hour, michael hirsh from national journal joins us. after that, steve bartlett, president of the financial services roundtable will give an update on housing foreclosures. later, a campaign reporter shane ."aprile from "the hill this is "washington journal." [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] host: good morning, and welcome to "washington journal" for wednesday, october 13. trapped miners rescued in chile one by one. the 33 trap the half mile underground for more than two months are being rescued. here in washington, president obama will meet with college

students and their families to talk about college affordability. capitol hill is relatively quiet with members of congress back home campaigning. the commission about the bp deep water blowout. and we will talk about the latest of the obama administration's policy. but first, let's look at the news about "don't ask, don't tell." arkansas question for you, should the courts or congress the side -- our question for you is, should the courts or congress decide "don't ask, don't tell?" our numbers -- we also have a special line set up for military personnel.

the latest in the news about yesterday's court decision about "don't ask, don't tell." the obama administration decided to to appeal the ruling -- to hear more about "don't ask, don't tell" and the latest, let's go to john schwartz who is with "the new york times" covering this issue. thank you for joining us this early hour. nationally correspondent john schwartz. give us the details of what happened yesterday. what did the judge decide and what are the implications? guest: the judge already decided it was unconstitutional. he said that a month ago in a decision. now it is time to say, what do you do about this.

and the judge actually opened up. said, i will issue some kind of the injunction. what do you recommend? log cabin republicans who brought the case said just knock it down worldwide. nationwide with global implications. and the administration says it really has to be narrower. maybe you should restricted to membership of log cabin republicans, but what you don't do is completely flipped a switch for the entire military with a single judge in a single district. host: what about the report that the of ministration has decided to appeal? we had heard that they would wait. guest: i think there might be a touch of confusion. what the government decided to do was to appeal the defense of marriage act ruling in massachusetts. and do that they said, ok, in

very similar circumstance, president obama does not like the law but the department of justice is obligated in almost all circumstances, the department says, to defend laws passed by congress that are not blatantly unconstitutional. so they announced late yesterday they will file an appeal on the the defense of marriage act decision which was earlier this year. you can predict that the government will take a similar stance on a don't ask, don't tell, very similar circumstance. the president campaigned against it. he said repeatedly, putting it in the state of the union, that he wants to see it repealed, but it is the role of congress to repeal the law. it was passed by congress. he has said it is not up to him to simply repeal a policy that was passed by congress. and he asked congress to move ahead and repeal the slot as soon as possible.

the house did vote for repeal, the senate got blocked on a -- on it at recess, and harry reid says he hopes to try again in the lame-duck issue. two separate issues, don't ask don't tell, and obama administration appealing the game marriage ruling. guest: but if you look at the defense of marriage act, which is a massachusetts challenge to a federal law that prohibits government from recognizing gay marriages for purposes like federal benefits, for example, in a state board a marriage is recognized, that is why it is in massachusetts. the same language could show up in the press releases and filings if the government decides to appeal the "don't ask, don't tell" decision. the department of justice would say look, it is traditional to defend laws passed by congress

and it is up to the courts to declare them unconstitutional or congress to appeal the. host: you reported that the ruling represents a significant milestones for gay rights in the united states. tell us about the reaction. guest: as you can reaction -- my e-mail this morning, the reaction among the people who wanted "don't ask, don't tell" repealed and overturned is just totally jubilant -- with people from log cabin republicans, and especially the named plaintiffs on the phone with me yesterday say it looks like we hit the jackpot. we struck the lottery with this decision because it gave them almost everything they wanted. on the other side, speaking with folks like family research council, who don't want openly gay people serving in the

military, the reaction was very fierce, very angry, and politically tinge. host: do you think this will motivated the senate anymore to active during a lame-duck session or advance this issue so that congress has control over it rather than letting the courts take the process? guest: if congress had a unified purpose moving forward, then they would probably want to move to keep the courts from doing it but congress has not moved forward on this issue. the senate was deadlocked. some people -- left and right -- democrat and republicans -- in the senate said they would like to see the military complete the study of attitudes and effects of "don't ask, don't tell" repealed before they vote for it. they want to see their process all the way through. that report is not until

december. stranger things have happened to. host: john schwartz from "the new york times." thank you for joining us. our question for you is, should the courts or congress decide the fate of "don't ask, don't tell?" you can see this headline from the associated press -- "the philadelphia inquirer. curve -- "the philadelphia inquirer work." remember, a special line of military personnel, 628-0184. donna, independent caller. caller: i have am a grandfather

-- i am a grandfather. i was in the infantry from 1957 until 1963. i am an independent person. i did vote for president obama. i had some very firm thoughts on this. only people who have served in the military should give a thought on its because it is not like a 925 job where this person's private life, where they can go home, do what they do, and come back. and the military most times for a lot of times, you live together. you might be in a pup tent together. you shower together. this is not like -- well, you can live your life, i can live mine. this should only be decided by

people who actually understand how the military people live. host: does that mean going to the folks who run the military? waiting for this report, for example? caller: no, i don't care if it is a private or just a day of semen or who, it should be somebody who has experienced it. if you are going to make a decision on something you have to understand how things work. host: florida, democrats' line. caller: this gentleman just spoke it all for may. -- me. let me tell you a little something about my background. i am from a family of nine boreas, -- nine boys. my nephews, came back and got married.

i still got a nephew in germany. i just think it is wrong if these people have put in all their time and to cut them off -- they should get paid. my mother seeing her boys going there and she cried. i have a brother 82 years old who is still working, he was shot in the head and is blind. i think it is wrong to cut these people off. with this going on. let me just say this and i will get off. with everything going on, we first of all should not have gone over there. if anybody is willing to serve a should be able to serve.

calling us go to my from washington, d.c., on our military personnel line. caller: good morning. i am retired from the army. i spent my whole career in a tank, close quarters with four other men. all i really have to say about "don't ask, don't tell" is the civilians are making a bigger deal about it than what it is. when you are deployed, the soldier next to you will do your -- their jobs one way or another and i see this as another political play, using soldiers in politics, as always. it's got to stop. the military should be making decisions for the military, not civilians, because civilians tend to screw things up. host: what would you like to see the next that the? caller: there shouldn't be a net step. things are fine the way they are. the only people making a issue about this are the civilians.

being in the military -- the modern day, modern warfare, what ever you want to call it, this is a non-issue in the military. host: story from "usa today." the military discharged to 1969 men and 106 and nine women under the law. -- 269 men and 169 women. our question, should the courts or congress decide the fate of "don't ask, don't tell"? should something else developed, a new law? this comes also from the "usa "

usapiece -- "usa today" piece. justice department, the courts -- the courts, the obama administration and accessway over this as opposed to congress making this decision. let's go to cambridge, maryland. michael, independent caller. caller: my comments basically was, i retired from the military after 24 years and did 12 years in the army and 12 years in the air force. although i sympathize with the plight of the people who have served honorably for many years and then they are discharged under "don't ask, don't tell" i have trouble wrestling with the fact that if i am not mistaken, men are visually stimulated.

maybe that is a little bit different than women. i just can't imagine if i was a person in the shower being in the shower with somebody -- showering 20 or 25 guys -- host: you feel uncomfortable. caller: how would you like your son or daughter in there? to make, that is a little tough. -- to meet, that is a little tough. host: do you know people who are gay in the military? caller: i do. host: oregon, a republican line. caller: i have called my senator on this. i personally don't care if they are gay or straight. my concern is, when we send them over to a muslim country, we are endangering them and their lives because that is an abomination to their religion. can we keep our men and women sit over there? i don't think we can.

host: we certainly do have muslim members of the u.s. military. caller: that is correct. but this is in our country, not over there. we are in their jurisdictions over there especially when women go over there. host: should the courts or congress decide "don't ask, don't tell? we see in "usa today" an excerpt from the opinion of blog. this ruling, he writes, makes him angry. he said don't be surprised if the justice department asked the

u.s. court of appeals of the ninth circuit for a stay of the ruling. it might give this said that enough time to do the right thing. that is an opinion in "the washington post." ohio, georgia joins us on the democrats' line. -- george. caller: i find is very intriguing. first of all, for the courts to have such a wide cover over the military, i am thinking, what if this was a situation that had some security interest and they would stop the military process from going forward? that is number one. number two, if a person is gay or lesbian has no bearing or facts on his ability or desire

to defend his country. that is his right. it should not be infringed. if it is in fringed, the decision to decide one way or that the other should be left to the military. no. 3, the last thing and soon i will be off. the gentlemen concluded and the call earlier talking about visual representation or stimulation or something like that. let us not forget that in world war ii and in world war i, there was an issue of black soldiers in the military. facilities were separated to say, ok, blacks shower one area. of those of the things we have to address and think about. but the major priority to make is in no one -- if anybody in

this country is willing to serve in the military, because of religion, or their color, or their sexual preference, should be allowed to serve. host: let us take a look at some of the other stories in the news right now. miners in chile are being rescued today. so far nine have been brought up. 33 have been under ground for over two months. we see images in papers of friends and relatives and celebrating the release of the coal miners. we can also take a look at how they are being rescued, what the technique is. we have from "usa today" and image of the capsule, the rescue shaft, being used, to bring up the coal miners one by one. there is medical help stationed on board. a family and friends are waiting outside. that dramatic story on the world stage today. domestically, big stories about

people water drilling, which we will talk about in a little while on the show. but we are focusing on, should the courts or congress decided "don't ask, don't tell"? we have a special line set up for the military. we have daniel, a member of the military. lancaster, south carolina. good morning. caller: i spent 15 years in the service. i honestly believe they should wait for the investigation by the military so they have all the information that they need to make a conscience -- conscious, intelligent decision so they don't just jump off the deep end, make a decision and have to backtrack. make sure you have all the information. as far as being a homosexual in the military, i don't care if you are gay or not as long as you are willing to fight but your sexual preference has no place in the workplace. that is the difference between military and civilian life. your workplace is your home or place.

host: sorry to cut you off there, daniel. let us go to another member of military personnel. andrew from memphis, tennessee. caller: active duty for 22 years. congress is the one that needs to make a lot in these kinds of situations. there is no right to serve in the u.s. military, but laws are established by the congress and not the judiciary. the military has the right to set its own rules. the americans with disabilities act does not apply to the military. we can decide who comes in and who doesn't come in. but it is the job of the congress to make laws. and your previous segment had a debate where they were talking about the filibuster. thomas jefferson envisioned the senate as the cooling place in four bills before they make it through so people can think about this stuff.

