book and health care. and we will be joined by majorie dannenfelser, president and chairman of the susan b. anthony list on efforts to elect pro- life candidates. "washington journal" is next. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] host: 13 days to go until election day 2010. much of our "washington journal" program this morning is about politics. we will look at money and issues but we want to start this morning with philosophy. in recent abc/yahoo poll ask -- what is more report to you, but political leaders stick to their positions on important issues even if it means a lack of cooperation? or that political leaders tried to cooperate across party lines,

even if it means compromising on important issues. according to the survey, 57% said tried to cooperate across party lines. 37% said stick with their positions. that's our question. is it a compromise versus ideologies. send us an e-mail or send us a tweet. we will begin taking those in just a minute. again, compromise versus ideologies. here is a little bit from the news article that was written on yahoo news dealing with this poll.

again, this is in yahoo news. the question -- what is more important to you, that political leaders stick to positions on important issues, even if it means lack of cooperation between democrats or republicans, or that political leaders tried to cooperate across party lines, even if it means compromising on important issues. that's our question. compromise versus ideologies. jerome, south bend, indiana. republican line.

caller: i believe the republicans should not compromise. the reason why is that the sleeping giant, the middle- class, has learned through the closed door sessions and the democrats cutting them out, there is no bipartisanship. it democrats will not cooperate. when you compromise, what you are doing is you are willing to give up some of your hard core true beliefs inside yourself in order to get something passed. the middle-class today, the american people, did not want to give up their core values anymore. host: being a country of 300- plus million, how do we get there if half of the country disagrees with your position? do you want to get something done or nothing done? caller: i disagree with that because i don't believe that the country is split in half. i believe most people just watch

"dancing with the star's," but now they are waking up. but we will see in the near future more and more people chiming up. the democrats make themselves look as if they are more than us. simply because of the media, hollywood, so one, and so forth. and the bottom line is, even if it was split in half, if you compromise, it still goes down to the same thing -- you have to give up some of your core, true believers, to get something done. host: michael, democrat from riverdale, georgia. what do you think? caller: i think we have to -- don't give up your rights for somebody else is wrong -- but we are all americans. we need to convert me so the country can move forward. stagnation is what happens when you are not willing to compromise. we need to at least what the

other side has to offer so you can make good choices and move forward. the article you referred to -- the president is being punished for her is an attempt to cooperate. host: larry is a republican from richmond, virginia. caller: good morning. our country was set up in the government was set up -- you have to compromise. you are not going to elect all people from one party. what we have seen in the last two years since the election of obama that the democrats had it just enough to pass anything they wanted to, and they still struggled with that because they didn't invite compromise. this simply tried to ram through what they wanted. this coming election -- the best scenario would be republican house for democratic senate, clothes -- they are going to have to talk to each other.

they are going to have to compromise. they can't just ram something through. host: independence from lancaster, pennsylvania. caller: i think there is a false equivalency. we have had 30 years -- 30- straight years of the smaller percentage of the people getting their way. the trickle-down economics, which is the key thing -- always going to be the key thing, economics is always going to be the key thing. they have fought tooth and nail with lobbyists, just bundled amounts of money, to get their point across. brenda bush administration, 85% disapproval of where the country is doing. it is down to 65 but still a miserable statistic. compromise ideally would be the way to go but there is no question that the republicans are not going to compromise on

anything and they are governed by the money that comes from the big corporate folks and whoever else is throwing money at them. its goal will you vote for for the senate? caller: -- host: who are you going to vote for for the senate? caller: sestak. the republican camp is just trying to kill the middle-class. the previous caller talked about the middle class, the middle- class is disappearing. it to me -- if toomey gets in, and others like him, it would be worse than during bush. host: compromise on capitol hill, is it really what what -- what americans want? 37% said, no, stick with your positions. this is "the new york post."

dem alarm for 100-seat loss. again, that is an "the new york post." this is the front page of "the hill" newspaper. facing the possibility of a near wipe out.

michigan, bill on the republican line. what do you think? caller: no compromise whatsoever. i will be short and sweet. the reids, pelosis and obamas of this country are growing it. spent more than we have ever in our lives. there is no compromise with these people. from hollywood all the way to washington. host: greensboro, north carolina. devereaux, a democrat. caller: good morning. i think there should be compromised. this country was founded on compromise. the declaration of independence, the constitution. they all work together. you cannot have one party that things they know at all and it

should be done their way. so, i think compromise but i do have a comment, peter. if you don't mind me asking. i wanted to know -- here in greensboro, c-span2 has been taken off the basic cable paired host: that's wrong, isn't it? caller: it is terrible. host: you miss tv on the weekends now. caller: of course i missed that. i could bump up to the tier where it is now, but what about those who can't? is that something c-span could do something about it? is there a name that i could call, and number and name of someone i can talk to about it? host: it is something we deal with on a regular basis. the person you want to talk to ed c-span is our vice-president, peter kylie --

kiley. he is the guy you want to talk to. he is the one in charge of those issues. if you call our front desk after 9:00 p.m. eastern time you can be patched through to him. caller: thank you so much. appreciate it. host: little river, maryland. rick, republican line. caller: i think that we should compromise. i think in america we are -- kind of being not in -- naive in that there is always going to be democratic point of view or republican point of view. you have to compromise so that americans can see congress and the senate are accomplishing something. it is always put out there that there is a do nothing congress. the reason why it is assumed is because no one compromises, no one wants to compromise on anything. host: what is an example of

compromise? guest: when you reach across the aisle and the bill kind of makes sense for both sides, one vote for it? such as tax cuts. when a tax cut as it were for the upper 2 percent and both sides agree that at least the middle class should get the tax cuts, both on the bill to give the middle-class tax cuts. don't say we are not going to give tax cuts to anyone, or we are not going to vote on it at all, just because the top 2 percent can get it at this well. you have the kind of reach across the aisle, and if it makes sense for the middle class, give it to the middle class. the middle class really needs it. but it looks to us, to america it looks like congress is not willing to do anything at all because one side will say that the upper class needs it as well as the men of class, but both sides agree that the middle class needs it. that is an example of reaching across.

host: darrow, independent. -- darryl. caller: thank you for everything you guys do. host: compromise or ideology? caller: i am sorry, sir? host: compromise or ideology? caller: independents take a larger part of -- than either republicans and democrats. compromise is absolutely essentials in our nation. the thing about it is, because republicans have lost, i believe that, ok, basically you allow the party and our -- in power to

it at their agenda. host: does the party in power have responsibility to adopt some minority positions? caller: absolutely. it is incumbent for laws into basically stay laws and not be repealed, that there be some kind of compromise. host: south carolina. angela, a democrat. caller: in response to your question, compromise vs ideology, that is the problem, not the solution. because we need both paired -- we need both. there is no one person who has all the answers. the republicans are right in some things, the democrats are right on some things. but this country is being torn apart because we are labeling people. every american as both liberal and conservative depending on the issue. every american can agree with

republicans and some of the time and democrats some of the time. but when we go around splitting people by causing them to make a false choice, we have to compromise because we have to work together. if we love this country -- and i love this country -- if we love this country, we will stop fighting among ourselves and acting like other countries of the world that just get torn up, we will become one of those nations. america, the greatest country in the world and we argue about silly things. host: thank you for calling in. ksa40 tweets in -- stephen pearlstein, a columnist and "the washington post" he usually writes about business issues, this is what he wrote this morning.

democrats heard by voters unwillingness to accept reality -- hurt by voters on willingness to accept reality.

that is a little bit from steve and posting's, and in "the washington post." dick morris writing his op-ed piece in "the hill." no longer do evangelical or social issues dominate the ground troops, but economic and fiscal issues prevail. the tea party made the republican party save for libertarians. in case you want to read more, thehill.com. this is from "the new york times." secretive republican donors are planning ahead. heading to the palm springs area for a long weekend in january to plan for the next one.

this, again, is from "the new york times" this morning. this is from "the washington post." this is david milbanks.

dennis from baton rouge. caller: i am and ideologies man. two quick points. in an ideal world, the way the political system would work is each individual would get out there and make it known who they actually are, and the people would vote for the individual and when they go to washington they will vote for what ever -- whatever that was would either be approved by the american people or disapproved.

host: thank you for calling in. a little bit of a bad connection. sorry about that. grace in sun city center, florida. caller: i think the question is being framed wrong, ideology versus compromise. i figure to be ideology versus common sense. there are times when a hard ideology defies common sense. we need to be looking for good solutions to real problems. an example is this really bad health plan that we got. we could have had a medicare for all, and it would be a lot cheaper than any thing provided by an insurance company. you pay premiums, you get your health care. we do it already through our lives. we pay medicare. thingd we've got this

that forces -- well, i just think it is a bad plan. common sense dictates that the private sector does not adequately perform some things. host: you got a big senate race down there. who are you voting for? caller: um. i would just assume not discuss that. i am still not watching the campaign. host: you have not decided yet? caller: no. it could do you have it down to two? caller: no. host: we cover the debate between charlie crist, mr. meek and mr. ron marco rubio. if you go to c-span.org, you can find all of the debates. almost 100 so far covered. more to come. if you go to c-span.org, our

politics page. you can see it. you can watch all of these debates from across the country. grace also brought up health care. in about and how -- an hour-and- a-half, phil bredesen, governor of tennessee has written a new book "fresh medicine: how to fix, reform & build a sustainable health care system." he will be on with us as well. the question is based on an abc news/yahoo news poll that was recently done. here is the question the people on the poll were asked. what is more important to you, that political leaders stick with their positions on important issues even if it means lack of cooperation between democrats and republicans, or that political leaders cooperate across party lines even if it means compromising on important issues. 57% said tried to cooperate. a 37% said stick with their positions. that is why we were asking the question -- compromise versus ideology.

this is from "the hill" newspaper. democrat says he heard pelosi will not run for speaker. again, that is an "the hill" this morning. beverly -- compromise or ideologies? caller: compromise.

