[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> earlier this month, the christmas tree lighting there up on capitol hill. good morning, everyone and happy holidays on this december 24, 2010. the economy dominates the front page of this morning, the financial times reporting a powerful end of year stock market rally and the "new york times" this morning saying forecasters are expressing a new optimism that the recovery will gain substantial momentum in 2011. meanwhile, president obama's added another day to his vacation in hawaii with his family over those days he expects to be looking at plans for a staff shakeup at the

white house next year. and the washington times reports on new rules on spending for the house under g.o.p. control. republicans are also plan to open up that new 1 11th congress with the full reading of the country's constitution. given that, our question to all of you, what's your prediction for the 112 ltsdz congress? what do you expect? numbers are on your screen. we'll get to your phone calls in just a minute. let me begin with an opinion piece in the "washington post." as many of you know, they were not happy with the tax cut deal cut by president obama with republicans and some democrats. this morning he writes this.

>> the fiscal times writes this morning -- financial times this morning op ed has a different take h that's the financial times with their opinion. what is your opinion this morning? ohio, steve is a republican. and you're first. g ahead. caller: first, i'd like to say, comment on charles', that what

you just read. he doesn't really make any sense. he hasn't made any sense in a while. obama didn't do anything great over this lame duck session as everybody is trying to say. everything that he wanted to pass has to do, didn't have to do with jobs, the economy. the republicans held firm and got an extension of the bush tax cuts. and obama didn't do anything but start. and don't ask don't tell. it didn't have anything to do with the economy or jobs. i don't -- obama basically did what mitch mcdonnell wanted. he stopped everything in the senate until the tax cuts were extended. i think they're on a good foot right now. they have the bush tax cuts extended. and what's most important is basically starve government because we have to cut spending. we have a $14 trillion gdp plus

a $14 trillion debt and unfunded liabilities. so you have to cut. i mean, with every piece of legislation that comes down the pipe there will always be an emotional attachment to it. you have to separate yourself and cut everything. i hope that's what they do. host: the washington times this morning, front page story is about these new rules that republicans are putting in place for the house at the beginning of the 112th congress. the biggest changes will make it easier to cut spending and harder to create entitlement programs while imposing restriction that is could keep leaders from jamming massive bills before lawmakers have had a chance to digest them.

steve, are you still with us? what do you think? caller: that's my concern. because about bills being introduced. because you are constantly hearing starting with the bailouts. if we don't pass this legislation, the economy is going to crash. if we don't pass this legislation, then everybody is going to die. these politicians, basically when thansy pelosi said we need

to pass the bill to find out what's in it. that's the way they've been operating. so hopefully next congress they'll start operating by going over the bills. if they don't have the money and can't pay for it, don't do it. host: let's hear from willy, a democrat in annapolis, maryland. what are your predictions? >> caller: thank you for be letting me be on. i disagree with the first call thear said obama didn't accomplish anything. and as far as the 1129sdz congress, i don't know if they're like the tea party i think they're going to be a total bust. it was easy for them to sit on the sidelines to throw bricks, but now they've got to come up with solutions. host: raleigh, north carolina. billy. caller: as an independent, i'd like to say i think this country is in big trouble because of laws that we just passed. the president was so happy to do as our moral convictions,

the way people are living, this ask and don't tell whatever you want to call it, it's the beginning of a moral collapse of america. and we are doing the same things that's going to happen to the roman empire. we are caving in from inside. but everybody wants something for themselves and nobody else. i'm very sorry that i think america is downhill and going down fast. thank you very much. >> host: the "washington post" weighs in this morning with their op ed.

also this morning, the "new york times" weighs in on the dream act as well, the

"washington post" reports this morning that the next congress unlikely to pass the dream act. atlanta, georgia. democratic line. go ahead with your predictions for the 112. caller: good morning. i don't think anything will change at all. as long as president obama, a buy racial man, is in that white house nothing will ever change. and that's what i want to say. host: michigan, mike,

independent line. you're next. caller: good morning. just give mea second. first of all, the 112th congress is going to be something like between a mad hatter and alice in wonderland. people are going to be shocked, horrified by what these people are going to do. and they're going to understand that nobody voted for these people. and we're supposed to believe that the people who put us in this ditch, that the people got angry and came out and voted for republicans when all the early voting was democratic. i noticed all the gains that the g.o.p. made, they made them to their favorite weapon, the voting machines that have no records, florida, ohio, and places like that. and even here in michigan, we were shocked to realize that snider won, a democrat? -- i mean, a republican won in michigan? there's something very screwy about this last election. and i think after it's all said and done, we're going to find

out that the massive voting fraupped went on in the last election -- i mean, what do you think, everybody had amnearbya and in two years we forgot what these people did to this country? >> all right. politico, this morning. how g.o.p. shuns hardline on immigration. chicago, sandra, republican line. go ahead. caller: thanks for having me on. i'm just hoping that the

republicans are able to push back some of the legislation that i personally disagree with. they're talking about don't ask don't tell as if that's the greatest thing that ever happened to america in the last 400 years. i don't see why that's going to increase national security like president obama was talking about. i think it's a moral slippery slope that we're on and i just don't see why that's so significant giving the fact that we still have high unemployment and we're still trying to fight for rights for people in this country that we owe nothing to. i mean, how many americans need to lose their jobs and homes and have a moral outcry in this congress or in this country before we start on the next issue of, oh, my god, the immigrant doesn't have anything. that's what's wrong with our country now. so i really am hoping that the republican lower house is able to stand up for the american people and say before we reach out to foreign nationals who have no rights in this country,

that they take fight for the american people. that's my comment. host: on the environmental front, the "washington post" writes this morning host: good morning. caller: yes.

i would just like to first say that i keep up with politics and all i hear is the doom and gloom of what the next 112th congress is going to do. i'd like to remind people that while the republicans are the majority in the senate, we still, they do not control the whole congress. i'd like to say that first of all. i'd like to predict for the 112th that while the battle may go on initially the people of america and when i say the people of america, not those that the g.o.p. has said that we are displeased with. but we are ready. and i think the majority of the people are tired of congress doing politics and speaking for us when all we want is for them to do what we elected them to do, which is to do the business, to do our business of

the united states. so i think that while the -- all this rhetoric about the g.o.p. is going to do this and that, we forget that we have a two-party system, actually a three with the independents. and that the people are going to demand that they stop this fighting amongst themselves and to get about doing our business. and that's for -- as for obama and what he did and what he didn't do, obama is a good president. he is handling the debt that has been dealt -- deck that has been dealt with him. we need to stop the hatred and the bickering and we need to really start working toward one another as americans. host: that was the democrats in west virginia. valerie is a republican in michigan. caller: good morning. i was calling to make a comment on the 112th congress.

i think you're going to find them full of energy and raring to go. i think you're going to find them also constitutional and ready to put this country back on track. the fcc has decided to take it upon themselves to be unconstitutional and skirt the congress and bring in net neutrality. why are they going to mess with the internet? why do they have to do that? it works just fine. people don't have any scommaints about it. now here coms the government into something else. host: do you want republicans to try to overturn this somehow? caller: oh, i think they're going to work on it. i think they're going to have a full congressional review. that's what marsha blackburn said. and i also think they're not going to fund it. they're not going to give them

any money for it. this is just something that they've taken it upon themselves. host: ok. caller: they do this more and more and more. host: that was valerie, republican in michigan on her point about the constitution. we mentioned this at the top. the washington times reports this morning, we the people, to open next congress on january 6 do a full reading of the country's founding document on the floor. larry, independent line. good morning. caller: good morning, greta. would you please give me just a moment. prior to the washington journal there was a program on and various leaders were discussing financial concerns of our country. what i would like for the american people to give thought to is what they call the comprehensive annual financial report. every city, county, and state across the nation is a

corporation. each corporation is very wealthy. our debt, our national debt could be paid off tomorrow from the money that every city, county, and state has. and people don't give any thought to it. they don't question this. but they should. and, greta, we do wish you and your family a very merry christmas. >> host: before you go, so where is all this money that the city and the states have? caller: it's in a secret -- i won't say a secret fund. you can go to the internet and you can look up cafr, comprehensive annual financial report. every corporation has extremely huge amounts of money that the american people are not aware of. host: let me show you the front page of the "wall street journal" this morning with this headline. pensions push taxes higher.

it says cities across nation are raising property taxes rising pension and health care costs for employees and retirees. that's the story on the front page of the "wall street journal." inside the paper this morning is this piece written by steven mall anga. state house shell games.

illinois passed a modest pension reform that applies to new workers. the savings won't materialize for years but it included language that allowed the state

to calculate the depute savings. this is what steven writes at the end of his piece. next phone call comes from houston, texas. james on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. merry christmas to everybody. i just want to say that i pay in to social security. and i pay in to medicare and medicaid. and i want to say that the medium household income for a family of four in america is $57,000. and i promise you, if you gave

all them families doctors 250,000 a year they would think they were rich. now, there's a book out called the shock doctrine and it talks about how all these bankers and politicians bankrupt these countries and then want the bill to come on the poor people. people need to wake up. if you're a corporation, the republicans are your friends. but if you're not a corporation, they don't give a damn about you and you'd better wake up. poor people, get together. host: fresno, california, on the republican line. good morning. caller: hello. host: go ahead. caller: i'm judge robertson. i was calling because, you know, we're the people of the united states, to establish justice, to ensure domestic tranquility. i remember it from junior high. in order for the nation to survive and achieve anything,

anything, the forefathers laid it out. we've got to go to god. we've got to implement the lord in there, not just on inauguration you put the bible. you know? it has to be we've got to pray for all of our leaders. everybody. in the congress and senate, you know, the president, whatever. governor, mayor, police. you know, we've got to mend together as a nation and be a nation and pray for the betterment of our society and so forth. the deficit, what, just pray to god and get his help from on high. host: all right. don, independent, in tennessee. go ahead. caller: good morning and merry christmas to everybody. i guess my topic is on lame

duck congress. host: we're talking about predictions for the 112th congress. what do you think? caller: well, sorry about that. i've been on hold for a while. i just hope that they have a conscience and vote in ways that will surp the american people instead of just the taking care of themselves as usual. and act like they are public servants what i was going to comment on . host: what can they do to do, in your eyes, act like public servants? caller: just remember where the money is coming from. in a sense. what i started to say earlier as far as the lame duck, and this may tie in, is in the private sector, if somebody doesn't like you that you're working for, they let you loose that day instead of giving you

another three months to keep working. and when they're elected out of office, they ought to be just moving their desk the very next day and make room for people that the public do want in office. host: speaking of shakeups, the "new york times" writes this morning

washington, d.c., dana plip line. what are your predictions for the 112th? caller: thank you for taking my call. i predict compromise. i'm a republican. but i think from a centrist point of view. and i don't think that the republicans get a free pass in the 112th congress. i think essentially that a lot of our callers are talking in generalities and jumping to conclusions. but they're not willing to look at their individual conduct in thinking about how congress does business. we expect our legislatures to somehow be different than we are. for example, there's plenty of people who think nothing of not

paying their tax debt, people fail to recognize that there are plenty of unemployed people who could do the work of mige rant farm workers but don't because it's hard. and then, finally, you know, most of us know someone who is a homosexual in our own families or social circles and yet we jump to condemn this idea that there be gays in the military. i think that there's going to have to be compromise because most of america is made up of people who are in the middle, objective, and for the last several congresses and elections we've been say seeing those driven mostly by the extremes. and finally, i don't want that caller who said nothing is ever going to change while we have a by racial president, that's just a disgusting comment. race has nothing to do with

whether can be effective. you've heard this all here from a republican. we've got to think about things objectively and analyze ourselves and what we do personally before we can expect the people we elect to do things differently in the big picture when our own personal small pictures aren't together. i appreciate you taking my call. roar host: we've we'll lee it there. on the issue of don't ask, don't tell, that's our issue coming up. we're going to talk about how it's going to be complemented, the steps that will happen with the defense reporter. but first, the baltimore sun has this headline as many of you know he was a guest here on our program. if you put in his name, you can find the interview that he did with us on the washington journal. it says here that he is now setting his sights on

legalizing same sex marriage. also, front page of the baltimore sun this morning, on the issue of gay union.

