qaida taliban monitoring team discusses reports that high- level leaders of the taliban are in negotiation over ending the war in afghanistan. "washington journal" is next. . . host: latest and last poll on campaign 2010 from politico.

republicans on the verge of brought wins next week.

host: sherry, md., independent. how do you plan to boat? caller: i am an independent that lives in maryland. i have not decided who to vote for yet. i have voted for bob ehrlich in the past. i am considering him again. i guess that the main thing that i want to say is that the reason i am an independent, i am more of a pragmatist than an ideologue. host: finish your thought. caller: i do not like the ideological left.

also, i respect the position of convicted people that have deep convictions regarding the left and the right. i certainly think that what we need now is pragmatism. host: let me ask you a couple of things. and you said you were an independent from maryland, is that some kind of difference? caller: is a very democratic here. because i care about voting in the primaries, i have registered democrat in the past. i have also gone to republican conference when noman was the chairman. and i deeply considered getting involved in republican politics. i really do believe in pragmatists. i like pragmatic democrats.

like claire mccaskill and so forth. i tend to kind of be aligned with those people who may be conservative in some areas but socially liberal in others. i am about reform for education. i think we need to invest in infrastructure. like i said, i consider myself more aligned with eisenhower of the 1950's. host: did you vote for president obama in 2008? caller: absolutely, i did. if you take a look at his policies, the health care reform program is basically the baker dole requirement. the individual came -- individual mandate came out the

heritage and personal responsibility. i agree with ron paul. interventionist foreign policy can get us in trouble and we need to be smarter about that. host: do you think that president obama over the last few years has been pragmatic? caller: i think that he has been, which is why far left liberals are very angry with him. you know what i am saying? if you take a look at his policies, policies that came out of the late 1980's recommendations from republicans, you know what i'm saying? those are the ones that i like. host: with eight days to go, you have not decided yet. what could change her mind?

what could make you go more toward one or the other? caller: what could make me change my mind are -- i have to get more into what it is that bob ehrlich's plans are moving forward. i am deeply concerned about investments in education. depending on where either of them fall in that regard, i have a 15-year-old that just enter high school. like jon stewart said, i am just one of those people with too much to do. but i will take a look at the issues and i am about rebuilding america. host: let's go on to michael, california. you are on the air. caller: how are you? host: doing well. how will you vote? caller: i am going to split the ticket out here. i am going to go with jerry brown on governor and carly

fiorina for senator. host: why is that? caller: well, we need a change. here is my situation. i am a disabled senior citizen. i received only ssi. i have $825 coming in each month. the rent is $725. do the math. at one time payment in 2009, everyone took that money and put it right back in the economy. this year most of the republicans voted down. but not one senator stood up and fought. barbara boxer did not fight like she did. they've reversed it, voted

again, and they got it. i wrote her a letter. since we are not important enough, adios. host: wide you'd like jerry brown over meg whitman? caller: i think that might whitman would be another schwarzenegger. schwarzenegger cut ssi three times in 2009. host: sounds like social security disability benefits is your number one issue. caller: yup i voted for president obama. but if the election was the day i would not vote for him. what i saw the way that the health care deal went down, i did not see any change, i saw the same old crap.

host: that was michael from california talking about the senate race. another key senate race this morning from illinois. it is looking like independent suburbs could help out mark kirk in that race. we are talking to independent voters only this morning. how will you vote in this midterm election? comment? -- tommy? caller: i am voting straight independent, right down the line. host: you are going for third- party candidates? caller: we have a right and candidate going for governor, his name is tommy argo. he wants to make

[unintelligible] the highest-paid salaried job in the state. american women drive a 81% of this economy. what he wants to do is make this economy in tennessee grow to the point where other states will adopt the same policy. we feel that motherhood is the greatest job in the world, and you understand how important motherhood is and how under appreciated it is. we want to make mother of the highest-paid jobs on the planet. host: we have got the point. front page of "the new york times, you might be interested in this.

host: allen, who would you vote for in that senate race? caller: i try my best. i used to vote for the lesser of two evils, but i am tired of trying to figure out and you always wind up with someone evil. i looked at charlie crist. he is just a republican that

went independent, but he did not fulfill his commitments as a governor. he told us that our insurance rates would go down and it never happened. things that he never produced. until we get to the point where we say both parties stink because of their base believes and the two parties are in collusion to keep out any debate other than their own, scared to death of other things, where the other parties might not win but they keep the ethics. host: in terms of going forward and getting the momentum that the tea party moved it has -- movement has, is this the time for a viable third-party candidate in 2012?

caller: i would probably vote for ron paul. host: but can he win? caller: i do not know if he can win or not. the thing is, to a story on and on with excepting candidates that we just do not agree with, we keep perpetuating the mess. host: mary, mississippi. caller: i am an independent and in mississippi we have a complete the republican run [unintelligible] and i will not vote republican because they do not help support in any way culpable. host: would you ever vote for eight republican -- for zero republican -- for a republican?

caller: we have a republican governor. i would not vote for him because they're the people that got the american people in the state they are in today. host: inside of the baltimore sun this morning, the real race is to get the voters to the polls.

host: that is about getting voters to the polls. the front page of "the new york times" has a story about these groups, preparing big pushes at the end of the race. it is about specific races that they're going after here in the next eight days. a story about the week ahead in politics from "the new york times." tonight kicks up the last week of debate for election day.

di host: chad, rhode island. good morning. caller: we have congressional races here, no senate races. and we have a governor's race. for governor i'm going to vote

for lincoln chafee. he was a moderate and the conservatives could not stand it. but he is honest. therefore i am voting for him. in the second congressional district, our congressman convinced me to become an independent. he might as well be a republican. he calls himself a blue dog. i am so far left, that the democrats have really disappointed me. they have a chance to give us good health care, put everyone on medicare -- no, they are defending the insurance companies. they have no back bone to stand up to republicans. host: you are a democrat? caller: i used to be. once i met congressman andrew and had a discussion with him about health care, the insurance

companies of a problem. host: and you admit that you are far to the left but you are independent because of the health care issue? caller: to tell you the truth, i am a socialist. host: why you think that lincoln chafee will push the type of agenda that you want? caller: he is honest. he might not push the agenda that i want, but i know that he is honest and squeaky clean. host: all right. let me ask you this. what does it mean to be independent in rhode island and up -- in rhode island? caller: we are definitely a minority. we can cross party lines, no problem. vote for the individual that will stand up for the values that we want. host: going on to jean in mississippi.

caller: i am definitely an independent. i voted for bush, mccain, and obama. and i will vote for people like jean taylor in mississippi. i have lived from one end of the u.s. all of the way out here. the lady that called earlier this said that the government out here will lead to anything for its people, that is the truth. one out of every three children lives in extreme poverty out here. the educational system, well, it is a joke. it is sad because there is so much potential. i do not like all of president obama's agenda, but his attempts to make changes, like with it the health care bill, they did what i would want.

i would rather see a single payer system. if the republicans take over the house, to me the house was burning down when obama got in. when your house is burning down, you do not conserve water. host: we are speaking with independent voters only this morning. both parties claim momentum, that headline is from "usa today." let's listen to both of them on the sunday morning shows, starting with michael steele. >> i have been on my fire nancy pelosi bus since september and that we will get off in november. i have seen a consistent ground

swell of excitement and energy towards this election. the voters are tired of the fact that the federal government has not listened to them over the past several years. they want to pull back on that. we are going to see an unprecedented wave on election day that will surprise a lot of people. >> what does that mean to the balance of power? >> we are 38 seats and we need to get to 39. but we are more than there. host: -- >> what about the senate? >> tougher, but we will be there. things going the way they have been going over the last few weeks. >> do you think that you will keep the house? >> i do. as you pointed out, these races are very close. but we are seeing good early

voting trends. >> you are saying that all of the polling traditions are wrong? >> the polling is moving. we have not seen the polls move against test since labor day. we still have some work to do, but what democrats tend to specialize in is the ground game, the turnout. we are seeing strong trends at the presidential valley. >> do you think that nancy pelosi bill remain the speaker? >> i do. she has done a marvelous job in a town where it is difficult to do heavy lifting. >> what about the senate? >> we are not taking a single race for granted. a few months ago the republicans thought they had a great chance at taking both houses.

for a variety of reasons, the sec -- the senate has got much more difficult for them. we feel like we have got a very good ground game with a lot more work to do. we are not taking it for granted. host: that was the sunday talk shows yesterday, both chairman claiming that they will be successful. this morning we are talking to independent voters only. edward. kansas. go ahead. caller: i cannot forgive the destruction done by the republicans during his last eight years. as well as on the democrat side. these so-called blue dogs, these people actually destroyed the 60 vote lead that we had by

constantly blocking and not cooperating to get things done. we could have had health care reform with single payer types of programs in it they had gone ahead and voted instead of waiting an entire year. host: how are you going to vote in the gubernatorial race? caller: i will vote for bill white. i will not forgive the republicans for what they have done. they destroyed the economy. they undermine the government by putting in incompetent people. they want to give control of this country to the corporations. in the military. host: did you vote for president bush? caller: i did not. host: have you ever voted for a

republican? caller: i have, but it was years and years ago. i am 68. i have voted for both sides over the years. but the environment has become so-with the republicans, i refuse to vote for them again. i am angry with democrats, because they did not take advantage of the votes that we had. host: we are talking to independent voters only this morning. how will you vote in eight days? caller: i was listening to michael steele and he said that he has never seen this energy before. did he forget 2008? there was more energy there. tim kane says that meant to pelosi is a fantastic speaker. well, she is an effective speaker.

as far as my vote, i want to vote for republican so badly, but look at the choices we have. so, i am voting for boxer. i do not know about the governor yet. host: why not? caller: i do not like either of them. he is too neurotic. she is too good old boys. host: all right. this is from "politics and nation."

host: springfield, ill., independent voters. how will you vote? caller: there are a couple of things that would like to say.

i do not know that this is often pointed out, they talk about the democrats being in control for two years, but they have actually been in control of congress for four years. passing these things, particularly health care and tarp, that kind of thing. i am not happy in my own state, democrats have been in control here and we have a $13 billion deficit. host: how would you vote on that senate race? the headline from the chicago tribune says that suburbs are leaning towards kirk. caller: i would say that [unintelligible] has very little background in the background he has is questionable. host: arkansas, go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you for independence.

