the kansas city star reported that the turnover in her personal office is so great that an informal karen mccarthy staff alumni association has formed an new inductees are taken out for drinks when they depart because of some of the turmoil in her office. her career unraveled quickly. in late march 2003 she fell headfirst down an escalator in the rayburn house office building after leaving a late- night house session. soon afterward, she issued a statement announcing her decision to seek treatment for alcoholism. jay, republican, frederick, maryland. good morning. caller: i don't see this as a free-speech case at all. it really is more of a responsibility for your speech. if you want to make a political statement, that's fine. but this was at a very private time. it had a no affect on the people who heard it and it is a question of can you go win --

in and have no responsibility for people who you know you are going to hurt. host: california. ellen on the independent line. caller: what the gentleman just said. recently in this country we are all aghast at the bullying that goes on in high school that causes people distress to the point they would commit suicide. this is nothing but adults doing the bullying and setting a very bad example and perhaps we should have an amendment regarding ethics. host: phelps speech -- from concord, north carolina, in

mailing in -- branch, louisiana. john, republican line. talking about protesting at the military funerals case heard yesterday at the supreme court. tell us your opinion. caller: these people are engaging in acts of extreme provocation. i really, truly believe there is no way in the world that they are doing anything other than that. it is a shame that they can't be kept at a great distance from these people, especially when people have lost loved ones defending this country. it is just a terrible shame. host: let's add this little fact. mr. snyder did not say the protesters during the funeral. he saw a news report about a during the week afterwards. does it change your opinion?

they were kept away. they followed the laws in this city, in maryland, where the funeral was held. caller: i was not aware of that. the thing is, though, these people are, again, engaging in extreme provocation. there are people who did see them who could be provoked, who could -- and i am not advocating this -- but they could attack them and at some point in time i would not be surprised if violence want to be the end result of some of their foolishness. host: georgia. hi, joan. caller: i am a believer of do unto others. somebody in their family will have a funeral, stand outside their church and protest. because it is freedom of speech, that is the only way to do these children die for them to have that right, it is so

disrespectful. maybe, if they don't believe in it, they should be taken away from them. host: the next call is from tennessee, kim on beat republican line. please, go ahead? caller: i have a couple of issues with it. for one, it could incite a riot, which i cannot entertain in that either. and it seems like a personal attack -- i was not aware that at the funeral they were not able to be seen. however, my question is, one, dead at a family -- did the family see them coming in or out of the cemetery? host: thank you. just a reminder, turn down the volume on the tv. you get feedback and you will not able to hear yourself. you can hear everything for that would clearly through the telephone. from "the wall street journal"

this morning -- taking your calls on the protest in the military funerals. this tweet -- jim on our democrats' line. what is your view?

caller: i would just like to say, i wonder why these people are protesting at a funeral. george bush is the one who sent the troops over there. it they are so against that, why weren't they at george bush's house protesting and where were they when george bush illegally sent our troops in an immoral illegal war? host: do you think they have the right to protest at a funeral? caller:no, they do not have the right. it is not their funeral. i tend to think if they incited a riot and every single one of the family members were killed, don't put me on the jury because i will give the guy temporary insanity. host: robert, philadelphia, mississippi. independent line. what is your view? caller: my view is that, i would like to make a comment.

i think the freedom of speech has been taken too far. people talk about the freedom of speech is that this country was founded on christian values and all of that. i think all of that is just plain not true. i don't think the founders was christians. and i would like for somebody -- if they think this country was founded on christian values i would like for somebody to call sqawd tell me what's valley means. host: if you want to continue this conversation you can do it on twitter which is going on right now we are trying to read some of these. as well, you can continue this conversation on our facebook page. go to facebook.com/c-span. -- no-in c

san francisco. good morning to you. caller: imagine muslims praising the deaths of u.s. troops i think the response of the u.s. would be much different than what it is now. basically my question is, my comment is, is there any correlation between christian putting down the steps or a muslim putting down the debts. when muslims -- if muslims were to do this, where there be punishment did to anti-terrorism laws?

host: independent line. sean? caller: i would love to said, i love your tie. host: we want to move on to corpus christi, texas. arthur, republican michael caller: -- arthur, a republican line. caller: i think the church is okay -- if you want to call it a church -- as far as first amendment rights are concerned. with all of this business is going on, the first amendment right must be the primary thing to be considered here. host: what about the right to privacy? caller: as far as the actions of the church, look of their sides. one of them said thank god for breast cancer. anybody with any sense has got

to realize this is some kind of a fringe group. i think it would be stretching the imagination to call it a church. christian doctrine says we will all be judged and apparently they are forgetting that they are in the group, too. as far as privacy is concerned, one of your previous callers said local ordinances can be made to deal with things like this. i think if somebody wants some privacy at their funeral there ought to be an ordinance available to provide that. other than that, i think the church group is so ridiculous. i think we have all devoted enough time to the subject and

should go on wearing about more important things, you know? host: this is not free speech, it is free speech of use. -- abused. this is to cool, they should be jailed. -- too cruel, they should be jailed. caller: i see several problems. i know they are claiming free- speech but i don't think the founding fathers thought that something like this would be allowed. you do have the freedom of speech, in my opinion, unless your speech infringes on other freedoms and rights. it looks basically like harassment because they are targeting a specific group and

person which, i don't know about you, but they kind of fit the description of a hate crime in my eyes. if you went and did some of this stuff to an individual, like sit in front of somebody's house with signs claiming some of the things they are saying, i think that is pretty much harassment. most people can go downtown in most cities and file for a restraining order for conduct like this. host: again, one of the issues that the justices raised yesterday and that margie phelps responded to, was the issue of stalking. 34hunter tweets in -- inthe next caller comes from rockville, maryland.

independent line. what you think about this protesting at military funerals case? caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. probably my first time calling for almost seven years. host: welcome back. caller: before i make my comments, i do want to make a critical comments of c-span. mainly towards you, peter. i critical comments in respect -- my critical comment is respect is i like when you tell people to turn down their radio, however, i had a situation and the reason i did not call for a long time is because when i called to make my comment, which i felt was very important, i was cut off without even getting 10 words and. and i felt that my comment was very important, especially when i waited on the line so long, like many people do. and i think that when someone

tells me that you got to move on, you know the rules about turning the radio down, i don't think everybody does because i turn my radio down but i know that not everybody does that. i listened to c-span on the radio exclusively. host: thank you for that comment. what is your opinion on that case? caller: my comment is, those protesters, i think they are doing this out of disrespect and ift i don't think that' -- they want to protest, there should be a better time. they got a better time to do that and they should give respect to grieving families. host: do you think they are stepping over what you think should be the law? caller: in this case, i think so. it has to be out of respect. people have to have respect.

and i think today that has been -- we miss that today. so many things -- anything goes. and there has to be respect. when someone -- a family is grieving over their lost loved one, i think that should be respected. host: ernest, thank you. please, don't wait seven years to call back in. john e-mails in. matthew, a democrat in the germantown, maryland. caller: thank you for taking my call and thank you for c-span. i think i agree with the last

tweet or e-mail, this is basically a fundamental question of the right to free speech and whether or not the right to privacy plays a part in it or not is strongly dependent on whether the supreme court things people have a right to privacy in a cemetery. i think it is pretty clear club in terms of a lot unless congress decides to write a new law regarding free speech at cemeteries. host: in 2006, president bush signed a law dealing with national cemeteries, for 60 minutes prior and 60 minutes after a funeral and a national cemetery there would be a peace zone basically. illinois. caller: how are you this morning? i am confused as to what they are even protesting, what they are for or against. i see no question, no good out of it. i see militias and they are

directing their -- this to the wrong people. the reason we are in the war is because of the bad people, because of the terrorists. why don't they focused anchor at terrorists, the people who fund the terrorists? the soldiers are defending their right to free speech. totally displeasing their anger. host: that said, you think they have a legal right to do what they are doing? caller: no, i don't think they have a legal right to be there upon someone morning or grieving. i think they need to take a someplace else and i was able put it on the right people and not the wrong people. host: from ohio. bruce on our independent line. in about 10 minutes or so we will be joined by lawyers on both sides of the issue, margie phelps, who represented her father and her father's church, westboro baptist church, and timothy nieman, who filed an amicus brief on behalf of the snyder family for the vfw.

we will be joined by those two and we will continue this conversation in about 10 minutes or so. but, bruce, what is your opinion? caller: thank you for taking my call. my point i would like to make is that the people will fight our wars, laid down their lives for this country, whether they are homosexual or heterosexual, they are laying their lives down for our rights to have our freedom of speech, to have our freedom of worship. what it tears my heart out is this takes away not only the right of privacy but when someone loses a loved one, that is their time of mourning, that is their time of healing, that is their time of spiritual -- the zone they need and the last thing they need is for some people to come and tear down what they are trying to do as far as to heal.

i lost my wife to breast cancer a year and a half ago and to see these people holding a sign up that says, thank god for breast cancer, is, i can't describe it. why in this nation to wheat -- that we have so much to be thankful for, why can't people stop and realize that when people are in a time of mourning and healing, it is not the right time to throw the slander, to throw whenever their feelings are at the time. host: thank you for calling in. melissa tweets in -- from "the washington post," u.s. officials urged american firms to invest in iraq.

host: liana in el paso, texas. the democrats' line. what do you think of the protesting the military funerals kansas? caller: i think it is ridiculous. my husband served his country. he just got back a year ago my father, my grandfather, his

grandfather all retired. i think it is ridiculous. i grew of a christian woman. i did not learn of this stuff in church. it is ridiculous. these people should be banned. it is not healthy. if you -- lose a loved one, you said grieve and not have the ridiculous people holding signs. host: for you, do you draw the line at free-speech? do you draw it for privacy? where do you draw the line? caller: it is a private thing. free-speech in this case is out the window. people are mourning. host: uc privacy as taking president? caller: yes. host: richard, arkansas, republican line. caller: good morning, sir. i think people are the one about this all wrong. we need to be protesting these protesters. we need to find out where they work, the businesses they work for, and they can post their name on the internet's.

i think we heard them financial. i believe they have a right to do what they are doing but for anybody to carry a sign that says thank god for breast cancer, has been pretty much be an idiot. anyway, that is all i have to say. thank you. host: kathy, albuquerque, new mexico. caller: am i on the air? i have to agree with the two previous callers. it has to do with privacy and respect and these military people coming home, they deserve respect. are these people going to show up at the hospitals and start protesting? that is all i have to say. host: mary ann asheville, north carolina, independent line. you are on c-span talking about the supreme court case. caller: you know, what these people are doing is hate speech. they would no way allow people in white robes at a black funeral with these kinds of

signs and yelling the kinds of things that they do. it is hate speech. pure and simple. host: you see it as something that is hate speech, and thus should not be allowed? caller: exactly. it is. i mean, can klu klux klan go to black funerals and yell the kinds of things that they would yell? host: 10 mile, tennessee. walt, republican line. caller: this thing about back this up there -- i want to say this, i believe the bible is the word of god and ina baptist, and those people those peoplebaptist. anybody can call themselves anything they want to in this country, and that is all right, and that is freedom of speech, and i am not against that of those people are not scriptural. god would not do a thing like that, to be at a funeral where

people are hurting. what kind of got is that? host:walt, do you in your view think they have a right to do what they are doing? caller: i guess they do have a right to do what they are doing but it is so on godly, it is pathetic, and they are lying about their faith because to say what a baptist truly is is simply a bible believer, and that is not structural just to hurt people who are already hurting. host: south carolina. what is your thought? caller: i think these protests are wrong and i also think this so-called church has crossed the line into being a political organization and i think they should have their tactics and status as a church taken away. if you want to be a christian church, then behave like a christian church and not like a group of nazis.

thank you. host: again, let's go to the legal argument. do they have a first amendment right in your view as the fourth district court of appeals said to do what they are doing? >> c-span2 told local content vehicles are traveling the country, looking at the mostly -- at the most contested races leading up to the midterm election. >> it is what a lot of hard work, on message you guys believe in -- limited government, get the government out of my way, quit spending my

money, and get people back to work. if that is the message that is resonating. you guys feel on the ground what i am failing all over the place, folks rising up and saying we are going to take our country back. that is great. [applause] >> i am here to say that we are in this together. if people do not vote on election day, we will wake up, and things will be really bad. we want to wake up knowing that we will continue moving forward. the first thing i learned about politics is that you are -- if you are an awful, keep digging. >> at the incumbents -- incumbent is from crete, ill., a suburb. she is being challenged by adam, from central illinois.

he is an iraq war veteran. >> she has a number of challenges. she is a freshman. the district's indian a republican. she has also voted with the president on two controversial issues -- the stimulus package, and the health care reform bill. she did run on health care reform. it is important to voters. the stimulus bill is more the story. she will have problems with that. she does not want to be seen with president obama. she is having a hard enough time separating herself from nancy pelosi. she is trying to present herself as an independent. therefore, i do not think she wants to be seen with president obama.

>> the makeup of the district is largely rural. it covers the south and southwest suburbs of chicago. there is a tiny portion in central illinois. it is largely white, mostly rural, and republican-leaning. it was created by the republicans. there has been a pocket of tea party activity. you are hearing that they want smaller government, not more, less spending, and they want to protect the second amendment. those are all issues. she is an interesting democrat in she came from a hunting and farming community. she supports the second amendment and has more moderate stance. she is trying to remind voters that she is a home-grown gal. that is what she has going for her. she rose from selling cosmetics to being a member of u.s.

congress. if she worked very hard. she is a known commodity. she is battling with voters being familiar with her. >> my district has always been a swing district. it could go either way. when i won last time, we knew it would be a tough race all along. i represented the swing districts for 12 years. it could have gone either way and then. the voters like that i am an independent fighter. people want someone that will fight for them. i brought the suit-to-be vacated hospital to a veterans center. we want to fight for what is important. >> atom is a young up-and-coming republican.

he joined the international guard and served several tours of duty in iraq, and a few in afghanistan. he as well spoken. he is very comfortable talking to the media. he has challenged her on many points. he is not afraid to talk to the owner of the chicago white sox and ask for contributions. he is running on a pro-business, lower taxes platform. he also was not the most conservative person in this primary. he is getting some tea party support. there were others that were more conservative. he ran on an agenda that we need to work together and if the democrats have a good plan, i am willing to work with them. >> we will leave this program to go live to the white house briefing room. here is spokesman robert gibbs.

