campaign 2010 races. enter that, -- after that the unholy alliance between barack obama and wall street. your e-mails and phone calls, "washington journal ♪ host: good morning. the president is back in washington today following his swing out west for five days. early voting is already underway in more than half the country with nine days to go. the tea party, a movement without a compass says "the washington post." online, a number of pieces this morning with a renewed debate in

this midterm election -- federal funding for national public radio -- should tax dollars continue to go to npr? that is our question for the first half-hour on the sunday, october 24. you can join the conversation by calling us. "the daily caller" and politico are among those with stories about npr -- is part of the debate with the firing of one of their employees last weekend and the following hiring by fox. other headlines -- "the star tribune" in minneapolis.

president had been there campaigning for market dayton, a break from his campaign for senate campaigns. this person is the former democratic senator, now running for governor. headlines -- the boston paper, company for duval patrick to open a narrow lead against his republican opponent. the lead of jerry brown in california has increased in one month -- is challenged by meg whitman. and the florida, rubio back in command is a headline here. he is poised to win the senate seat in the three-way challenge with meek and crist. 41% of likely voters are going to arerubio. -- going to back rubio.

here's the headline from denver. the candidates are tied at 47% each, 1% remaining undecided. should npr continued to receive federal funding? we will take your calls and your tweets. good morning, from indianapolis. steve? you are on the air. caller: i feel like they should receive the funding. they seem to be pretty unbiased when i listen to them. it seems like a lot of republicans, if they do not receive their news like to receive it on fox, then it seems they complain a lot. so, i think they should receive the funding.

host: the story is also available online on politico. the house speaker in the mid- 1990's new to gingrich may have been the most memorable battle -- president george w. bush tried to cut funds to public broadcasting every year that he was in office. in 1997, when the fervor was there is tied, a measure to eliminate the cpb from the federal budget was voted down in the republican-controlled house. of course, this debate has been renewed with the firing of the employee based on his comments last monday. williams was a contributor to fox news channel, and a news

analyst on npr, fired wednesday. more reaction from a number of different sources, including members of congress who said they want to eliminate funding for public broadcasting. among those, eric cantor from virginia, poised to move up leadership ranks if republicans gain the house. here is a caller on the independent line from ohio. caller: first, i have listened to public radio for four years. i get more good information, not slanted, than i do from the networks, from tv or cable television -- and i don't care whether or not they find it, but i hope that someone -- i contribute to them -- i'm an independent. i would like to stay that way. by the way, with some important things, some not to bring out the fact that this is not the

first time that juan williams did this. i heard him defending donald rumsfeld before he resigned. it would be good to have all local playing field and bring up the time to did express an opinion -- whose analysts on npr are not supposed to do. i would hope that c-span in fairness in having a level playing field would do this -- would adjust that. make it clear why the really fired him. you cannot serve two masters. you know what the fox network is -- the fox-rupert murdoch, i don't know if you remember mike , a columnist for the sun times -- then when rupert murdoch bought the paper, mike told him what you do anyone over and work for "the chicago tribune."

thank you for your time to steve. please give more information on why juan was fired. host: he was fired due to his comments last month. but there had been a longstanding series of issues between npr and juan williams because he has been on the fox news channel since 1997. and as always said to me -- here is one of our tweet messages. you are correct, at 90% of the funding comes from viewers and corporations. -- 98%. we're joined from michigan now on the democrats' line. should npr continue to receive the 2% of federal funding? caller: it should be doubled. the apology that he should see a psychiatrist was wrong.

there should be 1 million more psychiatrist -- half the country needs to see a psychiatrist there was only one gentleman who came up with a violation that williams may. but on the put up the violation he made? there was no doubt about it that he violated the code of npr. i would like to say that npr is wonderful. i have been listening and taking your people for over 20 years. a market enterprise gets on all the time. why haven't the progress of this gotten on? you have not been in detroit when they have a social form, nor in the wisconsin when tom was there with greg. you have been televising the tea party all time. please, do more progressives. i want to thank you people for what you're doing. you are the best television. host: thank you, richard.

from "the daily caller" williams one of those two have the federal government beef on npr. after he said publicly that sometimes gets nervous in airports when he sees passengers to identify first as muslims, again, about 2% of the funding for npr comes from federal sources -- the organization also receives dues from members

that are largely taxpayer- funded. williams is joining a growing theus owho have called for funding to be cut forral npr. caller: i also think there funding should be cut. if we have an independent group look at them, as far as their commentaries and news they put out, it is predominantly liberal. george soros give $1 million to npr in order to fund their news division, i believe. one of the targets for him when he gave that money was attacking flocks, and going after an individuals on fox -- .

the have warned other news organizations that they would go after them. npr does not need the funding. if it is 2%, that is not a big deal. cut it. they're doing fine on their own. but then continue on their own. host: thank you for the phone call. here is this comment -- next is pat come and join us on the independent line from scottsdale, arizona. caller: absolutely, they should continue to receive federal funding. we almost need radio-free europe because the right wing has 300 radio stations, rupert murdoch owns all kinds of newspapers and fox. i love cspan, and have been watching it for years, but

comcast owns you. we try to pretend that it is all fair and balanced -- in the marketplace, but it is not. the only people who truly have any voice are the people on the right because they have all the radio. they say it is legal, but it is not. npr is one of the few things left. host: one quick point -- mention comcast. we are funded by the cable industry, and comcast is a leading vendor as are time warner and fox, and other providers, but they do not influence our programming whatsoever. you are the one who finds us with a few pennies per month through your cable bill. caller: i am aware of this. i have watched it for years, and watched it gradually change. not everyone is fox.

if you do not support corporate media all the time, you are bashed. it is easier to give in. you put on three republican programs for every one. it is so sad to me. you used to have the book and it was both points of view. now you have bashers of obama and the democrats, and then the other point of view is anything else -- save the indians, or anything else neutral. then you never have the other side anymore. host: thanks for your call. i would disagree, but i appreciate your call. patricia murphy will join us next hour along with the political editor for msnbc.com.

our question -- should npr continue to receive federal funding? in cq weekly -- if republicans take over, the obama team will spend more time and oversight hearings. there is plenty of pent-up demand among republicans who have an interest in a robust congressional watchdog role. some of the new overseers according to cq include the following, issa of california, joe barton likely to head of the energy and commerce committee -- from texas, dave from

michigan, poised to be the next house ways and means committee. kline of minnesota for education and labor. and from alabama, that committee. the gop is poised to seize the house, if not the senate, based on the state buys it break down. there are eight senate seats now considered to be tossups. we're joined on the democrats' line from georgia. caller: good morning. are you doing all right? -- how'm doing terrific are you? caller: i think the caller's need to chill out, and as far as williams is concerned, i am

assuming that he has a contract with this company? and no, it should not be defunded. we all need to chill out. we are all wired up for some reason. host: thank you. this weekend from "the washington post" -- amid anger in regret over williams firing, and political backlash -- yesterday he wrote that npr faces fierce public and political reaction, most of it negative in the wake of the firing of williams for his comments on the fox news program earlier in the week. the most serious issue facing npr may be whether his firing will cause lasting damage to public broadcasting finances. many conservative lawmakers and politicians including eric

cantor gentlemen to, and newt gingrich have all called on congress to curtail or eliminate federal subsidies from public broadcasting. if it is a liberal program, the republicans want to abolish anything liberal -- this comment by twitter. next is larry from dayton, ohio, on the republican line. caller: good morning. i believe c-span is extremely fair. i think they have more liberal -- no, it is all from your own point of view, but i think that c-span makes great attempts to be fair. in the people that you bring on, and the topics discussed. concerning williams, i watch fox -- i am a conservative. i used to be liberal. but i love the diverse points of view. when i listen to juan, i do not agree with him, but i think he

is a man of integrity. the problem that i have, and reason that i think that funding should be taken away is the hypocrisy of npr. i listened and i believe that they are extremely slanted. there was a common some years ago -- of which i'm sure that you are well aware -- host: yes, from the 1980's when she was talking about the north carolina senator helms. caller: it is our opinion, but if you're going to fire williams over an opinion far less damaging than her comment, to me that screams hypocrisy. want one penny of my tax dollars going to them. i hope that they do survive, it

and that there will still be diverse points of view of there, but i'd want my tax dollars going to it. people should be aware of the hypocrisy at npr. there are analyst at npr to have any personal opinions -- you need to fire every last one of them, not just williams. thank you. host: there is a big race in ohio a week from tuesday? i think that he hung up. the president is back in the washington today. he is back on the campaign trail. he will travel to mop to rhode island. he will make a number of campaign appearances. later in the week he will deliver remarks on the economy. back on the campaign trail on friday. he was the night in chicago

with a big rally on saturday night and sunday. then on to cleveland. michele obama will campaign back in las vegas monday. that is to wrap up the midterm elections. we will have coverage of the president during the final week of the midterms. pam joins us from wilkes borrow, n.c., on the independent line. -- from wilkesborough. caller: i absolutely believe that npr should retain its funding. i believe we needed, just as we need c-span, to give us more points of view, to enable those kinds of discussions with france, with phone calls like this, and to take the incident of the firing of williams, and to turn it into such a political plot at this time does damage. i am sorry the gentlemen was fired, but i understand

organizations have standards of conduct and rules they follow. that is between mr. williams and npr. i appreciate all points of view. i am an independent. i like to listen to mainstream media, npr, and c-span. i find npr that find and seas. a great job as giving it as fair a view of issues as possible. -- i find that npr and c-span are very fair. npr: williams' firing and funding -- the calls have been rising for an end to federal funding. senator jim demint is among those leading the charge, pushing legislation to do that. cleveland the only free speech level support is the speech that

they agree with -- said in a statement. with record debt and unemployment there is no reason to force taxpayers to subsidize liberal programming that they disagree with. also, doug already introducing similar legislation this summer, and hopes this firing will give his bill some legs. here is this point by twitter. pat joins us on the democrats' line from arkansas. good morning. caller: thank you. i have not called in several years, but i watch you faithfully. i appreciate the fact that i can get a different point of view from places like npr and cspan. i hope that my tax dollars continue to support something that i believe in.

when i have to pay tax dollars for wars in afghanistan and iraq, and i have no choice -- maybe some people who npr don't agree who -- who do not agree with npr can understand that we all must support some things we do not agree with. i was very sympathetic with the point of view of williams until he began this crusade. i no longer feel that way. he made several comments over the years that he has been on fox -- he is kind of their token liberal. they put a black face on it. he says things like "michele obama is carmichael in address." that kind of sums up where he is coming from, i guess. host: thank you. another common from twitter -- maybe it is time for republicans to eliminate public government.

yesterday the president on the campaign trail in minnesota, final stop on his four-day, five-state tour -- this is a headline this morning from "the star tribune" -- rachel stassen- berger is a political reporter for that paper. she joins us from the twin cities. what was the president's message yesterday, and how did it resonate? guest: essentially he was saying, look, we know we are in for a tough time, but stick with me. we never thought all this change would be easy. the president is able to deliver a message like that as any president, and the way that no one else can. there was a huge crowd. he really excited the base. they are hoping will be a huge get out of the effort to follow. he helped that as well because he had a fund-raiser to raise about $600,000.