that is exactly what is happening here with this. it is giving the military chance to file that report because there is going to be a financial and structural impact on the character of service. personally, i would like to see if they do change "don't ask, don't tell" it does change the character of service enough of that what needs to happen in my opinion is a general amnesty and to allow discharge for any people who are in the service who have enough of a problem that they don't think they can serve honorably next to a homosexual. if they have that much of a problem, they should be allowed to leave. after that neutral time or amnesty time expires, though, then the rules need to be strongly enough in place that anybody who harasses or any of professional conduct toward an openly gay service member needs to be disciplined harshly. host: that is a member of our military personnel andrew,

calling in did if you are a member of military or retired, call us at 628-0184. a comment from north carolina. u.s. navy retired. we have heard back from a couple of folks this morning. let's go to arlington, georgia. raymond, democrats' line. caller: good morning. i have heard one caller express, like, concern about the soldiers welfare. i heard another person expressed is -- it is fine the way it is. but the underlying thing is that a certain part of our population is just fine with the way things are because they are actually discriminating against a certain portion of the population. host: you see it as

discriminatory? uc "don't ask, don't tell" as discriminatory. caller: most definitely. i hate when they compare the gay experience to the black experience -- blacks were discriminated against -- and this is just blatant discrimination. and for the guy to say that the military should make these decisions, the military is run by civilians. there are gays in the population. it is not the way that these people -- it should be ok for the military. host: ok. we just learned the ruling and there now studying it, says pentagon spokesman traveling with robert gates. this comes from "the washington post." he said --

what we have been talking about, the pentagon is expected to complete a study by december 1st on how to integrate openly gay men and lesbians into the ranks. let's go to los angeles, california. john, republican caller. good morning. caller: i am a log cabin republicans. this was brought to light by the log cabin republicans, and all republicans should remember that.

this issue was forced to be decided by log cabin republicans. thank you. host: to go with what john has been talking about, this from "the washington post." let's go to fred. military personnel. detroit, michigan. thanks for calling. caller: the first thing i want to say being x military, -- not respected of race, color, sex. it is for killing people. that is what they are for. to say that anybody else is any better to get hit by a bullet is kind of weird in my book. gays have been in the military

and served in the military and get kicked out of the military ones that were found out to be gay. how is it any different? don't ask, don't tell, should not be there. a person is a human being. get shot at, we die. our sexual orientation should not have anything to do with that. host: one of our callers said he just would not feel comfortable. caller: when they said that the military decide, they mean the brass. that's fine. i don't care what the press decides because the press decides to send us over there to die in the first place -- the brass. the people would decide should be the ones on the ground every day and has people watching their back. there is some prejudicial involved, of course, like any other thing. but i did not care who is behind me as long as that person is watching my back and i am watching theirs. host: "the baltimore sun" breaks down gays in the military and which americans support allowing

openly gay men and women to serve in the military. it shows some groups support it more than others. it looks at the total u.s. population changing over time from 2004 until last year. when to about 60% to 70% for allowing openly gay americans to serve. by gender, more women than men say allowance. then as far as the political party, democrats hit a peak last year it looks like in their support but it dipped down a bit. 76% of self identified democrat said they supported. whereas 60% of republicans do. you can go on from there. looks like there is a big difference -- difference in age. 18-29 years old, 79% support allowing gays to openly serve in the military. 65% is the percentage of how many people above the age of 65

support that. use the difference. california, elmo on our independent line. caller: i am a 25-year veteran. the problem that i have with etting the military decide -- they openly discriminated against blacks and i am a black. they were against blacks being a part of the military and integrating in the military. the president at the time made a decision that it would go forward. it took years before we were considered equal. that separate but equal is garbage. talking about and the showers. there is some much bunk. there -- they are serving.

the young people today who fight our wars, they seem not to have the same problem that the people in congress have who would not even vote on it. and most of them having never served. they think they should be controlling -- and of course, the civilians to control the military. they have not served, but they know all the right answers. i am sorry, they need to drop this stuff, leave the gay people, let them serve and do their jobs. those that they are kicking out, they need to stop it. give the people pensions who have been there 17, 18, 19 years. thank you so much for letting the call. host: thank you for your service. we welcome all of your phone calls. a special light for military personnel at 202-628-0184. president obama tries to net the

youth vote. this is from "the washington post." president obama has been making an elaborate effort to appeal to younger voters. the present making an appeal to the youth vote. gop groups make massive ad blitz. taking a look at the other news related to members of our military.

u.s. assistant insured new york counts boats by overseas military members -- council votes by overseas military members. that comes from "the new york times." let's continue our conversation about whether courts or congress decides "don't ask, don't tell" of first we want to take a step back and talk about what is happening regarding the obama administration pass a decision about the gulf of mexico, deep water drilling. yesterday the obama administration announced the development in their policy. that they will no longer have a moratorium on offshore drilling. to talk about that with us we have a guest joining us momentarily. a first let's look at this story in "the washington post." u.s. lifts ban on deepwater drilling.

to talk about that let's go to jonathan tylove, the "times picayune" washington correspondent. the change anything right now? guest: they lifted a moratorium they imposed back in may and reimposed after the court struck down in july. i don't think it was unexpected at this point. due to expire and of november and it became clear they would try the lifted before then. the question is whether it would make any difference. you have different opinions. the industry thinks or is concerned that it will still be some time before any permits are issued and people can get back to drilling because they impose a lot of new regulations they have to now meet. and i think environmentalists

are worried they will get back to work if think it is premature that we still don't know exactly what happened with the accident and it does not fully safe to start drilling today. host: you reported reaction was mixed. industry groups saying it would actually take some time to get any drilling action off the ground. guest: michael brown which, the head of what used to be mms and now on -- and he optimistically said some might back to work by the end of the year. it is not so much to the inspections, but the permiting. because people have not been submitting permits for the last several months, they are understaffed. there are all these new regulations and the industry doesn't know quite how -- what needs to be done and when they submit their applications for

permits, how they're going to receive and what they will -- what will be kicked back to them. there is a lot of concern that it has been what is considered a defect moratorium. they are worried that it is going from a legal moratorium to one that is the same thing, just in practice and not in law. host: it was met by wary praised by members of louisiana's congressional delegation. do they see this as a step forward for their goal of getting drilling up and running? guest: it is mixed and it tends to be somewhat negative. the politics in art -- louisiana is clear. the moratorium was very unpopular. the obama administration to begin with is not popular so for the republicans in the delegation it was kind of a free shot at the administration. even the democrats -- including

mary leandro, who has led the charge against the moratorium by holding up the nomination to the director of the omb -- i think they think it is progress because it is better than having it still in place but they are pessimistic about the idea that drilling is going to be back on line immediately or any time soon. host: new report it senator landrieu has a hold on the nomination for managing director of omb. lift the moratorium and expedite permits for drilling in deep and shallow waters. what is a stand? sounds like she is not budging. guest: yes, she wants to see the actual permitting being done. i think the administration is

irritated, they think it is out of line from someone of her party and not related to her responsibilities. but back home this is a very popular stance for the senator. she took a kind of a drubbing on the health care votes back in louisiana because she was for the health care bill, which was very unpopular back home. she found here an issue where she'd pretty much has to robert gibbs said yesterday the decision to lift the moratorium had nothing to do with politics. and it may not have. but certainly she put a hold on and now the moratorium is lifted. i think she can look at it and say she's got results, and she once more results. host: jonathan tilove, what will you be watching for as you

report on washington and what is happening down in the gulf region to get some of the drilling rigs back in action? guest: i think it now turns to the industry. brimwich said the companies themselves, the drilling operators, only they know how ready they are to resume work. in some ways, the political fear has been more adamant -- has been more dramatic in its demands. the industry has been busy trying to get ready. i think it will be a question. i think there were fears there would be a mass exodus from riggs in the gulf. so now the question of whether the moratorium actually had a salutary effect and whether the industry is ready to get back to work or whether the fears that this is political and it will

remain in fact are well founded. i think it is a matter how the industry responds and how the interior department is able to respond because, again, they complained they really are not adequately staffed and had to ask congress for more inspectors and people to help with the permits. host: jonathan tilove, thank you so much for being with us. this from "the wall street journal." oil industry not celebrating yet. executives fear new regulations could result in a continued slowdown of offshore drilling activity. we also see similar reports in "the financial times." fails to satisfy the sector. and environmentalists are concerned about this. they take issue with it and say it is really too soon and more needs to be done to make the border drilling safe in light of what happened in the gulf of

mexico. our question for you this morning in this segment is, should the courts or congress decide the fate of "don't ask, don't tell." ronald, a member of the military. military personnel calling us from california. caller: good morning. 50-year veteran, recently retired, medical -- 15-year veteran. i just had to call. the main issue that some of them were speaking on previously, having the military vote on it, i think could be an alternative that would be effective. if it were to pass through congress or some other body. sexual orientation, education, something to offset any possible difficulties. just throwing it out in the open immediately without any really

-- real preludes to the troops or other personnel, this is because of controversy and backlash and possible retaliation. it is a military issue. it should be investigated and/or further look into internally first prior to voting. not understanding, normal civilian versus military, it would be the same as it having someone from another country telling you what you can do at work. host: what would you decide if it was up to the military to decide for themselves? caller: my own personal thought would be to go ahead and lift the ban because i have had a different upbringing than the norm. but like i said before, there would have to be a sexual orientation education or something prior to that -- unlike host: transition period. caller: because there is a stigmatism from the old school military to the younger generation. host: can i ask how old you are,

is this a generational -- caller: i am actually 40. in the middle group of young and old. but that is exactly what i am saying, the transition is such a big factor. just to throw things up. ione of the callers was african- american -- or even females, these were big, controversial issues, and there was a lot of strife and struggle and it didn't need to be that way. if it was a better integration it would be much better we took one step with "don't ask, don't tell." let's take the next. host: let's go to another member of the military calling from phoenix, arizona. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am a five-year military veteran of the united states navy. tell"k "don't ask, don't works. one of the things military people have to do is they have to shower with each other in boot camps. i don't think in any civilian job you have to be put into

that city we should. also, when i was in a ship, we live in very close quarters. 200 people in a room. if you have ever seen in those movies, you see how people are stacked up on top of each other. we bump into each other in the dark all the time. host: basically it just makes you feel uncomfortable. caller: what i am saying is "don't ask, don't tell" works. there were people who i was sure were gay. how you could tell. but we all have "don't ask, don't tell" but it kept the peace. host: you may have been able to tell -- but do you think they would have acted and it differently if "don't ask, don't tell," were in place. caller: if it were not in place. they could wear a prom dress to the military ball. the issue is not about gay rights. it is about a heterosexual

people -- unlike in any other job, we have to do certain things in the military. for example, shower with each other in boot camp. in the civilian world, you don't have to do that. host: can i ask you one last thing -- this will, also this morning. what do you say about the folks who have been discharged, some of them and high-level jobs -- translators, arabic translators, who have been dismissed from service because they were identified as being gay or lesbian. caller: if the military went after them, they should get their jobs back. if they were ousted or targeted because people suspected. but if they were flaunting their gayness, it violates it. host: thank you for your call and also for your service. tom from utah, and depending caller.