host: why? caller: because that is what are president already tried to start doing but nobody wanted to listen to him. host: what does compromise mean to you? caller: it means that you do the best for the country on the republican side and the democrat side. but the republicans don't want to deal with the democrats because they have a lot of common sense and the republicans, they are beginning to be like the tea party. they are saying dumb stuff. host: thanks for calling in. detroit, pam, independent line. what do you think? caller: i think compromise. don't cut me off. what i am trying to think -- i am nervous. compromise. but the media and the different news and cable and fox news --

president obama has tried to compromise. for instance, the bills that have passed, the health care bill, is a compromise. the republicans have over 400 of their ideas incorporated in health-care but the media and cable and it essentially fox news are telling us republicans have nothing to do with the bill and they did. matter of fact, most of the bill is -- bill is republican ideas. host: tennessee. caller: i think on moral issues, i am christian so i would be really conservative but i think on the economy and jobs you have to compromise, you have to represent the people from your state and district.

host: back on the social issues, are you willing to compromise? caller: know. abortion, legalizing gay marriages. a couple. host: no compromise whatsoever? caller: not as a christian, know. host: missouri, rodney, a democrat. caller: i would like to say our political buzzards have set up situations such as on issues like you just mentioned, social issues, there is no compromise possible. this has subverted the democratic system completely. i guess that is my whole comments, thank you. host: texas, re on the independent line. caller: i think there should be compromised but as long as the

democrats and obama want my way or the highway, there will never be compromised. they will have to step down and let others make a few choices. when they think they are going to give tax cuts to the middle- class and -- the upper income, they don't realize that it all ends of the same because whenever you tax the upper brackets, they are the business and they will raise the prices to the middle class, so nobody gets any benefit out of it. it all stays the same. anyway, thank you for c-span. host: who will you vote for for governor? caller: i am a republican but i am american. because i could not vote for green party and i cannot vote for libertarian party so it would -- because it would be a wasted vote for one of the other two, which we have no choice to vote for, and that's democrats

and republicans. neither one of them is my favorite. anyway, if i voted for the other two parties it would just take the votes away from possibility of changing things so i voted all republican. host: democrat, denver. glenn, are you with us? please, go ahead with your comments. caller: i just wanted to say that compromise is an absolute necessity. ideology replaces what is going on with understanding between people who are moving things within our society to benefit all people as opposed to those that are just sort of out on the limb as if they are only themselves.

host: thank you for calling in. ian "-- in "the hill" they break down the election. blue dog democratic representative is in a tight race. his party ties could hurt him in this district. john mccain won this district in 2008. 53% disapprove of the job obama is doing. a 71% said the present will be an important factor when they go to the ballot box. here are a couple of more races that they look back. pennsylvania 8 democratic

incumbent leads over former gop lawmaker. the next call, pennsylvania, kay on the republican line. caller: i think we should compromise unless we give up our core values. host: what is a core value?

caller: well, like if you definitely don't agree that our tax money should go for abortions, then you should not compromise on that if that is your core belief. host: the front page of "the washington times," hispanics defy add to shun the elections. here is the ad. year. an election so here come more promises about immigration reform. last time, president obama and the democratic leadership made a commitment that immigration reform would be passed within a

year. but two years have gone by, and nothing, not even a vote in congress. with a democratic president and supermajorities in both chambers of congress, they have no excuses. clearly, the democratic leadership betrayed us. and now when they need our votes, they are at it again with more empty promises. aren't you tired of politicians playing games with your future? do you really think it will be different this time? they had a two years to do something. it was all talk and no action. this november, we need to send a message to all politicians, if they didn't keep their promise on immigration reform, then they can't count on our vote. democratic leaders must pay for the broken promises and the trails. if we just go on supporting them again this november, they will keep playing games with our future and taking our vote for granted. don't vote this november.

this is the only way to send them a clear message. you can no longer take us for granted. don't vote. paid for by latinos for reform. latinos for reform is responsible for the content of this ad. host: in "the wall street journal" this morning is a breakdown of the house races by ok put together by the coc political report. charlie cooke calls for the race is toss ups. 218 seats are needed for a majority. here is a recent poll in colorado on the same page. polls in colorado shows tom tancred a possible third-party bid for governor is gaining steam, putting in striking

district of the front runner, a former democratic -- the democratic them -- denver mayor. tulsa, dan, independent line. compromise versus ideology? the caller: i would say ideology -- you could also say compromise vs morals. for example, this health care bill. why would anybody with any common sense compromise when nobody knew what was really in it, including the speaker of the house? the compromise things and you get abortion on demand. that is not a good thing.

host: in "the new york times" this morning their profile in two races. the first one is john dingell. a picture of him campaigning. working on a 30th election campaign, 30th victory in dearborn, michigan. "the new york times" analysis, leaning democratic even though he did win his seat in 2008 with 71% of the vote. below that is a profile of michelle bachmann up in minnesota. "the new york times" analysis, leaning republican. she has raised $9.5 million on the race. 5.4 million of that just in the past few months. massachusetts, tony on the republican line. you are on c-span. caller: i think the question is

kind of broad because i think it depends on the issue. you can't just say compromise versus ideology because it depends on some questions -- compromise would mean forgetting about the constitution and the rule of law. the real question should be are we ruled by one sheet of paper or an actual set of laws. to say just ideology, both the left and right extreme. if you go extreme right, what they are calling friends and moments it's our people advocating for nothing more than the rule of law as it exists, not for changing it or doing the is there are not permitted to do. my question is, when we compromise, i think you the media needs to step up -- not just play the objective game. objectivism could be the worst thing that happened to us because when somebody violates the constitution digging -- like, we should do x, y, z, and it is strictly prohibited, if

you say it is good or bad, you kind of lead people under the assumption that you can do whatever you want, there is no rule of law. thank you. host: a viewer tweets in -- the front page of "the new york times," gop calls to cut spending, hows are few.

the front page of "the new york times." cynthia, washington, d.c., democrat. caller: let me start by saying i disagree with the previous caller from massachusetts. you guys need to remain objective and get unbiased reporting. i think it would be just a terrible thing, and it has happened before, when bush was an office and all the republicans were in office and we had a lot of people on msnbc and all of those stations who were just really being politically biased when reporting, so then we end up -- wound up with the bush years and now we have this mess as a result. we need to remain -- to answer your question, between

compromise and ideology, i think compromise would be better because of a lot of the ideologies this country has been built upon has been absolutely wrong, prejudice, racist, and hurtful to other groups of people and we need to keep in mind. we have to compromise because right now what we need to change. the president can hardly get his agenda across because of the republicans in this country, not only in the health and so forth, but in this entire country actually fighting against him. host: in all, we have to leave it there. gerry, republican, another call from washington. caller: i have to of course disagree with the previous caller but say in this case, the nation, the very existence of the republic, depends upon no compromise on ideology right now and fighting back that is the ever encroaching larger and larger government which seeks to take over and control aspects of

individual liberty and individual rights. the one thing about this is when people talk about compromise, they are talking about it essentially that the republicans get into the left. that we see a slow incremental growth of government, slow incremental growth of their aspect of the economy, etcetera. if we are going to be true to the founders principle -- and mind you, the declaration of independence is a set of principles that cannot be compromised upon, and the constitution has been compromised over and over again. the 10th amendment might as well not even be there, which says if it is not delegated to the end of the government is reserved to the states and people respectively. so, i don't think we can compromise. in fact, we need to take an aggressive ideological turn backed of the side -- turned back of the size of government and the growth of these federal programs that obama and the democrats have ran through. host: we will leave it there. this is from the bluesman's the tribune -- "the duluth news

tribune." they faced angry mobs of opponents' supporters. the long term incumbent was shot down with terms of lyra and obama-jr.. oberstar reporters to responded in kind. moderators' ask for stability but the catcalls and jeering continued through most of the 90-minute forum, drowning out the candidates' answers due to a faulty sound system that lacked volume. "the daily beast" did an interview with bob dornan, former representative and presidential candidate. if you have ever watched c-span

in the past you remember bob dornan down on the floor. 77 right now and retired. congresswoman sanchez, who beat him in 1996 or 1998. here is a little bit of bob dornan this morning. central plank of the tea party is challenging conservatives who strayed from the truth. once upon -- upon a time bob dornan was a soldier for george h. w. bush's's 1992 campaign and supported george w. -- but the father left does bill clinton who corrupted the morals of high-school kids. oral sex is not sex and the son left us of the solomons the community organizer. what more can a father-a son do for america? if there is entranced -- intrench republican in his sights, newt gingrich.

he began souring on him since 1998. it was never the same with that geek haunting the hallways but he loaves newt gingrich's ideological posturing, his infidelity, and his sudden resignation bequeathed the republicans dennis has stirred, "the weakest not an to the white paper that i have ever seen in the house." again, according to a bomb -- bob dornan, the fact that newt gingrich blackballed and from fox news. inouye, and. -- gingrich running for president makes me sick. he says he might run in 2012 as a single man, causing mission to take out newt, which would be a very tea party thing to do. croft and, maryland. a nick on the democrats' line. -- crofton, maryland. >> on the democrats' line.

caller: i would say compromised but it is hard to compromise with somebody who would not talk back and deal with you. host: what do you mean? caller: everything they have tried to do since the election has been just met with no him. as a democrat, i would like to compliment nancy pelosi of -- did you ask a question? i see your lips moving. tv, youn't watch the are seeing a delay. caller: when nancy pelosi came into office, the first thing she did was take impeachment off the table of george bush and that alienated at least 30% of the party. all of us guys who were down there to protest the wars and things on that order. she took impeachment off the table and let them all off the hook and alienated the majority

part of the party, the left wing of the party, as howard dean would say, the democratic wing. and then they tried to compromise. the health-care bill. i am 58 years old. it took so long to go through congress. they had so many meetings. it was put out there and then they turned it all round. this said it was done behind closed doors. even c-span got on the bandwagon, the last day or something they said, cannot remember the exact question because things passed so quickly, but you guys jump all over that. that was wrong. they did compromise. of a compromise more than any other bill in my 58 years. -- they compromised more than any other bill. and oberstar, the last meeting, that is what they did with the town halls. remember the town hall where they had where that young guy was with kerry, those cops

tased him. i am asking you a question and you are looking at me stupid- looking. the poor boy said, don't pay is me, bro and they tased him anyway. the first tea party where they have the guys down there with a gun, i wish my brevet -- but -- host: are you laughing? thank you for calling in, nick. we appreciate your comments. please call back in 30 days. from "usa today" take quick articles. missouri democratic party accused republican senate candidate would blunt of illegal employing an immigrant 20 years ago was seeking asylum. blunt talk to campaign denies the allegation and said the democrats are distorting a kind gesture. also in "usa today" this

morning, justice thomas ' wife seeks apology. the wife of justice clarence thomas recently contacted brandeis university professor anita hill who accused thomas sexual harassment 19 years ago during his confirmation hearings for the supreme court.