host: nancy pelosi was at the fund-raiser, but it was a closed event? guest: that is correct. we do have the transcript, and a pool of reporters and said. we know that and see policy was there and made her own comments, as well as nearly the entire congressional democrat team. there were some donors who were invited to contribute anything from $2,500 up to $50,000 and get it was a big hall for the democratic congressional campaign committee. host: the location was a historic residence in minneapolis? guest: yes, at a mansion in minneapolis on by an attorney in the news quite a bit recently. -- owned by that attorney. most of the public did not get to see what was inside, but we have posted the transcript of

the president's remarks on our blog at the tribune. host: it is a three-way race for governor. this will succeed tim pawlenty who seems to be ready to announce his presidential bid? caller: unlike democrats and other states, mark dayton has shown a consistent lead against the republican and independent candidates. he is a former u.s. senator. in the time of anti-government he has been an ardent supporter of raising income tax on what he calls the rich. he has a counter-intuitive message, but it seems to be working. here in minnesota we have seen some strange things happen in the waning days of elections for each of the last three cycles. so no one is taking any chances. all campaigns are being super- careful.

host: thank you for joining us, rachel stassen-berger, always gracious with your time. the president has been campaigning for mark dayton and raising money for the democratic congressional campaign committee. a couple more minutes with your phone calls. at the bottom of the hour we will look at the wikileaks -- where it came from, and its impact. we will look at that with a longtime reporter. here is this message by twitter. david joins us from massachusetts on the republican line. should npr continue to receive 2% of its budget from the federal government? caller: i think they should be thrown off the air. i do believe in freedom of speech, but just because williams did something that they

disagree with -- nad then for them to say that we warned him -- and for them to say that -- it is a violation of the first amendment. when someone disagrees with their left wing, socialist attitude, they fire people. you can see the critical nature here. host: npr fires a talking head who patronizes fox news by indulging in hate speech. this message by twitter. we're joined from akron, ohio. this is the independent line. caller: look at the overall leader. let's go back to the constitution which requires a free flow of non-biased information. 40 years ago there were 50 independent news gathering agencies. today there are only five. you just mentioned msnbc, and i

guess they call that liberal? general elector is probably one of the most corrupt corporations on the face of the earth -- they are a monopoly in the fifth- largest bank in the world. then they get together with bill gates? and then you have msnbc. how do you get free flow of non-biased information when you have general electric -- you call that liberal? they are not looking out for the american people. in fact, i look at tim russert, when he was alive. go back to the interview with dick cheney with the flowers and candies. if tim russert would have held him to the fire based on the reality of the history of the team, thereeney would never have been a war in

iraq. look at disney. the guy was worth $40 billion, but eisner --they are involved in oil and gas. look at time warner -- 40 years ago at&t was broken up because they had a monopoly on the delivery of information. host: i will stop you there, but thanks for your call. here is this message by twitter. earl is joining us from north carolina. caller: thank you, steve. concerning them saying to defund this, the thing is, fox news is one thing that should not be talked about in front of anyone.

fox news should not even be on the air. that is not even a newscast. it is more of the hate, fear- mongering group. these people who said these things -- i don't look at this media as a liberal. it is just kind of like c-span. host: thank you for your call. another comment from of your saying that government support, as little as it is, should continue for npr and pbs. michael gordon will join us as a longtime military correspondent to talk about the wikileaks. reaction from overseas, including from the iraqi government. the front page year -- let me read to you from his colleague -- the leader on the run, focusing on a julius assange --

he sees the next few weeks as his most hazardous, yet is making his most brazen disclosure yet. 391,000 documents on the war. he held a conference yesterday in london saying it constituted the most comprehensive and detailed account of any war ever to enter public records. >> philip, the great investigative reporter and australian who over the past 30 or 40 years has made the u.k. is some, said that the first casualty of war is the truth. the attacks on the truce by war began long before the war begins and continues long after the war ends. in our release of these 400,000 documents about the war, from

the u.s. perspective, we hope to correct some of that attack on the truth that occurred before the war, during the war after, which has continued on cents the war officially concluded. host: that was julian assange yesterday in london, and now michael gordon on with us. how damaging is this information? by one report, maybe several hundred thousand iraqi deaths? guest: first of all, i would like to explain how "the new york times" has handled it which is different from what wikileaks is doing.

there are 400,000 field level reports. i have read through them. at the paper we read through these reports, tried to cull relative things from them. this is not exposure for the sake of exposure. then we chose maybe 20 documents to post on our website. we redacted information from these documents that may have jeopardized iraqi lives or undermine current military operations. we show the documents to the pentagon and asked them if they thought any additional cuts were needed before being posted. they did not recommend any additional cuts. they did not like that we were using the documents, but did not recommend additional cuts. we did not put up 400,000 documents. we read many and cold the relevant information.

host: but you got the information from wikileaks? guest: that is correct. host: who is the source behind the leaks? guest: i do not know. wikileaks probably acquired them from the intelligence specialist to used to work in iraq. that is just my supposition. i have no direct knowledge. we do not take editorial guidance from wikileaks. they established an embargo for when the information could be made public. host: but you made your own editorial decision in the paper. if you want to go through all the documents, they are available on all those sites. as someone who has seen a mature, what stands out? -- as someone who has seen them

all? guest: they identify a number of important issues that the u.s. needs to pay attention to over the next year as american forces leave. they are due to leave by the end of 2011. i was last there in september. here are the issues coming up in the reports. first, very serious tensions between the kurdish and arab populations. the u.s. forces have played an important role had no problems between achiethe two. what will happen when there are no american forces there? rule of law -- the iraqis are responsible for their own detention program -- americans have been handing over business. some prisoners have been beaten up, harm has come to them. the american forces have

intervened to stop it on many occasions. on other occasions the reports indicate that the reported up the chain of command and left it to the iraqis to do something. but when there are no americans present, or intervention, will be the rule of law there? lastly, the documents explain a very significant iranian role in providing weapons and train to rather extreme groups in iraq to try to impose the course of events there. american forces have been a bit of a check against this influence. what will happen when we are gone? if you read the document carefully, it is a look at what is happening in the future -- with an eye to what is happening in the future, it was to some type of international or western presence or american role if the

iraqis want and after the en initiative is over. host: let me ask you concerning iran and its long-term impact on destabilizing that part of the world? we have seen the rhetoric, but these documents indicate they provided munitions against the u.s.? guest: for some time the iranian role has been added. but critics here in the u.s. would say this is only spin from the u.s. government, something the white house is putting out. these reports are tactical, do not come from dick cheney, but from low-level american units over many years between 2004 and 2009. this role of iranians has extended even into the obama

administration. the president said he would try to reach out to tehran. yet this clandestine role of training militants has continued. i don't know what is surprising, but interesting to be reflected in these reports. host: does the release of these documents change the culture in the military and the putting this information on paper? at some time everything will be out there on the public record, but maybe sooner than the pentagon papers from the 1970's. does it change the way the military does its business? guest: these and nothing like the pentagon papers. these are tactical field reports. many are rather tedious and monday. no, the military must report up the chain of command. they don't do it for the public.

it is for their own organization. it may lead them to put different procedures in place so intelligence officers do not share hundreds of thousands of documents with an organization that is highly critical. host: i realize you cannot release sources, but when were you notified these documents would come to you? how long did you have to sift through the material? guest: i was just a reporter there, not part of the arrangement. but i have been working on them for a couple of months. host: we will get to your phone calls. our guest is michael gordon who covers the pentagon for a "the new york times." caller: good morning. i would like to ask mr. gordon, what is the most damaging thing you have read in the wikileaks? who in our government hides it

from the public? he was corrupt that is putting these secrets, supposedly? guest: it did not change my understanding of what has happened in the iraq war which i had covered since it began. i have spent considerable time on the ground in iraq. what i think the documents do is fleshed out a lot of what we already know iraq know, and reveals some episodes that have previously been on known. the thing the pentagon is probably most sensitive to our cases of abuse and iraqi detention facilities -- abuse to iraqis by iraqis, not by americans. but it raises the question of oversight.

in many cases we did stop these episodes. but it suggests that in some cases, americans did not. host: joe writes, we replace the bridge will dictatorship with the return of democracy -- replace the bridge will dictatorship -- replaced the brutal dictatorship with a brutal democracy. guest: they have an election in march -- they had won, but have not yet formed the government. it is a work in paris. the prime minister will continue in his role. will the new government be what americans want? a unity government who in corporates of the parties?

or will it be iranian- influenced? the prime minister will be there but the rest of the cultural be almost entirely shiite, including party is sensitive to the concerns of t ehran? that is the struggle going on inside iraq today. host: our guests comments are available on the website of "the new york times." our guest is the author and co- author of a number of books concerning the invasion and occupation of iraq -- also "the generals' war" which is the history of the persian gulf war. rick joins us on the republican line from ohio. caller: yes, good morning. of like you to compare and contrast richard nixon's

response to the pentagon papers vis a vis president obama's response to wikileaks to. guest: i think it is a false analogy. these are not the pentagon papers. these are tactical level reports. hundreds of thousands of them buy every unit. one might note that there was a rate of a particular location. these are not investigations of how the policy arose. they're not top-secret. they're not the pentagon papers. secondly, the pentagon and at obama administration have a clear they are unhappy with the disclosure of these documents,

but i frankly don't think there was much they could have done to prevent it. they are in the hands of an organization posting them on website and distributing them to news organizations on various continents. host: but the comparison is pointed out in your story -- your colleagues and i have been waiting for years for someone to disclose information on a scale that might really make a difference, said daniel ellsberg. guest: with all due respect to him, i think that is a false analogy. these are not the pentagon papers. i frankly don't think it will change in any fundamental way american policy in iraq, nor did they change american policy in afghanistan. i do think they raise some important questions about what our policy should be going forward, and the issues the

american government needs to attend to. host: who is julian assange? guest: i don't know because i have never met the man. but my colleague john burns in london did a long story about him today, and interviewed him at length. he is an australian, the paramount leader of wikileaks. he seems to be controversial within his own organization. he has previously been highly critical of the american government. host: today based on what john burns writes "on the run" try to keep out of the public eye? guest: he seems to have convinced himself that he is in peril and needs to be on the run. i don't know the actual situation. host: our next caller joins us from atlanta. caller: mr. gordon, you stated earlier you did not know the

source of the leaks. it was my understanding that someone from the military leaked the information. a few months ago we first had the wikileaks, i heard there was some and in the military who pretended to be listening to but was caught in the information. are we demonizing julian assange rather than the military personnel who did this? the person even wanted to know why it america was not outraged, and why we were not talking about it. he seems like he would to be a hero for putting out this information so the american people could see it. it was military personnel from my understanding who is the source, not a cia operative, as you stated. guest: no, you misrepresented what i said -- i did not say that it was a cia operative, but that it was an american military