my vote counted in the primary because i switched parties, and it will count in the general election as well. i will vote reinhart. host: all right. caller: as an example, i will vote democratic a longtime republican. i have written in votes when it comes to the primary and the general election. i am voting for some democrats, some independent, some green, you name it, whoever i think is the best choice for the party or individual running. host: barry, independent line. caller: i am so glad you are having this conversation.

i do not think that republicans are going to have as good a year as indicated. i know that we're probably not the only group out there. i do not think that many hard- working people can vote for the republicans after 12 years of congressional control. the democrats have had only two years, maybe four to try to undo what took them 12 years. host: sounds like you have never voted for a republican. caller: actually, i voted for rick perry for governor in 2006. there are some republicans that i think, you know, that are willing to work with people. but they are so concerned with

towing the party line because they voted challenged in the primary, these republicans do not vote their conscience. host: have you always live in austin? caller: i have been all over the state. host: do you think that austin is more of a liberal or progressive city? as living there changed your mind since he last voted for rick perry? caller: it has not. but i do feel like i fit in here better more than any city. born and raised in houston. but i feel more at home in austin. it is because there are very conservative people here and i think that the border group and what the rest of the country gives credit for. more of a silent majority, we do

not make a big fuss in my small suburbs. host: sounds like you are planning to vote for bill white over rick perry. caller: i have to admit, i did not vote for him when he ran for mayor of houston, but he did do some good things. in terms of the budget, houston has always had problems. but he did keep his word when he ran in his campaign and i think that he did try to do that to the best of his ability. there is something very lehmann- like about him. host: we have got your point. from "the wall street journal" on tax cuts, the deficit commission that president obama formed is supposed to give their report after the election.

host: cameron, we are talking with independent voters only this morning. caller: how are you doing? host: doing well. caller: i am an independent

voter from alabama and it is difficult for me at this current time to vote for the republican party. their core values and principles are never being upheld. they have a one-on-one platform where they do something completely different. how but it does not matter what they do inside of their party. there will always support each other. blue dog democrats with democratic party is in the middle and to the far left, they argue amongst themselves without supporting their own agenda. they are too busy fighting over petty, minuscule things to have enough time to see the big picture and move us forward in a timely fashion.

as citizens at this point in time, we are uncomfortable. host: sarah, how will you vote? your thoughts? caller: i am going to vote with the democrats this year. host: you have voted for republicans in the past? caller: absolutely, i was an active republican for number of years. i think that most americans are just outraged about the ravaging of the economy in the image of the nation. the unjustified wars. globally, locally, here in stone mountain as opposed to it that a proper, our services have experienced a trickle-down

effect of the rabbiting of the economy through wall street. the impact is being felt every day here locally in the suburbs of the plant at an inside of atlanta. i really think that the president is doing an impeccable job of coming back. but two years is a ridiculous amount of time to be held accountable for the regrets of the last eight to 10 years. so, i will definitely vote for democrats this year. they are not perfect, but i want to see the previous governor getting back into office. host: you said that you had an inside view of the republican party. what did you do? caller: i worked at a number of agencies where i received an

appointment from the republican president to work inside one of the agencies. host: what about those experiences major rethink of the republican party? caller: they eat their young. host: what do you mean by that? caller: if you are not extremely dug in, ideologically, financially positioned well, you may well be devoured by the republican machine itself. host: if you are a subscriber to "and national journal" you may have seen their rabbis magazine. it says here --

"it has always seen itself as a deeply serious enterprise." host: it goes on to talk about how the company has decided to change its magazine. we will go back to the phone calls. michigan, charles, independent line. go ahead. caller: i would like to have voted for ralph nader. i think that obama made a huge

mistake by not inviting him into the cabinet as attorney general. we would be seeing much better action on wall street with banks. i am dissatisfied with obama. he has abandoned much of the support that put him into office and is playing an easy gait with republicans. republicans hate him. they hate him because he is black. because he won. and they will not deal with him. he should realize that right away. stick with -- danny to say stick with us, or i will cut off connecticut. host: hall right, connecticut.

kareem. good morning. caller: there is so much wrong with both parties, i do not know where to go. i am looking at the green party and other independent parties. host: will you vote? caller: cervone i will, but this next week i will spent researching the candidates and trying my best to figure out where i want to go. republicans just seems sell distant -- seem so disingenuous. host: what you think about the governor's race? caller: i think it is funny. i do not know which accounts accomplish running right now. everyone is leaning towards a democratic state, which is where we will probably wind up. host: some headlines on the oil spill from "the washington " --

washington post." d host: here is "usa today" about the gulf coast oil spill. host: also a couple of editorials about this issue this morning. smack down, talking about oil companies seeking grants and permits to drill in the gulf coast.

host: that is "the wall street journal" editorial this morning. mary landrieu suggested the creation of an insurance fund to pay costs up to $10 billion. host: independent voters only this morning. new orleans, ronald, you are a last one.

go ahead. caller: first of all, i am that happy with either party. can you hear me? caller it -- host: yes. caller: i feel that the blue dog democrats are responsible, they have lost their mission. did they should have pushed through everything obama proposed in the first six months. we have had bad leadership on republican and democratic sides. he has not endorsed anyone for senate here. most of the republican candidate running for state office, they have been breaking off with the

number of students going to school. consistently coming out and talking about cutting taxes. hospitals. the leadership has been bad on both sides. host: we will have to leave it there. coming up next, we are talking to the leader of the american conservative union, david keene. we will be right back. >> c-span local content vehicles, traveling the country, looking at the most closely contested house races in this year's mid terms.

>> it is good to ask the candidates questions in this old fashioned way, face to face. there are things going on right now that are pretty dangerous. billions of dollars that the u.s. chamber of commerce has designed. >> there are folks out there that are going to spend big money to make sure that they keep incumbents there. they are going to say about things that are not true. i know that the people in this district know the difference. they also know the difference between being nasty and being tough.

>> is a microcosm of the country. this race is on the national radar because it is such a typical district in the united states. any factor of the national stage, you will see it playing out in this district. mary jo was elected in 2008 and is on the ballot again this year. republican opponent ran against her in 2008 and lost by a small margin that year. there are two minor party candidates on the ballot. for a freshman she has been active, a key player in health care debate. involved in the financial regulations that were passed on wall street. her opponent has made an indictment of nancy pelosi and the role of mary jo kilroy.

guest: -- >> people are angry. i get that they are angry. they have not seen the attention that wall street has received given to main street. there are still people out of work. there are still parents worry about their children's future. i understand that. i know how angry people got. i got angry as well. aig, taking some of that money, paying themselves big bonuses after the taxpayers had just killed them out. which was why i voted against the second round of tarp. \ i understand that. >> they're not running away from our role in the majority, they are suggesting that her role has been positive, with a high

profile, nationally. doing a lot. they're not trying to minimize her as a member of the congressional majority. they are trying to push back on former bank lobbyists in people that they see as stooges for what happened under the bush administration. >> the issues that come out for me are jobs and spending. the unemployment rate in this district is about 8.5%. one out of 11 people are out of work. we want to make sure that we move this country forward, getting people back to work. >> he was the top bank lobbyist

in ohio. you will hear that over and over again. that his role was to push for policies that favor deregulation. he liked to talk about his time as a political job creator in ohio. after that he served as a state senator for a few years, but he left two years ago and has been a private person ever since. kilroy, in terms of popularity, has been helped out by the obama turn out on campuses. a real wave of turnout's associated with that the obama election. this year the top of the ticket is the governor, not the president. the turnout will be less in she will be a bit higher profile in the district.

she does not have a president to give her a political cover. it is notable that in 2008, obama carried the district by a fairly large margin. so, the basic math does not come out in her favor. if there is no president at the top of the ticket this year,. >> i have had the opportunity to serve for about 20 months. i want to continue to do that. >> helpless to work through november 2 -- help us to work through november 2, trying to make you proud. thank you so much. >> leading up to the midterm elections, we are travelling the country and visiting areas of the country where some of the most closely contested issues are taking place. for more information on what they are up to this season,

visit our website. c-span.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: david keene is the host of the america of -- american conservative union. let's begin with the amount of money being raised and spent by outside groups. >> it appears that in this cycle we will have more than ever. yesterday it was equal, talking about union money and business monday, independent money and all of that. i am not one that finds that particularly disturbing. i think that individual givers and the rest can do that. there has been a lot of complaining over the years. in specific places where there

is special interest money that impacts a member of congress or what ever, that is legitimate. but overall i think that the country benefits from a more robust discussion. host: the tea party movement? guest: it really has brought a lot of people into the political environment that have not been involved before. you have got people attacking, people phrasing and all of that. in my view, when their issues that really concerned people, new people get involved. the people that have been involved in not like that. they never have, they never will. it sets things. i spoke to a good friend of mine who does not happen to be a conservative. he said that in his small town that went to a tea party rally and that there were more people

there than he had ever seen in his town. and that he didn't know any of them. of which is a big deal in a small, midwestern town. tremendous energy of the republican side this time around. on the issues that they tend to favor, the republicans, they're upset with the direction the obama administration has taken the country. host: that debate has already begun. you have people like john boehner, who wants to be speaker of the house, following his money to the tea party candidates. eric cantor wants to move up. following monday to these tea

party candidacy is. some of them do not like what these two party candidates did in the first place. >> one of -- guest: one of the reasons that they won in 2008 was that a significant number of republicans were getting upset over the way that president bush was operating. the conservative vote was down by a point or so in those elections. if you look at the most recent polls, the battleground surveys that are out, the good news for republicans is that of monks those people that dislike both parties, they are leading by 2- 1. however, those folks do not really like them more than they like the democrats. i think that republicans will

win the house. they will look at the people that gave them their margin skeptically. those folks are going to say, ok, now you have the ball, you are up against the need to perform. host: does it more accurately reflect what is going on with voters and their mindset? should the republicans put forward some new leaders? guest: i think that they are. host: john boehner will basically be speaker of the house. guest: in defense of his stance as an anti-earmark candidate, someone who has been there awhile, he is doing well, unlike others that have been there awhile. to do and i, john boehner is an old, familiar figure.

to barack obama he is a familiar figure. but to the average american, he is not. the question is, will he performed if he becomes speaker? just like the republican party, he has got a shot and the it. host: from "the wall street journal," tea party groups across the country plan to hold the feet of republicans to the fire. the first test in office will be the debt ceiling. raising it or shutting down the government, how should they vote? guest: i think that the overall question that you have pointed out is absolutely the role of

people interested in policy without being elected officials. the interesting thing, washington is a seductive city. people both parties get here and soon forget why. the most important thing in their mind is that they should stay here because it is not just important to have people in congress, to them it is important that we have them in congress. they decide that their resources that they develop our it way to stay. not just republicans and democrats, but everyone that comes here. it is very tempting to go along with the crowd in duwel. the people on the outside that walk to the precincts for them, do phone calls for them, they say -- here is why we elected you. not so that she could enjoy a washington park -- washington cocktails with your colleagues.