>> the president will not sign hr-3808. our concern is the unintended consequences on consumer protection, particularly in light of mortgage processors. the president is exercising a pocket veto, sending the legislation back to congress to iran out some of those unintended consequences. -- to iron out some of those on intent and consequences. >> i'm sorry, what bill is that? >> i do not know by number. >> i do not know it by title. [applause] [laughter] -- [laughter] it has to do with financial

documents. >> i have a question on two other topics. on domestic policies, i want to ask about something the president said last night. unless we are able to maintain democrats in the house and senate, we will be stalled for two years and four years. i have heard him talk about what he sees as the destruction is imperative to say that this election will -- destruction. to say that this is stalling, are you basically giving up? there are two more years of his presidency. >> i think we have seen republicans for the previous two years stop and say no to virtually everything the president has proposed. obviously, the concern he is if they were

to gain control of some house of the legislative branch, they would continue to do the same thing. >> i'm sure there are many people who voted for the president i would expect him to enhance his agenda and try to work with the republican congress. >> he has been trying to do that since the day we got here. there has been a strategy exercised by senator mcconnell, and congressman banner to say no, and try to stop everything that this happened. that is where they want to roll the wall street reform, and go back to the rules that had banks in charge of making some of the decisions that got us into this mess. that is what we do not want to go back to. >> there have been instances where the house has been lost in the midterm, and then got the job done. you think the president is hopeful he can do that? >> if the president is working not to lose the house. >> what about the middle east

process -- can you update us on that the president has a role in getting these talks going? >> the president meant earlier in the week with secretary of state clinton. i know both the secretary of state and our middle east on boy have worked -- on avoid have worked with both sides to try to continue these direct talks. i did not have anything new or specific on that. -- i do not have anything new or specific on that. as senator mitchell said over the weekend, we continue to work back and forth with both sides in order to move this process along. >> on the bill that would make it harder for homeowners to challenge foreclosures, why not a straight to video? why a pocket veto, and were you blindsided by this? i know you had meetings on this today.

>> let me check on the second one. on the first, we have heard from officials around the country about the concern that they have about the possible unintended consequences of this legislation, certainly in light of what we are seeing in the mortgage processing. out of an abundance of caution, and to ensure those effected not harm consumers, the president will send the bill back, and believes that congress did not intend for those consequences to be in the legislation, and we will, as an administration, work with congress to fix those. >> do you think they will send it back in another form? >> i do not have an update on that. they were in forming the hill of

the president's action, and certainly will -- we will work with the help in whatever capacity we need to to fix the legislation so it does not complicate the process. >> just following up on the discussion about pakistan, how extensively will this be dealt with in the december report, and can you talk about what we can expect in that report? there was reporting saying it would not be decisive, or as extensive as last year. what can the american people expect? >> remember, we were making very broad and fundamental decisions about the direction of our policy and resources decisions last year that needed to be made. i do not expect that process will be as extensive as the process we went through last fall, and early last winter.

the president wants to evaluate, as we do each month, where we are, decide if there are any changes to make -- i think it is important to understand that we have to change -- we get an increase in our structure. the troops got into afghanistan, as we promised, by the end of august. this will give us a chance to evaluate several months of the full complement of those resources in the country. it is hard to say what we expect ultimately out of the review. the president wants to take stock of where we are, and see if there any -- are any minor adjustments. >> what about pakistan? is it an important to look at where things stand? >> we have a difficult and complicated situation in pakistan. we have worked hard on this relationship.

we understand it is important to our security. later this month, representatives of the government of pakistan will be here to continue the strategic dialogue the president began in the beginning of his administration in order to have varied regular conversations rejigger very regular conversations about what is in our -- very regular conversations about what is in our mutual interests, that threaten pakistan, the stability of afghanistan, and ultimately the stability of our homeland. >> who will be in that delegation? >> i will see if there is a longer list of who that is. yes, sir? >> does a president and tend to call roy halladay? >> i do not know if he has.

i can check on that. >> if you could let me know, that would be great. [unintelligible] >> i went back and read the august briefing with you and carol browner after carol browner went on the morning shows to read knowledge the erroneous information -- acknowledge the erroneous information about the oil being gone by 75%. i did not see any correction or any alerting of the public that however many tens of millions of americans have been given incorrect information a few hours before. >> i did not bring the report out. let me go back and look.

i would point you to what the director said in that briefing, appropriately representing the viewpoint of noaa. i think it is important to understand that our response attacked the oil spill in an unprecedented way. it was the largest environmental disaster that we have ever faced, and we attack it with the largest federal response -- at tacked the largest federal response, doing all that was humanly possible in the most challenging environments. >> this is about an overly- optimistic prognosis of what was going on in the water. the white house has acknowledged

that carol browner misunderstood. i'm wondering if the white house would address that she did that, and make it clear that she had misspoken. >> i will go back and read it. i think we were abundantly clear in the briefing exactly what the oil budget represented. it represented the fact that there was very good news -- that oil had biodegraded, skimmed, and burned. the worst-case scenarios never came to fruition largely because of that federal response. i'm happy to look through the briefing. i think it is fair to say that carol did hundreds of hours of interviews, and may have misspoke wants, which is a pretty darn good track record,

-- wants, which is a pretty darn good track record, and one with nature was accurate just a few days later. >> -- and one that we made sure was actor just a few days later. >> you have any information that was not as an wants? >> i would point you to the briefing. >> who decided to withhold information on all worse-case scenario? >> no information was altered, or withheld. nothing in the report had anything to do with the robust response. the report that noaa over did not include in its modeling any activity that was being done, as i just mentioned a minute ago, to mechanically recover, scam,

burned, disperse, -- byrne, oil.erse it is a part of a process to reduce government documents before they are released. -- reduce government documents before they are released. noaa stood at the response -- understood the response to not include that. >> did they know about the initial worst case scenario? noaa or omb? >> of the worst case scenario was being discussed on national television. on cnn, the worst-case scenario was 100,000 barrels of oil

leaking of a day. we know that was not happening. we know that the response was robust, insuring that every step possible was taken to protect the coast line and prevent more damage from being done. >> you are saying that on page 10, when the report says that the office of management and ,dget denied noaa's request you are saying that is false? >> there is a discussion about whether or not this is a flow rate document. this is not. this is basically a document that goes through the likelihood of shoreline and tax, and -- impacts, and assesses a series of 500 models for where that oil may or may not go. the report did not include any efforts that were being done, or would be done over the course of i think 120 days.

therefore, it was not an accurate representation of what the larger environment was. >> so, omb did deny a request. >> they sent the report back to noaa include debt and 500 different modeling and analysis -- modeling analysises. the worst-case scenario was oil off the coast of what looks like the charleston area in is, ascarolina, which, it in no, thousands of miles from where the whale got six -- the oil got to. >> on health care waivers that have been granted to mcdonald's

and some other businesses, where does it stop? if you give it to some, why not -- why don't you have to give it to anyone who asks max does not undermine health care reform? -- asks? does it not undermine health care reform? >> health care reform passed, and it is being implemented. the waivers are about insuring the covers the people have until there are better coverage -- until there is better coverage available to them. >> will they ask for a year after year? >> our job is to protect -- a lot of these plants are called plans, basic coverage below minimal standards. we want to insure that in the time that it takes to implement

the law, and to give people better options, that they do not find themselves at the mercy of an insurance company jacking up their rights. that is why the waivers were granted. >> now that the dam has been broken, why would anybody not ask for a waiver? >> i do not think that is the case, because it has not been the case thus far. >> maybe that is because it has not been known that widely that 30 have been granted. you are not worried that the dam will burst? >> i am not worried that the dam is going to burst. health insurance reform will provide far greater opportunity and cartridge to millions of americans to ensure -- coverage to millions of americans to ensure they get the right care. >> new polls say that 30%

approved -- 38% approved of the president's handling of the economy. any comments? >> no. [laughter] you have spent a lot of money to find out that we are in a tough economy. we are in the midst of dealing with 8 million jobs that have been lost -- a financial calamity, a mortgage crisis, that will take time to dig out of. >> with everything the president is doing and saying, and talking about the glimmers of the recovery, why would it be getting worse, not better? >> it is not getting better fast enough.

mike? go ahead. >> does the president find the 30 waivers are so troubling -- perhaps a flaw in the law? >> no, this is about implementing all lock correctly and insuring that -- implementing the law correctly, and insuring debt as health-care reform ramps up, we protect consumers and not put them at the mercy of health insurance companies. >> what about the criticism that this might be returning officer to a supporter? -- a favor to a supporter? >> i have not heard that, and i have not seen anyone make that. given the questions that were asked about our so-called relationship with business, i think that would be a charge that would be even for -- even

hard for most to make. >> you guys have been pushing back on the findings on this report. is not the whole point of this presidential commission to learn from mistakes? you guys are pushing back, in so far as the conclusions are damned if -- damaging to you. >> let's be clear. these are staff, working drafts. they do not necessarily -- they are not necessarily the opinions of those on the commission. the president appointed the commission to ask tough questions. it does not help anyone in understanding the oil crisis if what is said out of the report does not actually match with what happened. >> i take your point that it is the draft, but it is the

president that said do not white, and tell me now -- do not wait, tell me now. >> as you reported, the report does not necessarily reflect the views of the commission as a whole, or any of its members. the president appointed the commission, and looks forward to the final conclusions of the commission, but understand that it does not do anybody any good to look into a situation and not have the full story. if the document that noaa said to omb is not a flow rate document. if you read the upper part of page 10, you would come away with that feeling. that is why the letter was sent

to the commission insuring that they have an adequate understanding of what was happening in that process. >> are you then concerned about the analysis that is going on? why would you have any competence -- confidence in the findings? >> we have answered questions on -- yes, do we have concerns about the breadth of that analysis, and the fact that they have not taken into account, or early people to conclude things we do not see the full context? the absolutely. >> is there any criticism you would accept and say we could do better? >> there is not anyone that is involved in this that will tell you everything was done perfectly. i would have to go through my copy of it. we were dealing with an unprecedented situation.

you heard admiral allen in the very first days to discuss 40 years of dealing with disasters, and never dealing with a disaster that you could not see or walk right up to. this was 5,000 feet below the ocean. it was the greatest disaster, met with the greatest response. we think it is important that as the commissioners did the staff drafts, that they include -- get to the staff to draft, that they include what was included. >> is this an example of congress that they -- of the incompetence of congress, that they passed a bill not recognizing the full consequences? >> you will see in a statement that we put out that we believed

people had the best intentions in mind, but because of a confluence of events, we are seeing particularly around mortgages, we thought it was important that none of those unintended consequences came into play. >> when omb intervenes in a report, to what extent do politics played a role? >> these were career staffers dealing with career scientists. it is important to note that none of the science was changed. none -- none of the report dealt with or impacted at all the response that you were seeing. again, the report did not accurately convey what would have gone on in the modeling over a 120-day. about the possible shoreline impacts, geographically, with

that oil. >> were you aware of the problem with the reception for sound deployments -- diplomats? >> there was information that was and put it incorrectly that prevented some -- input it incorrectly. we apologize for the inconvenience. the state department has made phone calls expressing our regret on that error. >> has the president called on and pakistan? >> the president has not spoken to him. >> everything beyond the patterson apology, what is being done? >> obviously, you saw the statement from ambassador

paterson, which i think speaks for itself. she is very much in contact with the pakistani government, as our -- as are other officials that the state department. hans, we said this earlier, we expect the government of pakistan will do what is necessary to insure the safety of those involved from militants and insurgents. that is their responsibility. >> nothing is being done here, at the white house? >> i do not know if there is anyone else that is in touch with them. certainly, the president has not. >> earlier today, and donahue accused the administration of suffocatingly on to an oral

spirit. kindle get your conflict -- be honest and real spirit. can we get your comments? >> he did that in unleashing eds. -- ads. if every one of the donors that have gone into contributing to those ads, the identity of those individuals or groups should be known. certainly, mr. donahue, i assume, would not have any problem listing any donors that might have contributed to such an ad campaign. >> to the process, and not the actual substance? >> i am not generally concerned with what he is sane. >> what is the status of the scientific integrity guidelines'? >> they are still checking on those. we will get to them.