intelligence officer he was all low-level intelligence person. he was based in iraq. he believed that the is believed downloaded all these reports. what you say fits with my understanding. but my point is, i had no independent knowledge of this. i have not investigated it. the guy's been held in the military brigs and will nearly certainly go to trial. -- is being held. host: on the front page of your newspaper, the archives, private gunmen fed turmoil. can you explain? guest: the issue of contractors

is familiar to many people. we know that black water often played a negative role and were not up to the standards of american soldiers, did not have the discipline. there is a notorious story in baghdad for they were free with gunfire and killed many civilians. what my colleagues article does -- he called through these reports and found other cases where contractors fell short of the standards that the u.s. military sets in how they conducted themselves when they used fire in their dealings with iraqi civilians. it is a very important issue. host: there have been many abuses and to the point that the afghan dormant is working to ban many outside contractors entirely -- would you comment? guest: president karzai has been

critical of western contractors. there may be some degree of afghan politics in there as he tries to free up contracts for afghans. when the u.s. forces leave iraq in the 2011, the state to permit plans to hire thousands of secret contractors to protect personnel over there. there is a legitimate role for contractors to protect diplomatic personnel, but in certain situations that became -- because they were not as well-trained as military, occasionally shot too freely, they created a lot of problems there also. host: when the history books are written about our involvement in iraq, what will it state? guest: i am writing a book now, in the middle of it. it will state that americans got

off on the wrong foot in iraq through poor planning. our initial military strategy was lacking. this was one factor in the rise of sectarian violence. the surge was necessary. to try to tamp down the sectarian violence in reverse momentum. the true test of american policy will come this and next year when this new iraqi government forms. if it is representative, inclusive, reasonably democratic by those standards in that region which are not high, then you could say the american policy is pretty much on track. if it turns out to be sympathetic to iranian influence or a new civil war breaks out, that will be a major setback. the next year is a decisive

chapter in determining what really happened. and what it means for american policies. it is astounding to me how little interest there is. and how very little our own government even talks about it. i don't have a working title for the book yet. i'm taking suggestions. i would like to be finished a year from now. host: an earlier caller pointed out some lessons to take away for the media -- is there a lesson that the media has been tougher asking different questions leading up to the iraq more than the post-9/11 environment that we all faced? guest: yes, the media should have been tougher. many of the questions were not asked -- not the famous ones

thet the wmd's, but assumptions that went into the administration's war planning which assumed a rather short and benign occupation. what the american government truly knew about iraq and the internal situation, and extent of the post-war planning which only became planning for another phase of the war. all the plans were wrapped in secrecy. the administration did not much community. congress did not perform their role well. they did not hold serious meetings. host: a new chapter will come out when president bush's book is out early next month. guest: right, but it will be president obama. this is no longer just president bush's were. president obama inherited the situation. vice-president joe biden has

been very active in political discussions in baghdad. in september i was there with the vice president. like afghanistan, this conflict has been in two been ministrations. both will bear responsibility. host: this has been michael gordon speaking about the war in iraq, and concerning the wikileaks. we're joined from arizona. caller: look, steve, to mr. gordon and your vote, we have the decency to question the interviews iraq interviewsi citizens and include their opinion? i thank god, if there is one, for julian assange. these people sit here every day

and make decisions about sectarian violence in another nation -- an affair between the people there. you have things in this country that are not straightened out. been more astuted have in questioning the bush administration about what they were doing. it is not only about the war plan, but about how and why. week after week they changed of the reason we were there. you are a reporter, going in, supposedly representing the press? you guys were bought and paid for from the beginning. everything that you say right now supports the a the that you have the right to go in and invade, take over, and just run the people into the ground. you come back and it is no big deal. and like you have credibility

and someone should listen to you. and you want to demonize mr. julian assange? host: chance to respond michael gordonmichael? guest: first of all, you don't understand the role of the meal. i did not run the invasion. i covered it. i was in iraq for some time, imbedded with forces. i have spoken to many iraqis and have a pretty good understanding about how they feel about american presence. there is no one opinion. if you are the member of a minority group there and feel that if the americans leave you will be suppressed or worse by elements of the government, you want the americans to remain there until there is a more stable situation. if you are a member of an extreme faction and think you can take over part of iraq, then you want americans out of the way. but i did not run the invasion. by the way, most of the

democratic party supported at the time. i do think questions about the state of post-war planning should have been asked by everyone. they should not really have been put to the white house, but to the congress who supported the conflict. host: kathleen is the mother of a member of this service -- any comment? guest: against opposed to the war. host: yes. guest: well, i am not taking a public position on whether we should or should not have done the war. my stance is more like we are there. what is the responsible thing to do? before the surge it was apparent to me that if american forces had left immediately and

completely in the 2006 timeframe, the civil war there would have intensified. sometimes the simple thing is not always the easy thing, or even the correct thing to do under the circumstances. of course has been laid out under both president obama and press the bush to have all forces out by 2011, but maintain some level of engagement. there is the possibility of having a training role after 2011. i heard crocker speak friday -- it was a very important speech, talking about the need to remain engaged in involved with iraq because the iraqi caucus and american cocker different. this is a long-term project if we want to see stability -- because the iraqis clock and american clock are different. host: it has been a long-term

commitment in korea -- is this like that? guest: i do not think so. the middle east and american military presence in a national country -- nationalist country like iraq -- i don't think it would want a large and visible presence. but if you speak to the iraqi interior ministry people or army and security officials, they want some type of american role to train forces after 2011. they know that they can't control their aerospace, their borders. the problem is, it is caught up in politics in iraq and here in the u.s. host: you have been there on how many occasions? guest: i cannot truly remember. i was there for the invasion. i was there every year since 2006, and would sometimes go for a few months, return, the back

for several months. it is not really the number of times you have been there, but how long have been on the ground. i have been in most parts of iraq with american forces in pre-surge, post-surge. it is a very complicated society. general david petraeus used to say that people who think they have all the answers have not been enough time there. . .

but i don't think that kennedy, let's go back this far. kennedy and eisenhower and those guys, when i was very young of course, i like to say, that you wouldn't hear of any so-called leaks. that would be a national tragedy. host: we're short on time. so if you want to sum up with a quick question. caller: ok. just that during the kennedy era, we would never have any problems like that. so i'll just let you end -- i'll end there. host: thank you. guest: i don't think you can hold the obama administration responsible for the leaks of wayward intelligence officer in iraq. and since i've been with the "new york times" 25 years i've

written a lot of stories about a lot of internal documents and i've done it during all administrations. this is hardly the first time we've had to grapple with how to handle classified information. i've done it under republicans and democrats. i don't have much difference. host: and the obvious technology has changed over the last 40 years, the internet not the least among in terms of getting information out to different groups. guest: that's a big difference now. an independent organization, an international organization with no ties to the american government can put -- this information was going to come out in some form. it's just that we got an early look at it and tried to do a responsible job in digesting it and publishing it. if we hadn't done it, it stilled would have come out but i don't think people would have been able to make a whole lot of sense out of it. host: the inside story of the invasion and occupation of iraq, co written by our guest.

johnny has the last question from kentucky. good morning. caller: good morning. my question is, i just have two comments and a first question. the first comment npr should get funding. mr. gordon is correct, this information was going to come out in some form. but i think the most important question hadn't been asked yet. the most important question to me is, if this upcoming election the republicans take back the house and the senate, then all of a sudden our economy gets great, all businesses start booming, jobs start being created, the american people need to ask why can this happen t overnight and cannot happen through an administration who is trying to do the best for our public, trying to might two wars. because iraq is not over with yet. we still have 50,000 people there. my question is, why can it happen overnight and why can't

it happen now? thank you. host: thank you. guest: well, my only -- i don't have any comments on domestic policy or politics. my only perspective is somebody who has been in iraq since the invasion and been there most years and seen it in all different phases is you're absolutely right. it's not over yet. it's mostly in the political realm. but even though the administration declared an end to combat there's been fighting since then. americans have died. but we're really moving into a different phase and american forces will leave by the end of 2011. they may continue to be there in small numbers. but our involvement in iraq is still important and the united states still has a lot of influence there. and iraq and afghanistan are a long-term kind of propositions. and if you take a short-term perspective to either you

almost certainly will fail. host: do you have questions having looked through this material? is there a question that is looming out there that you want to get answered in terms of our involvement in iraq and what you've read and seen? guest: well, the material didn't enlighten me beyond, i've been working on iraq for quite a while. i found the material yifle primarily because -- useful primarily because in the case of iran, brought a few things to light that i didn't know. but it didn't change my fundamental understanding. the things i'm really focused on is really this political year in iraq, what's going to happen in the formation of the new government there and really what degree, what i think the fundamental question is how much influence does the americans, does the united states have in iraq now, political influence, and how much is it prepared to use to try to get the outcome that i think we'd all like to see.

host: michael gordon is the chief military correspondent for the "new york times." thank you very much for being with us this morning. we appreciate your time. our sunday roundtable coming up, patricia murphy and von verbers will be with us to look at some of the polling information and look ahead nine days before the election. the president back on the campaign trail tomorrow. and the mid-term elections and politics of 2010 dominating this sunday morning programs. nan nancy is following all of that. >> reairs begin at noon eastern. today the issues include the fall mid-term elections and the war in afghanistan. first hear nbc's meet the press. david gregory welcomes michael steele and former congressman haired ford of tn. now chairman of the democratic leadership council. at 1:00 it's abc's this week host christian hosts tim cane,

chairman of the democratic national committee and retired general hue shelten former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. fox news sunday with host crist wallace begins reairing. his guests include pat tomby the republican nominee for the senate seat and joe mansion the democratic nominee for the senate seat in west virginia. at 3:00 it's face the nation from cbs. host bob schafer talks with karl rove, former adviser to president bush and representative chris van hollen, chairman of the democratic campaign committee. finally at 3:30 p.m. it's cnn's state of the union. candy youly mod rates a debate. democratic representative kendrick meek, and republican marco rubio. again, reairs of the talk shows begin at noon eastern.

listen to them all on c-span radio. >> this week on quayquay q and a compare and contrast the house of representatives and the house of commons. on the rules that run parliament and congress. tonight on "q&a".