you can read more of that in the baltimore sun. michigan, democrat, your predictions for the 112th? caller: first, merry christmas, everybody. you know, as a working man, i see i'm going to get screwed. i had republicans telling me that i need a tax cut to keep money in my pocket. then they turn around and tell me that i'm overpaid, i need to get my pay cut in half and give up benefits. i don't need a pension. i just can't understand how people can work the men and women in this country can follow republicans like this.

there's a study, university of maryland did a study and they found that the people that watch fox news are literally just stupid because of all the misinformation on fox news. it's just -- oh, my god. you've got people like dick cheney, trent lott, newt given rich, all these people are draft-dodging cowards. they all received draft notices. host: what's your prediction looking forward? caller: now these cowards are saying give me a game here gay to die for the country. host: let's hear from a republican in new york. gary, you're up. caller: i'm a republican, like you said, and i'm lower income. and i believe in giving the upper 2% a tax break for this 112th congress for two reasons.

one, being that the jobs are going to come from these people. number two, being that entrepreneurs should be rewarded in this country. this country was built on free enterprise. and for people to succeed in exceed and become the upper 2%, i think it's very constitutional for this to happen. thank you. host: in other news this morning, the "new york times" report that is with u.s. leave company skirt iran sanctions.

host: connecticut, brian, independent line. caller: i don't think this congress or any other congress is really going to get a whole lot done until we get big business out of our government. and back actually into the hands of the people. because there's just so much influence from big business into the congress. actually, throughout the entire government. i don't know. it just seems that the government always leans towards the more rich and the multinational corporations. i'm a retired veteran and it seems like the only reason we invaded iraq is -- i understand stability and it was a good thing getting rid of saddam hussein as a horrible dictator. but it's ensuring our interest

of keeping our low oil prices here, which is a good thing for us but if you go to buy oil over in say france you'll pay three times what you pay here because they don't have the deal that we have with the saudis. host: another issue that's likely to come up with the 112th congress is what to do about fannie and freddie. a story in the wall street journal also in the "wall street journal," many judicial picks aren't confirmed. back to your phone calls.

vancouver, washington. steve on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. merry christmas. my prediction for the 112th congress is this. the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the american people continue to get screwed. host: all right. plantation, florida. tom, republican line. your thoughts. caller: i would just like to say that -- and i blame the press for not demanding this. that when republicans and democrats have a debate or if somebody wants to make a point, you never see the numbers. when you have a point to make, clearly inform the american people with a graph or a set of numbers. we never see them. all we hear is philosophy. i remember there was one of these morning programs, i can't remember which, on sunday.

you always have these big discussions about philosophy, about what to do. and they turned to this one lady, she's new, she's written a book, and the lady said the problems of government are pretty simple. we're spending more than we're taking in. and it was like a breath of fresh air. it was like, wow, what a great revelation. host: so what does that mean for the 112th congress? caller: when they come out of their meetings or when they are discussing something, anything that appears on the news regarding the budget or the cost of a program or the trend lines of medicare or medicaid or social security show us the numbers. quit -- you know, one group says that social security is ok. yeah? well what are the numbers that indicate that you're right? host: speaking of numbers, the "wall street journal" this

morning has this headline on the front page if you go into the business section of the "new york times" they have this 4

so that's the "new york times." two different headlines for you this morning. also on retail sales, marketplace section of the "wall street journal" says this. fort myers, florida. philip, independent line. talking about predictions for the 112th. what do you think? caller: hi. i have a question for you. what kind of chance do uff of dying in a car accidenten your way to work? or do you have the slightest idea? host: what's your point? caller: ok. what are the chances of you getting blown up by an al qaedaen terrorist?

host: what's the -- caller: why are we spending billions of dollars fighting a war that's a slight threat to the american people? host: what's your prediction for the 1129sdz? caller: my prediction is this. i'd like to continue what another caller brought up. and i want to read a sentence that i wrote in a let tore senator sanders. when we hear math matcal facts governed by that be that which is discussed on the floor of the house and senate? my prediction is we will continue to hear demagoguery so that people that get into high positions in our government can take us into unnecessary wars to profit for oils and companies that are posting record profits, the defense contractors that eisenhower spoke of will continue to profit immensely and the american people will continue to vote for them to fund it. and until we have people willing to vote for candidates that are not the puppets of the two parties, probably the worst

thing that an englishman thought of with regards to the senate, we will continue to have lobbyists control what happens with our tax dollars. host: that's philip, independent. we'll go to paul, a democrat in tulsa, oklahoma. caller: i don't like the 112th, i don't think it's going to do anything at all. it's going to be the same old rhetoric. all it's going to do is put dollars in politician's pockets. and since both parties are training politicians, you don't know when they come up to speak, you can't tell which one is the one to vote for and which one isn't because they're all the same. until they correct that and start being correct instead of politically correct, this nation isn't going anywhere. host: thehill is reporting yesterday that joe miller in that alaska senate race

expected to make a decision on further court action on monday. alaska senate candidate joe miller will consider his options and his legal right ballot battle over christmas. he will be considering options over christmas and expects to announce monday how he will proceed in his challenge against senator lisa murk ow ski. host: maria, are you with us? we'll move on to wesley -- maria, good morning. caller: i've been waiting a long time. host: thanks for waiting. caller: well, you know, i hope and pray the lord almighty god that this government gets everything straightnd up and everything is back to normal like it used to be. i have no idea what happened with the republican party. i don't know what's wrong with them. i wish they would increase their mentality and talent to put this country back in order.

i don't know. i have been a republican for a long time and i will continue to be but i have not seen anything strong about them to overcome the other party. i want jobs to create jobs, i've been looking for work for about a year now. i can't find anything. i come from overseas. i come from italy. i've been in this country for 45 years. i've been an american citizen, proudly to be. but i want to see some difference. i want to see the way the country was back, the way president ronald reagan did take care of this country. and also george bush. you know, i don't know what happened. we never had this problem before george bush left. host: ok. we'll hear from an independent. wesley in kentucky. go ahead. caller: yes. you hear all these people just like this lady before me there. it's not the government.

it is the government in a way. because the people are the government. you keep electing this leaders, fleece bags to go up there and represent us. they don't represent the american people. it's a very few. industrial, your bankers, your lawyers. 90% of congress and the senate are lawyers who cannot make it out here on their own. host: what's your prediction for the 112th based on your comments? caller: they will not do one thing except finish killing this country. by the next -- hello. host: we're listening. go ahead. caller: all right we'll move on to brenda in mobile, alabama. democratic line. caller: i agree with the last caller. he's right. they're representing the rich. what the president needs, what

he said the other day about securing the borders, they need to be done. but what they need to do is change the law and he needs to call the troops back, change the law so that they can fix the border, the shipping lanes, and everything so the troops can do that. change the law so that they can . and go ahead and secure the dream act so the children that's been here a long time can stay here. that's the second thing. so all that money that's been spent over there can come home and we can start building in this country. host: one last phone call here. connecticut, bob, republican, go ahead. caller: yes. what i would like to say is that i am a republican and that i feel that the republicans and democratic party once and for

all do have to come together. what they need to do in this country, stop all the fraud. social security fraud,maker fraud with all the doctors. they need to stop writing laws. this country has more laws it will ever use in anyone's lifetime. stop writing laws. those laws cost us hundreds of billions of dollars each year they tie up our congress, our leaders in the state and start using the money more towards helping others get back to work, get the blue collar industry back to work again. corporations. and stop the price gouging. all this with the cost of fuel. you go to any local market to buy a soda, you pay $1.80 here, go up the street and you're paying $2 for the same soda. host: coming up in 45 minutes we're going to turn our attention to religion and politics. but first, a discussion on implementing that don't ask don't -- the repeal of don't

ask, don't tell. we'll be right back. >> listen to historic supreme court cases on c-span radio. saturday, the constitutionality of displaying christmas decorations on town property. >> with the possible exception of the cross, the nativity scene is one of the most powerful religious in the country and most certainly one of the most powerful christian symbols in this country. >> it shouldn't take a

constitutional crisis, a terrorist attack, or a financial clamty to summon from each of us and from this body collectively the greatness of which we are capable. nor can america afford to wait. >> search for fair well speeches and hear from retiring senators on the c-span video library with every c-span program since 1987. >> on c-span later today, speaker of the house, nancy pelosi and other members of congress light the capitol christmas tree. and president obama and the first family attend the annual pageant of peace. later on the 50th anniversary of the first televised presidential debate, talk about the preparation for presidential debate. christmas day, former prime minister tony blair on the role of religion. radio host garrison keeler talks about humor in public life. and former supreme court

justices sandra day oh conner and david suiter discuss life on the high court. >> washington journal continues. >> here to talk about the implementation of the repealing don't ask don't tell law, and i just want to begin with what president obama said the other day at his news conference about what happens next. >> in the coming days, we will begin the process laid out by this law. now, the old policy remains in effect until secretary gates, admiral mullen and i certify the military's readiness to implement the repeal. and it's especially important for service members to remember that. i have spoken to every one of the service chiefs and they're all commited to implementing this change swiftly and efficiently. we are not going to be dragging our feet to get this done.