>> i'm sorry. >> the stan stovall -- the stem cell? >> the scientific guidelines, they are working on that. tahtou talk about the role b omb plays as a traffic cop. could you talk about that? >> they are an agency that reviews reports, speeches, testimony, policy decisions, to ensure that the material is accurate and reflective of reality. that is the role they played in this instance as well. [unintelligible] >> again, no scientific data was changed. in general, it is not true, and

in this specific instance, none of the scientific data was changed whatsoever. the entire situation was taken into account in the modeling of potential shore line intact. >> could you shed some light on what has been some confusion around whether or not the united states has offered israel any guarantees or incentives? >> all i will say on that is what i said earlier about our process in terms of the secretary of state and ambassador michel working with both sides to bring them closer to comprehensive peace, and to a continuation of direct talks without getting into diplomatic specifics. >> what is the administration's message to the arab league on

whether or not to continue tomorrow? >> that is in many ways what is going on right now. that is what the former senator mitchell is working through. we saw in their participation in washington, and ultimately in the direct talks in the middle east, that there was a seriousness of purpose that we thought was productive and could lead us on a path to something that generations have been seeking. we hope that even with the disappointment of the decision on settlement moratoriums, that we can continue the talks and we plan to do that. >> a large number of veterans

from iraq and afghanistan carpet protesting today. -- and afghanistan are demonstrating today. has the president been in communication with them? >> i do not know about the protest outside. obviously traumatic brain injury and posttraumatic stress disorder are something that the president has worked on it with the senate. secretary gates and admiral mullen have been working with veterans service organizations around the alarming and high rate of suicides both in theater and back here. it is an issue that we can and should take extraordinarily seriously. we know that, that in both of those theaters but an enormous

strain -- that combat in both of those theaters puts an enormous strain on individuals, and when they come back they should have access to every benefit that they deserve and that they have earned. we, with the recovery act, increased funding for the va to historic levels. we will continue to ensure that those to serve have access to the best services. >> if the soldier says that he or she does not feel fed to go back into combat, is there any sympathy for that? >> what i just said, obviously that concern can and will be taken seriously. i would point you specifically to the department of defense about the operational procedure for how that might happen.

>> the washington post reports that the obama administration is trying to escalate pressure internationally on china's currency. is that true? >> you have hard -- have heard the secretary of the treasury and others in the administration discussed the need for china to take steps as it relates to its currency. we are watching and evaluating the measures that they take. congress passed legislation relating to that, and expressed the same concern that the president and the secretary of the treasury have. we believe that china must continue to take steps. >> [unintelligible] >> i think the legislation demonstrates that there is a bipartisan recognition, and the

recognition at both ends of pennsylvania avenue, of the concerns we have over china's currency. >> [inaudible] >> i have no doubt that when the president and secretary geithner get together, that will be a topic of conversation. >> one of the fundamental points that the working document makes is the optimistic expression of information from

the administration. >> this is an unprecedented environmental disaster which was met with an unprecedented administrative response that prevented any of the worst case scenarios from happening. >> stock up the information the government had. >> when -- talk about the information the government had. >> when we had information, we gave it to the public. that has always been our charge. throughout the process, we got better information. when the -- exploded, -- when the rig exploded, nobody could see what was happening. over the course of several months, we got better information. we got cameras 5,000 feet below the surface. we enhanced the video that we

saw. we were able to do more three- dimensional modeling, and then we directed british petroleum -- just bpa, i am sorry -- bp, i am sorry, to install the best equipment at the site to get the best data about the flow rate. this is the most robust federal response we've ever seen to an accident of this magnitude ever. >> [inaudible] >> that is not the case. again, the report, after it

included what noaa had not included in its model in, that report was released today. >> in the long run, at the president talks about education, health and the economy. howdy reckitt while the promotion of education in the short term -- how do you reconcile the promotion of education in the short term when and jobs -- when the jobs are the concern? how is education, in the next couple of months, going to help the economy? >> as you saw with private- public partnerships skills

traing and the community college enhancement that vice- president biden is so passionate about, just with that alone, use is partnering with educational institutions and businesses -- uc us partnering with educational institutions -- you see us partnering with educational institutions and training institutions and businesses to create the work force of tomorrow. a society without a strong educational system is not a society that will be strong and economically. without a skilled workforce, you're not going to attract the type of jobs that are necessary. that is true in virtually every community in the country.

>> that is medium-long term. we're talking about the media -- about the immediate term. >> ensuring the type of education that is necessary today, we are not doing that in place of ensuring that we have a strong and robust economic recovery. if it ever becomes either or, we go back to the scenario i discussed a second ago, you're not going to find a society that will flourish. >> elizabeth warren made a presentation to the president yesterday. was this her first presentation in her new role? >> i believe so. i was not in there yesterday, so

i do not know what was discussed. >> the afghan policy review is not expected to produce major changes to the strategy. will it be used to make decisions about how pronounced the beginning of the drawdown will be in july, 2011? >> the president receives a weekly update from commanders in afghanistan and from our diplomatic corps in both afghanistan and in pakistan. there are monthly situational updates and this is part of the review to ensure that we evaluate where we are, charts the progress we're making, and identify places where we know we have to improve. i think it is likely that each

of those meetings and each of those memos will have some positive things and some things we understand we have to change. that is what will be involved in the december review. again, we will have a better chance of and a better way of looking at where we are several months after the full complement of additional troops are into afghanistan. >> back to the middle east, it was reported today in israel that benjamin netanyahu asked president obama to abide by the agreement between president bush and prime minister sharon in 2004. could you tell us what the position is today of the white house on this agreement? >> i have not seen that

statement, so let me look at some of that reporting and see if there is anything that we can tell you. >> the president is going to illinois today to help out with the senate races there. could you tell us what other senate races are on the president's schedule? >> let me pull some of that information. i know that later in the month we will be out west. obviously, earlier the president was in, a couple of weeks ago or in the past couple of weeks in connecticut. i do not have the right in front of me. >> on delaware, sarah palin said she is going to delaware to campaign for christina donnell. does the president have plans to go to delaware? >> i know the vice president has been there, but let me check on the schedule to see if the president will travel to delaware.

>> yesterday we asked you about president karzai -- >> i thought that was gone back to, but if not, i will send that around. we will get that to you this afternoon. >> during the lame duck session, are you planning to promote legislation that discourages companies from sending jobs overseas? >> ba has been a priority for the president and -- that has ben a priori for the president and for a number of members of -- that has been a priority for the president and for a number of members of congress.

>> turning back to politics with the midterms here. as you know, the president has made a real push over the last few weeks to reignite the enthusiasm of young voters. on the 14th he is going to be on mtv. can you talk a little bit about how important this demographic is to democrats? >> we saw a young people get involved in big numbers in 2008. we saw people that had never been involved in these types of political campaigns before registering to vote and exercising not only that right, but getting involved and actively participating in campaigns. that is good for our democracy. always in an off-year election, you see a drop-off in terms of the type of participation you

normally see in a presidential election. we want to ensure that the enthusiasm gap is closed. a number of national polls show that that is indeed happening. this is a place i think the president has a real affinity for, young people being involved in the political process, and ensuring that what they have at stake they have at chance to participate in in this election. >> a judge ruled in a trial that a witness would not testify about selling explosives to an alleged terrorist.

many people are seizing on this as an example of why it accused terrorists should be tried before a military tribunal. does this, in the president's mind, underscore the need for someone to go before a military tribunal? >> we want to allow that to be an important avenue in dealing with alleged terrorists. in this particular case, i believe -- i would point is specifically to justice. it is a pending political matter -- it is a pending criminal matter that i do not want to comment on too specifically. there is an appeal that the judge issued yesterday. we continue to believe that, as

we saw indicates of faisal shahzad -- sought in the case of faisal shahzad, there is an important role for our courts to play. we get valuable intelligence and formation and ultimately locked up faisal shahzad for life for his actions in times square. >> [unintelligible] >> let me answer the first part of your question by announcing that on sunday, october 17th, the president and the first lady will travel to cleveland, ohio. he will travel to a fund-raiser for governor strickland.

they will then head to columbus, ohio for the previously announced dnc rally. this as cleveland, ohio. i do not know exactly where they are. >> do you know it is the city or the suburbs? >> this is not my ipad, so -- >> what did you make of the west virginia lawsuit against the administration regarding the epa mining?al >> i do not have information on non-. >> we are getting reaction from so we are just checking. >> the president has a constitutional ability to do that, so that is what he is

exercising. press is all very much. -- thank you all very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> president obama travels to maryland today. he will campaign for governor martin o'malley who is running for reelection. that starts about one hour from now. we will have it live for you on c-span. a little bit later, the focus will be on the upcoming g-20 summit, and the role france will play as host of that meeting. that will start at 4:45 p.m. eastern. again, live coverage here on c- span. our look at campaign 2010 continues tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern with the first of two live evidence. candidates for governor of ohio will meet.

his opponent is trying to unseat the democratic ampincumbent. other debates tonight include the georgia governor's race and the maryland governor's race. the 2010 midterm elections are less than one month away. looking at the pennsylvania senate race, senator arlen specter will be the first campaign appearance for the man who beat him in the primary earlier this year. that will happen monday in philadelphia. the state's other senator and the new york senator chuck schumer will also be there to lend their support. there are six senate seats predicted to be saved. . they are in hawaii, maryland, new york, oregon and vermont. republicans say seats are arizona, ohio, kansas, north

dakota, south dakota, south carolina and utah. the discussion right now on the supreme court case regarding free speech and the right to protest at military funerals. "washington today's journal." phelps, and from harrisburg, pennsylvania, timothy neeman, who filed and amicus brief on behalf of the veterans for foreign wars on behalf of the snyder family. misses phelps, would you briefly state the argument that you made to the supreme court yesterday on behalf of the westboro baptist church? >> sure, the 7 westboro baptist church pickers were over 1,000 feet from the church, between them and a funeral were over 100

other people engaged in activity. no one going into the funeral saw or heard the westboro baptist pictures. and when it was time for the funeral to start, they left. so, by any definition or rationale, there was no invasion of privacy. as to the disagreement with viewpoints -- because that is what the case is all about -- they don't like the viewpoint, they don't like the core message that your soldiers are dying for your sins. the court has been clear for too many years that using subjective turns -- terms like out rates and zero friends and only claiming an emotional and an adverse emotes regional impact of words is not a sufficient interest to override the first amendment right to engage in a robust public debate. all the nation is talking about these dying soldiers. the majority view, like 310

million of you, to 60 of us, the majority view is he is a hero and god is blessing america. our dissenting view is that he put on the uniform of a nation that is fast chasing same-sex marriage and has made prowled sin of every kind its policies. that god is not less in america. so, the dissenting view is protected by the first amendment. you don't need the first amendment for the popular view. host: one of the arguments you stated earlier was that there was no invasion of privacy. do you think the case would be different if perhaps you had been seen during the funeral, if the snyder family had seen you protesting? >> not if we had been seen. taking the line of cases about

abortion. as the court has been clear, merely seeing words you don't like as not create liability. you can avert your eyes. if, for example, we had walked into the church with our picket signs then liability may be appropriate. of course, everybody knows that is not how we do business. host: thank you. timothy nieman, briefly, if you would, state the argument made by the snyder side of this case. >> thank you, peter. this case really isn't about just being able to avert your eyes. i think the argument made yesterday by mr. summers on behalf of mr. snyder, the question was best summed up by justice ginsberg who asked, this is really the case of exploiting a private families grieve and the question is why should the first amendment tolerate exploiting this marine's family at his vulnerable time when they wanted to have a private funeral ceremony for their son. the snyder family did not ask

for the westboro church to come to the funeral. mr. snyder was not a public figure, despite what the westboro chart schweitzer about that. he was merely trying to put his son to rest and had the unfortunate situation that the only time he would have the opportunity to do that -- you cannot read you a fan will ceremony, redo a burial -- that sacred time of mourning was turned into a circus by the presence of the westboro baptist church folks being there. this isn't a case about the content of the message. it is really a case, as justice ginsberg i thought so eloquently put it yesterday, about exploiting a private families grieve and in this case it happens to be the private family of a fallen american soldier. that is what -- why the vfw and whatever got involved in this case. mrs phelps?

>> exploiting some aggrieved does not help into any legal principle. mr. snyder exploited his own grief when, within two days of his son's death, he began holding forth in multiple media interviews complaining about the war, complaining about the dying soldiers, asking it on the public airwaves how many more parents were going to have to suffer as he and his ex-wife were suffering over this senseless war. you don't get to start a public discussion in that fashion without letting other people cancer. and if you don't want that discussion to play -- to take place on the occasion of your son's death or funeral, don't start the discussion on that occasion. they turned these funerals of these soldiers into patriotic

pep rallies. expressive activity going on outside. long after we were gone. the whole 15-mile route to the cemetery. we don't go to cemeteries. we don't follow the procession. others do engage in expressive activity. you can't open up a public dialogue and tell one viewpoint to shut up. if you think that is exploitive, stop doing it. when soldiers funerals are private, we don't go. but when you invite the media, but patriot writers, when you invite all the public, including putting your obituary in "the baltimore sun," that big newspaper when you have no connection to baltimore and you don't live in baltimore. they did all that on purpose and having a big, giant splashy public display because they wanted this nation to come to bowed down to those dead soldiers. host: timothy nieman, final word

before we go to calls. >> putting an obituary in the newspaper, if that is the standard for the, a public figure, every single american citizen who as a family member who dies, whether a military member or just the common everyday guy opens himself to this sort of protest. it was put in "the baltimore sun" because of the funeral was held in a town that was in proximity to baltimore. it is not that the arbitrary was put in newspapers all across the united states. this is another point that i thought the justices did an excellent job with yesterday. you can turn any single item into a matter of public concern. for example, i know on your show you have the republican line, democratic line, and an independent line for people to voice their opinions. if a democrat guys and they put into the jury and the newspaper, you can open it up to disruptive

protest just because they happen to be a registered democrat or a registered republican or what ever it may be. there is no end to where this could go if we allow the phelps''s position to go forward in this situation. host: timothy nieman is in harrisburg, pennsylvania, attorney for the vfw who filed a brief on behalf of the snyder family. margie phelps, kansas city, missouri, attorney for fred phelps, senior, westboro baptist church and a graduate of washburn univ. school of law. call for arete -- for our two guests. independent line. caller: i think this is just so wrong what this woman and that baptist group is trying to do. a funeral is a private event. i don't understand how the law

can see it any other way. there must be a way to make the case that this is a private event. host: mr. timothy nieman, is there a way to make a case that this is a private event? >> that is a prime been -- an approach we took. the supreme court carved out exemption of free-speech issue got a captive audience doctrine. what it says is if you are in a place where you are a captive audience, if you are in a home, and the court has applied in hospital settings, but if you are in a situation where you really cannot leave. for example, the lab -- the house is described as the last form of refuge, the court says you can put restrictions on that, limit picketing in front of hospitals. and the vfw believes and other people who filed briefs argued that attendees at a funeral are

a captive audience. you only have one opportunity to lay your loved one, friend, husband, wife, son, daughter, to rest. you have to be there. you have to be at that church or location in order to do that. you don't get to do it twice. i believe the captive audience doctrine is a way to accomplish that, for the court to reach the right decision in a constitutional way that has already been articulated by the court in similar cases in the past. host: margie phelps, the captive audience argument. >> we are very familiar with that doctrine and we discussed at length yesterday and the court has been an explicit. in order for the captive audience doctrine to apply, the picketer has got to be right out front, up in your grill, confronting you physically and make it impractical for you to get from your card to inside

without running a gauntlet of pickers. at 1,000 feet away, out of sight, out of sound, what an irresponsible misrepresentation to suggest that the captive audience doctrine would apply to that situation. they didn't even see the seven pictures so how could they have been captive to them? -- 7 picketers. that funeral went off without a hitch. every detail was without disruption. the priest who did this ceremony testified he did not even know there were picketers there. a the got in their cars and went 15 miles to the cemetery with our picketers long gone. .

