there are some who agree. supporters of hillary clinton,

there has been an ad campaign that started in new orleans. if you go to politicsdaily.com there is a story about the ads out there. host: an asset being circulated by hillary clinton supporters. where there is ahill, there's a way. caller: the reason the

republicans are not calling it is they are all laughing too hard. host: why do you say that? caller: another clinton and the white house and bill around there with nothing but time in his hands? are you kidding? i think obama will be a one-term president regardless of who is on the ticket with him. host: greenville, north carolina. democratic line. caller: i think obama will be a two-term president. i don't know what this man is talking about. he is crazy. i don't know what's the problem. it seems like when obama came in, everything was going downhill. this man had to spend all of this money to get us out of the whole we are in. bush put us in a whole. he had to. i don't think hillary will run against obama. everything they got going together is right on. host: what about 2016? caller: if she goes for 2016,

all of the democrats will be right behind her, for hillary. if she had won instead of obama, we would have been behind her. obama 1 so we got behind him. host: the clinton was asked when she. on "the today show" about whether or not she would consider running for president again. >> is this nuclear armament decision represents the middle ground, is it enough to make the world safer? >> it certainly is. i know that this is a very important issue that i thank you for discussing with us because the president's position is very clear -- we will always protect the state's, allies around the world, nuclear deterrent will remain secure, safe, effective in doing so but we also think we will ultimately be safer -- but

the idea that the united states is willing to enter into arms treaties with russia to reduce our respective nuclear arsenals and we will stand against non- proliferation in a way that will deter others from acquiring nuclear weapons. we have to look at the entire package. nuclear posture review, start treaty -- host: that was of a clinton, secretary of state, on "meet the press." this is hillary clinton talking about whether or not she will go on another -- for another presidential bid. >> will you ever run for president again? >> no. no. this is a great job. it is a 24/7 job and i look the -- i looking forward to retiring at some point. host: talking about a possible obama-clinton ticket in 2012. bob woodward brought this up on an interview yesterday on cnn saying "its on the table," according to his sources.

steve, democrat. caller: i think an obama-ticket -- all baba-clinton ticket would-be nominee -- and obama- clinton ticket would be wonderful. i and not so sure she would accept the vice-presidential nomination only because she likes being secretary of state and she seems to love the job. for the person who called who said there would be three presidents in the white house, bill clinton does not have his hands free. he is very busy. i know the clintons, he was here not long ago. his hands are busy. if he were called on as an elder statesman to intervene or to rescue somebody from another country like jimmy carter has done or he had done in the past, i think he would do that. but to say that bill clinton would act as -- as a third president, i think it is absolutely false and it is an

attack by the republican right wing to derail this. host: let's hear from fred on the republican line. syracuse, new york. caller: good morning. thank you for your station. this country could not stand another liberal situation that we are in today. i think we've got the worst representation that this country has ever seen in history. and if we don't realize that they have an agenda to put this country in a place where it is a third-world nation, the way we are going. and jimmy carter gave away the panama canal. bill clinton put us into nafta. and obama is furthering the socialism. if people don't realize how we are being duped, i don't understand how they think this country can carry on as it has and the past. -- in the past.

we will no longer be the nation that people can depend on throughout the world the way we are going. host: "usa today" this morning has the headline -- bill clinton right to wave of popularity. bill clinton enjoys high approval rating. by comparison, president obama has 46% approval rating according to the gallup daily tracking poll. below that, it says clinton is drawing crowds again on the stomach as he campaigns for democrats running in this midterm election. pete, independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, you are on the air. caller: i think hillary clinton would be a good choice for vice president or president. but what i am looking at as a candidate -- i am independence so i did not care if it is republican or democrat. but i would like to see more aggressive green energy programs. not one where they charge a tax that doubles utility bills.

but money put up front to set up solar panels or windmills on privately owned homes, which will reduce their utility bills. free up a little extra money, create jobs, and give people the opportunity and the money to buy their own health care without being forced on them. host: wichita, kansas. carroll, a republican line. i think we lost carroll on the republican line. let me read an e-mail. by the way, if you want to join this conversation by e-mail, send us one at journal@c- span.org, or you can go to twitter. here is an e-mail from a viewer who writes -- that is 1 email -- one email.

this from pj in annapolis. another e-mails says -- desoto texas, helen, democratic line. caller: i am calling about whether hillary should one in -- run in 2012 with obama. i do not think that she should. i think she should remain secretary of state until the end of obama's first term. and then it continue on as secretary of state if he wants her to or she wants to during his second term. then i think it would be a wonderful idea for hillary to run for president. host: wayne, democratic line in

mexico. good morning, wayne. caller: good morning, greta. ideally, hillary clinton would not need to be on the ticket. but with that said, i think if president obama needs her to have a second term, so be it. i am a little concerned about the influx of these republicans. they are calling the president a socialist. it just shows a lack of understanding. i say, what ever it takes to be successful, i think she should do it. the republicans are opportunistic. the democrats need to play but better game. what ever it takes to win. i think hillary would be a fine vice-president. host: the front page of "the new york times" this morning on the midterm election. it says obama strains to get liberals back into the fold. he urges his base to put aside

the hard feelings. in the story it says -- next to the story is latino turnout, it is expected to lag in the elections. a setback for democrats but immigration law helps the gop. sugar land, texas. tracy, republican line. talking about a possible obama- clinton ticket in 2012. caller: what i think is that hillary should have been elected by the democrats to begin with. she had a lot more experience than obama. and i don't think obama will win in the next election. and i disagree with the last caller's comments regarding the

tea party. these people have no clue what the tea party stands for. i attended tea party movements here in my city. there is nothing mentioned about race or anything else. it is all about getting government out of our lives, stop being big government, stop the overspending, stopping the overtaxing, and that's it. i think if the democrats have a chance, they might have helleri run for president. but yet i hope the democrats would not win and i hope the republicans would win. host: bob woodward made the comments yesterday in an interview with cnn when he was promoting his new book, "obama's wars." saying that clinton -- obama- clinton ticket is on the table. and he was asked about 2016. >> the other interesting question is hillary clinton

could run in her own right in 2016 and the younger, ronald reagan when he was elected president, when you talk to hillary clinton and the advisers, they say, no, there is never a political consideration here. goes to europe or goes to asia or anywhere, is in part not just because she is secretary of state or that she was married to bill clinton but people see a potential future president in her. host: we are talking about and obama-clinton ticket in 2012. that was bob woodward on cnn last night promoting his new book. he is our guest 8:30 a.m. friday. brunswick, georgia. henry of the democratic line but caller: how are you doing this morning? was -- henry of the democratic

line. caller: how are you doing this morning? i was listening to one of your callers, a republican. i don't know why they are fighting this president so hard. if anybody believes these republicans, they got to be out of their mind. thank you. host: rock hill, south carolina. john, independent line. good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. i believe bob woodward is putting a trial balloon out. i do believe hillary will challenge in 2012, but i will shock you now. it will be a clinton-clinton ticket. there is a way to make that possible. with hillary in new york and bill back in arkansas, the constitution and the statute says neighboring the same stage

-- does not say anything about being married are not married. she will get the nomination in 2012 and have her husband as vp. host: the wall street journal has a story about unions during funds to liberal allies. they were going against backing against alikeglenn nye. emily's list is not helping re- elect two-such candidates in their races. another story in "the new york times" is a story about on the right, the conservative group, americanos' crossroads -- america's crossroads, and the ad buying in the next couple in weeks.

an affiliated group, a spinoff, is going -- is weighing in in the florida race, illinois, kentucky, pennsylvania, and washington. georgia. brenda on the republican line. good morning i don't think that an obama-clinton ticket would do in 2012 before clinton. i think it would be a perfect year for run against obama, and she would bring in the republicans which over votes to

get hurt the nomination. but then they would still vote republican in november. this is her best chance to do it. thank you. host: like caramel, new york. john, independent line. your thoughts. caller: i just want to say that i don't care if hillary clinton runs with a barack obama. i just wish that some the law work last liberals will read up on history about the liberal -- lower class liberals will read up on the history of the liberal movement, all will do is take money from the rich and give to the poor and keep them down. hillary clinton posse whenever idles is a woman who believed in eugenics, wanted to destroy the black people, wanted to sterilize them so they could not reproduce. that is what liberals are about. host: this is the editorial page of "the wall street journal" this morning. it is about the supreme court case that will be taken up today.

snyder versus phelps. it rights of this -- -- writes this -- this is the case where the supreme court will hear arguments over the right to protest military funerals with

an anti-gay message. we will have lawyers on both sides of this issue joining us tomorrow on "washington journal." woodstock, california. chalk, independent line. -- chuck. caller: i do not see what she brings to the table. she did not get anything accomplished. health care, what has she done? c. olivetti served two terms -- she has already been at the white house. i am not seeing it, but what had she gotten done it? in industry, if you are 50, you are done. why do we have these politicians, they are so old that they have to be wheeled into the place in a wheelchair or strapped to a gurney or something. i think we need some young their ideas and some younger people and to get the younger people involved and get out of the middle east and concentrate on america.

host: west virginia. democratic line. caller: i have been watching c- span for 30 years and i am interested in politics and i feel that unless you get rid of mccain, mcconnell, lieberman or specter you will not get anything done with the president. mccain did not like this fellow getting in. he wanted this office. he's got these people behind him and there is nothing that is going to happen until they go. that is just my opinion. host: we will move on to david on the democratic line in los angeles. david, good morning. caller: good morning, greta. i wanted to mention joe biden because i remember in an interview with tim russert, god rest his soul, way back in the primary when he had a chance to win and he asked him if he had the end -- had any interest the

big rise president should another candidate when the primary and he was adamant about not being interested and win tim said, what about secretary of state, joe biden really warmed up to that. i am sure joe would be totally in line with the idea, and i think it would be a great set up before hillary to be president in 2016. she would bring me and the other obama supporters along. i think it is a great idea. host: oscar, republican line. you've got to turn that television down. ok? caller: can i go now? good morning. if the clinton-obama team takes place, the two people who are very power-hungry, they would insult the intelligence of the americans and they would try their best to make this country

a dictatorship. host: all right, oscar. kelly, a republican line in the flagler beach, florida. caller: evidently the people forgot about the 1990's because the clintons were the best this country had ever seen. they took people off of welfare, gave them jobs. it gave this country a $5.60 trillion surplus. and clinton -- i don't think obama-clinton but i will take clinton-clinton again because i know what we had with them and this was the best thing this country has ever seen and for anybody to trash the clintons, and it never took us to war, neither. host: you are calling on the republican line. did you vote for republicans in the past? caller: last time i voted republican because hillary got screwed out of her position by

john edwards and obama. host: in economic news this morning, the front page of "the financial times" and also other newspapers. democratic lawmakers demanded probe into foreclosures. house speaker nancy pelosi wrote letters to the justice department, for the reserve and comptroller of currency to look at violation of laws by financial institutions in connection with the league would mortgages. a front page of many of the newspapers this morning. houston, texas. willie, independent line. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, sir. caller: yeah. i don't think hillary and obama -- hillary will probably retire. the republicans, if they regain power, we will have a nationwide

strike and probably a race war. the other thing republicans will do for sure is take us back to war. i don't think they should be back for another 100 years. host: let us hear from a republican. louis in vicksburg, michigan dear caller: how are you doing? i just don't like to see any more of the stuff taking place, as power-hungry stuff. obama trying to get his fingers in everything. you put hillary in their -- good heavens. if republicans had not taken over the senate and the congress, we would not have had welfare reform. people forget about 3000 people in this country being killed. i thank you not spirit -- much.

host: taliban and talks with karzai government. the talks are described as pulmonary. high-level secret talks. some speculation that this could bring an end to the war in afghanistan. that is the front page of "the washington post" this morning. "the washington times" front page, two stores. obama's access to foes of tax data is eyed. whether the obama administration used confidential taxpayer information to attack a political opponent, koch industries.