host: we want to welcome back patricia murphy. good morning. thank you for being with us this morning. good to have you both back. let me begin with the front page of the "washington post." looking at the tea party movement. if you go inside canvasing the party, the "washington post" talking the disparate groups that make up the tea party. what they believe in. 99% say the economy is their number one concern. opposition to the democratic agenda, 92%. then you go further down other issues. control of congress, health care policy become minimal. then you look at the top five words by the tea party movement. patriotism, constitutionalism, freedom, liberty and grassroots. guest: it's fascinating and displays the challenge that republican leaders have going into the elections and the

times they're going to have coming out of the elections. the tea party movement has listed the republican party up to a point where they could take back the house and senate and much stronger position for the presidential elections. but the question is what happens afterwards. what we know about the tea party movement is strong fiscal conservatives. some of them are strong social conservatives. they are not seff identified republicans but they are voting republicans. and i interviewed dick armie and he said the goal is hostile takeover of the republican party. they're not interested in keeping the leaders they've got in there. so it's good for the republican party maybe on the whole for the energy, but the republican leaders in there are going to have a real hard time rustling this to be the energy that they want instead of the energy that they get. host: as this map shows the location of tea party groups around the country can see in every state, and then the high lighted areas are congressional driction with groups saying

they are campaigning for candidates or elsewhere self-identified as tea partiers. guest: this is a movement that sprung out of nowhere. this is organically growing in the country. it's not -- nobody controls this. republican leaders don't control it, dick armie doesn't control it. they barely can control themselves. one of the biggest things, in terms of organizational, one of the biggest things to watch is whether they can organize effectively in a lot of these races. if they're going to go out and vote or are they going to get people out to vote. are they organizing in that manner. and can they hold this together going forward. i don't think it's a coincidence that most of them say that it's the economy that is doing -- driving them at this point. i think a lot of these tea party people are these activists are republicans who are, frankly, dissatisfied with the way their party has acted tover past ten years or so. >> host: and who is the face of

the tea party? no one, sara palin, glenn beck, jim demint, ron paul, and minnesota republican michelle balkman. guest: unbelievable that the leaders are not elected officials. and the only elected official is jim demint who doesn't have a whole lot of seniority in the senate. he will have a lot more influnes after this but it does go to show that there is no leader of this movement. and to the extent that it is, they're people speaking out in the media and sort of whipping people into a frenzy. guest: if you look at the impact this movement has had, it has been in the senate contest primarily where they have been able to field candidates who are not part of the establishment, who have gone on to be the establishment candidates in places like nevada, colorado, delaware. they've already had this impact. and they're saying we don't want the usual faces. we want people who are going to

stick to our principles. host: one of those familiar faces is mitch mcconnell. he was campaigning over the weekend for the west virginia senate candidate john racy. here are some of the comments of the kentucky republican. >> these people need to be stopped. this is seers business. we can change america and get us back on track. and what you can do here in west virginia is do your part. we've got a lot of close senate races around the country. we could have a really, really good day, a medium-sized good day, or just a good day. i am going to be the leader of a larger number. the question is how many. host: how manylet republicans take back control of the senate? the "new york times" saying the republicans poised to win the house. the senate is the still up in the air. guest: historically speaking, if a party has a big enough wave, especially when they're this far in the minority, to

take back the house, the senate usually follows. if you look at it race by race, it gets a little harder to believe that republicans can actually do that. they had a great opportunity in delaware which it looks like they've let slip away with the nomination of chris teen o'donnell. there are some opportunities they have but they're going to have to run the inside straight. i think this is a question of is this going to be a big enough wave that you're going to see people like bar bro boxer and patty murray swept underneath. but i think it's a much more open question. guest: if you talked to republicans, they never dreamed that this would be the year that they would take back the senate because they have more opportunities in 2012. the plibs that i've talked to are looking at this as a way to get a foot in the door and maybe a foot in the house through the door, and then 2012 they think they're going to kick the door down. so if not this year, certainly the 2012 that these trends hold

up. host: and there's a front page story showing ken buck and michael bennett both at 47%. guest: that is one of more than a half a dozen contests at least that are within two points of each other. and you see that happening in nevada, in washington state, and wisconsin. and these are states that democrats should not be losing. and the fact that they are this close to each other, this close to the election, is keeping democrats very, very worried and up late at night er night. so that's what's making the direction of the senate so unclear, is that a lot of these races are very close and they could go either way just depending on who turns out, any events that happen before the election. host: the headline the denver post, deadlock in the final stretch. guest: that's a race that we've seen more outside spending than any other senate race in the country. this is a place where these outside groups like cross roods and others in the democratic

senatorial committee have put money in there. i like to think of colorado where it's not exactly a bell weather but it's sort of out in front of the times. it's gone democratic, republican, democratic republican. of course, president obama held his convention there. one colorado making it more of a purple state. the shared republicans are very energized there and they have a good shot. i think one of the things that might hurt ken buck there is the governor's race isn't quite probably as competitive as it should be in the environment. there's a three-way race. there's an independent candidate that is outdrawing the republican. that may end up hurting the senate candidate a little bit. but that's going to go down to the wire. we may not know for a couple days. >> and john is holding a lead in the governor's race. guest: michael bennett has never been elected in colorado. he was appointed by president obama. president obama is under water in colorado right now. and we're seeing this in a lot

of states. and i was in west virginia yesterday. people even who are not -- people who are democrats do not like the president right now or they don't like his policies. and it's not all democrats. it's conservative democrats, independents. and that's dragging down democrats who were appointed or campaigned for the president, endorsed the president. host: your former colleague chuck todd going into this mid term election saying florida is the race to watch. but the moim herald again saying rubio back in command and now this does not look like a close race. guest: it's certainly a race to watch. it is florida. but it does appear as though rubio has the edge there. this is an interesting race. it's had a lot of great levels and been wonderful story to watch. but this is not a seat the republicans need to win. this is a republican held seat. if they hold on to it, you know, they're not losing anything. marco rubio, however, is going

to be, if he is elected, a major figure in the republican party. he has energied people and he sort of occupies this weird area where he is sort of identified with the tea party but even some tea party activists don't sort of see him in that way. sharon angle in nevada was asked about what, she was caught on tape talking about some tea party figures. and she said well, we could count marco rubio but i don't. guest: he has about three quarters of the latino vote in florida, and that is a huge, huge defining factor down there. and it's something that is very important for the republican party i think to start to expand their base. they cannot just count on wealthy white men to continue to reelect them. they need to expand into the minority. marco rubio is an incredible opportunity to comes from the latino community, is cuban, but is very socially conservative, very fiscally conservative. so he's a great standard bearer for them and that's why they're

so excited about him as well. host: joining us with nine days to go before the election. patricia and von, we'll show you om soft ads in the most closely watched races in just a moment. but first, doris from garden city, south carolina. good morning. caller: i am not a member of the tea party. i believe in what they stand for. all of us are sick and tired of the government wasting money. my uncle, 70 years ago, died in office as a congressman. so i do know a little bit about what goes on. if you're a young man, gets in there, a new candidate, elected to office, and the old ones come up and say i am not voting for you, anything you do, unless you vote for what i am doing. this has got to stop. it is old school politics.

all they care about is themselves and their future. they do not care about the citizens of the united states. social security is not getting an increase. they say that gasoline last year did not raise that much. we don't live on gasoline. food has gone up over 6% since september. as a for instance, wal-mart used to sell their bagels four for $2. they raised it to $2.50. that's a 25% increase. their fabric has jumped 30 cents. and this is fabric that they have had in stock because they're deleting their fabric and craft departments. host: so based on all of this, how are you going to vote in this mid-term election and how old you vote in -- how would

you vote in 2012? caller: i will vote republican. but i vote for the person who i think is best for their job. host: thank you for the call. guest: well, i think that sums up a lot of sentiment in the country today. there is a real frustration with what happens in this town in washington, d.c. there is a sense that the government is ineffective, that they don't care. they're disconnected with the needs of everyday americans. and i think this is part of the democrats' problems. this is fundamentally a debate going on in the country about the role of government. what should the role of government be? the obama administration democratic congress has put forth a lot of programs, spent a lot of money. the only argument they can make is we're on the right track. it's going to get better. people aren't seeing that in their everyday lives so we have this real tension. host: and tax cuts. one of our viewers saying that the tea party rallies led by the establishment never mentioned the u.s. money roads

and $13 trillion deficit. how to cut back. they love the military war and god. but let me take up his point about reducing the deficits. are there specifics? will the republicans come in with a plan? guest: the republicans have talked a lot about reducing the deficit. they have been a little light on specifics but they have said that they want to put a freeze on nondefense discretionary spending. they haven't talked a lot about entitlement reform. although you're starting to hear what i think is interesting, a lot of republican candidates just sort of dip a toe into social security reform and saying we know that social security is a train wreck waiting to happen. we know that we need to make some changes. and that used to be political kryptonite. you did not go there. so even if you do cut some programs, scale back government spending, none is going to get to the heart of the problem is that our population is getting older and the entitlements are very expensive and we don't

have a younger population able to support that. so something needs to change. the republicans, if they win back control of the house and or senate and or presidency are going to wrestle with these problems. and the democrats in some ways think that if they don't win the house, and i've heard people say, if they don't win the house, at least they can start to blame the republicans for some of these problems. it's a very cynical view but it's out there. guest: i think that's the challenge going forward, regardless of what the outcome of the election ends up being, we know that it's going to be a much tighter town in washington, d.c. democrats have enjoyed large majority in the house. really large majority in the senate at some points. 06 votes. they've been able to get a lot of that stuff through that they wanted to. they've been able to further their agenda when they start a new session of congress, neither party is going to really be able to push anything that they want through. it's going to be a good chance to compromise with the administration, the

republicans. we'll see if that happens. host: peter baker writes about that this morning. patricia murphy in the "new york times." he joined us last week. today he writes sounds a lock like 1994. guest: democrats think that knut gingrich was the best thing that ever happened to bill clinton. and there a reach within the republican house and the american people said it was a reach to go after the president. it helped bill clinton move his agenda forward in small ways

and he could triangle it a little bit. and he could be seen he was able to compromise with the republicans and he would get a nice pat on the back. and the republicans to their credit pushed him to do things he probably wouldn't have done in terms of welfare reform. so it ended up being a good dynamic for both of them. guest: and i think people would be better off not looking at this as needing a foil and more as an opportunity to compromise to get something done that has broad support. the president's debt commission is going to be coming in in december. they're going to be making some recommendations about how we get out of this financial hole we're in. that seems to me a good area where the president and new republican leaders could work together. we'll see if that happens. that's not been the pattern in washington. but i think if the president were able to cooperate to get some things done with republicans, it would help take the edge afe of what a lot of people criticize him for, which is being a big spending liberal

and he wants to do this. that's going to help him far more than just having somebody to beat up against. guest: and americans especially independent voters want a divided government. they want checks and balances. they don't like to see either party with full control of the house, senate, and white house. guest: and yet they want to see things get done between those two. host: dan from massachusetts. good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call this morning. something i've been a little baffled about and i've heard people talk about is the tea party seems to start immediately after obama got elected and the big issues that they're talking about really were in our face during the bush administration. you know, i'm independent. i really don't care who is in

charge as long as who is in charge is trying to operate things with a little integrity and honsty. and when i see what happens to our country under the bush administration, i equate it to for the government is a really nice fine car. bush got the nice fine car left to him by the previous administration. that was in real good shape. and not only did he like take the corner too fast and hit the tree and smashed the entire vehicle up and leave it in pieces, you know, leaking oil and doors falling off when obama stepped into office, you know, now all of a sudden dick armey, the ex he had of the republican party is -- starts

this tea party movement and jumps all over obama apparently because they don't like the way he's fixing the car. host: thank you, dan. we'll get a response. guest: well, i have attend add lot of tea party rallies and had a chance to interview dick armie and a consistent theme is these people were not happy with president bush and felt president bush gave away the political mantle. and at the end of the bush years there was a group in congress led by mike pence and jeff flake, fiscal conservatives who would express their disgust with president bush. and the vote that seems to have most activists upset was tarp. that was setting the government on a course o towards socialism. so if you talk to tea partiers, i think they're upset at both president bush and president obama and president obama i think their biggest complaint, this is a group in particular that we saw does not trust the government, and president obama has put the federal government

in charge of large areas of the american economy. not in charge but certainly there's a larger federal presence in health care, maybe in energy reform. and the banks certainly. so as the car companies. it's been kind of an assertion of federal authority that tea partiers are not comfortable with. host: which is one of our viewers writing this. let's take a look at some of the ads beginning with nevada. senator harry reid is now down in a number of polls. it is a race that is being viewed today as too close to call by charlie cook who keeps track of these things. >> still 11 days before election, but over 3 million americans have already cast their ballots. they already voted. early voting has been strong in this election with registered democrats surprisingly leading the way.

