reductions. thin linda feldman discusses the 2012 presidential candidates. later david wasserman looks ahead to 2012 redistricting and its impact on the states and congress. is next.on journal" host: good morning. the house is out this week but the senate is in session. tomorrow the president takes the leads on budget talks when sits down with senate leaders. in presidential politics, congressman michelle bat bachma kicking off showing she and mitt romney essentially tied for

first place in that state. we begin on this sunday morning your calls and comments on the negotiations that will resume tomorrow heads by vice president -- led by president obama meeting with senate leaders. host: the president will meet separately with senator reed and mcconnell they will follow the collapse of thursday talks by vice president biden. the sticking point remains to be taxes, democrats argue any deal to reduce the deficit and raise the country's borrowing limit

must include new revenues. republicans say they will not go there. there is a story this morning inside the "washington post" that says senator obama versus president obama. on capitol hill this year one of the president's most troublesome critics has been senator obama. president obama for instance wants congress to raise the national debt limit but his opponents brought back statements that then senator obama made in 2006 and 2007. he saeid merely debating a debt limit increase was a sign of leadership failure. this story continues to unfoamed as we have seen last week with the negotiations led by vice president joe biden coming apart on thursday when congressman eric canter saying he was going to step aside. >> since the beginning the majority leader and myself along

with senator mcconnell and senator kyl have been clear. tax hikes are off the table. raising taxes will destroy jobs. if you raise taxes on the people that we need to grow our economy and hire new workers, they are not going to do it if they have to pay higher taxes to the federal government. second, a tax hike cannot pass the u.s. house of representatives. it is not just a bad idea. it doesn't have the votes and it can't happen. third, the american people don't want us to raise taxes. they know we have a spending problem. that is why republicans passed the budget that pays down debt over time without raising taxes. host: john boehner last week. you can join the conversation by sending us a comment via twitter. you can sends us an e-mail to journ

journa journal@c-span.org. and at the hill that eventually they are confident that the white house is confident and white house and senate leaders will reach an agreement and the departure of cantor and lyl saying the negotiations meant to finish up the deal as the president and members of congress sit down to talk. that will be tomorrow. that is available online at thehim.com. let's get -- thehill.com. caller: last week when mr. cantor got out of the negotiations they were complaining about the president not getting involved. now that he is getting involved is anyone from the house of representatives going to be involved in the negotiations or is it all between the senate and

president? host: tomorrow the first round will be between the senate and president but boehner also stepping in. the house is out this week. the senate is in session. the house returns just after the july 4 recess. but the speaker has indicated he will talk with the president. he did meet with the president wednesday one day before congressman cantor stepped out of the negotiations. caller: right. it just seemed odds that the second string, the vice president and mr. cantor, their negotiations fell through and now they kick it up to the first string. thanks for the call. i think we have the "columbus dispatch." the vice president was in ohio yesterday talking about the budget saying that the obama administration would not let middle class americans carry the whole burden to break the deadlock over the national debt

limit warning the republican approach would only benefit the wealthy. -- biden speaking to democrats yesterday. james from atlanta on the democrats line. caller: thank you. i would like for you to get an economist on there and i would like you to find out how much the two tax breaks that george bush put in effect to see this is going to add up to the amount of the yearly deficit. the two tax breaks, the medicare plan and two wars on a credit card. this has never happened before. you cannot cut and cut and cut. the democrats must realize if you don't stand up, there is no reason for us to vote for you if you don't stands up for our rights.

that is why you lost a lot of seats. we want to see somebody strong. we don't want no bipartisan. we want you to stands up for social security, medicare and medicaid and these kids. you are the only ones, you are the hrlast person. host: now why cantor left the talks they say it was difficult to complete and can be deeply controversial. the question is why did eric cantor leave the talks. as recently as tuesday he had praised the work and pace of the negotiations led by vice president joe biden. some 48 hours later he walked away from the talks, a decision unveiled with the "wall street journal" thursday morning before he informed house speaker john boehner that he thought to pointing out cantor wanted to leave the final negotiations in terms of any tax issues up to the speaker of the house. he also paints himself as the conservative when it comes to