caller: i am ex-military, and i think the term homo meaning one, sexual. one sex and that homosexuals are after, the same sex they are showering with. i think the hypocrisy in the gay world. they don't care about what i think as a heterosexual or my rights. they just want to be able to do their rights. if they cared about me as a heterosexual, they would not want to put me in an uncomfortable situation. the fellow who called you before is exactly right. i had to shower around guys. just reverse it. if i said i want to be able to shower around the women, the women would go crazy. they would say, are you out of your mind? yet the homosexuals, they don't care. it just like letting the fox and henhouse. host: could ask you one thing? in military settings there are occasions when men and women have to be around each other. caller: not shower. host: but intense situation,

close quarters. there is a level of decorum in having a code of conduct. you think a military code of conduct would be strong enough to keep people in line? caller: no, it's not. i witnessed it personally. i had an officer who was homosexual and he would hit up on me. once he grabbed me on duty from behind -- i did not know what was. i turned around with my fists cocked and realize, you know what, i touched this man they will put the little guy down and not the big guy. host: thank you for calling and thank you for calling about the questionable been " don't ask, don't tell." >> we will talk to michael hirsh, chief correspondent for the " national journal" about his book "capital offense." we will be right back. >> c-span's local content vehicles are travelling the country as we look at some of the most closely contested house races leading up to this

november's midterm election. >> in florida congressional district two, the incumbent is alan boyd, a democrat, seven terms, has been in congress for 14 years. running against steve sutherland, republican nominee who won a five-way primary in august. the national republican congressional committee has targeted representative boyd in this election cycle and they are going to be spending a lot of money, they already have, with tv ads aligning representative boyd with speaker pelosi, with president obama. i think it is a part of what we are seeing nationally. with the unhappiness with the obama administration, with the economy, particularly with all the debate that went on with the health care vote. that was very big in congressman boy's congressional district. he held a lot of town halls that got very loud. we know how that went down.

i think that was a precursor to what this race will be like. there is going to be one overriding issue, and that is going to be congressman boyd's vote in favor of the obama administration's health care legislation. in the first round in the house, representative board voted against the legislation but then he voted for it as a key swing vote in the second round. a congressman boyd did have a tough primary against a long term state legislator here, and by representative one that 51%- 49%, a lot closer than what people thought. congressman boyd did not go with an obama endorsement in that race, which would have probably helped him, obviously in the democratic primary. looking to the general election, he did not want to have that around his neck. the health care vote is emblematic of what i think is a larger debate, which is a

recommended -- referendum of the obama administration. his background is a blue dog democrat. fiscally conservative. he has run in this district under the fiscal conservatism as the base of his political philosophy. also strong defense with a military presence in part of the district. he has run a conservative, and his run for health care runs counter to that in the minds of what the republicans are going to paint him as. steve sutherland, he is a funeral director in panama city. he won a five-way republican race in the primary. he raised a considerable amount of money, but not compared to congressman boyd. but he is going to get a lot of help from the outside. florida congressional districts two, a majority of democratic registered voters in this 16- county district that runs along the panhandle.

it includes tallahassee, the state capital, which is highly democratic, more liberal center of the district. however, many of those registered democrats are still old line dixiecrats, though there registered democratic, they are very conservative and have no compunction in crossing over and voting for republican candidates. president obama did not carry the congressional district in 2008, although he did in florida, obviously. certainly a bellwether of how the democrats are going to do in this cycle. with the off-year election, and how many seats they are going to lose and the house. holding on to congressman boyd's seat is going to be key to any hope in doing that, or to limit the losses that will be felt elsewhere. >> c-span's local content vehicles are travelling the country visiting communities and congressional districts as we look at some of the most closely contested house races leading up

to this november's midterm elections. for more information on what the local content vehicles are up to, visit our web site, c- span.org/lcv. >> "washington journal" continues. host: michael hirsh, chief correspondent at "national journal." thank you for being here. the book, "capital offense: how washington wiseman turned america's future over to wall street." you write that it is about how an idea that was good for big finance is good for america came to define this era and then spiraled completely out of control. guest: my basic idea is you can't explain the magnitude of what happened with the financial crisis and economic hangover that continues that we deal with in the headlines, just by writing books about wall street and what a bunch of crazy traders did. something this huge and system,

something that affected the entire financial system and then the economy happens over a much longer period of time. that is what i tried to explain. a narrative of the way back to the reagan era of how an ibm that free-market always work -- an idea, that free markets always work, when completely overboard. and particularly regarding financial markets that economists have always known be a bit differently. that was thrown overboard during this era. we'll see the period were wall street created ever more complex products. what people didn't understand what the crisis is these crazy cdo's, complex products billed out of subprime mortgage is, did not come out of nowhere. there was a long period of gestation over a decade which wall street firms were developing ever more complex products, taking assets and repackaging and selling them. this was just the culmination. i tried to explain the whole thing and a whole narrative.

host: you say wall street became the master of main street rather than the handmaiden. guest: one aspect of the economy there really hasn't been addressed or fixed at all. i think after two years of debate and discussion and this giant financial reform bill, which is in that wall street continues to dominate the time horizons of corporations, the way ceo's think -- not in the financial economy but the real economy. i think you can trace back a lot of our problems -- the hollowing out of the middle class -- to the way which wall street in its very short time horizons and the compulsion to speculate led it to a lack of concern about any other aspect of the economy. we got to the point over this three decade or so period where the help of the economy even today -- where is the dow? it is not really true.

it the health of the economy has a lot more to do with social equity and other concerns that were simply thrown overboard. host: what we take for granted when you talk about financial -- a gradual change about the way we think about money market and regulation, we just take for granted. guest: that is one of the things i tried to explain is how regulation, and oversight, not only was outpaced by where the markets were going but became kind of a fool's by occupation, and lost art. a very character driven there and tell a story of all of these individuals and one of these is a guy named jerry corrigan, president of the new york fed and early '90s, the first person in 1992 to warn about all of these off the book derivatives and what were banks doing and did they know what they were doing. he was known as a plumber in the

financial industry. he knew how the inner workings of the industry were conducted. he knew about back on payments and when banks were getting in trouble or not. what is interesting is how his way of thinking about markets was lost. this idea that markets would always correct themselves. the alan greenspan, said. you can depend on the markets to correct themselves and know what they were doing and we found that they didn't. but this regulatory art of jerry corrigan and others like him were lost. we got into this period in which regulation was ridiculed. there was no regulation at all. we only found that out at the very end, during the nadir of this crisis when all of a sudden everyone from treasury secretary hank paulson and the bush administration ben bernanke, realize the financial system was something they no longer comprehended. and the extent that this sort of

shadow banking crisis, these products that or off the books and not monitored, were sinking the system. that realization came far too late to do anything about it. host: michael hirsh writes in his book -- also lost was any sense, finance, would complete a least came to dominate economy rather than serve in this traditional role as a supplier of capital of the real economy of goods and service. talking about the serial major of the stock market versus concrete items and goods. guest: at some indefinable point things passed over -- rollicking venture capital market, which are good, which in most of the country's history, even though they occasionally go overboard that -- have been healthier than the over regulated markets around the world -- to supplying capital to companies.

the silicon valley, a lot of companies and the biotech boom benefited. at some point in the 1990's and the 2000's that passed over into what became simply the desire to speculate and pure gambling. we saw that with a lot of these over-the-counter derivatives, which are really simply side bets on what is going to happen to interest rates, what will happen to various economies. it became a giant casino. indeed, something even worse because, unlike in a casino when you know generally what the house of our on cracked or roulette, no one knew what odds were any longer so it was completely out of control. host: the book above " capital offense." talking to michael hirsh, chief correspondent at the national journal group and also served as senior editor and national economics correspondent for newsweek, based in the washington bureau.

you have seen him on the show before. the numbers to call if you want to join the conversation -- in your book, as we mentioned, you go back in time 30 years and look at the various administrations. you did a section on how things like a financial crisis we just experience. guest: it is important to do that and understand -- i don't demonize either side of the aisle. this is a show in which we hear from republicans and democrats on separate lines. i spend just as much time criticizing the clinton administration as i do the george w. bush administration. what you had was officialdom that came to buy into an idea that economists knew was false, that financial markets could be left untouched. one of the most fascinating

figures to me and my narrative is larry summers, who just announced recently he is leaving as obama's chief economic adviser. because larry summers is truly one of the great economist of his generation. the winner of the very prestigious prize awarded every two years to an economist under 40. and he knew -- some of his own work in the 1980's have shown the fallacy of the idea of rational markets in finance. and yet when he became a policy maker, first in the clinton administration under robert rubin, the treasury secretary, and then later under obama, he became influenced by this idea that you could leave the financial markets alone. there was one famous moment in 2005, the height of the bubble just before things went bad -- went bad, at a retreat in jackson hole that central bankers hold every year, when a smart compression -- economist

presented a paper saying we might be in trouble, the banks are getting loaded with all of this risk and they don't seem to know how to handle it, and larry summers got up and sort of ridiculed him, basically called him a sandy-luddite and he could cobbling enough, this was the man that president obama chose, not only as chief economic adviser, but the man that would fix the same system that summers helped to create. host: richard from the villanova. democrat line. caller: i am not a trained economist, but i have always been of the opinion that the deregulation of savings and loans was the seminal event that led to the eventual meltdown of the system.

what is your opinion? guest: i do not know if it is the central event, but it is a key event. it is what can happen when a subsection of the banking industry is left unregulated. it also led to the securitized of bad assets, which was initially organized by the government, to deal with the problem of these bankrupt s&ls. key moments in the past couple of decades, but there are lots of key moments, that lead to a market that is out of control. joseph stickups if -- steiglitz, who had been a longtime supporter of the markets, wrote

a paper prickly question in the securitization phenomenon, where is that going to lead? will it lead to lenders being less responsible out the loans they were issuing? of course, that was a question that we sell answered in the most devastating sorts of ways, when we found there were no standards for lending, making sure that loans were made responsibly, because of this phenomenon. they were only connected by an interest payment. yes, that is a key moment in this phenomenon. host: mike on the independent line, michigan.

