and the upcoming presidential election. shibley telhami offers his perspective on the future of the middle east region. later, former manager -- michigan gov. jennifer granholm talks about 2012 politics and clean energy and. "washington journal" is next. "washington journal" is next. host: good morning. the senate is in session this week but the house of representatives will be out for a vice-president joe biden is returning from a visit to italy and will resume negotiations with leaders. they will talk about the budget, taxes, and raising the debt limit. it will be a vote that will have to come before august 2. the president is in washington most of this week and he will host german chancellor angela merkel on tuesday.

another contender officially enters the presidential race, former senator rick santorum. will make it official tomorrow in somerset, pa. just outside of pittsburgh. we will have live coverage on the c-span network. the discussion this morning focuses primarily on what is in the sunday papers. the u.s. economy and a story we found from a gallup poll indicating that more americans think they will have to work after they retire. the numbers are on your screen. you can also keep track of our e-mail address, journal @journal.org.

let's begin with a look at some of the headlines. we want to also talk about the gallup poll that says a combined eight in 10 americans think it will continue working full-time or part-time after they reach the retirement age. more of these workers, 44%-36% say they will do so because they want to rather than they have to. overall, most workers expect to work part time after retirement age. 53% said they will work at least part time after they retire. we want to find out from you after you retire, will you work

and you have to work because of the financial situation or is it something you want to do? we also share with you some other news on the economy from cnbc. cnbc. they say most americans think the economy will not recover. it was posted because of the 9.1% unemployment rate. you can read that story at cnbc.com. we want to share with you from "the newsmakers" program our interview with sander levin. our phone lines are not working yet so we will get to your phone calls as soon as we can. the dow average had its long

this weekly slump since 2004. u.s. stocks fell this week sending the dow jones industrial average to its longest stock losses since 2004. this was after worse than estimate of reports on employment. the first call is michael from orange, calif., good morning. caller: is a glorious day. this is the ascension of our lord jesus christ. it is a good day to start out. i plan on working after i retire but i think a good question to bring up is why will social security, if you are retired, they need to up the retired, they need to up the amount where you can continue to work. you can only make x amount of dollars and had to stop working. that needs to be changed with the economy now. people can make more money. host: thank you for the call.

this is the story from "the new york post." will you work after you retirement age? all it is joining us from west virginia. caller: good morning. i worked until i was 72 years old. i look around me and i see all these young people that really don't want to work. i have neighbors in their 40's and 50's who are retired on social security and disability. i think that is what what is draining social security today.

one more thing -- i hear this revenue enhancement by these politicians. i know i am not very well educated. does that mean tax hikes? i think that's what it means. thank you very much. host: san diego, democrats line, will you work after you retire? caller: yes i will because i believe that continuing to work actually makes you feel younger and teach you feeling productive. i would like to comment on the new faith policy. i think it is another form of racism when you pick one black man against another, thank you. host: you can join the conversation on line as well. here is one.

troy mich., good morning. caller: i have decided just to relax and chill out. i will involve myself more in politics because i think we have a great president. to have a man jump up and say that the president has failed america two weeks after he killed osama bin laden, it angers me to see these type of felony charges and people doubling of our president, taking the side of bin laden against the president. when the president is into libya to save the people and one of his fellow democrats jumped up and thinks he should call a session of congress before he goes to save lives -- it does

not make any sense for it we have a great president. he went to the gulf coast with his attorney general and he was trying to get health care for america. we see him working hard every day. i have decided that my wife and i will go and campaign and do everything we can to help this president to make america what it is supposed to be. i think he is doing the best job that anybody can do in these situations. thank you. host: here's a story from "bloomberg business week pierre, k." that story is available online

at. bloomberg at. com. springfield, vt., good morning. caller: i am 72. i just got done after working the last 10 years. i need to work because i need to eat my home in winter time -- heat my home in the wintertime. host: this is a decision out of necessity? caller: it is both. i enjoy working. i got my cdl renew for the next four years and i will make good use of it. host: thank you for the call. from the "weekly standard."

judy is joining us from illinois, go ahead caller: these

are all over the park. you were talking about whether i will continue to work? here is the deal -- between 62 and your full retirement age of now 66 or 67, that is when they will take money away from neyouf you work over $14,000 per year. after full retirement age, they won't take money away. it will go into your taxable income but that will not take any money away from you. i intend to work but i intend to work because i live around retired people who sleep all day or so around and nothing all day. i cannot imagine my like not being acted. i would like to say one other thing about the economy. everything is slowing down now and the states are being hit with all this because the stimulus has been stopped. when the stimulus was going on,

things were still happening. teachers were still working and they could still keep the firemen going. as a result of that, other small businesses in these towns are starting now to feel the slowdown. it is because the republicans will not allow obama to continue to stimulate the economy. the government is the last resort. host: by the way, ben wirght wrote about that in politico this morning. he said this month's dismal he said this month's dismal judge report was driven by a

number of factors. it includes the ability of the obama administration to provide any more stimulus and the housing market remains in the tank. no economic driver of a strong economy and the secretary -- and secretary of the treasury tim geithner says it will be a catastrophe if congress fails to raise the debt limit on august 2. you can check it on line, politico.com.

will you work after retirement? the gallup organization had a pulled a can of this past week that said 80% of current workers and expect to work past retirement age. these are highlights of the differences in the retirement experience and the expectations of both current and future retirees. michael is joining us from memphis, tennessee, good morning. caller: i am fixing to retire after work. i believe this would take care of the health care situation -- i believe that any professional person that reaches the age of over 55, i think they should be able to work with no taxes. we were all of our lives. where we help people and when we are over the age of 55 -- and i'm sure many people feel the same way -- when you reach a certain age, you should not be

taxed and more. no taxes. if the seniors and baby boomers like myself don't have to work after retirement, if we have a doctor we can go to that did not have to pay taxes, i am sure we could get better health care and everything else. i think that would be a great idea. i will have to work because i don't have a choice because the health care will kill me. we're all going to be in bed ship with everything going on. ship with everything going on. it doesn't matter which politician is in there. if you are unemployed and your past a senior asian past retirement, you only have one way to go and that is get out and beg. host: thank you for the call. will you work after retirement?

is it a decision out of necessity or a decision of choice? fort wayne, indiana, good morning. caller: i will not work after retirement. the lady was saying the republicans should extend the

debt limit. they have done it twice. all the money went to the unions and was paid out to the bags that support obama. -- to the banks that support obama. it is nothing more than a slush fund. [unintelligible] the jobs created last -- last month were from mcdonald's. this is probably the worst president since herbert hoover. president since herbert hoover. host: give us a call. we have some new numbers on this sunday morning. as i said earlier, coming up as

representative sander levin, the top democrat on the house ways and means committee. every broadcast of "newsmakers" will be a 6:00 east coast time. we talked about taxes, the debt limit, and the latest jobs numbers. here is a portion of the interview. >> the labor department put out a report on jobs in may. they found the economy only added 54,000 jobs last month. this came out after a slew of other bad economic news on housing and other private sector forecasts on jobs in manufacturing. how worried are you that there's a possibility of a double-dip recession? >> i would not say a double dip is likely. it is clear that we have an economic challenge continuing. that is why i am disappointed in the house.

there is a lost sight of that. any effort to do something to stimulate the economy is just shunted aside. the answer seems to be cut the deficit and that will somehow work miracles. we have to cut the deficit but it surely will not work miracles in the short run. host: he is the top democrat on the house ways and means committee and he is our guest on "newsmakers"this morning at 10:00 eastern. his retirement a question of necessity or choice? the front-page story of " the new york times" -- there is more on the president's

reelection efforts. his campaign -- back to your calls -- will you

work after your retirement age? detroit, good morning. caller: good morning. i am 30 years old. i hit the baby boomers, man. they were given a world with good unions, adjustment for inflation, inflation was in the low teens and they had everything and they are jacking up the gas prices. andy are driving giant suv's 44% of the say they want to work after 65 because they are bored? do you have any idea it is for mike: defined a job and these people are bored? this is the world they are leaving for us?

we will write them a check every single day. we will give them free health care and have to put up with this? that is not host thanks for the call. s nuts. host: you concentre e-mails n. -- you can send your e-mails in -- we're joined from albany, new york, caller: good morning. i would like to tell everybody in that house behind you, they are allowed to retire at 55 and they get full health care.

their deal is better than all of ours. it would be nice if they lead and changed their retirement date to 70. that said, i am 52 host: you talking about members of congress? caller: i know members of congress can retire at 55 and receive their retirement and health insurance. host: the retirement is based on their years of service. most in the senate are well into their 60's or 70's. your retirement age is not based on the age. strom thurmond was 100 years old. it is based on years of service. caller: that is the way it is for all of us. their age is they can begin retiring at 55. i cannot do that. we're talking about retirement. i am 52 so i will get caught up

in this age 55 and younger. i also don't have a pension plan. i never really going to retire. i am just going to reach an age where i am no longer employable by employer where i can earn a decent salary. i will be let go for that reason. i am going to have to probably work two part-time jobs until i am 70 years old or older for as long as i can walk. i will not be able to afford anything. i will work and i want have the luxury of being bored. i will have to work to live, thank you. host: we are not here to defend members of congress. they do -- they get their fair share of criticism. the law was changed in terms of pension. it is based on their number of years of service and that change

in the 1980's and 1990's. is based on their years of service in congress or as a federal employee. let me go back to "the washington post" -- that is the story from inside