host: it goes back to the original question. if you want to change that mind- set, perhaps people will turn around and elect, predictably, john boehner, eric cantor. but that is how they have operated for a long time. guest: and the question is -- will they operate sufficiently? both congresses will be very different. the caucus of democrats will actually be more liberal. the republican caucus will be more conservative. i know enough about john boehner and mitch mcconnell to know that they know how to count votes in their own caucus and it will reflect the views of the caucus.

they will be far more conservative than they were. you will see, if you will, new leadership with older faces. host: congressman john boehner has made it on the cover of "and newsweek." this message -- john boehner will be on a short leash, the tea party? but up with spending. guest: i think that that is right. what is it that is animating the energy that we have out there today? the question of overreach, big spending, and the government that they think is out of control. if you elect a new congress with those concerns, it seems logical that you should hold that to taking cognizance. to what we have had people that

go out there, and this is true as republicans and democrats, they say that we're going to washington to represent you end we will do something about it. within months, they forget. if you want to have an impact as a citizen, you have to do more than contribute and elect people. you have to keep in touch to make sure that they remember why it is you did those things. host: de how difficult will it be for them to vote for raising the debt ceiling or shutting down the government? .

we know what can't be done and that's the problem in life is oftentimes you ask people to do things and you know they can't do it and that's why in politics and elsewhere, sometimes we need new people who know want what can't be done and that's what's happening in new jersey right now. three years ago nobody would have predicted that a governor, republican or democrat, elected in new jersey would take the steps that chris christie has

taken to bring that economy in the state under control and yet that state was headed for a cliff, it was about to go over. he's not only done those things but his approval ratings have gone up as a result of that. i know this this city, people who saw that said, look at what he's doing. that creates a bit of consternation in washington because we're used to an environment in which there's only one answer and that's -- how do we take care of an ever-growing government? do we raise taxes, do we run up the debt, what do we do? nobody ever talks about -- they talked about it out there. but when they get to washington they don't really talk about it. maybe what we ought to do is pare back. now the world is in a situation, not just the united states, but a lot of people are having to pare back. it's hard. money is like drugs. the people who are benefiting

from government spending that's out of control and the very difficult for them to say, yeah, i know i'm ruining the country, but i like it. host: let's go outside of washington. johnny on detroit on the democratic line. go ahead. hey, johnny. i am going to put you on hold. you got to turn that television down. we'll come back to you in just a minute. front page of "the washington post," "election day could bring historic split." it says here, "not since the election of the 1930's how the house changed hands -- guest: normally that changes at the same time. host: thinking you can't do nothing, knowing you can't do something? guest: well, actually, it could be healthy. obviously in terms of the issues, the agenda in washington, the house is more important than the senate because if you're in charge in the house you can push your agenda forward and you can make the agenda. the senate is a little different and should be a little different. the real question there is --

do you have the 60 votes you need to just overcome your opposition? if you don't have those votes and you have a house that can push an agenda forward, then you have a possibility of sitting down and really working something out. the two parties then have a choice. shall we do nothing? that's mott the worse thing to do. or should we get together and try to work with the parties -- with the party's in control? with the democrats in control of both houses and not just democrats but liberal democrats in control of both houses with a liberal president, you had a president who began by saying, we're going to be bipartisan, we're going to take all these things into consideration, saying we're being to do exactly what we do and we're not going to listening to anybody else. that won't happen in november. host: let's try dan in virginia. go ahead. caller: i think the electorate is seriously confused about the misuse of labels. the political water is muddied

because people use words like conservative and liberal to refer to all sorts of different things. and that really bothers me. i was vice chairman of the republican committee in the place i lived at the time when george bush i became the candidate of the party. and i got out. i figured the republican era was over, and the reactionaries have taken control of the party. and there's still people that i recard as reactionaries posing as conservatives. i tell people all the time that a true virginia conservative is an 18th century british liberal, somebody who opposed to monarchial principles, who doesn't want a strong central government. guest: i agree with it but conservatism, liberalism, is really essentially coalitions

so not everybody agrees. conservatives from the beginning of the modern movement when there were six or seven of us, have been spending lo of time fighting with each other over what it is that they all believe because we got different priorities. not necessarily different beliefs but different priorities, different issues of priorities. i find it remarkable, and i, you know, most conservatives would have said that the election of the first george bush was a victory of moderation. this fellow resigned as chairman because he thought he meant the reactionaries were taking over. it depends upon what you see depends on where you stand. host: this tweet says the senate will remain democratic, the house will move rightward. guest: the repealing the health care bill requires the president to sign the repeal. that doesn't mean that the republicans shouldn't vote to

repeal it and force the president to veto that repeal and then go back, perhaps, and pass their own health care provisions and challenge him to either sign or veto those. it also is a situation in which even though they can't repeal it while president obama sits in the white house, they are in a position to slow down its implementation, to not fund some of the things that are necessary and to essentially cripple its implementation in that way until they are in position to repeal it. and the argument i think among republicans is, well, if he's going to veto the repeal, why should we pass it? the argument for passing it is you told people would -- for repealing it. if he vetoes it it's on his desk, not yours. so you have to throw that ball to him and not keep it in your court. but your caller's technically correct. as long as obama is in the white house with the veto pen and the republicans don't have 60-plus senators, which they're not going to have, then they're not going to successfully

repeal the health care bill. host: david keene, what is the american conservative union? guest: the issue was founded in 1964 following the goldwater election which makes us the oldest, if there's any value in today's world, and probably the largest of the grassroots traditional grassroots organization. we do two things that most people would be familiar with or that most political junkies would be familiar with. the first is that for the first 30-odd years we've done ratings of congress which are considered the gold standard of ratings. there are a lot of ratings out there. there's defense ratings, social ratings. the a.c.u. ratings are different. we take all the strings in the movement, put them together and rate congress so someone can look at it and say on a conservative scale, where does my congressman or senator stand? the second thing is just for as many years we, along with some other groups, but we as the principle organizer, have been the sponsors and host of what's called the conservative

political action conference, or cpac. some people think it's a pact. it's not a pact. it's a convening of conservatives here in washington every spring that has grown from 125 people the first time we held it back in the early 1970's when ronald reagan was speaker to 10,000 people last year. and it's become sort of a must-attend event for conservative activists around the country. and also, as you may or may not know, cpac was the first nonstudio event ever broadcast by c-span. host: on that, though, traditional grassroots, so compare yourself to what you're seeing happening in the tea party movement and have tea party supporters been part of -- guest: oh, sure. cpac last year, we honored the tea party. the tea party is really, as i

said earlier, a whole bunch of new people who haven't been involved before and they are focused because of the times in which we live on economic issues. and the conservative movement -- and we've sort of measured this over decades, consist of really three strains, if you will, economic conservatives, limited government people, people like me, social conservatives, people interested in education issue, right-to-life questions, second amendment questions and national defense conservatives. we used to call them anti-communists, but that was for a different day, but people who believe in a strong and active national defense. and those strings have not varied in size. the largest is the economic wing of the movement, if you will, but the others are very influential because social conservatives came in the 1980's as an active political force. they brought with them voters and obviously americans have

always been concerned about national defense issues. so the strength of the movement is -- this is what we try to do. there are groups that focus on all these issues. lord knows you hear those names all the time. but what the a.c.u. tries to do is bring these people together on questions where there is broad general agreement and suggest to them that they ought to take -- fight about their differences outside and work together inside and we've done that fairly successfully. many people that attend our conference, for example, probably don't work together much during the course of the year or talk to each other but they do come and they do spend that time together and i think benefit from it. so our role is the umbrella group of the conservative movement. and we've done that, i think, fairly successfully over the years. host: let's go to the democratic line. connie is joining us from chicago. caller: good morning. thank you. how are you and your guest? host: doing well. go ahead with your question or comment. caller: my question is to your guest. i heard you reference that the

average american voter does not know who john boehner, eric cantor and all those other conservatives are. well, i am an american average voter. i'm very much aware of john boehner. what he stands for, what the republicans will and will not do. they stood by idly when george jr. was in office. they did nothing. they said nothing about all the debt spending, invading iraq, spending trillions of dollars, innocent people getting killed. when we elect our first biracial american president, then all of this controversies come up. they want to do everything in their power to bring him down. they hire and scream about the money. why weren't you screaming when george bush was in office?

guest: the problem with political parties is they see themselves as teams. when your president is in power, members of the team tend to take positions to support the president regardless of their beliefs. one of the problems that many democratic congressmen have right now, for example, particularly the so-called blue dog democrats that are running in contested districts is that they have over time positioned themselves as more fiscally responsible, moderate democrats and yet almost to a man they have -- or woman, they have voted consistently for every spending program and every big government program that this administration has advanced. and as a result, the same thing is being said by some republicans about them that this lady is saying about republicans. and that indeed is the weakness of party loyalty because party loyalty often gets in the way of a commitment to principle. and she may be an average voter but i guess the polls are all

wrong and i guess the obama attempt to teamonize boehner just didn't take off -- demonize boehner just didn't take off either. the fact is most people don't obsess over politics the way i do and the way you might and the way our caller might. most people aren't political junkies. they become active like the tea party people when they get angry, which was the case in 1994, or they get scared, which is the case this year. and that's why we got people focusing on this election in greater numbers than might have been expected a year or so ago. host: give me the races that you are concerned about that either a tea party candidate or third party candidate might pull away from the traditional republican candidate? guest: well, interestingly, first of all, the tea party candidate is sort of a misnomer. you got candidates who won because of tea party support in primaries, and you got candidates who might or might not otherwise have won but

courted the tea party vote but the tea party is not a party. it's a group of people that really don't run candidates. in fact, i think that the democratic hope of the summer, which was that they would do this and siphon votes away haven't really developed because they tend to be more sophisticated than their critics gave them credit for. in the general election they are doing what voters often had to do was choose the better candidate or choose the less bad candidate. in fact, there are a number of places in a number of congressional races, the -- there have been democratic candidates who tried to encourage tea party candidates to enter as third party candidates and the only major race which has taken place is the nevada senate race which there is a supposed tea party candidate who is himself a reid supporter and has been funded by hairy reid's allies to try