caller: i have several comments i want to make, but i disagree on with your comments about the clinton administration. i keep hearing that they are going to vote out days people in november, but they are just going to vote in these shills for wall street. these grass-roots organizations, the tea party, they are so upset, they are going to vote republican. host: what should the obama administration do at this point to help what is happening and to the economy, wall street? caller: if you look back to the clinton administration, a lot of

democrats lost their seats in the house. it was not until 1996 that the economy started to pick up. what do people expect of the obama administration, wave a magic wand and wipe out eight years of bad policies from the republican party? guest: your caller makes some good points. i do not want to demonize anybody. certain economists like robert rubin but they were doing the right thing. most people maintained that they would not have let things get out of hand as they did in the bush administration. that is hard to say, but that is another datapoint. his final point, how people expect, in this current

election environment, that you are going to get back to where you were in the high-growth areas, will be difficult. they are saying out there, we have turn the economy around, even though it is slow growth. even though it feels like a recession, we have been growing .teadily fo this sort of thing takes time. you simply do not get out of this sort of disaster in 18 months. it seems like that message, however, is not carrying well with the public. host: as you speak to leading economists, those who are influential in forming the u.s. policy, do they feel like

divided government led to compromises that did not work? for example, the stimulus package that was passed. some say that we need much more but this is as much as we can get in order to get some republicans are aboard. has the compromise bread problems, has the administration done what they wanted and what people aboard? guest: i think there is a sense the obama administration made too many compromises with a conservative movement, which as we have seen, has been taken over by more right wing-leading elements. that they made too many compromises with a republican party that has not addressed their role in any of this. we continue to hear the fantasy from the right that these were government program that led to the crisis, fannie mae, freddie

mac's were encouraging all these bad mortgages, and that was the source of the problem. they were an element, but no more. you do not hear the republican dealing with the real implications of affectively 30 years of runaway reaganism, which was have a healthy reaction to what was happening at the time, but had run its course. you do not hear a discussion in washington about rethinking the proper balance between markets and government. we are capitalists, we want market growth, but you need the right degree of growth as well. one of the criticisms of obama is he did not realize that soon enough and handed to many things the way to republicans,

centrist democrats, not taking a more fdr-type role and fixing what needed to be fixed. host: our guest is the chief correspondent for the national journal. the bill, republican line. -- let us go to bill, republican line. baltimore. caller: i have a question on the capital requirements that the banks were required to keep. i think that is the root of the problem. i do not think there is a problem with derivatives, securitization of assets. what really got the whole system on the wrong path was when the capital requirements for the banks were losing.

that allowed the banks to become extremely leveraged. that is the fundamental problem. i lay that at the foot of congress, who allowed those capital requirements to be reduced. guest: another important part of the story. there is a tendency in discussing the crisis to be a lot about like the blind man and the elephant. you are feeling one part of that -- this must feel like something else -- not getting your hands around the hole. -- the whole. banks were required to keep less and less of their own capital in these instruments, which led to some recklessness.

one character in my book, paul o'neill, president bush's treasury secretary, was left out of town at the time. he was not robert rubin. he was sort of the ill at ease in front of the camera, but i went back to talk to him, and a lot of his ideas sounded pretty good. he said, this venture reform bill that they just passed, we could have done it in two pages. one page would say that the banks would have to stake 25% -- not a 7% that we have now internationally -- 25% of their capital on any loan that they make. and then on page two, mortgage holders would need to put down 20% of their capital to buy a home. he said that would fix the problem.

what he says makes practical sense. so yes, the reduction of capital standards, as everyone recognizes, was a key problem. one of the problems out there now is how much of a raising of the standards is necessary to prevent this from happening again? host: a tweet from a viewer -- guest: what the repeal of glass- steagall did was remove all of the fire wall that existed in the financial industry. that was enacted when it became clear, that when banks, as part of a new deal, were being injured by the government, began to behave recklessly, like investment banks. there was a lot of risky

behavior happening on wall street. you do not really what those two to mix. when glass-steagall was repealed, -- which some people call the citigroup conglomeration act -- would have been traditional islands of safety, they also became infected by this risk-taking behavior and that securities on their books. so you no longer had fire walls of any kind to prevent a conflagration tfrom spreading. that is why the whole system was in danger of going down. host: let's hear from jimmy, democratic caller picke. it's burke. caller: -- pittsburgh.

host: unnecessary. good morning, charlie. you are on with michael hirsch. caller: your book is dealing with what you are proposing as the main cause of the financial crisis. i would like to question -- your thesis seems to be, deregulation was instrumental in causing the crisis. you have mentioned other things that contributed to it. one of the problem with your argument, it seems to me, if you look at ireland, as one example, they did not have a

glass-steagall act. certainly, they did not have fannie mae, freddie mac. ireland is in bad shape, they simply had too much lending. it seems fairly clear that the core of the problem is lots of institutions basically bought the same security, which were tied to the price of housing. the question in my mind is why did these people think owning all the securities was a good idea? guest: because wall street induced them to do so, these european, asian banks. you are right, and different

circumstances, you have universal banking model where you do not have a glass-steagall separation. but you also had, traditionally, a lot of supervision and oversight over the activities they were getting into. these banks also got involved in buying up these dubious securities. one of the most famous cases we saw in recent months involve goldman sachs. it created a collateralized debt obligation, these complicated instruments built on mortgage assets, which were designed to fail. made up of securities that were based on bad mortgages, designed to go down, so that short sellers on that side of the transaction could win. of course, on the other side of the transaction was, among

others, a german bank that did not seem to realize it was being played for a patsy. so you had a lot of things like this occurring at these wall street firms. these so-called quants were former physicist that were simply creating products that no one could understand. it is true, there were different circumstances, but it comes down to the same phenomenon, and it comes from wall street. host: james on twitter says -- that is his opinion, but is there a discussion among the folks you talk to about a dichotomy between having a hard line between the alley on wall and needing to work with

the industry? guest: he has had to walk a fine line. it has been the subject of internal debate in the administration, which i go into in my book. there is a key moment when obama is hemming and hawing about taking a tougher stance on these bankers, -- and the kind of goes back and forth. some days he is really frustrated with them, other days, tim geithner is saying that we need to get some of them under control. then you have paul volcker saying that we need to forbid them from doing this risky trading. obama is hemming and hawing, over this, over a year. this is just at the time when wall street is announcing new record bonuses.

two years after the crisis, they are awarded themselves these bonuses. according to my records, obama is stunned by this behavior and is considering what paul volcker is saying. eventually, obama and raises paul volcker and does what he says. but it is sort of too little, too late. he has been divided on this question, has been getting conflicting advice. he has not been becoming franklin roosevelt, as some people thought he would be. host: next phone calls. caller: i was just making a comment. there was an earlier caller who

said it takes a long time for the economy to come back. obama is probably not to blame. my issue with obama and his administration is the way he is forcing things on us, which is no different than any government in the past 30 years. health care, he has forced us to take it. he did not care what people wanted. that is my issue with obama, not what he is or is not doing for the economy. guest: i think that is a very pertinent comment. i am also of the opinion, that while health care needed to be addressed, clearly it is a crisis in the economy, was not the most pressing crisis. i think it smacked with a bit of hubris that they were going to had onlys on when they die taken on have of the economy.

the problem taking on health care when he did, he sort of used his political capital. now we need more stimulus, more government intervention, but it is politically impossible because of this rebellion over big government. i think it was a political mess copulation. host: michael hirsch is the author of "capital offense." he is also the chief correspondent with "national journal. when we talk about the decision that were made over decades that had led to the financial situation we are in, as you mentioned in your book, it is very character-driven. these characters were brought into the inner circle of the white house. why is it that people like larry summers and tim geithner came back? they were the month responsible

for early, failed policies, so why did obama go back to them instead of the people that you described as the canaries in the coal mine, the people who had identified some of the problems? guest: one of the people i quoted in my book, a former senior regulator, said this to me. obama did not run for president to fix derivatives. this was not his area of expertise. he is a brilliant man, he certainly understand the gravity of the problem, but he did not understand until he became president just how deep it was. he saw people like summers and tim geithner as fix-it guys.

i think he assumed that they would be able to fix it, considering they were partly responsible for it. certainly, we are seeing some signs that obama has realized, as sommers is leaving -- the president recently named elizabeth warren the head of this consumer panetta protection bureau, which is a great part of this new law. she is certainly considered a very progressive voice. she is one of the few people in the it ministration that does not have robert rubin on her speed dial, the former treasury secretary, who was the mentor to a lot of these current officials. host: austan goolsbee, talk to

me about him. guest: the interesting role that he played was he was one of these people that was sort of nudge aside by larry summers, who at the beginning of the administration, obama was waxing poetic over. goolsbee ended up being relegated to a council of economic advisers. now larry summers is leaving, and he is coming back as the chairman of the council of economic advisers. he is a centrist economist, who i think, has been more with the paul volcker-pipes, those that wanted to see a deeper fix, but is also cautious in his advice. so i do not expect a huge amount

of change. host: wesley. germantown, maryland. democratic caller. caller: here are some of the things that i have seen in the past few years. i have a landscaping company that i had to shut down last year. the problem is not the housing crisis that started this. the problem started with jobs. the bottom line is, i am a democrat, sort of independent as well. i have voted for both republicans and democrats, along with ross perot. the situation that i saw, bill clinton started the free-trade

agreement with china, the economy lifted, and today what market are we most controlled by? the chinese market, almost every product is made in china. this is a lot of american jobs we are talking about. that kind of stopped everything from the bottom up, and then that went to the housing crisis. our home of the use started to devaluate. -- values started to devaluate. guest: these are all important factors, there is not one factor, but you bring up a good point. during this time, when we were deferred to wall street, their view of the economy, short-term,

quarterly-type games over long- term, strategic thinking. all of our fortune 500 companies became caught up in this idea that any time market cap took a leap, they should get a generous slice of it, they became obsessed with having stock options. we were ignoring what was happening to the job base, what was happening to the middle class. it is not that free trade is bad. free trade is generally good, and most of these agreements are ok, but we were not noticing that our middle-class was being completely hollowed out, sustaining itself with the illusion of prosperity that was based on taking on more debt.

part of it was the debt that the banks for issuing as part of the subprime phenomenon, and it was all tied together, and then we realized, what happened to the middle class? it cannot sustain itself anymore in this restricted, austere environment. where are the jobs? that is where we are now. one of my criticisms is, going back to the early 1990's, with all the glorification of globalization and financial markets, what the clinton the administration was boasting -- there was no protection for the middle-class. host: talking about the 1990's, late 1990's, were you have robert rubin and alan

greenspan, an odd pair representing both sides of the political aisle. they were able to make things happen because it looked like there was political unity. you say in your book -- guest: and that was the consensus that was achieved. clinton ran as a centrist democrat but he was always a little bit skeptical of wall street. he wanted to be fdr in his political impulses, but he was persuaded that assuaging the bond market, stock market was the way to go. he sort of famously declared, what is going on here, we are here to make the bond market

happy? then his head by the james carville said, when i want to be reborn, i want to come back as the bond market so i can be all- powerful. so you had this environment where rubin and greenspan were persuade people of this, and at the time, they were seen as the greatest team in economic history. all timidly, what inspired me to write this book was it -- ultimately, what inspired me to write this book was the characters. seeing their reputation crashing down to earth. these guys were the best and brightest. how did they turn out to have such clay feet? i thought that was a fascinating story. host: charles, a republican in georgia. caller: good morning.