more democrats than republicans have already voted in iowa, maryland, north carolina, louisiana, and nevada. republicans have the edge in two states, florida and colorado. and the two parties are running even in the other two states, ohio and maine. it may not be enough to stop the republican surge. the democrats may be closing the enthusiasm gap. >> our troubled economy isn't news. 600,000 americans have lost their jobs since january. paychecks are flat and home values are falling. it's hard to pay for gas and groceries. and if you put it on a credit card they probably raised your rates. you're paying more for health insurance that cors less and less. while you've been lig up to your responsibilities, washington has not. >> this was a moment when the

rise of the ocean began to slow and our planet began to heal. this was a moment when we ended the war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last best hope on earth. host: and we should point out both frob the web sites of the senate candidates in nevada. let me begin with the harry reid post it with chris matthews on hard ball. guest: it looks like democrats are doing ok there. and they're actually doing pretty well in other spots around the country in early voting, too. something like 30% of the vote

is supposed to come from early voting in this election. that's what is being forecast. that's a pretty big chunk. these parties are putting a lot of emphasis into that anything they can do to get an edge is important. i think in nevada it's not going to matter so much as getting every single last vote they can out to vote any way that they can. that is going to be a race that is just going down to the wire. and i think it's important for people to understand that in nevada they have a ballot line called none of the above. so you can actually go in and vote for harry reid, sharon a ankle or none of the bio. it will be interesting when we've sow much anything tivity and the choices, there's unpopular choices on both sides to see how the none of the other does. host: tom from arlington, virginia. democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning.

could we get more people to call in? i mean, i know your opinion's important and what your readings are important. but we need to get some input from the people. i mean, this is a nice forum for everybody to have something to say. host: you're doing that right now. so please go ahead with your call or comment or question. caller: if people, memories are so short, they can't remember what republicans left us and they want to vote for them and put them back in office, fine, let them do it. but they put us in such a bad position. we seem to be coming out of this. but if people want to go back to where we were before, then so be it. this is what the american people want, god bless them. have a nice day. host: thank you, tom. guest: this is the democrat's problem right there. they feel like they've accomplished things that they have staved country from getting in worse shape than it would have. they will make that argument all day long. but it's just very difficult to sell that out on the campaign trail when unemployment remains

very high, when people still remain very anxious what's going on. it's a hard thing to say. we did the right things. things are going to get better. just trust us. tough one. host: republican line, good morning. caller: thank you for c-span and your guests. i just wanted to kind of explain who a tea party member is. i'm not a person that is signed up with any organization, but i am a person who attended one of the first tea partys in the country in late winter of 2009. i found out about it through michelle malkin's website and it just kind of sprung from there. now, it was born because of dissatisfaction with an john slogget of things that happened -- on slauth of thing that is happened all at one time. tarp, then stimulus, then cap and trade, then health care, then the economy kept getting worse and joblessness kept getting worse. and it's like we need to put

the brakes on things. and if you want to know -- and i am a republican. i've been a registered republican but i'm an unhappy republican. but what we want is somebody like chris christy who will take definitive action to try to rein in this out-of-control spending. and get some moderation back in this -- it's like a train speeding tauf cliff. host: patricia. guest: well, it's interesting that you talk about chris christy. his profile is rising quickly in the republican party. he's starting to be talked about as a presidential nominee even though he's been there about a year in office but he is very popular in republican circles. but what else they think is interesting there is that you talked about all of the issues that had you concerned. that's exactly what we're seeing in this polling. this is what is giving this huge enthusiasm edge to the

republicans. this is people who maybe have not been involved. maybe they're registered republicans but not involved in the republican party before. social networking has been a huge factor. to see something with michelle malkin that you can log on to a facebook page, it's been something that the democrats haven't quite known ho get their arm's around. and with chris christy is so indick ti of what could be happening. we saw a big spike in republican turnout, a decline in democratic turnout and actually a little kind of an uptick in independent turnout. and that's the wave or the spike that republicans are having to see in 2010. host: pop culture already meeting politics. two stories in the "washington post" this morning. for liberal groups, it's not just for laughs. a preview of the daily show, john stewart, steven col better rally. the truth is that nobody is quite sure what to expect

it will take place this saturday and c-span will be covering it live beginning at noon eastern time. guest: john says this is not about politics. this ostly has something to do with politics. when again beck had his rally on the mall in august he said that was not about politics either. clearly these are both political phenomenon. it's going to be interesting. whether this has any impact, it will certainly get a lot of attention. i find it interesting that the president is going on stewart's show this week. he's going to be appearing there, the first sitting president to appear on the daily show. that's not unique in itself. but combined with this rally

and the fact that the president spent an entire week going across the country to college campuses, usc in california. he's been making all these stops on campuses clearly trying to energize these folks. host: and the interview will be taped wednesday and airing wednesday evening. c-span will be covering this event. it's supposed to last about two or three hours. james from illinois. good morning. independent line. caller: good morning. i have two questions. first, and basically both pertaining to campaigns. in regard to campaign financing, considering the citizen united decision, was that so far from what we've seen pretty much whoever spends the most money generally gets the most bang for their buck, which basically means a voter doesn't have the right information or gets a lot of misinformation. so you can consider that a negative or positive issue?

and my second question i hope you don't mind me asking two. my second question is, considering journalists are in charge of basically disseminating information to the viewers and the voters, shouldn't you be giving a little bit more information about what's being said that's not true? host: we should point out we've hosted in the past bill adair who does review the adds. guest: plit fact is a fantastic site. and i think in terms of the media's role is that a lot of republican candidates aren't doing a lot of interviews. these don't need the media to get their message out to the voters. so i've talked to a lot of reporters who have a hard time tracking down the candidates. they're not having public events. there's certainly some democrats as well trying to lay low. if they're in a good position they just want to keep their numbers going. they don't want to talk to reporters. so there's a challenge out there this cycle.

because if a candidate is able to get their own message out, especially if there's a lot of money in that race, they're able to blanket the ware waves, have a twitter page, have a facebook page. they no longer need to go to the "new york times" or washington times to do a sit-down interview and voters don't trust the media as much as they used to, either. so even spending time on those kinds of activities may or may not help people in these races. i know i've talked to a lot of reporters who have a hard time covering these races. host: one viewer saying, did steve say the post is seriously calling on stewart to cancel the event? krl joining us, democrat's line buffalo, nok. good morning. guest: the money in the political system as both of your guests know, you've been

around enough to know, it's not the five and the 10 and the $25 contributors that is generating these literal billions of dollars. it's the fat cats. for example, president obama himself is either just has been or will be attending a $30,000 a plate fund raising dinner. $30,000 a plate. now, we know the media is not going to be overly critical of the money in the political system because the system has thrown them a life line. roughly half of the billions of dollars, according to the political pundits, goes to buying television time. now, my question to your panel is really this. these people aren't dumb. they know by spending billions of dollars blanketting the television air waves with 15 and 30 second commercials they

can manipulate and buy votes from the american people. host: thank you, carl. guest: well, money and politics, it's not oil and water but they do -- guest: peanut butter and jelly. guest: mix of opinion. i find it interesting that the labor union, they've said this week it was reported this week that they've spent some $87 million in this election. the chamber of commerce is speppeding $75 million in this election. it sort of always depends on which side you're on when you're complaining of money and politics. the call ser absolutely right. there is a lot of money being spent. a lot of it is coming in in donations that we don't know where it's coming from. it's coming from third party groups. this is something that comes up every two years. we deal with it every two years. i think there's been a lot of good reporting done on this topic this year.

there's just some thing that is we don't know. the supreme court has ruled that it's freedom of speech. that campaign spending in some instances is freedom of speech. we're as journalists are always trying find out what's behind all of that. host: one of the most expensive races is in pennsylvania. here's one ot latest ads. guest: i'm joe and this is bill. my family loves bill. but she can make a mess and we have to clean it up. i think about bell when i see tomby's ads attacking me. but i had to clean up the mess left behind by these guys. they let the street run wild. now pat is attacking me for cleaning up his mess. i authorized this message because we deserve leaders to solve problems instead of playing politics. i think about belle when i see the ads attacking me.

it made me sick to bail out the banks. >> and freddie mac may need a government bailout according to former state pitt william pool. >> i really strongly felt this was the most consequential vote i've made and our nation, my constituents who won't be able to get affordable loans whose saving ares go toing go down, this is a vote for them real lifplt this is something that had to be done and i think president bush beginning it back in december did the right thing. >> this is the biggest step by the government to intervene in the housing market since the great depression. >> tarp money not spent would automatically go towards reducing the deficit at the end of the year unless congress changes that. >> i think about belle when i see congressman tomby's ads attacking me. made me sick to bail out the banks.

>> the latest ads from the race we should point out the tarp program began under a republican president. guest: it began under president bush. it was at the kind of the height of the financial meltdown. and secretary paulson went up to capitol hill and said we need this bill. if not, there will be a great depression. and congress voted for it. some members of congress did not vote for it. what is going to be interesting i think in these races and races coming up, if there's a sitting republican senator who voted for tarp, is that somebody that you're going to primary? and they said yes. so i think the fallout is going to -- we're going to continue to see the fallout for that within the republican party. it's something that their own voters are punishing them for. and a lot of people who got primaried this past year are people who got voted for the tarp. host: an earlier call we are regard to american cross roads.