"the washington post." we will have live coverage of the announcement tomorrow as former senator rick santorum announces his republican presidential candidacy. we will let live coverage of cspan radio, television, and c- span.org. that gets under way at 11:00 tomorrow morning. seattle, washington -- will you work after your retirement age? caller: good morning and thank you for having me on. my husband and i are part of those vast silent majority couples that are already retired and we are not making it. we don't know what is going to happen to us. host: how old are you and your husband? caller: i and 68 in my husband is 71. we are both very healthy.

we are probably functioning on the level of a 60 year old. he planned to work until he was 753 had a job as a distribution and warehouse manager. that was his one career. he was earning a really good salary. salary. he was able to support me. i did not have to work. we live and of an expense of will place to live in seattle, washington. he got laid off in 2009. we have gone through all of our retirement savings, out ira's. we did not have the house paid off because we thought he would be working until 75. we nearly lost our home. thank god we did not lose our home. he is looking for work right now and cannot find a job due to his age, not his ability. no one wants to hire him because he is 71. i am going to be forced to go

back into the workforce at age 68 which i never thought in a million years would ever happen. i am happy and thankful that i am healthy and can do that. i would like to point out a couple of financial things -- my husband worked full time until age 69 when he got laid off and he was sending taxes to the government. he was also paying into medicare until he reached age 55. a lot of people are paying into medicare. we supported all those people before us as far as medicare went. we do a expect medicare to stay the way it is because we cannot afford to go to a doctor. we are living on social security. that is all we have right now. host: into sharing your story with us. good luck to you. here's a story about someone

getting a fair amount of attention -- after john edwards dropped out of the race in 2008, according to the book by his onetime aide, andrew young, he still hoped that he would get $50 million and access to the mellon private jets and he could lead a fight against poverty around the world. that was a profile of bunny

melolon in "the new york times." will you work after retirement age? chattanooga, tennessee, good morning. caller: regret that he feels beltway about baby boomers.

i was a penny per when i had to go to vietnam at age 19. i made the choice to go into the military at 18, because of the benefits that the military provided. the decisions that people make concerning their future, but will be capable of sustaining a decent lifestyle for themselves. that is my feeling on that. i hope the young man does not look at all of us baby boomers as something to do. when i retired in 60 years old, i am looking at another three months when i retire, of all want to continue to work. i will work as a volunteer and like other disabled veterans like myself.

it is about how you perceive this thing called work. thanks. host: the operative word is continue to work at 69. the question we are asking based on a gallup poll, will you work after retirement? many say a third of them will do so out of necessity. welcome to the conversation. caller: i am going to answer your question and get a comment and ask a question. that question is so interesting. will i work after retirement out

of necessity or choice? i will work out of necessity. if our economic policy were changed, people would not have to work. there is the idea of the american dream that you work for so many years, and then you have a nest egg waiting for you. enron offers a 401k and took it away. those people did not have a choice. they had to go back to work. there were people like bernie made off that stole so many people's nest egg. so they have to go back to work after they were retired. after they were retired. the question i want to ask is ,

will you be working after retirement? host: yes. the "atlanta journal constitution when >> has this article. -- constitution" has this article. there is also this headline that we showed earlier. the odds for a summer job not so hot. linda has this on her twitter page. that is the question. will you work after retirement age. new orleans. caller: where is the money?

very few people will hire me at 77. there has been a cost-of-living increase. with the gas, the food, and other prices going up every day, it is really rough. i think they are raising the retirement age and a lot of people will die before they reach that age. i think it will be a necessity. i think it goes by your income. i do not know if there is a way out. host: thanks.

you are one of our regular viewers. we expect to hear from you once every 30 days. caller: thanks, i will. host: take a look of the best. -- at this. edge water, fla., will you work after retirement?

caller: yes, i will. it is a choice and a necessity. a plan on going back to work in february when i turned 60. i have to go back to work with the price of gas and food going up. i plan on working. host: from upper twitter page. page.m our twitter if you want to get more information from this gallup poll, which is available on our website at c-span.org.

dick is joining us from canton, ohio. caller: when i was 61, [inaudible] the lady hired me part time, because i still needed health insurance. i have been there 15 years. you cannot cough on retirement if you do not work. it is too expensive. if you want to enjoy life, you have to keep working. retirement is not the home run everyone is looking for.

i am very tired of the party's going back and forth with their bologna. president obama is doing an excellent job. the republicans put us in the hole. it is sad that they cannot say they screw up once in a while. host: the house is out this week. one is in session and the other is out. is out. the press a -- the president hosting the german chancellor. we will show you some of the highlights. from one of our viewers on the twister page, here is this point. steve, newport news, virginia.

caller: i am 61. i have worked for the same government contractor for for three years. i pay everything off and own my home. 20% of my income is in my 401k. this country does not owe me anything. i expect to work until i drop dead. that is the way it is. i am tired of the entitlements. thanks. i will get off and a listen to the response. host: here is a comment from a twitter page. and ms. romney made an

announcement. -- mitt romney made an announcement. here is the sunday take -- it was the sunday take. the knicks -- next caller. caller: i am 78 and i still work part-time. part-time. [unintelligible]

host: thanks for the call. here is an obituary to someone quite familiar with c-span audiences in the 1980's. a top diplomat of for a career that began in the 1960's. he was known for his drive, his wit, and relied on his cane forced upon by a knee injury. he specialized in crisis often in europe. in europe. he was unable to keep yugoslavia -- there was this

exchange back in 2008. there was during a visit with president bush and mr. dingell president bush and mr. dingell buche eagleburger. he passed away yesterday at a a h of 80. h of 80. -- at the age of 80.

caller: good morning. i do not want to work after the retirement age, but my boss may have to let me. do you ever get john galbraith on? he has ideas about retirement. i think they are fed. lower the retirement age,. me and other baby boomers are retired. retired. all we have to do is take the cap off and make minor adjustments to social security. i think he should get him on to explain that. >> thank you for the -- host:

thank you for the call. the politics of winning it. a wild goose chase toward the conventional campaigning. here is a twitter page. norman is joining us from west virginia. good morning. good morning. caller: i am 86. the throughout my working years

my work provide the the retirement benefits. [unintelligible] we realize back then that so security would not be enough to live on. after i retired i had taken my own advice and a considerable -- a considerable amount of savings. my family would have to work

where there would have to use a great percentage of the savings to make sure social security moneys were available. i paid into social security, because i attempted to pay for my own retirement. even though we had been promised to have a so-called benefit and entitlements. it was that entitlement. we were entitled to it because we work for it. host: thanks for the call and

for sharing your story at the age of 86. one of our viewers saying take the cap off. one final headline from the western examiner. after this program is our conversation rep, and sander levin. he could face congressman gary peters. we asked him about it in the program. >> it looks like you and gary peters may be in the same district. >> i want a plan that is fair to

the people. each of us needs to look out before our own to see what this is all about. is all about. the districts can go like this. we can wiggle, wiggle. purely partisan political reasons. i hope the republicans can control everything and will realize this is bad. host: some of the issues in our newsmakers interview. newsmakers interview. coming up later in the program, we will turn our attention to the latest in the middle east.

we will talk about the economy with former michigan gov., but up next, a freedom forum wrapping appear in washington, d.c. the here are some other guests and topics making up the in the morning program. nancy is in our studios. >> good morning. c-span will repair five network tv talk shows. it will discuss the situation in the middle east. we usually begin with meet the press in the afternoon. today, we begin at noon.

we speak with a republican presidential candidate. also governor mitch daniels in indiana. chris wallace will speak with a former alaska gov. sarah palin. at 2:00 p.m., it is the c-span state of the union. a former director of the congressional budget office will be speaking. a former rnc chairman will also there. and bob schieffer interviews nancy pelosi and they will take a look at republicans in 2012. -- campaign 2012. it begins at noon eastern with

"this week" of nbc. you can listen to them all at c- span radio. you can also look -- listen to satellite radio or on line at c-span.org. >> it was not altogether a compliment, though -- although he regarded it as one. >> republican of thomas reed changed the power structure in the house. >> it overturned a long standing status in the house. >> mr. speaker on c-span q&a.

you can down on one of our signature interview programs online at c-span.org/podcasts. and eileen shanahan talks about reporting this weekend on "american history" television. we will also look at american artifacts, the museum resource center and the history of overflowing fidel castro. "washington journal" continues. host: we are talking with the executive to rector of the faith coalition wrapping up his weekend conference here in washington, d.c.