the republican leadership on the issue of taxes. that is the strategy outlined this morning by susan davis in the national journal. we are asking about the negotiations that will resume tomorrow with senate leaders and the president. gary joins us on the republican line, sterling, virginia. caller: good morning. i really hope they come to some sort of resolution about this thing. i believe that it is undermine being the value of the dollar and shaking the confidence. as the dollar falls the price of oil goes up. that is why i hope they come to a resolution. but may i say one thing about gabrielle giffords. lawrence edward mcgee a veteran of normandy, battle of the bulge, liberator of a couple of death camps, said if you can't hit something in five shots you shouldn't have and that is my

statement about extended clips or magazines. host: thank you. from the twitter page congress's budget cutting efforts are analogous to only edging a lawn when it hasn't been mowed in five decades. twitter.co twitter.com/cspanwj is our address to send us a tweet. josephine from nashville, tennessee, independent line. caller: good morning. i do not really agree with the wealthy taking over half of what the middle class is basically trying to say about -- i think a lot of the families that are losing loved ones within the ongoing middle east conflict, i believe a lot of congressmen and legislators are taking a lot of power away in what we can say.

basically the ones in poverty are not really trying to basically overthrow government, but i believe that a lot of the bills that are being passed these days are taking away a lot of the voices, a lot of what they are trying to say that the families are going through. and i really think that we as a nation should hear everybody's opinion. it is a two-way street. i know that money can buy votes and money can buy a lot of things because everybody has a price. but what i'm having a problem with is a lot of people are being silenced by these government groups in these -- and these high ranking generals that want to cover up a lot of wrongs like the water scandal. host: thank you for the call. back to the story from the "columbus dispatch" and vice

president joe biden who spoke before ohio democrats and said this. a country are never going to get there done. we are never going to some our debt problem if we ask only those that are struggling in the economy to bear the burden and let the most fortunate off the hook. republican leaders say without a deal of cutting long-term deficits they will not vote to increase the borrowing which will exceed $14.3 trillion on ugust 2, or beyond that point right now. the president warned if congress fails to raise the debt ceiling it will lead to the first u.s. financial default in history. that is online at the "columbus dispatch" website. kathleen wright saying when will the president threatens the g.o.p. with a debt ceiling? they want to cut medicare? we take away the bush tax cuts over $250,000 kurt from new jersey. caller: good morning.

i find it amazing that people so powerful and important can just say we are not even going to talk about something like raising taxes or -- it doesn't make sense that these people who spend more on one suit than i spends on clothes in five years can really be taking care of me. but i would love to see these guys get together, or i would love to see the democrats stand up and say, well, absolutely no talking without increasing revenues. but it looked a little sad, and i can only dream i'm wrong, but let's all try to work together and hope it happens. thanks. host: boulder, com, the next call

caller, mike on the democratic line. caller: one way you can make people invest in the united states is by raising taxes. otherwise, you can't force any company or any people to necessarily put the money in the united states. host: on the republican line tom from burlington, kentucky. > if i understand this correctly, the tax cuts back in 2001 were supposed to be temporary and create jobs. well, it didn't create jobs and we are still willing to have further tax cuts. wouldn't it be better to have the taxes go back to where they were in the 1990's and call that temporary and then get out of the two wars we are in? that would save $2 billion right there. host: thank you, tom. from our twitter page the had 90 days accepted

by the past administrations and congress. now it is time for congress to do its job. rich from boise, idaho. democratic line. caller: i'm trying to figure out hy we can't deo what the reagan administration did because they got us out of the depression. host: thank you. congressman adam smith is the guest today marking the 100th day of u.s. efforts in libya. we want to share some of his comments in the program but i want to let you see the front page of the "washington post." no fast ends to the battle in libya. the piece points out as nato bombs rained on libya in march the president and others assumed the worried public that it would be over within weeks. now the springtime incursion has stretched into summer and

gaddafi's resilience has caused them to struggle. calls are growing to end even as nato pleads for more time. as it enters the fourth months officials insist that the -- that they are succeeding and gaddafi will be the arab spring's third casualty. further in a couple of facts. first of all on america's military, part of the funding has been stripped in great britain. a top commander sang as it goes past spring his forces would crack under the strain. on wednesday italy's foreign more called for an immediate ends to hostilities. then the french president sake the u.s. is not doing enough to help with the nato operations over libya. with that background representative adam smith joins us on the c-span news makers program the ranking democrat on