steve law put forth in part by the assistance of karl rove was on our program october 15th. it's available on our website. carol is on the republican line from georgia. good morning. caller: good morning. i think we oftentimes look at president clinton's presidential time as being one of the best. but we need to understand how well ronald reagan set it up for president bush senior and president clinton. he set it up very well. and i know at the time that clinton didn't even know we were at war under his administration. he did not know anything about these people being trained to fly the planes and being trained to bomb the uss coal and all those other things that happened. and we also need to understand that president bush had a lot of disasters and it took a lot

of money to help clear them up. host: thanks for the call. let me use your point to ask about candidates who are in the white house, whether it's barack obama going after george bush or bill clinton talking about the george her better walker bush or even george w. bush in 2002. guest: well, you had peter baker on last week who wrote a good piece in which he observes that it's almost surreal to sit and listen to barack obama say the exact same thing that is used to come from president bush. these are tough decisions. we have to make. he almost said i'm the decider. look these are tough decisions. things that land on my desk are inherently not easy. i think there is very quickly sets in the reality when you're on the campaign trail, you can -- lots of things you can say and you can inspire a lot of people. but when you walk into that oval office you enter a different world. and you're faced with some very

tough decisions. the disconnect between that and what goes on on the campaign trail is pretty big. host: we have a couple minutes left. let me begin with today's front page of the "l.a. times." if you see this latest poll from the "l.a. times", she has spent more than $150 million. guest: if there's a state that you do not want to be a self-funder in, it is california. that is such an expensive state to run. you can blow through your entire for tune and not see the results. wittman has run a good campaign, but that is a state that knows jerry brown very well and that's a state that president obama won by 25 points. that's a really tough mountain to climb there. and wittman has run into a few of her own scandals of her own making. she's also tried to get the latino vote out and it hasn't been successful for her. so everything she seems to try, she seemed to kick up the women vote, the latino vote, doesn't

seem to be working for her right now. now, carlie is a different story. she has that within two points of barbara boxer. so i'm not sure what explains the difference, but she is having a lot of success there. democrats really worried right now. host: on your politics page you have the confidence index. what is that? guest: what we've done with the wonderful political unit is we've put together an average of the numbers in a lot of these major polls that are out every few weeks, whether it's the numbers we use and average together, right track, wrong track, is the country headed in the right direction, presidential approval rating. we kind of picked those together and produce a if you remember of out that. the interesting thing about this is that we've done this for mid-term elections going back to 1974 and what those numbers were right before the elections. and if you look at the comparison, i believe the president obama is negative 38

right now. it was negative 30 was where president clinton was when they lost 50 seats in 1994 and lost the house and the senate. it was a negative 65 under president bush when the republicans lost the senate. so you can go back. and we're not trying to be predictive but we do think it gives a good frame of reference to see what could happen. host: check out the politics page at c-span, check out msnbc.com politics. guest: and politics daily.com. host: both familiar faces to this network. thank you both for coming. please come back again. charles is the author of this book, bought and paid for, the unholy alliance between barack obama and wall street. joining us from new york in just a moment. but as always, a look at the week's events as viewed by some of the leading cartoon editorialists from around the country.

host: ginning us from new york. the autsdzsh of the book bought and paid for. thank you for being with us. guest: thanks for having me. host: let's get into the book and some of the quotes.

host: what's wrong with that? guest: nothing necessarily. but this book is based on a pretty simple premise. i cover wall street. i just wanted to know why this sort of alleged epi center of capitalism fell in love, and this is even before it looked like barack obama was going to win. after lehman brothers imploded it was clear they was going to win. but they were giving a lot of u money to the obama campaign. and what i couldn't get my arms around at least at the time was why would these alleged capitalists support someone who is, face it, one of the most liberal presidents or at the time one of the most liberal candidates we've ever had? you don't have to look far to

find progressivism in barack obama's background. his spiritual mentor, reverend wright for better or worse was a mamplist. so i tried to figure that out and that's what this book is about, trying to understand why wall street does that. and the sort of premise of it is when you look at sort of big wall street firms, what they've done over the last sort of 30 years, they've done very well under big liberal governments. they make a lot of money when government is the biggest. not only that, obama obviously is someone who courted them. and courted them in interesting ways. like john mccain, when it comes down to it, couldn't stand being in the same room with these guys. different tempers, different personalities. also politically john mccain is not as much of a progressive. if you look at all the guys that run these firms, jamie at

jp morgan chase, go down the list, the gentleman who ran goldman saction, they're all political progressives. and that combined with the fact that these guys make a lot of money over big government, i came to the conclusion that as much as they don't like being yelled at by barack obama being called fat cats, i believe, even though they're supporting republicans now, they actually like his policies. host: the administration has instituted new spending programs, you write, of extraordinary magnitude. the ill fated stimulus package, obama care, and planned climate control legislation that requires the issueance of a titanic amounts of new government debt, again filling the coffers of the bankser who earn fees from selling the debt but little reason for businesses to begin hiring again. at the urging of obama's friends, the administration has left in place many of the same crosive structures that led to the financial system to near collapse in the first place.

guest: that's true. i mean, all you have to look at, you know, listen, there were temporary bailout mechanisms put in place by the bush administration known as tarp. i actually broke the tarp story at the time. i remember the market when up like 500 points. we could debate the reason why we did that, whether it was good or bad, all day long. but if you look at those mechanisms and you look at them going forward after the initial blute, the guarantees on their debt, the low interest rates which he doesn't control directly, the fed does, but he was very much in favor of keeping those policies in place. i mean the president. and many other policies. basically where instituted by barack obama. what i tried to look at in this book as well is the benefit of obama nomics. were there equal benefits? main street got the stimulus package, $800 billion shovel

ready projects, which never came to bear. if you know anybody in construction they're probably looking for a job. yet wall street, it's interesting, literally weeks, months, i would say a couple months after the financial collapse, wall street was making a lot of money. so that's another driving force. who got the benefits? main street got the stimulus package. which, even by their own estimates, failed. yes, if we didn't spend the money things might have been worse. but the sort of efficacy of spending $800 billion as opposed to other stimulus measures didn't really work out very well. wall street on the other hand did very well under the stimulus package put in place for big business. by the way, there's a reason why big business loves barack obama. all you have to do is listen to jeffery mills, the head of ge will talk all day about how we're all democrats now. now, why is that?

because ge is feasting off of major het asides from the obama administration from all those green jobs and other subsidies. i used to work for g.e., i used to work for cnbc. host: we'll get to your calls. businesses are hoarding because they're afraid of the cost of obama nomics. the taxes, entitlements, the massive amount of spending that they ultimately will have to pay for h guest: listen, this is an open and shut argument. you talk to anybody in the business world, and you ask why do we have rying gdp, gross domestic product? the economy is expanding. it may be slowing down right now, but we have positive gdp growth.

why do we have that yet massive unemployment? now, businessmen will tell you, large and small, will tell you, here's the deal. i'm afraid of my costs going up. i'm afraid of cap and trade. i'm afraid of regulation. i'm afraid of another $1 billion i have to spend on health care. businessmen are rationale. they look at their cost structure. and under obama nomics, the cost structure for the average business in the middle of a very, very difficult economy is going up. and that's part of the absurdity of what he is doing and that's what this book pointed out. businesses have to pay more money in all these regulations. that means they're not going to hire people, they're going to hoard cash. and it's pretty transparent. we all know it. this book was written a couple months ago, it takes a couple months to publish. but that is still the case, which is the scary part about it. . .

host: hot and paid for, he

should have waited until the current election because this election will set a new standard for being "bought peekabt." guest: my book is not about campaign finance. it is basically a book that tries to explain to people that despite the rhetoric, a lot of people think wall street is full of white ring republicans. it is basically showing that it is not really the case. and the terms of politics, it is a very aggressive -- progressive place that makes a lot of money off of liberalism. this is about finance. host: from the book, "a small businesses are the backbone of our economy. every statistic shows that they employ -- phone calls.your

mike from atkinson. caller: good morning. this is about the federal reserve. it seems to me they go hand in hand. guest: without getting too much into this, there's something called quantitative easing where the fed actually goes in there to pump money into the money supply by purchasing those bonds from the bank. they have the money on hand. they give money to the bank. what you see there is something known as quantitative easing. they are pumping money into the money supply. you are correct. that part -- that is part of this book as well. the partnership between wall street and government,

especially in this form, goes back about three decades and involves not just the fed, but the fed is involved in wall street. the problem is it to look at the bailout for into thousand a, a lot of people think that is the only time that. though wall street. they have built about like four or five times. the mechanism they use is often the fed. they go in and purchase fed is securities and put money into the system. by the way, when they do that, it softens the pain. when you soften the pain, you create more of hazard or there is no consequence to your actions. that is why wall street took such a big risk of the last 10- 20 years. host: you said wall street could have found all they wanted in a president and they have profits and pay checks. middle-class americans were facing increased unemployment and higher taxes.

collagens and young adults had served as a driving constituency in retracing of the worst job markets in decades. obama had failed to deliver on his promises of hope and change. they were demanding answers. guest: it is kind of ironic, is it not, that the people and categories that supported obama the most are basically the feeling the most pain from his policies. you cannot deny the fact that he was left was something that was really horrendous, a financial collapse, an informant ratcheting up massively. the real question is did his policies do enough to prevent that from going off the tracks? the portrait to make in this book is his policies made a bad situation worse. this is pretty quantifiable.

businesses were not facing these increased costs right now, big businesses, they would be hiring more people. those increased costs to indirectly from his policies. these are irrefutable facts. if you look at the stimulus package, the main driver of how he was going to repair main street has been an utter failure. it has been failing for years. those government stimulants of measures and never really worked out as well for main street as planned. listen. wall street makes a lot of life from that debt. general electric can make a lot of money for the subsidies for grain jobs. the actual job creation has pretty much diminished. they spend $800 billion on a stimulus package. they were going to give some of the money to the states, which they did.

there were supposed to use that to build "shovel ready projects ." they used to not cut money at the state level. these are positions them their work that in new york state. that has been the record of obamanomics. host: charlie gasparino as a correspondent for cox business channel. you said the economic engine was put in direction before obama. surely from new orleans on our democratic line. good morning. caller: this man on television as a joke. everything he says is barack obama is wrong.

barack obama is wrong. he could still do something for this country. you have those two white wing people on. you had six callers, two republicans, two democrats. what is it with c-span? they must be dragging their -- host: i appreciate the call. what call was a lie? what are you talking about? caller: he is saying that barack obama had the $800 billion bill. the last thing you said just before i came on the air -- he

is from fox news. what do you expect from fox news? they lie and spread misinformation. host: we invite authors from all political stripes and backgrounds. guest: i should point out that i also write: tim -- columns for "the huffington post." i have worked for the news pages of "the wall street journal." $800 billion was spent by barack obama. that is called a stimulus package. ibm evenhanded about big government. the government was a function of the bush administration as well. i am not saying that barack obama invented big government, but when you look at the last

two years of obamanomics, we are talking contemporaneously here and what is going on right now with this president. george bush was president two years ago. we have a new president. this is looking at the spoils of obamanomics. the benefits have been unevenly doled out. big business and wall street made a lot of money. they like divided government as much as anyone else. they did very well under this president and that is what this book is about. host: eastlake, ohio, on our independent line. caller: mr. gasparino, they are not hiring because the people who are still working are working harder, longer, and they're working for less because they have taken away our 401k's

and lowered the hourly rates. they will not hire until they have to. i do not think this has anything to do with taxes because they have been the same for 10 years. the jobs have not come in. the other thing contributions for campaigns, they go to the many who they think will be in power. do not give me the baloney that the democrats are loved by wall street, because right now wall street is giving major bucks to the republicans and the tea party. guest: they are giving it to the republicans, but not the tea party. let us deal with your question that. i mean, olistening.