the fifth tryout for presidential hopefuls. >> they needed to come out and speak to the core audience. i think they had an opportunity to make their case in unique and different ways. some more new candidates. i think we are looking forward to continue to meet with them. we will continue to have canada it forms in florida, south carolina. they will have multiple opportunities to reach out during the primary process. a majority of the primary states. t party voters will know this is

the corps base that everyone has to have to win the nomination and beat barack obama in 2012. host: jon huntsman is in new hampshire this weekend. hampshire this weekend. they put his efforts in new hampshire and south carolina. guest: he is a new candidate. it is not so much -- he said he is going to south carolina. he had a great personal compelling message. he talked about his stance on

life and adopting children. it was a good chance for people to get to know him. host: john hunt met -- huntsman likely to be a presidential candidate by the end of june. >> i signed the bill that made second semester abortions legal and increased the penalty for doing so. i want women to know about the pain that abortion causes in an unborn child. i signed a bill that would put a ban on abortions in utah. 52 not believe the republican party's should focus only on our live -- one life instead of

our human life. host: he is called a moderate republican in utah. can he win at the debates as we move ahead? >> he talks about if you understand the economic and moral issues. we have to understand how to walk and chew gum at the same time. we have the voters that deeply care about the social issues. the concern is about the jobs and the economy and all of our supporters are just as passionate about those. they want to see a candidate and the importance of it.

host: this is a headline from the "the wall street journal" last week. here is part of what he had to say. >> traditional marriage matters. we need to keep that elevated on a platform. all domestic relationships are not the same as traditional marriages. they need to be protected. and mom and dad matter in a child's life. it is a cornerstone of our social fabric. traditional marriage is between a man and woman. host: that was a comment from

tim plenty on social issues. awlenty on social issues. guest: he is striving to fill some of the void left by my custody. ckabee. hubb tim is an evangelical himself. he will have questions to answer on the economic front.

that will come in the coming days and weeks ahead. romney officially entered the race. entered the race. the stock market dropped nearly 280 points. here is how he framed his discussion. >> did you hear what he said today about the unemployed americans? he said it is just a bump in the road. that is not a bump, but americans. people unemployed are not just statistics or bumps. if you have this number of people unemployed, there are college kids that cannot go to the next semester or go to college. there are marriages that

sometimes break under the strain of unemployment. you have people that are 55 years old, in the prime of their life, wondering if they will ever get another job. this is a moral crisis that we face in this country. host: he focuses more on economic issues. did he tell you and the audience but he was expecting. -- expecting? guest: some perceive it as a divide between a fiscal election and those that care about the moral issues as well. i think it is going to be powerful and resonate with a lot of voters. it is the new message that social conservative voters want

to hear. he has a background in fiscal issues and economic issues. that sends a powerful message. he has a beautiful wife to introduce him and talk about him being a family man. he will have an opportunity to play in iowa and others during the election cycle. host: our guest is a graduate of regent university and a director of the faith in freedom initiative. if you like to call in, the numbers are at the bottom of the screen. we are talking about the fate

and freedom coalition meeting get wrapped up yesterday. let me ask you about the comments made earlier in which dangles calls for a truce on social issues saying the focus needs to be on jobs and the economy. what was your reaction? guest: i was not sure what they were intending to get at. were intending to get at. if one party , the obama administration has not entered into that agreement and not said they would back off on funding planned parenthood and not defending the marriage act, that does not sound like a group of people involved in the truth. it takes two sides. i do not think any of the

conservatives want to say, we are going to unilaterally disarm. we have not seen other candidates rushing to embrace that truth. host: sarah palin was not there. men to what is your take on her possible candidacy? guest: she is a pound gorilla standing just outside of the race. if she gets into the race, it would radically change the landscape for everyone involved. it is a wild card that can be thrown in the race. she is the most unconventional candidate we have probably seen in the american political scene

for some time. we will never know what she is going to do. anyone who says they do know she is doing is dreaming. a lot of the media will say, she should not run. that may push for more into the race. tea party activists love her and her message. the historical emphasis is something that resonates. host: of elections are decided by swing voters. is there a concern that this -- as this republican process unfolds that they could move so far to the right, that it will be difficult for her or him to appeal to the swing voters? guest: i think it'll be an

economy and jobs election. social conservative voters will prioritize that. they want someone that can speak to all of the issues and make them important and understand they will fight for marriage, the sanctity of life, and they have to do those at the same time. it is a moral issue overspending and that we are racking up at our children's generation. 9.1% unemployment rate is weighing on the hearth in the minds of everyone. sarah palin has a hurdle to clear when it comes to a general election voters.

she has some time when she gets into the race. there is concern over the national security question ho. host: let's get your calls. albany, n.y. caller: you hit one of the issues that i believe a few moments ago. i consider your group to be in another voting block. what is the difference between your type of social engineering and what you have branded barack obama's social engineering? i do not get to the difference.

you are trying to engineer american society. american society. you want to get rid of roe vs. raid. wade. you talk about jesus, but he was a very tolerant man. i find what you are saying is very intolerant. specifically, how will you get to jobs generated? other than giving tax breaks for the wealthy, what are the republicans going to do? you have not given me any real substance other than the bumper sticker of faith in freedom. that is crap to me. that is crap to me. host: here is a twitter comment. do you have an opinion on that? caller: thetea party has the

do you have an opinion on that? idea that we have lost our way and are trying to get back to a colonial era of truth, justice, and the american way. america is a very diverse country. to find any one particular point that we all can agree on is kind of tough. i do not find the tea party coming up with a viable answer to the question. how are you going to make jobs available other than taxing the wealthy and for giving them tax breaks? guest: i think we all are excited because the american

democratic process is one where righetti hear voices from every side. we have the opportunity to win hearts and minds. we want to make sure that we get our message out there. someone is going to win the hearts and minds of americans. that is why we try to engage paid based filters. we did a poll after the 2010 elections and found t party voters, more than two-thirds of the more social conservatives. a lot of them deeply are concerned about the issue of roe vs. wade. we want to have the debate there and build a culture of life.

when you look at the jobs issue, -- we have seen a fail of emphasis on spending in the stimulus. we did not see jobs come back. when you look at what president ronald reagan did, we see a lot of parallels. we can look at that pattern and say obama is going in one direction with overspending in stimulus. tax breaks for everyone across the border it is a whole process that will bring back jobs whom host: here is a point.

and we agree on limiting government. guest: absolutely. we know that we can allied with them on a lot of issues. funding planned parenthood tax cuts for the family and talking about the spending in the debt crisis. we see so many grandparents and retirees understanding that is their generation trying to become active in the tea party. they want the american dream for

their children and grandchildren. that is what they look forward to. host: mike, thanks for waiting. i am a social conservative myself. i have been a staunch democrat in my family for generations. the issue of social conservatism is taking a backseat to the issues of the economy. this is where we are really fearful that our country is corn to lose it of wanted obama to take major steps forward immediately. he did do that.

i wished it had turned out better. we will have to face some hard issues. issues. this is the first presidential violation -- election coming up in my life that i will probably vote with democrats it might cut the be worth around. i think there would have been a real one winner. i hope we can see and advancement going on.e

the president did make a step forward. there is a bigger problem and issue without mike huff of the route running, i would be voting again for the president. guest: i think a lot of people found charm and charisma of mike huckabee. there is an opportunity for new candidates like michelle bauman candidates like michelle bauman to go after that vote whoever it

is three ticket out of iowa, the that is some importance to them. i think we will have to watch the process unfold. as the frustration with barack obama's issues with getting jobs growing again the caller may be impacted and think twice about whether or not he will support obama again. we have seen that frustration at the grass-roots level. many have a deep regrets saying, this is not what they signed up for. but does it change the

dynamics for 2012? guest: i think mr. romney will compete and finished in the top spots in iowa. he will return to new hampshire and have him compete and then onto south carolina. fifth is a jumble right now. we do not know if sarah palin we do not know if sarah palin will be thrown in there as well it is a long way to go hos.

host: here is a comment. guest: i think you have people within the catholic church that fall down on both sides of the issue on whether it comes to social justice being a church responsibility and social justice being a government responsibility. the catholic church has a great history of helping the poor and out -- and making a huge difference added that the level. it comes down as to whether you think it is the speaker's job to make sure the government when there. some people do not like the fact that he has never signed an

earmarked in his 20 year career. he has caught a lot of programs in his redundancy. it is not about overall dollars. we do need social safety net programs. we need active and aggressive phase -- paid based efforts as well. host: next caller. caller: i do not know where to start. who do you think router -- and who do you think router -- and who should i vote for to be open

about gay-rights? guest: we will not endorse any particular candidate as an organization. we had a huge event in iowa a few months ago we will continue to have candidate forums they will speak to the issues of sanctity of marriage we saw candida's across the board with crystal clear terms about israel. i said that as one of the new linchpins in the gop primary. the message must be if you mess

with our ally israel, the mess with america. this moral -- we will address the issues. the issues. i think it will catapult it and there will probably be a long, drawn-out battle. that is what it looks like at this point. i will not be picking and telling anyone who they should vote for. vote for. host: you can log on to get more information. we are speaking with the

executive director of the faith in the freedom coalition. in the freedom coalition. -- fade and freedom coalition. we are wondering if the government was right and hal would respond to this point? -- how would you respond to this point? . . guest: i look at the model that we saw with ford and what they did. it was a much better strategy and the president understands deeply that when we have this job crisis in america that he goes to ohio. that is what it comes down to

when it comes to getting reelected. the republican president in the last 150 years became a president without winning the state of ohio. he knows more likely than not, he will be the next president of united states if he can win that state. state. i think voters want to hear that message. host: hartford, county maryland -- hartford county, maryland. caller: people used to believe in god. now these gods are imaginary invalid and in our minds. -- and living in our minds.