that is the front page of "the washington times" this morning. that does it for the first segment, talking to all of the about and obama's clinton ticket in 2012. when we come back, we will talk about judicial vacancies and why it matters. we will be right back. >> c-span's local content vehicles are travelling the country as we look at some of the most closely contested house races leading up to this november's midterm elections. >> it is with a lot of hard work, it is with a message that you guys believe in which is limited government, get the government out of my way and let me belays my own trail, quit spending my money and put people back to work. that is the message that is resonating and i think it is amazing. you guys are probably feeling on the ground what i am feeling all over the place which are false

rising upsetting we will take our country back, and that is great. >> i am here to say, we are in this together. but if people don't vote on election day, we will wake up and things are going to be really bad. we want to wake up knowing that we are going to continue moving forward, because the first thing i learned about politics is that if you are in a whole, quit digging. we are out of that whole. i don't want to go back to digging out of it. >> the candidates for the 11th congressional district are the incumbent freshman debbie halverson from a far south suburban suburb. she is being challenged by adam kinzinger from central illinois, and iraq war veteran and county board of central annoyed. she has a number of challenges and she is a freshman, and for

many years this seat was held by republican. the republicans won the seat back. she voted with the president of two of the most controversial bills introduced -- the stimulus package and health care reform bill. so, she is being targeted on a couple of both issues. she did run on health care reform. i do not think she would take too many hits on the health care vote of the stimulus bill, the more stories coming out about how the money is spent, she would have problems. i don't think she wants to be seen with president obama. she is having a hard enough time trying to separate herself from nancy pelosi. there have been mailers outflanking them. she is trying to present herself as an independent so therefore, no, i do not think she wants to be seen with president obama right now. the makeup of the district is largely rural, a few urban pockets but it covers the south and southwest of chicago and a tiny portion that stretches

down to central illinois which includes a university town. largely white, republican leaning. a district that was actually created by the republicans during the last redistricting. there has been a little pocket of tea party activity. you are hearing from the tea party folks that they went -- one smaller government, less spending, they want to protect the second amendment. those are all issues that coming up in this race and halverson is an interesting democrat because she did come from a rural hunting and farming community so she is a second amendment supporter and she does have more moderate stance is. she is trying to remind voters that she is a homegrown gal, and that is what she has going for her. she rose really from being a clerk and selling cosmetics to being a member of the u.s. congress. she works hard, she is a known commodity. so he is battling with voters feeling familiar with her. >> my district has always been a

swing district. it can go either way. when i won last time, we knew it would be a top race all along. i represented a swing district when i was a state senator. but the voters, they like the fact i am an independent fighter. the eighth most -- eighth most moderate member of congress. people want someone who is going to fight for them, that i brought the soon to be vacated silver cross hospital, it will be a veterans center. we want to make sure that we continue to fight for things better and pour into the district. >> adam kinzinger is a young 30- something up and comers in the republican party, he ran for the first time at age 20 and served on a county board and then he joined the air national guard and served several tours of duty in iraq and a few in afghanistan as well. he is just a very well spoken, very comfortable talking to the

media. he has been challenging her on an a lot of point. great at fundraising. not afraid to pop into a fund raiser and talk to the owner of the white sox and ask for a contribution and help for his campaign. he is running on more of a pro- business, lower taxes platform. also interestingly he was not the most conservative person in this primary. so, he is getting some tea party support but there are others he ran against in the primary that were more conservative. he ran on an agenda that we need to work together in washington and if the democrats have a plan that is good, i wouldn't to work with them. i have seen him kind of pull back a little bit from this message, but he ran on the message that it is too partisan and washington. >> we know unemployment all run the country is bad and in my district, a special event, talking over 11% in a lot of areas. people want to get back to work. one of the other big things that really stood out, and illinois specifically, is corruption.

there has been a culture of corruption the last decade in illinois and even beyond that and people are tired of that. they are tired of arrogance in government that says we don't need to listen to you, we will drive on our own agenda. that is of the reason we are seeing a lot of problems we are seeing. out-of-control spending, and employment. because washington and many pieces needs to run the government let people run their homes. you don't spend more than you take in an alternately the private sector is what matters. >> i think his biggest challenge is she has not been in congress for 10 years. if she had been a democrat who was in there all this time and the whole throw the bums out a framework for, that would work but she is a freshman. she has not been there. they are both raising a decent amount of money and putting out mailers. by all accounts, it looks like they both will probably raise and spend over a million

dollars. it is one of the most watched races in the country. both of the d.c.-based organizations are paying a lot of attention to this race, spending a lot of time looking at it. we have not seen as much money pouring in from the two entities, but the democratic congressional campaign committee and on the republican side are very focused on these two candidates. i think republicans think they can win it and the democrats are desperate to hold onto it. they got this seat after 15 years of republican representation. they want to make sure that debbie halverson hangs on to the seat. >> c-span's local content of vehicles are travelling the country, visiting communities and congressional districts as look at some of the most closely contested house races leading up to this new members midterm election. -- this and november's midterm election. for more information, visit c- span.org/lcv.

"washington journal" continues. host: dahlia lithwick of "slate" magazine. and the chamber's -- empty chambers. you think the american public is not adequately concerned about what is going on. what is the crisis and what does it matter? guest: we have a problem at the federal judiciary for some time in that the numbers of federal judges -- obama has only been able to seat half of his judges. at this moment, one eighth of the federal bench is and it. host: there are several reasons why, people speculate. but why does it matter? guest: it matters because if you are an american and you have been in some kind of suit because your seat belt is defective and you want to bring

a civil lawsuit against your motor co., how can you do that if the backlog in the court is years waiting? how can you do it under the speedy trial act? there are federal courts that have to bump their entire civil docket just to hear this -- criminal cases. the backlog is so intense, they cannot even hear your tort case because they have to catch up with a criminal docket. every american regardless of party should be very worried. there are not an of judges on the bench to even hear me. i can't even get into the court. that is not a partisan issue. host:, vacancies and how many have been filled? there are 103 vacancies on the court, and eighth of the bench. an estimate came out last week suggesting that if the confirmation rate continues at this pace, we will have a by -- i am sorry, by 2020, half of the federal judiciary will be empty.

in other words, if we can't do something to break the gridlock, this will not change, it will be obstruction on either side regardless of who is in power. if the numbers dwindle down to a trickle, half of the bench will be empty in 2020. host: what are the factors? why are there so many vacancies? guest: the big thing is we just hit the snooze button on the judiciary. americans don't think it is an issue. of course, they shouldn't think it is an issue -- the economy is an issue, the war is an issue. but it hinges on the premise that we have to be able to get into court to fight for our rights. even if you care about the environment of the care about the courts, or even if you care about health reform, the courts are where these things will ultimately be decided. there is no question that the things we are most passionately about -- arizona immigration act will end up in the courts, gay marriage. but we don't want to connect the

dots between who is on the bench and how effectively they can do their jobs and the idea that we want our rights vindicated. i think there is an act of the that makes people not to pick up the phone and call their senators and say, confirm somebody. i think we are in a moment his starkly when the courts and judiciary have become so politicized. if you look at the confirmation battle we went through with elena kagan, if you look at the judicial election races in the states that elect judges, people are worried about judges. they are mistrustful about the judiciary. the have a sense it is an elite and out of touch group so why are they going to fight to put people on the bench if they generally are not completely sure if it like the idea of course at all. host: many review them as activists -- either liberal or conservative. why is that? guest: we have been going through a real cycle of this country since the 1980's, since the time of ed meese, when there has been a concerted focus about how we talk about the courts.

that is where the idea of strict construction and regionalism, and, where the idea of judicial activism, and dared -- comes in. it is in fairness and response to a judiciary that really did reach out in the warren era and took on a lot of issues the judiciary did not take on -- brown, abortion, church-state issues. there was a huge backlash. now i think the way we talk about the judiciary has become very political. it probably hit its high water mark a few years ago when there was talk of impeaching justice anthony kennedy because he cited foreign lot in an opinion. there used to be huge rallies called justice sunday where they would get up and ran to about the court's been out of touch. but i think it left a lingering smudge, a sense that judges are not responses, that they are out of touch, that they don't answer to the majority.

that was the point. they were supposed to be one branch of the government that does not answer to the popular polls and the will of the people. i think we probably lost sight of the benefits and maybe the judiciary that was half empty was better than a dish. that was highly well-paid-well functioning but anti-democratic. host: what kind of judges are we talking about? guest: a great question. one thing that happened in the judicial wars is we reflexively talk about the other side judges as though they are completely insane, in need of medication, wildly active as lunatics, and we both do that on both sides. you get bark -- both parties, cartoonist caricatures of those being put up for federal district and appeals court judges. host: there are two different judgesships. guest: it is important to

understand there are 850 lower- court judges. these are only the federal courts. states have their own mechanisms for seeking their own judges. but these are the federal courts that hear federal cases. it is actually is slim minority of the cases that are litigated in this country. come up through the federal courts. but they are also the important cases -- margie phelps and fred phelps and though westborough baptist church. these are foundational cases where we need good judges hearing them. what has happened over the years is as the ability to see judges has dwindled, it has become even more political because there is a sense each judge -- i could never shake the entire federal bench. and george bush, one of the great long lasting legacies of the george w. bush administration will someday be seen as not the war, not even culture war things, but the fact that he managed to very successfully in eight years seat

one third of the current sitting federal judges. host: before you talk about his ability to do that, what is the hang up in the senate with president obama's judicial nominees? guest: two things. one is, in fairness, obama was slow to start naming judges. he added layers to the process that made it a little bit long for to get them out of the gate. i think it was fair to say he was not passionate about this issue. george w. bush, the minute he took office, started naming judges and judges who were in line with its ideological views. obama took a very, very long time to get out the gate on this issue. there has also been this extraordinary obstruction in the senate and republicans have used very arcane senate rules to block judges. one of the things that is happening is confirmations that used to take only a few weeks are now taking hundreds of days. if you want to in the united

states senate slow up a judge through this process, you can do it. you can stretch it out for weeks and months and even in some cases, over a year. host: democrats today -- republicans say democrats did this to us when president bush was nominating his judges as well. that this is a parlor game being played on capitol hill. guest: and that is true. no question this has become and en vogue proposition. both sides block the judges. in fairness, the length of the wait has been much longer. the rate of confirmation has gone down. host: mcconnell says half of the nominees in the senate calendar have been pending for less than two legislative weeks. guest: that is not a statistic i have heard. i have heard that 16 out of the 23 are pending have had bipartisan support in the judiciary committee, unanimous bipartisan support and still

cannot get through. i think -- and there is one other factor worth pointing out. this is hair splitting. i am here to say this is a bipartisan issue. i don't think the pointing fingers at saying you started this, and you were worse, and remember that time in 1987 -- i don't think that is a useful conversation. but i do think one of the things that has changed and obama administration is this has gone down to the district courts. when you talk about a trial court level an appeals court level, a federal appeals court, but said in a fight for a long time but now we are seeing federal trial court or district court judges held up, and that is new. host: what is the impact of that question on guest: you can't get into a corporate longer and longer wait for litigants to get into the court. we have 30 states now that have been declared a judicial emergency. that means the judges are trying to handle a bucket -- docket they cannot handle. in the eastern district of

california, each judge in her doctor has 1097 cases. you cannot do it could just as if you are trying to handle a caseload that size. the judges cannot retire. they desperately want to play golf and be with their grandchildren and a cannot retire. and the judges feel they cannot speak out. they can't say i am overwhelmed because it is such a political and partisan issue. again, i would circle back to the idea that we have to free those judges who cannot speak for themselves and understand, you would not want your heart surgeon to have 1030 cases that they are handling. you just need it, in order to have competent judges, you need to have adopted down. you need to seek better judges and now and fast. host: talking about the federal court and judicial vacancies. new orleans. teddy on the democratic line. caller: how are you all this morning? i have a question for your guest.

