politics of outsourcing. "washington journal" is next. . . how can democrats keep the

majority in congress? republicans need to win 39 seats to take over the house, 10 seats in the senate. in the final push, what can the democrats do to keep their majority? the numbers to call, for democrats, 202-737-0002. for republicans, 202-737-0001. for independents, 202-628-0205. you can also e-mail us at journal@c-span.org, or you can send us your comments on twitter twitter.com/c-spanwj. the new -- with a look at the rally from yesterday, "the new york times" has this report --

host: jumping into the story, taking a look at democrats and how they might be able to retain the house to keep this a competitive race, yesterday's center cornyn said that there are 12 seats in play and he added that he was not predicting to get back the majority in the senate, it might be eight two cycle process and that signs of momentum more evident.

host: let's get to the phones. folks are already calling in. caller: good morning. my idea for how democrats can take back the house is to live up to their ideas. people like robert gibbs saying that the professional left, it is really the ideas of people living in reality. you can argue that it is the republicans' job to keep up front -- keep up fund-raising. host: "the washington post" also

profiled the visit to ohio. the obama's, spending their political capital, the right -- host: let's go to arlington, va. caller: good morning. they have tried the class

warfare, that has not gone over well because most of the unemployed out there realize the you do not ask someone poorer than you for a job. they cannot point to the money that was spent that was less than the impact because the jobs that were passed has not -- have not materialized. there are many avenues that the democrats are trying to go at to keep his position, but they sprung them too early, the fax turned out to be wrong, and you are looking at a machine.

host: from "the washington times," -- host: so, looking at where the president is choosing to spend his time, where could benefit from his visit and what might be a clincher. living up to date in his travel plan, the president's agenda, ga., bill is on the democrats' line. caller: the democrats will turn out on november 2 as long as they remember who is voting against them.

we are becoming a society of haves and have-nots. people keep talking about second amendment rights and everything, when as a society and a lot insufficient to restrain oppression? that is our only defense. host: can the voters get a message out there? caller: they are, because most people do not have land mines, they have cell phones. there is a captive audience of folks that can watch television, c-span. they will be out there on november 2. host: this came out over the

weekend, a report -- host: the report says that feelings have been hurt along the way, at the congressional campaign committee one was accused of walking away from his race after casting tough votes. it may seem disloyal to some of the candidates they are leaving behind.

boston, massachusets, colo. caller: i feel like this focus is sort of like a kind of fear mongering. i feel like the media has focused on this so much, democrats are afraid to come out and vote because of the possibility. an important part of getting back the house is that they continued to intimidate corporations, which still have free range to donate because of the citizens united case. talking about not giving to republicans or we will make a media spectacle of a view. host: on twitter -- "turnout is

the key." this morning we are talking about fundraising dollars. how can democrats keep the majority? of course, if you have a thought about how republicans can take over the majority, call in about that as well. the president announce where he was going to be over the next few weeks, where he plans to make some appearances. we are wondering if that will help or hurt the democratic party and as their strategy unfolds, what do you expect to see? scott? caller: the only chance, and the one that they are using, is to lie. they have no plan at all other than to tell the truth over their real, liberal agenda. many democrats are trying to pretend to be something they are

not, which is fiscal conservatives. their only chance is to lie. host: what about democrats that voted against climate change legislation or health care in the house? caller: there are so few they are not worth talking about. host: scott was a republican caller. let's hear from john, a democrat in oklahoma. caller: the last gentleman has to be a republican. host: correct. caller: the people out here, struggling, making it, they should understand we have to go the polls. the republicans already got theirs. any time they give someone that

much money to run for office, the salary does not cover the amount of money it costs to put them in there. host: how will you convince other democrats to get out there? is there a chance to keep the house? caller: we have a chance to keep the house and the senate, but the thing about it is that we have to remember that republicans do not do us any good. they lied to us to get us into a war. democrats were not the ones that said iraq. host: this is from twitter, we need to move away from this ridiculous idea of party loyalty. looking at the democratic strategy, but they said --

host: let's go to fairfield, california. terry? caller: you talked about the opposite of how democrats can keep the congress, which is how can republicans take the congress. i can think of a lot of things to say, but i think the best thing that they can do is to put out the true and counter the lie. the biggest lie foisted upon the american people is this idea that eight years of bush was bad. you hear that all the time. let me remind the listeners, after the first four years he got reelected. he got more votes than any presidential candidate had ever received in the history of the united states.

people like it. may i remind listeners that the economy did not start to go south until the democrats took control of congress. host: tom brokaw has an op-ed piece in "the new york times" today called "of the war that america forgot about."

host: let's go on to our next caller. from new hampshire, terry, hello. caller: this is actually carried. host: welcome. caller: some people might be able to hold some more seats, and they will probably do this. if the stock market continues to do well, democrats will try to use that as a tool to say --

look, i told you that it would improve and it is because of our policies, which would not be true. i am looking forward to republicans retaking the house. then there is the african- american vote, the spanish boat. probably the only way of making it. blue dog democrats, going back to the base. host: how can democrats keep the majority? that is the question this morning. we are asking that because the obama's far out on the campaign trail. robert gibbs and doubled them on his election predictions, saying that democrats would keep the house and senate. he said this on "the morning

america of." he was also appearing on -- he said this on "and good morning america." "newt gingrich has a commentary in human events, the national conservative weekly." host: that is the message that newt gingrich is sending out around the country, getting them to use this as a pitching. , saying that it boils down to -- what do i want? more food stamps or more paychecks? do you think that democrats can

have an effective message? let's go to arizona, michael, hello. caller: thank you for taking my call. there are three different reasons why the democrats are in a defensive position rather than an offensive position. it goes to a basic lack of creativity. they have not adequately expressed a need. they talk about health care with this, but they have not adequately expressed the need for government intervention in health care matters to make sure that all people are covered. this is proven by the fact that private sector is not adequately covered by the rest of the company.

democrats basically agreed to using the insurance companies to manage the health care. not because they thought would be more efficient, but because they wanted to avoid charges of socialism. but we recognize that people getting most of the money here are the insurance companies. finally, the democrats have failed to take advantage of their victory over the health care law as passed, for restructuring. this is just a suggestion of an extreme that they could have done. instead of giving to every person that potential avenue of everything that the health care system in this country has to offer, something like medicare

where you get sick and go to the doctor and, boom, it is taking care of. another one is do not treat people's access to health care as insurance companies do, which is as a statistical dead that they have. host: let's go to twitter. linda rights -- host: she is referring to the war in afghanistan as well as the war in iraq. calling attention to the fact that we are not talking about of this year, tom brokaw. gerry, a caller from a few moments ago, talked about the obama's mobilizing the base. having to run against the recession, but they still really like him. one of his primary task is to bring back the millions of young

people that voted for the first time in 2008. host: we have seen some of those efforts, yesterday the president and the first lady spoke at ohio state. steve, good morning. caller: the last caller, perhaps the caller before, talked about a failure of creativity. my concern is the failure of current intellect. sometime over the last few weeks there was a lady, a democratic congressman on c-span in the morning. several callers asked her,

regarding senator dorgan's reference in his book to eight cayman island where there are tens of thousands of businesses -- tens of thousands of businesses. she did not know about it or she would not speak about it. this is the whole shebang. not only the shipping of jobs, but the hiding of locations of businesses in foreign countries for tax purposes. like "60 minutes" -- after this i will shut up -- about the whistleblower and the people that had their money in the swiss banks for the last 50 years. thank you. host: taking a look at "the washington post," they talk about what a republican takeover

of the senate might look like in the best things that could happen for republicans. host: that is from felicia gomez in the monday section of "the

washington post." iowa, ray, democratic line. caller: i believe that we need to point out about the fiscal conservatives that republicans are, she spent $140 million of her own money -- i do not know how conservative that is if you were a stock -- stockholder for that company. she would have to be in office for 300 years to pay that back. let's point out the real cost of this war. the money that we spend in private contractors making $200,000 each year while servicemen are making $30,000, but the real cost of the war is dollars and cents and the american people do not want to buy it.

ronald reagan did not tear down bilal, russia went broke fighting in afghanistan. the people need to realize that. host: taking a look at the coverage around the country this morning, the denver post held a debate yesterday on "meet the press." michael riley reports that today's spotlight was on gay issues with activists declaring public sexuality to alcoholism. after the debate he said that he was not talking of being gay as a disease, but that there was no doubt that there would probably be a commercial like that coming from democrats. he goes on to report --

host: a reminder here, bennett was appointed to interior secretary but made no obvious mistakes, falling out of the mainstream with colorado voters. other stories coming to us from around the country, despite opposing the stimulus, top money for their home districts. michelle bodman has called the stimulus a failure.