>> swiftly and efficiently. not going to be dragging our feet. what does that mean in real terms? >> that's a good question. first, essentially the chairman of the joint chiefs, admiral mike mullen who has been an advocate all along, and the secretary of defense, have to essentially say the military is ready. and that there's going to be no decrease in the effectiveness of recuting, retating the soldiers they already have. so that's going to involve training and education. now, the study that they did back in they released just before december 1 said essentially that they were going to have to focus in on some key areas and combat troops are one of those areas. marines and army units and combat seemed a little more wary than the rest of the military did. the rest of the military essentially said, about figures that were around 70% that this

was going to have no effect on unit cohesion, as they put it, or morale. and could even have a positive effect. so that's essentially what they're looking at right now. host: so there's a certification process. how are they going to go about doing that and how long might it take? guest: during the process they're going to do this training, education, focus in on these groups that the survey said could be problems and could have some concerns about it. and then once they decide that, ok, we've done this training, we're ready, then the chairman of the joint chiefs and the secretary of defense are going to send a letter to congress saying just that. and from that date it's going to be another 60 days before the law actually changes. before don't ask, don't tell ends. so during that time, the pension officials have emphasized it's still in effect. so somebody comes into a recruiting center and says that

they're gay, they won't people out in the military even during those 60 days, the same as a soldier, he could still conceiveably be kicked out of the military. that hasn't happened since secretary gates put in an administrative decree saying only the senior civilians at the pension could make those decisions. and of course they're all obama appointees. so in essence it hasn't been in effect for a little while. host: so what are you hearing from your sources about when they would -- when you'll see 2 end of don't ask, don't tell? guest: that's a great question. i think that was our first question after the bill was signed. and it was tough to get an answer on that one. they were a little bit reluctant and very reluctant to say. and they said they just couldn't. as the pension's top lawyer said, well, it won't be too

quickly. we don't want to go about it too quickly. but we won't be dragging our feet either. like the three little bears, not too hot, not too cold. just right. but any clarity beyond that was tough to get. i can't imagine it going beyond 12i. i think that would be considering feet dragging by the president. secretary gates said he knew that the white house would be watching the pension very close throy make sure in the military's parlance there wasn't any slow rolling. >> and what are you hearing from capitol hill about their role if you're either in support or opposed to repealing this? what role could capitol hill play? >> i think it's in the pentagon's hands to go about this training and there was a movement by senate minority leader mitch mcconnell to say it shouldn't just be the chairman of the joint chiefs and secretary of defense gates that certify this. it should be the head of the marine corps, the head of the

navy, the head of the air force. and that was defeated under objection from senator lieberman who has also supported repeal. but it would have made it trickier because the surface chiefs and they're called have different views. now it's going to happen. the head of the marines corps, the commandant, general amoss has expressed his reservations. he as relatively new guide to this position and he had a roundtable with reporters a couple weeks ago. host: and what were his reservations? guest: we asked him. he was saying all along this was going to affect unit readiness. the question was, in what way? how are you concerned that it's going to affect unit readiness and cohesion? the bond between soldiers. and his response was, it's hard to say he didn't know exactly, but it would be a distraction during a time of war. and that was a bit controversial a statement.

he was one of the first service chiefs to send out a statement as soon as the law was passed on saturday and he said he would step smartly, to quote his letter, and take the lead on this for the marines corps, make sure all marines were treated with respect and this was something he was going to do with great vigor and immediately. so he wanted to emphasize that he understands civilian command of the military and he would continue to do that. but certainly the marines, the army, there have been more vezzf reservations than say the navy that has said it shouldn't be any problem, and the head of the navy said recommended it during congressional hearings while the head of the army and the head of the marines corps didn't. host: so on this certification process then, who is in the room? who makes the final decisions? guest: that would be the joint chiefs. the heads of the services will

all be together. but it will be secretary gates who will ultimately say that we're ready. it could be ie next couple of months. there have been concerns about whether the military could do this a little more quickly. some of the gay rights groups have sent letters saying, listen, don't ask, don't tell was scombplemtted within 40 days. surely the military has already thought about this. they have a plan for implementation. and so could we do it a little more quickly. host: on that plan for carrying out the repeal of don't ask, don't tell, 87 pages on how to carry this out. and there are, according to the "new york times," detailed and at times explicit recommendations for how to do this. host: and at times slightly humerous too. as people were kind of reading this in the pentagon halls it was almost notable for its real specificity with, ok.

they laid out a series of hypothetical vignettes. so, which were interesting. for example, say there's a chaplain and the chaplain is condemning homosexuality from the pull pit and saying it's against the laws of god and that marriage should be between a man and a woman. and a soldier hears that sermon, as part of the congregation and objects. you know, what happens? so that was one of the scenarios in this hypothetical series that was part of the supplement. and the military's response was, you know, that the chaplain has the right to free speech. the chaplain can say that homosexuality is a sin. the soldier can also raise his objections and perhaps there could be meetings between the chaplain and the soldier, but in essence that's something that military chaplain can say. so that's, those are goin to be tough things to wrestle with in the times to come. benefits are a big question. say you're gay and you're

married in a state that allows you to be married. ok, what happens with your partner benefits? i mean, as a military spouse, you're entitled to be able to shop at the base grocery store, the commissary and the base department store, the px. so you can shop there. you can have medical benefits, complete medical coverage. you're obviously allowed to live with your spouse in base housing. all of those questions kind of remain to be determined for military spouses. but in some cases remained to be determined. in others, there's no way that they will be able to have these rights because of actually the defensive marriage act which some people found surprising. a lot of people thought that was essentially symbolic law. ok, well, they passed this law, marriage is between a man and a woman, and a spouse must be someone of the opposite sex. that was the defense of marriage act in essence. will well, that is the federal definition of marriage. and the military doesn't go by

state definitions, it's goes by federal definitions of marriage. so under the defense of marriage act, there's no possibility of extending medical benefits to spouses, base housing is actually specified by your house as federally defined for no particular reason. that's just the way the law is written. but if you extend the defensive marriage act that means that soldiers who have even spouses, legal spouses in some states, can't qualify for off-base housing where you get a much bigger cash allowance for living off base with your spouse than you do as a single soldier with a girlfriend or boyfriend. so that can be controversial. at one point they said, well, the partners could live under base housing under child care laws. you know, if you're a single soldier and you need special child care, that could be one scenario where they could actually live there and it would be all right. but obviously those are going

to be tricky. now that's under appeal in federal court in boston that it was declared unconstitutional in july. so i think that's something that's going to be the next thing on the horizon that people are going to be watching. . .

the military has yet to study. host: here is her story. beyond "don't ask, don't tell," how is military planning to make it work? missouri. joe on of the republican line. go-ahead. caller: good morning. since we did the homosexuals a big favor by changing the "don't ask, don't tell" i wonder if we will be considerate of heterosexuals and give them separate compartments if they did not want to see in that same -- the area that the men share. guest: that raises a point that certainly the military has looked into, too. when they did a study, they were

curious about how heterosexuals would feel about ruling what the soldiers that they knew to be gay. throughout the military there is a sense that a lot of soldiers have served with fellow searchers that were gay and were aware of its, even though nobody said anything. asking how many of you live with someone who you suspected were gay and a fair percentage said they had. going forward, if the law changes, what would you do if you have to live, say, in a tent in a war zone where a lot of the soldiers' lives, in these large 100-foot-long tense, how would you feel about that? 30% said they would do nothing. it would be fine. another 30% said, well, i might talk to that person and maybe we can establish ground rules for living and how we live. about what about it but i think

another 20% said they might talk to a supervisor and see if i could change. and that is not a small figure. ok, what happens then? the military has said in that situation they would recommend against any special accommodation, if it seemed to be a large problem, the commander did have the authority, kind of reserve this authority in special circumstances to perhaps change things around and switch them up if it is a huge problem. but the burden would be on the soldier who had a problem with it because it is the law now and there's a not be other accommodations. bathrooms are another -- host: and there is a closed pit -- cost. guest: you raise a great pub. what they said is a great quote -- as far as separate bathrooms, this would be a logistical nightmare that we would not even want to begin to consider.

they said, well, to have three, and possibly four separate bathrooms -- all the reporters saying, four, who gets the third for shuren who is the fourth? in any case, and the of the scenarios said the military -- it would be a logistical nightmare, impossible to administer i think was the other quote, and it would hearken back to the separate but equal facilities dunaway it in the civil rights era. host: bob, democratic line. caller: i was a soldier for 21 years, at eight months, and i know from my time in the military that it was a very uncomfortable to think that you would be in a row with a guy that was a homosexual. you take showers together. sometimes and there are eight showers to one room. and to know there is someone

over there that is attracted to your gender would make soldiers very uncomfortable. this is the media and politicians pushing this along with the homosexual groups. i guarantee you and the average soldier does not feel the way the media and the politicians and the gay groups feel about this situation worse, because when you put these people in the room with a young heterosexuals soldiers, sometimes drunken the weekend, it is not going to work. guest: that was certainly something of that a look at that they thought would be a concern, just like the caller, showers. what they found in showers and the study found was about the same figure to they found on bonding -- buking in a tense. a 30% said they would probably do nothing, another 30% said, well, they might try to shower

at a time that was different from when they knew this guy would be shot waring. and another 20% said they would talk to a commander. they put shower facilities in the same category as bathrooms, four early when you are overseas on these bases. generally they are big trailers, individual showering stalls for men and women. a lot of these bases are tiny and men and women share at different times of the day because of these bases in afghanistan been the south, where you have the small basis. if you are a woman, you will go in there from 7:00 until 8:00, if you are a guide, 6:00 to 7:00, and those kinds of things would not change. something that would look at and there was concern about. i remember talking for a previous story i did it to a soldier who was gay and had been removed from the military as a result of that.

he was number one of his class at west point in leadership, number two in academics, widely considered an outstanding soldier, distinguished himself in iraq and afghanistan as a leader and then company commander. and then someone is centrally reported him and he said, well, i think maybe a handful of people knew that. and after he was reported, he told his commanders that, indeed, he was paired so, they began that process. during that time he said there was such an outpouring that the noncommissioned officers came up to him and said, listen, we always suspected that you were gay, what kind of had a feeling but we didn't care because you were above best company commander we had. i think that is what the the pentagon is hoping, that once -- to a large extent, it is often a

generational issue, that the younger soldiers coming up, it has been more of a part of their culture going -- growing up and they seem to have less problems with it. with older soldiers it can be more front. -- fraught. it seems to be that once they know they served with someone who is gay and they are competent and good leaders that is all that matters to them. host: vice president joe biden was on "good morning america" saying gay marriages inevitable. saying the country is evolving on the issue and he thinks it is inevitable there will be a national consensus. he says the same thing that -- happening with the issue of marriage that happened with gays in the military. changes in attitudes by military leaders, those in the service and the public about the repeal by congress of the policy will allow essentially gays to serve openly in the military.