i am just wondering -- everybody is referring to the constitution, the constitution. where in the constitution should this be addressed, and if this is the case, why haven't our legislators take unnecessary action to make this correction? if you look back at the history of what has been happening the last 12 years, i would like to know where and the competition when you are looking at federal judges -- she was saying they used to take a position of the president who is recommending them -- tell me where in the constitution where the supreme court can appoint a president? thank you. guest: it is a good question. what the constitution does provide for is the senate plays a role in "advise and consent." in other words, the constitution allows that the senate is going to play a role in this. really, your question is a good one, what does "advise and

consent clause " mean and that is what we are bickering about, is what does it mean? does it mean that the senators basically rubber stamp the president's choice is, or does it mean the wrestle him to the ground and pulled them in the eye. i think it is worth pointing out that the real hero of the elena kagan confirmation fight this summer was senator lynsey gramm who says, you know what, elections have consequences and i would not have picked elena kagan. if i were the president -- i don't love what she stands for. but as a senator, "advise and consent clause " means if she is competent, i have to sign off. that is a position of lot of republicans on the judiciary committee were not willing to take. if we take advise and consent to mean obstruct and bigger, we will never see judges. if we take it to mean, look, we have to scrutinize the judge's record but at the end of the day if they are well qualified, even if you do not love them, if they

are well qualified, thumbs up. i think they lost the notion of advise and consent right now. . each judiciary committee that covers this matter is more and more angry and democrats are

frustrated and they don't want to do this again. i think there will be a tit for tat feeling. i think leahy is trying to find some path out of that. again, i think that his principle challenge is convincing the american people to vote for this. host: there is a lot of these nominees pending before the senate jewish and because they've been -- senate judiciary committee and because they've been so concerned with elena kagan it didn't free them up to get these judicial nominees through the committee process. so that's why this logjam, this bag log comes from. guest: i don't think there's any question that set the obama administration behind on this whole enterprise was having two supreme court confirmations. they had to pay attention to that and they had to ramp up for that. and i also think -- and this is something that, you know,

democrats are going to yell about, but i also think that president obama just doesn't think that the judiciary is necessarily the centrally important critical issue for him the same way republicans have been laser focused on the courts for decades. and so i think there is a stance not just the timing is bad but that this was a desperately urgent path and obama's nominees look like clinton's nominee in they don't appear to be far left academic. they tend to be minorities and women. they come from really interesting and diverse backgrounds but these are not sort of the hippy pot smoking liberals. and so i think he tried to diffuse some of the partisanship by putting up what he tuesday is moderate judges. loip let's go to wayne in north carolina. independent line.

caller: good morning. host: you are on the air with dahlia lithwick. caller: this is a very interesting topic that i never thought i'd call about. i am in the middle of a lawsuit against an insurance company and it is taking forever. i am a lifelong democrat that has now -- i was a lifelong democrat that has now gone independent. i just want to know -- i just have a couple questions. can i really make a difference by calling my senator or congressman about this issue? and the second thing is, is there a website where an american citizen can monitor the progress and selection of appointments? guest: those are great questions, wayne. the first answer is, i think it always makes a difference to pick up the phone and call your senator. particularly on an issue like this where they are probably not getting enough phone calls. it's critically important to say, you know what, at the end of the day i recognize we need

a fully stuffed bench and i urge you, i urge you to do whatever you can to make this process happen faster. i'm just going to give you one website that i think has done a pretty good job of monitoring this and that's alliance for justice. and they've done a pretty good job of watching the confirmation wars as they've gone on. i think that you can also go to the federal judiciary website at this point. eric holder did a really good op-ed last week in "the washington post" where he laid out good job of tracking where the big fights are and what you can do to help. don't give up on this issue. it's crucial that americans understand how they're affective about this. host: joseph is joining us from massachusetts.

good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for receiving my call. i'd like to discuss the state judges that are appointed. it has to do about being too lenient on some of these people and then having to retry them a year or two later when they re affirm. that is a huge mistake and i wish they would be a little less lenient. thank you for taking my call. guest: joseph, i think what you're saying goes to the point we were making before when we said the way we talk about the judiciary has become very, very political and very public and you know most states elect -- many of their state judges, it's one of the most interesting things we are looking at now is the campaign spending on these state supreme court election races. these used to be races that you could absolutely sleep through. nobody cared. and a lot of these state

supreme court races, these are retention elections, so-called retention elections which means a supreme court judge who was appointed by someone runs against nobody simply to be retained. and we're seeing millions of dollars coming from out of state in these elections for exactly the sorts of issues that you're talking about. people say they're too activist or too liberal or soft on crime and the really amazing phenomenon and some of this comes out of the citizens united campaign spending decision is we're seeing millions and millions of dollars come from out-of-state into these state elections. host: they're pouring money into this. guest: a lot of groups who are either anti-gay marriages or two judges on the ticket. i think it's in idaho, two supreme court judges who are on the ticket in idaho who just for retention elections and never thought about these issues.

but they uphold gay marriage. they throw millions of dollars into ads, print ads to defeat and at the state level the conversation about judging has become very political, fraught with big money and full of these quicky ways of describing judges as activists or pro-gay marriage or anti-abortion or what have you but they're very, very thin slivers of who these people are. you have people who have 20-year judicial records who are going to be defeated in november because of one vote and one case. host: and you recognize the outside groups. our viewers might know the names of. guest: i just don't have it with me and i am reluctant to say. i wrote about it in "slate" a month ago. sandra day o'connor has been speaking out about this. she's very opposed to judicial elections and i think she thinks that states should rerethink about this is a good

idea. she -- rethink about this is a good idea. she spoke out about groups on single issues to try to unseat federal -- i'm sorry -- state supreme court judges. host: if you're interested in that story, dahlia lithwick rights for "slate magazine." she is a senior editor. the website is slate.com. atlanta, georgia, greg, democratic line. you're next. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i just have a comment. and i'd like to get ms. lithwick's answer to it about where does she think that the american people aren't outraged as the republicans are to stopping the judicial nominees? it seems like there should be more outrage about it. guest: it's a great question, greg. i think the easy answer and this is going to be too easy is that republicans have really owned the language about the judiciary for the last couple of decades. i think that democrats have really not fought to explain to

americans why the courts matter. host: and when you say that -- let me just jump in -- republicans, this is an issue that gets the republican base jazzed up. they talk about it. they get -- they're active on this issue whereas the democratic base is not. guest: well, the democratic base picks its issue and it can be abortion or labor rights or it can be the environment, but as i said, they don't always say, you know, there's a very, very good way to ensure that the right to choose is protected and that is make sure the courts reflect my views on that. and democrats have not done a good job on that. as you said, republicans have done such a good job on saying to the base, look, if you care about abortion, we need to peel off everybody on the federal judiciary and put on new judges who are pro-life. if you care about corporate rights we need to peel the people off the bench who have been falling all over themselves to help employees in the courts and put pro-business

judges on the bench. we have done as democrats i think have done a terrible job on messaging why the courts matter. and so democrats when they see a logjam at the senate on judges, first of all, they say, it's typical. this is business as usual. this is a totally dysfunctional institution. secondly, i don't think they feel that deep, deep sense that their life and their values are going to be affected the way republicans feel, oh, my god, the composition of the court affects everything i care most about in the world. host: well, one reason that president bush was able to have -- the track record that he has in filling judicial vacancies, he did away with the american bar association as his nominee. president obama has taken that back up. awful his nominees go through the american bar association. they vet them. they decide whether or not they have the credentials for this. what does that mean? what is the a.b.a. process like

and why does it matters? guest: it depends on who you ask. the way that george bush did away with the vetting process is because he thought it was a liberal leaning group who was tough on conservative judges and easy on liberal judges. if you ask obama he said, this is the american bar association, this is the central, most respective, most arbiter of who the best judge is. slernl when i alluded at the beginning to adding more layers to the process, adding the a.b.a. does add a layer, and i think that every time you add a layer to the process it takes a little bit longer to get your judges out the gate. host: an email from a viewer who wants to know your definition of a good judge. guest: this is a good question. i say this and people throw things at me. i have been slightly persuaded

over the years that a good judge both adheres to the constitution as it's written, the text and the original meaning, but a good judge also understands that times change, that the framers didn't have any intention of binding us to their views of what was cruel and unusual punishment under the eighth amendment or what their views were under free speech. it's a very complicated process. i think it takes many, many, many steps to get to a good answer in a case. i think probably the best judge knows that she can be wrong, and i think that some of that humility has fallen away from our conversation about the judiciary but i really do think that the very, very best judges know that there's no such thing as easy, that these are all hard cases, there's always two parties who are very, very desperately interested in prevailing and a really good judge takes both parties into account as well as the law, the text, the word, the intent of the constitution and tries to

find a solution knowing they don't know everything. host: dahlia lithwick is senior correspondent for "slate." has covered the microsoft trial and other legal issues. also, weekly legal commentator for the n.p.r. show "day-to-day." past experience, you clerked for one of the chief justices of the ninth circuit court and worked for a family law firm in reno, nevada. let's go to las vegas. larry, republican line. go ahead. caller: yes. long time listener, first time i was able to get through and i was glad that i was because to me it's very simple why there's a logjam there. you got the president, you got the congress, both houses, the entire agenda -- even your last comment, gretta, about the american bar and all this kind

of stuff, the original reason i was going to call in is i was goings to tell them that even c-span and now this lady, everything is tilted toward the democrats. and the last fashion possibly from total control is to at least stop some of these judges. host: so, larry -- caller: it's so obvious. host: larry, in your view you agree with republican senators who have held up these judicial nominees because you're opposed to president obama's agenda? caller: total control by all three branches. not just the presidency, not just the congress and now the senate too -- the judiciary branch? is that total control if you could get it? host: dahlia lithwick, why not, then? if you're a republican, like

larry, and you don't want -- you -- you disagree ideologically with the obama administration, with the democrats in congress, then why not oppose judicial nominees? guest: you know, if i were a republican in the senate i would probably oppose them because, look, if you got a bench that's half empty by 2020, that's a lot of judges you're going to be able to put up someday. i think as we empty out the benches, the stakes are going to get higher and higher because you are going to have the ability to hugely impact the federal bench. but i think i would just urge the caller to really, really say, is it true that every single judge that obama has put up is a rabid lefty radical who wants to transform the shape of the judiciary? host: are they conservative, though? guest: i don't think they're conservative. as judicial judges go they are pretty moderate people. we saw this again in the fight

against sotomayor and kagan. the people that were mad were democrats because they didn't want temp rate, moderate, you know, liberals on the courts. they want to see bill brennan on the court and they were furious for obama for not putting up a real liberal. i think these are fights that we have these fights that we have every time a president puts up judges. they're never to our liking. i don't know if that gives us license to block. host: boston, eric, democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. good morning, ms. lithwick. i've been listening to this and i am absolutely appalled at what i've heard. my first comment is it doesn't matter if it's a democrat or republican that is president. what it comes down to is finding someone who is fair. we have been pit against democrats and republicans and not necessarily moving the

united states forward as americans, and we've lost that. and more so since obama has been president, i've watched c-span and the news, both left and right, it's been more opinionated on each side. each one helping each side and not really looking at the middle and reporting the facts. it gets more distorted, and not even an american citizen watching tv can really find the truth. host: so given what eric just said and larry, too, is there a way to remove these judges from the political process up on capitol hill so you can fill these vacancies? guest: you know, in my dreams we wouldn't have confirmation hearings at all. i've sat through four of them now, gretta. i would happily do away with them and going back to what we used to do which is do them on paper and not parade them in front of the cameras and pull their hair and see them cry. this is not the way to choose

judges. i also think we need to really dramatically -- and i think this goes to eric's point -- ramp down how ideological the conversation about judges is. you want to fight to the death about health reform, have at it. you want to fight to the death about the war in iraq, have at it. but if you can concede, and i don't know if every caller wants to concede, the judiciary is slightly different. it's not purely political. it's not only are indeed that what judges do is different by definition and it has to be different. and if we reduce the judiciary to just people who are going to vote on the bench the way they would if they were fulling the lever in an election, we are in big trouble as a country. nobody wants to see a bench dominated by the other side. we have to take this down a notch. i just think i want to really agree, harke, that maybe part of it is we talk about everything in such extreme and angry political caricatures but we need to rethink of how we

think about the judiciary. at the end of the day, is an entire -- i think that's not smart. host: caller from flushing, michigan. caller: i'd appreciate it if you don't cut me off. you have to give president obama slight. the wars had to be top priority. if he didn't move as quickly on the judges he certainly had reasons why he did not. secondly, i think that the real change came when president bush said, "i don't like the american bar association. i'm turning to the federalist society." that's a group of people of attorneys that he knew what law schools he went to, what

economic beliefs, the financial theories they had, they're anti-little people. those -- that's where he turned to. he truly chose ideological candidates. the bar association is a wide spectrum of beliefs. that doesn't even play into the bar association. membership. it is because he turned to the federalist society that, for instance, the u.s. attorneys, there were -- you recall the scandals of those resigning and the u.s. attorneys because they were demanded to take political action to go after people and consequently, for instance, a woman by the name of georgia thompson in wisconsin, madison, wisconsin, went to prison. it was a political.