a couple of quick e-mails about our topic. pat coons -- concord, north carolina. next -- glenn beck, ky. finally, new mexico.

very quickly, here is a bus tour that sarah palin is taking. she begins her 15-stop tea party expressed or on monday. she began on monday in nevada and as you can see, it will wind across the country. there are some of the stops. this is in the "washington post" this morning. one more article -- "pittsburgh post-gazette." poll shows the democrat inching ahead of toomey. up next, editor-in-chief of "the hotline," reid wilson. contentn's local vehicles are travelling the country as we look at some of

the most closely contested house races leading up to this november's midterm elections. >> how are you doing? good to meet you. thank you. how are you doing? good to see you. randy hilstren. >> the overall level of payments you get from medicare very different from the private levels? do you see a big difference? >> if it is direct billing for medicare a, pps system, all- inclusive, so they get their therapies, so it of -- kind of balances. >> you have the incumbent, bill foster, a scientist, and he is running with to get against the businessman and lawyer.

hulstren is trying to say foster voted for the party line -- voted for health care reform, some things the people in the district may have questions about. the 14th district is big. it looks like a bow tie and it stretches as far west as iowa and as far east as we did. it is the verse with a mix of urban and rural, so you have industry, farms, and a laboratory where foster comes from being a scientist. it was held by house speaker denny has stirred so he established a republican legacy and it was a big deal when foster one that seed. kane county is a major county and unemployment is very high. it was over 10%. jobs, jobs, a big mantra we are hearing from both. >> telling people i am not its of the good democrat. i think everyone appreciates my independent voting record.

voting against cap and trade, for example. voting against the democratic budget every time it has come up for a vote. these are recognized as being fundamental statement of the independence i feel. being a scientist and a businessman makes me very often, at odds with leadership on either side of the aisle and it means very often i don't vote with the leadership on the right or the left. i think i got named as the second most centrist member of congress. >> foster, he calls themselves a centrist democrat. while he has supported some major democratic votes like health care reform and a financial regulation bill, he is also more moderate on other issues. he can be more of a fiscal moderate. hulsgren is much more conservative. he would not be in support of

abortion rights and bills himself as more of a tax what stub. he would accuse foster of overspending, voting for the anger that would only increase government debt. >> many parts of the district have been hit really hard. illinois in general has a higher in it -- unemployment rate than the nation and the 14th district has a higher rate than it illinois does we felt this downturn more than most places. people really are hurting and they want something better. they wanted jobs, they want the opportunity back. >> money is really coming into play. you have fostered -- foster having a much bigger war chest. i think it is a toss up. it -- i think people are concerned foster may continue to vote the party line but at the same time hulsgren is a lot more

conservative. >> c-span's local content vehicles are visiting communities and congressional districts as we look at some of the most closely contested house races leading up to this november's midterm elections. for more information on what the local content vehicles are up to, visit our website c- span.org/lcv. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us is the editor in chief of hot line, reid wilson. thank you for being on "washington journal." how much money has been spent in the 2010 cycle? guest: talking about not hundreds of millions of billions of dollars. some estimates put the number at north of $4 billion spent throughout the country, both on federal races and even higher if

you include state races. a lot of the money is coming from outside groups. that is what we are seeing the last few days. the candidates themselves have been raising plenty of money, being simply swamped by the outside groups just pouring cash into these contests. >> does the citizens united case affect this election cycle big- time money wise? guest: it is really the foundation as to why so much money is pouring in. the case led to the creation of what has been called super pacs, able to raise amounts of money as long as they disclose parts of that as long as they are filed under certain sections of the irs, disclose it to the federal election commission or the irs depending on their tax status. they can raise unlimited money from corporations, unions, individuals, and spend that money on ad campaigns that directly advocate for the election or defeat of a candidate for federal office. host: who are some of the biggest groups spending and a question of guest: the group

having the most and that is american crossroads. it is an organization that is being advised by former republican national committee chairman ed gillespie, former white house counsel karl rove, chaired by former rnc chairman mike duncan. they were aiming to spend $50 million on senate and house races around the country. they recently upped that amount to $65 million simply because they had such success raising this unlimited cash. president obama started talking about them a few weeks ago, really challenging them to disclose more and talk about where their money was coming from. after president obama made american crossroads a big target raised more than $30 million in a single week. president obama turned out to be american crossroads's biggest contributor. some other groups with taking a look at, americans for prosperity spending a lot on house races. american freedom fund, which is

a conservative group based in iowa. american crossroads gps, affiliated with the crossroads group, spending a lot of money on the ground game operations. the one thing that all of these groups have in common is they are all backing republican candidates. on the democratic side, they had a lot of success in 2004, 2006, and 2008 and raising big money from outside groups. this year big democratic donors are sitting on their hands. we have not seen the same activity from the left that we have seen -- as we have seen on the right. host: as we get to individual races, which are the most expensive? guest: the big race everybody is spending a lot of money -- money on is the colorado senate race. senator michael bennett who was appointed after tens salazar became interior secretary, he has been raising money at a really fast clip for a colorado senate candidate. he was largely unknown as the

chief of denver schools when he was elevated to the senate. a kind of an unconventional picked by the governor. his republican rival can block -- ken buck has not been raising a lot of money but it is a close race. buck is ahead of a point or two at the moment. outside groups have spentthat $y from conservative organizations, but the democratic senatorial campaign committee has made this a priority. one thing we have seen from all this outside spending, it is almost uniformly negative. the ads running in colorado have run of the negatives for both. neither candidate has a net favorable rating. both are seen by most voters as unfavorable choices.

host: when you look at the money ,,, reid wilson is our guest.

what about the senate majority leader's race? how much money has been spent in the back? >> harry reid has promised to spend $25 million for his reelection bid. angle has now become the cause celeb in her effort. in fact, i did some back of the honorable of the other day. it is more than christopher

dodd, joe wilson, and bill richardson raising in their first candidacy. that tells you about the celebration going around sharon angle's candidacy. everyone wants to say that they reelected or not of the senate majority leader. republicans have been spending a lot of money through the crossroads organizations, as well as a number of organizations outside of the state. one thing that is worrying republicans in the nevada contest is the fact that we have not seen a huge amount of television advertising from union organizations. those unions, republican worry, are spending more money on turnout operations. there are really not that many

of undecided voters, so it will be all about turnout. we have seen thousands of people on both sides turning out to cast their ballots before election day. one thing that was interesting about the race -- i was covering a house contest. if you turn on the tv, at least half, if not three out of the four advertisements you see on tv is a political advertisement. not a single one of them will be positive. they are simply dominating the airwaves in a state that does not have a lot of media markets. host: we saw an article this morning in "the new york times" about the coke brothers fund-

raising and planning for the election cycle. >> they are behind one of the organization spending so much money. they have been active in politics going on three decades now. they have had a substantial impact. it is fair to say the tea party movement owes its early organizational success to money put in by the coke brothers. we see them all over the country behind americans for prosperity, the cato institute. they have an influence over how not only we talk about politics, but how politics is run, as an americans for prosperity. host: first phone call. charlotte. larry, republican line. caller: we are hearing a lot on the news about corporate

donations, all of it going to republicans. i remember in september 2008, obama collected $150 million in one month and broke all campaign records. virtually all lawyers and unions give to the democrats. if you look at the top 20 who give to political campaigns, half of them are unions. guest: that is a good point. one thing that is worrying republicans is they are not seeing the money that unions are spending. that means instead of spending their money on the tv ads that

might try to sway an undecided voter, they are spending money trying to turn out their vote, get people to the polls. that will be a big factor this year when turnout has been down from last year. getting those base, democratic union voters out to the polls will be a big deal. if their labor unions are doing a lot, it could shift all lot of boats to the democratic side. ahead -- a lot of boats to the democratic side. democrats have made a point of going after these organizations who do not disclose where their money is being spent. that has become a little bit problematic, given the fact that a number of white house officials, prominent democratic

strategists, have worked for similar groups like this. i do not think anybody can remember a particular race in which campaign spending has become a dominant issue that moves boats. host: andy, chicago. independent line. caller: i wanted to describe my ideal election cycle, which would be only two months long. i get really tired of watching the negative ads, sitting through the general election cycle. you have eight months of the politicians saying the same words and phrases over and over, spending millions of dollars to do this. my intelligence is consulted about these ads about mark kirk

and how evil he is. they may as well he is -- they may as well say he is a sit-in worshiper. it does not increase anyone's knowledge about the issues. i just want to throw out my ideal -- people would describe their platform for a couple of months, people would vote, and it would be over. guest: i think that that is probably coming next week, if it has not run already. the caller brings up a good point. negative adds reduces turn out. -- ads reduces turnout. if you take a look around the country, right before labor day, there were 46 house democrats

who were on the air running television advertisements. i asked one of the top democratic strategists who follows these campaigns closely, how many are negative? he said, i hope all of them are. at this time, people are not voting for a candidate, but more against. if you can convince your constituents and that someone is an inside washington player who loves to hang out with big money, you have a better chance to win your election rather than going in and saying here is my plan to cut taxes. that is all we are seeing, this nonstop barrage of negative advertising. that will really drive down turnout at the end. host: what about house races? do you know more of the expensive ones?

guest: yes, the race in nevada between joe heck and dina tidus. is gettinge ,tidu, tidus a lot of money from organizations like the league of conservative voters. she cannot actually coordinate with these groups, but they are putting advertisements on on her behalf. they are spending a lot of money in those districts. another thing that she is getting is union money. she is getting the benefits from the service employees union and others. they have been spending the money to get voters out to the

polls early. the highest by far in the nation in terms of getting the early vote out. i was there over the weekend and they had a forum to discuss their issues, and then they all went over to vote. so far, we have seen more democrats vote and tidus' district, but as a percentage, republicans are said they had, which is not unexpected. the republican is getting quite a bit of money from unions as well. they have come in with massive advertising.

democrats are spending as much as republicans are but at the moment, it looks like the republican candidate could be running ahead. the democratic campaign committee and republican campaign committee have made this race a high priority. host: we are talking about money and politics with reid wilson of "hotline." he has written for the new republic, "arizona capital times," a graduate of george washington university. where did you grow up? guest: i am actually from seattle where there are some great races going on. the democratic campaign committee just released some new ad buys.