it is still not legal in most states. president barack obama says his feelings are evolving but he still believes a strong civil unions that allows certain protections and legal rights that married couples have. that is the ap report. orlando, florida. david. caller: i would like to thank you for taking my call and merry christmas. are you there? host: we are listening. thank you. caller: i actually think that this whole thing about gay marriage is a whole lot to do about nothing. as far as bunking and showering, they have been doing it all along. what is the difference. have c-also like to span do a show on the people who have been -- will have lost their careers and lost their -- who have lost their careers and their livelihood, that the people who asked don't seem to have to have paid any penalty as

far as i can tell. i do not think that is fair to the people who have been outed. and i just think about the whole point of having a military is to win a war and nothing would scare the other side worse than knowing that if they came over and bombs are cities that we would send 10,000 gay marines after their ass, and that would be a very big deterrent for a lot of the arabs -- host: we will leave it there. let us take the point about those already outed. guest: the same stories deep -- story that i was talking about, he got a call from a battalion commander as the study was moving forward and he said, listen, i know you are out of the military -- he was removed from the military as of april.

you are the best company commander i have ever seen. and i want you to come back into the military when this all changes. and this guy said, it was his life, his ideal career. he loved being an officer in the army. well, now, he is really grappling with that because it is a career he loves but at the same time he compared it to a bad marriage and divorce, so he's got all of those feelings there. it is something a lot of soldiers are grappling with now. a previous caller raised the question of whether -- ok, someone -- if somebody in the military now says, listen, this is not the military i joined. i did not want to serve necks is somebody who is gay. i want out now. he can't get out -- which is what the pentagon determined.

he can finish up his commitment and then leave. but if he is unlisted and has two years left, that will not be an option. that is another issue that will be on the horizon. host: california. baba on the republican line. caller: good morning. it i can't -- i am an older veteran and i have a question. what was wrong with "don't ask, don't tell?" it works fine unless you have an activist who says, look at me. i did not understand it. it will lead to nothing but trouble. you will have heterosexual saying this guy harass me and gays saying they are picking on me. nothing but trouble. i do not know -- people trying to tell us how to live, what to think and how to react to things that a lot of people do not approve on. guest: bob raises a question that you heard again and again -- what was wrong with "don't ask, don't tell?" it seemed to work fine.

plenty of congressmen were sitting in the hearings, it is a widely ask questions. i think the answer appears and the answer from the chairman of the joint chiefs who has been a strong proponent and a leader of advocating for a change of the long saying it -- the law is that it is about integrity and it forces soldiers, marines, air men who have signed up to it essentially risk their lives and give their lives -- the highest that you will get for your country, and they have done that willingly. and then we are asking, as mullen said, then to live and die and that is not fair. that was his main issue, an issue of integrity. that was something that secretary gates echoed as well. from the perspective of the gay soldiers, what i heard again and

again is that this line -- lie, it tears you down over time. you start to feel like a deceitful person even though you never considered yourself that way. you would be open about it but even a good friend, a good colleague says, what did you do over the weekend, it can't quite say, well, i went to see this movie with my partner. that it gets really difficult over time. that is certainly what you heard from of a gay soldiers. four other soldiers rural setting, what is wrong with "don't ask, don't tell" i think the military is saying the same laws and provisions in place now for things like -- if somebody comes on to and you are not interested, whether you are a woman or a man, it is not cool. you have to be pretty sure that the person you are interested in

and express that interest in it is about your same ranked -- not a subordinate that you have power over. that has been the case in the military. of course, for generations now. so, you can't -- since women joined. those are the same laws that will be in effect, the same prosecution they will make it you violate laws, what you are man, woman, gay, straight. ads -- host: has there been an analysis of what it means if benefits are extended to partners of those in the military? guest: i think that is a great question and i think a lot of have a living will depend on the defense of marriage act. there are certain benefits that you can extend that it could conceivably extend to your same- sex partner. they are not the huge benefits that are things like the health care, which would be huge,

housing, which would be bigger. but things like, if you die, who is your beneficiary. the best -- death benefits, benefits. you can choose who that person is and going forward in the future you can choose who that person is. host: let's go to elisabeth on the democratic line in new york. caller: thank you for taking my call. my problem which this "don't ask, don't tell," they should have left it the way it does. a lot to consider themselves christians and what not, but my bible says man should not lie with man and woman shall not lie with a woman -- you cannot make davies, you have dysfunctional children who think two mommies all -- are right.

if they want to live that life, keep it among themselves. i think the american people should vote on what they want. congress is doing one thing. you have a group of we're saying one thing -- they are right, they are right. no, i am sorry, i did not believe they have that right. host: we got your point. grass roots efforts on the other side. host: at division -- active isn't -- active vision into revealing. i hear anything on the other side? guest: that was a u.s. senator mccain made. when this study came out, before it was released, gates and mullen says this is not a study of whether we are going to do this but how we are going to do because this is something the president said he wants to do. this pentagon study is all about how we are going to do this. that raised huge waves on

capitol hill during testimony. how can you say how we are going to do this when congress has not voted on it yet. does that seem a little presumptuous or premature? that was the republican objections after the study came out. fine, you have the study saying 70% of the people are relatively ok with this or think it might be a positive thing but certainly have no objection, but you have not really studied whether they once -- want this, do you want this. mullen says it sets a dangerous precedent. we did not do things in the military by referendum, asking each soldier how they feel about going to war, how do you feel about charging this hill. the military leadership makes the orders and the soldiers carry them out. that was their chief objection.

host: that sort of brings up the question, then, if these generals who were not in support of appealing as are not just following the chain of command because president obama is commander in chief. guest: that was an issue mccain raised as well, a great point. is this kind of coercion? do these guys see the writing on the wall and know what you want to say and are they just saying what you want them to say? that was kind of addressed during the hearing in early december. gates and mullen came on the hill and testified and supported this appeal and then the next day, the day of testimony that all of us as reporters were head of marines, navy, army, air force and they gave their individual assessments. that was interesting because they certainly said they felt very free to put forward their objections. that is what they did. there were several of them that

dissented from gates and mullen on that point. they certainly aired those views but now the law has changed and they are saying stepped smartly and we will salute and carry them out. host: looks like you have the pentagon plan for implementation in front of you. has this been made public? guest: it is. they handed it out during a briefing but generally once they do that for us that means it is pretty public. you can get on line at the defense.mil website, an area for the press that would like that has transcripts. it has a little column for studies. i bet if you click on that you can put the study. host: defense.mil -- guest: it could be defense.gov. host: baltimore, maryland. anthony, democratic line. good morning and merry

christmas. caller: i would like to say one thing about an elephant in the room that nobody discussed, if we don't repeal "don't ask, don't tell" we have to deal with what we just went through, stop loss. people were not allowed to get out because there was no one to replace them. last year we had the highest rate of military suicides because people did not want to stay in. more people killing themselves than ever before. also, if we don't repeal it and we do have -- the general, i think of the marine corps says wait until after combat operations but if you wait and this, that becomes a vietnam or worse, we are going to need them and to replace those who are dying over there, and with "don't ask, don't tell" the draft would be ineffective because if the column people everybody will say they are gay.

they will not have to leave the country. even if they are gay or not, they will claim they are gay. and they are over there, and they do not want to stay, they claim they are gay. these soldiers don't grow on trees. guest: that was a huge concern of the military, what is this going to do to our recruiting and retention of soldiers we already do have. the caller raises a point, too, soldiers who are gay -- there were reports of some soldiers who decided they did not want to be at war anymore and a crazy -- pretty easy way to get some straight home was to say you are gay. on occasion officials said it happened and nobody committed it going through. that will end. of those soldiers will have to stay. for the rest, that was something they studied very closely and not only did they ask soldiers, all right, if this law changes will you get out, but they ask

family members, how do you feel about your husband, your wife, continuing to serve any military with other soldiers who are gay. for the most part, it was the same kind of figures they were seeing in other questions on the survey, 70% said it would not have any affect on whether they would stay in the military or not. certainly as the camera pointed out, any impact on that and soldiers on -- caller pointed out, and the impact on that and soldiers during wartime is an issue of concern. one other marine on a panel said recently that i saw -- said -- thought was interesting, to me, the larger security issue is having these -- this guy was serving in afghanistan, having translator's sent home from the field because they were gay, they were being investigated for being gay, somebody else

reported that. not having those translators in the field was a huge national security issue. and not having those specialists is a huge issue. i bet if you ask any soldier or marine, would you rather have a gay interpreter or no interpreter at all, they would say i need an interpreter, please. and i think that although wartime -- military officials argue it is not a great time to do this, others say, it might be the easiest time to do this because soldiers of other things to think about. all they care as back -- is whether the person next of them is competent, can they should a weapon, lead a force, can they do what they are asked to do and do it quickly and well. if all those things are the kids, usually the rest falls into place. host: williamson, georgia.

caller: talking to a 30-year veteran of the united states air force and marine corps who is -- has commanded operational units and in my humble opinion, watching this in the grass roots level, it will be an unmitigated disaster. in general casey testified on the hearings on this and that -- general casey testified that the hearings would go as smoothly as of that integration of women in combat units. if that is the case, we are in for a terrible time. the integration of women into combat units has not, i repeat, not been seamless. it is the source of most disciplinary problems in the units. the relief of commanders, the morale is in the toilet. and i suspect it is going to be the same for this. host: can i stop you right there

and ask you a little bit more about that? what are you hearing the most about the integration of women in the military that caused these problems? caller: not hear the most, seen the most. host: what is the refrain? caller:well, it for example. right now there is an f-16 female pilot pregnant with her second child out of wedlock with two separate fathers, both of the fathers have been severely disciplined his for fraternization 90% of my disciplinary problems were mailed as female interface related. -- male-female into this related. it has not worked like you think. another point, the survey. on the survey it said 70% said it would not i fact their decision to -- affect their

decision to retain. what is 30% of our work force? 30%, counting the reserves, over 500,000. if that 30% said they will not stay or not inclined to stay, that is 500,000 military personnel going to leave because of the implementation of this policy. guest: certainly, again, the caller raises a point that the military was greatly concerned with the during the investigation that went into the study, how is this going to affect the retention of our troops and what about the 30%? that is the sort of thing they will be addressing in the months to come, what does the training look like and how do we address these issues that people have? how do we get to the heart of what their concerns are and make sure they want to stay in the military?