we can about a revolution and so on. i think it is time to move away from ignorance and face reality. i would like you to talk about this issue, because it seems to be driving a lot of politics in this country. it seems to be mandatory that they put their religion down. an increasing number of people who believe in evidence based decisions are concerned that decisions are being made based on faith in imaginary things. guest: in the hearts and minds

of most americans in history, we see evidence of god at work in our nation. it is evident in the founding documents. when you look said the declaration of independence and the understated -- understanding of the creator and the inalienable rights that were created by god and cannot be taken away by the government. the great thing about this is that we're not telling anyone that they have to believe. that they have to believe. can't we have of voters that want to understand what the world view is and their belief

in the god. in the god. it is a powerful control . we the people are in a better position if someone says that there is a god over me, and i am not god myself. host: we are getting a lot of attention on our kuester page. ford got some stimulus money and shipped jobs to mexico. shipped jobs to mexico. guest: look at the speeches of lan mullaly. there were some funds that they could not reject. some dealers had to be part of

the cash for clunkers plan. ford is a vastly different story from general motors and chrysler. host: our next call is lauretta joining us from cleveland. caller: five like to say my piece without being cut off while on air and in middle of the sentence. i have numerous problems with you and your organization. you call yourself faith and freedom. and you say you are about social conservatism. based on your platform, it is in conflict with the constitution. conflict with the constitution. when you look at some of your

policies and what it is you want to do to america, you want to take away people's rights. you said obama's tax cuts did not do anything. bush gave two tax -- tax cuts that amounted to $3.50 trillion. host: if you phone recently, we would ask that you wait 30 days before you call again to give others a chance to get on the air. guest: we are talking about defending the rights of the unborn. we look at the 14th amendment and the need to defend their rights first and foremost. that is why we want to build a

culture of life. we argue passionately that marriage is -- the definition is between one man and one woman. that is the right. that is the right. if they want to have a partnership law if they are not of opposite sex, that is their right. they can do that. i do not think our beliefs in our platform is in conflict at all with our founding doctrines. i think they are coherent with them. host: what about a gay or lesbian rights. you want to take them away. guest: we want to make sure they

are treated as their citizens. we do not think they have to take away marriage as a definition. i think they are saying in order to have full participation in democracy, we have to take something away. it is a different relationship completely. i do not think that ishost: ours from the republican line. good morning. good morning. host please turn down the volume. we will hear you much better. caller: when the people ask about oil companies, and the time the people say they do not want something done, republicans put it away [unintelligible]

jobs still threatening cuts. guest: i would like to see their be continued tax cuts, capital gains rate and i would also like to see continued opportunities for huge companies to bring back trillions of dollars that are currently off shore. we have multinational companies that are not liked, perception was, but they have trillions that they cannot bring back. when they bring that back to america, it is an opportunity for them to invest in job expansion and growth. an opportunity for all boats to be lifted by that rising tide. part of the process of renewal that gets unleashed. that is good for everyone and good for jobs and local communities. that is what we need to see more of. that is not happening.

this experiment from the obama administration in radical overspending has driven us into a deep moral crisis with debt. i think we will see a continued resurgence of tea party voters speaking to that. they will continue to be there. social conservatives understand that as well. that is what we saw spoken deeply while of the candidates. host: governor haley barbour, not a candidate for the presidency in 2012, did speak over the weekend. >> we cannot change the country like we want unless we win the election. ok? remember, purity in politics, remember, purity in politics, purity is the enemy of victory. we cannot start out with the ideas of the faith and freedom

coalition that our candidates have to agree with me on every single thing. we cannot expect candidates to be pure. winning is about unity. winning is about us sticking together to achieve the main thing. host: going back to the issue that they were talking about, truth in social issues. guest: we want to make sure that we are always talking about the politics of addition, not subtraction. in some ways you may disagree with 20% of the time an enemy, 30% friend. candidates out there on the republican side, we are not seeing anything other than 80% friend. friend. whoever comes out of that process will have a great opportunity to win the hearts and minds of those t party

voters. look at four years ago where john mccain, who was clearly not been loved by social conservatives, from his history in running against the president, president george w. bush, he went and campaign hard and he actually won more votes than george w. bush of evangelical and socially conservative voters. i think that sarah palin had some part to pay -- to play in that. clearly our base does not stand by some kind of purity test to make sure they are behind someone who is an 80% friend. host: gary mark, executive director of the faith and freedom coalition, with a number of potential candidates speaking to the crowd, thank you for being with us. guest: thank you. host: we both take a short break and after that turn our conversation to the situation in

the middle east. later, more on the u.s. economy with jennifer granholm. as always, let's look at the week's events as viewed by some of the leading editorial cartoonists from around the country. ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ >> live, on "in depth," the balance between liberty, climate change, and the limits of international law. your questions 4 yourposner, whose books in -- your questions for eric posner. he will take your calls, e-

mails, and putin messages later booktv. c-spanb 2'sookt >> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome shibley telhami, thank you for being with us. the situation in yemen, there appears to be the potential for a power vacuum that could provide a resurgence for al qaeda. guest: there is no question that it is a turning point. the president appears to have been more winded than initially expected. the fact that he left to get medical treatment in saudi arabia is important. while it is uncertain whether or not he is going to return to yemen, many see this as an opportunity for a transition in opportunity for a transition in which you either have a major vacuum of power or struggle with

an uncertain ending, or also the possibility that somehow people will go through the constitutional change with the vice president becoming president for two months, then having elections. following that it might be possible to appease demonstrators with that kind of change, but we have to make clear that we still do not know whether or not he intends to go back. the fact that he went to saudi arabia with a large number of people around him -- advisers, military officials, family members, possibly his son according to news reports, indicates that it is more than just getting medical treatment. one of the things remarkable in all of this is -- here is the president, the most important man in the country. he gets winded. we do not know the extent of it. he has to go to another country

for medical treatment. this is sort of an indication of why there is so much frustration with a lack of development. can you imagine -- not having immediate medical facilities to take care of a president? in a country that have had trouble relations over the years. improved lately, but troubled. host: the headlines, "the al qaeda brain is slain." one of the top al qaeda military commanders reportedly killed by a drum strike. what does his death mean for al qaeda leadership? guest: one of the things that has not been reported as much is that the u.s. has killed many of the top leaders over the years. obviously it is the kind of event, like the killing of bin laden, that was huge. it amplifies everything that

happens. the psychology is more important than the operational. >> where do things stand between the israelis and the palestinians democrats the relations between the israeli prime minister and the white house of being described as cool and frosty, yet they continue to push to get an agreement between the palestinian people and the israelis. guest: this is a critical time. i just came from the strip. it is clear that the prospect it is clear that the prospect of any kind of political move in the short term is very small. heading into the fall, whether you are going to have the palestinians -- barring a change or renewal -- going to the un assembly to request that they recognize the palestinian state on the 1967 borders, they are

likely to get a majority to support that. that is going to generate whole sets of events that are going to be troubling in many ways for the israelis, troubling for the relationship. in the last couple of days the former head of the israeli mossad has been warning that he is worried about the intense pressure coming on israel in the fall. he has admitted that some israeli leaders might be thinking about striking iran. all of these issues are connected. we are going to go through a very stormy summer. probably more stormy in the fall unless we have something going on in terms of an israeli issue. we have the most important case of revolutions, egypt, going through an election in the fall.

the timing of the egyptian election and the general assembly meeting is critical. it is clear that this issue, which has not been a main issue for revolution, will test the relation. whether it is an issue in front of demonstrators, jordan over the last couple of days, or calling for the report -- the end of the relationship with israel, it is likely the key that will be generated is likely to generate problems outside of the conflict itself. host: we learned that the trial for jose mubarak will get under way on august 3. how likely is that to stick? guest: keep in mind that the military rulers in egypt are his friends. the most powerful man in egypt

right now was his close friend. he was the second most important man in egypt during the regime. it is not an easy thing for them to go through. public sentiment is such that it is sweeping through and worrisome. one of the powerful feelings about the egyptian revolution is that it has been largely peaceful. which is extraordinary. the public had been sticking to that slogan, peaceful, peaceful, peaceful. capturing the imagination of the international community, even the american public. public opinion poll about how the american public sees egyptians in light of this, 70% of the american public has a favorable view of the egyptian public in light of this seemingly peaceful revolution

calling for peace and not extremism. the trial of mubarak, going after people in the regime, who are in the thousands and maybe more, invested in it, seems to go against that nature. people are worried about the revenge aspect and they want to see someone in political leadership saying they want to be the next mandela. let's go to the next level. i think that egypt is very hungry for a leader like that. it will be interesting to see whether the political campaigns will produce leaders who will restrain the reaction to members of the regime, particularly the muammar family. host: there are so many different historical moving parts in this, but one of them

is clearly hamas. guest: much of it has to do with the fact that hamas and fatah have reached an agreement to have a national unity government that would be technocratic. going to the next stage. that has not been sitting well with the u.s.. certainly not with the israelis. clearly, that is an issue. remember, today is june 5. the day when the 1967 arab- israeli war started. the simple six-day war. obviously that is an historical event as it is when israel came to occupy the west bank in syria. returning to sign from egypt, gaza still keeps the golan heights. still an issue for the