she was totally innocent. when there was a three-judge federal panel review of her case after they had already thrown her in prison and using it for political purposes, the judges that heard that case got her out of prison and said and defined it as -- host: ok, mary, we are going to leave it there. dahlia. guest: i think the point is right. i think that we have come to use instruments of the law as mary said whether it's u.s. attorneys or whether it's a state's attorney general, we're seeing these arms of the legal system pushing very, very hard ideological lines. and i think part of what i'm begging for here this morning is to say there is something called the rule of law. there is something called the constitution. and we don't go into the law business in order to push agendas. if you want to push an agenda, the business you want to get in is on capitol hill. but i think that using a

judgeship or as you say u.s. attorney's gig to push something that is really basically an ideological end is really the beginning of the end of the rule of law. and the beginning of the end of thinking of law as something that is slightly more elevated than politics. host: ok. we'll go to the independent line. jane in winston-salem, north carolina. you're on the air. caller: yes, good morning. i'd like to ask a guest about what happened to the czars and just what is their position? i thought they were supposed to be some type of judges. host: jane, what are you referring to, czars? caller: president obama's czars that he appointed when he went into office. we never hear of them. host: the car czars, things like -- the people who were appointed to run different aspects of the economy? caller: yes. just what is their position? host: yeah, i don't think that is related to what it is talking about. guest: it's not a judicial position. host: margey, republican line.

go ahead, margie. caller: i want to insert some of the data and statistics that you're using. i pulled jeff sessions' september 22, 2010 speech from the floor of the senate where he talked about judicial nominees. and in it he talks about a meeting that was held with liberal professors, lawrence trodd, marsha greenburg as soon as george bush got elected and they for the first time in the history, he says, and to me he's a credible source, that they proposed -- and this is from "the new york times," changing the ground rules for the confirmation process. now, this is not a quote, but jeff sessions that they proposed shifting the burden onto the nominee so that the nominee would then have to prove that he was worthy of the

appointment and that they were going to make the whole thing ideologically based. and this came from that group of the democrat or the left leaning liberal professors, trodd, greenburger and sunstein. and then he said on the floor of the congress on the 22nd that when the democrats implemented their procedure, not by targeting all of bush's nominees, but by targeting the nominees to the circuit court, moving them through the district court process and getting them on to the district court -- now, i don't know enough about the judicial process in the country, but i'm thinking by reading this there must be a strategic interest in keeping them off the circuit court, and then they can play good, act good, pretend they're doing fine by moving them, you

know, their statistics are patted. they're moving them on the district courts but keeping them off the circuit. in this speech senator sessions, he talks about 2 1/2 years, 1 1/2 years that many, many, many of bush's nominees waited. and then couldn't even get hearings to get confirmed or waited before they did get confirmed. host: ok, margie, dahlia lithwick. guest: so much there. i think it -- i just think that it makes no sense to imagine each side being strategic about making this a longer and more miserable process. i mean, i think both sides have an interest in saying, look, we need to figure out a way to make this a shorter and more neutral and more fair process. but, again, you know, i find it so unhelpful when senator sessions and senator leahy start having these conversations about how much

judges you blocked and how many we blocked tanned which arcane senate protocol you used to block and we did because at the end of the day they are not going to be judges. if you remember when there was talk in the bush administration of using this nuclear option and there was going to be -- all hell was going to break out over the judicial wars, there was a bunch of senators, a gang of 14 got together and said, look, we need to rein this in. so i think at the end of the day what we need to see in the senate is leadership and just mature thinking about this is a crisis and we need to solve it. and so it seems to me that being strategic about this is the road to madness. and instead, both sides getting together and saying, look, this has become out of control. the way we talk about each other's judges is disrespectful. it's hurting the rule of law because american people at the end of the day hear only trash talk about the other side's judges and that can't be good for the rule of law. and i think both sides need to step up and say, how do we make

this work better and faster instead of using it to gouge each other to death? host: is there a gang of 14 or a gang of whatever number in the senate right now looking at this issue? guest: i don't think so. i think that those days are long gone and that we are in a very different era right now. and i think as i said the incentive to now slow it down even further in a lame-duck session is going to be acute. so it seems to me this problem can only get worse. the incentives are all wonky this time to try to fix it. host: an email from a viewer who asks about tea party candidates. i think this person is referring to tea party candidates. i hear candidates continually referring to getting back to the constitution. has anyone every pinned one of these candidates down to ask them to be more specific? which amendments are they alleging is being violated? can they cite any cases? guest: it's such a great email. the thrill for me about the resurgence of the fey party is this huge uptick in interest we have about the constitution and what's in it. people are reading it again.

it's very thrilling. but i think that, you know, the emailer makes a good point which is we talk about it in these short-hand ways the way we talk about "archie comments" -- "archie" things. we are going to gut the birth provisions in the 14th amendment in saying that natural born citizens is all citizens. you can't pick which things you are going to fight for and which things you are going to eviscerate. the nut of the issue that americans are starting to have some sense that the constitution americans and it slid away from us. i think that can only be to the good but i also think that we need to be careful in how we talk about the constitution. it's not a document that you can talk about in sound bites. it's done that way for a reason. host: in tennessee, stan is joining us on the democratic line. you're on the air, stan.

caller: yes. ms. lithwick, do you remember that in 1999 clinton had -- clinton, they got federal judges -- guest: that clinton got 100 federal judges? caller: that the republicans blocked it? you have 103 missing, 1 sthrsh 8 of the courts -- 1/8 of the courts. and then in massachusetts, you have $3 million to the republican democrats that beat the democratic chief justice. and then when he gets on there they rule in favor of nancy cole. guest: two things, one, you're right. this has beening to have some

sense that the constitution americans and it slid away from us. i think that can only be to the good but i also think that we need to be careful in how we talk about the constitution. it's not a document that you can talk about in sound bites. it's done that way for a reason. host: in tennessee, stan is joining us on the democratic line. you're on the air, stan. caller: yes. ms. lithwick, do you remember that in 1999 clinton had -- clinton, they got federal judges -- guest: that clinton got 100 federal judges? caller: that the republicans blocked it? you have 103 missing, 1 sthrsh ãwhen he gets on there they rule in favor of nancy cole. guest: two things, one, you're guest: two things, one, you're right. elected position that we should treat them that they are not only under our thumb but beholden to us?

and i urge you to say judges has to be different or else we don't have three separate branches of government. host: north carolina, go ahead. caller: good morning. great discussion. my question is, what are your thoughts about when obama addressed the supreme court at the state of the union? did you think that's a good idea? does that politicize the supreme court decision? i just love this discussion. i think it's great and well needed. thank you. guest: thank you, karen. i wrote about it at the time. i thought it was probably a mistake to have the justices who come sit directly in front of him and they can't speak and then to turn around and talk about them when they're sort of guests at your event. you'll recall that justice sam alito didn't like what obama said in that speech saying that's not true and raised even greater questions about this friction between the branches. so i think, look, it's been done before. f.d.r. went after the courts. other presidents have gone after the courts. it's a legitimate complaint to say i don't think that this

court is in tune with the american people. i think that the citizens united was a bad decision. whether it was appropriate or decorous for the president to say that at the state of the union, i am not sure. i wouldn't have done that at the state of the union but nobody invites me to deliver that speech. host: jane, you're our last phone call. go ahead. caller: good morning, ladies. i'm so pleased of this subject being discussed and i don't know whether this is exactly the subject we should be discussing, but to me it's very important and that is legalized slavery and how it works in the courts. host: dahlia lithwick, familiar with that? guest: i'm not sure. i'm not sure what you're referring to. do you want to -- host: we lost it. let's end by teeing up the supreme court today because that's where you're headed next. could you talk about the snyder vs. felts case?

guest: this is a fantastically interesting case that really involves the boundaries of the right, of first amendment free speech and you have this westboro baptist church out of topeka, kansas. i think they have all of 30 members in the church. they're all related to the reverend and they go around and protest at military funerals and they hold up incredibly offensive signs that says "god hates fags" and "thank god for dead soldiers." the reason our soldiers are dying overseas is because of the pro-war policy. a court awarded the father of a slain marine $11 million in damages for intentional infelix of emotional harm and the fourth circuit struck it down. the court will say if this is protected free speech. host: they'll join us tomorrow

live 7:45 to 8:30 eastern time. shawn summers and margie felt -- sean summers and margie fill ps will join us. and we'll talk to representative rob wittman. first, a campaign fwen update. the candidate, christine o'donnell, came out with her first ad in the general election yesterday. take a look. >> i'm not a witch. i'm nothing you've heard. i'm you. none of us are perfect but none of us can be happy with what we see all around us. politicians who think spending, trading favors and back room deals are the ways to stay in office. i'll go to washington and do what you do. i'm christine o'donnell and i approve this message. i'm you. host: chris coons responded on

his website. if you go there you can see that christine o'donnell, you are not me, and asked people to sign up on his webpage for support there. joining us on the phone is the news anchor for wdel radio in wilmington. what has been your response from christine o'donnell's first ad? >> well, the response has been pretty much along the lines, as you would respect, for christine o'donnell defenders. it's necessary for the candidate to come out and talk about the plain jane credentials, just every person kind of candidate. of course, you heard the response. we did get a few calls on the air on our talk shows, though, from a couple of callers professing to be christine o'donnell supporters. of course, we have no way to confirm whether that's true or not who said they just didn't

quite understand it. they wanted the campaign to get to the issues. and to them the witch thing was not an issue. host: well, what does she need to do to make this race more competitive because she is trailing behind chris coons? guest: we have not seen fooch evidence of christine o'donnell, you say, pressing the flesh, converting people who are unconvertible in delaware. i try to be as impartial as i can be. we've had difficulties ourselves trying to set up an interview. it almost seems to be a subterrainian campaign where a lot is going on underneath the media horizeon. i hear -- horizon. i hear a lot of i am not a witch a lot of free press. people are inclined to support christine o'donnell and tea party supporters go to the website and donate money.