$13 million in new democratic ad spending. two of the ski races are in washington state. one is in the extreme northwest corner where rick larsen is facing a surprisingly strong challenge from the man he beat last year. he may be a bit too conservative in the average year, but this is a big republican wave. democrats are spending a lot of money on behalf of rick larsen, someone who they did not think would be a republican target. the other great race is right along the pacific ocean coast. there are two strong candidates. there is a democrat named denny heck.

he is a former state legislator, chief of staff to a popular governor. he started a version of c-span in washington state which runs all of the legislative hearings. the democratic congressional campaign committee dropping $450,000 into that race. that is one of the top three races that democrats are spending on. republicans believe they are very far ahead here. it is a race that will be turned out -- determined by the turnout. washington state election law -- it is all mail-in. democrats and republicans just need to get their constituents to get their forms turned back in.

but their efforts are really about educating them for this month and then filling out their ballots before they send them in. host: what about the senate race? guest: patty murray is facing a tough race against dino rossi. he is a former statewide candidate. he ran for governor in 2004 and lost 130 votes statewide. in 2008, and tino rossi ran again, came within six points of beating the former governor. the no rossi clearly has a right to appeal -- dino rossi clearly appeal. a right to appea

you can really cut down the democratic margin with him, and that is their key. democrats believe that patty murray will be safe. however, there is new public polling that shows turn leading by just a single point. so this race will come down to the wire. if it is a close race, it is not something we will know about on november 3, because of the way that washington counts their votes. it could take weeks. the congressman from the belle view area, east of seattle had to wait a couple of weeks to see if he had won re-election in the past. it will take a long time to count these ballots and it will be a contentious race. both sides are spending a lot of money.

american crossroads, the american action network, both republican organizations, have been spending heavily. the conservative groups the spending on rossi, democrats spending on patty murray. host: does each voter have to put their stamp on it, has it reached a point of e-vote? yet.: not there are some jurisdictions that are testing electronic voting. they invited some hackers to try to come in and break down the system. i think it took them less than one hour to do so. electronic voting could still be far into the future. what we are seeing now is the

growth of the early voting in key places around the country. we are also seeing absentee ballots becoming a more prevalent thing. you really have a couple of days to fill out your ballot rather than a 12-hour window when the polls are open. that drives turnout way up. washington and oregon are the states that do this. host: how is this affecting turnout and how you ensure anonymity? guest: turnout has gone up in both states. it will be interesting to see where it is this year coming off of a presidential election cycle. it is expected to be well hire the average turnaround in elections that are not all mail- in. the anonymity part is the same as almost anything else that you

would see in a regular polling place. when you send back the absentee ballot, you put it into an envelope, then into a second envelope with your signature, but then once it is open, it just becomes one in the pile. nobody knows who you voted for. host: next phone call. caller: thank you, c-span. i wonder, mr. wilson, if you can explain the supreme court decision that has led us to where we are with all of this outside spending. what did that decision say, how did the votes come down with the justices? i wonder if you believe public financing is a solution to this problem? guest: this was a case that has been argued before.

in march of last year, they argued this. citizens united had produced a video called "hilary, the movie" and they wanted to put it on demand. it was essentially an anti- hillary clinton campaign commercial that was 16 minutes. the local court said you cannot do that. citizens united sued them. they had gone corporate money for what was essentially a campaign video. citizens in knighted said that they should be allowed to -- united said that they should be allowed to produce the video. the case looked at the way that we regulate campaign finance law, otherwise known as mccain fine gold.

the supreme court -- mccain- feingold. justice alito said that these outside organizations could not regulate. it allowed corporate donations in unregulated amounts. so instead of somebody being limited to giving $500 to a political action committee, someone could donate $1 million. that money has flowed relatively freely now from individuals into organizations like american crossroads. the interesting thing is there has been a few more challenges and largely a group of folks who are trying to challenge campaign finance laws are around the country. an sec commissioner has been stalwart against some of these

reforms. conservatives consider this a violation of the first amendment. really, the ringleader of the whole thing is senate leader mitch mcconnell. he is someone who has been an advocate of the first amendment for a long time, against the campaign finance laws, which limits the speech of folks around the country. a congressman from indiana has brought forth a number of cases involving campaign finance law. he was in the citizens united case. ted olson, the former solicitor general, also argued the case in front of the supreme court. there is a wide network of folks who oppose these finance measures who have been quite successful lately because of this 5-4 supreme court majority.

host: kevin, silver spring, maryland. independent line. please go ahead with your question. kevin, are you with us? moving on to queens, new york. michael. caller: hello? i just wanted to remind everyone how important accountability and disclosure is. you are talking about all of this wasted money in iraq. dollarsve billions of mone went missing. you have to follow the money. we have to find out where this money is coming from. guest: in a lot of cases, these groups are filing with the irs.

in some cases, they do not have to. the u.s. chamber of commerce, and other groups like that, under well-established tax laws do not have to say where the money is coming from. democrats are trying to make this a big issue. they have been pushing a number of groups to get the funding for these ads into the public domain. that has not been successful yet. host: next phone call from from -- come from california. sarah, indde-- next phone call m california. caller: these candidates who have lost a reelection in the past, or are running for the first time, does their income tax count in terms of them

seeking a job? can they collect unemployment when they lose their job? my suggestion is you start running a streamer on the bottom of the screen so that people can turn down their tv so that you do not have to repeat yourself. guest: i do not know about the unemployment benefits, i am sorry to say. there are some candidates who will lose, some income that members who will become unemployed very quickly. i do not know if they can claim unemployment. on the income tax, a candidate who contributes to their own campaign follows most of the same rules that you or i would, in that a contribution to a political organization is not tax deductible. there are some that have spent millions on their own campaign this year.

the one thing they can do, they can contribute more than the federal maximum. if you were contributing to your local member of congress, you could only contribute $240. if this is your own campaign, it is unlimited. linda mcmahon donated $20 million to her own campaign. she has contributed more than $41 million in the effort to take back a democratic seat. in california, meg whitman has donated $140 million to her own campaign. that is enough to buy a luxury airliner. they do not get tax breaks but they can contribute unlimited amounts. host: we have a question on twitter --

i am guessing how many past elections have been included how do you pick the bellwether districts? guest: we will start with the states that vote in a presidential year. they are largely seen as ohio and missouri. they had picked so many correct candidates in the presidential contest, until 2008, when john mccain won the state by a few thousand. they are considered a bellwether because if a republican does not win it, they are not likely to win the election. bellwether districts, though, that is more than an art than a science. kentucky is a great state because it closes very early on election night, around 6:30.

there is a difficult race going on there. both democrats and republicans are spending money in this district. kentucky is coal country. it will be tough because the democrats voted for cap and trade in legislation. if that seat clips, because chandler has been such a member of congress, has been good to his constituents, has built himself a foundation, if the district flips, we will know early, and it will likely be a bad night for democrats. in 2006, when nothrup lost turbid in louisville, everyone thought it was going to be a bad night for republicans and ended up losing the majority. that will be indicative of how things go for the rest of the night. host: bassett, virginia.

rikki, republican. go ahead. caller: good morning, peter. good morning, reid. guest: good morning. caller: i was curious about that race for the house seat in south dakota. guest: a great race. stephanie hurst has been in congress three terms now. she has a great name. her family has been involved in politics in south dakota for a long time. she is young, she has an attractive family. she has everything going for her except for the d after her name.

christy nom has everything going for her as well. she has everything she needs to run a good campaign. she is not some terrible person that you can paint as an extremist, so this one will go down to the wire. democrats just contributed $70,000 to this race. that can go a long way on tv in a place like south dakota. hurst and sandelin will be involved in a tough race. i would not doubt her, though. she has been a political heavyweight. host: because of the economy, can you tell if individuals contributing to campaigns is

down? guest: actually, it is up. the incredible thing about these midterm elections, outside groups, even those $25, $50 contributors, across the country, that spending is up. this election will cost more than the 2008 election. we are not even going to remember the amount of spending in this election in a couple of years. one big thing that these groups are planning for is 2012. in the words of quite a few of them, 2012 will blow 2010 out of the water. this is the practice run for what will happen in 2012. host: louis, democrat. you are next. caller: taking money that comes

from my union checks is totally wrong because of where it goes. i do not know of one dime that has come out of my check on a local level that has gotten a job for anyone in my community. those at the upper level, those who are the business agents, the main representatives who make decisions on where this money goes, yes, they have benefited from this by giving a $5,000 check. host: have you ever figured out how much you spend in union dues? guest: that would be fascinating. caller: i will sit down one day

and try to figure that out. my point is, i just got a letter in the mail of my union telling me these are the people we want you to vote for. these people do not permit -- represent me as a union worker, they represent their own ideology. guest: is an interesting point. i would love it if you could find out how much you spend over the years. one of the things that a lot of people are complaining about is that union money. every time democrats go after these conservative organizations and say, where are you getting your money from, corporations? conservative organizations say that the democrats are taking money away from working folks who may not necessarily want to

support these democratic candidates. the union dues that the caller has paid have gone to creating a few jobs, a largely canvassers working for democratic organizations, candidates. that may not be what he wants his money spent on. host: finally, you are getting called out on this tweet -- guest: i have not seen any evidence of that. it is an argument, a point that you can bring up, and it is affected if you want to tag the republican party as beholden to corporate interest, shady deals, but on local level, i do not think anyone is going to vote for hurst sandelin because her

ads were not supported by corporate donations. host: 1 more for you. -- one more for you -- guest: republicans in the 39 seats to take back the house. at the moment, they are likely to get something in the high- 40's. in terms of net gains, it is becoming tenuous. in the senate, it could be the first year in modern times where the house lipscomb but the senate does not. there are a number of cases that are flipping over to democrats. that being said, republicans will increase their majority. host: reid wilson, thank you.