the house armed services committee. the issue on whether libya's voters may have a -- may have viewed it differently if the president will gone to congress for the resolution in march to use u.s. forces in libya. is more with representative adam smith. >> congressman, if the white house will come to congress in march and asked for authorization in libya, do you think it would have supported it? >> it is hard to say. republicans are very focussed on a process argument now and i actually agree with one part of it. i think the president and white house in general could have been more inclusive of congress in the builds-up to the decision to go into libya. it happened fairly fast and the president and his team were reluctant to get involved. but then you had the arab league, u.n. and they were launching this and needed our help and nato expressed support. from that point the president has done a good job of explaining it. what the republicans and house

could have done is say we understand and we. like our voice should be herds. let's authorize it. instead, this hanging back and criticize being the president saying we support that gaddafi should go, we should support that the libyan people, the folks who are rising are worthy of support but we just don't like the president's process. well, offer an authorization. congress could have done that the last 100 days. host: you can watch the conversation with adam smith member of the house armed services committee as we talk about afghanistan, house votes last friday and on libya and other military matters again at 10:00 eastern, 7:00 on the west coast. we have a call from st. paul, minnesota, focusing on the negotiations that resume tomorrow with the president and senate leaders. good morning. raymond, would, please. caller: good morning. host: you are calling on the line.ndence

go ahead. caller: i want to say about the whole debt ceiling and all that stuff going on in the world right now, i personally think that everybody -- the congress, president and everybody -- should get together and try to get something worked out to get everybody on the same page. because if we don't get everybody on the same page and fast, we have to realize that the worlds is watching -- the world is watching right now and if we don't get something done, something besides a lot of talking and so much talking and bick to ering that we are going be in so much trouble and nothing getting done. i feel like they have to get something done fast. that fighting back and forth and everybody not getting nothing done is not working. host: ray, thanks for the call. from our twitter page, the

democrats know how to work together. the republicans don't. rucked individual ilist is the comment. bruce calls on the republican li line. caller: good morning to you. i have more of a kind of comment and question. i'm trying to figure out where is it and when is it that public servanting became so powerful with a blank check and has the nerve to tell the citizens there is no medicines candidate or no medica medicare. of a mixed message even to me but the controversy between citizens and public servants. it seems like they have placed themselves in such a high regard and have us citizens underneath

all of these issues. i don't know, maybe you could make sense of that along the way. host: thanks for the call. the issue of medicaid is the subject of a piece in this journal called "kick the can, debt ceiling negotiators eyeing cuts in medicaid." that might push the hard choices back to the states. the probability of success would improve if the president would goat involved and fight for once. donald joins from tallahassee, florida. caller: i would like to discuss a biblical understanding of what this is leading to. there is one of the greatest times there is to be a real christian, not no fly by night. we are witnessing the people

rising to deliver this deadly wound to this nation. once they are going to put together this so-called negotiation it is going to act like it is going to work for a while and then the deadly wound will be delivered and satan's childr children, cain's children understand that their father satan is on his way back. so they are doing everything they can to help usher in their father to tell them i have come to fly you away from here and all they are doing is getting ready for this here so-called rise-up. ost: thraeurpbg y-- thank you for the call.

john has this comment. the tax hike on the rich would have generated $70 billion a year. this year's deficit is 22 times that. . we have a spending crisis. the other big story in the new york media is the gay marriage law signed into law over the by governor cuomo, passed last week. pride on the march as huge crowds to clear the gay marriage law at a parade scheduled to take place this weekends. "new york times" behind the gay marriage unlikely mix of forces focusing on how andrew kwoefpl and his staff many weeks ago sitting down with a number of senate republican leaders to work out their support to get there to pass. you can see the signing ceremony that took place friday evening with the governor handing a pen to senator thomas dwayne who is openly gay and one of the sponsors of the bill.