host: let's go to the phone lines. grandy, republican, texas. caller: since 1933, the democrats have had control of the presidency and the house. democrats have had control of both houses for 56 years, republicans had 12 years. they had filibuster-proof security. given the track record, we do not need to keep the democrats in their. democrats have had lots of experience driving [unintelligible] control. host: let's move on to jaycee, dallas. caller: the war is the number one issue that i voted

democratic for. i want it to be known that i respect the president and the first lady, but i am extremely disappointed in this war that is bankrupting the american economy. the economy might be bad, but we have our life to see it through. they do not. i am sick of the political division tearing this nation apart. i will vote democratic again as opposed to a faulty party. thank you. host: it sounds like you're going to vote democratic, but you have hopes that that will draw the war to a conclusion? president obama has talked about a true drawdown with no end game. caller: i feel hopeful that if anyone can get those troops out of there, it would be the democratic party. host: we just talked about an

article with the message of stimulus dollars in spending against what legislators are reflecting. we have a piece that touches on this from "the washington post." it looks at the firebrand conservative, pete sessions. host: a difference there in the message and the reality. pennsylvania, shirley.

as a republican, can the democrats keep a majority? of color, they cannot and i prayed that they cannot. i just heard that lady talked and i cannot believe how people cannot see further than the nose on their face. i have a grandson in afghanistan. i worry every day. but i would rather be fighting over there than have them over here bombing us. take your choice. it will be one or the other. you know, i watch all this political business on c-span. this is a wonderful show. but i do want to say this, president obama is out campaigning everywhere instead of being in washington, doing what he was elected to do.

now he has his wife on the campaign trail. you know what? the democrats will have been in charge for four years since january. look what our country has become in four years. host: this story --

host: greensboro, north carolina. democratic caller. caller: i would like to make three points for the quick. for those people that make $70,000 or less, they need to ask themselves what the republicans have done for them. the republicans support the very wealthy. also, republicans have said that they do plan to shut down the government. for those people getting social security and medicare, your benefits will stop when the government shuts down, like it did back in the 1990's.

host: sells like you are quite decided about the election season. do you think that the democrats will be able to drill that home? caller: yes, i think if they keep pointing that out -- the other day republicans talk about what they were going to do and how they were going to help. they wanted to shut everything down and stop the president. if they just keep repeating that, they will find out that that is what they're going to do. host: michigan, donald, independent line. how are you? can democrats keep the majority? caller: i believe that they will keep the majority in both houses. they are not calling people on their cell phones. young people use the cell phones. they are calling older people in

rural areas. they have got their statistics all screwed up. just like the last election, we will see a lot of aggregates. this is the thing, we are all entitled to our own opinions, but we are not entitled to our own facts. george bush, 2004 and 2008, we lost 8 million jobs. they have not come back in the two years that obama has been in office. whether we think he is doing a good job or a fair job, those of the fax. host: to bring you back to your original point, young people have it so phones that they rely on exclusively, will they get out and vote this year?

caller: i think they will. a lot of people do not pay attention to the 24-hour news. host: let's take a look at this comment from twitter -- move on from bush. betty, republican, michigan, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. this man was lying. i have three statements that tell the truth. we did not lose 8 million jobs, it was 5 million. another one, nancy pelosi, when she became speaker of the house

, she helped obama put up $15 trillion in debt. another truth, all of these people, these democrats are lying, lying, lying, lying, george soros supporting obama. he is a multi-billionaire. do not cut me off. host: not to cut you off, do you think that -- hopcaller: you do not cut out te democrats. do not cut me off. host: i do not mean to cut you off, i want to ask if you think these points are getting across to voters in these campaign ads? i think that we lost her. and but i did not cut her off. caller: god bless that woman and

her sorry situation. host: let's focus on the topic. caller: i am from missouri, the democrats can retain it. they have got to do something about the propaganda. i and misery they are saying that what happened was they ran a referendum but said do you want to be forced to purchase insurance? everyone will say no to that question. but if you ask about the pre- existing conditions being cut, they say yes. the fact is to do one you have to have the mandate. they need a modest, rebate tax on the emergency room service.

paying for all people that have insurance. host: npr had a story last week about how democrats are not campaigning on health care vote. you can find that story at npr.org. wes, indiana. caller: good morning. for the democrats to really reinvent themselves without coming back to where they were before, they have to borrow from the jack kennedy party to the ted kennedy party. they need to go back to jack kennedy. john kennedy, if you listen to his speech is and what he stood for, he was for the economy. lowering taxes. i think that if the democrats

get back to the party of jack kennedy, getting rid of this ted kennedy party, america and working people, the people with disadvantages can be better off. host: the washington post has a recent poll on federal workers.

host: that comes to us from "the washington post." our question this morning -- how can democrats keep the majority? michael joins us, republican line. welcome. caller: good morning. how are you? host: fine, thanks. caller: it is a sad commentary, as i believe that there are many republicans with positive messages out there. it amazes me sometimes when i listen to these callers. the 24-hour news cycle, we have to pay attention to that. but i do think that republicans are going to take the house based on a lot of things. the fact that the two-party has put up some good cannons -- candidates. they may not be status quo, but they believe in this country.

look, a lot of these pollsters interviewed the people from the big cities that happen to be more liberal than the people from mainstream america. host: steve, of vancouver. what do you think that democrats need to do to keep the majority in congress? caller: they need to be clear on the message. if more people understood that we are being set up, that the way that the economy is, the rich and the corporations are doing this on purpose, keeping money out of the hands of small business so that small business was not able to create jobs. the economy has halted. the job outlook looks bleak right now. this is all done on purpose. host: muhammed, detroit,

michigan, independent line. caller: thank you for that. i wanted to say that the problem with democrats and republicans is that they are working for the same people. people like the biuildaberger group. we have the illusion of choice. that is why they try to act like they are no different and that they hate each other, to create the illusion of choice. host: let's go to gary don kempthorne. he thinks that the house will change because the obama voters will not come out in the same numbers. speculating that democrats will win in democrat -- in nevada.

democratic line. caller: i think that a lot of people have buyer's remorse with president obama. they see the corruption from people like charlie rangel, barney frank. host: you mentioned to the corruption. in the middle of november, after the election, we will see the congressional hearing on congressman rangel and maxine waters. do you think that that will make a difference? caller: it should be before the election. but the president going on mtv, things like that, it is by pandering for votes. they make the tea party look like they are so far out of the

mainstream, as if decisions will be decided by the mtv and gay crowds, things like that. let's get our economy rolling. that is what we need to worry about. host: alabama, democratic caller. caller: one of the ways that they can keep the majority. host: go ahead. caller: is for people -- looking at the facts. host: how so? caller: this president has cut taxes for over 95% of the people and no one seems to realize. all of these people that are calling in, they do not know

what is going on. they blocked the bill to bring jobs back to this country. i worked for the unions for 25 years and i saw this back in the reagan days. i saw what was going on then, the economy was split from one side to the other, going from the bottom to the top where all of the money was going. host: cheryl, republican, arizona. caller: good morning. our you? host: fine, good morning. caller: your question is perplexing so i thought i would give you a call. host: thank you for calling in. caller: i was concerned about the fact that the question is about the democrats and how they can be held. i think that people are starting to feel weary about both

parties. i know that i am. i kind of believe that basically, politicians are the only ones in the world to create problems. i am on the fence, very concerned about everything in our country. hoping that we can kind of change what is going on here. i do not like anything that is going on and i am not so sure that i will say a republican. i definitely will not stay as a democrat. host: do you like the tea party message? caller: that is kind of personal. but i think that we need to stick with our constitution. i do believe that there are about 543 people in congress that make the decisions in this country and so far they

override public opinion, which bothers me a lot. host: to answer the question as to why we are asking this question this morning, that is because of the recent news, with the obama's on the campaign trail, we thought we would turn the tables and asked if the democrats can do it. many are speculating that it will be a tough haul in the house for them. let's have a look at the story from "the new york times." host: as we move into the last

few weeks of the campaign season, another potential advantage for democrats is that a fund raising head start means that many democrats had more money available for the final weeks. indiana, rik, democratic line. caller: i do not think that republicans will take the congress. host: why is that? is it the messaging? caller: that is part of it. i also think that there is dissatisfaction with republicans in congress that will play to the democrats benefit. in a poll from the washington examiner, back in late july, and of course the examiner is the examiner, republicans had a 5%

approval rating. host: the final push on the vote, also taking a look at what is on the state ballot. host: let's go to manhattan, new york, michael, independent line. caller: good morning to you. by the way, you are a very lovely host. it came out in foreign newspapers that obama would do the same thing that clinton did,

and letting out the 5 billion barrels of oil that bush purchased for the war reserve, like clinton did it in 99 in oil went down. i teach the program for nba lawyers and obama is excellent as a lawyer, but as a science person he is failing. because he is missing one number that has been changed. they're putting down inflation at 3%, not including oil, as well as food that went up 200%. if you add the food and the oil, as has been done since 1974, the inflation rate is 12%.