maybe that's what the wrizz dom behind this is. host: there is another competitive race, the at-large house seat left by mike castle. who are the candidates that are running and what are the latest polls showing? guest: with senate governor john carney, democrats lost a tight primary to now delaware's governor jack markell and he's the democratic nominee. and then you have a republican businessman from downstate sussex county dan urquhart. 51%/36% sprayed carney over urquhart. we are expecting the polls to be released in the 11:00 eastern time. interestingly, those who follow politics have urged that urquhart has something that

christine o'donnell has and that is a solid resume. some of us were actually a little perplexed that it wasn't urquhart wasn't running for senate. christine has run in delaware before and got some recognition but urquhart has trailed o'donnell by some percentage parts. some would say some controversial statements by urquhart who is the solid of the two candidates. host: in the race that we are talking about, what's going on here? the white house, particularly vice president joe biden, has been in delaware a lot for the democratic candidates. has that helped? guest: it certainly helps. there is two factors. one is delaware is an overwhelmingly democratic state. downstate is more like the south. but upstate is -- even somebody

like the almanac of american politics, michael brown of fox, said that delaware is like an extension of philadelphia and metropolitan area. even though mike castle got tossed out in the republican primary but, of course, that was a primary and not a general election which castle was widely favored to win, incurvency is important in delaware. -- incumbency is important in delaware. if you meet people that means a lot in this state. even in polling on some other races, a lot of what explains the outcomes has a lot to do with whether or not the voters know these people or not. if they have been statewide office holders for a while they tend to get re-elected. host: all right. allan loudell wdel radio. thank you. guest: thank you. host: we will be covering the debate at 7:30 eastern time on

c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. joining us at the table is representative rob wittman, representative of virginia, talking about the proposed pentagon cuts and recently up on the hill deputy defense secretary william lent testified before the house armed services committee, which you serve on, talked about the inefficiencies and their idea of closing the joint forces command which is in -- close to your district. guest: yes. host: let's hear what he said to say and then we'll come back and talk about it. guest: sure. >> the last decade has seen a growth of new offices and organizations, including two new combatant commands and five new defense agencies. the secretary concluded that the joint forces command, the assistant secretary of defense for networks -- networks and information and integration, the joint staff's j-6 doctorate

and the defense transformation agency no longer effectively satisfy the purposes for which they were created. some missions and task that each perform remain vital but can be managed effectively elsewhere. other functions that each perform are either performed elsewhere or are no longer relevant for the operation of the department. host: congressman rob wittman, how do you respond? guest: well, i have some deep disagreements with secretary lynn. since the decision was made on august 9 we tried to understand what was behind the decision. if you look at the process that we normally go through to understand how these decisions are made, there's a process called the quadrennial defense review and that discusses the strategic needs of this nation. we needed to understand within that context that this decision might have been mentioned and what we saw was that it was not. we know that that's the process by which all of us, both congress and the department of

defense, goes through to determine what needs to happen. there was not a mention in there about the joint forces command, about any efficiencies there or about things that needed to be done at this particular level. when this announcement was made, it caught us by surprise. we wanted to know well, if the decision was made, what was the decision to leave the department of defense to this particular point and why was this done outside the based realignment and closure process. when you close a facility, that's the process that's used. unfortunately, this process is circumventing that. now, the explanation that we got is this didn't fall under the base realignment and closure requirements and it was being done at the secretary at that level. again, using some word games here, calling it the disestablishment of joint forces command, not the

closure. so we said, well, even based on that, then what was behind the decision? tell us about the analysis. and when we requested meetings with the secretary of defense, we didn't receive any. we did first meet with christine fox within the department of defense and her assertion was this was a philosophical decision by the secretary, that he just felt that the joint forces command had outlived its usefulness, that its mission was completed. we thought, well, your announcement was on efficiency initiatives, yet your description now is that this is a philosophical decision. then when secretary lynn came and met with the virginia delegation and the virginia governor and then the day after testifying before the house armed services committee he said that this was a military decision. and we said, ok, now we have the assessment first a philosophical decision, now a military decision, but the billing was an efficiency initiative. so we asked the question, well, then, which is it? and we didn't get a clear answer to that. then we asked the subsequent question, well, then tell us or

provide to us the information, the stratooge t.j.ic analysis about why joint forces command's mission was completed and why it necessitated a closure. tell us the military analysis or tell us the economic analysis and then tell us the implementation strategy for doing this. host: what does the joint forces command center do? guest: well, the joint forces command center is focused on making sure that all the different branches of our military work together. that idea of jointness is what makes our military the greatest in the military. it requires that all the different branches work together to make sure when they're pursuing efforts, why it's downrange in iraq and afghanistan or whether it's training here in the united states that they're doing that in coordination, that everybody is working together and that there is economies that are exhibited in that concept of jointness or that concept of working together. so that command is charged with making sure that all those branches do things in unison so there's not repetition, so there's not lack of

coordination and the great example of that is when we saw in grenada where you have a marine corps unit that was trying to talk to an army unit, couldn't do it because the radio frequencies and somebody had to call the pentagon to get the other unit to talk to them so that was put in place specifically to address those kinds of issues to make sure those branches are able to work together. so with that we wanted to know, you know, what was the information behind making this decision. host: but deputy secretary lynn has said that the joint forces command center had 2,100 people and a $300 million budget in 2000. its first year of operation. by 2010 it had about 6,000 employees and a $1 billion budget without any significant expansion of its mission or responsibility. he goes on to say that more fundamentally the principle purpose for the creation of the joint command center in 1999 was to force a reluctant

service center military culture to embrace joint military operations and doctrines. he said that's largely been achieved. why is that necessary? guest: well, i still believe that concept of jointness doesn't happen automatically. those service branches still have a tendency to operate within their own rell ms so -- realms so there needs to be an external force there to say those service branches work together. what we say is we have no problem with you analyzing joint forces command and all the other commands to look at efficiencies. and if that command has grown and there are inefficiencies there, then let's address that. it does seem counterintuitive to say at this particular point the mission has been accomplished and that we totally do away with joint forces command. especially when we haven't done the analysis of how you would implement that, what the strategic implications are or even what the cost savings might be. so we wanted that information upfront. we thought that the analysis ought to be done upfront and then that presented to the congress to say this is how we came about that decision. none of us disagreed that from

top to bottom within the department of defense we ought to be looking at efficiencies, we ought to be looking at better ways to do things. and that's not only within the department of defense. we ought to be looking at it from top to bottom in our budget. we want to make sure that it's not just joint forces command that's targeted or the department of defense that's targeted for looking for efficiencies. host: ok. would you agree to some sort of compromise? what if you brought back the joint forces command to its 2000 budget of $300 million and you add only 2,100 people there you bring it back to the original mission rather than see the growth? guest: i have no problem with that analysis. what's joint forces command charged with doing? where is it in completing its mission? and what resources does it need to continue its effort? that's the analysis that we wanted to see behind this decision. and if that analysis shows that joint forces commend needs to be trimmed or reduced back to that initial level of staffing, then i don't think any of us

have any problem with that. we want to make sure that the process is clear, it's thoughtful, it's deliberative and that congress is part of that. i mean, we have a constitutional responsibility to perform that function of seeing that this nation has the proper national defense. this really is a national security issue, so we want to make sure that we understand that information. we have no problem with looking at efficiencies there and looking at the growth of joint forces command and whether that's necessary and whether that's the best use of resources within d.o.d. host: house republicans in their recent g.o.p. pledge said if they take over they're going to be looking at reducing spending. because there's a lot of concern by the american people and the republicans are saying we're going to respond to that concern over the deficit. guest: yes. host: if you're a voter out there and you're looking at your options, how do you respond to people who think, gee, you want to go after spending but nen when it lands in your district you don't want to touch it? guest: i don't think this is a parochial issue. i think this is a national security importance to our

security. and i have no problem top to bottom at the department of defense mac looking at efficiencies, seeing that we're using dollars in the best way possible. i want to make sure that it's not just the joint forces command that's being looked at and not just the department of defense that's being looked at. we have significant budget imbalances here with spending versus revenues. we need to make sure that those imbalances, those deficits this national debt has addressed, it has to be addressed from top to bottom. if you look at the increases in spending over the past five years, the department of defense is at the very bottom of the list. so if we're serious about combating runaway spending, we ought for looking at other elements of the budget in addition to the department of defense and not focus on one single element of the department of defense and looking at how do we make sure that spending within d.o.d. is indeed efficient and doing the thing we need to do strategically for this nation. host: rod rod is a member of the first district in virginia

and part of the house armed services committee. you are on the air. caller: i think that this is about jobs in his district. when he compromises the ability of the defense department to begin saving money and redeploying that money to objectives that are more consistent and more important to our national defense that he's actually in fact impairing our national security. guest: well, i don't think we're impairing national security. this really is not a parochial issue. it's about the strategic interest of this nation and making sure that we understand what's behind those decisions. congress and the house armed services committee has a constitutional responsibility to do that. we must question the secretary of defense in understanding the decisions behind that. we want to understand where the savings strategically what does this mean. we're not against making sure there are efficiencies there. but congress does have a specific role and the house armed services committee has an obligation and a responsibility to make sure that we understand

what's behind these decisions. so i would say that this isn't really a parochial decision. although it obviously does affect our region. it's also dealing with our security. the headlines in the chinese newspapers after this decision was made was that the u.s. is abandoning its effort in jointness. and the chinese military's trying to immolate the u.s. military. when they look at us abandoning this effort in jointness it says something when their papers are printing that as their headlines. this really is a strategic issue. we have an obligation to pose those questions and understand what's behind this decision. we also have an obligation to make sure we're using those funds efficiently. i have no problem with cuts and making sure we're doing things responsible lie but we have an obligation to understand that it's in the best interest of this nation. host: the command is adjacent to your district.

what's the impact? a lot of people in your district work there. what is the impact on jobs? guest: there are 6,000 jobs associated with joint forces command. roughly about 1,200 on the civilian side. about 1,600 on the uniformed side and 3,000 on the contractor side. so those contractors live in the first district. there is impact there but it's impacted across the region. there is not one specific congressional district that bears the majority of the impact. host: let's go to bullworth, texas. roger on the republican line. good morning. roger, are you with us? we lost him. howard, democratic line, virginia. go ahead, howard. caller: good morning. thank you very much for c-span for having me on. good morning, representative wittman. guest: good morning. caller: i'm calling because i'm concerned about the joint forces command and the debate that's going on. i guess my biggest concern right now is you have refused

to debate the subject here. i'd like to understand why you have -- don't want to have a debate. today we'd like to know where you stand going into 2010 and 2011 and you refused to debate crystal ball. host: that's the democratic opponent going against you. guest: i will debate my opponent. we have a debate scheduled at the williamsburg library. so i invite folks to go out there and share in that debate. guest: salisbury, north carolina. bill on the republican line. caller: good morning. how are you doing? guest: good morning. caller: i want to make a comment about the joint command. i do believe they make a very important contribution to the military, way around the world. we have to have contact with our allies. we need to make sure we use the same weapons, same systems.

say the nato round, the 7.62. we all want the same nato round. then we went to the 2.23 -- or .223, the m-16 round. we have to have similar type weapons. we have to communicate with our allies in order to make sure that this world is safe. we're under multiple threats in this new world, and i'm just saying this very simply that we have to have clear, concise communication with our allies, what they're doing, and i think the joint command does a very good job with that. i thank you very much. host: bill, do you have experience with the joint command? caller: no, i do not. i am a military veteran. host: ok. congressman. guest: thank you, bill. i couldn't agree more. joint forces command serves a very critical role in making sure that all of our service

branches work together, that they're coordinated, and also with our nato partners. as you know it's very critical in these multinational force efforts that we have in our downrange efforts. so we want to make sure that that continues, so it is critical that that element of jointness is there and it needs to be at the forefront. the question always is, where are we in the mission of jointness and making sure that that continues? so i couldn't agree with you more. that effort is critical. and it must continue. and we must understand what this joint forces command closure means in maintaining that effort of jointness. host: eldridge, iowa. pat on the independent line. caller: yeah. don't you think that the military's outdated by chasing groups of people? and i'd like to see the military put things together instead of blowing things up. thank you. guest: sure. thank you. well, our military has a number of challenges around the world.