david joins us from westfield, indiana on the issue of the president sitting down tomorrow with senate leaders to hammer out possibly a budget agreement and spending plan. good morning, dave. caller: good morning. i think it is time that the senate pass a budget. they have not passed a budget. the law requires them to have passed it about april 15. the house passed a budget, but if the president is going to talk to the senate leaders, it is time for the senate to do its job. we hear everything about paul is the udget but what senate's budget? have they got a better idea? if they do, what is it? they are long overdue to do their job. i presume that is why he is talking to the senate instead of the house. because the house knows what they are doing. the house is leading on this and the senate and president are

just doing nothing but criticizing the house. it is time for them to pass a budget. it should have been passed a long time ago. host: in presidential politics we alluded to the poll online at "the des moines register" website. among those potential cauc caucusgoers polled mitt romney 23%. michelle bachmann announcing tomorrow getting 22%. herman kane is third. the others finding little traction. governor tim pawlenty will be in new york focusing on foreign policy, a speech he is delivering tuesday morning that we will be covering for the c-span networks. back to the calls an tweets on the issue of the meeting that will take place tomorrow between senate leaders and the president, separate sessions with reed and mcconnell. democrats ned to forget bipartisan and do something. elders and union

are under attack. tony joins us. caller: herman kane really makes me laugh. anyway, the republicans have walked out on all the meetings so far. chuck grassley walked out on healthcare resolve. t tom coburn on the depth and debt saoef ceiling. mcconnell will probably walk out on the president. he republicans keep electing people that are -- i don't know -- stupid is the best word i can come up with. i hope they can get there to go ahead but just stop voting in these stupid people because they give you a bunch of red meat. host: from the "washington post" africa trip has been a time for the first lady to shine. there is a photograph of

michelle obama with her mother and two daughters on a safari part of a trip that began in south africa. it points out that on the trip part official and diplomatic she displayed her version of soft diplomacy. she's made appearances at 20 events and stops at a few big tourist attractions. this photograph from reuters in the "washington post" with first lady michelle obama who is back in washington. don from south windsor, connecticut. caller: good morning. i'm an independent and i'm 79 on medicare. i have gone through a lot. number one, it has to be a combination of two things, both parties are totally wrong in this situation which upsets me to no end. i'm very active in my town politics and the state in writing letters. number one, they have to repeal the bush tax cuts. two, carry interest at 15% is a

disgrace. at one time i paid 70% taxes. our taxes are still low versus other countries. however, having said all of these things, basically the spending must be cuts. one of the big things nobody has ever talked about, social security is not a problem. you can solve it with little tweaks. people have to understand and it has never been told to the public about medicare. i'm on medicare and it is a fantastic -- i worship the ground every morning because of how valuable it is. people do not realize we didn't pay anywhere center what we paid for medicare. number one, payroll is 7.65%. that 6.2% is for social security, only 1.45% is for

benefits. the benefits we receive, seniors don't have any understanding. nobody has ever told them that we get a benefit, each one of us, of about $11,000 a year. we pay 1.45% and get a benefit of $11,000. social security, we pay 6.2% and get a benefit of $11,000 a year. it is not an entitlement which is what everybody talks about. but medicare has got to be changed. also, we better reduce the federal, state and municipal spending especially for workers. we are having a big fight in the state of connecticut and the workers just turned down minor modificationless. the military has to be substantially cut. both parties are totally wrong and it is a disgrace and we need some new people in here that will compromise and both parties

have to give in. host: don, thanks. we have been talking about congressional redistricting. later in the program david watson covers the house of representatives and we will talk about averages and libya and in about 15 to 20 minutes we will talk about 2012 presidential politi politics. from politico two sides in terms of where continuation stands. in private talks republicans sayinge-- rejected plans they should take part as the overall of the tax cut. democrats arc boehner will never get a reduction worth more than $2 trillion without more revenue. the speaker says taxes are off the table. from john who has this point on our twitter page saying you could eliminate the entire federal government with the exception of defense and

collection to old people and still have a deficit. frank is next from buffalo, new york. caller: good morning. haven't talked to you in a while. host: good to talk to you. caller: i have been watching a lot of committees and general patraeus made a good point when a congressman asked them about i put a uniform on and i can give a comments or suggesti suggestion. but it still comes down to this. we take an over the and i'm ex-military myself. we take an oath that the leader of this country has the final say. my point is that we are losing respect in this country. in regard to mr. cantor the other day and some of his colleagues that have been on other committees, when a senior

democrat questioned them i swear to god i thought the kid was going to start kick being his feet -- because he was never in the military but his family was to thaought he was going kick his feet and run home to mommy. we are sending a bad message to america. when i worked two jobs and had -- went to work for general to work part t time for a nursing home i go from one job to the next. and an old guy there, if he had said that or walked out he would have called you a young pup. so, you don't disrespect the vice president of the united states. i have been in negotiations with corporations when i was in the union and to walk out on somebody like that just because he says no, no, no, that is