the thing that people complain about, medical costs have gone up 14%. college tuition is up 11%. host: what do you think all of this means? caller: if you are running your financial programs, thinking that oil and food are taken out of inflation in you are projecting a 3%, at every program is going to fail. host: thank you for all the calls in the first hour. we will be speaking to -- we will be speaking to steven rattner in his new book. -- on his new book. we will be right back. >> c-span's local content vehicle will be traveling the country as we look at the

closely contested house races pleading up to the midterm election. >> i think that this race here in louisiana is worth watching for the rest of the country because there are only four or five in the country where a republican might lose their seats. this is one of the only district or state that was held by a democrat, easily the most democratic in the area. it appears tailor-made, but the republican is not a typical republican and he is determined to make a race of it. caller: these -- >> especially in our post-oil facility recovery, the question the people ask about where their children can play and is there a

need that we have not address. >> he is very soft-spoken, not your typical republican. not as a strident as most republicans out there. he is talking about having voted against health care reform and the bill that represented the will pay for women, as well as other bills that were very important to the constituency. >> i get a chance to fight for people that are wronged by big business all of the time. do not put profits first, put people first. >> richmond is from the eastern part of the city. a leader in the legislative

black caucus. a rising star in democratic circles. but according to the gao sympathizers, he has made mistakes as well. >> our children need help and the actions of cedric richmond are disgraceful. he diverted taxpayer money to a shady charity run by his girlfriend. he had his law license suspended for lying under oath and find for ethics violations. richmond is in it for himself, not for us. call it -- >> it occurred before hurricane katrina in the spring of 2005, but the discipline did not come down until two years ago. it seems fresh in the minds of some voters.

he owns up to it, he does not run from that, and it will definitely be an issue. i do not know how much of a difference it will make and i think the biggest issue in this race, like everywhere else, will be barack obama. this is a district where he plays very well. host: the city of new orleans has had its trial. you have also had great champions like cedric richmond. helping the businesses of new orleans get back on their feet, he has always been there making a difference for the community. norland needs him in congress, and so do i.. -- new orleans needs him in congress, and so whi. >> if we get big turnout that is

proportionate amongst black voters and white voters, richmond should win this race. and i do not mean that in a judgmental way, but with two- thirds being democratic, you have a minority here that are solid and liberal that will always vote democrat. the race is set up for richmond. but there are some wild cards out there that might turn out. if you are gao you want to turn out as many white both as you can. i think it is the game plan for both of these guys. >> our local content vehicles are traveling the country as we look at the most closely contested house races.

for more information on what the local content vehicle is up to, visit our website, c-span.org /lcv. >> "washington journal" continues. host: steven rattner is the author of the book, overhaul, an insider's account of the obama administration." this was billed as the first insider account of the obama administration. you were involved in the automobile prices. you were there during that crucial time for five or six months that you were involved in that. what gave you the impetus to take on this challenge? host: -- guest: i always believe in public service, that a component of someone's life should involve giving something back. i was approached by timothy

geithner and larry summers, asked if i wanted to help. that i am a finance person. host: did you realize that the time how big that prices could be and what you would be getting yourself into? colorado i haven't -- guest: i had some idea. but i had no idea how complicated it was, both politically and legally. i had no idea how broad it was, a specially -- especially when it ended. i almost backed out a few times before i first took the job because it was very daunting. host: steven rattner started his career at "the new york times," and economic reporter, moving on

to places like morgan stanley, then becoming counselor to the secretary. we are talking about his new book, "overhaul." you wrote that "in the end it would prove to be not just the story of two automakers, it was the story of the challenges facing the people of the 21st century -- host: how were you able to move in the although the administration? guest: in no particular order, we had tarp, which was our salvation, as it was for the public and for the bank. what some people do not understand is that without it we would surely have had a massive

and economic -- massive economic crisis. . this is one of the pitch

points. guest: what people have to understand, those who say the government should have not got involved, we should but the private market do it -- there was no private market. gm and chrysler had run out of cash. the bush administration had given them $17 million to get them through the first quarter of 2009, but it was going to happen again. if we did not do what we did, those companies would have shut their doors. it would have been in worse because -- would have been worse because even they suppliers would have had to shut down. it would have been an economic catastrophe beyond anything that we can think of in history. host: as you were approached by members of the obama

administration of working with them, there were some other economic problems facing the country. you talk about chuck schumer being a friend. so you knew this was not going to be an easy pairing, going into it. guest: no, one my name was first fleet, what happened was, members from my own party, legislature came down hard on me and said, he does not know anything about manufacturing, he is the wrong man for the job. while almost went back to new york at that time. host: toledo, ohio.

fred on the republican line. caller: first of all, i want to think c-span. c-span. the approach to fixing the car industry, i do not think it has been addressed yet. i have worked in the auto industry for over 30 years. back in 1975 was when i first started working at ford. quality and has always been an issue. i do not know what mr. rattner's book is about, but i know for a fact, because i was there, the quality of the management decisions -- any time anyone in

the inspection department would call something to the attention of a manager, they had the ability to let it go or fix it. guest: respectfully, a lot of what you said would have been true years ago, but the ford company has made great strides in improving quality. one way that we can see this is a number of complaints going to the national traffic highway safety it ministration. gm was getting six times the number of complaints that title was getting. now, taking into account the recalls, they are now at the same level. other errors are work in progress -- areas are works in progress, but i do not think

that quality is one of them anymore. host: when did you get to a point when they came to you asking for a bailout? guest: there was the gasoline crisis, a credit crisis, the overhang of excessive benefits, uaw contracts -- all of this played a role. remember, ford and -- chrysler and general motors went bankrupt. ford did not. they had the same union contracts, saying japanese competition, same gas prices. so what was the difference? i believe it was their management. host: you say that a few managers can make a key difference. guest: absolutely. jack welch at general electric. one person can in fuse a company

with their own set of values. host: robert in georgia. caller: i did not get a chance to read your book but i do know some things such as design obsolescence. it probably got people to where we are at. things would break and then people would go out and buy it again. i was not for it, but that is part of it. i remember president bush gave incentives for people to buy what youdo not know think about that, but it is not a smart idea.

guest: i do not remember that, but i agree, it is not a smart idea. on the other side, we now have the incentive to buy electric cars. in a perfect world, which was part of our philosophy in the rescue, you want the government out of it as much as possible. this is what we have a private sector, competition for. host: there was an allegation of a pay to play incident that had been written about by the news. "of the washington -- "the washington post" reports --

can you comment on that? guest: unfortunately, i cannot. i understand why you need to. my lawyers have been clear that while this is still in the process, i need to not comment on this. host: is this the reason that you left? it had you felt that your work had concluded? guest: i felt like my work was completed. when i started, they said that it would be quick. even though general motors is still 61% owned by the government, they are making their own decisions. hopefully, the government being involved in the car industry is coming to a close. host: how healthy is the industry? guest: pretty healthy. certainly, down from their peak

earlier in the year. it is not a particularly high level of car sales, but because the big three of detroit have restructured, they are making money. general motors had their first two quarters of profitable in come in several years. ford has been making good money for several years. so you have low sales, a depressed management -- and it is interesting to me to watch car sales as it reflects the general economy. host: bob from duluth, minnesota. democratic line. caller: thanks for c-span. i think one of the biggest troubles of the car industry,

many industries, you do not have hands in the -- money in and of the common consumer. wall street cost a lot of that. -- coaused a lot of that. if they could reform what was happening on wall street, for example, making and auditing company sign off on the books -- in other words, someone goes to jail if they cook the books. the biggest problem is wall street compensation. host: how reflective was your as to what was happening

with t.a.r.p.? guest: 90% of our mission was focused on that, but we were others in theh process. as difficult as our assignment was, the assignment that the banking team had was much tougher. there are no easy, good solutions. host: chad, republican. the bad debt. good morning. -- nevada. caller: i have a question. host: please send it. what is your question? ok, moving on to roger in dallas, texas. caller: the recent inspector

general's report on the bailout tells us the decision was made not to close any women or minority-owned dealerships. could you walk us through that process and how you reached that decision? guest: first of all, i do not remember that decision being made. i would not swear to it, but my recollection tells me that we did close some minority-owned to the ships. none of us on the task force made any decisions on which dealers to close. we were told there were too many dealers in the country and they had to be reduced. the company told us, you tell us which one needs to be closed. we simply want to see the overall numbers and make sure

they make sense. this is not withstanding the fact that i got dozens of requests, asking us to tilt in favor. we never did anything. it was the company's decision. host: next phone call. caller: i have a message for corporate america. basically, we need to realize the truth and pay homage to the people who serve the country and reducing the national deficit for the number of people involved in the war. host: any comment? guest: i think it is beyond the scope of our visit today. host: you mentioned your team was able to move pretty quickly. congress was calling on you to save certain dealerships.

what should congress's role be? guest: i think we need to think hard what their role should be in any capacity. obviously, we need a legislative branch, but i think the majority of your viewers would agree that it is not working as it should. the only thing that we heard about autos was a specific plant and dealer issues. ultimately, congress passed legislation on how it should be. the congress devoted a non- trivial amount of its time in the summer of 2009 passing legislation on dealers. i think that is misplaced priority. congress should have a broader role in setting up the parameters of these rescue efforts, but they instead prefer to be involved in small, parochial matters.