most challenges that changed, as you know this asymmetric threat is something that's very different these days. our efforts downrange in iraq and afghanistan provide a variety of new challenges to our military. i have to give them credit. they have ablely stood up to those challenges. they have to be a flexible, adaptable force making sure they meet those strategic challenges that we meet around the world and make sure they're tactically up to that challenge and make sure, too, that our forces and capabilities are strategically placed to meet those threats, in addition to conventional threats. we have continuing concerns about china and the building of their military force. russia, although not once the military force that it used to be, is still significant. as well as india that continues to build a force structure. so we have many fronts where we have challenges. we need to make sure that our military is structured to be able to meet those challenges. host: rob wittman is our guest, republican representative of

virginia. if you want to join the conversation on twitter, go to twitter.com/cspanwj. if you have a comment or question related to the subject we'll get it on air. jack on the republican line. go ahead. caller: hey, how you doing? host: go ahead, jack. caller: yeah, i'd like to make a couple points here. first off, it seems whenever the democrats want to cut the budget or cut spending it seems like it always coming out of the defense department and i'd like to know why that is. to get to the other point of redundancies, i was an intern in the d.o.d. in a branch of the d.o.d. and i witnessed a lot of redundancies in turf wars and things like that. it's just really frustrate -- frustrating to see how we're not working together and this was just a year ago. figure out how to get that going, that would be very nice of you. guest: thank you.

you bring up some great points here. we want to make sure there are cooperative efforts within the department of defense. there is a natural tendency, i think, to say in is my service branch, we do things this way. other service branches do it the other way. requiring folks to work together is critical. that effort obviously needs to continue. and we want to make sure that when we talk about spending reduction decisions that they're being made fairly and equitablely across the boorned. we can't single out the department of defense for those savings. i want to make sure that as we talk about how we create savings, how we reduce spending that it's on all the different areas of our federal budget and not just the department of defense and not to say that we shouldn't be looking at efficiencies there. we must look top to bottom in our budgets. but it is concerning when the only conversation going on about savings happens to be within the department of defense. host: secretary defense gates is probably the most trusted and respected across the board in my lifetime.

cutting wasteful pentagon spending is due. guest: no doubt. we need to look top to bottom in the department of defense in cutting wasteful spending. it's also our obligation to determine how that spending reductions are being pursued and strategically what does that mean and make sure that concept of jointness is not abandoned. i go back to chairman ike skelton and his comments and he talked about the goldwater-nichols bill and building a force that incorporates jointness, he doesn't want to see that abanned -- abandoned. we need to make sure we're not creating a bigger problem down the road or a situation where our military branches are not working together and thereby creating inefficiencies. .

because those folks move back and forth across the border. it is a pretty dynamic element in afghanistan. obviously, that is important to pursue, but it is also important to create realistic expectations about what those negotiations may yield host: here is the headline in the "wall street journal." guest: aged, but it does not. the pakistan taliban is very different. some of the instability there occurs in the northwest tribal regions. members of the taliban move back and forth across the border. if you are really going to cure the instability in that region, it is an issue of instability both between afghanistan and pakistan could suggest negotiating and finding a settlement of the afghanistan taliban does not necessarily solve the problem of instability

in the area. i would say we are right in being very concerned about the pakistani taliban and instability and insurgents there in pakistan. that has to be part of it. their concerns about the instability created in afghanistan, but also the instability they trade in pakistan, which is significant in that pakistan as a nation with a significant inventory of nuclear weapons. host: george on the democratic line from pennsylvania. what is the name of the town? caller: it is an old dutch word meaning hidden river. hudson was going up and down the east coast and had a far -- had a hard time finding the interest is to the river. we're at the headwaters or the river begins, which runs southeast into philadelphia. and it goes into the alleged attack. host: question or comment? caller: the joint forces

command could be eliminated altogether. it is redundant to have all these forces. they could just be called the military and eliminate the air force, marines, the coast guard, and maybe even have just an army and navy. we separate all these, and then we build or create an organization called the joint forces command. that is a waste of money. that is bureaucracy. congressman? guest: i do think those elements are critical. we do need a coastguard, air force, and a marine corps. the army and navy are also critical elements but of all the service branches are critical to the national security of this nation. the joint forces command was put together because we expend a lot

of resources within those service branches, and we want to make sure they're working together. we want to make sure there's not repetition and there is coordination. that is critical. we want that to be achieved. i would say the concept of joint this is critical. we have seen the inefficiencies and problem that lack of joinedness as costs in the past. across the spectrum in all of our service branches and in the joint forces command, we want to make sure we're using the resources we have most effectively to make sure this nation can meet the strategic challenges some around the world. that is the bottom line. we have to continue to have the discussion on how to do that most efficiently and effectively and with the best use of those resources. those discussions need to be open, transparent, and we need to be delivered to it on how we come back to those decisions. host: this says i can understand why they want to keep home state bases open, but why overseas

bases? guest: there is an appearance with the overseas bases. the key is the balance, especially with nato partners. they do have a responsibility in the cooperative agreements in the defense of their regions. so we do need to always look strategically the need for presence of u.s. forces overseas. we have looked through the years and have reduced that presence significantly. i think in many situations, there is still that need. we want to make sure we have the proper balance in making sure that we engage the countries and we're partners with to make sure they're doing their fair share. there should not be an imbalance in presence of u.s. forces versus our partners forces. that is the balance we are seeking to make sure there is a complementary force to our partners, not as the main force. if our presence there is the primary force, then it takes away some of the incentive for

those host countries to make sure they have adequate forces. that is always a debate, and we want to make sure that balance is saw. so we should continue to ask questions about our foreign presence in these other nations. host: from our republican online, michigan. caller: how could we spend all this money on national defense and cannot protect our own border with mexico? thank you. guest: obviously, homeland security is a big issue these days, too, and looking at how to deploy resources there has become a significant part of the debate. we talk about how we deploy resources for our national defense. national security also involves homeland security. a lot of discussion about how to do that. many of the things we do downrange in providing security there for our men and women in uniform are also things i could be put in place here, stateside, along our borders. things like electronic surveillance and how we use

technology to secure those areas i think things can be applied here. those discussions do overlap, and we want to make sure we're doing all we can in protecting and securing our borders. host: chicago, james, on the independent line. caller: hello, congressmen. i have two things. one way to cut waste and military spending is to not penalize commands for turning in money at the end of the fiscal year that they did not use. if you do not waste that money by buying say new cubicles or new shares or anything just to burn the money of the command's wish list, then that would eliminate waste. the joint command, i am not sure if i am is correct because i was in the military for six

years, and i did a lot of joint command staff. but as for me being in the navy, i had constant contact with the air force, the army, and the marine corps. in the joint command that i knew was a redundancy. after i got all my tasking and did everything needed to do with the air force and the marines and the army, then i will have to call a joint command and inform them of what was going on. >guest: well, we want to make sure we do not have those kind of redundancies. but i think the joint forces command performs a critical mission. we want to make sure that critical mission continues. i have no problem looking a joint forces command from top to bottom and looking at inefficiencies or replications of effort. we want to make sure that happens. but the question is, how do we come about the decision to

totally eliminate joint force command, and what different elements of a jointness will be continued, when, how it will happen, and what the cost savings are. those are legitimate questions. we believe that that analysis should have been done prior to the announcement of the decision rather than after the announcement of the decision. something with this kind of impact and a major decision like this, i believe the analysis should have been done up front. so clearly be secretary of defense did come to congress, to the house armed services committee, and say this is how we came to this decision. we want to understand how the decision was made to understand what that means, and how it will affect us strategically and how the implementation will take place and with the savings are. and i think those are reasonable requests. host: here is a piece written in the financial times this morning by an author who has looked at the situation in afghanistan, specifically he wrote a book about the taliban.

he writes that the real long- term crisis for the west is the afghan army's lack of readiness to take charge next year when western troops start to withdraw two although 80% the units are now partnered with nato units, nobody claims in the single afghan unit is ready to take charge. these are compelling reasons why the west a less prepared n. needs to start negotiations with the taliban. the first thing mr. obama needs to do it his policy review is to push aside the military pundits and base its decisions on relatives on the ground rather than hyped up hope. guest: when i was in afghanistan back in april, we had conversations with our forces that work training afghanistan forces. we were observed eight -- observing the training regimen, trying to see how ready the afghan army was to take over security of that nation in the areas we have secured.

this whole concept of a secure, hold, and build, is based on having a well-trained afghanistan force. so in our conversations then, we do not see that the of guinness and force was fully trained and fully capable of taking these areas over. obviously, that is very significant. if you're going to successfully implement the secure, hold, and bill's strategy, you have to have an afghanistan force that is able and ready to do that. that is critical. it is also critical going forward in the decision making. it determines where we are in the status of our effort there with the troop build up and with this secure, hold, and build strategy. if we're about their training forces, you're right, that needs to be part of the decision making about our presence there. and then, how does that integrate with where we stand with the taliban and where the taliban stands with the afghanistan government? those are all critical decision making elements on what our presence is there and how long the presence should be

maintained and where we're strategically in being able to make sure that we can withdraw if but also withdraw all in a situation where we leave behind a table in afghanistan and where they can maintain their own internal order. host: if there's one more aspect in this military strategy, a clear, cold, build, and transfer. if this is not happening adequately, then does their need to be a different military strategy? or are you saying the u.s. should get out of afghanistan? guest: we should look at our efforts with those forces, a training. and where will they be able to deploy those forces? looking at the areas that we secured like marjah. what is a mean to those areas? as we know right now, the latest is those afghanistan forces are able to hold marjah by itself. the question becomes, when will they?

how far down the road is that? that should dictate our military presence there. in the discussion and, we should look at what we can strategically achieve based on what the original objectives were, their original mission, and that is to secure, hold, and build strategy. if we are falling short of that, what does that mean for u.s. presence, and what does that mean for our mission? we should be looking at the mission that saying is it realistic with what we hope to achieve with the training of afghanistan forces? you have to go back and create those questions first and answer those questions as you proceed more with where we are in this mission. >> republican line, from the state of texas. you are on the air. >> i want to know how, -- russia is not part of the terrorist warnings? >> there are certain challenges

with russia, terrorist elements within russia. but as far as their likelihood of attack here, our intelligence agencies to a pretty good job of evaluating all those different threats. they put forward those most immediate threats. i have faith in their assessments and where they stand in assessing where russia is as far as the threat. their assessment is the threats upon u.s. citizens, both abroad and on u.s. soil. threatening around the world, but their evaluation is the threat here to americans and american interest. host: four gop leaders warn of uranium mines sell. the russian agency would take over. four leading house republicans citing national security concerns are urging the directory secretary to block the sale of your name -- wyoming- based uranium mine to end arm of the russian government's main nuclear agency. guest: we just got information about that and share the same

concerns strategically for this nation. it is a big question as to whether or not a uranium mine should be sold to a company that has associations with the russian military. i think those are questions that need to be asked. before decision is made, we should understand the full extent of this sale might mean strategically to the united states. host: when last phone call, a democrat from pennsylvania. caller: good morning. i am a veteran of vietnam. if we are in a bad situation. i mean, there's no getting around it. it is a really bad situation. .nd i am sarorry i was a republican for years. you guys are mainly responsible for this. and you are letting these people do whatever they want, and it is all about the money.