host: california. gerry, republican line. caller: i am a retired marine master sgt and i can tell you right now, they can change everything tomorrow because it is not going to change -- make any difference for certain people. i would like to ask you a question or make a comment. do either one of you know what is on an i.d. card? four items -- your name, social security number or whatever number they use, there is your religious relations so you can receive your last rites, somebody giving your last rites in the field, and the last one is your blood type. if they make every american living under what they are going to make the guys in the field fighting -- i am not talking about -- you say 30% -- 7%,

about 95% of the people do not go to the line and actually engage in either attacking or repelling people that they are fighting against. those people that are fighting, the reason they have your blood type, when they run out of plasma, someone with your blood type who i think is o- positive can take your place and will give you a transfusion. if the person is gay -- i would like one of you two to say that if i am hurt and there is a person that is gay, i have no idea what is going on, that that person is going to give me a transfusion, there is going to be a problem because 30 years ago we made a mistake in the united states, we did not allow people to be quarantined that had aids when they knew it was being passed primarily --

guest: we got your point. jerry raise the point, what to do about blood. that is a point in the supplement there. it pretty simple -- they said they would not do anything differently, that the screening measures will continue to be in place, that they are good screening measures -- some one hiv-positive, under any circumstances, that will not make it into the blood supply into the screening measures and it should be just fine. host: dublin, virginia. aegean, democrats' line. you are the last phone call. caller: the issue i wondered about and i have not heard it discussed, if you talked to a lot of senior officers, especially retired senior officers, you will hear words about there is too much religion right now in the u.s. military. you also heard on the news that being told that you could clean

up the barracks or go to the christian concert, religious groups disturbing christian bibles in afghanistan. i am wondering how much of this fundamentalist religious groups, how much they are influencing what is going on in the military in terms of repealing "don't ask, don't tell?" guest: now that it is long -- law, it was certainly a question before it was passed but now a lot of people saying that is the answer. but certainly in the months to, issues like religion is going to be something the military will grapple with. the example we talked about earlier this hour about chaplins, it's a prize a lot of the people who read it in the supplement. -- its surprise a lot of people who read it. people uncomfortable with the idea that this could happen, too. i think that isn't in the military will be looking into in the months to come. host: anna mulrine, thank you.

we would turn our attention to religion and politics. we will be right back. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> this weekend, q&a continues saturday and sunday with an abuse from london labor party shuttle minister for public health on her government's plans and her experiences as a minority in parliament. sunday, comparing the british and american forms of government as we talk about elections, in a pack of money in recess, our prime minister, taxes, social

issues, and the cost of living, q&a this saturday and sunday night at 8:00. later today, speaker of the house nancy pelosi and other members of congress like the capitol christmas tree and president obama and efforts family attend the annual pageant of peace. later, on the 50th anniversary of the first televised presidential debate, michael the caucus and charles gibson talks about the preparation for a presidential debate and impact on campaign. a christmas day, tony blair and author christopher hitchins of the role of religion, garrison kelioer talk to the cuban public life and sandra day o'connor and david souter discuss life on the high court. "washington journal" continues. host: sally quinn is with us this morning, founder of "on faith," interactive forum on washingtonpost.com, celebrating

five years. i wanted to begin with why did you begin this discussion and have you accomplished what you set out to achieve? guest: actually, we just celebrated our fourth anniversary. one more year to go and then we are taking -- [laughter] i sort of backed into it as a journalist. i began to see that there were so many stories that involve religion that i didn't think that we were covering in the paper. i just didn't think we were covering religion. if you look at "washington de" or yesterday or a before, we have front-page stories on religion almost every day. something. it just talking about ks in the military. that has been a religious issue. the marriage is a religious issue. abortion. national politics, foreign- policy. and it just seems to me there was this whole large issue that

we were not addressing. so i started writing memos and saying, i really think we ought to be covering religion more and i think it has such a huge influence on so many areas of our lives. i did not get anywhere. i had lunch with the publisher and owner of the washington post and we -- said we need to this of the about religion and he said why don't you do something on the website. i said, well, i don't know anything about religion. and i certainly don't know anything about the internet. he said, well, never mind. aboutu feel that strongly it, go ahead and do it. so, i did. at that point, too, i was an atheist and had been an atheist all of my life. but it was something that i was passionate about, the subject of religion, that i find that many

a these are. if you look at people like christopher hitchins and richard dawkins, a major atheists and are passionate about the subject. so, i enlisted jophn meecham, editor of "newsweek" and religion scholar and said i have no standing in this arena at all, but if you would join me as co-moderator, i think we can do that. he said, why not, let's try it. i do not think anybody thought it would go anywhere. it has really taken off particularly in the last -- i think there was sort of a turning point when the issue of the mosque at ground zero came up. which is not a mosque and not at ground zero, but i had been friends with imam faisal for

years and were both on my panel so we were all over the story six weeks before it even became a story. i have interviewed her for "the washington post, what did a video interview. i think when the story broke we were so on top of it that people in the paper and the website said, religion, gosh, it is not like people did not see that it was an issue but i had a feeling that there was that moment where people began to say, we really do need to focus on this. it is one of the top-10 features on the whole washington post website. the traffic is growing and people are seeing it. you look at the last election or any political election where religion becomes a huge issue. sharron angle and christine o'donnell basically saying i am running because god told me to, this is got a's plan for me.

the election coming up you will have mike huckabee and sarah palin and george romney -- no, mitt romney. [laughter] who is a mormon. then you look at the situation with islam in this country. you have 20% in this country believing the president of the united states is a muslim. and if he says he is not a muslim it puts him in opposition because it sounds like there is nothing wrong with it -- i am not a muslim, not that there is anything wrong with it. you should not -- then when they have the glenn beck rally on the mall they were calling him a black liberation audiologists -- theologian, because he had been in jeremiah wright's christian church. they were accusing him of being a christian and a muslim at the

same time. our goal for "on fe closed what is to educate and inform people and i think you cannot -- "on faith close " this to educate and inform people. host: let us go back to resistance from a journalist perspective, doesn't come from the idea of separation of church and state? guest: absolutely. everybody -- journalists are genuinely -- generally more secular than most of the populism did 90% or 95% believe in god. in fact, around the world. in fact, there are more secular journalists than end of regular population. i think there is a real queasiness about where you draw the line, at one -- what point does it go over the line?

do you teach creationism in school? i think most journalists would say, no, you did not, because it is a religious issue but yet they teach in school all over the country. do you have gays in the military. in a way, that is an issue of separation of church and state. almost every issue that you bring up can be about separation of church and state. i think that becomes a huge issue for most journalists. you know, you really do walk a fine line because you say, for instance, this whole issue of the national portrait gallery where there is an exhibition on gay or their roddick homosexual love -- erotic homosexual love and there was a four-minute film of an 11-second image of christ

sweatpants crawling -- or a cross with an axe crawling around. the catholic league objected to that end many of the conservative christian members of the house and senate started talking about how this was not acceptable, that the smithsonian get government funding and therefore they were going to repeal the funding, take the funding away. putting the museum in a most awkward position. that is an issue of separation of church and state. it does the state really have the ability to say we are not going to put something in the museum if it depicts christ because we don't want to funded. should they be funding it in the first place? you have faith-based organizations, the white house has a faith-based organization that does give funding of certain areas where people --

social activists, but they also have religious affiliation. just any number of questions. and each one, you have to look back -- act on a case by case basis. should we have "in god we trust" on the queens and should we say "one nation under god." the issues are there -- host: are you an atheist today? guest: no. i could not defined what i am -- but when john meaham did this together, we had a 3 1/2 hour lunch -- he said, you are not, and i say, yes, i am. he says i tell you why you can't be an atheist. i think to be an atheist is to be a negative person, to take a negative position, i am against something, i did not believe something as opposed to being a

positive, having a positive view of something. he also said in an nothing about religion -- which was absolutely true. he said, go out and do some reading. here are a bunch of books to read. and i learned something about religion and then come back and tell me and if you decide you are an atheist, that's fine. christopher hitchins is one of the most well-known -- read people i know and he is a devout atheist. but i didn't -- did begin reading and one of the things of that changed my view about religion is that i learned so much about other faiths that i began to -- i was quite angry about religion. in fact, i would have to say i was contemptuous about religion, because i felt so much evil had been done in the name of religion that i did not see the good in it. when i started reading and i started to see the good in a lot

of religion, a lot of faiths. and many of them. there are things about every religion. that is why i cannot possibly say what i am. people want me to define myself. i can't say. i think that -- i am going to national cathedral tonight, for instance, for the christmas service which was started doing three or four years ago with my family, and my husband is still in shock -- what happened to you, you were an atheist all of these years. but when i go to national cathedral -- my son was married there in october -- i do feel a sense of of the divine. i feel there is something transcendent that is happening in that place. what it could be is more yearning than anything else, yearning for something that is more important, that is bigger,

unknowable, but whenever it is, that appeals to me. and i have made so many friends in the world of religion and one of the things about "on faith close " is that it is a conversation and we include people of all faiths and no doubt face of we have a is an agnostic and humanist and muslims hindus, buddhists, evangelicals, right wing and left wing, hindus, wiccans -- you name it, we got it. it is a constant conversation. we have a panel questioned. we ask people about their faith or questions about eight every week. this week -- is christmas a christian holiday. the answers have been a really interesting. actually there are more people who celebrate santa claus and shopping than people who

actually celebrate the birth of christ, and yet it has become a national holiday and many people -- christmas is my favorite time of year. i have always loved christmas. even as an atheist -- a great tree and an angel and the christmas carols and all those kinds of things. so, we celebrate faith and we want all different views, we want to have people get to understand and learn about other people's points of view. so, if you have a discussion about gays in the military or gay marriage that we did a couple of years ago, bishop eugene robinson, who is a gave bishop, write a five-part series about biblical interpretation of homosexuality, which was really fascinating. and i interviewed him at great length.

i did a video interview with anee rice " -- anne rice, who grew up catholic and then became a fee is for 30 years and then went back to the catholic church and then she decided she rejected the catholic church because of their position on homosexuality and a number -- abortion, a number of things. and just two weeks ago when she was here she went to the national basilica, the shrine, for the first time she sat -- set foot in a catholic church. she has had this incredible and up and down relationship with the church and with god and her faith. for me, every single person i interviewed, i always ask them about god, what does not mean to them, who is god, and i ask a piece the same question and i never once have the same answer

because the legend ultimately is a very personal thing. you can belong to a religion, you can be part of the rituals and the religious community but in the and it is your relationship with what ever hire our you decide it is that matters and no one has the same relationship. host: religion an impolitic is our discussion with sally quinn. sarasota, florida. joe, independent caller. are you there? you are on the air. caller: america was built on the christian values and if you look at the past 20 years, with the black of christianity coming -- more from of the atheist point of view, look out that the society is. you can't talk about god in school but get kids can act anywhere it -- any way want to get the less christianity there is, the more problems.