negotiators today. now we have additional events of people trying to cross the border, with demonstrators, particularly from syria, trying to cross the border into golan heights. there were reported shootings and at least a couple of dozen people wounded. all of these reports are too early to know, but it is expected and more of that is going to happen. how a group like hamas will exploit it, they are caught between two problems. they see that the power is in the peaceful nature. even in yemen with all of the fighting that took place over the past few days. the demonstration is to stick to peaceful. there is that part of it. of the other hand, there are sponsors in damascus that are in trouble with demonstrations,

having to reassess. egypt has required more sway. they have to be responsive. hamas has more limited space to operate. one reason why they were anxious to reach an agreement. the agreement that happened between fatah and hamas was more hamas making exceptions for what had been put before them the other way around. looking at the revolutions and strategic implications for all concerned. host: shibley telhami is the professor for peace and development at the university of maryland. he served as an adviser to the government and it is the author of a number of books, including mixed state. power and leadership in international bargaining with a decade of reflections on peace. we will get to your phone calls

as we talk about the situation overall in the middle east. maxine is joining us from cleveland. maxine? a good morning? we will try it one more time. caller: with regards to the speech that president obama dave, he said that israel and palestine should agree upon the 1967 borders and mutually negotiate land swaps. most of the time when people speak on it, republicans especially, they leave that out the part about mutually agreed upon. why do you think they are doing that? they are not quoting his entire statement. also, when benjamin netanyahu spoke, he pretty much said something identical to what president obama said. because he used a slightly different syntax. he got 29 ovations.

i would like for you to comment more on whether or not israel is less safe with this arab spring. could they make some kind of agreement right now with the palestinians that they have not been able to make them? -- been able to make? guest: i think that the president broke ground with that speech. it was not new language, to be sure, but frankly it is the kind of position that had been taken behind the scenes in negotiations between israelis and palestinians. he said based on the 1967 border understanding that there would be alterations, which is pretty much the american position. the president had been under pressure and many in the media were advising to take a different position, to be more

forceful in putting forth an obama plan, like the clinton plan, on major issues. in some ways this was actually a modest statement that he had to make if he was going to say anything about the issue. i was not as much surprise that the president said that as to why the prime minister of israel reacted the way that he did. when i heard the speech, analyzing it, i did not see it as a breakthrough speech. it is very interesting to know why that was the case. having heard what the prime minister said in congress, by sort of understand. he had aimed in some ways to connect what i think is a very important support base for his position in the american political spectrum, including the evangelical right, which has seen the connection to israel

through biblical terms, not un resolutions. if you listen to the prime minister's speech, he put forth a different paradigm. that we are not an occupier. in some ways i think that the in his own blood was putting forth a different paradigm. -- in his own mind was putting forth a different paradigm. so, it is a different paradigm and it might explain why. nonetheless, there is no question in my line, as an analyst, that there would be a two-stage solution. it is the only viable solution in any foreseeable future. and it has to be based on the 1967 borders. i do not think that that is

just my own position. most people that look at this historic place see it that way. host: secretary gates is taking his final visit to the region as he wraps up his tenure as the defense secretary in the administration. he is urging with this headline patients with the afghan war, essentially keeping troops in longer than anticipated. the same argument can be used in iraq. guest: it is a tough call for the president. when you look at it, this president understood that i am the hand, the intervention in iraq was troubling. iraq was troubling. in iraq it is hard for the president not to pullout. it does not mean that you cannot have an arrangement that will help the government. afghanistan is a different order of things.

the president himself said that going there was a mistake because it took away from what we should have done, finish the job in afghanistan. well, he did finish part of the job i am given -- i am getting bin laden. looking at the war in afghanistan it is hard to see how there could be a successful military ending. at the same time, gates is talking about maintaining troops for a longer period of time and there is the issue of finding a way to negotiate with the taliban. everyone understands that it has to be some kind of political settlement, using the military is reported as a lever, is another question. i understand his realist position. he has been a realist in the bush and obama administration. he seized the u.s. military presence not as a means of

ending the war successfully, but as a means of providing a negotiating lever to provide a political solution that might be more acceptable to the u.s.. host: pat is joining us on the phone. good morning. caller: you mentioned something about what the examiner said about what gates said in afghanistan. that is wrong. they said they would keep to the timetable of the withdrawal. the examiner goes to the extreme, so i hope that you will use the actual and correct paper rather than all of these right-wing paper is. i should point out -- host: i saw that interview that they conducted with diane sawyer, indicating that he wanted to give the president flexibility to make some

decisions. the time line will be coming in early july as they reevaluate the presence of nato troops. indicating that patients could be keeping troops longer than expected. ultimately it is the president's decision. caller: one question, for you, steve, did c-span -- i have watched for several years. i would like c-span to go back to what it used to do. to bring facts out for us to make the decision. i do not like all of these christian group conservatives, all of these lies and what ever on c-span. i would just like the facts and i will make my own decision. i hope that in the future you will consider that. regarding the israeli, palestinian issue, the opposition party, which has more

and more votes when netanyahu comes in because they have a parliamentary system when obama gave his speech, the opposition party and a lot of retired generals in israel had a very different position than netanyahu. yes, the american leader, c-span especially, refused to bring any of those people on the television to let the people know what was going on. what is good for the usa? that is all that i care about. if we let people have the facts, because of the political issues in israel, we would be better served in this country been clinging to other people's political doings out there. that is all that i have. host: thank you for the call. if you have watched this program since we have been on the air, we have always presented

different points of view and a variety of political spectrum in a chance for you to call in. we always allow you to make your own decision. guest: the element of where the american public is on this issue, i do do polling of the american public and i ask questions as to whether they want the government to lean towards one side, the other, or neither. the most recent was done in april. in that case almost every time that we ask that question, two- thirds of the american people what the u.s. to lean towards either side. whatever information the u.s. gets, they are not swayed that they should take one side of the other. for those people that want the u.s. to take side, roughly by an issue of five-one, 5% want to be

one way or the other, they happen to be the most determined segments. people that typically write the issue higher. the two-thirds majority does not care as much about this issue such as to have its opinion weighed in in the political process. we find that that constituency is largely in the republican party, by the way. there is a huge difference in the answer to that question between democrats, republicans, independents. clearly a large portion of that is the religious right. an ideological position that is likely to be unaffected by what c-span broadcasts. most of the headline this morning from "the new york times" --

host: i think that the death toll is in excess of 650. >> if he cannot end the violence against his own people and take meaningful steps to start a process of reform, then he needs to get out of the way. every day that he stays in office and the violence continues, basically he is making that choice by defaults. as i have said, the tragedy of the young boy symbolizes, for many people around the world, the total collapse of any effort by that government to work with it their own people. the international community has to continue to make its strongest possible case and call

for specific actions. not just amnesty, but a release of political prisoners. the end to unjust detention. allowing human rights monitors into the country. everything we can.we're doing those we are seeking to bring to our view of the situation, i think, will have to make their own judgment. we think there will be better off on the right side of history. host: it was friday on which a syrian troops gunned down 65 protesters. over the weekend, tens of thousands demonstrating in the city of hama, which has significant history in syria. years ago, an estimated 10,000 people were killed there. guest: it could have been

significantly more. there was a major crackdown there. to this day, you can see that, while much of the direction -- destruction has been fixed, you can still see symbols -- of the cracked buildings, some of the destruction dating back to 1982. i always think that is dated both -- that is intended to both say do not forget and we will not forget. it is happening again. what large scale destruction could take place we do not know, but one of the things that is interesting is, back in 1982, of course, the media could not cover much at all. we did not have many pictures, we did not have live television shots. obviously, brutality is much easier to do when no one is looking. one power of the era resolution -- arab revolution is that

things have been broadcast everywhere. whether or not this can be repeated -- in the dark -- is a darkmark -- in the dark -- is a question mark. people are able to use phones and send them to al jazeera and put them on line. last week, i was in the al jazeera headquarters in doha, qatar. i asked him about covering the revolutions and what they do. he said, access is critical. in libya, even though it was closed, once there are areas that were freed from gaddafi's control, they were able to send three sets of equipment to cover places live. in bahrain and syria, they have a problem, because they're prevented from going in to cover the story. they are relying mostly on these individuals who are taking -- using their phones or local

cameras and finding a way to apply them or send them to al jazeera. i think the issue of how far can the regime did away with -- get away with brutality is going to be a function of coverage. one other point i want to make is on syria. one thing that is interesting in these revolutions is that the public's in these regions are no longer differentiating between pro-u.s., anti-u.s., tough on israel, easy on israel -- they just feel these regimes need change. when i was in power square -- tahrir square, one of the signs tahrir square, one of the signs had a picture of every major power. they did not differentiate on the basis of ideology. syria had credentials in the country of holding talks with israel, but that does not seem