unemployment has not been the same and stable for the last 10 years. we should point now that you have to ask a businessman while they are not hiring. they should be hiring now. what happened 10 years ago has nothing to do with why they are not hiring now. unless they are -- the reason they're not hiring is that every businessman wants to make more money. .hat is their modus operandi you hire people to produce more goods because the economy is expanding. what every businessman worries about is that next year but they cannot maintain their profit margins. they cannot maintain profit margins and higher more people because their rising costs. those costs are all related to

the growth of government that this president is advocating. you may not like that, but that is what they are saying. your beef is with them. it is pretty empirically clear. host: tens of millions with -- of middle-class families with disposable income will grow this economy and those days are over. guest: that is true to an extent. my dad was an iron worker and i grew up in this area of my entire life. i did not come from a privileged background, so this week. he was out of luck work all lot during the 1970's. one of the things he told me over those years was that he needed rich people to be rich. when rich people spend money, it

helps the family. rich people should take a breath. the people in the top income categories to the majority of the spending, the majority of the hiring in this country. if you burden those people with regulation and if you take money out of their pocket, they will take money out of your pocket and that is what they're doing right now. host: if you get a pet rattlesnake -- rattlesnake, expect to be bitten. that's what you told a long line of

congressman barney frank is in a tough fight of his home. german baucus could be the chair of the financial committee. guest: he is slated to be the next chair. what happened was in the late winter of 2009 and spring 2010, wall street started worrying about the obama administration turning their back on them. what you see now is the end result where the money started flowing to republicans. the republicans are really interesting, especially in the house. when they created tarp, the bailout mechanism for the banks, it is interesting that hank paulson, the bush administration secretary treasury did not really work with the house republicans.

he was working generally with people he knew from his days at goldman sachs. he was the ceo of goldman. that was generally nancy pelosi and barney frank. those were his main conduits. republicans were always very uneasy about tarp. one year later after all these bailouts, the republicans started returning. jamie dimon was famously known as the shadow secretary. he met up with barack obama in washington. they were complaining the far left tilt of the democratic party. even more than the policies, i think the heads of the wall

street firms hated being called fat cats. dimon despised the name calling. if you are being called names by the president, people will be less likely to give you their money. i go through that in the book. that was senator baucus's comment to them. host: charlie gasparino is with us. he has written a book, "bought and paid for -- the unholy alliance between barack obama and wall street." caller: think you for taking my call. i think there are four reasons president obama will lose the house. the first is because president

obama scuttled the pan-american truckdriver initiative where we were going to have truck drivers from central america and mexico drive in the united states. people will have to pay a lot more for their goods now. everybody's stuff comes by truck. everybody uses either water, gas, oil, and it comes through well casing. we will not get that-cheap. there's also a family planning where he will allow abortions.

we will not have as many illegal immigrants because they will be able to do birth control. host: we will have our gas to take any number or all of them, your choice. guest: i do not know what to say to this one. i bet those are not the four top reasons why the republicans will win the house. host: that me go to this twitter question. we have lost our homes, our jobs, and their futures because wall street gambled with our homes. there is no demand. guest: absolutely true. i have been covering the big wall street firms for 20-22 years. they gambled recklessly and irresponsibly, but this tries to show why they gambled

irresponsibly and recklessly. one reason why is they always felt they had a partnership with government. in the last 30 years, there has been four bailouts, at least four. that is the root of the problem. going forward, how can we prevent this in the future from happening. one way is to not do what is being done in the recent financial reform bill which codifies the notion of the too big to fail into the law. they will tell you it does not exist, but the dog-franc bill is the bill that is going to prevent a financial crisis. too big to fail is to step in to bailout "systemically important" institutions. if you want to know the reason why people gamble recklessly, it is because they believe they have a partner in the government

and they will get a bailout. it is human nature to do that. if you know you're going to vegas and you can gamble everything because the house will bail you out, you will gamble everything. one of the problems going forward is that the financial reform bill that was passed essentially makes that even worse. the question is what do we do to prevent this in the future? listen. there is one reason for the banks to go in and make them smaller and less risky. i would do a free market proposal. most of these banks now combine commercial banking, customer deposits with risk-taking. if you want to roll the dice in the securities market and put those customer deposits that are insured by the fdic and rest, we will not insure it. the taxpayers will not insure that deposit. that was one reason we had to

bail out citigroup. citigroup went under, the american taxpayer would have been on the hope for something like $800 billion of deposits. one way to prevent that is to no longer insure deposits at the want to take risks. host: wall street did not gamble with our homes, wall street and barney frank tdid. our last call for charlie gasparino. caller: good morning. it seems that this has been going on for the last 40 years. now we have an unholy alliance of either one of the two political parties, whether it is the bush republicans or the of mitch mcconnell republicans or any of the democrats with wall street. going to you, personally, and what i have watched you do on the fox business channel night

after night after night after night from day one -- day 1 -- host: what is day 1? caller: when he first came on in his program. guest: that was five years ago. that was before barack obama. caller: you seem to be doing some black journalism. host: black journalism? caller: you are calling them in my party a bunch of crooks. guest: i think you are wrong. i have attacked both parties pretty equally. one thing i am very critical of is the absurdity of raising taxes and expanding mandates on businesses when we have to create jobs.

you may think that is good to be forcing businesses to spend more, but when you do that it has an economic impact. that economic impact as close to 10% unemployment. this book is very critical of both republicans and democrats. that is what i have done my entire career. host: "i do not think it is unjustifiable and patriotism 1 amok. when i think about what lies in store for this country, i look at a world in fear for investors would rather buy gold for $1,200 an ounce than invest in growth industries as sophisticated investors get nervous about barack obama's expansion of the u.s. debt. unless something changes, and soon, the 21st century will not been an american century -- far from it." guest: george bush does not

deserve any kudos year. i am writing about this issue which is about the last couple of years of obamanomics. everyone should be worried about the size and rapid growth of government. this is pretty simple stuff. we are selling more dead than had in savings. we may have savings in the future, but we have to go into debt and sell it to people who are not necessarily our friends, like the chinese. we are trying to have a massive change in the size and scope of government. i think americans are uneasy about this. we are having a national debate about this right now playing out in the midterm elections because people are very worried. you have to ask yourself why gold is going through the roof right now when it startup businesses cannot get seed financing?

one reason why is we have a situation where investors are worried about the future. host: his latest book is "bought and paid for -- the unholy alliance between barack obama and wall street," charlie gasparino joining us from new york, thank you for joining us. host: early voting is underway in more than half the country adding a new dynamic to the selection. in some states, early voting has been under way afor over two weeks. first, we bring in the sunday talk shows on c-span radio. we are keeping track of the topics and guests on those programs. >> we heirs of the sunday talk programs begin at 12:00 p.m. eastern with "meet the press." steele guest is michael

and former congressman ford of tennessee, chairman of the democratic leadership council. at 1:00 p.m., "this week close creek -- "this week" with the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. guests at 2:00 p.m. include the republican nominee for pennsylvania and joe manchin, the democratic nominee for west virginia. and 3:00 p.m. "face the na tion" and bob schieffer talks to karl rove and kris van holland. 3:30 p.m. "the state of the union close "with florida senate candidates, charlie crist and marco rubio. these are real heroes of the network tv talk shows beginning

at 12:00 p.m. eastern with "meet the press." 3:00 p.m. as "face the nation" and finally "stated the need and." -- "state of the nation." xm 132 or online at cspanradio.org. >> two former parliamentarians, one british and one american, compared contrast the house are representatives and the house of commons. on the rules that run parliament and congress, tonight on q & a. >> one great future -- feature is being able to click and share with your friends. this includes more than 100 debates. watch the tutorial on how to

click and share our website. search, find, and share with the c-span video library. "washington journal" continues. host: it used to be absentee voting, but now it is early voting. we're joined by michael mcdonald from the c-span news room and this is a professor from george mason university. thank you for being with us. why are we seeing more states with early voting? guest: in 2004, it has been aboard trending. a lot of states have adopted expansive early voting in the special polling places or they have allowed permanent absence team or all mail ballot elections. as they adopted this different ways of of voting, more voters

are becoming comfortable with it. there has been a real explosion in the votes that will be cast prior to election day. host: why do some states not offer early voting? guest: all states allow people who are not going to be on their homes at election day to cast an absentee ballot. the quality of that excuse required, some states have no excuse, some open up the special polling places. if you will not be around on election day, you can vote early. would the a call a vote cast prior to election day? pre-election voting? early voting? i wave the white flag and call it all early voting. it comes in many, many different flavors. host: if you are in a state that offers early voting or if you have already voted in this

midterm election, 202-737-0001. if you will vote on election day, 202-737-0002. what's the get states already offering early voting including alaska, washington, d.c., montana, new mexico, to name a few, how do you ensure that there's no irregularities in the voting? guest: special early voting locations has people who are physically coming in to the location and they are checked in just as they would redeem on election day. in these cases, this is just like regular election day boating. you are just doing a prior to the election. where we have states that have

absentee voting, there are a number of safeguards in place to make sure that people are in need casting the correct balance and that there are not voting more than once. people have to sign the back of an envelope provided with their ballot. they will match, the election of administrators, will match the signature with the voter registration signature. they will do other checks to make sure that if you show by- election day that they will disqualified that particular incentive. there are a lot of safeguards in place here to prevent this. if anything, we think of the safeguards in place, if you are going to cast your ballot by mail, you really need to follow the instructions very closely.

in 2008 and 2004, roughly 500,000 ballots were disqualified because people did not sign the ballots, maybe they put two envelops -- two ballots in the same envelope or did something else improper and as a consequence of that, they have been disqualified. this will insure your ballot will be counted. host: 9 days to go on till the midterm election. millions of americans have already cast their ballots. one example is i would. -- one example is iowa. this is a phenomenon happening.

partitive thousand date it was typically done in the form of mail balloting. in 2008, we saw a reversal of this where democrats were coming out to vote early. in 2008, i thought this was perhaps a barack obama enthusiasm. i was not really sure when i got to 2010 which direction we would go. would we see a continuation or would we revert back to pre-2008 patterns in which people voted early? it looks like a mixed bag. the numbers are favorable to the democrats and there is evidence to suggest that more democrats are voting than republicans. there is a catch for this. these are not the same levels we had in 2008 either. if these numbers are to be believed and the statistics are correct, yes, there are more

democrats and they're not voting at the same level they did in 2008 and this will be a very close election. host: national republican campaign committee says they have seen an uptick of early republican voting in arizona, florida, georgia, and a number of congressional races. we have a political reporter with "the loss vegas sun." thank you for being with us. time to kickoff early voting in nevada. how does it work in your state? caller: nevada is an interesting state. we have a 24/7 culture and a lot of people are working strange hours. you can go to grocery stores or 2 miles to cast your valid -- ballot.

in 2008 we had about 57% of our votes cast it early by absentee ballot or early voting. this year they told us to expect about 60%. right now, republicans have about a 125 vote lead which democrats are saying that there's no enthusiasm gap shoring up yet -- it showing up yet. republicans are saying that the democrats are pushing this hard. we have the vice president, we have the president all here to encourage people to vote early. democrats are not seeing the numbers yet. host: when are those votes tabulated? caller: they will not release the numbers until the polls closed on election day. they do not want to influence things one way or another how that is going.