host: if you go to the "on faith " forum there is a discussion about whether or not christmas is christian. one posting who write to this -- what do you think? argue with that? do you want to weigh in on what he had to cite? guest: this is one of the things -- what we are trying to do is educate people and when someone says joe says -- is sensibly he says you cannot be a good or moral person without being a christian. that is insulting to billions of people around the world who are not christian who are decent people. belies thes totally whole idea of what christianity

supposed to be. it is supposed to be inclusive. if christ was nothing, he was a conclusive. every man is created equal and every man is created in the image of god. so, the idea that christ would exclude someone because that person was not a christian is completely the antithesis of everything he stood for. the fact is that some people just don't believe in christ -- jews don't believe that jesus is the son of god. i would venture to say that some of the most religious people that i know are jews and muslims and hindus -- would you say that the dalai lama was a bad person because he is not a christian? it does not make any sense. i think that point of view is a

bigoted and narrow minded. i don't bring this country has changed because a lack of christianity. when he talks about the politicians, when you look at politicians who get in trouble and end up in jail or hold it in scandals, they are all christians. somehow it seems that if you are a christian you can say i let down my face and ask for forgiveness but if you are not a christian you don't get to say that. i think by reading "on faith" there are points of view -- you can say, my god, they are wonderful and good and decent people. this is not a christian country. yes, it was founded by christians. it was founded by christians who left england because they wanted to get away from being persecuted.

and there were certainly christian values this country was founded on but we are not a christian nation. barack obama said that. we are a nation of many faiths and no faith. and people are moral because they are decent people, not because whether they believed jesus christ is the son of god. host: the pew forum breaks down the religious composition. we can just go through the percentage -- jim, republican mike. go ahead. caller: good morning. can you hear you -- can you hear me? i would like to question -- do you have to be a christian to celebrate christmas? my background, i hold to the historic orthodox christian faith, the faith of luther and calvin and others, but you certainly do not have to be a

christian to celebrate christmas, that is obvious. i think our country now has kind of, and has been for a long time, you have christians who celebrate christmas, the birth of christ and do the mangers and all those things and then you have of the group -- other groups who have a mix of that plus more secular giving of gifts and things of that nature, and then you have, i think the majority of the people in the country today moved away from the traditional celebration of christmas can we have that. but i kind of agree with martin luther, he says if you put all religions on an equal footing, that means every man gets to go to in his own way. -- gets tofgo to hell in his own way. guest: that is a great line.

host: dan, independent. caller: religion -- i see unfortunately the way i see it being used, is it is a scapegoat. we can claim a believe and god or higher power to justify our irrational actions, things that we do that are completely counter to of the message of the bible that we do. we turn around and almost say we are doing it in the name of god and you have all the politicians doing a prayer before they start. to me, if we are not really in charge of the planet, too, and someone is looking over and as long as we say we are sorry for

all the bad things we are going to have them, then -- why have any responsibility for anything? it is a way to excuse bad behavior. guest: i agree with that. i don't think religion has anything to do with whether you are a good person or not or whether you are a moral person. i think that is intrinsic in each person. some people believe in heaven and and some people don't. the fact is that none of us knows really where we are going or whether we are going anywhere after we die. i think to talk about the fact that if all you have to do it is to say you believe in god or a certain date and you will be saved and you will go to heaven, and, you know, as many religions to say that people who do not believe what they believe will go to or should be killed,

depending on how an extreme the people in those religions are, is just to have zero understanding of what religion is about. because the basic tenets of all religions is the same, which is the golden rule, and that came from confucius long before christ and it is due on to others as you would have others do unto you. and it seems to me that if we all live with the golden rule, then we would have a lot fewer problems. it is when people say my role is better than your role and i know and you don't know and you are going to hell if you do not believe what i believe in is, i think that ignorance. host: i want to get your reaction to john wilson's column. he writes, the christians over emphasize christmas? he says and placing some much emphasis on christmas, some

people say christians fail to grasp the meaning of their own story in which eastern should clearly take higher place. when we celebrate one, we celebrate the other. guest: that is his point of view. host: what is your reaction? guest: what i think is christmas celebrates rebirth, renewal and hope because christ is born, that is the idea of it. christ the savior is born. that is what christians believe. easter is the resurrection, which is christ is reborn. who can say what is more important? if he was not born in the first place he would not have died and be resurrected, so you would say christmas is more important because without kristen -- christmas there would not be christ. we don't even really know christ

existed. he probably did, and he certainly was a great profit. christians believe he was the son of god and people who are not christians don't believe that. but as far as the christians over emphasize priced at christmas, i don't think so because that is what it is all about. but i think there are plenty of people who see this as a secular holiday with christmas trees and santa claus and present, a time of giving and it also coincides with the winter solstice which is the darkest and shortest day of the year. the whole idea of rebirth -- and this year was an extraordinary year because there was an eclipse of the full moon on the same night of the winter solstice which has not happened since the 1600's. so, there is something symbolic about -- and we know that jesus was not born on december 25 and

that it was originally a pagan holiday. so, of the idea of the winter solstice and christ being born is a renewal, once the darkest day of the year is over we have only light to look forward to so that part of the meaning of christmas is as and ports and toole a lot of people -- not simply, but as the birth of christ. >> a viewer in arkansas -- guest: well, i think that is true. you know, i think a lot of people who have problems with

the separation of church and state, who still feel we should have prior in the school and religion, theology should be taught in school, and i believe that religion should be taught in school the same way you teach history or art or music. i don't think you can be fully educated in any of those subjects or philosophies if you don't understand that religion came along with those. particularly part and music drew so much from religion. but the idea that the separation of church and state is there is as important, and i think a lot of people who are religious don't see this -- actually could be more important religion than it is for the secular. if religion becomes important

and is not separated, then at the state can start dictating to people how they should believe. then you have a theocracy. that is what happens in a lot of muslim countries. they have a theocracy, which is that the government basically dictates what your religion has to be. host: on this topic, another e- mail, from kentucky. guest: well, that is true, although i have to say that it is really impossible to separate politics from religion. people use religion in order to get elected, because so many politicians believe that this is a christian nation and they believe they cannot get elected

unless they are christian. that may be true. we will see a gay president before we see an atheist president. it would be stunning to me to have someone run for president and say, "i am an atheist, i don't believe in god, vote for me," and people would vote for them. i don't think that will happen did you cannot really keep religion out of politics. in washington, it is interesting, because washington has been a secular socially and politically, the city itself, for so long. when people go out of washington, they have to run with some religious -- they have to say "i believe in god, god bless america, my family and

faith," they have to make some sort of declaration of their faith or they cannot get elected. there is a feeling in washington that that is something that they have to do out there in order to get here. often it is very hypocritical. a lot of the people -- i know people who run who don't believe and yet they have to. you cannot get elected if you are not a believer. host: politics and religion came up during the lame-duck session. senator jon kyl of arizona talked about majority leader harry reid and the idea that they might work on christmas eve. >> so we have worked over the christmas holidays, but i don't think it is desirable if one considers the needs of our constituents to occasionally see us back home, the needs of our families, and yes, i did say i thought it was disrespectful of one of the two major christmas

holidays of the year. but this is where i will conclude -- i think it is disrespectful of the senate. >> perhaps he has been in washington too long, because in my state, casinos throughout the state of nevada, ranches, they have to work hard on holidays including christmas to support their families. the mines don't shut down in nevada on christmas. people work. host: he also said, "i am a christian, i don't need to be reminded of the holidays from my republican colleagues doctors watching that, the use of religion in politics, -- for my republican colleagues stock was watching that, the use of religion in politics, what you think? guest: religion has no place there. jon kyl can say whatever he wants, but harry reid makes a good point, that there are

millions and millions of christians who have to work on holidays. the people in government work for the people of the united states, and if they don't have their work done, they should work on christmas. people work on many different holidays. there are people who work on the yom kippur, the most sacred of holidays for jews. nobody complains about that. it is not an insult to the congress or to suspect congress to have people working on -- or disrespectful of congress to have people working on yom kippur. host: mike has been very patient, on the democratic line. caller: what i am basically wondering, because i hear a lot of things and see a lot of things on the internet -- is it your experience that santa and

satan spell the same way as a coincidence? in the bible, it says that jesus talked to the lawyers and doctors -- this was on the passover. it was on passover and it was his birthday, that was supposed to be about his birthday -- what i'm trying to ask you, though, is that what i've seen on the internet -- a long time ago there was wild tribes of israel -- blacks, latinos, indians, haitians -- and then the 13th try came from -- 13th tribe came, new jews, and they're having problems with pakistan -- host: mike, what is your point?

caller: i just want to know if some of this stuff is true. you seem like you are not in a religion, so you would tell the truth a little more. guest: mike, i think -- i don't know where to start. [laughter] i think you probably have misinformation on a number of those issues. santa and satan is and you want to make, and i probably should have bee -- is a new one to me, i probably should have known that, being the moderator of "on fayed." there are some parents might agree with you on that. [laughter] if you go to "on faith," you probably learned a lot about religion. host: phil on the republican line.

caller: one, i just wanted to comment on ms. quinn's conversion from atheism to believe. to me, it was pretty much the same thing. i was an atheist until the late 1960's, when i was in vietnam. to me it was very intense and personal. for most people of belief, it is a very intense and personal thing. out of ottawa on the -- i want to follow up on the pew research and the number of evangelicals. i want to know if you have any sense of the undercurrents going on within the evangelical movement now. it became coopted by politics in the 1970's and 1980's and seem to be the natural channel for conservative christianity are even evangelical christianity, to make a dent in politics. there is a movement away from that to get back to where

christianity was at the time when the arts would flourish, art and music and literature. it seems like a quite separatism were evangelicals, at least a lot of evangelicals i know, were interested in doing, rather than trying to influence politics, influencing arts and literature and music in areas like that and live our lives quietly. host: banks, we will leave it there. -- thanks, we will leave it there. guest: let me to say that i have not had a conversion from being an atheist to a believer. i am no longer an atheist, but i would not call that the conversion to it is just reading and learning, and one of the most depressing things about reading and learning about religion is that the more you learn, the more you realize you know nothing.