to be protecting them, certainly with -- not with the public. it is. the interesting to watch next few weeks have the story and -- it is going to be interesting to watch in the next few weeks how the story unfolds. the violence from the security services has been fascinating. a lot of people said, how much -- and the public have? we have seen it in libya, misrata, yemen. people are still standing firm. this is a fascinating wave that is sweeping our world. the barrier of fear has been broken. people have been prepared to pay a heavy price. how heavy? it will be an interesting story. host: 10,000 people killed and half this segment is about israel. the site of the 1982 killings --

sad'swas president as o father. jeff from boca raton, florida. caller: you and i spoke on "washington journal" some years ago. i stated my concerns about egypt abrogating their treaty with israel. you assured me that this was a political thing. that the muslim brotherhood and and tribes, codes of th which arafat referred to -- which says, "no treaty with the unbeliever." when israel left southern

lebanon, they got has a lot. when they left gaza, they got hamas. now we are supposed defined borders with the palestinian state -- supposed to find orders with the palestinian state. state. hussein the elder killed thou sands of plo members. we sit gunboats. -- see gunboats. we see hamas getting more military hardware than they already have. with regard to the earlier individual who called, this is international. the iranians boast that they have rockets that will reach

europe. indeed, they have rockets that could indeed reach washington d.c. -- washington, d.c., and they are not above the calculus -- if they destroy the united states and israel, they will be -- there will -- the retaliatory attack could kill 10 million to 20 million iranians, but it is worth it, because there are more muslims there than anywhere else. guest: on the risk israel would take if it were to withdraw -- it is obvious that israel is not in a position where peace is around. obviously, it is stable for now. everyone understands that the storm is around the corner. if you're looking at it in terms of the future, it is impossible to envision a peaceful

settlement between the israel and arabs that will not be based on the two-state solution. if that is what you want and you want to take that risk, israel will have to make that choice, but that is my assessment. on the egyptian side, i think you're correct to place the emphasis on egypt. i think egypt has been a very critical player, particularly for the israelis. it took them three decades, from 1948 until the camp david accords in 1978, for israel, essentially, to make this peace with egypt, which had been the most part what -- most powerful arab state. obviously, the israelis are worried that it might be challenged. for now, the egyptian military, which remains the anchor of the

transitional government, most certainly is not interested in the abrogating that treaty. they do not want war. they're coordinating with the israelis. how this would unfold in the political process is another story. my own worry is that, absent an israeli-palestinian, credible, peace process, which people can have confidence in, this issue of the israeli-palestinian conflict will resurface as one of the major issues in the egyptian internal debate leading to the elections. it will put a strain on the relationship between israel and egypt, not on the peace treaty necessarily in the short term, but on the cooperative relationship. it already has, such as the egyptian opening to gaza, which had taken place recently, allowing people free movement into egypt. egypt is an anchor.

the answer to that is to address the israeli-palestinian issue. if you do not, it will ignite the debate in every single country where this has not been a central issue. it will make it a central issue. it will test the relationship and create a strategic environment that will not be comfortable. host: let's get a comment from one of our viewers and a call from trenton, new jersey. guest: this is a very interesting comment. when the demonstration in egypt broke out, i wrote a piece for politico and said, don't bank is about the united states -- make this about the united states. one of the reasons this has captured the community is that

this is indigenous. it is hard for the u.s. to say -- the government to say this is the u.s. meddling. the public is not buying it. it is indigenous. it is pervasive. it is important. i think the u.s. should, in principle, supports the aspirations of people. if we cannot stand for that, we stand for nothing. beyond that, we cannot make this about the united states. that is critical. in my public opinion polls here, among the american public in april, asking the public whether they want united states to take a position of either the public or the government in the arab world, in every single country, 2/3 want to stay out. of those who want the u.s. to intervene, again by a ratio of 5-to-1 or 2-to-1, depending on the country, the u.s. public wants the government to take the

side of the people against the side of the government. that is true for every country from syria to saudi arabia. host: you have another comment among the 2/3 -- don't you think we should worry about our own problems? you are on the phone with professor telhami. caller: good morning. what is the meaning of "peace"? how can we have peace when the politician and the christian are singing the same song? host: i didn't mean to cut you off. how do you define "peace"? guest: in terms of the israeli- palestinian conflict -- i am a professor of peace studies in

some way -- i will just the finest in the context of the arab- -- define it in the context of the arab-israeli conflict. you have relations that are secure. it is more than having a cease- fire. it is a state of mind of having "normalcy" between border states. host: whether it is uncertainty in yemen, the nato air strikes over libya, the democracy in egypt, the ongoing middle east peace process -- what worries you most? guest: there are two things i would like to say. egypt is, by far, the most important case. yemen is fascinating. libya is important. every country is important and its people are struggling to get freedom and dignity. it is really about dignity in the entire arab world.

in some ways, there is an arab revolution, not just egyptian, libyan. it is a major awakening of people who want rights, dignity, freedom. egypt will be critical. he did, in terms of its size and history -- egypt, in terms of its size and history, is an inspiring model. because it followed to the shot -- to any job -- tunisia, it is central. there is an international interest in seeing the aspirations of people fulfilled, in seeing peaceful transformations take place. there is a stake in making egypt succeed, helping them succeed, not intervening, but -- they do need economic support in the

transition. if we fail -- to think about this for a minute. if we fail, that energy of the public, this impairment that has come out of the information revolution -- it is going to -- this empowerment that has come informationinfrared imag revolution, it is going to stay with us. we have a stake in the making sure that succeeds. the second issue is the israeli- palestinian conflict. do not underestimate how central that is, psychologically, for the region, even to the notion of dignity. the bigger sense of dignity that people are seeking in every arab country, it is freedom and foreign policy. the fact that these regimes have

pursued policies that went against them. israel-palestine question has- symbol of a lot of humiliation -- has been a symbol of a lot of humiliation. unless we move forward -- host: we will conclude on that note. shibley telhami is an author and professor. he is a frequent guest on this network. thank you for joining us. guest: my pleasure, as always. host: sunday afternoon's on c- span radio -- we will get a preview in just a moment. after the break, former michigan governor and author, jennifer granholm, to talk about clean energy and other issues. first, nancy calo. >> as steve mentioned, seized and does real air -- c-span does

re-air network talk shows. we normally begin at noon eastern with nbc's "meet the press," but that program is today pre-empted by the french open. at 1:00 p.m., on abc's "this week," christiane amanpour talks with president attended a tim pawlenty -- talks with presidential candidate tim pawlenty and mitch daniels. at 2:00 p.m., on "fox news sunday" -- at 3:00 p.m., on cnn "state of the union," austin goals we -- austan goolsbee and alice rivlin. at 4:00 p.m., on cbs "face the nation," the host interviews

nancy pelosi and governor haley barbour. the network tv talk shows are brought to you as a public service by the networks and c- span. 1:00 p.m., "this week," 2:00, 1:00 p.m., "this week," 2:00, "fox news sunday," 3:00, "state of the union," and 4:00, "face the nation." >> during his three terms as speaker of the house in the 1890's, he changed the structure of the house. >> he was impugned as a tyrant because the overturned a longstanding custom in the

house. the minority would be on equal footing with the majority. >> tonight, james grant, on his new biography. c-span's "q&a." you can download this and other programs as podcasts online. this weekend on american history tv, eileen shanahan talks about her sex discrimination lawsuit against the paper. we will look back in 50 years at america's failed attempt to overthrow the castro regime at the bay of pigs. it a complete schedule online -- get the complete schedule on line.

"washington journal" continues. host: joining us from michigan is the former governor, jennifer granholm. she is working on a book, "of governors story -- the fight for jobs and america's -- "a governor's story -- the fight for jobs and america's economic future." thank you for being with us. the state of the u.s. economy is what? guest: is challenged and has a tremendous opportunity to improve. what the president has done in stabilizing the economy is really important. i bet you'll be hearing a lot more about job creation as a singular focus. host: let's look at the latest unemployment figures. in april, 9%. in may, 9.1%. in michigan, the unemployment rate is in excess of 10%. in detroit, it is over 11%. how'd you dig out of that -- how

that hole?it out of that hg ouf guest: we were hit harder than any other state because of our automotive industry. if you are going to have a healthy economy, it has to be more diverse. our economy has been seven times more reliant on the auto industry than other states, so we were hit seven times harder. last year, after the intervention to save the of the industry, and because of the things -- the auto industry, and because of the things the government did to encourage clean energy, the unemployment rate dropped six times faster than the number of -- than the national average. it still has a long way to go. we cannot do this overnight, as

many who run for office often suggest we can. you cannot. it takes the shoulder to the grindstone for a long time. we were very encouraged that, in february, and there was an about tuition of the state economies for 2010. michigan's -- there was an evaluation of the state economies for 2010. michigan has continued to climb. you might ask why. what is that happened in michigan or is happening in michigan what -- what is it that happened in michigan or is happening in michigan? with respect to creating a clean energy economy -- i hope we can talk about that -- that has turned the corner and allowed for mr. dihn to stabilize -- for michigan to stabilize. host: many of those

manufacturing jobs that were lost came back. when it comes to traditional manufacturing jobs not have given homeowners and others the chance to have a middle-class lifestyle, those jobs appeared to be going away in many parts of the country. guest: you approach your finger on the crux of the problem in america, which is that globalization has created opportunities for these multinational companies to get twice the work at half the price. they have located there -- not just their manufacturing, but other sectors. we have seen 2.9 million jobs in america from these multinational corporations and 2.5 million created in other countries. this is a structural change to our nation's economy. this is not a cycle. that is why the response to a