i find that the justices are familiar with the case, a professional, and gave the church fair opportunity to be heard. >> i would just like to say that i think she did a good job arguing before the court. it was a good experience . the justices seemed extremely interested in the case, extremely knowledgeable, and they really hone in on the issues. i think they could've heard arguments even longer than they did. ng me an

opportunity. i am a veteran of the u.s. navy, and i just wanted to point out that in this case and all these cases that the church would go to somebody's funeral that gave their life for this country, they gave up everything. they gave up all their rights. that individual gave up everything that they can give. and i do not think the right of freedom of speech should be used to make the point they're trying to make. they just want the public forum and the attention to put their message out. host: john, now you say you don't think they should be able to -- should use it but you think they should have the right to use it? caller: i don't think so. host: and where do you draw the line? caller: military people who gave their lives for this country. host: well, margie phelps, what, 48 states have passed laws essentially laws against what the westboro baptist church does. george w. bush in 2006 signed the national cemeteries act essentially in response to what

your group has been doing. is -- are those, in your view, constitutional laws? guest: well, incidentally, i picketted president bush within 10 minutes of him signing that law, by the way. i read all those laws and 80% of them are grossly unconstitutional, but almost none of them put us as far away as we put ourselves. so we can comfortably continue to function and therefore we let the law stand. we challenged a few of them when they've been just simply misapplied. but look at this inconsistency. so you got these soldiers allegedly going over to afghanistan and iraq, which is a war that has nothing to do with our constitutional democracy, but even if you assume for the sake of argument that they're dying for their right to speak and then you get one of these military folks and we get this on the streets all the time saying, i died for

your right to speak only don't say words i don't like. how un-american could that possibly be? you know what, if they died for our right to speak, shut the hell up and let us speak. host: next call, rockville, maryland, stone on the democratic line. good morning. caller: thank you, peter. and good morning, attorney phelps, and good morning, attorney nieman. is that right? host: yes, sir. caller: let me ask you a very brief question and comment. attorney phelps, i think you are an extremely brilliant person. i am a middle-aged black man. i am not a pedophile, or sex offender. i saw you yesterday. i was stricken by how much courage you have despite the controversy of what you're doing.

however, when you -- many of us are going to hell. i may be one of those persons. however, i do believe that the court will -- i wanted to ask you, would you consider extending your campaign or protest to come to some of the black inner cities in america to protest the fanatical, hellish black-on-black crime? a week ago a gruche thugs -- overwhelm the protesters and shot and killed one of the funeral members. host: all right, margie phelps, what's your response to that caller? guest: yeah, i read about that case. it's a symptom. so we don't as a rule focus our publishings on the symptoms in that measure. it's a symptom of the proud

policies of sin in this nation that the young people are dropping like flies. and so, no, i don't think it would be likely that we'd show up at a funeral. we're trying to go to tell people the military in this nation are putting on uniforms that represent same-sex marriage. connect the dot. one of god's favorite weapons of his armory is to get your young men and women on the battlefield and kill them. if this nation wasn't bible illiterate we'd know there. justice ginsburg say, why go there? because we recognize at the

funeral. it should not have happened. but these symptoms, it's too late. host: mr. nieman? guest: yes, i'd just like to follow-up on what justice ginsburg did say yesterday. when she asked about exploiting a marine's funeral, she asked the question, there are so many other places where you can express these opinions. this case isn't about the content of their speech as ms. phelps says. what right do this church has to interview -- interfere in the right to bury their son or daughter whether their son or daughter was killed in military action, whether they died from some other issue? it's not the content. as justice ginsburg said, they can go say this somewhere else, but can they say this in this particular place? host: tim nieman is a graduate of the university of virginia

where he got his j.d. chicago, michael, independent. hi. caller: hello. host: hi, you're on the air, michael. caller: i know these protesters got a sign saying something like fag, breast cancer. what does it have to do with the soldiers? two, i've never seen any of these protesters like this woman who protests against these soldiers. i'd like to see them come to the west side our south side of chicago to do the same thing. see what happens. host: all right. and margie phelps, what's your response to that? i think that caller was saying, go into a different type of neighborhood, go into -- go to a gay pride parade and protest there, do you do that or is it just military funerals? guest: we have protested at more gay pride parades in

washington, d.c., and we've picketed numerous times in the south side of chicago. we've hit your streets for 20 years. we've crisscrossed this nation. we've done over 44,000 picks, less than 1% of them -- pickets, less than 1% of them have been at soldiers' funerals. don't pretend this isn't about viewpoint. we spent 20 minutes yesterday in that argument debating on what the word you means in the god hates you sign. remember, while seven little westboro picketers stood 1,000 feet away disrupting nothing, interfering with nothing over 100 other people stood right outside the front doors of the church with a different message and everybody applauded them. don't pretend this is not about viewpoint. this nation does not want to hear about its since, but the servants of god are duty-bound to tell you about your since and we're going to do it.

host: margie phelps, the word you, very briefly, explain the legal arguments for and against using that word or what you heard from the justices? guest: the essential question is, when we say god hates you and you're going to hell, foolishly it has been suggested that applied to the dead kid. the dead kid's gone wherever he's gone. he wasn't there to see the sign. all of the westboro picketers testified that they had those signs in play for years and it applies to anyone and everyone who will listen, which is what prompted justice ginsburg to say, well, they use their same signs at annapolis and at the maryland state house earlier in the day. i think it just means, and she's right, the whole society is rotten. amen. host: mr. nieman, what about the questions the justices asked about the word you? guest: well, i think you in the context of outside of a funeral

where the person being buried is the marine and when you have signs that say things like " semper fi fashion," as a marine that can only apply to one person in that case. ms. phelps said earlier that context is so important in this case. well, in this case there's on only one context and one idea it can be and these signs were directed at the snyder family, at matthew snyder and they passed out brochures before the funeral to let everyone know they would be there to protest at the st. john's -- i think it was called catholic dog kennel which, again, is just more speech directed toward the individuals that were going to be involved with this protest. if they had said these things in some distance away, perhaps, if they had done the protest in baltimore or somewhere else, it might be a different issue. but they were specifically targeting this funeral.

they were specifically targeting this family. there's no other conclusion that can be drawn. and even the appealate court which overturned the decision below on that specific issue came to the conclusion that it was directed toward the snyder family. host: ms. phelps. guest: our message is for the living. it included mr. and mrs. snyder but it included the rest of the nation. there is nothing wrong under the law with taking a message to a target audience. the requirement is that you do it within proper bounds. and he just said perhaps if we had done it in baltimore. half of the case was about an epic written posted on a passive church website. that was written in topeka, kansas, halfway across the country. what the trial court said is no time, no place, no manner can you say something that the family of the dead soldier

takes offense at. that's too broad. look where that would lead -- leave every publisher in the land. some person called in saying they saw our "thank god for breast cancer sign" and his wife died of breast cancer. a year and a half ago. does he get a cause of action because we say one of the ways god in his righteous judgments wanted -- one of his righteous earth judgments is that he's afflicted this nation with huge rates of breast cancer. that's good, bible doctrine. does that man get a cause of action? it's ridiculous. where would it end? host: christopher in brooklyn, new york, republican line. you're on with margie phelps and tim nieman. please go ahead. caller: hi. thank you for c-span and thank you for taking my call. ms. phelps, i really don't think that you are a very good attorney. one of your earlier comments was that the supreme court is the highest court in the world. it is not the highest court in the world.

its jurisdiction is only for the united states. not the highest court in the world, despite your happiness there. and moreover, your comments concerning the father becoming a public figure would be fine if you were protesting the father's funeral. this marine was his funeral. he is not a public figure. the people pretended -- attended the funeral are not public figures. it was not their funeral. host: ms. phelps. guest: as to the court, do you deny that you're the superpower? do you really deny that you're the most powerful court in the world if you're the highest court of the superpower? whether i'm a good lawyer or not, i don't know and i don't care. my wisdom comes from god. i don't give myself any credit. and as to whether the father is a private figure. he's the plaintiff, sir.

the question always in a speech case is whether the plaintiff is a private figure. a full public figure. host: tim nieman, we have this email from leon, a korean war veteran in oklahoma city. this funeral protest definitely was a hate protest that is against our existing federal laws. many of our callers in our earlier segment, mr. nieman, talked about hate crimes and hate speech. did you use that argument in your argument yesterday? guest: well, just so we're clear, i did not make the argument yesterday. on our side, yes. in our brief we did talk about obviously how this speech was hateful and it was insulting and it was just, you know, went beyond bounds of decency in this situation. but this was not a case about the state enforcing hate crime

laws or anything along those lines. this was a lawsuit brought by the family of matthew snyder for infelix of emotional distress and intention infelix of emotional distress. what he was basically looking for was a remedy, a civil remedy because of the suffering he went through as a result of what was done and what was taken away from him by these defendants, the westboro baptist church in connection with his son's funeral. while there may be an element of hate speech to this that was not in case, though the justices did spend a good amount of time of fighting words which is another constitutional doctrine where speech can be limited, where speech is so bad that it could lead to violence or to fighting. host: brooklyn, new york, john, democratic line this time. caller: first, when is the supreme court going to come to a decision in this case? second, if the muslims are able

to build a mosque at ground zero, that's also emotionally distressing. does ms. phelps have any concern that through of them are jewish and they might have some kind of bias? thank you. host: three of them are -- guest: three of them are jewish and three of them are catholic. some of our signs say that popes are bad. you need to set aside your personal viewpoint and you follow the law. no, i don't have any concerns about that. host: pork orange, florida, steve, independent line. caller: yes, good morning. i would like to express my agreement with ms. phelps. i think the issue here is

strictly freedom of speech. the constitution must be supreme. there should not be any exemptions to free speech on the basis of emotional trauma. i also like to make the point that a lot of these military people are sacrificing their lives for their country. i think they're going in, they're taking a risk for the benefits. in a bad economy they have very little choice. host: all right. thank you for that comment. this email from frank, retired u.s. army, 30 years from gordonville, texas. the founders of the u.s.a. when they wrote the first amendment did not mean all speech was allowed. read history. the first amendment came out so people would be talking against the government. under the king of england they could be punished. mrs. phelps, what about that

argument? guest: well, the way the first amendment came about is a man named john leeland in virginia found himself in his mid 30's having fled religious persecution, having fled a situation where him being the descenting religious viewpoint. he was imperiled by speaking according to his conchuss and by the providence of god he was able to deliver to madison the votes needed out of virginia to get that constitution passed. and there is a garden in orange, virginia, with a little memorial that memorializes this event right here. john madison and john leeland sat down and mr. leeland, who was probably one of god's elect, said i'm not going to deliver those votes unless you get us a bill of rights that starts with the first amendment so that people can speak according to their conscience

even if the rest of the world disagrees with them. that is what the first amendment is about. in the closing argument at trial, the attorney for this faithless father stood there and said to that jury, it's 300 million of us against seven of them. well, it's really 310 million. and that's true and that's when the first amendment had better kick in. the bill said the fly in the ointment, the worm in the apple of this democracy that you're putting in play is that people will think mob rule is in charge. that is what our constitution prohibits. you swear allegiance to that flag every day. the republic for which it stands says mob rule doesn't get to silence the descenting voice. you either mean that or you don't. and this is the case that's going to find out. host: several members of your

church -- is it fair to say that several members of your church have left, including some members of your family, because of the tactics of the church? guest: they left because they don't want to serve god, they don't believe the things they -- that we believe and want to live in the world. you have to make a decision. will you serve god or will you not? their decision was they would not. host: mr. nieman, several callers earlier, and you can comment on anything that margie phelps said, but several callers throughout this morning and a couple of tweeters have said that trying to pars out the first amendment in this case would turn the first amendment into a pretzel. if we started trying to write out exceptions, etc., etc., do you agree with that? guest: yeah. and let me answer that in a second. i've been a little disappointed that ms. phelps continues to

run down mr. snyder by referring to him as a faithless father and what i was hoping was going to be a fairly civil debate here this morning. but beyond that, you know, the supreme court has never said that there is an absolute right to free speech. in the type of lines drawn or maybe as your listeners have sides making it in a pretzel is commonplace. we know you can't yell fire in a crowd theater just to see what happens. that's illegal. there's thing that pornography is illegal. there are sexually harassing speech that's illegal. there have been restrictions put on when and how those -- even public speech on public issues can be stated. the court has consistently drawn lines. it's an evolving and not an easy area, but the court has done it all the time. the lower courts consistently do it in cases of defamation to try to figure out whether someone is a private figure or

public figure, whether the speech is opinion or fact and whether the speech is true or false. so there's all sorts of lines. there's all sorts of analysis and balancing that goes in this situation. and i think the court is fully able to do that here. and even to go back to one other caller who had talked about the composition of the court and ms. phelps point out that i think it's three jewish and six catholic, based upon the arguments yesterday and based upon the professionalism of every one of those justices, those facts will have absolutely no baring whatsoever on which way the court comes out in this case. host: east point, michigan, santo, democrat. caller: well, i think this is another perfect example of how organized religion and some folks interpret the bible. it's people like the phelps' church that continue to spread their hate and continue to keep the country from going forward. these are just 80 people.