i've become more pluralistic and more understanding of other faiths. as for -- what was the second part of the question? my own faith -- --t: talking about parts guest: oh, yeah, and evangelicals. you are absolutely right about that. there's been a huge shift, a schism in the evangelical community, a shift among some evangelicals away from the hellfire and brimstone and senators and all the kind of thing -- and sinners and all the kind of thing to what can we do to help our fellow man. rick warren is one of the leaders of that movement. they are people who say that we are here to help each other. they not only talk the talk, but

walk the walk. what to do to help those less fortunate than we are. let's show the good and what -- the good in what we do. i think also, what a lot of people realize i talking about -- what a lot of people don't realize i'm talking about politics is that there is a difference between evangelicals and the tea party. the evangelical movement is much more of an outreach movement. tea partyers are less interested in helping other people and more interested in politics and economics and finance. -- and more interested in economics and finance and politics. next fall.

caller: greta, you do an outstanding job. i agree with the e-mail that it is personal, and religion has no place in politics. when joe lieberman ran on al gore's ticket, i wrote him a very strong letter begging him not to talk about his religion, because i thought it would cost him votes with the anti-semitism out there. he responded with gratitude about my interest, but he did not agree that he should not talk about his religion. i was unhappy with ms. quinn's response to the e-mailer that it would be a great difficulty for an atheist be elected president .

i am an atheist but i voted for a man of god like jesse jackson and jimmy carter. to me, religion -- i do not consider religion all when i cast a vote. host: you always voted for democrats? caller: with one exception, when weicker, if there were republican who i thought was courageous with his anti- nixon -- a liberal republican who i thought was courageous with his anti-nixon stance. host: so without faced voters -- faith voters, there were not able to -- there are cuts were not able to keep the house and senate. caller: i disagree that it had to do with religion.

guest: well, i think that you are wrong. i think that it has to do with religion. i wish that you were right and that it could be possible for an atheist to be elected president, not just the person -- not just because the person is an atheist and may or may not have the same beliefs as others. but i'm afraid we are a long ways from that. you mentioned a joe lieberman. joe lieberman is an interesting question. yes, we have anti-semitism in this country. it is not as overt as, for instance, is, pho -- islamophobia, but it is still there. joe lieberman is an orthodox jew, a very observant jew. i think he did the right thing by talking about his faith, because it is so much a part of who he is. it could have cost him votes. on the other hand, an awful lot

people saw him as being the devoutly religious person and that appealed to them, that the idea is that he is a man of god. we are all part of the aipac faith -- abrahamic faith -- i say "we,"that being the perception, is long, judaism, christianity did -- islam, judaism, christianity. if he had said he was an atheist, that would have heard a lot more than if he said he was jewish. host: 1 last culprit -- one last call. caller: i always identify myself as the truth all were of christ -- true follower of christ because i follow the word of god. when you say religion, there are

so many definitions, but it is just the belief of one person, and that one person may impress other people to think as they do and you had a group. but according to the bible, there are only two religions, the religion of god, righteousness, and the religion of satan, sin. upon these tapes, all other religions are built -- these faiths, all other religions are built upon. guest: there are many religions and faiths and ways to believe. you happen to be a christian and those are your beliefs. i urge you to read and study and learn about other religions, of their faith -- other faiths, because i promise you it would be a real eye opener for you to understand other people's faith.

in the end, what is about is that we are all looking for meaning in our lives, a sense of the divine. what is important is what gives each at one of this meeting. what may give you meaning is different from what may give me a meeting but that does not mean that you are right and i am wrong or vice versa. host: if she goes to the "on faith," will she find different types of writings -- guest: everybody, all faiths. host: "on faith," on the "washington post" website. sally quinn, thank you for talking to us. coming up next, we will ask you to look back at 2010 and give you the best political moments. we will be right back.

listen >> to historic supreme court cases on c-span radio. saturday, the constitutionality of christmas decorations on town property. >> with the possible exception of the crosscut the nativity scene is one the most powerful christian scenes in this country. >> the c-span network spread to

provide coverage of politics, public affairs, not the -- the c-span2 works. we provide coverage of politics, public affairs, history. find our content any time through c-span video library. we take c-span on the road with a digital bus and local content vehicle. washington your way, the c-span networks. created by cable, provided as a public service. >> "washington journal" continues. host: with the next 45 minutes of "road to the white hous," -- for the next 45 minutes of "washington journal," we want look back at the top political moments. one that has come up is president obama after the november election and what he had to say about that.

>> as i said after the midterm elections, we took a shellacking, and i take responsibility for that. but i think what has happened over the last several weeks is not a victory for me, but for the american people. the lesson that i hope everybody takes from this is that it is possible for democrats and republicans to have principles of disagreements -- principled disagreements, lengthy arguments, but to ultimately find common ground and move the country forward. that is what we did with taxes. those arguments of not gone away. i still believed it does not make sense for us to provide tax cuts to people like myself who do not need them when debts and deficits are growing. that will continue into 2011, and republicans feel just as strongly on the other side of that.

host: top political moments of 2010. phyillis in illinois, what do you think? caller: what has been achieved as been meaningless as compared to what should be done, which is bring our troops home and put them on the borders to protect our country. other than that, this tax relief program is just a bunch of malarkey again, because people in this country are starting and there is no -- are starving and there is no way we will be able to pay these taxes, our deficits, without jobs. unless we start putting our tariffs -- the president has that power to stop imports for it as far as china goes, with poisonous goods and foods, they should be sued --

host: we're talking about the top political moments of 2010. republicans agree capturing the house after four years of control by democrats. here is john boehner, the incoming speaker, after the election. >> as you heard me say last night, i am humbled by the trust the american people placed in us. this is a time for us to roll up our sleeves and go to work on the people's priorities, jobs, cutting spending, reforming the way we do business. it is not just what the american people are demanding, is what we are expecting. the real question is this -- are we going to listen to the american people? republicans have made a pledge to america, and our pledge is to listen to the american people. that is exactly what we're going to give. host: david, a democrat in

oregon, top political moment of 2010. caller: a couple of things. first, the constant badgering by mitch mcconnell and now he's dow -- he sounded exactly like republicans hating o jimmy carter in the 1970's. on the don't ask don't tell thing, how no one has discussed the ramifications of ethics on the gay community. i am a gay person myself, i believe the only way to change the perception for the coming years is that the ethics of gays and lesbians serving in the services are exemplary. host: before you go, would you put repealing don't ask don't

tell as one of the top political moments? caller: absolutely huge. i have been a gay activist in oregon and nebraska and kansas also. there are so many good, loving people out there who understand that people like me, when we tried to get in in the 1980's, question no. 10 was "have you ever or will you ever or will you ever consider having sex with the some one of the same sex?" it was every offensive question to me, because i am very much a patriot. i was raised by republicans. i'm very patriotic. host: "the baltimore sun," front page, "the evolving views on the issue of the union. it could be a game changer in the debate after the signing of the repeal of don't ask don't tell.

white house officials indicated that there was more than a personal reflection behind obama's comments about gay marriage. the immediate goal, the white house said thursday, is the of the clinton-era defense of marriage act. he has not given a timetable of when he might change his mind, if ever bought w -- if ever." top political moments of 2010. caller: as far as it relates to our constitution, one of the worst was the passing of the health care bill. i would like to see the upcoming to thes returne us constitution as a form of governing our nation. the second thing relates to your last guest saying that america

is not a christian nation. the supreme court of the united states and the 1890's -- i'm sorry, i cannot give you the exact year -- said that america is a christian nation. that ruling has never been overturned. thank you. host: he brought up the health care vote. that is an issue that scott brown of massachusetts ran on. he won the seat of ted kennedy. >> tonight the independent voice of massachusetts has spoken. [applause] from the berkshires of boston, springfield the cape cod, the

voters of the commonwealth defied the odds and experts. an independent majority has delivered a great victory. [applause] i thank the people of massachusetts for electing me as your next united states senator. [applause] host: scott brown's victory is number one on top political moments for "the fix," chris

cilizza' s column in "the washington post." "one of the biggest upsets in modern political memory." democratic line, what do you think? caller: good morning, mary christmas. one of the worst was the supreme court ruling allowing unregulated funding by corporations. what i don't understand about these questions -- what they don't understand about the same from christ, as difficult for a wealthy person to get to heaven as it is to pull a camel through the eye of a needle. sally was wrong about not having an atheist president. we already had one, his name was

ronald reagan did never went to church today in his life, -- a day in his life, had astrologers and the white house. john boehner, i remember when he was passing out corporations on the floor of the house -- passing out contributions on the floor of the house. host: cbs news, their number one is republicans taking the house. go ahead, susan. caller: good morning, mary christmas. host: merry christmas to you. what is a top political moment? caller: the partnership between dick armey, freedomworks, fox news. all of the energy and effort was put behind what we define today as the tea party. i think there was a second one

. i am a viewer of that c-span every day. i found it interesting, the shift that happened in sees that as well, and the partnership that has been developed c-span -- between c-span and the american enterprise institute. host: there is no partnership between aei and c-span. we at think tanks, republican, conservative, liberal and perspective, and to our bu -- at progressive, and do our best to balance every prospective. tom. caller: merry christmas to you. about c-span, no doubt about it, you guys are the most unbiased of any media there is, print or tv or radio.

the glenn beck phenomenon, the march he had in washington, d.c., his talk radio show, talk radio in general, and blocks -- conservative media and blogs. if it had not been for them, it would not matter if scott brown had one -- politicians don't really matter. it is a groundswell in this conservative talk radio and television and media that have really escalated right now republicans holding the mantle as the conservative party. many of the same people would gladly be a third party if there is a viable option. i think that is the biggest thing in 2010 and 2009. host: scott brown is no. 5 on

cbsnews.com, top 10 political moments of 2010. uawer: for me, i'm a proud worker, and it would have to be the midterm elections, where republicans pick up, and i want congressman -- my own congressman, a good man, 100% afl-cio voting records, and he lost. republicans gained control of a lot of state legislatures about america. to 20 yearsto12 before democrats -- there will be in the wilderness. host: we will go to derek,

republican in california. caller: charlie rangel would be the top moment of 2010. when he said, "i am being investigated by a committee run by me for tax problems," that was absolutely hilarious. he got himself into trouble there. i thought it was funny, the double standard by politicians and regular people, or normal people who pay taxes or don't pay taxes, go to jail, but politicians who don't pay taxes stay out, are still politicians. host: mike, you are on the air. caller: first off, that you port c-span. i agree that you are the most unbiased media out there. it is good to see compromise coming out here recently.

i think both sides have pushed to be too polarized. another good thing is days and the military and he pushed for gay marriage -- gays in the military and pushed for gay marriage. it is an extension of the suffrage movements. on the bad side is the american crossroads decision, and i'm disappointed about the republican midterm elections, but that was the expected backlash. host: arkansas, leonard is an independent. caller: that would have to be gays in the military. i mean, but just letting someone sexualslating someone's orientation -- that just takes me back. i listen to a lot of conservative radio stations and i hear their point of view.