to -- harry reid's allies to try to shave votes off the sharon angle line. i do think there are some of these people who will not vote for the general election candidate because they're not to their liking. that's always true when you get activists. but i don't think that's going to have much impact. i think the net impact in this election is going to come from the energy that the so had been called tea party people have injected -- so-called tea party people have injected in the system. host: let's go toon independent voter. bill in day -- lets go to an independent voter. bill in deyton, kentucky. good morning. caller: thank you for having me. in 2002, george w. bush and tom donahue stood on the white house grounds and they stated that outsourcing of american jobs was good for america. in the audience of those people that were there was john boehner and mitch mcconnell. i wonder how they stand for

that? secondly, mitch mcconnell and john boehner both, during the time that they have been in politics, they have more than five times raised their income. host: ok. david keene. guest: you know, we often get the question of, how does this candidate make money? we got that going on both parties, incumbents that have been successful. remember years ago republicans pointed out that lyndon johnson was poor when he became senator and rich when he died. i don't -- senators and congressmen and elected officials have as much right to make investments as long as they're not doing it as illegally as anybody else. i don't fault anybody for the ability to pay their mortgage and to make successful investments, particularly since most of them are successful in

the ones that i make. but you know, i think that the specific question -- one of the great issues of the next four to five years is going to be the question of trade. and that's been -- particularly in hard times, it's very easily to cite foreign enemies as the reason that you're doing bad low. and the question of how many jobs are created or here and how many jobs are created there depends on what kind of job it is and who loses it and who gains it. so i think -- and i think that as the economy drags on, you already see it with the administration's attempt to, in the last few weeks to say that the real problem is china. some of these things are dangerous. some of them are natural. but what you're going to do get is a real debate and i think a real debate and conversation over some of these issues is healthy for the country. but i wouldn't characterize what support for trade in the

way that your caller did, nor indeed would i support what i characterize the concern about some of these things as simply someone who wants to return to strict protectionism. i think we have a big debate on this issue. i think it's one of the most real important issues that congress is going to face. host: speaking of jobs, next phone call is from michigan. judy on the republican line. go ahead. caller: yes. thank you for having me and thank you for c-span. we are very hard hit here in michigan. you know, it's just -- i live in an affluental neighborhood. when we go down the street, i'd say at least 30% of our businesses have been shuttered, even in of a lieutenant -- i watched this tea party movement for years. i am a right-wing republican. i think i see something very unique about them. they play our existing party system to gain access to the national political theater.

i'm just concerned when their candidates get into office, and it looks like they're going to, are they going to caucus by themselves and then go caucus these republicans? are they going to be watered down? the people who have been elected because of tea party support, what really is going to happen in the internal workings on the floor? i would like to see that they wouldn't be watered down, that their voices would still be heard, even if we can't repeal health care 100%, really, i think their voices need to be heard and they need to be heard very distinctly or i think our two-party system is going to be really in trouble. i am going to hang up now and listen to your comment. host: all right, judy. you were shaking your head when you said -- guest: i don't think they'll caucus by them self. they caucus but they also played in the main game in order to have influence. the new -- you take the senate in particular. we don't know how the senate's going to come out. i suspect the democrats are still going to be in charge but there are going to be a number

of people of republican candidates elected to the senate which may be tea party candidates. mark rubio, sharon angle. paul in kentucky and ron paul in -- and that would make for a different caucus. if you have a party leadership that didn't get it and just didn't ubs, then you would have a split. but i can tell you that i think that mitch mcconnell in kentucky, regardless of what a caller might say, knows how to count those votes. i think those people will be included, and along with jim demint and others that are there will have tremendous influence on the republican caucus in the senate and on the direction of the party nationally without taking themselves out. i don't think that's the goal. i think, as i said earlier, i think the tea party people and the candidates they support are a bit more sophisticated than their critics give them credit

for. i don't think they're going to isolate themselves in the corner and moan and grown about the issue of the country. i think they are going to get out. host: revised i haddings of a magazine -- revised edition of a magazine. major garrett now is a print reporter with the national journal magazine. it's party of a cover story with an interview with president obama. here is the cover. special issue starting over. it says the president saying, "i got a lot of work left to do." plus, it includes an intimate portrait of vice president biden. we go to boston, jim, democratic line. good morning. caller: thank you. thank you for taking my call. i'm concerned with the conservatives not really having any answers. we lose one factory overseas. that's a tragedy.

we lose tens of thousands, that's a disaster. that's 28 million people out of work. and republicans have no answers for that. nobody's talking about putting people to work. host: ok. david keene. guest: well, i would dispute that. we have different answers. the administration thinks that you put people to work with public projects. and that the money that's spent should go into public projects. the republicans view the economy as being vibe rent when jobs are created -- vibrant when jobs are created, the tax environment and the rest are something that allow investment in this country and allow jobs to be created. i tell you, i think the most unconscionable thing that's happened, if you look at the way the recession has dragged on, and then if you look back at the great depression and the like, it's uncertainty. there's a lot of cash out there that's not being invested and it's not being invested because people don't know what the rules are. sometimes the rules themselves are more important than what they are. people -- people who invest

money, people who create jobs, people who hire people, people who go to work have to know what the rules are. and the congress, when they -- rather than vote on the tax cuts, whether to hold -- whether to extend them, whether to end them, whether to end them for some people and extend it to other, punt it and kick the ball down to perhaps to the lame duck and perhaps to january. they're now talking, we'll do this in january. what that means is that for two months at the least they have -- they have consciously decided not to have rules that anybody can count on. and that as opposed to how that vote might have come out strikes me as almost unconscionable given the economy in which we live. host: we have an email from a viewer who is asking about taxes. says, are you willing to admit that trickle down economics does not work? if not, then i hit it republicans in this country will fail as they have during the last several times they have been in the leadership.

each mcdaniels admitted that tax cuts doesn't pay for themselves. your thoughts? guest: some tax cuts do, some tax cuts don't. one of the things we've known at the national level for sometime is that if you create lower marginal rates and encourage investment and job creation you actually oftentimes, most cases get more revenue. capital gains tax cuts, for example, always have produced more revenue than was lost to the government by letting people spend their own money. the fact is, though, that over time what we've had is administration after administration willing to either cut taxes or increase spending but nobody worried about the balance. and there are -- there are two ways to deal with the growing government, with a growing public sector. one is to tax people more, take their money away from them, let the government make decisions. the other is to shrink the government, let the people keep their money, let them make their own decisions, let them

create the jobs. that's really at heart the difference between the two parties. and i think the republican and particularly the conservative view is that we are better off as a country, as an economy, as a people if people have the power to make their own decisions, to keep as much as their own money as possible and to limit the spirit of government and not running the show. host: if they wait until january, the tax cuts will expire for everyone and the g.o.p. will have to create new ones. guest: well, i think -- and i think that may be part of the democratic scheme is to let them expire so that everyone's taxes goes up. in fact, everyone's withholding will go up on january 1 regardless. everybody. not rich people, not middle-class people. everybody's withholding will go up. and so something has to be done. and if the democrats are not willing to extend the tax cuts,

the republicans, if they're in position will do it, i will predict, though, we might get in a situation where at that point president obama, who would like higher taxes, i think, might veto the -- either the extension or the creation of the new tax cuts. in which case a lot of the -- a lot of taxes are going to go up. the economy's going to be hurt even worse than it has been. whether he does that or not really gets to the crux of how a president responds to a mid term correction. host: how do you square with what you just said with what you said earlier in that we have to scale back? guest: we do. absolutely. absolutely. we have to -- host: so part of that -- isn't that chipping in more as well? guest: it requires looking at things. but most of the tax cuts actually increase the vibrancy of the economy. and what we found and what history has shown is that if you raise taxes to a certain degree, you don't create more revenue. you create more pain.

and you don't grow yourself out of the problem. what's missing over the years is that we haven't tackled the spending problem. and that's what's now happening in some of the states. that's what's happening in new jersey where cristie is saying, you know, the problem isn't the tax side. the problem is we've been running amuck on spending. and interestingly, you know, he canceled the construction on this tunnel to new york. and everybody said, well, that's a good idea. the question wasn't it was a good idea. the question is if you have 5,000 good ideas and instead of saying this is a better idea as that, government decided to fund all of them. and that's what happened federally. there are a lot of programs that are worthwhile. there are a lot that aren't. but congress historically hasn't said, let's set priorities. congress said, he wants this and he wants that. let's do it all. and we are getting in a situation where you can't do it all. host: how do you reconcile the

lavish hidden spending by 501-c-3 groups with the tea party's purported objection to big money? hasn't the tea party, in fact, been bought? guest: i don't think the tea party can be bought. there are people that jumped into the so-called tea party movement. none of them have been really able to do that. i think one of the strengths of this movement is that it's truly sort of grassroots kind of thing which frankly wouldn't have been possible 20 or 30 years from now. most of the spending is not c-3 spending. most of it is c-4 spending. a lot of classification groups, union spending, whatever. the fact of the matter is that the tea parties are really a force of their own. and they're not spending the money. they're not raising big money. but i will say this, you know, i understand that the group

that carl rove is involved with, called crossroads, he's not in office or anything -- host: advises. guest: after president obama attacked it they raised over $30 million over the internet. you see when somebody attacks in today's world, there is money from people that's aggregated very, very quickly. and a lot of the money that's going in, as it did in the obama campaign, isn't coming necessarily just from big givers. it's coming from people who respond. back when howard dean ran for president, couple cycles ago, a fellow by the name of joe trippy made reputation raising money over the internet. he once raised over $600,000. when ron paul a minor candidate ran, he told a colleague that he never sent out an email that didn't raise $600,000. and he raised $6 million in one day. so the money is out there in

small and big chunks for people who have a following and people who are expressing views that deserves support. that's why earlier there's a lot of money being raised, a lot of money being raised in these groups individually and it looks this year there's going to be parody of pentagon spending between these two -- spending between these two parties. caller: good morning, gretta. good morning, chairman keene. i am concerned. one that called h.w. a reactionary and i'm wanting to return back to his statement during the 1980 campaign that reaganomics was view due and one in "rolling stone" that it was strategic. and having seen five terms of republican rule and george h.w. was the last republican i voted for for president, the national debt has quadrupled under

reagan, bush, bush, quayle and the bush-cheney, bush-cheney. and i'm wondering what conservatism thinks about the fight that supply economics has not worked as the one justice spoke of, and i'd like to know -- i'm frayed -- i'm afraid that the tea party, minus -- host: david keene, why don't you jump in? guest: i think i discussed the tax question. let's look at the deficit spending and the debt. from the beginning of american history until the end of the bush administration, i think we had a debt of about $5 trillion which is an awful lot of money. it took all those years to do that. and during the eight years of the bush administration it went up $1 trillion, which i find outrageous. during the less than two years of the obama administration, it's gone up another $3

trillion. so without defending george w. bush's fiscal policies, i sometimes said, when we got upset with george w. bush we thought he was the continuation of f.d.r. now, in comparison to obama it looks like if he was calvin coolidge. if you look at these things in a relative sense, and i don't exclusively, the attempt to sort of blame george w. bush for the prove will he gait spending that's taken place since he left office is both unfair and strange because what we got are people that are defending somebody who's spending money like a drunken sailor by saying that the guy -- the guy before us couldn't balance his checkbook. host: david keene, we'll have to leave it there. thank you for being on "washington journal." guest: my pleasure. host: up next, we'll continue the conversation of campaign 2010 and take a look at unions

and what unions are doing in this election cycle. first a 2010 campaign update. looking in at the kentucky senate race. joining us from the hotline studio is ed wilson, editor in chief of "the hotline." what's the thing between paul and conway? >> their not friends. after a final debate a couple days ago, paul stormed off-stage. he refused to shake hands with conway after allegations from the democrat that the republican candidate was questionable on christianity, didn't share the values of kentucky voters. it got very contention and very personal. it refers to aqua buddha, which is a joke that paul was playing along with when he was in a fraternity in college -- society in college. this -- he's been running it on tv.