host: maria, washington, d.c. caller: i have a comment and a question. in the bailout, all the money went to the car industry. i think the money should have gone to the people instead. now we have all of these cdo's, mortgage securities. the united states needs manufacturing. host: your response? guest: in response to my colleagues doing the financial rescue, it was a much tougher assignment. you have this intertwined financial system with trillions of dollars and liabilities, intertwined, the mechanism for winding down failing

institutions, which is a critical institution. when lehman brothers meltdowed down, if we did not do what we did, it would have caused much bigger problems. what we did was not perfect, it was okay. i do not disagree with your caller. it could have been better, but the alternative would have been worse. host: you write -- what did you mean by that? guest: again, we were a bit of an exception, but most people come in here -- 95% of good

ideas need good legislation. the good to congress and the process is excruciatingly endless, and often, patty. being back in the private sector for a while, that process compared to the personal aspects of coming to washington, conflicts of interest, questioning of one's morals, agendas -- most of my friends in washington would not come down here. they believe it is too unpleasant, even those that want to serve their country. host: next phone call on the republican line. alan. caller: could you explain to me how it is that the first time in the country the bond holders were not placed first in this scenario? they were completely thrown aside for the unions. i do not have any skin in this

game, but when you fourth rule of law, i would like an explanation. guest: i will try to give you an explanation. first of all, it is not the first time in the history of the country. let me take it in reverse order. you are probably talking more about chrysler than general motors. the way that we handled the creditors was litigate through the court system, bankruptcy court, all the way to the u.s. supreme court. not one judge gave the plaintiffs an ounce of encouragement, no boats in their favor. every court affirmed the fact that what we did was in accordance with existing bankruptcy law. we established no new laws. the second point to remember is that every stakeholder in both

companies the more than there would have gone in liquidation chrysler banks had $9.6 billion in obligations. we gave them $2 billion in cash. if they had liquidated, there would have gone $1 billion. did you a w take a big hair cut? yes, but we gave them more of what they may have been entitled to in bankruptcy. by the way, there are others that got more than they would have gone in bankruptcy. in particular, warranty holders. in bankruptcy, you would have had no warranty on your car. we allowed those warranty to be protected $1 on the dollar. host: our guest is the author of

"overall." -- "overhaul." it is one of the first accounts where we are hearing from inside the obama administration. jim writes on twitter -- more specifics on what these three other companies need to do from here on out. guest: they need to continue to execute. for general motors, we took their break-even point, and the need to sell about 70 million cars -- 17 million cars in a year, and reduced it to about 10. as i said earlier, at 11.8 million cars a year, gm is still

making good money. at 15 million car sales, gm will make a fortune because of the much lower cost space. they need to continue to adjust what they are doing and improve it further. they will do fine. host: drawn from new hampshire. independent line. caller: -- drawn from new hampshire. caller: -- john from new hampshire. caller: i wonder if your guest is going to buy gm stock when they go to their ipo? guest: i may. is general motors a sound, viable company with an exciting future? the answer is yes, but i have to make sure the price is correct. i have no hesitation about

owning general motors stock. writes to us from oklahoma -- guest: t.a.r.p., when it was passed, empower the secretary of the treasury to allocate those dollars in a way that he sees fit to end this financial crisis. again, every step of the way was closely scrutinized by treasury and white house lawyers to make sure it was in accord with that. it was determined that t.a.r.p. money could be used legally to help these car companies. guest: gene on the democrat's line. caller: i am a refugee from

dearborn. in my time, working in the domestic auto industry, i found that our system models changed. we were no longer functioning as a manufacturing company. our real business was finance because we were taking the money we were making from vehicles -- not talking about the financing, talking about the vehicles coming in from the dealers, the short-term market -- and that is how we made our money. that is why the cars asked for a bailout. we were lower on the food chain. guest: there is some validity in what you are saying, because of their pre-existing market, they were able to achieve favorable

terms with their dealers. there may well have been a time when that was a source of good profit, when short-term interest rates were high, but today, the money they are making is the old fashioned way, by manufacturing and selling cars at prices where they can achieve a decent profits. host: michigan. actually, instead let's go to bill in florida. caller: this is phil. my question for mr. rattner is pretty basic, but an important one. in the voting cycle that is going on right now, is it realistic for voters to believe

that if we had not done what we did for the banks and auto industry, that it is possible we could be in a depression today? guest: i do not know how i can say this more forcefully, with more conviction, passion than i can say now. there is absolutely no question -- no question -- that if we have not passed t.a.r.p., if we had not used this and other programs as effectively as printed on behalf of the financial and auto sector, this country would be in a depression. i have absolutely no doubt in my mind about that. the financial system would have collapsed. detroit and related businesses would have collapsed. i do not know what else to call that. we should consider ourselves

very fortunate and lucky that these two administrations used this program effectively. host: in your book, you're right write -- this is -- guest: this is particularly the misunderstanding, a policy that is out there today. there was no private financing where there normally is to go through bankruptcy. it was a dire situation, financial markets were closed. they would have closed their doors, paid their people, turned off their lights, the suppliers would have gone bankrupt, and the rest of the industry with them. host: barre in illinois. caller: i am a first-time caller. i feel like they did the right

thing with the bailout, but it did not have teeth or accountability. without those large corporations saying that they would give the specific guidelines on how they would disburse the money, that you would be able to review the documents instead of saying we are going to do the same thing but at a lower scale. we knew that congress was coming in with the jumbo jets. it was a clear reflection that they were out of touch with the people buying their cars. guest: no question they were out of touch. one of the reactions to that was that congress demanded a series of reductions. corporate jets were gone. kenneth feinberg put in place rules to oversee compensation.

no golden parachutes. all these sorts of rules to control their excesses'. we tried to be very careful. i had a team of the exceptional people who looked at the numbers to make sure the money we were putting in was the right amount, was going to the right purpose. however, the president made a decision that we would not have government-owned companies. even though we have a larger position in gm, we have put this in the hands of private boards, private individuals. host: karen in oklahoma. republican line. caller: i just want to say, thank you c-span.

these car companies jack up their prices and they did it to themselves. we own 61% of gm, how come the taxpayers do not have some sort of representation on that? guest: the president, larry summers, tim geithner, made the decision that we do not want government-controlled companies in this country. we did not want to be 61% shareholders. it was the best way that we found to get the taxpayers their money back. we do not know how to run a company like this. we put in management that knows how to run these companies, and that is the right approach. host: what happens if one of

the big three comes back and says we need more money? guest: it would be very tough. what you did was a moment in time, a systemic failure. to be fair to them, some of the factors were out of their control. host: sterling, missouri. caller: good morning. the answer that you just gave, if one of them goes bust again, you said that we would have been in a depression if we allow that to happen. it seems, over time, that they are going to move back to that same position before you all had to jump in. guest: a year and a half ago we would have been in a depression to because we would have lost

the entire car company at a moment where we could not afford to lose something of that magnitude. right now, the economy is weak, we are out of the financial crisis perspective here, but right now if we lost chrysler, we could do so without going into a depression. all three companies are run by gentlemen who were not car executives. two of them are completely new to the industry. we brought in fresh blood to change the way that these companies operate, and i believe they are doing it. host: ralph in california. independent line. caller: when chrysler cambecamen llc, what happened to the old

debt? was it carried over to the new company? maybe they were trying to avoid paying the old debt of chrysler. guest: if i understand your question, when we were involved, there was a massive amount of debt. it had been through a leveraged buyout, was over leveraged, and we ended up restructuring that debt. some of it was written off. the most senior debt got $2 billion. essentially, the left most of that behind and started out new. we wanted to have a clean balance sheet for the company to start. host: has the president, administration, been too hard on the auto sector? guest: i think the president is

trying to find a balance between the fact that this country is incredibly angry at the financial sector. on the other hand, the president understand that we need a viable financial sector to function. i think he has been walking a careful, appropriate line. he is the president of all people, not just wall street. i think he is doing a good job making clear that some of the practices on wall street have to stop. host: barre in california. caller: i really appreciate his work on this problem. people who do volunteer work of this type -- essentially, it was volunteer work -- and there are people that really appreciate what they did, the impact it has had on the economy.

host: absolutely, and adding on, how unique was it for people in the wall street world to come and work in washington? guest: i am incredibly proud of our team. we were 14 people who did not know each other, mostly from wall street, come down here, working unbelievable hours for little to no compensation. it was all done out of patriotism and service. these are people who had expertise that are relevant to the problems of the moment. we could not solve what was happening in afghanistan, but we were able to help. it was an extraordinary effort. it is not unusual for wall street people to come into government service. this type of task force, however, is unusual because of

the time. i do feel the mood of the people that i know have changed. the excitement of public service, of being here, has been diminished a lot by some of the ugly aspects. host: steven rattner's new book is called "overhaul." thank you for being with us. we will talk about the subject of outsourcing with william cohen and. first, a campaign 2010 update. >> with me now is the assistant editorial page editor with "the arizona republic." who are these two candidates? they faced each other in 2008.

what are they running on this time around, how is it different from the last time? are you with us? mr. leger is with us from phoenix via skype. we are going to work on the connection. why don't we show you the ads to these campaigns as we work on this. >> congressman michel. he is lying to hide his liberal record. he voted for obamacare. even voted for the wall street bailout. we deserve better. >> we can turn things around if we stop the out of control spending, and the bailout,

secure our borders. >> career politician david schweikert. he is a predatory real-estate speculator. he snatched up nearly 300 foreclosed homes, has been cited for neglect, and even evicted a home owner to make a quick buck. >> robert leger is with us now from phoenix, arizona. we showed our viewers the latest ads in these campaigns. it is starting to get nasty. we talked about the fact that they ran against each other in 2008. how is it different this time around?