they probably sleep with their children anyway, ms. phelps. we know what you guys are about. i think the f.b.i. should investigate you guys. host: do they have a right -- santo, santo, hello, santo, you know what, i am going to put you on hold. we are going to try to stick to the legal arguments here that were made in the supreme court. so, santo, do you think that they have a right -- do you think that the westboro baptist church have a right to do what they do at military funerals? we'll never know. next call goes to randy in river falls, wisconsin. hi, republican. caller: good morning. i have a question -- host: good morning. caller: you do have a right to the first amendment. take your protest, get a permit to take your protest to the government that wrote the constitution back in the day. and what you're doing is you

are invasion -- that's an invasion of a private party. every time there's a funeral, go to the capital, have your protest, make your statement and have a little common sense, please. thank you. host: margie phelps. guest: well, of course, that gentleman believes that's the proper way for him to make fun i willcations from his heart and his conscience. that's how he ought to do it. meanwhile, the constitution gives every citizen of this nation the right to take their message to the nation. and any lawful, peace -- in any lawful, peaceful manner. what the case says, it's a 1919 case, and it's s-c- hmbingeds e-n-k. what it says is you can't falsely cry fire in a theater. with the only purpose of causing a stampede. if you are standing there watching the theater on fire

and see people about to die in that fire, what kind of a cruel, monster are you to stand by selfishly silent? this nation is on fire. host: mr. nieman. guest: yes. i mean, i use the theater case as an example of how the court has drawn lines. that's true, if a theater is on fire then you should yell fire. but the bottom line point here is that the court consistently has drawn lines in terms of what is right and what is wrong with respect to speech. you can't just say anything anywhere. and the way that the phelps are trying to expand the doctrine of free speech really opens up every single private individual's funeral, their home, their business, whatever it may be to public picketing,

to protest because every single person, no matter who you are, has some sort of view on an issue or some sort of a view on things and the way that they look -- the phelps look at the world, every single one of us is a sinner and that's why we have public problems and public policy issues are made in this nation that are problematic, it really opens every single american citizen up to this sort of unfortunate and what i feel is an illegal type of protest. host: please ask margie phelps if the court decides against you, will you stop demonstrations at soldiers' funerals? guest: no, no and no. we'll finish our testimony to this nation and while i enjoy hypothetical questions, we spent some time laboring in that vineyard yesterday. the court is going to rule 9-0 that this is protected speech. this is a nation of law. a nation not of mob rule.

this church follows the law of the land. we follow god's law and we follow man's law. we're not trying to carve out anything. we're trying to carve out an exception of, you hurt my feelings, my conscience is hurting. shut up. host: if the court does rule against you and you wouldn't stop, why bother going through this exercise with the court if it doesn't matter what their opinion is? guest: well, they sued us and we used whatever forum we have to use to sustain this ministry. we answered their charges. host: what kind of law do you practice in topeka? guest: well, i actually do law part time. i do another professional endeavor full time but my practice is predominantly first amendment. host: and mr. nieman, what kind of law do you practice?

guest: commercial law, commercial litigation. i also do apellate work here in pennsylvania. host: blacksburg, virginia, debbie, democratic line. hi, you're on with tim nieman and margie phelps. caller: you all came here to blacksburg this year. very close to the anniversary of april 16, the massacre at virginia tech, and i certainly was out there with my own sign. but i don't understand. did god tell you to come to virginia tech, the site of this horrific mass murder, why were you here? host: mrs. phelps. guest: yes, i'll tell you again, the wrath of god is pouring out on this nation. it is the duty of the church of the lord jesus christ to articulate to this nation, you brought that wrath by your sin. we've got to do that in ways that you hear so we do parodies in song and video. we do signs, we do multiple

webpages, we are going to use every lawful means for your eyes, ears and hearts are drawn by the lord your god to get these words in front of you. that is 100% lawful. it is the essence of the constitutional democracy we say we have. ma'am, you did the right thing. you got a placard and put words on this. host: what's the best website for people to go to your website, what's the best way to do that? guest: www.godhatesfags.com. host: mr. nieman, what do you want to say? guest: she talked how the church acts lawfully and protests lawfully and protests the united states.

the supreme court rules against the church they will protest the way they've been protesting. this is a case, i think, as justice ginsburg said, as exploitation. not only exploitation of this family but exploitation of a lot of people that surd grief for tragedy in this country. it's really a shame. and i hope the supreme court brings an end to it. host: few more minutes left with our guests, margie phelps and tim nieman. evanston, illinois, randy, illinois. please go ahead, randy. caller: yes. good morning. i really want to say that i really respect ms. phelps and i have the utmost respect for you now that i've heard you describe. the media has you standing outside the pearly gates shouting and that's untrue. if the court comes back and rules against you, they have -- that will be a huge chunk snatched out of the freedom of speech.

same way they did with the -- when they came in favor of the citizens united and allow corporations to do what they do now, give this money to all this -- so i encourage you that you stay the course, do not give up this fight. you've given up -- you stayed in this fight to keep the freedom of speech. thank you. host: mrs. phelps, who filed briefs on behalf of the westboro baptist church? guest: well, it was a group of first amendment scholars, a group of 2407b some media organizations, the thomas jefferson center, the rutsford institute. i may be leaving some out. those are the ones i remember. host: did most of them in their apple cuss briefs use when referring to your tactics or to what you do refer to them as reprehensible, repugnant, offensive? guest: every kind of colorful word you could imagine which by

the way is why even though people raised a question about it i did the work before the court because i appreciate that's their viewpoint but this little church is not going to apologize for its worsdz and i was concerned that offerings take a lead on the case that they would not resist the temptation to give into the enormous pressure for political correctness in this nation. they would not have resisted the temptation to apologize for our work. and let me clarify something. whatever the court rules, it may give some more guidelines when a state or congress passes a law that puts some restrictions on win, where and how we can speak. we either challenge them or we follow them. if the court gives us some

guidelines, we'll follow them. you are not shutting up this church. host: mr. nieman, besides the v.f.w., who filed amicus briefs on behalf of the snyder family? guest: there were 40 senators. it was one time when mitch mcconnell and senator harry reid were able to get together on something. 40 senators filed an amicus briefs. there were states attorney generals that filed an amicus in favor of mr. snyder. the veterans of foreign war, the american legion, there also were a couple of law school professors that filed briefs as well. it was about the same number of amicus briefs on both sides. host: republican line, go ahead. caller: i'm christine.

did he die for the lawyers as yourself or for the sinners? and i want to say that you are in violation of the law, the law that says you should love thy neighbor as thyself. host: margie phelps. guest: i hope you understand the word seminole, it means first. one of the two commandments on which the lord jesus christ said all other commandments hang and it is love thy neighbor as thyself. you don't get to make up what that means just like you don't get to make up what terms out of the cases mean. the seminole verse says that you do it by three ways. you obey the commandments of god yourself so don't covet your neighbor's property and don't sleep with your neighbor's wife. the second way is you urge your

neighbor himself to obey the commandments of god less he bring the wrath of god down on his head. and third when he doesn't, you're rebuking so that passage says if you don't rebuke your neighbor for his sin you hate him in your heart. i don't know anybody in the world outside of westboro baptist church fulfilling that royal law. and are the other question, who did christ die for? you know what, if you crack a bible and just read the words that are read, those are christ's words, you would have your answer. he died for the mournful, obedient sinner, not the proud homosexual walking in the gay pride parade. that lie told by the two million false prophets of this land is why we're in this mess. host: why is it the gay issue, margie phelps, that gets your

blood boiling? guest: doesn't get my blood boiling. it gets me talking. and the reason it gets me talking is it's because what you all are talking about. we did not make that the front burner boiler issue of this nation. it's not me who puts in every headline in every publication forum in this nation a burn quest for same-sex marriage. once you bring it up, however, we will comment on god's view just like once mr. snyder brought it up we answered him. and earlier when mr. nieman said, well, everybody could be their target. yes, you enter the public discussion and we will answer you. you don't enter the public discussion, we won't even know about you. host: sue of whiting, new jersey, writes protest any

military funeral is not good. host: donovan, democrat. you're on the air. caller: hi. i'd just like to say these protesters are not actually whistleblowers. they're actually assuming the role of characters in the bible, characters such as job that know the will of god. they're not actually making claims about -- expressing their first amendment right. they're just -- >> governor martin o'malley

being challenged by robert erlich. >> the message of hope, change, and opportunity. when a beautiful day god has given us. let's get all praise and thanksgiving for being here today. it is wonderful to be here at elise state university. -- at bowie state. and did be here in prince george's county. and to be here in the great state of maryland. it is a high honor and a great privilege that president obama is joining us today. i am with him in so many ways,

and what i want you to know is the message that you here today is the message that he speaks every single day, and it is the message that you want to hear and we need to do something about it. hope, opportunity, and change. there is another party out there that wants to silence us. we will not be silenced when we talk about the facts. we need jobs in this country. we are going to continue to speak out for the working class and middle class here in united states of america. in order to do that we need to stand up and have barack obama's back, and he has armacost the's vote in the united states

senate. i have been so proud to stand with barack obama. when he came to washington and the white house, one of the very first bills we got through, we were to hand in hand up close and personal. women should get equal pay for equal work, and there's no doubt about it. we worked with the president to pass the stimulus bill that created jobs in maryland, create jobs in the united states of america. we worked to create those jobs. i wish you were with us when we talk to the president privately. a special freedom, a freedom that is not necessarily written in the constitution, but is written in the hearts of every

single american, and that freedom, that got-given freedom, is the freedom to achieve, to be all that you are and all that you can be. this is why president obama works with the members of congress to create access to higher education so that you can follow your own dreams. president obama, martin o'malley, working with the general assembly. we want you to know, for every mother and father that works three jobs descender kids to college, we hear you. for every grandmother that saves money in a little jar to send her grandchild are on the to a better life, we are with you. to every boy or girl, man or woman, working two or three jobs, to be able come to the

university of maryland, we are on your side. for those of you who believe in freedom of achievement, they want to stop us. the other party wants to give tax breaks to send jobs overseas. we want to give tax breaks to send kids to college. that is the difference. we want to expand pell grants and other opportunities so you can be able to do that. your governor does it. i want you to know i do it. today i asked you for your help and for your hand. i am here and i am running for another term, not about my job, but so that you can have a job. i'm running out because -- so you can have a future of.

for me this election is not about this election. it is about the next generation. so i ask you, send me back to united states senate. i need you to stand up for me. i need you to stand with me, and i will stand up with you and i will work my heart and my earrings off every single day for you. i am not alone. i work with these great men and women on this stage, and i work with governor o'malley. i know him. i have known him for more than 20 years. he helped me get started in the united states senate. we have had a lot of great talks, but when it came down to martin o'malley, it is about the people. it is always about you. it is about mothers and fathers wanting to have their children have a better way. it is about all of you, i want

you to know that every single day and every single -- in every single way, he thinks about you. that is why -- and i hope you think that is a big help. what i wanted to know, there's no doubt, there is no doubt in my mind, and i hope no doubt in your mind, that governor martin o'malley is always on your side. if you want a governor on your side who will always be at your side, that's re-elect martin o'malley, and let's have a big shot out to welcome him to the podium now. [cheers] >> you guys look so good!

bus! >> bsu! >> forward, not back. >> forward, not back. forward not back. >> we are glad to have the president of the united states, barack obama, here today. i want to thank the president and all the students and a family here at the we state university for hosting us, -- at bowie state university for hosting us. i also want to thank maryland's congressional delegation. thank you one and all. i want to thank you for everything you are about to do to re-elect the hardest working

woman to the united states senate in america, our senator, barbara mikulski. thank you, lieutenant governor brown. ism prince george's county, the highest ranking elected official and our country to serve a tour of duty in iraq. thank you. i thank you for everything that you have done to move our state forward in these times. mr. president, who is about to come on next -- we welcome you to the great state of maryland. the original land of the free and the home of the brave. that in the toughest of times, our president, barack obama, has

given to us the very decisive leadership that we needed at a critically important time, when our country is about to go into the second great depression. barack obama and his colleagues in united states congress enacted the recovery and reinvestment act and saved us from going into the second great depression. there are about 15,000 people whose jobs are either directly or indirectly contributed to that decision. the last fellow took eight years to drive our economy into a ditch. now they wonder why any human being can not make it right as rain in 18 months. i am proud of our president and of his leadership, and mr. president, we stand with you in maryland.

he is working hard in every way, bringing broadband to every single county in the state, and he is leading us ford. two years ago, barack obama said to america, yes, we can, and with your leadership, together we are creating jobs once again in maryland. 33,000 net new jobs this year, our best year since 2000. we move forward. president obama challenged states to raise the top, to give our children a world-class education. maryland competed, and we won, and we're moving ford -- forward thanks to you. we are transforming our economy

and we are also in the tops of times the only state to go for years in a row without a penny's increase in tuition because we move forward and not back. while other states had shoved people off of health care rolls, have extended coverage to marylanders who did not have it before. half of them are poor children. in maryland, we move forward, not back. we have driven violent crime down together. with the support of our president and law enforcement grants, and grants to prevent violence, we have driven crime to its lowest level since 1975 because we move forward and not back. we thank you for leading us forward in this important time and we thank you for coming here to maryland in this important battle.

we need each and every one of you. in times of tremendous economic change, forces fear -- forces of fear want to take us back. i am running against a former governor who says he wants to take us back. what he means is he wants to take us backwards. he wants to take us back to his days when he increased college tuition by 40%. to the days when he vetoed even a modest increase in the minimum wage. he wants to take us back to those policies of george bush and his friends who drove our economy into the ditch. oh, no, in this battle for america's's future and in this battle for our children's feature, mr. president, we stand with you and we want to move maryland forward, don't we?

my friends, i still believe in the revolutionary maryland of charles carroll of carrollton. i believe as frederick douglass believed that we are one, our cause is one, and we need each other if we are to succeed. i believe in the republic of lincoln and the community of res about, and i believe that the best days are still ahead of us, if only maryland will step up, stand with our president, and lead the way, because they can take back new jersey, they can take back virginia, but they cannot take back maryland because maryland moves forward. and so, it is my great honor to present you the president of the united states of america, barack obama.