accusing paul of essentially worshiping a false idol. that's really gotten under his skin. a lot of people are wondering whether or not this ad has gone too far and really stalled conway's momentum. if you challenge somebody on something so personal on religion it can become a big problem. it can really halt your momentum and give momentum by to the person attacked bied ad. it remind me in the minnesota race. there was a woman in the background screaming, "there is no god." that really backfired on dole. this ad may backfire on conway as well. host: reid, let's show the latest ad put out there by conway and let's talk a little bit more. >> i'm jack conway. >> why was rand paul's college society mocked christianity? why did he once tie a woman up,

tell her to bow down before a false idol and say his god was alkway buddha? why does rand paul want to end all faith-based initiatives and even end religious charities? why are there so many questions about rand paul? >> i'm jack conway and i approve this message. >> rand paul's new sales tax. >> 23% more on gas. >> that would include a fair tax change it to a sales tax. >> 23% more on medicine. >> i'd rather have a sales tax. >> on groceries and everything you buy. rand paul, you pay more. host: those were the latest ads by jack conway. you talked a little bit about how rand paul responded, at least, during the last debate, but has he gone to the airwaves? >> well, he hasn't gone to the airwaves specifically on this

charge but the national senate committee investing in this race. the strategy is try to portray rand paul as the other, of not kentucky. the ad, including the alk way buddha ad, you see rand paul wearing a turtleneck. it doesn't seem terribly off the wall, but it's a conscious strategy by democrats to paint rand paul as somebody who doesn't get kentucky, who's not in touch with the state. that has worked in some senses, especially when you're talking about rand paul's position on the federal drug interdiction in eastern and western kentucky, two huge issues in rural areas that have growing drug problems. but, in this case, jack conway may have gone a little too far. host: all right. let's show our viewers the latest rand paul ad and then we'll come back and talk a little bit more. >> i'm rand paul and i approve this message. >> now, jack conway is attacking rand paul's faith.

rand paul keeps christ in his heart. and in the life he shares with his wife and three boys. don't be fooled by conway's desperate attacks, it's shameless, disgraceful. gutter politics at its worse. what kind of shameful politician would sink this low? to bear false witness against another man just to win an election? this one would. jack conway. host: ok. reid wilson, these two candidates are going to square off again tonight. what do you expect? >> well, it's going to be a pretty heated debate. the last time it got so heated that rand paul even refused to shake jack conway's hands. this is a race that really hasn't focused on a lot of issues. it's focused on rand paul and it's really democratic strategy across the country. they're trying to take these republican candidates who associate with the tea party and make them look out of touch, make them look like the unacceptable alternative even though the other guy might be

an unpopular democrat. jack conway will stick to his talking points, attack rand paul, trying to make him seem like an outsider. rand paul will continue labeling jack conway a rubber stamp for obama and the genesis of all liberal policies which is what he's been doing for the last couple of months. i don't think you'll see a lot of discussion, deep thoughtful scullingses of the issues. it's going to be a race -- discussion of the issues. it's going to be a race to the bottom. host: rand paul leads slightly 48% to 43% in the latest mason dixon poll. reid wilson, thanks for previewing tonight. >> thanks a lot. host: we are going to be airing tonight's debate. tune in to c-span at 8:00 p.m. eastern time. for more on campaign 2010, go to our website at c-span/politics. we want to welcome back to the table, mary kay henry. and i want to begin by talking about your political budget. you have about $44 million that

you can spend on campaign 2010. will you spend it all? guest: yeah. the $44 million is the contribution of 300,000 of our members. they make decisions honor to prioritize their voice in this election. host: part of the citizens united case allowed unions like yours to dip into your general treasuries as well to spend on campaigns. will you do that? guest: we haven't done a lot of the general fund money. we've used the voluntary contribution of our members in order to finance this election. host: so how much total do you think you'll be spending on campaign 2010? guest: the $44 million. host: where will you spend the money? can you give us specific states? guest: well, our members are active in 44 states. i know there's increased activity and volunteer work of

those in pennsylvania, ohio, florida. i was just in nevada and arizona, illinois, washington, california. we are everywhere that our members live and work because we see it as a way to have their voice heard about the future. host: people talk a lot about unions' ground game. is that how you'll spend the majority of the money over the coming eight days in a ground game effort, and how do you go about that? guest: we've had members off the job since september and they've been door knocking and recruiting in their workplaces and they'll work to remind voters the choice that we face about needing can indicates and elected officials that stand on behalf of working people in this country. and that's the ground game that we do. host: "politico" writes, "the vast majority of the political budget is being used to educate, motivate, persuade and transport members to the polls." she writes, "it's a blind spot that's becoming a sore spot for

some republicans who argue that the secrecy of that effort, we don't know how that money is being spent necessarily, shroud -- shroud the spending." guest: it's completely transparent. we have people that voluntary contribute and that money is invested in 700 members that are off the job, recruiting tens of thousands of volunteers. and to i would like to challenge the interests that have created a lot of these pacts in the last couple of weeks that are up on the air and we don't know who's financing the american cross rods and a lot of different negative campaigning that's going on now. guest: i -- host: i want to talk specifically about nevada because the fciu has a real

presence in that state and president obama was able to win nevada. and some have pointed to the ground game that fciu has in that state specifically. harry reid said his ground game along with fciu is going to be even better than 2008. can you talk specifically strategy in nevada? what are you doing? guest: we have been working with the rest of the labor movement. i was at a kickoff in las vegas on saturday morning where we are door knock, shoulder to shoulder with the rest of labor in the congressional district three that dinah titus is running. and then those doing door knockling, phone banks, a lot of -- knocking, phone banking, a lot of people to get out on november 2. host: early voting, have you seen any numbers? do you know how it's looking for -- guest: what we heard in nevada on saturday morning is that 60% of the labor households have

already voted through early voting. host: what does that mean for harry reid? guest: we need to make sure that everybody understands that we face a critical choice on november 2 and get additional votes out for him. what i care about on november 3 is that whoever's elected helps america get back to work because people are suffering. we are working harder and earning less and we need to address those problems through our government. host: what's agenda item number one? guest: jobs. host: how do you go about that? guest: we want elected officials to join hands with corporate america and reinvest in our economy. we don't think this is a government solution, that there needs to be a public-private partnership in creating more jobs state by state and federally. host: ok. go to phone calls. democratic line, houston. good morning. you're on the air, houston.

caller: hello. hi. host: good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. the question i'm asking her. she's with the union and helping with the votes and everything. and what i'm saying is -- i wish i could have got in with the tax cuts. now, with the union -- what the union is telling them about jobs is, of course, we do. with her, i know she's with the union and everything, but the tax cuts for the rich -- you know, didn't help us at all here. the unions have been out in my neighborhood too. they've been knocking door to door and they're with the union. they do help with the jobs and things. the tax cuts didn't help. so we need to get out and get this for the jobs because i know i have a lot of relatives and everything about to lose their home because they lost their job and they lost their job before 2009, in 2008.

they had lost their jobs. so the union is very, very good on that. so i was trying to see what could i do to help get that out, too. i'm not part of the union but i'd like to get out there and i have a lot of senior citizens in my church. what can i do for them to go and try to create jobs and, you know -- host: ok. we'll leave it there. mary kay henry. guest: you can do exactly what you just did on your phone call. you explained how important things are for working people that were concerned about job loss. and losing our homes and you need to talk to people in your church and the senior citizens that you work with and get them to vote on november 2, and then after november 2 you can create and demand more jobs both from special interests and corporate that need to reinvest in america. host: new orleans, william on the republican line. you're on the line with mary kay henry.

go ahead. caller: good morning, ms. henry. i would like to ask this rather simple question. what specific republicans are you promoting and supporting by your members given the fact that the salaries for public service employees are paid for all of the taxpayers seem to many of us that this particular union, which is the largest supporter and largest spender in this election of any group contrary to the motion of the chamber of commerce, where do we have representation? where do members who simply do not agree with the democratic line or the president's administration, where do we have representation? guest: thank you for asking the question. our members make decisions on who to endorse based on interviews and a requirement

that any candidate walk in the shoes of one of our members so that they understand the key issues that our members face. and so i don't know the names of specific republicans that we've endorsed, but that happens state by state and i know when i was recently in missouri there were republicans that our members there decided to support and there are republicans that we're supporting in indiana. and then to your second point about our investments, you can go online and look at how we have made a decision to spend the money, but our members make the decision about how to invest the political money they voluntarily contribute. host: florida, jeff, independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. how you doing today? host: doing well, sir. caller: and good morning, america. there are suggestions that i've been really pestering congress and all the house of representatives. and i think -- i'm 54 years old and i remember seeing my parents have all the troubles with the economy. and now it's coming around

again to the point where they're forgetting about the little man. i was thinking that maybe it's time to mix things up like -- i mean, this is a wild idea but it might work. changing all the republicans to lemons -- women and all the democrats to men and let the independent party be the referee. and as far as jobs, how about making unemployment in the next 90 days. host: what one thing has sciu done to get a job? name anything? guest: we fought in congress to make sure that the jobs bill passed. and the federal medicaid program was extended which meant that our providers and public sector workers were able to continue to hold their jobs and we supported green initiatives in california to create new jobs through solar and wind energy. we've been working with many

other unions in state by state to create jobs through the initiatives that senator harry reid just did in nevada on a speed train from las vegas to los angeles. so there's a number of examples of where we've worked on concrete job proposals. host: let me go back to nevada and compare and contrast. here is something in "the baltimore sun," real voters will race to the polls. american crossroads is planning to spend $10 million on its ground game. it says crossroads alone will generate nine million phone calls and five million pieces of mail before election day. can you compare that to your effort? guest: our effort is one-on-one communication. it's not mail and phone. we do eye-to-eye contact at people's homes, in the churches and at our workplaces. and so we've found that of conversation with people, based on their life experience is the best way to get them to vote. host: all right. cumberland, maryland.