i have a couple of comments. historically, you may disagree with them, but talking about financial advisers, regarding the resolution to pull out our savings and loans. if you look at the interest rates, historically, compared to the 15% range when carter was in, the responsibility of the government is to control the money supply. carter allowed inflation to get way out of control. if you look at a historical time line, there has been a decrease

in interest rates, to where we are now. guest: interest rates are artificially low right now because the federal reserve is trying to facilitate the recovery. there are a lot of issues here. one of the first character of focus on is milton friedman, the great economist, whose concept were influential, but paul volcker, the fed chairman quashed a lot of that carter- era inflation. he found the money supply was not working as an effective

regulatory tool. so there are a lot of questions regarding interest rates, it is all complex, but the bottom line is, they are being kept as low as they are, partly by the government policy, partly because we continue to be in this economic trough. host: michael hirsch, author of "capital offense." thank you for being with us. coming up next, we're talking about the u.s. economy with steve bartlett. first, a campaign 2010 update. >> reid wilson is joining us from the hot line studios, the editor in chief of "and the hot line. -- "the hotline." michelle obama, where is she going, what kind of campaigning

will she be doing? >> she will be going to wisconsin to support russ feingold. then she will be going back home to illinois to support the democrat there, giannoulious. the democrats believe they can pick up some seats this year, so michelle obama is starting this long or in which she hopes to be raising money for democratic candidates. >> on thursday, she will be doing a fundraiser luncheon for michael bennett, who is running for re-election there. he was appointed to the seat from the former interior secretary ken salazar. michelle obama's draw as a fund- raiser commonplaces how come she

is -- as a fund-raiser, how come she is doing fund-raising instead of more traditional stump-style events? >> she is one of the more popular people in the country, but she is not a politician. she is seen as outside of that. it would be unseemly, in effect, for a first way to be taking shots at republicans won the role is really more of a non- partisan role. the issues that she will take on a while in the white house will not be part of her issues. childhood nutrition, getting kids to exercise more, rather than partisan issue that will be the cause of battles on capitol hill. by fundraising, she is staying above the partisan fray. >> from reports i have read, she can bring in some big box.

if you look at senator feingold's luncheon, which we are covering, but according to one report, there is expected to be about 500 people, tickets ranging from $200 to $500. in chicago, tickets range from five under dollars to $10,000, which includes a photograph -- $500 to $10,000, which includes a photograph. >> it is funny because in some cases, it costs more to see her then president obama. >> we will have live coverage

of the debate. give us a preview. >> we have one candidate who is an experienced candidate in chris coons. he was very calm when i interviewed him a couple of years ago. now that mike castle is out of the race, christine o'donnell having beat him, he believes he has a pretty good chance. o'donnell is a bomb thrower, believes that she can get people excited for and against their campaign. i think we will see christine o'donnell tried to take a shot at coons. coons has a very big lead in the senate race. he may play it safer, defending himself, but o'donnell has a new web advertisement out today talking about him as the big tax

man. >> it seems like she is starting to go on the attack. coons has not really responded though. the thing he needs to, to you expect him to respond tonight? >> i think he needs to defend any sort of body blows, but there is not much need for him to go on the offensive, to defend himself from a lot of these attacks, primarily because he is ahead by such a large margin. democrats are still spending money there, they are not taking it for granted, and we have seen some prominent democratic politicians scheduling events with coons, including president obama, vice-president biden, but at the end of the day, he holds a big lead because she is too

conservative for delaware. host: we want to show you a bit of an exchange from the two candidates from another race. >> it is sort of like calling an african-american the n-word. have you looked into the investigation as to who use that phrase? >> first of all, i do not agree. this was a five-month old conversation with data reception. i do not want to get into the term. the campaign apologize promptly, and i repeat that tonight. i am sorry it happened. i apologize. >> it is not just me, it is the people of california who deserve better than slurs and personal attacks. that is not what california is

about. i think people know -- every californian, especially women, and know exactly what is happening here. >> can i interject? have you chastise your chairman pete wilson who called the congress whores to the public sector union? >> that is a completely different thing. the fact you are defending your campaign. the fact you are defending your campaign for a slur, -- a personal attack on may -- it is not be fitting of california, the office you are running for. >> it is unfortunate -- private conversation. i do not even know if it is legal. again, i am sorry it happened. that does not represent anything other than thing that happened in the campaign. >> that was last night's california gubernatorial debate. reid wilson, you heard the

audience reacting to the candidates. how is it playing out with the voters? >> this is exactly the wrong thing that jerry brown wants to be talking about three weeks from election day. the race is all about him now. meg whitman was smart to turn this race into a referendum on essentially what jerry brown or one have is aides said or did not say on a phone message. it knocked him off of his message, and now this is all we are talking about. i like to call this the race of the october surprise. we already had revelations of a former employee of meg whitman who was an undocumented worker. she took heat for that. now it is brown's turn to come under the microscope. this is the kind of momentum changer that night with needed. she has not been getting a lot

of traction lately. some women may have been turned off by brown's comments. , sir.nk you said if you want to watch more of that debate or other debates, visit c-span.org/politics. host: steve bartlett, president of the financial services roundtable. in "usa today" -- talk to us about where you stand on this notion of stopping foreclosures. guest: these calls for moratoriums are crazy. the economy is already fragile. the notion that you would take

millions of houses where the mortgage is the liquid, the bar were cannot pay the mortgage and cannot qualify for a modification, to just put them on the site as it over into the market is just not. i am proud of the obama administration for stepping up to the plate and saying so. host: when we hear these sad stories about the people who are about to lose their homes, those stores are very compelling. guest: yes, if you cannot pay your mortgage, you cannot pay your house, it is not good for you, but it does not make it better if you delay it by a couple of years. as an industry, we cover mortgage modifications. if you still cannot qualify for

a lower payment, you cannot keep your house. the best thing to do is to deed it over, perhaps go into a short sale, but at the very least, go into foreclosure. it is better than leaving it unresolved. host: give us some context to this "usa today" story. guest: but it is the classic case of a process over substance. these are homes in which the borrower is delinquent, cannot pay the mortgage, and cannot qualify for mortgage

modification. in some cases, the wrong affidavit was filed, filed in properly, but that does not cure the underlying issue if you cannot pay your mortgage. if you cannot pay your mortgage, you need to get out of your house. host: what are some of the primary concerns here? guest: a formal moratorium would be devastating to the economy. host: why? guest: because you end up with a million homes on the market as overhang. they are vacant, nobody can sell them, nobody can live in them. it is just an overhang, gumming up the market, if you will. now these home owners are standing by, maybe i should wait for these home to get back onto the market. just when we are seeing the beginnings of a recovery, this would destroy it. the calls for a moratorium, the

fact that we slow down, that has had some negative affect on the market already. this is playing with dynamite. we need to be much more careful. remember, a process over substance. the process is whether or not the affidavit was paid properly -- set up properly. the substance is whether or not the bar can pay their mortgage. host: our guest is a former mayor of dallas, as well as a former member of congress from 1991 through 1993. republicans, 202-737-0001. democrats, 202-737-0002. independents, 202-628-0205. we are talking about a wide range of issues regarding the economy, starting with housing, but we can also talk about unemployment, financial regulation.

scooter from nevada. republican caller. caller: the question i have is pretty generic. we have all these complex things, cdo's, various obligations, what have you. what is the definition of middle class? is there a lower class, high class? i am a little confused about what the term "middle-class" means. guest: the president has been saying -- his terms -- anyone making less than $250 million -- $250,000 is middle-class. in many parts of the year, that would seem to be middle-class, slightly higher. in most areas, the median income

is $50,000 a year. that is probably a bit below. i do not know. on a separate subject, i know tax rates -- if they are allowed to increase, it would have a devastating effect on everyone because it would essentially raise almost everyone's taxes, in some way. whether you call it middle class, working folks, upper- middle-class, middle and come, the fact is, this is no time to have -- income, the fact is, this is no time to have an increase. host: talk to us about some of the things that you discussed at the financial roundtable. guest: we announced a hot line three years ago. if you call the phone number, you can get hooked up with a independent, non-profit

counselor who can walk you through your budget, mortgage, help you get through your financial troubles. if you require a modification, and they will connect you to your lender. the second thing we have is hope now alliance. hopenow.org. we have the names, phone numbers, direct lines of all of the lenders to mortgage modifications. host: hopenow.com? guest: yes, sorry about that. the third thing down the line is neighbor works. that is one of the best independent home ownership, budget counselling organizations. they will provide your telephone counseling or face-to-face counseling.

again, mortgage modification is what the industry is doing. we have done 3.7 million modifications since 2007 where someone could not afford their current mortgage payment, but they could afford a reduced payment. the first time in the nation's history that we have done this many. industry has stepped up, but it is still going on. host: next phone call. maryland. caller: i am thinking that he is being a bit disingenuous. i would rather have my neighbors who got evicted from their houses, i would rather have them in their house, even though they cannot afford it, it is better to have a family in that a house, instead of out on the street. they should still paid the bank

what they can, but it is always better for everyone to have a family in a house, rather than on the street. guest: valid point. most homes in foreclosure, it turns out that people move out. when you are in foreclosure because you lost your job, you do not have any income, there are two things. you cannot keep the house, otherwise it is a free ride. secondly, you make arrangements for a place to live. most people at the end of the process, unless they are gaming the system, they find another place to live and move out long before the foreclosure happens. it is not a pleasant thing. we advise people to not wait until the foreclosure. if you cannot make a payment, contact your lender, get a mortgage modification, if you

have the income for it. if not, arrange for a short sale. if all else fails, the it over, so that eliminates the process of having people call up your furniture, with all of the trauma that that causes. as bad as foreclosure is, this is still better. host: "bloomberg business week" took a look at spending. it says -- a lot of money we are talking about. guest: it is called the right of people to petition their

government for redress and grievances. goodness knows, we have a lot of grievances. most everyone in america is a member of one or more organizations that have lobbying power in washington. everything in your life is somehow affected by the government. people need to band together and redress their disagreements, and that is called lobbying, if you get paid for it. the dodd frank bill, 300 pages, is calling for a lot of different role makings. we think they got it mostly right. we needed better systemic risk regulation, higher capital standards, the ability to repay for loan underwriting. there are several parts of it we think congress got absolutely wrong, other things that are in