coming up next is a discussion with gov. phil bredesen, governor of tennessee, out with a new book called "fresh medicine." we will be right back with governor bredesen. >> openly gay recruits with can now join the military as a result of a federal court ruling striking down the don't ask, don't tell law. cynthia smith says, and the suspension of the law is in response to the decision from a federal judge who ruled the law unconstitutional. virginia philips denied a request to delay her order. the justice department says the obama administration will appeal. meanwhile, at least three service members who have been discharged for being gay have begun the process of reenlisting. the pentagon warned that they can still be discharged if the

ruling is overturned. on a related note, hillary clinton is offering support to the teenagers who are suffering from bullying, advising them to hang in there and ask for help. in a videotaped message on youtube, secretary clinton said that she was saddened by the suicides of young people because of bullying. she said this is a reminder that the nation needs to work harder to overcome bigotry and hatred. tim kane speaking earlier on "the today show." he says he believes the party is hitting the midterm elections in an up cycle and will do well on november 2. asked about polls, showing that american the longer believe the american dream is in their grasp, he said that with the president on the trail, we have a good case.

the president leaves for a four- day campaign tour where he will be rallying voters in washington, california, and nevada for democratic candidates. he will also stunned four gubernatorial candidates in oreg ando oregon and minnesota. >> they decided they would wear a small black armbands to express their views on the war on vietnam. >> the school suspended them which led to a supreme court case. hear the argument on saturday, 6:00 on c-span radio.

>> c-span, bringing you politics and affairs. every morning, it is open for washington journal." on weekdays, watch live coverage of the house of representatives. -- it is a "washington journal." -- it is "washington journal." our programming is also available at any time on c- span.org. host: on your screen have now is tennessee gov. phil bredesen,

whose new book is "fresh medicine." governor, in your book, you write, march 23, 2010, was a stunning disappointment. guest: when president obama was inaugurated, i had the same sense that things were going to change. i have always been interested in health care. he made it in domestic -- a domestic priority. he turned it over to the congress and what i think they produced is not complete. it left all sorts of fundamental problems unresolved. in politics, any time you can change something fundamentally it is when the planets lineup. i thought that we had that

opportunity but i am disappointed. host: in your view, where did it go wrong? guest: i think it was treated too much as, let's turn it over to the congress, what ever they put together is what we will consider health reform. i have a lot of respect for legislative values, working with one in tennessee. there are some things that they , something that they are not. congress is a good editor, but not a great author. host: you write -- structural problems including? guest: one that we have to deal

with is the growth and cost of health care. we are paying just as much as any other country for not as good results. you would think with our economy, the way we create value in so many parts of the economy, we could do a better job. there really are fundamental equality issues in health care. what we have is a system that got put into structure in the 1930's, this insurance-based model, employment-based model. it worked fine for decades. we have outgrown it. i think we need to move to something more sophisticated, something that can deliver better value for americans. i did not expect the congress to shift 90 degrees, but there was barely anything done. we just sort of reaffirmed this commitment to these old ways.

i thought it was a backward- looking reform. host: you called it health insurance reform, but it really is not. why not? guest: bac when which started this, it was very specific. today, most of the things that it covers, it is not insured against an unusual event, it is paying for your ongoing things. people have chronic diseases that require treatment over literally decades. the whole mechanism for paying for that or everything you do generates this blizzard of paper, it does not make sense. as i tried to describe it in the book. you have 1000 houses, one white

bird down, and everyone puts it -- one white burned down, and everyone puts -- one might burn down, and everyone puts into that. my big concern about this reform -- in tennessee, we went through this process in 1992 trying to be the massachusetts of the 1990's. everybody gets their spreadsheets together, they all make good sense. we added a lot of people to the unemployment rolls -- to the employment rolls, all of these projections did not happen. i ended up with a huge best to sort through. reform will do the same thing. we have about 30 million people. those costs will come in on

schedule. the savings may or may not be there. i already think we have huge cost issues coming down the road with these expansion issues, let alone the base. host: you write -- guest: part of what i was trying to help people in tennessee understand where we were on this --

people talk about health care in a vacuum. everyone is in favor of people having health insurance. we need to understand how much money is running through this. i used that in a speech to our legislature, and they responded, i am all for this idea, but it does not correspond to priorities that i would set for myself. we have a particular problem in tennessee. we are a bit better now, but we headed the list in terms of per- capita pharmacy spending. it just does not make sense, if you think about it. i also compared but we were spending on medicaid compared to k-12 education. we passed it in the 1980's. when i became governor, we were spending 2.75 times what we were

paying for k-12 education. host: what is successful reform, in your view? by the way, the numbers are on the screen. we will begin taking phone calls shortly. guest: i talk about some stepping stones in the book. i think we need to step back and reaffirm, first of all, we are going to pay for it. bringing these threads of money together and nobody knows where things are going -- people are capable of prioritizing decisions about their health if they have a good idea about what the costs are. secondly, we are committed to quality. there are many areas where american healthcare is great, many where it is not, and i would love to see a real commitment to that. i had hoped that we would step

back a little bit from the business as usual. medicare and medicaid programs were designed in 1965. they reflected the views of 1965. when we came about this reform, we simply look backed and used that as the model. i think we need to take a more forward-looking view. host: why are you writing this book after health care passed? guest: in a perfect world -- i have this day job of being governor which gets in the way of some of these things. i started talking to the publisher last summer. as a looked like health reform would proceed, we put it on ice. the reason i did it, look, i do not think this is over by a

longshot. in particular, the way that it was passed on this very narrow partisan line vote -- which is not what happened with social security, medicare. once the vote is over, it is over. i think the way this played out, it guarantees this will be in place for a long time. it will be a litmus test for political will in both parties. it is really about trying to provide some other voices. the fundamental thing that went wrong, this is a program that was designed by congressional staffers, particularly a bunch of them sitting around for 10 years in the wilderness, now is the chance for them to move

forward, a bunch of advocacy groups. there are so many bright people across the country. i just think this needs some other voices. i hope other people who have ideas can put them on the table and instill some realism into these systems. host: what do you think of republican proposals to dismantle so-called obamacare. guest: it has turned into this litmus test on both sides. i hope that as time goes on, we can look at this and say that there are some good things about this. i think having insurance for 34 million people is a good thing. people deserve it. the fact that we left another 20 million out of the equation is a problem. as this develops, i hope we can find some compromises.

i am a democrat, but i really believe in my partisanship. i believe it is important for democrats and republicans to find ways to move forward in ways that will bring not just one or two people along. we need to work on this together. host: gov. phil bredesen writes --'fresh medicine" guest: there is a lot about this -- and i have spoken to people involved in health care. there is this feeling that people with a lot of academic knowledge about health care, including congressional staffers, people who staff the advocacy groups. a lot of it does not have the feel of someone who has been there, has seen the stuff working.

a lot of us who may be on the front lines need some help to step back and look at the larger picture, but that is not the only point of view. i really believe you are going to see an awful lot of employers dropping their employer-based coverage as a result of the way the reform works. if we had some insurance company people involved, as opposed to making them the enemy -- that was predictable. a lot of people saw that early on. host: phil bredesen, author of governor ofomedicine," tennessee. guest: we were an hmo management

agency i picked up a lot of valuable experience there, i think. the company was sold and ultimately, these were sold, but there are individual plants. host: is the hmo model a sustainable model? guest: the idea of trying to better integrate care is a good idea. i have talked about ways to do that. concentration solely on cost savings instead of quality was a big mistake, something that hmos are criticized for. they were also never really big enough to move the way the health care system worked. if you are 10% of the market and the other 9% is service, that gives you a comfortable umbrella to work under, but we learn from what we went through.