george, democratic line. good morning. caller: hi, gretta. how you doing? host: doing well, sir. caller: the unions are making a mistake. they don't talk about their achievements. before ronald wilson reagan fired the air traffic controllers, the union and the middle classes is what made this country strong. the unions paid the most taxes which was true. but they got all the deductions at the end of the year. when they received their deductions, what they did, they bought united states saving bonds. they didn't invest in -- they didn't invest in the stock market which helped the government to create more programs and to help the elderly and the needy. guest: i think that you make a very good point, sir, and i will accept the notion that we've made a mistake by not making it crystal clear how unions helped build the american middle class and that's why i think unions need

to be at the forefront of demanding jobs and restoring the middle class. and helping workers form unions so that we can lift wages in this country. because the jobs we create have to be good jobs that people can support their families on. host: a tweet here responding to our earlier tweet with seiu has done to create jobs. unions aren't there to get you a job. there are there to help you keep your job and be treated fairly. john, republican line, go ahead. caller: good morning. my question is -- all this money that's being thrown into these elections by the unions and the chamber of commerce, every president talks about jobs and these companies talk about -- organizations want jobs. why didn't they take that money and use it and create jobs instead of trying to elect these politicians? you take harry reid in nevada. he's been there 40 years. he's a millionaire. most of the people in congress are lawyers, and they're all rich.

host: how do you square that the millions of dollars being spent on campaign 2010 and then asking congress to do something about jobs? people who weren't contributing this amount of money are thinking to themselves, why aren't we spending this kind of money on jobs? guest: well, for a union member like the one i met yesterday in maryland where i was door knocking with her in principles george's county. she's a family childcare provider. she sees her voluntary political contribution and her volunteer work on the doors as a way that she participates in the political process. and so it is for us a way to elect officials that are willing to stand with us after november 2 and call upon government and corporate america to get us all back to work. so for us it's a part of the way that we help get the economy going again. host: hastings, minnesota, bailey, independent line. caller: good morning, ladies. i have two questions. i wish mary kay will please

explain to the people that are benefiting good things that unions do. and the stimulus money that [inaudible] the stimulus money is helping people because we have a lot of people out there, republicans who say on tv say that stimulus is not working but at the same time they got memos requesting money. thank you very much. host: thank you, hastings, minnesota. guest: we have people wanting safer staffing in hospitals. we have teachers, school employees that say we need to invest in quality education for our kids so that everybody has an even start and can grow up and accomplish things that our generation only dreams about now. we lift wages and benefits for workers all across the economy.

so i appreciate you reminding me to underscore that. and then the second point you make i think has been part of the discussion already in the questions and answers about the amount of money that is being invested in this election. host: next phone call, georgetown, kentucky. caller: my dad was a charter member of the united mine workers back in the 1930's. he worked in the coal mine for many years and union meant food on our table. i understand. i have been in business myself, but i understand all unions too. but what i am very upset about is in the 1960's when we tried to make a good thing for medicare, they took all the money -- i work for general motors. i was supposed to have my insurance on my life. i have to go to medicare at 65, and that relieves the insurance companies that general motors had.

this is bad to all workers in the united states because insurance are profiting from that. we don't have insurance now for -- worth crap because of all the things that's went down, bad things and all of our money and the social security money was taken and given to wars. host: ok. that was bonnie in kentucky on the democratic line. guest: bonnie, you make two, three, four excellent points and that's why we need to stay with hands joined together and say on november 3 that we want our government to make sure that social security is solvent, that the medicare program works and that you and i need to work together to hold insurance companies accountable. and not being able to increase premiums so we can afford health care coverage. host: in this campaign 2010 season, this is an email from jane in wisconsin which says that democrats and liberals and special interest groups --

guest: well, the difference in this election 2008 is that the spending gap is way bigger as opposed to the citizens united decision. we're being outspent by hundreds of millions of dollars. i think that's the focus that we wanted to put on the 2010 elections is that hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent by we believe corporate interest that are trying to influence who gets elected so that corporate interests are protected by the next congress and not working people. host: marietta, florida, mike on the republican line. go ahead. caller: good morning. hello, can you hear me? host: sir, you're on the air. caller: yes, hello. i have a question. hello.

host: mike, we are listening to you. go ahead, please. caller: yes, ma'am. i have a question for the union person. the obama administration has shown a number of concessions to the unions. there have been an issue recently about undisclosed funding going to various candidates. and during the so-called disclose act, the unions were excluded from this. now, the unions have historically had close ties with organized crime. are the unions willing to disclose money received from prostitution, drugs? guest: sir, the information you have is wrong. the union does disclose every contribution our members make voluntarily to our political fund. there is access to that record and there is absolutely no money that our union receives from outside of our membership. we run based on the dues that our members pay for their collective bargaining and their

voluntary political contribution. host: what is the average income of your members, one tweets in this morning? guest: we have 2.2 million members in seiu and about half of our members earn between $15,000 and $20,000 a year. our collective bargaining has lifted them from mainly jobs to about $11 an hour jobs. and there is another half of our members who are health care workers, registered nurses and public service employees who earn between $50,000 and $75,000 a year. host: we'll go to vegas. bill on the independent line. go ahead, bill. caller: hey, good morning. i wanted to ask ms. henry. i'm a retired teamster and i love the unions. our unemployment here in nevada right now is 15%. why are we going to support harry reid? harry reid is part of the problem.

we got to get rid of these old guys and, you know, and get some new blood in there. host: why should somebody like bill support harry reid? guest: he has done three things just in the last six months to create new jobs in nevada. and i think what he is trying to do is get reinvestment in wind energy that's going to be built in -- right outside of las vegas. .

she has said many things. when you look at the overall lection, we are trying to say that there is a sharp difference in contrast between candidates that would stand with the working people and help get america back to work to restore fairness to our economy and fairness -- candidates that want to stand on the side of corporate interests. host: napa county, california. caller: i had to commute to the bay area for like 15 years for a good paying union jobs. i was a machinist and we had a little plant down there.

i have less than half of a dozen people that ever complained about donating to the democratic party, the union. the most people to complain about unions are the people and have never enjoyed the benefits of being a in a union. all of the stuff that you get that you do not get in the private sector. living wage, of being able to pay your rent, that is one of the fundamental problems in this country right now. what percentage of union members in your organization are republican? i will take my answer offline. thank you. guest: we have 30% of our members that are registered republican. we have a national republican member advisory committee that helps us to think about how to represent the interests of all of our members.

whether they are registered democrat, republican, or independent. >> -- host: would you say that you are backing a 30% of republican candidates? guest: no, because none of our registered members think about who we endorse based on party affiliation, it is based on who is willing to stand beside working people. we stand beside the greatest crisis we have ever faced in our generation. our members are more committed than ever to make sure that we elect people that will stand with us. >> does that mean that -- host: does that mean that your level you are talking to the local and telling them which candidate you believe who best represents your interest? guest: no, that is done in candidate meetings where they walked a day in our shoes and

members make the decision. host: back to the foul line. republican line, missouri. i like how you claim you are for the working people, but when the tea party started up there was a tea party member that was selling don't tread on me buttons and your people savagely attacked and beat this man. lied and lied again trying to defend their actions. they were found guilty in court. the teachers' union wants to teach nothing but marxist and socialist agendas and ideologies. i have spent my life fighting against socialism. against marxism.

here we have your union and a bunch of the other unions, you people will not be satisfied until you turn this country into something like that nightmare in greece or france. host: we have the point. guest: we have a disagreement about what happened in missouri. i think that what we can agree on is that this is an incredibly wonderful country and that american workers are full of ingenuity and great ideas. productivity. i feel that my responsibility but all americans is to make sure the 25 million people can get back to work. that is how we have respected dignity every day. host: next phone call, carol, independent line. caller: i would like to ask mary

kay henry if your union is the same one that had in the stern. -- andy stern. guest: he is our former president. he helped to create getting our union organized, organize more workers, and under his leadership 1 million more members joined the union. host: debra, your on the air. caller: andy stern, to see the one that unionized child care providers only? they call it a fair share and there is nothing fair about it? bought out by the unions to pass both laws to make us state employees on paper only?

so that your union can take our income whether we want to join or not? guest: mullah she built the union over 16 years without any collective bargaining agreements before we were able to convince the state legislature to allow for a lot for home care providers that earned minimum- wage to be able to bargain for a union. the nl and july $11.50 an hour for the first time after a 16 year struggle. host: ben, los angeles. caller: good morning, ladies. i have a question. i am personally taking care of my extremely disabled son. we are the beneficiary -- beneficiaries of in home services.

every time that i get my check the union membership fee is deducted. i have tried to give this back to the union without success. i am wondering if there is any relief coming from the union presidents of this. -- office. thank you. guest: thank you for your service to your son. it is so incredibly important. yes, you have a way to contact your local union. i will make sure that your issues handled. caller: yesterday i saw karl rove in he had a contribution

sheet from a union because that was all that was disclosed. that it was somehow equivalent to the group's going to republicans. i do not hear anyone making the point that when you disclose the fact that a union is contributing, you publicly know who the elected officials are and you know what their stance is. you do not allow anything about these other groups that are created. guest: you are right, it is completely transparent in the union about who gets to it and how the money is spent. that is not happening with these new groups that have been created where there is no disclosure of the hundreds of millions of dollars in where they come from. host: san diego, good morning. caller: i am a big supporter of

unions. i understand the historical importance and representing the working people. the one thing i have a problem with, when i talk to my parents, other members of my family in corporate management type jobs, they do not like the unions because they say that the main problem they have with it is because they cannot fire people that are not doing a good job. i am wondering if there is any movement in the union's. i think that there could be a compromise on this in the unions. guest: my experience is that good management can use progressive discipline that has allowed. we do not support employees that do not perform their jobs. i have never had an experience where management cannot take the action necessary to make sure we

have a work environment where everyone is doing their jobs. host: michigan, you are on the air with mary kay henry, the president of the fbi you. go ahead. caller: can you tell us what the top 10 executives in your union make? give us a salary? guest: those salaries are approved by our 77 member executive board, ranging from $190,000 per year to $200,000 per year. host: last phone call, petersburg. you are on the air, chuck. guest: -- caller: good morning, mary kay. i was wondering about issues. everyone is worried about social security entitlements now. how come no one talks about

social security having a balance of $2.50 trillion. the government has taken it out of social security in loans. where has that money gone? guest: i think that the point you are making is that we need to make sure that social security is a round for the next generation and the one after it. i completely support your view. our union is making hard -- working hard to make sure that that happens. host: mary kay henry, thank you very much. we appreciate it. guest: thank you. host: next week will turn our attention to those talks with the taliban. >> u.s. economy is continuing to grow this year as forecasters have lowered their expectations.