[cheers] ♪ ♪ >> hello, bowie!

it is good to see you all. thank you. thank you so much. it is -- thank you. thank you. thank you, bsu. thank you so much. it is good to be back in maryland. it is an honor to be standing here with one of the best governors in the united states of america, martin o'malley. it is great to be with someone

who has always had my back, steny hoyer in the house. i am proud to be here with your outstanding senator, barbara mikulski. some of your outstanding congressman, and i am proud to be here with lt. governor anthony brown. anthony and i went to law school together. he looks younger than me, though. he does not have as much gray hair. and i want to thank the president of the we state university -- of bowie state, thank you for your hospitality. let me say up front a few words

about martin. here's a man who made tough choices in tough times to move maryland forward. his rock-solid support for public education has made maryland schools the best in america two years and erode -- in a row. not the best in the east coast, midland, but the best in america. his policies have helped drive violent crime down to its lowest level since 1975. his smart leadership helped turn around the chesapeake bay, and thanks to decisions that he made along with my good friend in virginia, the blue crab population is up 60% over last

year, and that is good news for folks who make their living on the bay and for folks who like good evening. so martin has spent a great governor for a great state. this is why i hope you are fired up in these last few weeks. i hope you are ready to fight for martin so he can keep fighting for you. there is an election coming up that is going to say a lot about the future, your future, but also the future of this country. now, i love you back, but i have a good -- but i want to talk about this election now.

i do love you, though. two years ago, you'd defied the conventional wisdom in washington. you remember. they said you cannot overcome cynicism of our politics. he cannot overcome the power of the special interests. you cannot make progress on the big challenges of our time. you cannot collect an african- american with a funny name. they said, no, you cannot. i am sorry, what did you say? >> yes, we can. >> you said, yes we can. >> yes, we can. yes, we can. yes, we can. >> here is the thing, though,

here's the trick, because everybody here remembers the inauguration, and although it was cold, everybody is having a great time. bono and everybody thought this is great. but our victory in that campaign, that was not the end of the road. that was the beginning. the campaign did not deliver the changes we need it. it just gave us the chance to make change happen. it made each of you shareholders in the mission of rebuilding our country and reclaiming our future. i am back today two years later , because the success of that mission is at stake. we have a lot at stake right now. on november 2, i will need you

just as fired up as you were in 2008. just as fired up. i wanted go down memory lane for the last 20 months so we understand where we have been and what we have to do and where we are going. after that last election -- it was my hope that we could pull people together. democrats and republicans, because we had to confront the worst economic crisis since the great depression, the worst by far in most of our lifetimes. because although we are proud to be democrats, we are proud to be americans. we wanted to bring everybody together. there are plenty of republicans who feel the same way in this country. but unfortunately, when we arrived in washington, the republicans in congress, they had a different idea. they knew it would take more than a couple of years to climb

out of this unbelievable recession that they had created. they knew that by the time the midterm rolled up around that people would still be out of work, that people would still be frustrated, and they figured that if we just sat on the sidelines and opposed every idea, every compromise that i offered, if they spent all their time attacking democrats instead of attacking problems, that somehow they would prosper at the polls. they spent the last 20 months say no, no, and even the policies that they supported in the past, no to middle-class tax cuts, note to help for small businesses, no to a commission

that they had once sponsored. i'm pretty sure if i said the sky was blue, they would say no. if i said that there are fish in the street -- in the stream, the would say no. their calculation was that if obama failed, then we win. [boos] that was their calculation. well, they might have thought playing games might have gotten them through an election, but i knew it would not get america to our crisis. i made a different twist. instead of playing politics, i took whatever steps were necessary to stop and economic freefall. -- an economic freefall. i did what we did even though it

was not popular, even if it was not easy, because you all did not let me to do what was easy, you did not like me to spend all day looking at the polls and keep me in office. you elected me to do what was right. that is what you -- that is why you elected me, to do what was right. and 20 months later, 20 months later, we no longer faced the possibility of is that depression. our economy is growing again. private sector jobs have grown eight months in a row. thanks to martin o'malley's leadership, maryland has gained over 33,000 jobs since january, the best start of a year since 2000, which was the last time democrats were in charge.

there are 3 million americans who would not be working to gain -- today if it were not for the economic plan we put in place. we have a long way to go. we all know that. the whole we were in was so deep there are still millions of americans without work. there are still millions of families who can barely pay the bills or making mortgage. middle-class families who are struggling even before the crisis hit, and now they are just treading water. of course people are frustrated. people are impatient with the pace of change. they want things to move quicker. i understand that. i am impatient, too. the other side do not have an answer. all they have decided to is the right that frustration and that anger all the way to the ballot box. and right now you have pundits were saying the other party's supporters are more excited.

they say they are going to turn out at higher levels. they sell -- say all of you might not be as energized. you might not care as much. that you might be willing to let the other folks who left the economy in shambles go back to washington and go back to annapolis. maryland, i think the pundits are wrong. but it is up to you to prove them wrong. did not make me look bad, now. i am betting on you. not on them. but it is up to you to defy the conventional wisdom. it is up to you to show the pundits that you care to much to let this country fall backwards. you want us to keep moving forward, that you are ready to fight for our future.

so make a mistake, this election is a choice, and that choice could not be more clear. think about it, this is not as a candidate from the other party are offering new ideas. they did not say we messed up, we should try to figure out how to do things better. it is not as if they change their agenda since the last time they were in washington or the last time they ran annapolis. the chairman of one of their campaign committees promised that if republicans take control of congress, they will follow the exact same agenda they pursued during the last administration. >> no! >> that is what they said. and we all know what that agenda was. been there, done that. basically, what they are saying is we are going to tax cast --

going to cut taxes, mostly for millionaires and billionaires. we will cut back on investments in education and clean energy and research and technology and the idea is if we put blind faith in the marketplace and the corporations play by their own rules and leave everybody else fend for themselves, that america will some how grow and profit. been there done that? there's a problem with their approach which is we tried it and did not work. it cannot work for middle-class families who saw their incomes fall by 5% when they were in power, middle-class incomes fell. do not take my word for it. that is from "the wall street journal." when they were in charge, your tuition went up. job growth, when they were in

charge, was slower than any time since world war ii. think about that. they were not creating jobs. they were talking about jobs. they had eight years. they took a record surplus left by president bill clinton and came back with a record deficit by the time i took office. now they are talking about a reduction. we saw what you had to do with the deficit. it did not work when there was a free-for-all on wall street. this led to a crisis that we're still struggling through today. i bring this up not to relive the past. i do not want to relive the past. i did not want to go to that mess again. that is the philosophy the other

side wants to bring to washington and wants to bring to annapolis if they win in november. that is the philosophy that martin's upon it espouses. espouses.s opponent they call it a pledge to america. but it is the same old snake will they have been saying for years. same old stuff. same old stuff. i want everybody to take a look at this pledge to america. they put it out with great fanfare, and now nobody is going to talk about this. let's examine their pledge. it turns out the pledge was actually written in part by a former lobbyist for aig and

exxonmobil. you cannot make this stuff up. the centerpiece of the pledge, their big idea, is a $700 billion tax cut for the wealthiest 2% of americans. that is their big idea. how many folks here make more than $250,000 a year? a show of hands. the need to donate to martin o'malley's campaign. for the rest of you, their idea is not much. even the folks who want to lecture us on fiscal responsibility want to borrow

$700 billion and then they want to get us tax cuts worth an average of $100,000 to millionaires and billionaires. when you ask them, where are you going to get this $700 billion? they do not have an answer. they do not know. i guess we would have to borrow it from china. but when you look at the pledge to america, it turns out they have an idea about how to pay for a small portion of that. they want to cut education by 20%. >> no! >> that would reduce the final assault age for college students, including a whole bunch of college students right here at bsu. i want to focus on this for a minute because here in maryland you understand how important education is to our economy, how

important it is our featured martin o'malley knows that, too. his opponent raised college tuition in the state by 40% when he was in charge. this is at that time when the economy was doing better. now even in the toughest of times over the last two years, martin o'malley froze in-the tuition so he kept the cost of the school and other schools -- so he kept the cost of the school and other schools. thanks to his investment in education, you have been ranked the best when it comes to public schools the last two years in a row. that is what martin o'malley does. he walks the walk. does not just talk the talk. we cannot maintain this progress if our opponents have their way. at a time when the education of our country's citizens is one of the biggest predictor of

economic success, they think it is more important to give another tax break to the folks who do not need it and did not even ask for it than to invest in our young people. let me ask you, i want to ask my republican fred a question, you think china is cutting back on education now? you think south korea is making it harder for its citizens to get a college education? those countries are not playing for second place, and guess what -- united states does not play for second place. we play for first place. we're right to make investments in new -- we are going to make investments in you. as long as i present and as long as martin o'malley is governor, we will not allow politicians in washington or annapolis sacrifice or education for tax cuts we cannot afford. as detroit's in this election. -- that is the choice in this election.

martin, me, barbara, we have a different idea of what the next two years should look like, and it is written -- rooted in our ideas about how this country was up. wheaton not believe that government's maine -- we do not believe that government's role -- martin spent -- cut spending by $5 million. what we also understand in the words of the first republican president, abraham lincoln, government should do for the people what they cannot do better for themselves. we might have had somebody feet

down here, so if we got the paramedics right here up front. now, they will be all right. just make sure you give them some space. if somebody has a bottle of water, you might want to give them some. look, we believe in a country that rewards hard work and responsibility. we believe in a country where we look after one another, where we say i am my brother prosecutor, i am my sister's keeper. that is the america i know, that is the america that martin cares about, that is the twist in this election. -- that choice in this election. we want to make permanent that tax break we gave middle-class americans, because you deserve a break. instead of the other planned to keep jobs going overseas, we

want to give breaks to companies to invest right here in the united states of america, american manufacturers, american clean and he companies. i want solar panels and electric cars made right here in united states of america by american workers. >> usa! usa! usa! >> instead of cutting education, cutting student aid, we want to make permanent our new college tax credits. there is a credit worth $10,000 in tuition relief for every young person going to four years of college. that means you, bowie state. we will fight to keep the reforms we made in the student

loan system. tens of billions in dollars in tax subsidies are going to where they should apply to students like you. if the other side wins, they will try their hardest to get free rein back to the insurance companies and credit card companies and wall street banks that we're finally holding accountable. we cannot let them do that. we cannot go back to the days of taxpayer-funded bailouts or when credit card companies could jack up your rates without reason. we cannot go back to the days when insurance companies could drop coverage because you are sick. we have to keep in place a new law that says if you're looking for a job or have one that does not offer you coverage, you yourd be able to satay on parent's insurance policies until you are 26 years old. that is the choice in this

election. that is what is at stake right now. maryland, it comes down to this -- a lot of folks running in the other party, these are the exact same people who spent the last decade driving this economy into a ditch. and so, for the last 20 months, we and martin and steny barbara, we have gone down into the ditch, put on our boots, we are down there where it is hot, we are sweating, bugs ever where, we aren't down there pushing, pushing, pushing and every once in awhile we would see a republican standing there. they're just standing there fanning themselves, sipping on a slurpee. we would ask them to help, and they say, that is all right.

we just kept on pushing and pushing, and finally, we got this car up on level ground. we got up on level ground. this car is a little beat up, now, since they drove it into the ditch. it has some dents. needs a tuneup. but it is pointing in the right direction. we want to start back on that road to prosperity, but we feel that attack on our schroeder, and who is that, it is the republicans, -- but we feel that tap on our shoulder, and with that, they're republicans, and they want the keys back. they cannot have the keys back because they do not know how to drive. we will give you a ride if you want, but you got to sit in the back seat. we will take you to prosperity,

but you got to sit in the back seat. you do not know how to drive. had he ever noticed when you get in your car, if you want to go forward, what you do? you got to put in d. if you want to go backwards, you put it in r. we do not want to go backwards. but it is up to you to make sure they do not get the keys back. the other side sees a chance to get back in the driver's seat. by the way, thanks to a recent supreme court decision, they are being helped this year like we have never seen before by special interest groups that are spending unlimited amounts of money on attack ads they did not

disclose who was behind them because of this wall. it could be oil companies, the insurance companies. the floodgates are opened. almost every one of these independent organizations is run by republican operatives. they are posing as a nonprofit political groups. they have names like americans for prosperity where the committee for truth in politics or moms for motherhood. actually, the last one i made out. [laughter] there was a recent report that in recent weeks conservative groups like this have outspent democratic groups by 7-1. there is another one up here who

is a little hot. let them sit down. another bottle of water. if we can get another bottle of water out here and a medic up here. i want to remember the next time you guys get out here, make sure you drink something and eat something before you stand here, especially when you have a bunch of politicians talking. but i want you to understand because this is important -- it is estimated that democratic groups are being outspent 7-1. in the indiana senate race, it is nearly six-one. in the house race there, a conservative group has spent as much as both parties combined. in colorado, they are outspending the democratic party 2-1.