the middle that we are going to make work. we are doing everything we can in the industry to make it work. the industry is doing what ever it takes to respond to the economic crisis, get the economy right sized again. part of it is getting financial regulation to work. host: mark in fort lauderdale, florida. caller: congratulations on your recent anniversary, first of all. you provide a wonderful service. my question has to do with the fact, the earlier in his introduction, he said the call for a moratorium was more process than substance. i am calling from florida where we discovered there have been terrible things in the process, attorneys swearing falsely to signatures that were done by secretaries or machines, false

affidavits, and correct paperwork. how can you excuse this when banks and attorneys have always relied on legalese to protect themselves and protecattack oth, when they are actually the ones at fault? you want to excuse in as the process. guest: of what actually happened was, in all of these cases -- and florida is in the center of it -- there has been about half a dozen cases prayer a judge has ruled the process was incorrect -- not illegal. in all of these cases, the borrower could not and was not paying their mortgage, was a delinquent, and did not qualify for a mortgage modification. if he cannot pay your mortgage, you cannot pay any reasonable

mortgage, then you cannot keep your house. after all the work was done to try to negotiate a mortgage, work with the borrower, you get all the way to the end, and then the last thing that would happen in the foreclosure process in florida is someone would sign an affidavit that said that they reviewed the file to make sure that it was complete. apparently, some of the banks had someone signing the affidavit, saying that they were complete, relying on the hundreds of people that worked on it before it got to them, so now they have to go back and read the file and sign the affidavit. but there is no allegation of illegality, no allegation of anything other than the borrower is delinquent and cannot pay their mortgage. the substance is, if you cannot

pay your mortgage, you cannot keep your house. the process is, if you read the file, then you can sign the affidavit. host: in "politico" -- a significant amount of money going into the race. most of the money going to republicans. guest: these are individual pac contributions, donating directly to an individual. we tried to pick it based on the candidate. the bring home to mama rule. something that you could bring home to your family. do they believed in and a brokered economy?

this year, we have contributed more to republicans than democrats but it was based on a bottom-up review of the candidates themselves. host: from e-mail -- guest: if we continue to have a formal moratorium, which would be devastating, but even this informal pause would drop home prices -- most economists say that they would drop precipitously. freeze things up as the homebuyer weeks on the sidelines. host: what about the increase in foreclosures? guest: we think foreclosures have been at a pretty high rate, much higher than we would like to see. we think they might stay at that level as the delicate mortgages work through the system, and then it will decline. we are doing more modification then foreclosures, but if you cannot pay your mortgage, you

cannot keep your house. host: fairfax, virginia. ed, good morning. caller: first-time caller. i appreciate the opportunity. i lived in reston, virginia. this is ground zero of the mortgage foreclosure fraud that is going on. the electronic registry for all of these loans is located here, right in reston town center. what i wanted to say was there is a website called 4closure straw.org. it outlines in sync detail what has been going on with all of these mortgages. guest: fair enough.

mortgages were set up to respond to and correct a problem of government. the problem is, mortgages are now national, serviced on a national basis, invested in nationally, sometimes globally, and many states have a requirement that you file the assignment of a mortgage at the county courthouse. that sounds logical. that sounds nice, except for the fact there are counties all over the country where there is a clerk who is running out those assignments one at a time. so then we set things up to do so electronically. several judges -- the assignments were not filed properly, so now they have to go back and do that. it does not affect our work

because they are ill-equipped or not. the assignment in the back office is what is done by them, and now they have to go back into it. host: a tweet -- guest: it is a hard question to answer. securities are securities. trillions of dollars of securities. nobody actually owns the whole thing. there is not a whole mortgage that somebody owns. it is interest in a mortgage. maybe you have an interest that security with a million mortgages in it, a pension fund in the u.k. may own 1% of it, somebody in germany owns 2% of it,

said it is not just like 30 years ago when the bank would offer you a mortgage. then they hold that mortgage in their vaults. by the way, this system means that at any given time, good markets and bad, you can go in and get a good rate and mortgage that is convenient and a much lower cost than it would be in the old style. host: from gary, pennsylvania, good morning. caller: mr. bartlett, you stated many times that the bottom line is that if the homeowner cannot pay their mortgages that they are delinquent and they need to deal with that fact. you stated it like three ways. my question is, you know, you are totally against this moratorium yet it appears we had a total moratorium on the collapse of the financial system. the banks get a free pass, but

the individual who is stuck in this house where they are being foreclosed on and they have no power to really effect this, you appear to save and -- appear to be hypocritical on this. the entire industry seems to be a bystander of pollution. host: so bailouts for the financial industry? guest: beginning three years ago, half of homeowners that go into delinquency and then the been the foreclosure had never spoken to a lender. that is just nuts. we will modify your mortgage if you have any income to pay at all. i understand that headline is not true. this industry has been devastated. some of the things that some companies were doing in terms of making loans that people could not repay should not have done it. they went out of business.

they were closed down. wachovia, countrywide, wamu and others simply went away. there has not been a moratorium on punishment for the industry. they have been punished and they should have been, thank you very much. we are trying to do everything we can to finance getting this economy back on scale. it sometimes appears because many of the banks are still there and should be because they did not do wrong. they are rebuilding. a whole bunch of the industry went away. host: this is from martha's vineyard. what process do you use to review these mortgages? why did they not hire sufficient people to do the job properly? guest: they dramatically hired

tens of thousands of people to do these jobs. i would not try to make an excuse for why it is that you have to review a 5 before a sign the affidavit so you should have -- preview a file before you sign an affidavit, so you should have read the file. that still does not stop the fact that the borrower was delinquent. it is not like this should be a lottery so you get your mortgage counseled and get -- mortgage canceled and get your house for free. the punishment should not be eager to wipe out the mortgage. host: from massachusetts on our independent line. good morning. caller: thank you to c-span. i think this is an important topic. why does it take so long to modify a loan as opposed to originating alone? the banks can originate alone in 30 days. income verification

requirements are virtually the same. when the bar once alone, they go to a bank, a loan officer in a mortgage company and they have an account executive or a manager who will be a liaison with the underwriter if necessary. the point of contact is with the loan officer. the current system is flawed because every time a borrow were attempts to check the status they run up against an army of customer service representatives. guest: an excellent question. the banks and services have made improvements and it is still not as fast as it should be. my best advice is to get to when these counselors that we spoke about, hope now, because they can expedite the process. there are several reasons why it takes longer to do a modification than an original mortgage. one is to make sure someone is not playing the system and

coming in to say they cannot pay their mortgage. the other reason is you have to go through all the paperwork again which goes to a special department. this is embarrassing, but up until july, some servicers did not have a collection system for collecting all the paperwork in one place. federal law says you cannot process a loan or a modification until you have all the paperwork in one place gathered together. borrowers were sending in their paper work one document at a time. sometimes it would go to the wrong place. we have a solution for that now. we put that into place in july. jpmorgan chase, bank of america, wells fargo, and suntrust are all using it. if you are working with a counselor through this hot line, the counselor can scan in your paperwork on the spot and get

verification that your paperwork is there. from that point, it takes 30-60 days to process your modification. there's no guarantee that you qualify because you still need the income, but we have improved this beginning in july and it is called the hope loan port. the other thing counselors can do now is we have an identification number that we can track your loan to make sure it is on process to get it modified. it is taking too long and we are speeding it up pretty significantly. host: joseph, a democratic colleague from atlanta. welcome. please turn down your television. caller: yes, i would like to thank mr. bartlett for his indictment. but he made a statement earlier in reference to the tax breaks

that if we raise taxes at this time that it would be bad for the economy. we gave tax breaks for 10 years to the upper 2% of americans. during that 10 years, we lost jobs at the rate of 800,000 jobs per month. we are not raising taxes. the're going to reenact taxes that the wealthier 2% were paying before president bush gave the tax breaks. guest: i understand your point, joseph. that so-called 2% is actually 50% of personal income and 50% of small-business taxes so it is actually half. if the tax rates are allowed to increase again on january 1st

which is put into the current law, that will increase your capital gains, dividends and increases your state taxes back to confiscation levels and it increases the personal tax income rate. most economists will say that if you increase taxes to that extent with of that amount of money in the middle of a recession that you will throw us back into recession. i understand it is a political debate, but that is the fact. if you increase the back to the rates they had in 2000, that is still increasing, but i take your point. dividends would go up to 40%. i just do not think the country can take -- can say that. i did want to say something about jobs. our financial services round table, about 100 companies, we have 2000 job openings. these are in every community in

america. we started a new web site called jobsatthetop.org. jobsatthetop.org and on that website we have listed job openings from seven of our companies. they are open today. if you are looking for work, looking for a job, every community in america has financial jobs currently opening. host: steve bartlett, and the ceo financial services round table. i assume the website to have listed today they can find for your web site? guest: fsround.org or send me an email. i would be happy to hear from you. host: republican from texas. good morning. caller: we need that 2% to cover the gaming cost. is the buyer going to qualify?

they were laughing at me. it was not only a low-doc deal but a no-doc deal. your buddies at countrywide were gaming the system. you were telling those to not a game the system. guest: yes, i say do not game the system. no-doc loans should never have happeend. -- happened. after the barns were already out in the past year, we instituted in january 2007 principles of mortgages in the most of our companies were already abiding by them. they said the borrower has to have the ability to repay. shame on us that some of the companies were making loans on any other basis prior to that. that ought to be the system.

that is also now a federal law. you have industry practice, federal law, and federal regulations. host: what you think of elizabeth warren's role? guest: we do not think it should have been an independent agency. we made that argument to congress and we lost. we are working with elizabeth warren and the white house to make this work. the best thing i think she says she is going to do, and i will take her at her word, is to simplify the documents and simplify this amazing array of paperwork for credit cards, mortgage statements, and other things difficult to understand. simplify this, put it into plain english, and you create one document that will cover five different agencies. i think she is off to a good start. there's no doubt there will be bumps in the road, but so far so good. host: peter on our independent

line from michigan. caller: i am 23 years old. i have never missed one payment on any of my credit accounts. i have roughly seven open and current accounts with zero delinquencies on my credit report. chase says i need to pay 29% on my credit cards. can you justify that? guest: i can try. your 29% will be based on your bike goes for or your credit score. -- your fico score. go to one of these counselors and they can help you with your budget. we have another website, mymoneymanagement.com, that will give you budgeting skills. the late payments will increase -- decrease your credits for ala. having to much open credit will decrease your credit score.