some economists are expecting the growth rate of 2%. prepared remarks set to be delivered later today, banking regulators are examining whether mortgage companies cut corners on their own procedures when they moved to foreclose on the homes of people. the chief remarks from the 50 states plus the district of columbia art jointly investigating whether mortgage companies improperly evicted people from their home. president obama goes back on the campaign trail today, traveling to rhode island, chatting with workers. the democratic governor has reacted angrily to the news that he will not get the endorsement for president obama. and telling a local radio station that obama can take his arm -- and "take his endorsement and shoved it."

that it is washington insider remarks at their worst. those are the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> the great speeches of the c- span video library, clipping and sharing with your friends. during this campaign season includes 100 debates. if you are new, watch the tutorial on how to click and share. search, fine, share with a c- span video library. >> time to get your care of rolling for this year's video documentary competition open to middle school and high-school students. make a 5 minute to 8 minute video with a grand prize of $5,000. the deadline is january 20, 2011. for details, go to studentcam.org. >> this week on "but

communicators," the role of the public and private sector in security and his company's role in establishing internet it -- internet domain maintenance. tonight on c-span 2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us from new york this morning is richard barrett, the coordinator of the united nations al qaeda taliban monitoring team. it is hard to describe what that sounds like. could you tell the viewers what it is the to do? guest: it does sound rather alarming. what we do is manage the threats that are posed internationally from al qaeda and the taliban.

we monitor that, the effects, and try to advise the security council. host: what are your daily responsibilities? are you in afghanistan most of the time? guest: we are based in new york, but where there is a threat from al qaeda like north africa, the least, southeast asia, all over the world with these groups are trying to make an impact, authorities need international support on their records. host: this morning we wanted to go on to the peace that you wrote recently, where many of the viewers have seen headlines recently where the u.s. and other countries are talking to the taliban. what is the status of those talks. guest: is unclear, but there are 12 different initiatives where

people are reaching out to see if they can link up to the taliban willing to talk with people who represent the karzai government. it shows that at the moment there is a great deal of activity on this front. there is military activity as well. we can begin to see the beginnings of political activity to match that military activity. host: what does that mean? the news that we are hearing this morning, that karzai admitted to receiving bags of money from iran. guest: i think that it says that what everyone is against is that the regional powers beyond the region are interested in the future of afghanistan. iran, like any other regional power, does not want to be left behind. if you remember and the history between the government, as it was between 1996 and 2001, it

was fairly miserable. in 1998 a pair of iranian diplomats were massacred when the taliban moved in. since then, of course, there has been a great deal of involvement with minorities in afghanistan under taliban rule. and that they sort of lived in the western side of the country. i think that the taliban, although they may have grown up a little bit with more wisdom in a way that they want to rule the country, the iranians are right to be worried. i am sure that they want to have influence over the present regime. host: then there is this headline in "the washington post" that the pakistani security officials want roles in the talks as well. if it is just between the taliban and the karzai

administration, are there enough players at the table? without these other officials, are these talks doomed for failure? guest: that is a good question. how many players should there be at the table? certainly pakistan needs to be involved. in the past they were key supporters of the taliban. they were concerned that afghanistan could become under the indian influence. they had a deep worry that they would be surrounded by indian supporting states. they have always been anxious to make sure that that doesn't happen. they have to be satisfied that whenever the deal is that comes out, it will not be against their interest. at the same time there has to be balance. balance between themselves and the iranian interest, central

asian states that are concerned about what happens. as well as the chinese. the main military presence there is the united states as well. the united states must be active in any solution as well. fundamentally and at the end of the day, this has to be a dialogue between afghans. the main deal has to be not just between the taliban and president karzai, but a big chunk of the population with all of the other ethnic groups. host: is a deal possible when the u.s. is trying to negotiate and there are military attacks surging? weeding out and weakening the

taliban? guest: clearly that is the approach. when they come to the table, they are much weaker and can demand less. that is a logical way of thinking. but the taliban have also been very resilient, proving themselves to be able to come back from being hit pretty hard. disappearing amongst the population. i think that general petraeus has also been surprised at the amount of taliban activity in the north where you would expect it in the south. clearly there is a military objective to be in the taliban. but that will not necessarily be the only thing that will determine the conduct. host: does the taliban think we are serious about negotiating a peace deal if we are attacking them with the military? guest of the taliban are

sophisticated people. i can tell you one thing, they follow the news over here very closely. -- guest: the taliban are sophisticated people. i can tell you one thing, they follow the news and media over here very quite clearly. they are aware of these soft deadline, these arguments for withdrawal of american troops. they now understand that the withdrawal might not be complete. it might be graduated according to the circumstances. the deal might stop us being hit so hard, but do we want to make a deal from a position of weakness? not particularly. host: you wrote recently in a piece that it was time to talk to the taliban. coordinator for the monitoring team from new york this morning. i want to get your reaction to

the bread stevens piece from "to wall street journal." he talked about the trouble with talking to the taliban. like in vietnam, compromise is not in their playbook. guest: what does compromise mean? the absolutist agenda of the taliban is not achievable and i am sure that they realize that. they cannot go back to how they ran the country before. real subjugation of the people rather than ruling the people. clearly they will put out at their end of the negotiation of an absolutist -- absolutist position. but it will not end up there. they have a long tradition of disputes over the boundary to who murdered my cousin. they have a long tradition of

sitting down at the table and ending up with an agreement that does not satisfy everyone. guest: let's address this question of whether we should be talking to the taliban. florida, go ahead. guest: my question is simple. when you are raising in teaching your children to hate and killed, do you honestly think that there will be peace in that part of the world? guest: you raise a good point. there is a worry that the current generation may not know anything else. but we also must understand that the afghans are just like everyone else in the world. people that want to raise their family in conditions of security, opportunity for

themselves and their children and what justice. yes, people can grow up to be of militant and know how to fight. but you fight for a reason. not just a fight. if they get those basic requirements, there will be no reason for them to fight. host: good morning. caller: my name is carl from maryland, real close to washington, d.c.. i spent 37 years in the military, the navy, and the army. there is no talking to the taliban. you go and talk and whatever, then you take them out. that is the only real solution to this problem. i do not know who came up with talking to them. they do not talk. guest: i just do not think it is

possible to kill all the people that support or are fighting for the taliban. which is generally accepted by the armed forces of the united states and elsewhere around the world. forcing their hands by the elimination of the enemy to the last man, everyone realized that this had gone on long enough. yes, you could want to take out people that are committed and determined to carry on fighting as long as possible, taking them out by taking them to prison or custody. but this will not be end of the afghan war. it will not be a flight of the last man. host: when and where are these fights and talks taking place? and how? guest: clearly, kabul is one of them.

the other areas proposed are saudi arabia, which has a great appeal to the taliban. the heartland of the muslim faith, they believe themselves to be very true moslems. that is what they believe. turkey has also been mentioned. they're also the country that has the clearest relationships with neighboring countries and one that the taliban could fear -- feel comfortable in. i think that pakistan is less likely but the afghan government not being so likely. host: what is the likelihood of a credible international mediator leading these kinds of talks? guest: there is a great deal of possibility. president karzai said that last

week he thought that either the united nations or an islamic country should provide an international figure to preside over talks and get them going. there is a scope for that. if it helps to have an international figure, i am quite sure that the international community could come up with one. host: who do you think that afghans would see as credible? guest: the taliban will be cautious of accepting any international figure. it is a question of building trust and believe that the international figure is truly neutral. united states is well placed, we have a strong team led by a good leader.

they can play a part in being the international leader, helping them to identify to it could be. the taliban is 100% in support of the united nations. the united nations, nonetheless, does have programs that penetrates in taliban held areas. this sort of basic function of the united nations is to provide aid and assistance to ordinary people. host: george, international, tennessee. independent line. caller: my question is, the entire pretense for going over there was to capture osama bin

laden, supposedly responsible for 9/11. now we are going against the taliban? i want to know how long we have to be over there. how much do we have to sacrifice, the citizens of america? host: i think we got the point. richard barrett? guest: a good point. the initial objection -- intention was to capture osama bin laden. on 9/11, you have to remember the context of the attacks. i think it was natural that the forces, even while you look for them, you can try to create an atmosphere where al qaeda could not come back.

how long does it go on? when do you declare victory? that is difficult and a good question. what will victory look like? you cannot just destroy them completely. even without public support. how do you make sure that they do not come back to commit those atrocities again? host: can you answer that question? guest: how the negotiations would go? host: what does success look like? guest: it looks like a stable afghanistan. which is a fairly distant prospect at the moment. if the american forces withdrew next year in july or something like that, you can guarantee that there would be even more pressure than at the moment.

all of the other factors in afghanistan would be concerned over what is happening -- happening next. at the moment there is a basket of power shared between people that excludes the taliban. saying that they can have a bit as well, it will take a long time to sort out. their victory them -- will not be evident until everyone says that we agree, this is how we will rule the country. this is how we will be prime minister and so on. i would say that that is some way off. nonetheless. host: richard barrett is part of a team that advises the un security council on threat from al qaeda and the taliban. and member of the task force

that promotes a coherent approach to counter terrorism within the united nations. we are talking about whether or not the subject of the taliban and the talks that are going on now, let me ask you about the ground rules. guest: you have got to stop fighting, that is the first thing. another, you must observe the afghan constitution. only then can you talk. the taliban wants all foreign troops to withdraw from the country. they want their names withdrawn from the united nations' list. they also want their prisoners

to be released from afghan jails. there are things there that look a bit difficult to reconcile, but nonetheless i think that those demands may not be as absolute as they appeared. withdrawal of troops, they cannot expect all foreign troops to leave overnight in a chaotic free-for-all. i think that justice should pay its part, but the main thing is that they should be brought to court, recognized, and the judgment should be received. after the removal of their names from the security council list, the security council, if i might speak for them, is really concerned that if they remove someone from the list is because they think that if you take me off the list, i might

think about peace. it has to be a reward, not an incentive. something the taliban have to get used to. i do not see it as a big problem, as the list never stops them from travelling abroad. they do not need their own money or arms to talk. host: what is the role that al qaeda is playing? guest: al qaeda will do whatever they can to prevent these talks from taking place. they have no interest in these continued talks. al qaeda has enjoyed a good relation to the taliban and they want to be able to go back there.