they are reporting here is showing up. democrats, republicans, non- partisan. campaigns are certainly keeping track of who is showing up and when someone votes across them off the list. they do not have to keep calling them and did not garner their doors. it is part of the very complicated get the vote turnout election machine that the campaigns are running. host: often when people vote the have to go to a library or school in their neighborhood. if you are in clark county can it be in a grocery store? how do you ensure you do not get to vote twice? caller: it is all computerized. you go to the grocery store and when you sign in l.a., it says

-- when you signed in, it will say if you are registered to vote. host: over the last 10-15 years, how has this work? caller: if you are an advocate for increase voter participation, it makes it easier. it encourages people to do it. is there in your face. you realize that there is an election. with the amount of ads, it is pretty hard to know that there is not an election going on. we have not heard any reports of problems so far with early voting. it seems to be working. host: david schwartz from las vegas, we appreciate your time. we have divided our phone lines between those who have voted early and those voting on

election day. from birmingham, alabama. good morning. are you with us? caller: good morning. i do not think alabama has early voting. yes, i did not think alabama has early voting, but i will vote on election day. i am a democrat and i will make sure if i have to drive myself and take people to the polls that we will be voting. i have already seen a lot of democrats voting and early voting. we will wait until election day and actually see what happens. thank you. host: bedford, texas, where they do have early voting. caller: i voted on tuesday. i went in with great pride and enthusiasm. i marked "x" for a straight

democratic ticket. i verified before i left that the machine had read my vote. i have a ticket that tells me that i voted. i want to encourage everyone to get out there, go early. i am 74 and i work full time. i want to encourage everyone. in my evenings, i am calling on my own out of the white pages and encouraging people to vote. i always tell them to vote a straight democratic ticket because we need a new governor. host: what impact does enthusiasm have in terms of the overall impact? guest: on the caller from alabama, as she mentioned, alabama requires an excuse to vote for an absentee ballot. if he will be away on election day in a state like alabama, and

many states like this, so if you want to vote early and you will not be around, do check with your local church -- local election officials to see what option to have available to you. that is what is going on in alabama. my home state of virginia, it is possible for me to go in person and a vote which really picks up on what the next caller was talking about. i could vote by mail, request an absentee ballot, have that returned to me, filling out, and it is very important for everyone to understand that you have to follow procedures correctly and then return the ballot. that is one option. another option is to go to your collection administrator offices and a vote in the person. like in my home jurisdiction of the fairfax county, you would be able to vote on the machine. you will have at least a little more confidence that the vote was not somehow lost in the mail

or something else happened that was beyond your control. those sorts of people, like the woman from texas, she was talking about the security and the feeling that your vote has been counted because you did it in person. another great thing about doing this in person is that if there is any other problems with your voter registration, and there could be some and there is always potential that there is a snafus somewhere in the process. there is an opportunity for you and the election administrators to sort that out in the person. maybe you will be required to do some additional steps. this gives you an opportunity to come back and try again the second time, maybe if you are a first-time voter in the need to provide required identification.

if you had done that on election day, you would have missed that opportunity. i like early voting enforcement. i like mail balloting as well. if you are going to do mail balloting, just be careful. host: mike mcdonald is an associate professor for george mason university. i passed out fliers for the democratic party yesterday and in north carolina -- north dakota. let's look to the states to offer the opportunity for the electorate. julio from houston, texas. caller: i will vote on election day that is -- because there is a location down the street that is very convenient. it is why i have not voted already. host: next in tennessee where

they also offer early voting. go ahead. caller: i voted on monday. i endorse early voting. you do not have to stand in line on election day. it helps spread of the vote. host: nancy from arkansas voting on election day. caller: i am against early voting. we have two weeks of it in the state of arkansas. it gives voters a chance to vote twice. we have had this problem for many years. voters tried to vote twice. there are a lot of irregularities. i think two weeks is entirely too long. anyone should be able to go vote on election day or vote by absentee ballot. i think we're just providing grounds for more irregularities, corruption, and fraud in the voting process. host: 84 the call. michael mcdonald, your reaction?

guest: about the ease of of voting. there are some states that have an early voting locations in high traffic areas like a shopping mall. there are others who will have early voting locations in less accessible locations. maybe it is a government center or something else not in a high traffic area. there is evidence to suggest that the distance you have to travel to vote is a factor in whether or not you will vote. from the caller who said he will just walk down the street and vote in person, that makes sense to me. that will be the easiest way for him to vote. if early voting will increase turnout overall, it will provide more opportunities and it will

allow greater convenience for voting. if you do have a location that you can vote in or maybe you cannot vote because you are in a nursing home or something. this is an opportunity with more convenient for you to vote. on the issue of fraud, it is one that gets raised quite a bit. there is actually very little evidence that we have widespread fraud in elections. we have spent tens of millions of dollars over the last eight years or so investigating fraud. when you start really looking at the numbers, you have a better chance of winning the lottery of than finding an individual who will be casting a fraudulent vote. there are some out there, do not get me wrong, and we should investigate those instances to make sure we keep our elections clean and pure. however, we do not see much of it. it is not really in person

fraud. there is another flight that most of the fraud you may see in the early voting will happen through the mail. there are fewer checks to verify the individual is the person that they are or that they have been improperly pressured some how to cast a ballot. if you are really going to look to somehow deal with the fraud issue, then you really need to look at mail balloting because that is where the problems occur. the ironic thing about the fraud debate is when you look at who votes, democrats tend to like to vote in person early and republicans like to vote by mail. dick armey a few days ago was talking about all of these democrats voting early as fraudulent votes.

you'd look to adopt some loss of nearly address some of the things that go along with mail balloting. republicans have resisted. if you really want to address those sorts of things, i would say how many people vote in person and do something extra, like cigna -- like a signature verification to identify whether or not an individual is the person they say they are. host: michael mcdonald teaches in fairfax virginia at george mason university. he has also taught at the university of illinois. he has steadied at the university of california, california institute of technology, and harvard. he is a brookings institution fellow. we've had heard about what

happened in nevada. in ohio, it is a relatively new phenomenon. joining us now is a political reporter from cleveland. thank you for being here with us on c-span. are you with us, mark? we will try one more time for our reporter from cleveland. caller: i can hear you. host: what is the short history of the voting in ohio? caller: this has only been going on since 2006. there was more fraud in ohio from tie hogan county. there are lines of to six hours with lots of problems. that move to the officials here to get ford with early balloting. we had a 30% of ballots cast in the election in 2008 by early voting.

most of them are by mail in balance. we only have a handful of locations in each county that are available to vote in person. the real push is for the early voting by mail. host: what are you seeing this year? caller: not as many early votes which i think is the difference between president traverses a mid term. certainly president obama at the time they're out some younger and different voters and we are not seeing them. i am in the most democratic-rich area of the state. for every four early ballots cast by democrats, only one for republicans. this year, the margin is not nearly as large. host: is there a way to keep track of who is voting in who they are voting for to assess the future of the early voting?

caller: we cannot see how they vote for, but i think both parties have sophisticated modeling which i think is based on what we know that a particular neighborhood or region and who they put in the office. they kind of know where the pockets of democratic strength far. in ohio, the democrats in particular are really looking at the sporadic democratic voters who have been targeting was some of the early voting efforts to get the vote out. that is what they need to do where there is an enthusiasm gap with republicans having that department. host: if you mail in your ballot, do you have to pay postage? caller: it is all prepaid. you can request one and the parties will send out a lot of those applications. this is no cost to the voter.

host: a political reporter joining us from cleveland, they keep for your time. from chicago, good morning. caller: how are you doing today? by early voted on friday. my son just turned 18 in july and it took him with me, too. host: where did you vote? caller: in illinois. host: but above voting over the internet? guest: there is the option to vote over the internet for our military. there is the trouble of delivering it valid to a remote location. we are allowing that in this which is part of the overseas voters empowerment act. yes, there are locations right now that are accepting military ballots from overseas voters. generally, individuals here

domestically would not be able to vote through the internet yet. host: martin from new jersey. good morning to you. you are on the air. go ahead. caller: i wanted to ask your guest, what about if you except early -- accept early votes through the mail with a signature, why cannot be done digitally and people sign up ones with their motor vehicle registration for an identification card. host: that changes every couple of years when you change your license. caller: you get a special code or whatever and then election time comes. then you have their way of

digitally signing in with a signature. host: what about that idea? guest: there are some states that digitally scanned the signatures and put them on file electronically. when these absentee ballots are coming in, like washington who is one state that will verify the signature on the outside of the envelope against the signature on file electronically. when people do this, they find very few interests -- incidences of people signing for other people. it seems to work in washington and they like it. host: one dealer says you can go online and check your voting status after the election in california to see if your vote was counted. texas has early voting. caller: voting opened up morning

-- monday morning. it was such a credit could not get an early. i had to come back wednesday. i got in ok. if early voting is available, why not utilize it? you could get killed in a car wreck, so i want my vote to count. host: thank you. roseville, calif., and you are voting on election day? caller: yes, i am. i wonder if there is a thing in place that if there is an unusual event like a revelation about a candid it or if a candid it dies that it named like early voters feel like they have been disenfranchised. is there anything in place to deal with a situation like that? i will take your answer off the air. thinking. -- thank you. guest: on the first question, different states deal with the manner of death in a different

matter. sometimes your vote will count, and sometimes it will not depending on the state law. the second question, this is fascinating. there are the campaign dynamics that we have seen. it used to being in the very last weekend of the election that if you had a revelation of your opponent that you would release that the weekend before the election and try to really dropped on them so your upon it would not have a chance to respond to that negative information. you can no longer really do that. you have to have the information out there and hold it close to your vest. if you wait too long, a large number of people have already voted in the would have missed your chance to affect the election outcome by revealing that information. what is in the contractor then, of what is not to say that the information is not factually

true? you're gonna then gets a chance to respond or clarify that information than you have the opportunity for a real dialogue about some of this really negative, nasty stuff that we used to call "the october surprise." it has been removed from campaigning because you cannot have an october surprise the same way we used to have it. we have the blue distil regret their vote after election day because the information could be revealed after election day. we do have a cut off at the point in time. my favorite example is during the presidential primaries where it is possible that a presidential candidate will drop out of the presidential election but people have already voted for that person because early voting will be available. there was something in the papers where john edwards

supporters said he dropped out of the race and he wished there would have been able to vote for a candid that is actually still running. host: michael mcdonald, an associate professor from george mason university, thank you for your time. guest: thank you. host: from "the st. petersburg times." caller: so far, republicans have a significant advantage in the early and absentee voting. it has grown in popularity since 2002. it has become increasingly popular. we have an elderly population and people like to go the early and avoid the lines. host: how what is it in shorted to avoid fraud in florida where we had the hanging chad back in

2000 than a lot of questions about the electoral process. caller: we are coming up on the 10th anniversary of the recant. people are very mindful. elections are a better to -- the minister of the county level. you sign an affidavit when you go and to vote that this is the only valid you are casting. we have had election fraud in the past seven is closely monitored by the election administrators. host: what has the turnout. like so far? caller: it does not appear to be very high. the turnout was about 40% and historic latest -- florida has aligned in voter turnout. we are nowhere near the 75% we had in 2008. both parties are energized. when i travel around the state, i do see enthusiasm gap. i do see enthusiasm gap.