caste be different than what it has been in the past. this is true -- the response to this is true -- the response to wait a jazz -- the response to it has to be different than what it has been in the past. over the past decade, because of the loss of these manufacturing and in thehigan, upper midwest, we are all seeing this loss of jobs. the question is, what do you do to replace those lost jobs, given that we have a global economy, given that you are going to see this global shift, this large-sucking sound, as was predicted when we got into these free trade agreements. how do you respond? host: some of that has been with electric cars -- a lot of

research in dollars being put into the vehicles by general motors, ford, and, to a lesser extent, chrysler. are people buying those cars? is there enough to make people spend $35,000 to $40,000 for these electric vehicles? guest: the question is, what is our nation going to do about our reliance on foreign oil? is it satisfactory that we continue to import 55% of our oil to countries that may have adverse interests to us? if we can become -- if we want to become free from foreign oil, we have to invest in the technology that gets us there. that is where the electric field has a huge opportunity to lead the world to become independent --dawson where the electric vehicle -- that is where the

electric vehicle as a huge opportunity to lead the u.s. to become more independent. when the first electric vehicles were tried -- general motors had an early one -- the battery was $35,000, just the battery. prices have come down. the battery last year was about $15,000. there are projections that the battery itself, the electric- vehicle battery, which is different than your lead-acid battery -- it is lithium-ion. it is much more sophisticated. as technology advances, just as it did with your computer, the cost of the battery will go down. it will reduce in price, wait, increase in efficiency -- weight, increase in efficiency. in a few years, the electric-mea culpa engine will be on par with the combustion engine -- the

electric-battery engine will be electric-battery engine will be on par with the combustion engine. the tax credit for encouraging people to buy electric vehicles is very important. general motors has added a whole new shipped to double the amount -- newuction of the voltag shift to double the amount of production of the volt. it has a small range extender attached to the electric vehicle so that you do not have ranged anxiety and feel like you're going to run out electricity. it is a huge opportunity. these products will knock people's socks off. there has to be held in allow people to purchase it and all the technology reaches -- there have to be help in allowing people to purchase its until the

technology reaches the tipping point. host: you can reach us at twitter.com/cspan or our e-mail address, journal@c-span.org. caller: where do young black men go to get these kinds of jobs? i am tired of people calling in and saying black people don't want to do anything but collect welfare and get food stamps. what are we to do? we're willing and ready to work. can you please answer that question? guest: i can answer it from the michigan perspective. obviously, we have a very diverse population. factories had caused the great migration north of the african- american community. the house a lot of our african-

american population -- they housed a lot of our african- american population in the upper northwest. we're seeing the level of jobs that require -- do not require a college education go away. even in the next generation of manufacturing, they are going to require a sophistication of college degree or tactical location -- technical application certification. that is why it is so important for us to tell our kids that the next generation of jobs will require some level of further education. that is why the effort on the part of the obama administration' ask to be to boh people as well as to provide -- we have to be realistic in a global economy

about traditional manufacturing about traditional manufacturing jobs. i hope we get the chance to talk about this. the mother of all markets, as one venture-capital list has said, is this clean-energy economy. it creates jobs for all types of people and all levels of skill. if we do not preppies of that, it is a huge missed opportunity -- do not grab a piece of that bill, that is a huge missed opportunity. one in four jobs will be in clean energy. it will require a level of skill. however, if we do not do something as a nation. if we do not have a national policy to be able to get those clean-energy jobs, we will see them go to china, germany, other places that have national policy. that is why for the nation, for people on both sides of the

aisle to realize that policy matters in creating jobs in america. that is the biggest opportunity, i think, no matter what your color. host: following up on the queen- energy vehicles -- clean-energy vehicles -- a twitter comment. guest: here is what we did in michigan, another example of why policy matters. we learned that a recovery act would provide some interned -- provides an incentive to building the electric-vehicle batteries. we pancaked state incentives on top of the federal recovery act dollars. as a result, we now have, in michigan, since august, 2009, 18 companies that are building the electric vehicle battery or components of it in michigan.

those 18 companies are projected to create 63,000 jobs in our state alone. i'm just saying -- policy matters. this gets to the previous caller as well. those are jobs for everybody. we want to make sure we get them in this country. without some kind of policy, we will not. before the recovery act and our state policies, these electric- vehicle batteries were all being made in asia. because the policy, now 40% of them will be made in the united states, the vast majority of that in michigan. the battery has four parts -- anode, cathode -- etc. the jobs should be american jobs everyone to become energy independent. the opportunity is there. we need to make sure that, as a

nation, we are committed to the electric vehicle future. host: the final. "-- define "clean energy." what categories are included? guest: i declined broadly -- i define it broadly. the president has talked about a clean energy standard. if you have some kind of standard that america sets, that will send a signal to the marketplace, to the job providers that america is serious about having a market for their products. last year, bloomberg new energy finance did an evaluation of all of the clean-energy investment by the private sector in the g- 20 countries. since 2004, there has been a

636% -- 630% increase in jobs in this sector. the opportunity is huge and it is only going to get bigger. last year, 2010, guess which country was the no. 1 attraction for clean energy jobs? it was china. i will answer for you. it was china, but not because of jobs or wages, but because a policy. the number to the country was germany, which told use that -- the number two country was germany, which tells you that this is centered around policy. china and germany have policy. the u.s. has no national energy policy. i know you have really smart viewing audience that comes from

both sides of the aisle. the pew organization attended to determine whether americans would favor a national energy policy. would you favor a policy that promoted renewal but energy and energy efficiency? 84% of americans believe we should have a national-energy policy. 75% of republicans believe we should have a national gas energy policy that promotes queen--- a national-energy policy that promotes clean energy and renewable. host: scott, good morning. caller: good morning. miss granholm, i was in battle creek, mich., not too long ago. they have a solar plant that they built with obama's money -- our taxpayer money. they got it totally up and and it's at their -- it sat there.

you had 800,000 gallons of oil going all throughout the leaking system -- laking system. the chairman chancellor just stated that they are going to be shutting down their nuclear power plants. we have party had five incidents of nuclear -- we have already had five incidents of nuclear problems in the west. -- in the u.s. i do not get the reasoning behind what you are stating. guest: you do not get the idea of moving to clean energy and renewable is, or you do not believe nuclear should be part of it? of it? caller: they stated that we

would have more meltdowns because of the climate we're in. we're going to have big earthquakes. we will have over another foot of water going into the oceans, the equivalent of filling every inch of land on the planet two- feet high with water. we have problems. we need to go to renewable energy, but when you set down a plan before it is even open, it does not make sense. no jobs came into that plant. guest: that somebody put that guest: that somebody put that plant up, built under the bush administration, because they anticipated that the united states would have an energy policy. michigan has a modest, renewable

portfolio standard, requiring that we get 10% of our energy standards from renewable sources. patrick opportunities that some of the states have entered into are not going -- the patchwork opportunities that some of the states have entered into are not going to be enough without a national policy. they have applied -- they applied to the federal government. they assumed there would be national policy. there was not, so they could not open the plant. very disappointing. what are they doing? they're moving to canada. why? because canada has a national policy that creates demand for solar products. solar products. without policy, these jobs are going to leave. that is a prime example of it. if we sit back, like some would have us do, and assume that we do not intervene in the market at all, that we do not create a at all, that we do not create a goal of getting 20% of our energy from renewable sources by the year 2020 or 2025, if we

decide we're going to do nothing, you better believe that giant sucking sound is going to continue and these jobs along with others are going to go to other countries. other countries are intervening to create jobs in their orders for their citizens. we have to -- in their borders for their citizens. we have to do the same. we cannot stick to 20th-century economic century that may have worked when it was not such a global world. we're in a new age. we have got to get in the game. host: your comments on china are getting a lot of attention. on our twitter page -- guest: not necessarily. you are seeing the wages in china rise. it is not just about wages. it is also about skil. here is what china is doing. they have not only committed to getting 20% of their energy from renewable sources by the year

2020, but they're making it happen. they are partnering with the private sector to make a case for businesses to locate within their borders. a lot of the advances in the advanced manufacturing have meant that the price, the cost of labor is less of a factor than the level of skill and ability to get your equipment in the ground. if we decide as a nation that it is important for us to keep these jobs in america, then we have to be public-private partnerships like some other countries are doing. i am not saying the government run the country. -- government run the company. there is an up-front cost where you invest in the technology, in science to be able to get equipment in the ground. that is the most expensive, the biggest barrier. what china has done is created a market for the product and they have made it easier for businesses to locate and partner to make sure they are successful.