>> probably the biggest difference is the national atmosphere. two years ago, it was very much a democratic here, this year, a republican year. that adds are pretty much the same. -- ads are pretty much the same. you are lucky, you only saw two of them. during the nightly news, pretty much every commercial is a campaign ad. >> how much money is being put into these races? >> each candidate has raised more than $1 million. as well, we found that independent groups have donated $2.2 million.

the official state party campaign donors have also donated quite a bit. >> could you talk about the candidates? >> yes, harry mitchell was a longtime mayor here. he served in the state legislature. four years ago, he took on j.d. hayworth, the incumbent in the district, and beat him. david served in the legislature in the 1990's. and that has for a long time had a republican majority. he went on to serve as the maricopa county treasurer. he left that position to run against mitchell two years ago. >> you recently moderated a debate between the two.

how did their answers play with voters? >> it was an interesting crowd. we did it in the tempe city hall, where the building is named for mitchell. both candidates turned out there volunteers. it was a little raucous. each of them had their own built-in cheering sections. the issue that came out were the big ones in the race, budget deficit, social security, health care reform, the future of the country. host: your newspaper, "the arizona republic" endorsed schweikert after endorsing mitchell in 2006.

>> we also endorsed him against the j.d. hayworth four years ago. it did take a lot of consideration. a couple of reasons. the health care bill, before the vote, mitchell traveled around the district listening to people, and expressed a lot of reservations about the bill, particularly the public option, which ended up not being a part of it. he was not exactly taking a side, but indicated he was more against it than for it. the first time he voted, he said he was only voting in order to improve the bill. we are also at a point where

deficits are running incredibly high. schweikert is a very economical guy. he jumps into spreadsheets the way that we enjoy novels. host: what will you be watching for in the coming weeks in this race? >> early voting and the balloting has been going on for a couple of weeks. there is a good shot the race is already over. it is definitely not stopping the two campaigns from taking their shots at each other over the next few weeks. what i will be watching for is, do any new things develop, what is the get-out-the-vote effort for election day? will there be any late

surprises? will they make a difference? >> you say that the race could already be over due to early voting. do you have any indication who is winning? >> not at all. both sides have their polls. both sides show a five-point, 7- point lead. i imagine, november 2, neither candidate will be going to bed early. >> thank you for your time. >> my pleasure. >> these candidates squared off in a debate recently. we will be airing it tonight at 11:00 p.m. for more information about 2010 races, code to our website, c- span.org. host: william cohen is with us. thank you for being here.

you have a recent piece in the "wall street journal." you make a case for outsourcing actually does have a positive affect, here at home. guest: most of the time, it has been we ship jobs overseas and it is a zero sum game. what the statistics show is, when companies start to invest overseas, they are actually making profit so they can get back to core competency, and they create more jobs back at home. the study was done by a professor at the dartmouth business school. that was early on from 1987 through 2001. we have to look at these companies that outsource, what

they can do to make their domestic operations more profitable. that has to be taken into account. there are definitely job losses at certain mills. those need to be replaced, usually at higher-paying jobs. host: you write -- what job opportunities could be generated? rn these jobs that take more skill, that have a higher wage? -- are these jobs that take more

skill, that have a higher wage? guest: at some point, we will not be able to compete because the wages are so low. but what makes sense is investing in those countries so that we can hire people here to invest. the emphasis will always be on innovation. we are really good at investing in new technology. we are replacing the lower end jobs with higher paying jobs, which requires more education, skill, but that is the evolution of the international economy. countries that are poor are willing to work lower wages. it is an opportunity for us to sell exports to those in

emerging countries. it is a good opportunity for consumer markets. the same thing for india. they are emerging as a major player on the scene. in major opportunity to show a good market of american products. host: even in pop culture, you say, outsourcing is a bad thing. you start your piece by referencing an nbc comedy titled "outsourced." you write -- guest: they have shipped jobs

overseas, but the studies do not show what jobs were created as a result of the outsourcing. secondly, we are not taking into account insourcing. there are a couple of companies that i am familiar with who are creating jobs in the united states. so we also have in sourcing as well as outsourcing of jobs. we are living in a globalized economy. that means if we are going to be competitive, we have to be invested in other countries to be sure we can take advantage of those markets. hopefully, that will continue to keep us prosperous so that we can hold on and increase the jobs that we have. host: and recent poll found that

outsourcing was the top reason for american economic problems. guest: it is true, that is the public perception. however, out of the free trade agreements that we have, it is actually a positive a result of this agreement. president obama has said he wants to double the exports of the united states in the next five years. he has an opportunity to do that. there are three free trade agreement pending. one with colombia, panama, and one with south korea. the one with panama, it is predicted to create up to 100,000 jobs. those three agreements will help to create jobs in the united

states, yet they have been put off to the side. hopefully, he will bring them up immediately after the elections. calling them to lapse would contribute to unemployment. -- allowing them to lapse would contribute to unemployment. i think the case has not been made, when you live in a globalized economy, when you depend on selling your product to other people -- you have to remember 95% of the consumers in this world live outside of the u.s. one way to capitalize on that economy is to be closer to the consumer, take advantage of opportunities in those countries, generate profits in those countries that can be repatriated back to the u.s. politically, it seems simple,

jobs are going out, none are coming in. in fact, the and implements situation is much more complex. it has to do with the size of our deficit, the fact that we see a lot of competition domestically. we have over regulation in some cases, not enough in others. it is complex and why we are not doing well. but if you look at where we were when the clinton administration left office, with a surplus, and now looking at the size of the $1.30 trillion annual deficit we are facing, what went wrong? we spend a lot of money with the bush tax cuts. we spent a lot of money with the war in iraq. we spend a lot of money on the prescription drug benefits that goes to millions of seniors and others. we have contributed to that. that cycle of spending more than we are taking in has also

contributed also to the loss of jobs. host: secretary cohen is the chairman and ceo of ditcthe coh group. he was also a senator and member of the house of representatives from the 1970's through the 1990's. raley the first republican official tapped by a democratic administration to join a cabinet. let's get to the phone calls. pat in indiana. caller: good morning. host: you are breaking up on us. could you say that again? caller: 33% of our manufacturing jobs left the country. we cannot keep losing our jobs.

guest: we are losing manufacturing jobs than the question becomes, we have to start manufacturing things that will be attracted to the consumer, build a better product at a better price and then market domestically and internationally. if we price ourselves out of the marketplace, we will see other countries, brazil, germany, china, india, taking the advantage of being able to manufacture something at a lower price with equal quality. so we have to be able to manufacture things that day higher tech level, be able to market them at an attractive price. host: next phone call. republican line. caller: i have always considered

myself a gm man but now i would never buy a gm product. money was stolen from car dealers and bond holders and handed to labor dealers, who caused this problem in the first place. it is a ridiculous contract you negotiated. they are not allowing us to compete. guest: i think there have been a lot of contributions as to why we were not as competitive in the open marketplace. i think we are making a comeback. we still have many japanese, german-made cars coming into this country, and it has forced american carmakers to be much more imaginative, style of these products.

other companies are getting ahead of us in terms of hybrid technologies. but that foreign competition has forced us to be better. as a result, we will be better, and you will see more and more people buying american cars. host: a question on twitter -- guest: we are selling more in canada. we have to divide it up in terms of selling goods and services. we have a surplus of services in canada. same thing in mexico. obviously, we are suffering a major deficit dealing with china. that is something that we are focused on now, not only on the currency the early asian, but on what subsidies they provide for their major companies.

it is something that the newspapers are now focused on. what incentives are given, are they compliant with wto regulations? that will be the focus in the next several months until next year. host: as you look at the obama administration, what are the number-one challenges facing the defense team? guest: how do we continue to look to the future? what sort of threats exist? secretary gates has done a good job. what he has said is we need to look forward. there is something called the qdr. that is allowing us to look ahead in the future, trying to identify the threats that we will face. he has come to the conclusion that we need to look at the asymmetrical-type of threats. there is no country that could face us face to face and match

up their military two hours, but that is not what we are facing. we are facing extreme terrorists who are eager to die and kill us in the process. the two airplanes that took down the twin towers, they were airplanes turned into missiles. what we have to do is try to anticipate. we are moving into a world where we are likely to face asymmetric warfare, cyber warfare, with a few clicks of a computer, shut down our ability to function. so anticipating the threats and dealing with them in a world in which we are so integrated, in which much of our lives are tied into cyber technology. cyber technology is very fast,

efficient, but it is also vulnerable. those are the threats that we need to look at. host: william cohen is a former defense secretary under the clinton administration. you can call about other defense issues in the news. republicans, 202-737-0001. democrats, 202-737-0002. independents, 202-628-0205. birmingham, alabama. and that on the independent line. -- emmett on the independent line. caller: one of the reasons we are losing so much production in the u.s. is because the production is given to people who are not productive at all. bankers, politicians, lawyers, they are given all the power. they are not productive at all.