if you have roughly -- also, third as having balances of more than 50% of your available credit. those are the factors that are the three big ones. pay on time. set up your online bill pay to pay your bills of 10 days early to make sure you are not anywhere close to the line. secondly is to try not and have as many open accounts. you said you had seven. first, make sure your balances are less than 50% of the credit limits. if you do those three things, it will take a few months, maybe six or so, to get your credits for back in line. if one credit card is charging a 29% and someone else is offering a 15%, transfer the balances. it takes about six months of getting your credit habits in

order to raise your credit score again, but want to do you will start getting credit offers with lower interest rates. i had this same conversation with my son. if you do those things, your credit score will improve. the other thing is that having money and your credit card that you can pay back at the end of the month, and if you need a few extra months, decide upfront if you will buy a big, capital item like a stereo, furniture, something like that and how long you will take to pay it back and do not just leave it on your credit card indefinitely. host: one last call from tampa, fla. go right ahead. caller: my job recently had to cut our hours instead of us losing their jobs. i call my mortgage company and

wondered if they could change the due date because now i need both of my paychecks to pay my mortgage. they stated the only way they could do that is to refinance. i want to know why that is a problem and why i cannot just change the due date. guest: if you send me an e-mail, i will ask your servers are to find out. i think in most cases they would change the due date, but i just do not know. i am glad you still have a job. i just do not know. try the hot line for hope now or neighbor works. e-mail me and tell me your lender and i will try to see if they do that. thank you for asking. host: steve bartlett, ceo of the financial services round table, thank you for being with us. coming up, looking at open season in congress.

we will be right back. >> it is 9:16 a.m. eastern time. "the los angeles times" writes that theme final debate between brown was blistering. whitman did not explicitly accept the apology as she called his campaign insulting to all californians. tom brokaw told jerry brown that the word represented to many women the same sort of in stock that the "n word" represents to african-americans. wealthy political candidates with little to no experience are turning to consultants of all kinds to help them win over voters. paid experts from everything to economic policy have been hired by some of the nation's political newcomers. on long then -- among them,

ginda macmahon and mrgeh whitman. the first lady begins campaigning today. she will be at a fund-raiser for senator russ feingold in milwaukee. she says it is not something she does very often. her first priority in the white house has been making sure that her heroes are happy and healthy. she says she's fired up and ready to go. she is scheduled for 10 runs -- attend fund-raisers over the next 12 days. president obama wants congress to make the $2,500 college tuition tax credit permanent. the american opportunity tax credit was a part of the over $800 billion economic stimulus bill the president signed. the treasury department analysis says 12.5 million people used the credit. a rose garden announcement is

expected later today. c-span will be covering it. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> live coverage from the texas book festival on book-tv. including sam harris on science and human values. from the weekend, panels on medical mysteries, capital punishment, and fugitives. get the entire schedule on line. >> hey, middle and high school students. c-span's annual video documentary competition has $50,000 in prizes. this year's fame -- washington, d.c., through my lens. for complete rules, log onto studentcam.org.

>> every weekend on c-span3, experience american history tv. 48 hours of people coming events telling the american story. here historic speeches and eyewitness accounts of events that shaped our nation. visit museums, historical sites, and college campuses as we delve into america's past. american history every tv -- every weekend all weekend long. "the shane d'aprile is hill" campaign reporter. talk this through the dynamics at play here. these are states that could go either way. how are they leaving? guest: they're leaning republican. in a -- 8 out of 10 they are leaning republican.

president obama won seven of these districts. there are a handful where the president still enjoys solid approval numbers. the had that -- the fact the republicans are ahead is significant. i would say that if you were looking into some of the numbers, there is at least one banner results for democrats which comes a leave-- in the seat vacated by mark kirk. that is such a key race for democrats. it is one they cannot afford to lose giving the territory and the terrain. host: tell us about arkansas. guest: the first congressional district could be a truck before republicans. this has been in democratic hands for over 100 years. this is conservative democratic

territory. the congressman retiring is a former staffer of his, causey. crawford leads by double digits. polling suggests the national environment, the disapproval of president obama, which is high in that district, on the approval of congress, is dragging him down. president clinton is there campaigning for him. host: "the hill" is doing weekly polls. one thing you discover it is the majority of of voters would like to see the emergence of a viable third party. guest: this is a fascinating question. the number was quite high particularly among independents. across the 10 districts that we

polled, 67% said they wanted to see a viable third party. our upholsterer remarked yesterday that it was some of the highest support he has seen -- our holster remarked that was among the highest support we have seen. among democratic and republican voters, the number was lower, but 49% of democrats saying they want a viable third party. we followed that question of asking whether or not they thought the tea party could be that viable third-party option. significantly fewer voters said that they would like to see the tea party as that option. 55% of republicans did. is thehane d'aprile campaign reporter for "the hill." they take a series of weekly polls leading up to the

election. tell us about the first district in hawaii. guest: the republican one in a special election in may with less than 40% of the vote. this was thanks to two democrats splitting the vote. there was some division among the party and a nationally over who was the best candidate. both of them remained in that special election race. the republican won with about 39%. this is a heavily democratic district. it includes president obama's hometown of honolulu which would revert back to democrat. the republican is currently leading there by four points and he has some significant advantages. his spare rubles are above the 60%.

-- his favorables are above 60%. he is pulling 60% of the vote away from his challenger. but he is in good position for what would be a morale boosting win for republicans if they were able to keep that seat. host: the numbers are on your screen. we are talking about midterm elections and open seats. you mentioned a couple of open seats that could change parties. how significant would that be? guest: we all read this book about the first district of arkansas, but that it would be significant because the democrats have held that seat for over 100 years. then you go up to wisconsin and in the race the retiring

chairman of the appropriations committee who is a 20-term incumbent. that would be another tremendous win. they are in position to do it. the republican up there, deffy, leads by 9 points over lassa. there are some signs that there are dissatisfaction with president obama and converse. it is dragging -- with president obama and conagra's. this race in wisconsin is a major focus. they have put in a lot of extra expenditure money there. that is one of the top open seat contests. host: coming from twitter, of course we want a viable third party. they work for the government and not us. guest: we were struck by the number of independents in these districts that one of the viable third-party option. again, this is something that

suggests independence to not feel let home in the current republican democratic environment. host: east in pennsylvania, on the republican line. caller: 5 the question about my home district. -- i have a question about my home district. it is currently held by republican charlie dense. it is a three-way race. is there any comment on the three-way race in pennsylvania? guest: that is not one of the ones that we have polled, but there is an interesting dynamic going on there and we see it in a lot of races where you have a 30 candid it's that is during a wild card aspect in there and potentially drawing some votes away even if it is just 2% or 3%, and there are a lot of

districts where we will see that. there are number of districts in pennsylvania, and there are a number of them derive the state, where this satisfaction with president obama -- where dissatisfaction with president obama is playing a major role and democrats are struggling because of that. host: we are talking about illinois, arkansas, hawaii, tennessee, wisconsin. give us a call and talk with us about these races. a democratic caller from washington, d.c. good morning. host: i do not understand where people would vote for republicans. what you're trying to blame on obama is that the americans are making less when you adjust for inflation than we did 30 years ago and has been going on for awhile. host: how big a role as the

economy playing in these races? guest: it is undoubtedly played a huge role. we did not have a question about jobs that we asked specifically. there were questions about spending and deficit that we will be talking about tomorrow in the context of these polls, but it with jobs and the economy are at the top of the list among those most motivated to vote. we saw this a little bit in the polls, but particularly in the first week when we polled the districts of 12 and freshman democrats, there is a large enthusiasm gap between democrats and republicans. in the most competitive districts so far, republican voters are much more energized to vote, much more likely to come out, and democrats are still trying to find a way to energize their base. host: frank in fort lauderdale,

fla. good morning. caller: i like to ask a question about the race in ohio. he does world war ii reenactments. i believe he is running against a democrat who is one of the sponsors of the world war ii museum. why was this not covered? people talk about the red army, but what kind of madness is that? we have a woman here who did something for world i wari -- world war ii veterans. guest: we wrote about that on our website. national republicans have come out and denounced the actions of that candidates, particularly congressman eric kantor -- cantor. host: his congressional races

will be determined by the governor races. guest: the landscape in the governor races, they do have some very distinct advantages and they have a party committee in the democratic gov.'s association that has a staggering amounts of cash on hand than the money to spend in a lot of these gov.'s races in 2010 which will go towards the mobilization and efforts to get out the vote. the thought is that in a lot of the states where there is republican energy for gubernatorial candidates, it will trickle down and help people at the congressional districts. host: let's take a call from arkansas. guest: i just wanted to talk about the polling excited concerning the people wanting a third party -- the polling cited about a third party.

for one thing, third parties always fayed. let me give you an example. the green party in the arkansas is struggling in the reason they fade is because of a lot of the state laws involved in getting ballot access. the green party in the arkansas has to get 3% of the vote or they will be pretty much eliminated from getting on the ballot again. i think that is one of the reasons why they usually fade at the end of where there is a burst of enthusiasm for a third party and then it wanes. host: on twitter, does a third party given advantage to democrats? guest: the caller brings up an excellent point. the majority of voters say they would like a third-party bid, but then actually in establishing the third party,

what would that be and how would you get ballot access. the column mentions the difficulty in doing that in a loft space and he is correct about that. the really interesting thing here is that even for people we pulled that said they are interested in the tea party potentially being the third party, that is something that is really highly unlikely. the vast majority of people in the tea party movement are people who reject any thing that seems like "the establishment." they would then want to go ahead and create essentially their own party. it goes against what the party seems to stand for. host: lots of independent voters are up for grabs. guest: that is a pattern we are seeing in all of these races.

where republicans have solid advantages, they largely come from independent voters. we saw that correlate where republicans are leading by large amounts with independent voters. we see those same independent voters having this dissatisfaction with the democratic party nationwide. those are patterns we are seeing again and again in the district's are leading the republicans. independentgo to an scholar from long island. -- caller from long island. caller: when the president or the first lady goes on a money raising trip for the democratic party, they talk to the voters about getting out to vote, who pays the bill? guest: that depends upon who the fund raiser is, who is hosting

the fund-raiser when the president does and does a fund- raiser for the democratic congressional campaign committee, or the dnc. the event costs presumably are covered by the democratic committee, then of course the president's travel is picked up by the taxpayers as it always is. host: democratic caller from alabama. good morning. caller: thank god for c-span. i do not understand why the democrats are not fighting back. there is a video in the c-span video library of ronald reagan saying we would get out of manufacturing and go to a service economy. every problem this country has stems from one thing and one thing only. we got out of manufacturing. we did not make anything anymore

keep -- hear, people. guest: there is some frustration that i have heard among strategists that perhaps democrats are not fighting enough in the context of going out there and talking about the legislative accomplishments of the past couple of years in congress and using those to motivate the base of their party to drum up more support. the other dynamic have going on here and we see this in conservative districts that are largely democratic, like the first district in west virginia, there's also the eighth district in tennessee. these blue dog democratic candidates in these districts are doing everything they can to run from the national party and create a distance from house speaker nancy pelosi.