and we have to do some cutting. the pentagon is the worst-run thing in our government as far as as a concern. yes, we have to protect our government, but we do not have any idea where the money's going. you need to forget about democrat or republican. i am an american. i served this country. i did not serve as a democrat or republican. there needs to be a lot of cuts in our military. this seems like a pretty good place. they all talk about cutting, but as soon as somebody does the proposal and does some cutting, especially if it is in your little state -- be it virginia, pennsylvania, are alabama. if you have to get honest and is a real work for us, the taxpayers. we are hurting. toest: we're not averse cutting and looking at deficiencies in making sure we cut out wasteful spending and

duplicative programs. all of us, both sides of the aisle, and the house armed services committee and throughout congress are very much in favor of that. it has to happen. but it is really about making sure we understand how those decisions are made. how the but the decisions i place? but the cost savings going to be? we owe it to the american people to ask those questions and communicate that to them to make sure we're not in some ways sacrifice in the strategic capabilities of this nation. i do not think anybody is in disagreement with cost cutting in savings. we want to make sure everybody understands what those decisions mean. october 14, for the debate with my opponent, i believe it is october 30 williamsburg. i want people to get the correct information. we look forward to that debate. host: congressman, thank you for talking to our viewers. next, we will turn our attention to this headline.

gop leaders widely. democrats in danger. but races are tight. 12 hotly contested races that could decide who runs the house. republican challengers are bidding freshman democrats in 11. and in the last one, the race is tight. first, and news updates from c- span radio. >> democratic national committee chairman in remarks earlier on "the today show" says the party is concerned about an enthusiasm gap this election year, but there's still enough time to get a good turnout. he went on to say that differences exist among democrats over such issues as economy and health care because of the parties diversity, calling that a good thing. meanwhile, former football coach lou holt is urging support for republicans running for congress. in a fund-raising e-mail sent on behalf of the national republican congressional committee, he says gop leaders in the house are well-positioned to, in his words, fire nancy

pelosi in november, adding that they cannot find the end zone without your support. his message filled with a all references asked supporters to give cash to help republicans captured the majority on november 2. turning to the war in afghanistan, the "washington post" reports of secret talks aimed at ending that war had begun between representatives of the taliban and the afghan president's government. it is believed to be the first time that taliban representatives are fully authorized to speak for the afghan organization and its leader. an american soldier, meanwhile, who gave his life in that war will be posthumously awarded the nation's highest award today for valor. green beret army staff sergeant robert miller was killed in the taliban ambushed two years ago as he was leading a patrol. he continued to fire on the attackers even though he was already wounded. his parents will accept the medal of honor in his name today

at the white house. c-span will cover the event. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> the supreme court has started its new term, and you can learn more about the nation's highest court with c-span's latest book, "the supreme court." candid conversations with active and retired justices. reporters who cover the court, attorneys to cover cases. revealing unique insights about the supreme court. available in hardcover wherever you buy books and also as depressed an e-book. >> 17% of those across our border have committed crimes previously in this country. >> we need to secure our border. we need federal immigration reform, and that needs to be read by our next united states senator. >> we're covering more than 100 debates from around the country. and if you miss one, you can find it online at the c-span video library. searched it, watch it, share it,

all free. is washington, your way. >> "washington journal" continues. if >> we have the managing editor of "the hill" newspaper here to talk about this poll out this week this is challenges ahead in 11 of the 12 races. this could determine who controls the house. why? guest: we partnered with anga and a respected pollster in washington, d.c., because there's not a lot of reliable house polling. there's a lot of senate polling. the house polling is internal, which is never released publicly. so we did the first of a series of four. the first thing we did was a freshman. democratic freshmen who came in with democratic -- president obama. the good news for republicans is that they are up by 11 of the 12 races. the good news for democrats is in seven of the well, they're within the margin of error. some democrats and not doing

great, and some are still in the ballpark. if democrats can see some momentum, the can retain control of the house. host: what kind of districts to these 12 members represent? guest: a combination ranging from virginia to ohio to illinois. these are battleground districts, districts that democrats and republicans are vying for. basically, these are the freshmen that came in on the wave, and republicans want to wave them away this year. and several of the lamb, john mccain one. so these are conservative- leaning districts. especially on health care. some democrats who voted yes on health care, that has hurt them. some of them have had, three of the 12 that we surveyed, voted in no on health care. those democrats are in decent shape. host: let's dig into the

specific races. let's begin with debbie halverson. guest: she voted for health care. she is down 18 points to a conservative candidate. this is in illinois, and she's having trouble. as far as all the 12 we look at, she is in the most trouble. down 18. if you look at the undecided voters, even if she wins those, she will not pull through. there's a lot of time before november 2. maybe she can come back, but it looks unlikely. host: on the front page of the "new york times" there is a story about has president obama will be pushing his base to get back out there, especially the younger voters who voted for him and helped him get the presidency. he will do an mtv appearance. he is going to be trying to get this base out and they put aside your hard feelings and come out and vote. pretty much admitting that the independents are gone.

but trying to get the base going. is that enough for a person like debbie? can she when which is the base and no independents? guest: the midterm is really just about the base. for presidential elections, a lot of people vote. in midterms, not as many of the republican base, for the first time since 2004, as fired up. and they're going to show up. the question is, will the democratic base show up? they have been divided. robert gibbs calling it the professional left, and liberals of said that they did not get a public option 9 health care. and joe biden sent to the liberals to stop whining. and realizing what is coming if we do not win this november. joe biden said it -- says if we lose control of the house, it will be the end of the road for the white house agenda. so this could be a tea party congress. but in debbie's case, basically that is a conservative-leaning

district. so there is not a huge a liberal base. so that strategy for her will be different from what the president's strategy will be. host: what is she doing over the next couple weeks? was sort of outside groups are as the personalities can she depend on or the republicans, in this case, depend on in order to win? guest: you will certainly not see president obama going into your district. she was about local issues. these democrats who are struggling, they're not going to be talking about health care reform. they may be talking about wall street reform, but the health care reform bill is not going to be addressed. stimulus could be addressed to some degree. but they will try to make this more a local issue. and we have also seen at democrats on the attack. democrats have gone after republican candidates in that effort to say this out a referendum on president obama. this is a choice. unlike the other candidate.

look at the incumbent and decide which is better. did not just vote against your congressional candidate because or upset president obama. host: what is happening in maryland's first district? guest: frank is there and he is one of the ones who voted no on the health care. he beat andy harris a couple years ago. frank has a very strong ground game. it is a strong district. he has to display his independence. it is a far drive from washington, but he goes home every weekend. that is a very close race. that is one of the races that republicans really need to win if they're going to when the house. it is such a republican district. the democrat is vulnerable, but he can say i voted in no on health care, and easily done by a few points. it looks like it is helping him. host: is it a really conservative district or sort of

a moderate republican district? guest: that what is more conservative. but critics say that andy harris was too conservative to the district, and he knocked off a longtime incumbent in the republican primary a couple years ago, who ended up supporting the democrats in the last election. the republican party was divided. they're not as divided in that district this time around. and harris is now up a little bit. that is a positive sign. when you talk about things, it has shifted so much. so harris lost last time to the democrat, so there's only so much he can do. when the wave comes, it wipes out people. democrats are trying to minimize the damage, trying to save some people like that democrat who are close. as some point, there will have to make the decision, the democratic congressional campaign committee, and where they're going to invest in seven races. if certain democrats are down big in their internal polling --

you put resources were you can win races. they do not want to lose the 39 seats republicans need. host: you said when a wave comes, it wipes you out. there's not much you can do. looking at the 12 races on the front page of your newspaper this morning, is that the case with this type of district -- any election, it does not matter. this is the type of district that can get wiped out by a wave. guest: that is right. when you look back to 2004, you had the presidential election of course with george bush and john kerry. there was also the redistricting process. if you were an incumbent in 2004, you had a lot of job security. since then, volatile times. to thousand six, democrats picked up 30 house seats. 2008, they picked up another 24. now republicans look like they

will pick up dozens of seats, wiping those guys away. when i talk about health care votes, some of these guys did vote in know. it that might help. but some of these guys who voted in know are going to lose. -- who voted in know how -- host: let's go to new mexico's second district. pearce is a name that long time c-span viewers may know. the unspoken on the floor when he ran before. guest: now he is trying to win back his old house seat. this is interesting because pierce got into the race after teague voted for climate change. soon after that, he said i am in. now teague is down by four points. he ended up voting in no on health care. this is one of those races where

these are former members. so it is tough to run as an outsider or maybe someone who ran the last time. the newcomers are doing better than the longtime incumbents and this is you have seen before. experience really does not matter this time around. basically, that is a close race. pierce is up. you can look to these races and divert ways. republicans are doing well, but they're not doing great. they're not winning in a lot of these reasons by double digits. but it is still very hard to knock off incumbents in congress. it is very difficult. the fact that they have a leave now, more people are focused on the, and undecided voters usually go with the wave. that is a good sign for the gop. host: what you see as far as money being pumped in to the district? guest: that is one or both parties will invest heavily in teague and pearce. they will get a ton of money. you'll see people like karl

rove and others playing a major role. democrats are crying foul with that group, complaining to the irs about how they're doing their business. everything from campaign ads to campaign tactics to anything, it is anything goes now. it all comes down to winning. we have seen a number of places get extremely ugly, and it will only get worse. host: we're talking to bob from the "hill close quaid newspaper about their front-page story. unions the steering funds to liberal allies cannot these types of democrats we're talking about that are in trouble. they're not seeing money from typical democratic groups. does that hurt their chances? guest: it does. someone who is upset with that type of story is rahm emanuel, who used to have the house democratic campaign committee. he has said committee to back these conservative democrats because if you do not, we're going to lose the house.

and we're going to have a republican speaker. so unions are still smarting from some of those no votes. and the committee has tried to work with some of the groups to say that the bill is passed so let's get over it. unions, even though it did not have a public option, that bill -- still, this is our the left is divided. they're upset about certain votes it did not get done. the congressional agenda will be very different next year, no matter who is controlling the house. regardless, there will be a lot more republicans on capitol hill. host: rep -- richmond va on the phone. i will put you on hold. let's go to jerry, republican line in rogers, arkansas. are you with us? caller: hello. i have a comment. first of all, the democrats,

with the top democrat being obama, they have not than anything to help this country whatsoever. they have brought it down. i am is a disabled vet, and i tell you what, i cannot stand to see what is happening here to our country. i really believe that not only do we need to get rid of the crooks up there, which are the democrats right now, but i do believe what the republicans get in, i think maybe we should start impeachment against the top dogs. what do you think? guest: there is definitely a lot of danger there. we found that this is clearly a national election. most voters, two out of three, will have president obama on their mind. some who are not fans of the president, and some who are fans of the president. but certainly, the republican base was to send a message to the white house that they do not

like how this administration has done its business. congressional republicans who were smarting after the 2008 elections, and president obama told him i won. congressional republicans want to say after this election, we won. host: democratic line. caller: good morning. i really do not understand your view on the the polling. i have a few things i would like you to jot down. the 99'ers, the people of of work for more than 99 weeks. then we have the choice group of people. these two groups of people are white voters. and then we put in gays and lesbians. there's another aspect. a large chunk of america, they

are white voters. and then we have african- americans. we have hispanics. and now the muslims. i just picked up seven chunks of the country were the republicans have angered them. republicans voted no on everything. i do not understand -- who are you polling saying that the republicans are leading? host: we will leave it there. let me show you the front page of the "new york times." it says, latino turnout expected to lag in the midterm vote, and it is a setback for democrats. guest: our polling focuses on battleground districts, and there are a lot of liberal districts like nancy pelosi's districts where she will win. talking about the latino voters,

immigration reform is something that president obama promised to do in the 2009. he pushed that back to 2010. the administration did not make a real big push for immigration, comprehensive immigration reform. they did make a last-ditch effort for a scaled-down bill, the dream act, and that did not succeed. latino voters are not pleased about that. and congressman you're pushing for immigration reform are not pleased to back a dime. host: the america's national gas alliance was at part of the poll. the first one out today looking at freshman incumbents, democrats, and those in trouble. about 12. about two-thirds of voters-these key battleground districts will be thinking about president obama when they choose the next member of congress. guest: it means no matter where

democrats are doing, looking at the congressmen and congresswomen from the district, that they're going to be talking about local issues. but national issues, whether it be the stimulus, climate change, health care reform, those are the issues that people are thinking about. the economy, jobs, deficit. whether it is anger over those bills or the fact that democrats over promised on the stimulus -- they said unemployment will be lower than 8%. now it is at 9.6%. the president has said, listen, he knows it is tough out there, but the made a little bit of progress and do not want to go backward. host: there is a longtime democrat. would he not be biased? guest:mark penn is a respected pollster, and he has been respected and employed by a lot of different firms in washington, d.c. one of the things when deciding

this, we wanted to do actual phone calls. you get a lot of polling that is unreliable. when we did our research, we found that mark penn is one of the bus posters. the findings he has come up with are not exactly democratic- friendly. we knew there would be criticism, but we're confident in his polling. host: a tweet that says phone poles are worthless. guest: this is a combination of both land lines and cell phones. basically 400 calls in each of these 12 districts. the incumbents of poll results that holon thehill.com. people can look at the polls and the margin of error. their various questions. host: in the poll was up on their website. thehill.com. delaware, democratic line. caller: good morning.