obviously, part of the country, california, hmos was successful and provided a lot of health care. if you look at different pieces of the system, you have to learn from it. it is not just looking at one piece and saying it is the answer. host: next phone call. caller: i would like to make an assertion, give an idea, and then make another assertion. i will assert the market principle of insurance, you have to establish a value that limits liability. in health care you have unlimited liability, so therefore it is a market principle anathema. my proposal would be that you have health care providers provide a price-cost list. you mandate that they give a direct, itemized billing, and then you limit to a percentage

of a person's net monthly income, say 10%, based on categories. if you have a visit with a follow up, for example, they can be build 10% of their monthly income for three months. guest: first of all, your point about insurance is exactly right. one of the things that is fundamentally different about health insurance, if your house burns down, there is a limit to the value of the house, what someone will pay out. that is part to what has led to the rise in costs that exists out there. what happened with reform, and that view of the world was solidified. instead of trying to alter it, just wires it more into the system. in terms of the pricing system,

i would differ with you a little bit. while there are a lot of things that individuals can do, make intelligent decisions about whether to have some service or not -- where most of the costs are, the patient has little control over. if i go to the emergency room with chest pains, i am not interested in prices, i am not interested in shopping for the right doctor on the internet. at that point, i need the hospital to do the right bing and charged dearly for it. there are places where that direct tie to a patient can make a difference, but for a lot of expensive stuff, it is unrealistic that people can make those decisions. host: mississippi, republican. roy. go ahead. caller: i have a comment about

senior citizens and health care. this is a presumption, but it seems that they may put in more republicans in the senate, in the house. i think it is an attack on medicare, medicaid. it is a ploy to get rid of guest: speaking of medicare, i would think that is almost untouchable in terms of the entire program. we are clearly going to have to do some things for medicare that has a $30 trillion unfunded deficit. we will have to do some things to help control costs. medicaid is much more controversial. this reform dramatically expands medicaid, really changes in its face. and there will probably be people who want to go back to

eat older medicaid. medicaid has always been in the past about the deserving poor, women having children, disabled people. it applies not to all the poor. once people start to figure out that the guy who hangs around the pool hall, the ne'er do well cannot hold a job now has better health care than they do, there will be some political backlash. host: in your book you talk about the human factor, or the dehumanizing factor. guest: i am a little out of step with my party on this. i think the whole notion of making so many things dependent on going down to the welfare office with all your assets and then come, and this blame yourself to the world -- i just don't like the whole, don't like it. one of the things i talk a lot about with social security is

that is more dignified. if you make less income, you pay less. it is automatic. you don't have to go down and talk to some bureaucrat across a table. secondly, the extent to which we can make at least basic medical care more like that instead of being dehumanizing. i spoke in a book about when i was back in the hmo business was in provider being asked to provide medicare service. i said i am happy to, but no one would join because our benefit packages smaller than medicaid. when i went out to a senator and spoke to someone coming in with that, and asked her why, she pulled a card from her pocket and said it is simple -- mine now looks like everyone else's. when i go to the doctor i don't get shuffled over here to the poor side of the room. well we are all thinking about ways to technically do all this,

and what percentage should qualify shouldwhat we forgot about the human dignity dimension. it is something we need to restore. host: the next phone call comes from california, jude, a democrat. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am the eternal optimist. as much of the language i have been hearing all throughout the initiation of our president obama, initiating change or wishing to, i still think this country is strong enough in the people in it are strong enough to recognize that change takes time. with health care in our own private lives regardless of who we have taken care of it in our lifetimes, we all recognize that is a tough nut to crack. i wish that each person in this

country would sit down and really analyze, get past their anger, and they're not understanding, pick up the boat, look on the web site, contact the white house -- pick-up a book --talk to people, listen, i try to understand that we are all in this together. host: governor phil bredesen? guest: i love you say. i consider myself a great optimist too. part of the reason i read the book is i don't think we necessarily need to be stuck with everything we will continue to evolve and grow as a country. we have been incredibly resilient. i like president obama very much. i want to be clear, i work for his election. i expect to work for his reelection. i really do wish him well. the bottom line is, i thought that you're going to transform things. when are you going to begin to transform things?

i thought on health care that we took a buy, slipped away from most of the hard stuff. instead expanded coverage. it is only a matter of moving some money around. i believe the man has the ability to be a transformational figure in have to make change happen in this country. i would like him to do it. host: four cornerstones --" to my care, controlling costs, no bar wing, and universality. -- universal care, no borrowing. guest: i think that the government, the federal government, is good and the correct place to accumulate money to do things with. social security is a good example. it would not work on state-by- state, or with only a private pension system. it provides a good, solid,

underlying future. we are now running things in government. i think the way that social security works works fine. you collect money, and when you retire you get a check and can spend it on beans or beer, if you want. it is yours. it is a trust fund, not largess from the government. i think that is a great model to do what we should with healthcare. collect the money and a central way, allowing you to move around. and then it empower individuals. give them a voucher and tell them to buy their health care for they wanted. it is not company housing, not provided by your company, but something that you must go to the welfare office every year welfarereup information.

it is like social security, something that you own. if you do that and tie it with the fact you will not borrow. you will pay in real time. -- it will take some attention to get the system straightened out. host: the next call comes from albany, new york, a republican. caller: thank you, governor, for being honest. it is nice to have someone in a position of power be honest about the health care costs. about thisegative whole thing -- americans are very separate. i am in upstate new york. i see tons of people not even trying to work. they say will be a free ride from this time on -- give me my welfare check, i will run down to the doctor.

but why should my children and granted them pay for these people who do not want to work? guest: first of all, principal number one in this book is that your jargon and grandchildren should not pay for it. whenever we are doing today, you and i ought to be paying for it. i could not agree more. in the book said that i can imagine when the economy is soft, i am kind of a keynesian, i imagine putting money into the market -- and when we have wars -- the put money in -- i can't think of any reason and what why my grandkids should pay for my health care. we need to get that piece fixed. the other thing, and i do talk about it, the issue -- earlier on the show i mentioned we have structured the system in which they're going to be a lot of people who are hard-working, and having healthcare, and do not

really object to someone who is not working, getting the basic care they need. the same blood care mitigation. we on the they ought to give. but you have created a situation -- the same blood care medication. but we have a situation where there are a lot of people like you mentioned -- it will end up with not only basic, but better care than working people will have. you will have a big political backlash. among many people who do not see that as reasonable. host: mary kay, phoenix, arizona. caller: my company is bilingual services, llc, and i have been in human services since the cesar chavez migrant farmworker back since i was a hippie. and been helping in social human services for 33 years, and

watching how the system has been utilized sometimes appropriately, sometimes inappropriately. n insuranceam a broker. i am even doing a little retail booths at walgreen's. host: what is your question for the governor? caller: whether he thinks the hot job of the future might be in the health insurance did, and medical bill coating? guest: ok, depending, i think jobs in the health insurance field are in a lot of danger -- whichever direction we go. that is not a place i would put someone. also, if people were to do the kinds of things i have talked about the things like medical bill" will be a job of the past. one of the things that i think we need to do is to move away

from the notion that every time a doctor touch is a patient or does anything, that generates all this billing and paper. it just generates so much inefficiency in the system. i walked through the book what truly happens when you go to the doctor for a physical. it is an extraordinary amount of paperwork. all of this coating in treating everything as a separate service to be paid for separately -- all this coding -- it's part of the reason for this. in the long term, actually help those are two things that can decline, those job positions, and start to go away. host: here is a message from this tweeter -- your views on single-payer and what looks good going forward? guest: the government collecting

the money and turning it over -- that is what i think we should do. single-payer in the sense of medicare where government is collecting the money and is then paying the claims i think would be a disastrous direction for the country. people talk about it for efficiency -- medicare is a a single-payer system. its costs have grown of the past couple of decades more rapidly than other parts of the sector. you keep this same insurance model. i prefer something more like social security where the government is used as a vehicle to assemble money, but then you empower individuals with a check for a voucher. host: randy, williamsburg, va., on the republican line. caller: good morning. i own a business that is a

mobile fitness facility that travels around and as preventative health benefits with k-12. i have had the good fortune of working with your rural area medical and stan brock in virginia. what a wonderful group you have produced for the country there in nationanashville. these types of organizations can challenge some hospitals on delivering world-class health care. in the circumstances with rural area medical, those services were provided in horse stalls at the state fairgrounds with the university of virginia collaborating with many other professionals in the many different fields to bring health prevention -- host: we talked about that a while back on this program.

one caller brought up the fact of how dehumanizing it was to be in horse stalls. caller: but that person probably waited all night to receive a service for free. that person who deliver the service would have been a world- renown doctor from the university of virginia. host: we got the point -- that roche an the potter who bu book on health-care reform -- he went down to see that -- he wrote the book on health care reform. guest: i am not familiar with that. host: you write in your book that obesity, a obese patients cost on an average 33% more than normal-weight agepatients. guest: there are huge issues.

we are in tennessee, and it is a southern state. we have larger issues in these things. there is a section concerning lifestyle issues that need a lot of attention. we spend a lot of time working on obesity with kids in schools and tried to teach kids habits and change what goes on in the cafeterias. saying, they're different pieces of the equation. there is a narrow piece of medical care we need to string also does not bankrupt the country, but we do need to invest in public health. the kid who has a bmi over 30, and is of these in their teens -- there is no reason for it. host: should there be restrictions on of these people, smokers, or different premiums?

guest: we have actually done some things to put some extra costs in in tennessee. you would go down a slippery slope in a hurry. if i were obese and i had to pay more, has some restrictions on my health care, i might say well, i guess that is fair and i understand -- but what about joe please read meet 21 times per week and drinks too much, and what about this person who rides a motorcycle? these are all lifestyle issues. if you start to fine tune benefits, you get into a mess. people ought to leave their lives -- leave them the weighted aside, and we should not tell them how. we will not favor one lifestyle over another. there many reasons not to be obese beside your health care costs or what benefits you get. but if you need medical care, we have a system to provide it for you. host: here is a message by

twitter -- shouldn't all healthcare be non-profit? guest: i do not think so. when you look around at health care in the country a lot of the stuff that we call non-profits, these hospitals are every bit as profitable as it some of the for-profit ones. i think the profit motive brings a lot of good things to the equation. we have got a very vigorous economy. it is largely based on for- profit-type of businesses. many others do participate and are affected. i don't think it is about either/or, but i think it is about putting some competition into the issue, and different kinds of organizational models can play different roles. host: the next call for governor phil bredesen comes from columbia, tennessee.

caller: good morning. thanks for providing these services, and thanks to c-span for providing a window for all three branches of the government to show of accountability. thanks, governor, for all the work you have done for the great state of tennessee. i think you will leave a great record down in history showing that you were a great humanitarian for our state. i would also like to say thank you for what you have done on health care. i know it is disturbing for the hard determination to put things in order, but i appreciate you have done for the people of tennessee. host: will, have you used ten- care? caller: no, but i have family members to have. and yes, they are happy with it

-- they have received proper care. guest: first, i appreciate the thoughts there. ten-care was a very tough time. it was totally out of control and literally bankrupting the stick. the increase in costs were getting bigger than the increase in revenues in the state. we worked our way through it. i had people sitting in my office 24/746 months, but we got it done. -- 24/7 46 months. i feel like i bought tennessee and the decade with it -- but unless we change the national system, these will come back in and issues will arise again.