guest: and you have the opportunity to change that in a couple of weeks. we have a major election coming up. most american people feel we have not been responsive, fiscally, have not planned with prudence, we have overspent our ability to pay. we have passed on a tax burden to our children, which they will be unable to pay. that is part of the anger. your comments reflect that sentiment. that is the sentiment that is out there, that we have not been doing our jobs across all segments of society from the corporate business community to the political world, to virtually every aspect of our society. we have failed to deliver high quality product, service, efficient and reasonable price products.

you have touched upon a nerve that is very much alive in society. the idea of fiscal values really affecting the debt, and you get the sense that the defense budget will also give the hatchett? secretary gates is trying to be pre-emptive, i think, to read these prepare -- to at least prepare with savings. taking a daughter of things that can be better performed by others and try to streamline the operation to protect the american people in the future. i do not think there will be any question about the size of the military, both tours the we are engaged in jamaat iraq, which

does not look to be going too well. it has cost us over $1 trillion. i think many of the american people want to know why we make that commitment and where we are still there. let's go to corpus christi, texas, phyllis, democrats line, good morning. mr. cohen -- mr. cullencaller: , i understand your xeng but a lot of us have fallen through the cracks. and we want a job where we can maybe see our families, maybe take one vacation per year. and we cannot do that in america. we have to have two incomes just to survive.

guest: i hear what you are saying and it poses a terrible burden on those who have lost their jobs or who may lose their jobs. that is why there is a thing called the trade adjustment assistance, wage insurance to protect people like yourself who are put up without a solid income that you and your family can count on. there are things that government has to do. i know there is a very anti- government sentiment out there, but i believe the government has a very positive role to play, and that is, for people like yourself and others that have been hurt in this economy. we need to help people like you to survive and provide for your family. that is where the government does have a responsibility. host: and there was a piece in the "new york post" yesterday is looking at karzai, the leader of afghanistan.

what did you think about the u.s. relationship with hamid karzai? do we need to keep him close? and how effective can this be? guest: he is the elected leader, although, there is very much a question of how the election to place. it does call into question what the measure of success is. we do not talk as much about winning anymore. the measure for success, is it to be more stable country? frankly, i have real questions about its counterinsurgency strategy, which is what we have, unless it is very long term. we have a hybrid now.

we have a "counterinsurgency strategy," which is really, at winning hearts and minds. but winning over people not by bullets, but by helping them build hospitals and community centers and things that will help them improve their lives. but you have a successful counterinsurgency strategy requires a very long term commitment. i do not think the american people are going to support that. i do not think we will be real to carry it out. host: what should we do? guest: we may find ourselves back into a more counter to our strategy recommended by vice- president biden, with a low for print. but in the meantime, this is what is going on -- with a low footprint. but in the meantime, this is what is going on. the taliban who are willing to give up their arms and join in government and such, i am skeptical that can take place,

but i will defer for the moment, at least, to general patraeus. i believe he will make the correct assessment on the ground and he will tell us next july whether this has a chance of succeeding. and if it does not, then president obama has a different decision to make at that time. host: kansas, republican caller, welcome. caller: good morning. i was fortunate enough to work for a company that was on the leading edge of the new economic order. i worked for fedex and it's fundamentally changed the way logistics' was handled. one of the things i saw as i traveled internationally is that the world is much more willing to compete that i think a lot of americans are. and there are a couple of problems i would like you to talk about, at least as i see them. one is, i live in a small town

in kansas, and one thing i hear over and over again is that we need more of low-wage manufacturing jobs, which is the opposite of what we really need. and the politicians play to that very skillfully. i do not know how we get beyond that. i think we are behind the curve and we need to catch up. the other thing is, my wife and i host international students and one of the things i see in them is that willingness to compete and to succeed that i do not see enough in american students. it brings a couple of questions to mind. one, if i believe we are behind the curve, how far behind and how long will it take us to catch up? and what things can we do so that we can succeed in this environment that i think we should be thriving in? guest: that is a great series of questions. number one, we tend to pound

artest said -- we tend to be pounding are just and saying, -- our chests and saying, we are number one. we are no. 11. in fact, we continue to slide in terms of our competitiveness. we continue to -- our wages, in particular the low-wage thing you talked about, it is not going to happen. as you pointed out, other countries are much more eager to compete and enter the global marketplace. the issue has always been for anyone to be successful, you have to produce a better product at a better price. if you cannot do that, you are going to lose. we have to educate ourselves about the realities, not to continue to engage in the things that once were true. my home state of maine was once a textile state, a hsu stake.

those jobs are gone, but now they have jobs -- a shoe state. those jobs are gone, but they have new jobs in technology. we need to upgrade our skills to make us competitive so that we can compete against those countries that have been a poor who are now getting richer and we have to be able to compete against them. host: former defense secretary would -- william cohen joining us. according to an unnamed official by cnn, nobody is living underground in a cave. what can be done about osama bin

laden? guest: frankly, i think we have made too much of bin laden. and whether we find him or not is not going to alter what is taking place. we have seen terrorism spread not only from afghanistan, but into pakistan and to the sudan and other countries. we're going to have to live with radical extremists for much of this century until such times as other countries are also joining in really, eradicating them. you talked about this morning bob roberts' book, "obama's wars." one of the things the republican party is really objecting to is the saying that afghanistan is really a obama's war. it is not a obama's war, but america's war. and i would say, it is not america's war.

is the world war. we all have a stake in this. -- it is the world's war. we all have a stake in this. you cannot be on the savoy in london or a train in -- on the subway in london or a train in madrid or in new york without worrying about this. we have to make sure that it does not become americanized. buttu often, i think, we allow others to say this is -- too often, i think, we allow others to say this is america's war. we carry the bulk of the responsibility to carry out this campaign against those who would threaten us. host: saudi intelligence officials have informed france that al qaeda may be planning an attack in europe, the french

interior minister said sunday. let's go to our next call, shane in houston joins us on the independent line. caller: good morning and thanks for c-span. i'm a first-time caller and i've watched c-span for years. many times i've wanted to call in and i cannot think of a better time than today. the judges want to make some reflection may be about what i would consider to be -- i just want to make some reflection may be about what i would consider to be the poor. how can i as a free man ever begin to compete with people were making 40 cents or 50 cents per hour. we know now that china has the second-largest number of billionaires. isn't anyone in our political system going to stand up and demand some global minimum wages? these people suffer eugenics. guest: china does have a very

low wage base, but interestingly enough, the wage base is starting to creep up because they are becoming richer. as a result, the workers are demanding more in the way of compensation, more in the way of environmental protection in the places where they are forced to work. china itself is finding that it has to even outsource some of its projects to vietnam, which may have even lower standards. what we are trying to do is insist upon an upgrade of those standards to be sure that we can level the playing field as best as possible. but what china can do with low wages -- the u.s.'s edge has always been that we can do the same with technology and we keep ahead of the kerf by having people that are skilled in these types of products that will sell in the global marketplace. yes, china has a lower wage base, but it is coming up and it will make it a bigger challenge

for them to compete in the marketplace against other countries who also want to compete. if you take a country that is in desperate poverty and you say it before you can enter the marketplace you must pay at least $7 per hour, that is not going to be realistic. there will always be some differentiation in the marketplace. host: selma in kalamazoo, mich., welcome. caller: hi, thank you guys. i love c-span. i'm so happy we are talking about this subject today because i thought about this for a long time. i do remember -- i'm 57, so when they start talking about this outsourcing and i did not really know what it was, i remember that they said -- well, i heard

somebody say that they knew were going to send jobs that you could teach a monkey to do to these countries that have very cheap labor, but that our people in america were going to be taught these high-tech jobs. i guess at the time i thought that was a good idea, but now i see that we got left behind, our kids got left behind. now the jobs are going overseas that are low-tech, or just manual jobs. our part of being taught high- tech things did not happen. host: educative the next generation of americans on how to get a good job. guest: it requires a good education. we're starting to fall off on science, engineering, technology and out. those are the sciences we have to focus on and to insist that our children coming up and become more capable and

efficient in. otherwise, we will see a loss in that high in capability and we as a result will be in the back of -- backwash of economic history. this is serious. that is why the obama administration has put an emphasis on science, technology, engineering and math because we're starting to fail in isikoff area. host: you ran for senate in the 1990's and failed and did not run for reelection. that this time you said it was too much attention and -- at that time you said it was too much attention and a lack of productivity. -- too much tension and lack of productivity. guest: after 24 years on capitol hill at the time i felt that my time was not being well used. to many time outs, too much talk benefaction. there were serious problems, as

there are now, that were not being addressed. our deficit, we are passing on to our children, grandchildren. i thought maybe it was time to bring in new blood and new ideas that could move the country forward. i think it has gotten worse since that time. looking at the election coming up, all the projections of our that the republicans will take the house. they may even take the senate. what does that mean? that means these next two years will be a challenge to president obama and we are likely to see very little movement on any of the major issues. we have to look at tax policy. we have to look at trade policy, climate change, immigration. all of these issues are likely to be on the table in the next two years to be addressed in my time in which we will have stagnation. we have talked about china.