we have not done either. that is what we need to do as a nation. host: if you are just joining us, our guest is jennifer granholm, the for governor of michigan, joining us from lansing, mich. -- the former governor of michigan, joining us from lansing, michigan. landon, richmond, virginia. caller: good morning. it is great to talk to you. i am a republican, but i admire you so much. i cannot agree with you on several points -- electric vehicles. 60 miles per hour, 70 miles per hour -- we have not found out what happened in an accident with an electric car. i suspect that those vehicles should be used by groups like the postal service, cities that

can buy them. general motors in china is doing great right now. the chinese are buying large vehicles like the buick. vehicles like the buick. the middle class -- this is awfully true. what happened in your state is pretty bad. i would say that -- the proper thing to do -- there is 1.3 billion people in china. they bought all of the tooling that the -- " can make cars, automobile parts that we buy. equality as much better than it used to be -- and the quality is

much better than it used to be. they had to join the rest of the .orld pic then they bought our stuff. the government and the michigan -- the government in michigan -- the politicians in your state, i do not know whether you had part of it, were responsible for all of that ruling and stuff to leave. those factories are empty now. host: there are a lot of issues on the table. guest: i am not sure what the politicians are responsible for the jobs leaving michigan -- why the politicians are responsible for the jobs leaving michigan and going to china. what he mean by that? paula >> of the were the ones that were in position to an -- caller: they were the ones that

were in position to know what to do about this. guest: i think the auto industry would disagree that politicians know how to build cars. in a vehicle, labor is 7% of the cost of the vehicle. everyone assumed that all of these jobs are being moved overseas purely because of labor. it just is not true. the jobs have gone to china and other developing nations because the markets are developing there. because governments require the investment, the factories to be located there. they're not making cars in china that are being sent over here, but they are making parts. the challenge for us as a nation is to ensure that our trade agreements do not allow the theft of designs, intellectual property, that it does not allow countries with whom we trade to cheat.

that is a challenge. it has to be a piece of the economic agenda going forward -- that we're tough and our trading partners, as tough on them as they are on us. let me give you an example. two years ago in south korea, we made vehicles -- they made vehicles and 400,000 of them were sold in the united states. the same year, our automakers were only able to sell 4000 cars in south korea. south korea put up a number of tariffs and trade barriers to american vehicles being able to even be imported into south korea. the obama administration has just negotiated a new trade agreement with south korea, which removes that disparity. that is very important. we have to be sure that the trade agreement with dr. not disadvantage the home team, which is america, and when we

adopt them, we have to enforce them. we have to make sure the playing field is level. host: ray from florida. caller: i am waiting for the drill baby drill, palin corwd to -- crowd to raise their heads. my neighbors are ready to put a drilling rig it in their backyard picnic we will not see -- in their backyard. we will not see the price go down -- most of the oil goes to the highest bidder, which are china and india. mobil drilling -- more drilling will not even touched the price of gas. guest: since the obama administration has come into office, the amount of domestic

oil production has increased by 11%. you have not seen a corresponding drop in the price 11% because oilt is sold on a global market. because we're not competing for those resources -- we are now competing with developing and trees for those resources -- you will see a 49% increase in economic growth in developing nations. that will correspond to a similar increase in the energy demands. china is now importing more oil than it is producing. we're competing against china for those resources. for those resources. it goes back to the issue about how can america become independent of foreign well so that we are not paying $4, $5 -- for awhile so that we are not paying $4, $5, and so that we

paying $4, $5, and so that we are determining our own energy future. it is not about drilling. people are misinformed if they believe that more drilling off the coast is going to translate automatically into lower prices at the pump. host: that leads to the larger issue and this week from one of our viewers -- tweet from one of our viewers -- there are pragmatic steps we can take, even in this comment. this one does not even cost a dime and would have a huge impact. if we establish our renewable- energy standard in america, it would have an enormous impact on jobs. the job providers would say, wow, america is serious. if we say as a nation that we are committed to getting 20% of our energy from renewable sources by 2025, or something like -- the president has put as

a clean energy standard getting 80% of our energy from clean energy sources by the year. 35 -- either way, it would send a message that america has created a market. it does not cost a dime. 84% of americans supported. -- support it. 75% of republicans, 63% of tea party yeariers. it should be an easy first step. there are other steps we should do. we should have a goal of having 25% of our vehicles be elected by the year 2020. we should have a commitment -- be electric by the year 2020. we should have a commitment to the number of energy-efficient plants.

we should have a commitment to investing in research and development, so that we can be the place where the products are not just thought about but commercialized. all of that needs to happen, but if you want a policy that does not cost a dime and that has support on the part of democrats and republicans, let's get a commitment as a nation to our noble or clean energy is right now -- to renewable or clean energy right now. host: we're talking with jennifer granholm, the senior adviser to the pew charitable trusts. she served two terms as the governor of michigan. sheila from norwalk, conn., welcome to the conversation. go ahead. we will try one more time. caller: please do not cut me off. i have a lot to say. what i want to send is i am turned off by all of the

political talk sorry in advance. i turn off all of the stations because i do not want to hear that. you get me back and that old, jennifer -- i have been an independent now, tired of what the democrats were not doing, so i switched to independent. what will bring back -- i listen on c-span. i do not know what is wrong with c-span viewers. i am all gung-ho about the governor of montana. i took notes. just to give you a short run down. he had a budget surplus when times were good because they saved the money. he vetoed 40 bills. he did not cut critical programs, did not raise taxes. he was a rancher before governor. he had a master's degree in soil science. what i especially like is he cut his own salary by $11,000 and for the next two years, did not

take a salary. i was so impressed that i said, we need a blue caller person like that in the white house -- blue-collar person like that in the white house. dennis kucinich and governor schweitzer -- i do not know if they could steal away, but he is the best thing going. we need bluecollar in the white house. i know that for a fact because my ex-husband and my son are heavy equipment operators. my father was a glass blower. very smart people. they had street smarts and the new better than a lot of these white caller people -- white- collar people. dennis kucinich was endorsed recently by willie nelson. appreciate her sentiments that we need people with magnetism -- pragmatism. i think brian schweitzer is a

big fan of president obama. he is tremendous. there is no doubt. he is a total star. love him dearly. he has been quite an iconoclast and montana -- in montana. he has a tremendous story to tell. i am glad to hear you are supportive of him. i know he is supportive of the current administration. let's make it happen in 2016. host: on twitter, "run, dennis, run." join the conversation at twitter.com/cspan. politics've been into since 1950. regarding the elevation of the wto during the clinton administration and many of the senators controlling the house

and the senate at that time, and that administration, voting for the wto -- that has closed many steel plants. their retirement went out of the door with it. many manufacturers, about 15 to 20 years ago, and to the present day, have also been going under, and they will continue to go under because the fact is that anytime you have a government or foreign into the garment -- foreign entity government that is going to be just -- might as well say it -- crazy to downplay our economy -- they are sending over more to us than we can ship over to them, even if we wanted to ship more. the wto, who was supposed to be our protector in this fiasco, it is not playing by the fare rules

of the doctrine -- fair rules of the doctrine, which is the doctrine of the uruguay agreement. guest: i think that is an important point. the world trade organization, the wto, is supposed to be the referee among disputes in the nation's regarding trade. because of the advent of technology, we have seen an explosive growth in the globalization of trade, technology, and movement of goods. i know that, perhaps in the 1990's -- i am sure this is true any time. somebody votes for something they think will be good for america. there is no doubt that trade has created jobs, but it has also enabled the off-shore of jobs at an alarming rate -- off-shoring

of jobs at an alarming rate. we need to look at what we're doing as though -- with the world organization and say, we cannot stand by and not file cases against our trading partners. we have to be tough with our trading partners to ensure that it is fair trade and not just unfettered, free trade. if it is unfettered -- if we do not file against some of these countries that are stealing our designs and unfairly competing with us -- if we do not file, then we are not going to get fairness. we have to get fairness. we have to negotiate fair trade, not just an unfettered, free trade. we will lose if it is the latter. host: we have a minute or two left. guest: i believe this can happen. i so strongly believe in it. i know that if it policy in the

right place, it will create jobs in america. i appreciate the comment. host: debbie, good morning. you have the last word. caller: thank you so much for taking my call. the you think there should be a policy that supports and compels -- do you think there should be a policy that supports and compels ceo's and others to implement on the job training programs? guest: this is an important point and i will try to be crisp about it. our labor laws for fine in the 1930's when they were adopted and for much of the last century. they need to be updated in the context of a global economy. windy -- we need to have on the job training, internships, like

never before. i would suggest we look to germany, which has a very robust trading pipeline. those young people, high school, college, who get on the job training and are then hired by the companies -- we need to have more flexible labor laws and much more efforts on retraining and training and a pipeline of workers for the technology-based jobs of the future. host: what is a bigger challenge -- serving as governor of michigan or " writing a book with your husband -- cowriting a book with your husband? guest: that is a great question. my husband and i are very aligned. it has been a great pleasure. serving as governor of michigan was the hugest challenge in my life. it is the toughest economy in the nation. it is not out yet, it will be out in september. it looks at what michigan's experience is as the canary in the coal mine, as one of the

laboratories of democracy for the nation. host: former governor jennifer granholm, joining us from lansing, michigan, and a senior advisor to the pew charitable trusts. thank you for being with us. we will continue the conversation tomorrow morning on c-span's "washington journal." it begins every day at 7:00 a.m. scott pattison will be joining us to look at the fiscal situation in all 50 states. then, a roundtable on the issue of the government's role in combating obesity -- walter olson and maya rockeymoore. in our final segment, joshua gotbaum will talk about the government protection of private