host: as governor phil bredesen writes in "fresh medicine" costs come in on schedule, savings do not. guest: i presume you must be booked to pay for it. but i assure the person who tweeted that if someone walks into a facility to get an mri with a check, i assume there would be all too happy to provide it. host: you are leaving office after eight years. what are you most proud of? guest: it is not any individual thing. what i set out to do in a tennessee was to increase people's expectations. what i really wanted to do was to say if i could leave citizens of tennessee expecting more from their education system, from their health care system, from the operation of state

government, i will be happy. i feel that is happening. certainly in education, my first priority as governor. we became one of the two states to win the first race to the top. people are looking up and saying we don't have to be 45th in this stuff anymore. here is something where we were first. i think those subtle changes in people's expectations of elected officials and their state, if it is really there, will be the legacy. host: are you term-limited? guest: yes. i probably would run for one more if i could because of the race to the top. but i do think a years is a good time. i have a problem with that notion. i really believe this race to the top has the ability to make some transformational changes. we used to make some huge legal changes. i would like to see those

through, but the next governor will do that. i will be watching with great interest. host: what will you be doing? my guess is you'll not be the guesshhs secretary in the obama administration. guest: yes, you are probably right. and i do respect kathleen sebelius. but i think her it deal logical view of what happens is closer to that of the white house, and i wish them well. host: the book is "fresh medicine, how to build reform and build a sustainable healthcare system." the author is governor phil bredesen of tennessee. one more segment left. that will be a look at the susan b. anthony political action fund. first up, more news from c-span radio. >> from politico, a campaign

finance report shows long time mafic you since -- massachusetts barney frank has given to thousand dollars as he faces his toughest race in years. the chairman of the house financial-services committee lent himself that money yesterday. congressman frank from newton, mass. faces the republican, a 35-year-old marine veteran with degrees from harvard and two others. it indicates the democrats had a hand in the financial turmoil over the last few years. politico is also reporting that congressional republicans plan an assault on the president's environmental record and are aiming to turn the said jackson into public enemy number one. on the campaign trail, republicans have adopted the epa as their favorite symbol of what they say is the regulatory overreach of the white house. behind the scenes, the gop

staffers and k street lobbyists who say they have been dismissed by the suggestion are looking forward to the possibility of republicans taking either chamber. britain's treasury chief is ordering $130 billion worth of spending cuts through 2015. george osborne says slashing benefits for more than half a million public jobs and raising taxes are necessary to wipe out the big financial deficit. c-span is covering this house of commons me to. you can hear it later in our schedule. those are some of the latest headlines. >> the c-span at worst, providing coverage of politics, public affairs, non-fiction books, and american history. it is available on tv, radio, online, and on social networking sites. you can find content any time on a trip c-span library.

we take it on the road, bringing resources to your committee. now available in more than 100 million homes, created by cable, provided as a public service. >> it is time to get your camera rolling for this year's student cam competition. lake of 5 minute up to end 8 minute video on this thing. talk to was about an issue or topic that helps you to better understand the role of the federal government in your life or committee. include more than one point of view along with the c-span programming. the deadline is january 20. you have the chance to win a grand prize of $5,000. there is $50,000 in total prices. the student can be a documentation is open to middle and high school student's grades 6-12. for complete details go to studentcam.org. "washington journal" continues.

host: now joining us is marjorie, the president and chairman of the susan b. anthony list. what is it? guest: it was started by me and a group of women who wanted to bring change to the political machines behind women in the politics. our machine is geared towards collecting pro-like women to the political process, and on the federal level, and on the statewide level, attorney general -- that sort of thing. the interfirst, highest level of office that we helped to put the wind in the sales behind was sarah palin. that was the idea. the timing is good for this election. host: how long have you been in existence? guest: since 1992. we began in my house with no fax machine or e-mail.

we just began to build tralee from the ground up without any money. i remember the first check. we just grew over time, expanded our board, membership. we now have 280,000 members nationwide and $12 million election cycle budgets. i think it resonate with women looking for a different model. host: where is your money going during this election cycle? guest: there are two tracks. first, directly related to our mission -- to advance women in politics. we're very proud to have a strong crowd this year, a strong pro-lifer.

unfortunately, all republican candidates. but that is the way it goes. we have four candidates. we have a huge amount of women candidates on the congressional level. we have four we hope to see in the senate -- we do not have one for pro-life there now. we have a couple of attorney general's. -- generals. the intent on the second track is to increase the muzzle of the pro-life movement. we're deeply vested in healthcare debate -- to increase the mscle. host: it was kept out, wasn't it? guest: it was not. there was no executive order. our concern that most do not understand is that it was truly not taken care of. host: it was not written in the

legislation. guest: that is right. the key component -- excepting for one congressman from illinois -- one of a key collapse was the funding mechanism in funding senate. there was a firm stand on that by all those guys and one woman. that executive order did nothing to address the funding mechanism. all that it did was basically say, i really mean it. meaning that the president really means it when he says i do want taxpayer funding of abortion. but the proof that it was in the bill is immediately after the bill was passed there was a war in the several states about whether the funding would be covered or not. we are having to run around the nation to put out fires were the idea crops up again. the one thing that i will say is

you have not seen a suit from planned parenthood or anyone else to make sure abortion is covered is that november 2 is coming soon. it is not in their interest to lobby on this now. but it will come. it will not stand -- the executive order will not stand. host: our guest is the founder, president, chairman of the susan b. anthony list. the numbers are on the screen, talking about pro-life candidates in campaign 2010. is it fair to say that you are single issue of voter? are you republican? guest: i am not a republican. host: do care what people think about birth control? guest: pro-life is our one issue. host: do you have any democrats? guest: congressman lipinsky. bart stupak.

we regard to help them now and send off those primary challenge until the swan dive moment. host: you say that your election cycle this year is $12 million. have you raise that amount? guest: we have almost that amount. we will probably go over that. that is a conservative estimate. host: so, how much money have you given to sharon engel, or the nevada senate race? did we do bundling, poll numbers across the country and ask who the lead. tell them to our favorite group is. they send us the checks, we put them into a bundle and send them off. that is what funnelling is, as you know. host: that does not come directly from your treasury? guest: that is correct. that means much more to be registered to her rather than just the $5,000 pac check.

and we go into advocate for the candidate -- and tell them not to vote themreid again. our bundling for her is around $70,000. our independent expenditures for her are several hundred thousand. host: and are the independent expenditures television ads? guest: right now we have one running in nevada -- the title is " isengel speaks for me." it is a bit on the video from sarah palin. but it is every level over the air, on the ground. host: my guess is you keep an

eye on it emily's list money. guest: i do. i have enormous respect for those people, smart and right, that we deeply disagree with. we do track them and they're probably about 10% of their size. we have had a surge in the last two years in terms of growth. so, it is probably a little bit more than 10% now, but i don't know the exact number. host: republican line, first up. caller: thank you. i have a couple of quick questions to ask. i live in the ninth district in virginia. our congressman has been in there a long time. he voted for late term abortions. the candidate running is marvin -- he is against them. do you support him? the other thing, do you think

whenever someone osupports abortion to the road, are they partially responsible for the abortion? guest: two good questions. north 1 is easy. yes, we are active in community with voters on the ground in districts where there were those who said they were basically pro-life and turned out not to be and voted for the healthcare bill. i believe i am correct in saying that we are very involved there. number two, yes. in fact, that is the most astute question involving taxpayer funding. whether or not you agree with abortion, we are all being made complicity in the act, each that occurs every day, by funding it. that was the trigger, one of the triggers leading to the civil war. it was northerners' being required to return property -- human beings, to their owners. at that point, they said he may

do that, but now you are involved. meet in the process, no way. that is what americans are saying right now. host: john, pennsylvania. caller: i am a catholic, a pro- choice democrat. i wonder how many years in jail the pro-life think a woman should be put in for exercising her constitutional right. i know you will argue that money is fungible. how many years and life -- how many years in jail should a pro- life person be put in jail for voting for war? guest: first among zero years. number two, that assumes a consistent life ethic that is a much debated topic. saying that you are against abortion and pro-war and many people see as not consistent. we don't take on that issue. but it is worthy of debate. the catholic church and many

churches the big debt. but that is not part of my project. i would not put anyone in jail for either reason. host: marjorie is from north carolina, a graduate of duke university. bethesda, md., and, republican. caller: good morning. i feel the whole abortion issue is just a wedge. i am a christian, and i don't support it. some of these candidates like theseengel, for a professional woman -- hillary clinton is a great woman. so, i don't think it should be just because someone is pro- life. some of these candidates do not support early childhood education. she thinks if the goal is rate should give birth to the child. i don't think just because she is pro-like he should put all your political machine behind some of these candidates. there some more issues than abortion. guest: i understand the basis of

your question. i used to be strongly pro- choice, more so than you sound. it is an authentic question. so, it does come down to what are we talking about? what happens? we cannot get away from the fundamental reality of that question. look, peter and i, you, we started out all the same way, as an umbrella, then became infants, toddlers, billion human beings that we are now. we all began -- brilliant human beings that we are now. we all began in the same place. if you get to the place where you say this is the taking of the life of an intrinsically valuable human being, it will and rights to you and me, then becomes a different debate. if you do not believe that, then everything that you said makes sense. it is easy to equalize all issues.

if you do, you said there is an intrinsically valuable human being. then the debate becomes different. that is why i can dedicate of local machine to protecting the unborn child through women's leadership. host: what is the issue with the congressional race in ohio? guest: it is very interesting. i thought at first the caller talked about jail time was referring to me. our organization worked closely behind a pro-life democrats, including my former boss, and many others. but when we see this vote -- we see it as the most important vote on life since roe vs. wade. when those conversations close down, and they turned around, and in our view, and kill the negotiations in terms of getting a statue to in law which could

have happened, we said all right, you cannot be trusted to be a consistent pro-life ally. in a congressman drehaus' district, we put up billboards to say just that. in ohio, he disagrees with us. it is a matter of debate at best. use the ohio election commission to go after us and criminalize our political speech. we prevented the billboards from going up. host: so they have not gone up at all? guest: not at all. host: we just showed a banner. guest: we just sent out the release saying that we were

going to be go every major pro- life organization in the country holds this view. the matter has been much debated in the political arena. in ohio they are criminalizing of your opinion. so far, one guy on the commission is getting to decide the veracity of our cause that should be decided by voters, not by a commission or tribunal where we get hold off. in the crime for my expressing the speech will be to go to jail. -- and that will be the crime for my expressing the speech. it is a very serious matter. they are willing to put us in jail to keep our opinion from being expressed. host: next call, california, a democrat. caller: good morning.