thanks for c-span. ghostly registered democrat that will be voting for christie no donnell -- christine o'donnell. this is the first time that i have seen a poor person or middle-class person could actually run for the senate without having millions of dollars in advance or being part of the elite. also, i am an unemployed teacher. i was unemployed for two years. i got unemployment for six months of that, and i have been under employed cents. i am not custodian making $8.50 an hour. a and obama misread his mandate. he did not have a mandate to go completely left. he had a mandate to get us all jobs. guest: that this an interesting take as far as the wealth of members. we adjusted our top 50 of the wealthiest members, and there are a lot of what the members of

congress. but generally speaking, the pattern as people make their money and then run for congress. but you do not see a lot of pork people in congress. christine is the underdog in delaware. there's no doubt about it. congressional republicans won in mike castle to win the primary. he did not. christine was helped by the endorsement of sarah palin. the democrat is the favorite. certainly the white house is relieved that christine won because it increases the chances that they will retain their seats. host: there is another battleground district, the third house district race. >> it is kathy running against mike kelly. she is down 14 points. this is the republican-leaning district. she is one of the democrats who knew what she got elected, she had to work and getting

reelected. but she is down double digits. she is one of the ones that is clearly in trouble. and republicans have to win a seat like this and they're going to win control of the house. if you did the polling numbers, the health care reform is not popular in her district. it is not popular in a lot of districts. democrats favor a repeal of the health care law. obviously, independents are very much in favor of the repeal, and republicans are in favor of repeal. if you did some, even in new mexico, 49% of democrats support the repeal of health care. that is almost half of the democrats in the district. that is an astounding indication of which party has won the message war on health care reform. kathy voted yes. teague voted in no, and he is

closer in his race. host: have the democratic campaign committees given up on this seat? guest: they will not said publicly that they have given up on anything. nancy pelosi, even though she is many democrats in her caucus, they do not agree with her. some are saying i may not vote for her for speaker next year she is fighting for all of them. but at some point, and those decisions are probably going to be made in mid-october. who are we going to elect? you're going to try to sit? even though the democratic campaign committee has a cash advantage over the republicans, there's only so much money to go around. in way for elections, money does not matter as much as it does in a non-wave elections. host: david on the republican line. caller: i have been following this election since scott

brown's victory. i understand barney frank is in trouble for a lot of people, that would be their wildest dreams. in fact, millions of americans. any comments? guest: he is running against a former democrat marine new conservative pundits are talking up this republican candidate. this is a very democratic district. president obama won i think 63% in barney frank's district. they're saying the right wing media and pundits are after him. that is likely to stay in the democratic column. if barney frank loses, house republicans will probably win about 80 or 90 seats, and i do not think that will happen. host: he has focused on raising a lot of money, and that is hurting fellow colleagues who are used to getting monetary support from barney frank. guest: that is a great point.

you did various german like the chairman of the arms services committee -- you look at various chairmen. a committee chairmen from west virginia. basically, all these resources, and if you look at who raises the most money in the house and the senate, it is leadership officials and committee chairmen. you have committee chairman spending all their money on their own races, are most of it, and it hurts some of the ball marble ones. host: we talked about the chances of republicans taking back the house or democrats holding on. if people are going after these committee chairman, what is the likelihood they're going to get knocked off by republicans? guest: i think a couple of them could be. ike skelton could be. john spratt has been targeted before, but he may survive. he is from a safe democratic district. but those two are the big trophies that house republicans

want. but come mid-october, republicans will look at their internal polling and decide, well, maybe we should not go after them. let's not spend all the resources to get the chairman. host: virginia, independent line. caller: i wanted to comment that the president campaigned on a program that he would unite the country and we would move forward for the average person. he hid the fact that apparently he is totally against wealthy people and the capitalist system. he's got to the last two years of destroying our capitalistic system. that is why we're stagnate right now. if you look at what is going on with the people that are going to vote next month, i think you're totally underestimated what is going to happen. i think it is going to be an overwhelming landslide for the

conservative approach. that is why our president has stopped becoming a president, and he went on almost 100% on the campaign trail. he sees it coming. guest: a lot of predictions right now are that republicans are going to win the house. no doubt about it. one of the things, looking back to 2006 and the elections, there's a lot of anger out there. you had katrina, trouble with the iraq war, and ethical issues hurting republicans. that year, democrats won 30 seats. this year, obviously a lot of anger. you can make the argument that there's more frustration. the and implement rate is higher than it was. that year, democrats won 30 seats. republicans need to win a net of 39 seats. there are a handful of seats that republicans will struggle to attain. they may lose a double seats. therefore, they may have to win 43 or 44 to win a net of 39. the one thing i think is a real

possibility is that on november 3, we may not know who is going to be leading the house next year, because a lot of races come down to 1000 votes, recounting the legal challenges. so on november 3, we may not know. on the other hand, we could know very early on november 2 that republicans have it and we will have a speaker boehner next year. our polling is showing that basically this thing is not over yet. host: any point out in this story this morning of your first poll here that this is a glimmer of light for republicans, but not one of the 12 republican challengers have reached 50%. so that goes to what you're talking about. these could be close races on november 3. especially in the 12 districts. guest: that is right. basically what you have candidates that are not over 50%, then they will say we can define the republican party and attack their pledge to america,

we can go after them and try to tie them to john boehner, tried to tie them to george w. bush. a lot of those strategies have not worked, and democrats are still struggling for message. if we look back to 2008, and the democratic message was hope and change. and now people are saying, what is the democratic message of this year? basically, they have tried a lot of different messages. the one obama keeps coming back to is we do not want to go backward, we want to go forward. but polling is showing that the republican message is resonating much better this year host: one of those tight races is the fourth district of colorado. marcus is down 3%. guest: in colorado, once again, another battleground district. those who one of voted yes on health care. i think she voted no the first time. but this is one of those races

republicans have to win. you have to take up these freshmen. of these 12 freshman, basically republicans are going in need -- are going to need to take out eight to 10 of these freshmen. at a minimum, six of them. so that is a tight race and one that could be decided by a debate or could be decided at the last second. host: sacramento, republican line. caller: i was just wondering, when our our white leaders coming back to congress? there has always been white people there. and all these je -- host: all right, the tone of your comment is inappropriate. we're having a conversation about campaign 2010. you need to stay on topic. you cannot call in with that kind of agenda. we're cutting you off and moving on. romeo, michigan, democratic line. go ahead. caller: i want to make four

quick points. i am veteran. i am elderly, world war ii, and there is mention out there that republicans would try to privatize the va. if they do that, you have a march on washington. number two, social security, the want to change. i wish c-span would get an authority on there. because you get into the details on social security, and it protects itself and we're good for the outer years. people do not understand that. number 3, the report came out yesterday about jobs being sent overseas to china. they're sending money into our campaigns, and that money is being sent out. and because of the extreme court

-- the supreme court ruling, that about being identified. guest: well, a lot to tackle. as far as the privatization part, that is a buzz word you hear democrats talking a lot about, whether it is social security or medicare. most social security. the republican congressman from wisconsin has a new budget blueprint. it is in somewhat controversial. republican leaders have not fully embraced it. democrats say privatisation. republicans said that is not true. the fiscal commission will have to deal with that. they're coming up with a major report, the bipartisan commission set up by president obama. their report comes out december 1. it will look at defense spending, tax cuts, and arrange of entitlement spending. and this debate over pushing up the retirement age for social security, privatization, certainly is going to be coming back.

host: michigan's seventh district, dead even. i assume economy is the number- one issue. guest: the economy has been hit very hard. this is one of those races where out of the 12, the democrat that is doing the best, even in the race. this could be a reason because this is not exactly a fresh face for republicans. a former member. it is tough to run on the outsider coming to washington to shake things up. this is still pretty good news for tim whalberg. michigan, ohio, and pennsylvania, and virginia i throw in, republicans have to do very well. the economy is hurting in a lot of this district and in other districts. we look at the senate race in nevada. unemployment very high in nevada. republicans are going after the senate majority leader, harry

reid. that is a tight race, and it could go down to the wire. we might know who wins that until later in november. host: what about nevada third? guest: it is a tight race. titus is only down three gives the republican. that is not bad. but she is down. she could be up a little bit. or joe heck could be up more. it is not double digits. nevada is one, like harry reid, and harry reid's sun is running for governor in nevada. the effect of the top of the ticket, reid, what it will do to titus is unclear. the issues in the ballpark. host: republican line, minneapolis. caller: thank you for c-span.

i love your show. i want to make a point because there's a certain edge to the guests of voice. like he is trying to be very convincing. i do not believe that there is a democratic party anymore. i think it is a democratic socialist party. and he had a caller referring to christine o'donnell. and he said the white house is happy that she won because it gives them the edge. but the caller called in to say he was going to vote for christine. but i am very concerned for my country. there was a gentleman from the armed forces committee speaking, and our defenses are being torn down. i do not look at polls. i just have this gut feeling

that something is really not right. and you guys are so optimistic. even the young lady here on this show, your hostess, she almost sounds like she's a democrat. i am so perplexed. have you guys look at that? can you address that at all? guest: our publication is definitely a independent, and we do not take sides. as far as christine o'donnell, she could win. no one predicted that she would beat mike months ago. the polling showed she was going to win. and there was a last week attack against her that did not work. now she's basically the republican nominee, who was behind in the polls, and the wave is very big in delaware.

but delaware is not like other states. it is not a deep blue state, but it is bluer than most to clearly went for president obama in 2008. we have heard congressional republicans will not be spending a ton of money there. she does not need to have a ton of money because she is such a darling for the republican right. money will not be a problem for her. host: two races in ohio where part of this. guest: yes, the democrat is only down three points from the republican. but mary is not doing as well against kilroy. she voted yes on health care. republicans across the country, if you look at their web sites, house or senate, they're talking about health care and repealing

health care. some analysts are saying they may be over promising. it will be very difficult to repeal the health care law until they have control of the white house. but kilroy is down by nine points. her colleague is down by three. kilroy is one that is one of the biggest ones in trouble. host: pensacola, florida, independent line. caller: i have been listening to your show, and my question is, with the polling, if i went by that, i would not vote at all. i am independent and in northwest florida, which is super republican. but i still believe it is my right and obligation to vote. but when i hear a pollster coming on months before the elections, telling me that my vote is not even going to count, i feel that we're being dishonored with our voting.

when you look at how the polls are done, he set out of 18,000, they called 400 people, and those people have already told him who is going to win the election. guest: if you look at polling, some of it is accurate. and over the years, we have seen that polling has been inaccurate. most famously, hillary clinton in the democratic primary in new hampshire after barack obama won iowa, and basically was deemed too is going to win new hampshire, hillary clinton was going to be done, and barack obama had a clear path to the democratic nomination then the pundits, poles, the media, hillary clinton won. and that became one of the most protracted battles for democratic nomination in history. it is important to vote, no matter what the polls say. this gives you a glimpse of where the races are. it could cha