in tennessee where the dccc just told some of their advertising time, the democratic candidate said it was because he has been saying he will not vote for nancy pelosi as speaker of the house again. democrats feel like they have to create as much separation as they can from the national party, from the party leadership in washington, and obviously a lot of these people are against the major democratic initiatives that have been passed like healthcare, and a ball straight reform. they are speaking about this in their districts. host: the squeaky wheel gets the most attention, but the silent majority may surprise you. who is hitting the trail in these districts? you mentioned former president clinton in arkansas. as vice president by than going

out? guest: absolutely. he has gone to pennsylvania. some places where people would probably not bring in president obama and former president clinton is doing the same thing. we talked about this on our website over the weekend. president clinton is the most in demand in the final few weeks before election day. he is probably the only national democrat who could go into a state like west region like he did earlier this week and campaign for governor mansion who finds himself in a shockingly difficult race against republican businessman. that is another one who is trying to run away from president obama as fast as he can. he shot a bullet through the cap and trade bill in one of his campaign ads. these are the types of candidates that want to see bill

clinton as opposed to president obama or even vice-president joe biden. caller: this morning. i have heard over and over again that the independence and the tea party candidates do not have the experience to function in converse. after seeing the same basis for 10, 20, 30 years, look at the people with experience and what they have done for us. guest: that is the argument we are hearing from tea party- backed candidates. they're talking about the tea party on the trail in the context not only saying that these are people who may not have the experience to come to washington, because that is not necessarily what they are saying because you do not want to make an establishment argument, but the argument for democrats is banking these tea party candidates as extreme. labeling them as people who are

just falling positions on social security and cutting medicare that are just out of the mainstream. that has been a major focus for democrats in a lot of these races. again, i think that if a lot of the steep party-backed candidates in to win and then dip in congress, the house, in the senate after november, you will see a very interesting dynamic particularly in the u.s. senate. host: republican, james, from washington, d.c. welcome. you are on with shane d'aprile. caller: i was calling to see about the 12th district of pennsylvania. that was the special election race. guest: the special election that

the republican was expected to win when there was a last minute clinton appearance. this is a race that i think has moved off of the national radar of a lot of people. people that i have spoken to receive the congressman as safe in that district. he rdd him at burns once-- he already beat tim burns once. host: blackburg, va., on our democratic line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i find a ridiculous to refer to the two-party as a viable third party. it is simply a more conservative wing of the republican party.

they are riding on their coattails. they will never vote independently. they will never vote for the middle of the road. they will never vote liberal. >> the caller makes an excellent point. we saw this in our polling. the majority of voters want a viable third party option, the majority of them do not want it to be the key party and do not see the tea party as a viable option. the 55% of republicans who said they were interested in having the tea party as that third party option, that perhaps reflects more of a desire to see the principles and ideas espoused by many of the tea party candidates in their own republican party. we see that based on what happens in our primary season where in the primary after primary they have been

republican establishments. host: to the neighboring state of virginia. guest: this is an interesting one. it is one of two in the 10 that we polled in our second week of polling where the democrat was leading. it is the polar opposite from the illinois 10th district where the only other democratic is leading in this said. while traditionally democratic, we are talking about west virginia and democrats who are more conservative. there is a high level of disapproval of president obama and follow one of the highest numbers we have seen. there is a disapproval of the job that congress is doing. the fact that the democrats hold a slim lead here comes from the fact that he, again, to this point has succeeded in trying to distance himself from the national party. the republicans there on the state and local level -- state and national level have been

attacking nancy pelosi and barack obama. host: cherry hill, new jersey. a republican caller. hi there. caller: i want to respond to a previous caller. i want someone in there that has no experience. i want some has experienced billing their tanks with gas, shopping, and it keeping their house for being foreclosed. guest: that is a sentiment we are seeing from a lot of independent voters who are, in fact, supporting the party candidates. there is such an anti- establishment feeling this election cycle than there are people who from any past political experience is an immediate negative. host: are you seeing that in the races you're covering this week? guest: yes.

i think you could at least point to the arkansas -- arkansas first district. you have the democratic nominee is a former staffer for the retiring senator -- retiring rep. that is working against him even though he is associated with someone who has been a long time popular democratic congressman. the fact that they worked in washington and worked in the capital is something that is working against him. host: what about the new hampshire second? guest: that is another interesting question. the democrat up their is very much trying to make that work against him. that is going to be an interesting test to see the handful of years that he has been away from washington and out of converse, is that enough

to not have him lump in to this anti-establishment knew that we have. again, an interesting issue that she is as close as she is. there are decent numbers for president obama there. she is someone that has done a good deal of support from the left of the democratic party, too. host: in the seat was vacated by paul hodes? guest: he is running for the senate. host: on twitter, progress is one they viable third-party the most seem to feel it never happens because of campaign finance laws and media bias. she says the system is stacked against progressives. guest: it is stacked against anyone who wants to start a viable third-party anywhere from

getting them on the ballot in some states to adjust the mass of entrenched organization that the two major parties in this country already have. the best opportunity comes in a presidential here in the presidential race where they have had success in the past like ross perot. there is such a high level of discontent with both major parties and if that continues nearing 2012, it could be one of those years. host: democratic caller on the line from california. caller: are the republicans ready to give up their social security benefits to wall street and let them have disappeared? also, why is president obama of allowing [unintelligible]

these companies have been corrected in the past and have swayed elections because the republican surge is unbelievable considering some of the candidates. it is almost ridiculous. guest: a look, the social security question comment. this has been a tough argument for democrats. the democratic national campaign committee, they're independent expenditure ads have focused very heavily on social security and accusing a number of republican candidates in the most competitive races of wanting to privatize social security and winning to reduce that benefit for seniors. this has been a focus not only on the house level but in the senate, too. democrats have gone after john miller in alaska and other key party-backed candidates. social security is something democrats see as a motivator for their base if they can get their

message out. host: the caller also talked about the actual ballot counting. has there been a lot of conversations that you have heard among reporters and political watchers about insuring that everything is on the up and up when it comes to election day? guest: we look back to the primary season, there were some issues that cropped up particularly in new york where the state finally made the switch from one were essentially these voting machines with levers to newer touch screen technology. there were issues there on primary day in september. they are trying to work through that. i think he will certainly see, and i think this is a good time to perhaps mention the race in alaska. there is a write in dynamic.

all sides are amassing their legal teams in anticipation of what could potentially be a write in ballot fight over whether this is a legitimate vote or not. that of the fascinating thing to watch if in fact the center gets close enough with the write in total. host: they said they would not been bothering to count the write in's unless they could legitimately challenged. then they will go through ballot by ballot. in new hampshire, leaving that seat open vulnerable to republicans. what is the tendency for the eighth district? the democratic congressman has vacated the sea. it has left this open possibly

to a republican. guest: they have a prize recruit in this race, fincher. i'm not sure how much it can do to distance himself from the national party and the leadership in washington. he has come out and said he will not vote for speaker policy. he has made clear -- speaker nancy pelosi. he has made it clear his disagreements with some of the policies pursued by president obama. he is still not winning over independence and the day are significantly breaking for fincher. host: and he is a farmer? guest: yes. he did a scott brown with his red truck talking about the number of miles you put on it.

you drive it. he's doing his best to appeal to the conservative leaning independents. host: when we talk about members of congress to leave to run for what iste, that's happening. tell us about that. guest: this is the tighteest -- tightest race. he has a single digit lead with a lot of undecided voters. this district has been traditionally republican but has trended democrat. that was significantly aided by

president obama and the massive number of democrats that the campaign registered in pennsylvania and the new and john registration they got in that state. this is really a district that is a complete tossup. host: is there any conversation that they are leaving their seats open to switch parties? guest: some democrats on the national level would have a preferred some of them stay in their seats especially in the some of these conservative democratic strongholds. you look at what happened in the first district in west virginia where the congressman, before losing in a primary and getting trounced, he ran unopposed the last time. there is very much a sense among a lot of democrats that this was potentially a way for

republicans and that if they were either going to retire or potentially jump to higher office is that this should be the year to do it. host: rocco, maryland. an independent scholar. how are you? you are on with shane d'aprile. caller: i feel that part of this is due to the lawyer mentality. most people in congress are lawyers. they present one side and only one side. there are businesses and other organizations. the dialectic message is used. when you present your point, you talk about your strong point, weak point, both sides. you prepare and go with the best process. in the congress, we do not have that. we have them talking about generalities, obamacare, and stupid stuff. they're not talking about what health care really is an understanding these topics. host: what do you think it would

change -- take to change the composition of congress? caller: of love to have a third party, but i have not met too many people that have my kind of years. i think the government is too big, but i am a social program- type person. i think you ought to have some follow-up. for instance, how does the dod manage? there are too big to manage. they did not even know where their money's going. guest: the caller makes an excellent point about compromise. we have not seen a lot of compromise in congress over the last few years. this foreshadows the question that we had asked in the 10 districts that we will be talking about tomorrow, about whether voters after election day would tell their newly elected representatives to go to washington in either stand for them on their principles or seek compromise across the aisle. there were some interesting results we will talk about

tomorrow. host: brine from mclean, va. on the line for republicans. caller: you are very well schooled in all of these races that are virtually unknown. i want to turn back to michigan. two questions. and looks like there will be a republican governor for sure. i want to know your opinion of pete hokstra. the ninth district in michigan, peter has won because of the obama landslide and everyone voting straight party line. ahmanson know what your opinion is on that race. -- i wanted to know what your opinion is? could he possibly be a one-term

congressman. guest: that is a good dynamic the caller brought up. hokstra suffered from the overwhelming anti-establishment sentiment that has engulfed the primary season. that is a large part of what happened there. on the ninth district, you could make the argument, as the caller suggests, that this is one of those that fits into a number that we have seen across the country where in 2008 the democratic candidate was in the health -- indeed helped by obama. when we looked into the democratic freshmen, there were a number ray could make that argument. tom pieriello in virgina and others won a very tight race

where obama was able to win by close margins. it was able to carry a lot of democrats over the finish line. that dynamic will not be here this year. ost: our guest shane d'aprile is with "the hill." he served as the senior editor of politics magazine and worked in public radio here in washington, d.c., and in new york. augusta, georgia. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? i am kind of nervous. you have to bear with me. i would like to make several points. i have never in my life seen a president's act like president obama. he acts like a juvenile fighting

with teenagers. all he does is slam republicans constantly, every single day. they should just get a tape recorder for all of the democrats and play that instead of listening to it over and over. the lady that was talking about the republicans getting all the money from wall street, i think they need to check their facts. the democrats have received more. goldman sachs gave him $1 million. i do not appreciate my representatives going to washington and getting the door slammed in their face and having no say so in the health-care bill or the stimulus package. we have the ideas and you will just have to take what we have. host: to reference what was mentioned earlier, we were talking about