may i ask you, you care very much for the embryo. what about the live person carrying that area? possibly from rape or from incest? would you demand that this person carry that baby to term? i think it is a disgrace. you are against women. guest: absolutely not. the most pro-woman thing you can do is to agree with susan b. anthony, and all the heroes who suffered and understood you never can build your rights on the broken rights of other human beings. in every conception there are two human beings that should be cared for from the moment -- before the conception occurs, and throughout. there are two human beings that deserve of love, care, and attention, and support. if you will truly be consistent on women's rights and in concert

with the early suffragist, you will agree with one particular person who says that is degrading to women to treat our children as property to be disposed of when we see fit. susan b. anthony called it child murder. the original author of the human rights movement said it was the ultimate esthetician of women, away from men to get away with bad behavior without evidence -- the ultimate the advocate of women. it was a knowledge that when you break the bond between woman and tried to do something horrible that has a ripple effect in a society. if it is a sign of something deeply wrong. host: why did you change your mind on abortion? guest: i was on the other end of a lot of arguments in college. lots of a staying up late. being pushed on the key questions. i was the co-chair of

republicans. i really meant it. it was not just talk. i just began to listen to the question what is that? what is happening during an abortion? you, there were too many places i could not get away from. that is the taking of the life of a human being. we begin in that stage. the question of when your right to life begins becomes a very important question, both in the supreme court, the halls of congress, and most importantly, it in individual hearts every day. there are almost 4000 abortions in the nation every day. host: what does the colorado initiative have to do with the start of life? guest: the initiative we are not

involved in, but says that a human being is a person from conception. we're not involved in that. there is no question the supreme court would not opel that. -- would not oppose that. our policy from the beginning has been to begin with the issues we already have consensus on. we already have it on preventing taxpayer funding of abortion. we already have consensus on post-viability abortions, or third-semester abortions. we have consensus on that requiring sonograms. politics is all about building it and having that reflected. host: when you hear a politician say i am anti-abortion or pro- life, but i would not vote to overturn roe v wade, what is your reaction?

guest: my reaction, if you cannot be for allowing states to pass their own projections, cannot allow states to look at the issue on their own command then there are two things about you. you do not trust the states to make their own laws. secondly, you are happy with the status quo. there are no projections at any point along the continuum. -- no protections. so, it would be hard to say that you are pro-life. caller: ok, i am a man and weighing in on this topic. guest: you should. caller: it is very unpopular, and as men we are taught that we ought not to. that we have no proper place to take a position. but if i look back on history

during the slavery period, in order to keep slavery going, people had to go along with it. somehow in the homes of these americans, they were just a fine their behavior because they needed en a needed hawksd -- to get the crops in it -- because they needed a certain end. in nazi germany the country people outside cities went along with other because he was putting food on the table. they had to justify their bad behavior because they wanted what they were getting. the same is happening here. we are justifying bad behavior, taking the rights of a baby because of the outcome that we are getting. guest: number one, i do not agree with the popular view is that men should not be allowed

to speak. you should be allowed to speak out on anything. number two, the only reason we put wind and the cells behind women's leadership is because women are uniquely affected -- that we put wind in the sails. those were most affected are those who have been unaffected. -- those who are most effective. you are correct in looking back at history. we see crimes of nature, human rights abuses. we asked how well the could have done that? what was wrong with those people back then? there are pre-conditions to change. first, the argument is being made all the time. second, people have seen the injustice --there is evidence. third, that it has been rationalized. the arguments against it are not moral. they are rather arguments of

necessity or other arguments that avoid the central claim. my belief is that we're headed in the direction of actually addressing this. host: some in else -- respectfully, i thought this was addressed to the point where insurance companies must set up separate accounts for women wanting abortion coverage. is this wrong? guest: ironically, the senate approach to handling abortion funding in healthcare, the solution -- the solution was worse than the original problem. every state is required to offer at least one insurance policy that does not cover abortion. chris of people like me who don't to pay for everyone's abortions -- well, i do go for that one. -- crazy people like me. but if you do wanted covered, fine. so i must choose the one of

every other option. i have five children, one who is special needs. this one policy offered to me may not fit my family. that is not right. not only that, if i choose one of these other options, in still required to pay, to pay my own money into the general pool, a minimum of $1 per month. that is what the law says. requiring people who are opposed to abortion to pay even $12 per year, the minimum, is making us composite in an act we do not agree with. host: from taxes, rachel, on the independent line -- from texas. caller: what do you feel about the supreme court when a disconnected accord on terry chavos?

guest: my view is that human life is intrinsically valuable from unnatural beginning until the natural end. to actively go out and eliminate the life of another human being, especially when they have the love and support of the family is a very deep wrong. it is something that terry shivo herself did not want. host: this is something that susan b. anthony took up? guest: no, it is a little out of our purview, but we were very sympathetic to those involved. host: this message by e-mail from steve in illinois. guest: you know what? shockingly, i will agree with him because of this reason -- roe vs. wade put a cap on our

ability to come to consensus. until then, until roe versus wade is overturned, we will not have the power to do what i just described. we will not have the power to enact into law whenever the consensus is. when that moment comes there will definitely be a strong consensus. right now more people live and self pro-life and pro-choice. across the country, every demographic. this is confirmed in every gallup poll in the last few years. it is true. therefore, we are moved to a nation, and especially among women, where the pro-life/pro- choice leveling does not tell you much about the person's specific position. but it does it tell you where that person as comfortable standing. it says a lot about the moral core, and attractiveness of both

movements. every human rights movement that has broken away in getting gains, that tape has occurred. people listening feel more comfortable in one camp morally. but if roe v. wade is not overturned, and justices will not confirm the right to live and the constitution, that they will never come. host: john, from canton, ohio. caller: i am calling as a republican, but tend to be independent. i have a very firm belief in the pro-life. however, when my daughter was in college and she became pregnant, i did not want to force that opinion on her. i knew how i raised her, but the pressure around her was for her to have an abortion.

of course, the father wanted her to have an abortion. i was very happy when she chose not to have an abortion. my grandson is 16 today, and he is a fantastic young man. he has a relationship with his father today which has been really good. host: do you have a question in this? caller: i do and the fact that i feel the republicans should not take such a firm stand. we need to say yes, we are pro- life, but we don't -- that is that person's decision. we hope that they would choose life because after rock, when you do an abortion you are killing -- because after all, you are killing when you do an abortion. guest: i understand.

the strategy needs to be rooted in love. we are on a politics show. but in my view, if it is not about that, then i will leave aside. only that can lead you to protect the lives of human beings. you can do it out of justice, but if you get beaten back, you might give up. my feeling is we ought not to all the composite through pain in our tax dollars. the one stand at the republican leadership has taken is that they will stop that practice. it is something supported by up to 85% of the public, depending on the district. it is a tough stand i think we can all support. i do agree with going further. we can certainly agree on that. host: manchester, new hampshire, steve, a democrat. caller: marjorie, i am glad to talk to you. the being a democrat you think i would be totally against what

you are talking about, but i am against abortion, personally. but deciding for someone else what they want to do i think is far outside the line. but my biggest complaint with people, the anti-abortion people -- you said you through, channeled money to sharon angle -- you threw a lot of money to her. no matter what the anti-abortion people say, i can beat all for reinstating the racist laws of the 1940's and 1950's. but because i am anti-abortion, you would support me. guest: i would never support a racist. never did that. on any calculus that would be a

very wrong thing to do. it would not affirmed the dignity of a human being to support a racist. if you are saying no matter what we will support someone if they are anti-abortion, that is also not true. we have many democrats who said they would support pro-life and did not. we are working hard to defeat them. this is a serious matter. then they to be -- there a need to be serious laws to protect human life. if you were a businessman working to protect laws regarding office equipment, you would work hard to win. but we are talking about human beings and their lives so we're coming up with the best strategy that we can. more importantly, when the candidates lose, it will be heard -- sometimes even more. thirdly, it must be heard within the halls of leadership of congress.

we will never be bought off by a party. that is why the democratic party, when it lost its pro-life center, it was a great strategy. we will not rest until we see republican leadership include that aspect. host: you are supporting kelly in new hampshire? guest: yes, we were pivotal to her when there. up until the last day of that raise it was a question of whether she was a pro-life enough. we worked closely with her and they are doing all the way to the supreme court. we see her leadership as a specially pivotal. we put a lot of money and a lot of ground troops into that. i believe you'll see her sworn in in january. host: this is an e-mail.

guest: it is an incremental process sometimes. human rights gains are sometimes an from intel, sometimes big. anyone ever involved knows. --human rights gains are sometimes incremental. we go back to suffrage. susan b. anthony never saw the right to vote. but she knew it was the right thing. fidelity to the cause is all that is asked for in any human being. so, fighting for what you know was the right thing is worthwhile -- can we guarantee results? no. we meet with stiff opposition every day. but it is not a lost battle. if people had that view in previous battles, we would be a

weaker nation for it. host: shreveport, louisiana. caller: i just want to tell this young lady that i appreciate what she does. i have an adopted son who is 40 years old now. i am an older woman. guest: you sound far too young to have the 40 year old son. caller: thank you. my son is great. i love him so much. years ago my daughter did not know, she got pregnant when she was 18, and she did not know if she wanted to give the baby away or what. but she went to the aetna class the home in fort worth and lived there until the baby came -- to the edna gladney ,. she chose to put it up for adoption. it has been a wonderful thing. we do not want ou