outside groups in this jury have spent in $2 million for negative ads to help the republican candidate. wheeler one of the largest groups regularly takes its money from corporations. groups that receive foreign money are spending huge sums to influence american elections and they will not tell them -- tell us where the money comes from. this is not just a threat to democrats. all republicans should be concerned, independence should be concerned. this is a threat that our democracy. americans deserve to know who is trying to sway their elections. if we just stand by and allow the special interests to silence anybody who has the guts to stand up to them, our country is on to be a very different place. so, here's the bottom line -- we

will need to work even harder in this election. we will need to fight their millions of dollars with millions of voices. everybody here who is ready to finish what we started in 2008, because everybody who fought for change shows up on november 2, i am confident we will win. what the other side is counting on, the other side is counting on is that at this time around you are going to stay home. they are counting on your silence. they are counting on any ship. they are counting on your apathy, especially the young people here. they do not believe your client to come out and vote. they believe if obama is not on about, you will not cut. maryland, you got to prove them wrong.

let's show washington wants more time, it does not come from millions of dollars from attack ads coming from special interests. change happens because of you. i know times are tough, and i know we are all long way from the hope and excitement we felt on election night and inauguration day. we always knew it is going to take time. i said it was gone to be hard. change has always been hard. from the first day of our nation, every time americans have tried to bring about meaningful change, we have faced setbacks and disappointments. from the founding of this country, george washington experienced setbacks and disappointments. we've had to face fear and doubt. harriet tubman had fear and doubt. but as americans, we have

always move forward, which always kept fighting, which of remembered that in the united states of america our destiny is not written for us. it is written by us. that is how we got through wars. that is how we got through depressions. that is what civil-rights workers undeterred. that is how we got women's rights and workers' rights, and that is what is being tested right now. if we have the courage to keep moving forward, even in -- even in the face of difficulty, i guarantee you, if all of you are out there knocking on doors and making phone calls and voting for martin o'malley and barbara mikulski and the rest of the democratic ticket, then we are not just going to win this election. we are on to make sure that the american dream is alive and well for future generations. thank you everybody. god bless you. god bless the united states of

america. ♪ >> son coming up over new york city. school bus driver in a traffic jam. looking in their rearview mirror, looking at the promise of a promised land. one kid dreams of fame and fortune, one kid fails to pay the rent. one could end up going to prison.

when just might be president. -- one that just might be president. ♪ only in america, of the red white and blue, we'll get a chance. everybody gets to dance. only in america. ♪ [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

♪

♪

♪ ♪ >> hush now child, and don't you cry. things will get better, by and by. move on up toward your destination, though you may

find from time to time a complication. ♪ >> live programming continues later today when the focus will be on the upcoming g-20 summit and the role france will play as the host of that meeting. that will get underway at 445 eastern -- for 40 5:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. -- 4:45 p.m. eastern here on c- span. >> this weekend from the national archives, songs that lifted soldiers' spirits during the time of a lincoln, and how a policy by harry truman resulted in decades of tension between

the united states and the soviet union. >> for most generals, as their greatest is what they did on at the battlefield. for washington, it was as much as what he -- as much what he did between battles. >> sunday, a discussion of the first large-scale biography of our first president. >> our local content of vehicles are traveling the country to look at some of the most closely contested contest in the midterm elections. >> it is with a lot of hard work. it is the message that you guys believe then, get the government out of my way to let me blaise my own trail, spend my own

money, and get people back to work. that is the message that is resonating out there. it is amazing. you probably see on the ground which is what i see oliver the place, people rising up to take their -- which is what i see all over the place, people rising up to take their country back. >> we are in this together. if we do not vote on election day, we are going to wake up and things are going to be really bad. the first thing i learned about politics is that if you are in a whole, quit digging. we are out of that hole. i do not want to go back to digging. >> the incumbent freshman is from a south suburban area of eleanor i -- of illinois. she is being challenged in iraq

war veteran who has served on a county board in central illinois. she as a freshman in a district that is usually represented by a republican. she has voted with the president on the stimulus package and the health care reform bill. she has been targeted on those issues. she did run on health care reform, so she will probably not take too many hits on that vote. the stimulus bill might cause her some problems. i think she is having a hard time separating herself from the nancy pelosi. there are already mailers' linking the two of them together. she is trying to present herself as an independent. she does not want to be seen with president obama right now.

the makeup of the district is largely rural. there are a couple of urban pockets. there is a tiny portion that stretches down to central illinois which includes a university town. it is largely white, mostly rural and republican leaning. it is a district created by republicans in the last redistricting. you are hearing from a tea party people that they want smaller government, less spending, protection of the second amendment. those are all issues coming up in this race. she is an interesting democrat because she comes from a rural, hunting community. she has many moderate stance as. she is trying to remind voters depth -- she is trying to remind voters that she rose from selling cosmetics to being a member of u.s. congress.

she has worked very hard to be unknown commodity around here. she is battling with voters being familiar with her and feeling like she is one of us. >> when i won last time, we knew that it was going to be a tough race all along. i represented a swing district when i was a state senator for 12 years. it could have gone either way even then. but the voters like the fact that in an independent fighter. in the eighth most moderate member of congress. silver cross hospital is going to become of veterans center. we want to make sure that we continue to fight for things that are important to the district. >> atom can singer is an up-and- coming member of the republic --

adam kinsinger is an up-and- coming member of the republican party. he has been challenging her on a lot of points. he is great at fund-raising. he is not afraid to pop into a fund raiser and ask for a contribution. he is running on a more pro- business, lower-taxes platform. he was not the most conservative person in the primary. he is getting some support, but there were others in the primary more conservative than he was. he has said that if the democrats have a plan that is good, he is willing to work with them. we have seen him pull back a little bit on that message, but he ran on the message that it is too partisan in washington. >> we are talking over a 11% of

people are unemployed in some areas. people just want to get back to work. one thing that stands out in illinois specifically is corruption. there has ben a culture of corruption for the last decade and beyond that. people are tired of it. they are tired of politicians to say, we do not need to listen to you, we are going to follow our own agenda. that is why we are seeing out of control spending and out of control unemployment. you do not spend more than you taken. ultimately, the private sector is what matters. >> your opponent has not then in congress for 10 years. if she was a democrat who had served all this time, the throw the bums out fema would work for him. but she'd -- bums out theme

would work for him. but she did not vote on many of the things people are upset about. this is one of the most watched races in at the country. both of the d.c.-based organizations are paying a lot of attention to this race, spending a lot of money on it. the democratic national campaign committee and the republican side are both 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 is seed after 15 years of republican representation, and they do -- this seat after 15 years of republican representation, and they want to make sure they keep it. >> we look at some of the most closely contested house races leading up to this november's midterm election. for more information on what the

local content vehicles are up to this election season, visit our web site, c-span.org. up next, a discussion on the impact of the grassroots political movement. this is about half an hour. ournal" continues. home we're now joined by ilyse hogue of moveon.org. she's the political advocacy and communications director. ms. hoeing -- ms. ho combmbings ue, where is moveon targeting specific races? guest: well, what we've seen our members rl focused on is trying to turn this political climate that do senators and that do representatives who have been there fighting their good fight to pass legislation are not the ones that suffer so we've got a short list of what we call our progressive heroes which are the folks that if everything else goes wrong we

want to make sure we have their back because they've been there for us. but broadly we are very focus on the ground game. we know that that's the way that progressives and democrats can win in 2010 and making sure that we retain speakership in the house and majority in the senate. host: so who are your heroes in the senate that you are working for? senator feingold? guest: senator feingold and senator boxer, the ones our members voted on. host: i believe tha it was "the hill" that senator feingold has refused outside money. has he refused your $5,000? guest: no, those are direct small donor funds for him. he has not refused it nor should he because these are american voters giving at rates at $25 and $30. my understanng is historically senator feingol has refused outside ad spending as he -- well he shod.

host: moveon.org was all over the news in 2008 and 2006. we haven't heard that much about you this year. is it because in your view the tea parties have sucked a lot of the media oxygen away from the moveons or has your fundraising and enthusiasm been down? guest: no, actually we're seeing exactly the same kind of rates of our members willing to get engaged and give money as we did in 2006, our presidential election years are always a bit higher. i think wha we've seen is the rise of noisy minority who has certainly, you know, been screaming pretty loud in opposition to everything that's happening in washington.

our members have been working in the past two years to help pass progressive legislati, to help get the health care bill passed and the financial regulations bill. host: one in "the wall street journal" in his column is the headline "obama pulls down his party" and he goes through a couple specific races. russ feingold down by eight or nine points in most polling. michael bennett, senator benett down in colorado. are you facing the same types with your other progressive heroes? guest: well, i think what we're seeing right now is certainly our members and other members of the progressive base actually reckoning with the fact that now that we've seen what it looks like to have control of both chambers of congress to have control of the white house, there's some problems that run deeper than others. i know "the washington post" haa huge issue this morning

about lobbying. core americans are very put off, alienated by the idea that lobbyists run washington. and that's a problem that predates obama but it hasn't gone away. what we're seeing is around the country progressives willing to engage in races where those elected representatives fought that fight and are fighting to stand up to corporate intests, are fighting to reform government. so it actually works for middle-class america again. host: did the citizens united case help or hurt moveon.org as an outside group? guest: well, i mean, i think it hurts our democracy. quite honestly. question are an independent pack. we cnot take donations over $5,000 from any single individual. we only have a handful of those. and we disclose with the s.e.c. any donor over $5,000. what we've seen with citizens united is our dollars don't go as far because we have people like the coke brothers able to

come in and pour billions -- well, millions into an election when the outside, right-wing outside front groups are intending on spending $400 million, the couple million that we plan to spend doesn't go as far in the air war. i think it's a huge mistake to measure enthusiasm based on who can buy more ads because that's like saying democracy's for sale to the highest bidder. host: ilyse hogue is our guest. she's with moveon.org. she's the political advocacy director, communications director. 202 is the area code. talking about progressives and 2010. 202-737-0001 for republicans. 202-737-0002 for democrats. and 202-628-0205 for all others. sorry about that. allow 30 days between your calls. you can send a tweet, twitter.com/cspanwj. sarah in tucson, arizona, on our democrats' line. you are first up with ilyse

hogue. caller: hi. i'm actually a moveon member. i have been a moveon member for a few years. i really appreciate moveon, what it does. you really care about equality. you deserve equal rights. i just really appreciate that. my question for you actually ties into the last segment because i'm so disgusted by people that use religion to hate. i just want to know what you think about margie phelps and people who use religion and use politics and use the laws to hate orse. host: ilyse. guest: i want to thank you for hearing from you guys. i couldn't agree more. i mean, i think that one of the things that makes our country great is that all speech is protected and at the same time

there is a necessary -- in order to live in a civil society have to have the ability to actually respond to our communities around this one. they're saying what you're doing no matter how legal it is is destructive to the fabric of our community and we really don't want to have it. host: you have an ad playing up in new hampshire where there's a senate race going on. we want to show that ad and tell us why this ad is being put out. >> you can judge a person by the company they keep. well, senate candidate kelly is getting $1 million worth of help from the chamber of congress, a group recently accuseof tax fraud for diverting money meant for charity toward their partisan agenda. tax breaks for the wealthy, denying americans better health care and cutting jobs for tichers and first responders all to benefit their millionaires friends on wall street. if kelly is on their side, do you think she'd be on yours?