i don't hear the liberal point of view. it is not a difficult point of view for me. that is their sexual orientation. what does it have to do with anything? i am not against it or for it. just to see the sexual orientation on the back of black and minority groups and the rights they have fought for and given their life too, and comparing it to someone's central edition -- someone's sexual orientation, and the president -- it baffles me that the people belittle my racial history, and someone's sexual orientation, to see this is baffling. host: republican, texas. caller: good morning. certainly, the midterm elections

would be the most significant moment. i think of what america was saying, that we were so upset about the health care bill being pushed through by democrats. americans did not want to see that happen again. we wanted to make sure that we got republicans to fight against something simply being pushed through without any real aeffort to discuss with both parties involved. i hope that going forward, republicans do not take this to mean that america is behind t heir current idea, the politicians' idea of what conservative values are.

we cannot legislate out of this. don't ask don't tell being turned over, i think that is great. i hope republicans and democrats remember that this nation is that nation built on freedoms come individual freedoms. as long as we don't step on other people's rights and property, we should be allowed to live our lives as we mean. -- chrisysali post,"'s column in "the "harry reid's victory over sharron angle. he was in the need of a miracle and he got it in the form of tea partyer angle. it was the most watched senate campaign in the country.

democrats pulled through a tight races in california and washington to and maintain control of the senate. the question was whether the senate would fall. it did not." top moment for you, annette. caller: good morning, and happy holidays. two questions -- the don't ask don't tell bill, if i am not mistaken, was introduced by ex- president clinton but why did they not come at him when he was serving? no. 2, i heard it mentioned th at there are constitutional rights here. i am not familiar with the constitutional bills, i want to know where to find this to see how it fits in. host: this this appeal of don't ask don't tell a top political moment for you?

caller: 8 your pardon? host: was it a top political moment of 2010? caller: to me it was. host: why? caller: because the issue is on the desk of the now-president and he is faced with it, but the one who opposed it was not discussed until the day -- who imposed it was not discussed until today. i was concerned with how this works. why, why? host: tim, you are on the air. caller: i believe the 2010 election was good, and i also believe that the politicians are still not getting the message. they are going against the will of the people, and that is what i have to say about it. host: louisville, kentucky, stephen, and that it. cal -- an independent. caller: my top moment of 2010 is

that you will prove me wrong andt it c-span has had ch "cthor of a book called street." host: if you go to our video library at c-span.org, you concern yourself. missouri, go ahead. you with us? all right, we will move on. massachusetts, claude is an independent. caller: i have to take us back 10 once. -- 10 months. on a saturday they came in to work on health insurance reform. you remember that? can you producer but output of that?

it was a saturday -- pender producer put up a cup of that? it was a saturday. they had a poor old guy who basically destroyed the double that day -- the gavel that day. the moment was, he said, "you guys can have a one-minute speeches, non-embellished," and democrats came out and threw out his speeches, unembellished, and you remember this. it was saturday, they were working hard, and republicans came up with parliamentary points of order, grovel grovel grovel. finally, they get to go up there. every speech they made was , ands -- embellished

was a disaster. the behavior on mostly the republican side of the aisle was an abomination. host: a "the washington times" is reporting rules put forth for the next congress, "we the people." "house republicans will make sure that the constitution gets more than lip service. the incoming majority party called for a full reading of the constitution, the countries founding document, on the floor of the house. the goal is to bring back some of the principles into everyday legislating." they also proposed new rules on spending, the appropriations process, and the budget. republican. caller: the 2010 top

political moment has to be the coalition of independents, democrats, republicans, and tea party movement that calls for common sense government. we the people are coming and we're looking forward to the next 112th congress. host: ok, we're listening. is that it? caller: that is it. merry christmas. host: all right, next caller. caller: the citizens united decision which will forever change the way elections are done in this country. host: ok, detroit, republican. caller: great show, merry christmas. the top political moment was the supreme court decision to allow

so many donations by anonymous donors, which swung to this election. that supreme court decision that allowed on president amounts of -- unprecedented amounts of money it to brainwashed the tea partyers. the power of propaganda is scary, and it is bought by money. host: houston, texas, democrat. caller: one of my moments was colbert, the "take our jobs" thing. it was really entertaining.

i don't know if it was appropriate for the senate, but it was funny and cool. and watching, was the baseball guy's name, sweating it up there. there are more important things that happened this year, but those were funny. host: chris cilizza -- "the 'i am not a witch' ad." >> i'm not a witch. i nothing you've heard. i'd you. -- i'm you. none of us is perfect, but none of us can be happy with what we see about us politicians who think that spending and backroom deals are the way to stay in

office. i will go to washington and do what you do. and christine o'donnell, and i approve this message. i'm you. host: we are talking about top political moments in 2010. maria, new orleans, louisiana, independent line. caller: one of the top, defining moments -- there were many -- the 111th congress was a series disaster all around. with the repeal of don't ask don't tell, and what we have done is weaken the nation, because what we're doing now, mr. obama and the progress, is dismantled a country, what they attempted to do is weaken the military, and once you weaken the military, as scripture says, once you bind a strong man, you bind the house.

that you, i appreciate that. bye-bye. host: ralph, pennsylvania, a good one. caller: good morning. on health care, the mandate thing, i don't understand why we are mandated to pay income taxes which they elected officials -- pay elected officials, their benefits, and yet it is unconstitutional for them to have coverage for themselves, and we pay income taxes for the elected officials. host: ray, what is the top political moment of 2010? caller: the election in november and the citizens united supreme court decision. a gentleman from this area was saying that he disagreed with that decision because, in his mind, that money that was allowed to flow into campaigns

was a negative thing. however, the race he mentioned, a candidate was outspent by over four times, and he had more outside money, and he still lost. the significance of that decision is not that the unlimited money is corrupting, it is that the people, no matter what, will have their say. host: new jersey, roland. caller: good morning. it is obvious that it top of 2010 for political moments was the omnibus bill, before any of the senate was able to look at it. $1.10 trillion to be looked at in just days before anybody has an opportunity to vote on it,

having a session on at the weekend. it is ridiculous, pathetic, and the united states government, in one short amount of time, has to go everything > -- has to go through everything to keep everything running. that is a disgrace. host: the one for a continuing resolution -- caller: only senate appropriations had the opportunity to look bad it -- look at it. over the course of the year, nobody had a chance to see it or go through it, and was stacked, like a brick. anybody else was trying to get money out of the banks, which all are closing, going under, is that accura -- it is pathetic. host: pennsylvania, ryan on the

democratic line. caller: got a shellacking. the people have spoken. obama is a puppet. the federal reserve has no competitors. i cannot choose my money from anybody else. governments fall apart, putting material from you. ventriloquist's everywhere. we have a problem in the government. host: ok, don on the republican line. -- donna on the republican line. caller: merry christmas, everyone. you know, i am a christian, and whether you believe me or not, this can be proved because -- host: yes -- caller: are you there?

i thought i got disconnected. when president obama started taking over car dealers and you had car dealers who are having no problems, at what people out in new orleans -- fish are okay to eat but they cannot keep drilling for oil. another that is my health care, they said nothing would change, and that is not true. i already have rationing, i have medicare, and they are trying to force me into another drugstore. i have a private drug store i deal with. i am losing doctors. the whole thing about it is -- i have known for years about what the bible says about one the end times,, and it talks about the government takes over everything, and it is happening.

and whether you are christian or not, there is proof in the bible, you just have to read it. host: florida, good morning. caller: merry christmas to you. my very first one, obviously, is the evening in november when i found out that those political speakers in february were thrown out of office for not doing the people's business. and every time i hear a collective, egalitarian, progressive said that for some how or some reason or another by mine to be made up as to whom i am going to vote for after four months of robocalls and tv advertisements every two years. host: steve on the republican line. caller: i am from jersey so i

have a mixed opinion but i am a republican but i am turning independent. my biggest moment would be in november, but i think the greatest moment -- the lady governor of hours standing up and say we have got to secure this country. we have kids -- between the drugs coming here and the cartels at how they don't care for their own people, 34,000 people dead in four years in mexico? give me a break. this woman just stood up and said, but " i'm sorry." the supreme court said they are going to sue you, and they have no right to sue any state. a lot of precedents are coming out of what this woman did, probably the greatest moment of

2010. host: independent line, spring hill, florida. joyce, top political moment of 2010. one last chance. all right, we will move on. atlanta, georgia, earl, independent line. caller: i think the biggest political boondoggle i have ever seen is to reduce its huge problem -- a huge problem, healthcare, down to one person or administration. this problem has been in place for tickets and will not get solved by lawyers and politicians -- for decades and will not gets off by lawyers and politicians. the only person who can solve the medical problem are doctors. the history i've been reading about medicaid and medicare is shocking. it has never been solvent, from

day one. it was eight times more on the cost that the johnson administration -- than d. johnson administration had decided to say that obama or bush or clinton would solve the problem is tennessee. -- is fantasy. host: a "rally points to 2011 cheer. with hopes for the u.s. recovery encouraging investors to put billions of dollars out of bonds." that is "the financial times" this morning. it looked at data by "the wall street journal" -- there are openings in different markets. front page of "the wall street

journal" this morning on the economy. "the new york times" as a different take. "little momentum in different gauges of economic recovery. as analysts try to gauge economic recovery in housing and the job market, and despite the upbeat trend in retail sales and increases in personal spending, sales of homes remained at historically low levels last month and the job market shows little signs of momentum." that is "the new york times" business section this morning. "the wall street journal" -- thet shoppers flcokeocked to web." "the washington times" -- " green is color of christmas." top political moment of 2010.

caller: i don't see much importance in the top political moments of 2010. there are so many opinions out there, and i wish we could get somebody to help us decide what is right. should we take the best minds and the country and put them together to collect this information going forward for the country? there are a lot of opinions all the time, and it does not matter where you listen. there is no real leadership. host: "new york times" has a story on the front page this morning, "president obama is set to shuffle his staff. he will make his first announcements and the opening days of january. the first section of the white house would be his economic team, and he will name a new director of the national economic council." if you are interested in that, "the new york times" this morning. joe, democratic line, you are

the last caller. caller: 94 c-span. thank you for the balance you bring to this political -- thank you for c-span. thank you for the balance you bring to this political system. the opportunity for congress and president of the united states to make a change in what happens in america is unforgivable. we elected democratic president, democratic congress, democratic senate with the hope that there would be to change. what it proved was that corporations control america's politics. for the opportunity to be wasted was the chance in a lifetime that we will never get again. i don't ever see any change as far as the democrats and republicans'