china is a continent -- , in this country. -- is a communist country. what they do is have a very few people that have a vision and then can execute the vision because they do not have to deal with the vibrant and discordant voices that democracy has. they can move much faster than we can. we believe that ours is a far better society where people are free and can be creative and make the best use of their talents, but china is moving very dramatically. we have got to be able to compete. one way to compete is for us to come to a consensus about what the top things are that we have to address. a and we have to reform our tax code. but we have to make it far more simple for the average person. we tax corporations at twice the rate that most other countries do. we have the second highest tax in the world. there are things that can be done to make us much more

competitive and efficient, but unless we reach a consensus, we will continue to debate, to delay, to obfuscate, to try to exploit public sentiment without really doing the job that needs to be done. host: the secretary william chairman -- secretary william cohen, thank you for joining us this morton. coming up -- joining us this morning. coming up, we will talk to frank newport from dela. >> here are some of the have eyes. a new poll shows that what might cost the democrats a chamber in congress is the lack of enthusiasm. the associated knowledge networks poll finds half of obama voters in 2008 who were surveyed say they will definitely cast ballots. while two-thirds of the john mccain supporters say they will

vote for sure in november. andrew cuomo and carl palaco are candidates in new york. the first debate takes place tonight and also features former manhattan adam, kristin davis, and three others representing the green and libertarian parties. we will take you live to us forget for debate among the u.s. senate candidates for the state. the jury selection begins in washington in this trial of a man charged in washington in turn chandra levy nine years after her appearance. and mark guandique is tursha of her murder. ingemar guandique is charged with her murder. a condom spokesman says the former congressman does expect

to be called as a -- condit spokesman says the former congressman does expect to be called as a witness. and facebook application that has been transferring personal identification to dozens of advertising companies. in some cases, the apps provided access to friends' names. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> in the final weeks of camp in 2010, the c-span video library is a great resource for voters. hear from the candidates, party officials, strategists and reporters. the c-span video library, all free, on-line any time. >> it is time to get your camera rolling for this year's studentcam, c-span's annual student, documentary

competition. make a five-minute video and tell us about a topic or issue that helps you understand the federal government's role in your life or community. be sure to include more than one point of view. the deadline is january 20 and you will have the prep -- the chance to win a grand prize of $50,000. -- a grand prize of $5,000. there is $50,000 in total prices. for complete details go to studentcam.org. >> this week on the -- on "the communicators" daniel read for microsoft and his company's role in software. tonight on c-span2. host: frank newport is editor- in-chief at a gallop. thank you for being with us. in new poll looked at how active

the katharina should be in americans' lives. why did you decide to -- how active should the government be in americans' lives? why did you decide to look at this? guest: we spent a lot of time debating what the role of the american beverage to be. it goes back to the depression and the role that fdr created. a lot of candidates, to give away the tea party movement and others, one of the main words you will your come out of their mouth is a "less government," and there has always been a lot of research done on it. we looked at new polling and decided, really, if we could get all 330 million americans in

one room, what would they tell us in washington about what they think the appropriate role should be? host: let's look up the trust americans have for those holding office or running for office. guest: that is one of a number of questions that you can trend and ask an american city have low confidence in government. -- americans say they have low confidence in government. that is a shame because we put people here in washington to do the american people's bidding and is controlled oil to the by the democratic system, but there -- controlled by the democratic system, but there are a number of men and women whose they have very little confidence in the system. host: what did you find as far as the general?

of how a involved over rent should be? -- the general question of how involved the government should be? guest: we had a five. scale -- we had a five point scale, and at one end is the government should be very active and do everything it can to solve problems. the other end was that it should be out of our positions as much as a prop -- possible. calo and behold, we had a a curve -- a low and behold, we have a curved. we had one-third on each end and a little more than a third sitting right in the middle. the data is not as simple as you think you can make it. there is a spectrum of opinion out there in the american public, as is often the case. host: uber could down by republicans, independents and democrats got -- and you broke

it down by republicans, independents, democrats as well. guest: and the basic trends in those data are not shocking. those americans to identify has, democrats tend to go to the end of the spectrum saying that it is a good in terms of -- a good thing to solve problems, and republicans go to the other end of the respect from -- of the spectrum. but we did find a lot of differences of there. you have some very strong people that say as small as possible on everything, and some that would say the opposite. but a lot of people are in

different combinations in the middle. host: and it has changed over the last decade or two how much? guest: right now, republicans are saying we do not like big government. " we do not trust big government. democrats are saying that it is good. you can go back as recently as 2006 or 2003 and the data was flipped. democrats in response to the same questions have a negative opinion of government and republicans were saying we trust government. and of course, the reasons were, that was the bush administration and one of the key issues was the war on terror and the patriot act and the war in iraq. democrats had worried that it had overstepped its bounds and was getting to begin those arenas. now it has slipped and republicans are too worried the government has overstepped its bounds primarily and -- in

domestic attendance with the obama administration. -- with the domestic attempts with the obama administration. host: but go to tony on the independent line. -- let's go to tony on the independent line. caller: as a republican, it is evident by our budget situation the government has been, whether it is democrat or republican administration, government has way overstepped its bounds. unfortunately, government does not know how to stop spending money. politicians continually grant themselves raises and spend money we do not have. i think it has become evident to pretty much most american people now that the government has way overstepped its bounds. we can no longer afford all of the programs out there. host: is what tony is saying squaring with your research? guest: somewhat.

a lot of people's image of government is negative. in fact, 70% said when we said, when you think government, what comes to mind, 70% had a negative reaction. they're perceived honesty and ethics are just slightly -- their perceived honesty and ethics are dyslalia but used-car salesman. been terms -- or just slightly above the used car salesman. but in terms of what programs to pull back, that is where it gets complex. host: let's go to don on the republican line.

caller: it is somewhere in the middle. if we keep talking about the government, which is of and for and by the people, if we look at the saving habits and the investing habits of the average joe and jane in society, we are living well above our means as a society. it kind of goes hand in hand to me. i think if we turn our citizens back to being producers slashed consumers as opposed to -- back to being a producer/consumers as opposed to just being consumers, i think we need to focus on continued division in society and schools.

guest: those are good sentiments. yes, if we can produce more and do better with education, i think everybody would be happy. i do agree with his prior comment, which is, that it is complicated. i have used my waking hours to study the american people and he is right, it is not absolutely hot or cold. there is a role for the federal government doing certain things, but obviously, a lot of people worry that it has gotten too big. host: when you look at things by topic, interesting results. health care, reducing income differences, protecting at risk corporations -- asking people where the government should step in and where their role should be. the 83% responded that national

security is important. only 2% said no response will be. health care, 40% said responsibility and 20% said no responsibility. guest: there are some things that we can agree on, and most would agree that protecting the country is one of them. at the bottom of the list is trying to bail out corporations. if you cut -- a few americans of that was an appropriate role. and clearly, there were a number of issues that we waited and we had over half of americans saying that the government -- that governmentweighted and we

had over half of americans and saying that there are some things for the government to do, like protecting the environment. however, less than half were involved in trying to recover income differences. the average american, at least when you put them together, is more likely to say that may not be the government's role is to try to address that issue. host: 20% of americans polled said that the government should have total responsibility of producing income differences. a 33% said no responsibility at all. guest: that is right, there is a spectrum. the government is a dangerous

instrument, is what comes out of here when i look back at it. if these men and women in the senate, and in the executive branch, of course, they should use these powers cautiously. that is what i read from the american public. host: but go to james, good morning. caller: i would just like to say that the people that watch fox news every day, they are brainwashed. no wonder the country is in the condition is in. the big corporations control the money that is going into fox news and the republican party and until this is stopped in some way, this country is on a downward run. host: has galop looked at where americans are getting their information -- has gallup looked

at where americans are getting their information? guest: yes, we have. and you can look at nielsen ratings. i do not think the caller was recommending that you cannot have internet sites and so forth. that is free speech. but it today we find that we have more people that a sickout news and information that is confirmatory to their own beliefs. others that have -- there are others that have a limited appeal cuba more liberal -- to the more liberal spectrum. maybe, the speculation goes, the hypothesis goes, that increases

the partisan divide that we are seeing in a lot of these issues in america today. host: one of our folks on footer rights -- -- on twitter rightwrs -- guest: i like that. a poet. that, to some degree, fits in with what the average person across america would say. there is a role for vernon. the government has things it should do, but -- there is a role for government. the government has things it should do, but be very careful. host: but go to the next caller, how low, stephanie. caller: how you know that 50% of the people you are pulling our democrat -- your polling r.