>> not responsible for the content of this advertisement. >> we actually ran that ad a couple weeks ago but we had no idea at the time how impressionate it may be. a report has come out in the last two days that shows that not only has the chamber lobbied for corporate t breaks to ship jobs overseas but in fact now it appears they've been taking money from foreign corporations and foreign governments and potentially funding their $75 million of attack adess against people like russ feingold and in fact not only is that not un-american and the kind of activity we're seeing in the wake of citizens united that's so disruptive to our democracy but in fact it may be illegal. so the purpose of this ad was and will continue to be that if candidates like kelly ayotte or ron johnson or any of the other beneficiaries of the largess of the chamber are willing to accept that help to win the election, who are these folks going to owe their votes to?

we see more corporate tax breaks and more jobs overseas and to benefit the economies of the foreign corporations giving money to the chamber. it is not good for our democracy. it's not good for the american middle class. host: well, another ad by representative joe wilson, republican of south carolina, who's running for re-election, that discusses moveon.org. here's his ad. >> i'm joe wilson and i approve this message. >>'m major general joe livingston, when i hear what moveon.org said about general petraeus, my blood is going. as a felw marine, i hope that rob miller will do the right thing and return that money. that is what courage and honor are all about. gut: yeah. it's fcinating to me. i know there has been lots of

disagreement about that headline historically, but the idea that somebody wants to bring up a three-year-old ad when we're facing unprecedented unemployment in our generation, when people are worried about how they're going to pay their electricity bill at the end of the month, i just don't think it's ever been -- it's never been a winning strategy. and certainly not now when most americans really want to hear how their lives are going to get better. host: was there a debate within move.org about using that headline in your ad? guest: i think -- of course, retroactively, i think there is debates everywhere. but, you know, we do think while reasonable people can certainly disagree with the headline, the point was, still an incredibly important one to make and it opened up what we were doing in iraq. host: and next call from north carolina. republican line. caller: good morning. i'd just like to say that i

don't think everybo out here is enthusiasti about the progressives and i think we can see what the progressives being in charge have done for this country. and i believe that she said the noisy majority. i believe theoisy minority will become the noisy majority at election time this year. i have looked on moveon.org's fage and i believe that any involvement with moveon.org has contributed to the downfall in our educational sysm. they do not stand for what this country was foundedn. and if i see anybody that's associated with moveon.org i certainly wouldn't vote for them. thank you. host: ms. hogue. guest: we do not have any association with the n.e.a. or than being allies in the progressive movement. i don't disagree with the caller that voters are angry.

i think what's iumbent upon voters right now is to recognize that what we are facing is actually the culmination of 20 years of corporate influence in washington. bush-cheney had an open-door policy for the oil companies. that is what resulted in the b.p. spill is their ability to cut corners and cut safety regulations. that the wall street implotion did not happen overnight. it was the result of a dismantling of safety regulations for consumers that we got to reinstate. you know, i understand that's not happening as fast as some people want but we did actually pass some comprehensive regulatory reform bill that we've seen in decades and so we have more to do. certainly there are some democrats in congress that are culpable of being too close to lobbyists and we need to call them out. that's what moveon did against our primaries against lance lincoln and against steven

lynch up in boston. but what we do know is that republican rule is part of what got us into this problem. and that we will see the sort of complete merger of the republican party and the corporate interests that have penned $400 million that got themlected which will not be good for the middle class. host: well, you brought up the arkansas situation. blanche lincoln is down 10 to 15 points to congressman boozeman. is that your goal? i mn, it looks in that case that a republican's going to get elected. guest: certainly looked that way even befor the primary was mounted. it did not appear that senator lincoln had a chance to win and, in fact, americans for job security, which is exactly one of these post-citizens united agreed. for the first time ever they ran an ad in a democratic primary against bill holtzer

because they saw the writing on the hall, they know if he won he would have a better chance of taking that race and keeping that seat for democrats than lincoln had. it's unfortunate but that's what progressives were trying to avoid by helping holter win the nomination. host: university farc, illinois. democrat. guest: good morning, ms. -- caller: good morning, ms. hogue. guest: good morning. caller: i want to make a statement. the right-ring fanatics want to bring up religion, i wish a statement can be made that, how can anyone tell a grown person, whether they are religious or not, who he or she cannot marry? how can they have a right to tell a grown person who he or she cannot marry? and not only use religion --

why don't they adhere to those things, not simply the ones that talk about homosexuality? host: what about the issue of same-sex marriage, is that an issue important to your membership? guest: yeah, it stands firmly behind the idea that civil rights are fundamentally american and should be extended to every single american. . they say they do not want government intruding on individual lives, except when it comes to their idea of what a morally just life is, which is a very contradictory position. >> where did you grow up? >> taxes. i am a texan.

>> when did you get involved in progressive politics? >> i got involved in politics generally straight out of college. i was actually working on a local water cleanliness initiative. we saw that the company fighting our position was a subsidiary of one of the largest chemical companies in the world. i learned very early the danger of allowing corporate interests to interfere in democracy. it undercuts what local citizens want their lives to be like. the next call comes from virginia, on the republican line. caller: the the morning, and thank god for free-speech. it has been a great morning.

and a quick question -- what is it like to work for george soros? can you give us some reflection on his character? we get a lot of biased reporting, but you know better than most. if you could let some of us know what type of man he is? guest: i never met him, but he did support move on for a short time in the to doesn't solar -- since 2004, of their records show that we did not receive support from him since that time. host: it has been reported that george soros has really cut down on his contributions to progressive groups of this era. guest: the big story was that he was staying out of the election. that he is continuing to fund

work along the lines of what he is focused on, which i think is clean energy. and some of that type of stuff. host: but concerning the enthusiasm level on the progressive side? guest: i have had the case may. i think the article not only decided it -- traditionally a large dono -- i think hoping to sit this one now. i think that falls into the same trap of measuring enthusiasm dollar per dollar, which we think is not only bad analysis, but not really the democratic way to measure it. when we have 5 million members getting involved, when we have people even in times of economic struggle still giving $20 or $25

because that is what they can afford, that is significant. it is significant enthusiasm. a shows that the middle class in america, not necessarily those who can afford to give millions at a time, but the middle class know exactly what is at stake. they are giving $25 when they can scarcely afford it. because they recognize in order to provide jobs for the middle- class and to stabilize the economy, we need to maintain decratic majority and a congress. e republicans will only work for their corporate millionaire friends. host: the next phone call comes from des moines. caller: your conversation about george soros got me thinking about another question. could c-span do a little homework and report back to us about how much money y think he has donated to the liberal, progressive, and democratic candidates and causes since the

beginning of say 2000? host: there several groups out there who have that information. the center for responsive politics. you can go to their website, and also the son might foundation. the fcc records. guest: there is a blog post -- from zero beensecrets.com just outlined what george soros has given. caller: hello, i wanted to tell you that i live in a small town in arksas. as far as many of us are concerned, moveon.org lost all credibility when they went against john kerry and what about all those negative ads about how his medals and service

to the u.s. was no good because of one medal. they took a bafide euro and turned him into nothg. host: juanita, hold on. guest: that was a right wing hate group. it was ed gillespie who is now defending some groups we see doing attack ads now. no, we were very supportive of john kerry and members bet lots of time tried to help him get elected. host: does that help? caller: it does in some way, but moveon.org did support that. host: i have to call you out on that one -- is 100% inaccurate.

they were not on the side. what is your next point? caller: if blanche lincoln does not become, does not get reelected, it will be because of her vote that she made on the obama health care. host: who did you support in the primary? caller: which primary? host: in your democratic senatorial primary. caller: i supported blanche lincoln. guest: we believe part of the problem with blanche lincoln was she spent so much me fighting the good fight for the health insurance companies and watering down the health insurance legislation that people w her as a leader of making the bill in effect. lots of news has come out showing that americans who are healthcare voters, 3-1, support

the democrats. host: there is a report that the tea party movement has energized democrats? guest: it is probably true. first of all, we're just getting closer to the election. and when they look around, it they seeome pretty seriously stark options. there is an enormous fight in the republican party about the tea party that advocates extreme views on social issues for most americanwant to maintain control of their own lives. then you have republican leadership that is in lockstep with corporate america, with the chamber of commerce, wh americans for prosperity which are the oil and gas billionaires'. as the choices come into focus and become more stark, it is not

just progressive, but all of the voters who are saying that they need to start paying attention and be sad. when they look around, it is scary. they think they ought to get involved and do their part. host: the next call comes from ohio. caller: i find it fascinating that she was willing to give barack obama a his -- in these 20 months, and moveon.org just obliterated in the first few days -- they were very angry at george bush on a regular basis. i believe there were not willing to give him a chance because i think they believed he was driving us into a ditch.

ideology tends not only to drive the tea party the net but also liberal groups such as moveon.org but i honestly believe that moveon.org as more of a do-gooder group that tends to want to do good but nothing but bad tends to come from it. st: ilyse hogue? guest: i think it is not done true that we were very concerned when george bush got elected that he would take the country in the wrong direction. and i think that many americans would agree that our deficit, and our involvement in two wa -- now think that joe stiglitz has said have cost as $6 trillion while the economy at home suffers. that was the wrong choice for our country. we stand with members in saying that it was. the last 20 months have been interesting. there have been times where we

have disagreed with this administration and have not shied away from telling them. but overall we have made progress on that our members' core concerns with healthcare, and reining in wall street, and making sure the middle class america has a fair chance. host: coming up in five minutes, ambassador ryan crocker --the ninth anniversary of the afghanistan war. caller: good morning. i need to make two points. first of all, i am flabbergasted at america. you kn what? if people think those nominating the two party candidates -- there's no way they're going to washington. their genders will be pushed. all those representatives and

senators who have been there a long time -- it does not work like that. because you have an agenda -- you all are really being fooled if you think that they're going up there with the idea that they would change washington. president obama, he went. and i know that he thought lots of things would change. got in saw that when he di there, things he could not accompli right away. guest: i think that the caller is correct -- change takes a long time. especially when people are right to a culture in washington that has developed over decades that says that lobbies deal every day and deals are cut in the back rooms. it is that dynamic that

alienates many voters. we need more people wanting to come and change things. we need more people wanted to stand up to corporate interests , and work for their constituents to rebuild the middle class. that may not happen in theext two years, but if we don't keep bringing them to washington, we will never restore the credibility and confidence. host: what is your biggest fear about the election 2010? guest: that it will turn more voters off. democracy is a marathon, not a sprint. my hope is that we see some people who have been calling out the culture of corruption in the washington, d.c. get rewarded and be elected to congress. host: tennessee, judy, a republican. caller: how about the million dollars that bp which is british petroleum gave to obama and

oprah, and warren buffett, and george soros, and all the ions? now it is time they take credit for the money that they gave when they're talking about other people being able to done it. we all ought to have equal rights to the no, not just rich democrats. an article said that obama is tied to western. he is getting money from everywhere. this commission on debt -- he is tied to wall street, and this article. he said that the president only zero points commissions, when he is too cowardly to make decisions. doesn't he have 17 commissions going on now? guest: she is correct that the culture of corruption extends across both parties. we have seen president obama limit lobbyist contributions more than any president. but we still have a long way to go.

host: the last call comes from virginia, tim. caller: thanks. i wanted to make a comment on what i think is driving some of these more vocal movements, such as the tea party. and how that mindset can be given to reactions against the more extremist-type movements. think there is a certain amount of emotional response. the people who are speaking in appealing to the people are able to tap into. sometimes that emotional response is devoid of rational thinking. on the other side, the rational

people who are hearing what your guest is saying really need to listen to her. and tap into the rational side, and moved to action. host: we are out of time and will have to leave it there. guest: i think he just gave me a nice compliment. but what we want is for everyone to get involved in the elections. democracy works best when all americans are involved. take it back from the highest bidder -- the corporations. go to movoveon.org and

.

>> we are waiting to hear from the french finance minister about the goals of the country. live coverage later on today on c-span, we will have three governor debates for you live at 8:00 p.m. eastern. there will be a second and final debate between governor ted strickland and the former republican congressman. live at 9:00, the candidates

running to be a nevada's next governor. that will be followed by an early debate for the candidates to be george oppose the next governor. that is coming up tonight on c- span -- georgia's next governor. that is coming up tonight on c- span.

[ambient chatter]

>> of the french finance minister has not arrived for our coverage here at the carnegie endowment for international peace. while we wait, here is some more

from "washington journal." court struggles with the supreme -- free-speech question.

that is "usa today." "the new york times" lead editorial. margie phelps will be a guest on

this program in 45 minutes as well as timothy nieman who filed and amicus brief on behalf of the vfw.

"the all street journal" yesterday oped on this case and they agree with "the new york times" essentially. ths tir conclusion in their editial from yesterday. your turn. we want to hear your opinions. josh from gainesville, florida, independent line. caller: ioticed in that newspaper article they mentioned the skopie case in 1979 but i read the oral argument transcript from yesterday and they did even mentioned that case and ms. phelps did not mention that. i thought it was an incredibly

strong psident and i'm wonderinif maybe you or ms. phelps atome point would comment on whether it would -- why it was not mentioned by her or the jtice. host: veronica. california. democrat. caller: good morni. this is what i find the biggest problem with the united states of america but we were founded on christian values. so, viewing e tea party a saying we want to take our country back in the constitution and what not, i think first and foremost being founded on christian values we should look at what the bible states and when we lo at this minister, the bible also stays for us that there is going to be false profits and false ministers but we are to go and listen to what people are saying and what is coming out of their mouths. although ty disagree with gays and whatever, the bible also states thou shalt not judge of this minister should be

teaching these people. one of the biggest sinces. host: lancaster, pennsylvania. what do you think was in my caller: i think you have to go with free-speech. what about the argument on the >> we are leaving this to go live to the french finance minister's introductory remarks. >> i would like to introduce the minister and governor of france. she has been called an intelligent, straight talking leader with diplomatic skills. she has been given credit and praise for having a disarming tendency of saying what she thinks. for finance ministers, that is unusually disarming.

before going into government, she ran a powerful international law firm. she has also spent a lot of time in chicago. these days in washington, we have a hard time telling you is not from chicago. [laughter] she was lured back to paris in 2005 to become minister of trade. she took responsibility for promoting french exports. just two years later, with a great buy for a talent, presidents are cozying -- the president of france made her the first woman to serve as a finance minister of 80-8 country. -- of the g-eight country. the reason she is here with us tonight is that her already

considerable job portfolio is going to be made a little bigger. france will assume the rotating presidency of the g-20. the g-20 has helped coordinate expansion of macro economic policies, promoted stronger financial regulation, and significantly expanded the resources and capabilities of the imf. as france assumes leadership of the g-20, it does so at a time of continuing economic turmoil. the fate of the full recovery remains a question, particularly in advanced economies. from unemployment to private sector growth, to reining in government deficits and rebalancing global trade the g-$0.28 to lay out an

agenda for the world economic attempts-- the jad to lay out an agenda for the world barroso economic leaders. .- world's economic leaders >> thank you very much for mentioning my year in chicago. he left out my year in washington, d.c. i was here in 1973-1974. it was a memorable time. i worked on the hill, and that is where i learned what politics is really all about. i have a great memof