nonetheless, the al qaeda leaders' will detract very hard, influencing the taliban movement to make the talks as difficult as possible. they will continue to operate on the pakistan side of the border to make sure that there is much unrest and insurgency there and that the regional situation does not lend itself to peace. host: jay, texas, good morning. caller: being that the middle class is buying a in the united states of america and in the middle east, i have this question. i cannot believe that the united states of america with all of these scholars and very smart people would not believe that these people on their own land,

that people really believe that we are going to be successful in any middle eastern nation where we do not have the credibility to be anywhere. host: credibility in the middle east? guest: there is quite a lot of anti-american feeling, but it is not driven by opposition to american values. people would love to live under the american system. what people object to is american policies. that is particularly fed by people saying that all of our bills are due to american policy. we would be much better off if americans had not done this or that. when you are a superpower,

things are seen as being caused by u.s. policies. whereas the iraqi campaign and the afghan campaign continue to take place, people think that that is a source of upset and harmed in the country. without looking to see it in the long run it will bring benefit. in all of my travels in the middle east, the taliban may not support collections and things like that, but for the general populace they have a great deal of respect for the united states. even the disappointment that the policies do not always follow the values. host: kentucky, republican line. caller: pakistan, the tribes along the frontier, is it not true that throughout their history they have had a real key

to solving internal stability? i am reading the memoirs of lord roberts. you just read about this constant instability along the border. can we not get the pakistani is to move on as tribes with meaningful talks? guest: it is a real problem, is it not? it has been an area that has been fought through. we all must agree that humanity makes progress. as for the tribal areas, the majority of the people there are pashtun.

i think that afghan means the same as pashyutn in version, so they have been there for a long time. 50 million of them are in afghanistan, 25 million in pakistan. they have incredibly close ties. the line drawn by the british army in the 19th century is not one that is recognized even today by the people there. there are endless ways of going across this impossible order to manage. unless you have the pashtun happy with the deal, making up 45% of the population, all so happy with what is going out for

their brothers on the afghan side, you will not get much long-term success. it is important to get them both comfortable with what happens at the end of negotiations. host: brooklyn, joseph, an independent line. you are next. caller: i think that the u.s. has a good position to talk to the taliban. communication is the means through which we grow anything that we do as a human race. communication is a key factor and understanding the reason why anyone might be anti-american or have terrorist activity planned ahead, it is because there is a lack of communication somewhere. i think that most people can

agree that met -- most major religions, theologies in the world, people have pretty much tried to do things that make sure the people around them are happy. and the policy is the greed behind it, that is what causes the big problems. human beings getting in the way and dying, really they are the people suffering the worst. guest: it is always the ordinary people that suffer the most from everything. it is not right to say that no one would like to say chaos and violence. al qaeda in their global approach of wanting to sort of drive them out of muslim majority countries, that is an

aggressive policy that is not going to beat us to any happiness. we need to make sure that the people do not support those objectives. the taliban, in their national movement, they took it and abuse that terribly. they have grown up since then. i think that it will realize that if and when they have any influence in afghanistan, they will have to approach things in a different way. you have to have that and that is a trend that continues. host: philadelphia, a joke, democratic line. good morning. caller: the basic problem with this whole thing is that the taliban has this alliance with al qaeda and they protected

osama bin laden. using it as a base for which al qaeda would attack the united states. unless they're willing to break this alliance and no longer protect osama bin laden, there will not be any progress. what does the gentleman think about the taliban breaking the alliance with al qaeda? and that is what the american people care about at this point. guest: the fact is, of course, that the taliban had not had that alliance with al qaeda and al qaeda had not watched those attacks, they would probably still be in power today. but would probably still be recognized as the government. they have to make that link. with a break it? if they said they did, how could we be sure that that was the

case? how could we make it clear that they were not welcome in afghan territory. difficult questions for the taliban to answer. given the way that tribes operate in that area, saying that we have nothing to do with them ever again, the people do not work like that over there. people say that you have to keep quiet if you want to live with us. they cannot easily say that you have no room in our house. they're not quite confident overboard what has been saved. the two things that they cannot do, the internal affairs of

another country, they cannot allow anyone to do it from within their territory. they have made that very clear. what they're trying to do now is put their hopes into other bits of the movement. is getting much harder to say that they're not just al qaeda and obama offer them support anymore. those things must be sorted out by the afghans and regional states. host: how far would money go to get the taliban away from influencing al qaeda? guest: unfortunately the taliban has a lot of money, received your things like taxing local businesses, water and electricity when it supplied to farms and houses.

they raise taxes like that, a certain amount of money, raised from the people growing poppies and drug dealers that want to pay them off to allow their convoys to go through the area. we are talking about 100 $200 million per year. they have got to pay for the widows of the people that have been killed and that sort of thing. i think that the offer of money by those individuals is probably not going to play much of a part in the negotiations. having said that, people are talking about what they can do. there is a suggestion that omar to live in comfortable exile

somewhere, which would probably cost someone something. host: james, you are on the air. caller: the questions that i want to ask is what do they want and is it achievable? guest: first of all, they want to be in government. they have had enough of fighting. this fighting goes on and on, the leaders lose their control and influence over the younger people. these younger people do not have this personal relationship and i think the leaders feel there is a danger of the movement getting out of control. they want to have an influence in the future government of afghanistan.

thinking more about governing the place rather than controlling the place. host: finish your thought and i have a follow-up. guest: is achievable, that is the other really good question. what is the bottom line that everyone can agree to? how will it be achieved? afghans have enormous resilience and i have confidence that once they begin to sit down, they agree on a settlement. it will go on arguing and negotiating until they get a settlement. it may not be achievable for them to get what they want l, but they may regard this as an achievable for what can happen now. host: we have this twittered message from a viewer -- guest: they have their

experience of what happened. they got kicked out and have been suffering ever since. they have had to fight rather than rule. it must have a bad effect on their families, their next generation, and so on. how do you teach them not to get in bed with bad actors? look at what happened before. afghans do have a tradition of not liking outsiders. al qaeda is outsiders. they are not afghans. afghans, even before 2001, really dislike the way that the arab people looked down their noses, tripping -- treating them badly. there is a hopeful that the fifth generation of taliban leaders is not a good idea.

host: patrick, democratic line. that morning. caller: do you have information on the status of the hikers the got picked up and taken to iran? guest: the iranians have said that they will put them on trial for spying. if they do i hope that outside observers can attend. it has not really leaked it over into the afghan issue. it is much more of an iranian domestic issue and a bilateral issue of the united states. host: if the taliban is rejecting, where are they making

efforts for an roads? guest: they have not given up on the border area. an area where they feel they could be for a long time. the pakistani government has never operated very far into the tribal areas in pakistan. they still believe that they can have a comfortable life there. they probably fear going anywhere else. even yemen, which has been suggested by some people, as al qaeda has a strong movement there now. it is wanting to have many yemen people fighting the government there, but it is quite another thing to have the most internationally wanted figures in the world sitting

there. although al qaeda has made advances in spreading their ideology into yemen and somalia of and the sahara, north africa, elsewhere in the world, when it comes to leadership with it will be comfortable, that is still very much along the border area. host: the government met in washington this week with american officials. what came out of that meeting? guest: there has been a lot of criticism within the united states by various pundits as to whether pakistan is behind this fight with al qaeda and is interested in peace in afghanistan.

personally, i feel they have done a great deal at great cost to deal with al qaeda in their own territory, to try to promote some kind of peace in afghanistan. one issue that needed story out, best dealing with the army over the coming years. any contact at that high level between two critical allies in this sort of fight aga you can sit down and get to a lot of issues face-to-face that is hard to do sort of through intermediaries, ambassadors or whenever. that point i can understand. i think that the talks apparently went pretty well, both sides showed their commitment to the longer-term in dealing with these issues. host: independent line, colorado springs.

caller: it seems to me that we have committed acts of provocation sufficient to justify the bombing -- and i love america and i would hate to see these people killed -- but we have done acts of war. osama bin laden said that the reason that he bombed the twin towers was because we had troops in saudi arabia, the most sacred land in all of islam. guest: these issues, particularly the palestinian issue has lasted a long time.

this is just not the way to be behave. it is absolutely unacceptable. like saying i went and burned his car and killed his wife. it is ridiculous. in a civilized world where we have objections to policies, there are many forums, you think how many progress settlements. american troops were in saudi arabia, of course. something that was against international law, security council authorized the removal of troops from kuwait. iraq had left kuwait and that was the end of that.

i agree that many of these policies, in no case to give an excuse for terrorism. host: we have been talking about the taliban and afghani leadership negotiations. but many have said that the real solution to this problem is brokering some have a peace deal between pakistan and india. that that is the solution that needs to be solved. what do you think? guest: there are very many other issues to deal with pakistan and india. if you think about how close those people are in origin, it is the great chain.

it is a fault line, a line of friction. when there is more understanding and trust between the people, it is of course an obligation from the rest of the world to try to help and smooth it over and find ways for those countries to work together. i am afraid that there are people that are very much opposed to that peaceful coexistence. when you look at the group was responsible for the mumbai bombings, they did not do that attack because they wanted to kill people and burned down i hotel. they did want to raise tensions between india and pakta those cs getting together you will see those attacks driving them apart again. it comes around in a circle, dealing with those issues and the bad apples trying to exploit

the issues. host: jim, brookline, new hampshire. caller: i thought i heard you talking about destroying the taliban. part of what i am wondering is, it in this negotiation process, looking at value against policy based on what you said earlier, which i think it's fantastic, but the policies that they do not like. talking about destroying a in the same context of negotiating, do you not think that would raise more emotions? wanting to drive more efforts regarding terrorist activities? guest: we should not be looking to destroy the taliban. to destroy the taliban.