democrat? how many people identify themselves as democrats versus republicans? and is it strictly [unintelligible] guest: what was her last point? host: i missed that. guest: we spend a lot of time making sure that what we do is scientifically representing the overall american population. our goal is, of course, when we do a survey to make sure that people are equally represented. generally, we will have the same number of republicans and independents and democrats in our sample that we would find when we interview of some 200 million adults in this country. i think we do a pretty good job using a lot of random scientific principles that when we put it together is pretty we askedative of whaif

everybody in the country. and just like when your doctor takes a small blood sample to represent all the blood in your body to count your cholesterol level. host: you take their word for it whether they are democrats or republican or independent? or do you manage it and within their voter rolls? and -- and you match it with their four roles? guest: a lot of jurisdictions will allow you to have debate do not include phone numbers in them. and a lot of people have telephones. it is complex. what we do generally as we ask people. we say, as of today in politics, are you republican, democrat or independent? we do not ask if you are .egistered as

host: larry, you are on in newport. caller: we got a call yesterday from your organization. i did not take the call, but we got a call at the house. let me just remind some of my fellow citizens that col. i'm almost 70 years old, so i've seen quite a of government in my time. the first time i voted was for kennedy. i do not know, but it seems the constitution was to protect the citizens from the government, not to empower the government to do anything it wants to its citizens. we all know that entitlements are out of control and we have to rein them in somehow, yet we passed one of the largest entitlement in history in the obama care bill. nancy pelosi says

you have to read the bill, that speaks to the competency of the elected officials. host: we will leave that there. guest: i'm glad that somebody took a poll, and it is very coincidental. we called thousands of people a day. i'm but he got a call and that he cooperated. -- i'm glad that he got a call and that he cooperated. a lot of people would share their opinion, but certainly not all. he was fairly negative about the men and women that sit on capitol hill with us and i think a lot of people would share that opinion. host: here is a tweet -- he says it is an inside job.

we are getting a a lot of poets on tweet. guest: they have more time to consider. there are those who would say that they want more -- less government and there are those things like when we got out of control and wall street and there were serious consequences. that is kind of the yen and yen. yin and yang.d ye there is a lot of sentiment out there that controlling wall street is a legitimate role for government. host: the next call is kato.

caller: if people are represent -- are elected to be representing the public in the government, that is democracy. what you have to do there is the situation has become that you elect the people that represent you. you have to put the of trust in the government with -- let's say, health care, transportation, if you lose faith in the government, then the whole thing is crumbling. if you lose everything out of its place, if you are democrat or republican or independent in america, the question is, what is the government going to do for my child?

host: he brings up a good point. if americans are discontented of with officials, what does the due to the elections? we are the ones to put them into office in the first place. guest: he is right, when is the nature of democracy. not all 300 million of us can show up and vote on every issue. we have to elect men and women to represent us. there's a lot of dispute about what they should do when they get here. some say that they should be a trustee of -- trustees. which means, once they get here .com they should do what is right and forget the people back home. there are others that -- once they get here, they should do what is right and forget the people back home. there are other side say they are delegates. americans trust themselves to make judgments more than they do the one men and women that they

sendoff to represent them. one thing i can they could do more of is more scientific ways of looking at public opinion. the point is, they should spend more time looking atoll -- looking at what the american people are saying. there's a lot of disconnect. jane and john doe out there in the country are not sure how good a job they're doing. people do not think the system right now is working that well. host: thank you, and a butcher in chief from dela. -- editor and chief from gallup.

he also did some time in the radio business. you with the news director of a talk-show down in houston. we have a comment from mary on twitter. she does not necessarily think that these polls connect with people like her. how do you think of the way cell phones are changing the way people are communicating? guest: we have looked at that. in fact, we have people asking if we have looked at the fact that people are using cell phones. well, of course we do. a big number of our sessions are complex papers about how to deal with cell phones and sampling. we just had a task force that put out a huge amount of data.

the bottom line is that we do call cell phones. we house's january 1, 2008. -- we have since january 1, 2008. host: pennsylvania, where frank is on and our republican line. caller: good morning. i'd like to make a couple of statements. i think congress is scapegoating by the lobbyists. there are no congressmen that are responsible. they will even tell you they do not want the government to do this. they have insurance companies -- and i just got my new bill, which are killing the economy. the american industry cannot pay that insurance. they will have to get off the back of the industrialists. otherwise, we have no jobs. i have "business week" magazine.

a retired insurance executive, the to observe million dollars golden parachute. -- a $200 million golden parachute. for the last five years he is not even in the top 20. why does the government allow no bid contract to destroy industry? guest: i'm not sure exactly the technical details of what the caller, frank, is, talking 11 about. but he is representing a popular sentiment. i think he was saying that lobbyists have too much influence and he was complaining that insurance people are making too much money. interestingly, i don't hear him saying that the government should be responsible for reducing the income differences between people.

guest: on the latter, it depends on the era. if you look at our polls, what is the most important in facing the country? in 2003 through 2005 you would find foreign entanglements, particularly in afghanistan and iraq. if you look at the gallup poll from the late '60s,'s and early 70's, you would find the vietnam. there are times that we look fdoat foreign and domestic even.

if you look around the world and very important things going on, the average american is usually domestically focused. about two-thirds of the two- party movement say they do not have a person they're voting for, but they are highly vocal. host: mets go to another call. -- let's go to another call. caller: i would like to know if there was a poll that you guys take that could show how wonderful the republicans are at making people -- well, not making people, but having people voted against their own interest.

i look at things and i see how things -- and democrats, too, in certain races. i do not think it is a democrat or republican problem anymore. i think it is a simple matter of common sense and a values that everybody shares. guest: well, those are good sentiments. we asked americans recently just before a big summit here in washington about what we should do with the federal government. we just asked a simple question -- what is the one thing you would do to fix the federal government? we got a lot of responses and many of them echoed over what we just heard. witches, " pickering, -- which is, quit bickering. a lot of what i heard is that congress and the senate need to work together a lot more and

quit fighting. faldo, -- although, many people would say out of the sausage making comes to some good sausage. host: you have a sense of how that is, manifesting americans outside of the two-party system? or does that make you look at the tea party? guest: a fairly substantial number of americans will say, yes, there is room for a third party. it is easy to say because a lot of americans will say, sure, why not? whether or not there can be an absolute third party that has a real impact on american politics, we'll wait and see. ross perot had a lot of money and pushed his popular vote of 219% in 1992. that is as much as we have seen.

-- up to 19% in 1992. that is as much as we have seen. then you have to go back to george wallace. many americans will say it is a good idea, but i do not know how viable it is. host: richard, on the republican line. caller: i have a question for you. isn't the president of the united states supposed to represent the whole nation? this guy is running around the country campaigning and raising money for the democrats. how about the republicans of? he is not representing the republicans at all guest: that is a good question. and of course, obama is not the first. george bush was campaigning while in the white house for public in candidates. if you go back, richard nixon as

well. it is a time-honored tradition. who is not paid for by the federal government. those are private funds raised for those campaigns. and president obama is certainly out a lot now campaigning for democratic candidates and makes no bones about it. whether or not it is excessive will have to wait for people to comment. host: and what about the president's role in the voters' choices? guest: is a good question and, in fact, we will know about that today because we just as that over the weekend. obama still has a fairly high approval rating. he is in the mid 40's which is was and whereeagan wer clinton was in their second year. he still enjoys high approval,

70% +, sometimes 80% or more, among democrats. guest: luis in fredericksburg, va. on the republican line. hi there. host: everybody keeps saying that -- caller: everybody keeps saying that people are electing these representatives, but in fact, the system is rigged. i remember when i lived in washington state and there was mcdermott in seattle and everybody commented that he was a congressman for life because nobody could run against him. i think we need to have term limits and we need to elect people with intelligence. but we do not need moms in tennis shoes if they are just stepping straight out of the household and have no broader

knowledge -- or no critical thinking skills, i should say. and there are people in congress that learn on the job after 40 years and the only thing they learn is how to manipulate the system to benefit the friends -- their friends or a foreign country that they have interest in. i think we need people who truly are friends of america and represent america. guest: everybody running for office would say to the caller that they care about america. america is just a question and that we think -- that is, the voters think we need to do. there are some who think it is great to put people in congress that are not professional politicians. in fact, that is where a lot of people are trying to oust the

career politicians. their arguments either way. you do need -- and there are arguments either way. you do need experience. but every district is different. some candidates are intelligent, and some are not. host: frank newport, editor in chief at gallup, which recently looked at whether the federal burman should be more active or less active in the lives of the american public. let's go to another caller. caller: i have a couple of comments. i do not have a problem with the stimulus package that was passed. most people have been there for

1 k invested in wall street. -- most people have their 401k invested in wall street. i think it was good, because otherwise they would lose a lot of money. i think republicans are causing a lot of fighting and i think we do not have a lot of jobs because the companies are waiting for republicans to be, back in office. guest: those are some interesting sentiments. i do not know if companies are waiting for republicans to be back in office, but clearly, there are a lot of things affecting whether they're hiring. flint, mich., to alex on the independent line. caller: i have a question and a common. the question is, did you and

your group have barack obama winning the election? i do not think so. ,he point i'm trying to make is the average joe blow is going between job to job while you guys are out poling. guest: that is an interesting point. the answer to the first one is, yes, we showed barack obama winning by the margin -- the close margin that he got. in fact, so far this year, if you look at the polls prior to the primaries, generally speaking-ups -- they have been fairly accurate as well. the polling actually does work. then he was saying that we are out your polling while they are out there trying to find jobs.

i would argue that it is important to represent the average american. one thing we do is we are allowing the average american boys to be heard and be part of the discourse in a way that -- the american voice to be heard and part of the discourse in a way that it would not be otherwise. we have to do something like public opinion to try to empower people so that they have a voice at the table. everyone else as rep. -- everyone else is represented. we try to represent average citizens so that their opinions are part of the public discourse. host: it is a loaded question, but is there ever a time that bling interferes with the process? guest: that is an interesting philosophical question. some