being a baby. now i would like to read one thing that happened in world war ii. host: ok. with us?till caller: yes. are you there? host: yes, go ahead. >> basically it was about the soldiers, sailors and marines. for youth there can be rest, for me no vacation from parts i can play to help win the war. this is naturally, world war ii. i can play to help win the war. i can therefore solemnly promise to continue to buy united states savings bonds, stamps and bonds to the limit of my ability throughout my summer vacation until our victory is won. host: we will stop you there. thanks for the call. from twitter close every loophole in corporate welfare and make it air tight and then you can talk about lowering the tax rate. we are focusing on the resume ions that will

tomorrow. this time they are led by president obama as he sits down with senate leaders in washington. nicole joins us on the democrats line. what do you want to see happen? caller: i want to see the two get together and be about the business for the people. not about themselves and be divided. we can't get anything done if we are all over the place. our elders are in trouble if we cut everything off from them. so we need to work out a plan where we can keep going and money can be cut some other places. it can be affordable for other things to be cut but not our

elders, because they are the ones that made this country what it is. so, we can't forget where we came from. host: thank you. we have had a guest frequently when he worked for the "washington post" has penned his story inside "new york times" sunday magazine called outlaw, my life in america as an immigrant.d american there are related stories to this first of all from patrick who is the ombudsman for the "washington post" who says the post deported a compelling story. the story in the post saying i think readers should care about how the post handled the case of jose antonio vargas who confessed in this compelling piece for "new york times" that he was and i will legal immigrant brought in to

california by his grant parents -- grandparents. it is a disclosure that the post assistant managing editor knew of his illegal status when he was a post employee from 2004 to 2009. pearl kept in a secret. he says i think the post missed an opportunity to tell a great story. this is from the ombudsman of the "washington post." from the new york daily news 1.1 million jose antonio vargas, the lesson behind the reporter who o outed himself u.s. policy is a tragedy. these are stories we wanted to bring to your attention on the former "washington post" reporter from "new york times" and "washington post" and "new york daily news". raymond from savannah, georgia. independent line. caller: we do need to cut the

spending of the federal governme government. my friends and i were talking about why don't we lower the wages of congressmen and senators. they could take a hit on their wages and their retirement plan. as soon as they are voted out they start growing a congressional pension for the rest of their lives. why shouldn't they have to wait until they are 67 to start drawing their congressional pension? why should they start when they are 45 years old? if they are voted out or they resign at 45, they start drawing their pension right then. another thing, well, i will leave it at that. host: the story this morning on line at politico.com, obama takes the lead in debt talks. that is the story. the next call is lloyd from

frankfurt, kentucky. good morning. democratic line. lloyd, go ahead, please. caller: thanks for taking my call. good morning to you. caller: our taxes, when the clinton era, our taxes was high, country was booming and we had jobs anywhere you wanted to go. we voteed a republican in, we go to war in iraq and give a big tax break and we've been going downhill ever since. that is all i have to say. host: thank you, lloyd. back to a story from inside the "washington post" senator obama versus president obama. the tax is always an occupational hazard for presidents who disown statements made when they were candidates or legislators embroiled in partisan fights. but president obama seems to

have gotten himself into unusually hot water this year in they different battles his own words weapons for democrats and republicans. again on the debt ceiling vote in 2006 senator obama said the fact we are here today to debate raising the debt limit is a sign of leadership failure and a sign government cannot pay its own bills. that is a speech from march 16, 2006. it is available at c-span's part of our video library. that is at c-span.org. from a self-described freelancer on our twitter page president obama needs to call out the republicans. $11.5 trillion spent and paid for nothing. he needs to show misuse of taxpayer cash. regina joins us from apollo, pennsylvania, on the republican line. good morning. you are on the air. please go ahead. caller: i want to talk about

congressman ron paul and the fact that a lot of people call on and talk about social security but i don't hear one talking about ron paul has the bill, who is also running for president. he has a bill h.r. 219, and it make so that the social security money that we are forced to pay to the government -- we have no choice. that disturbs me. i have no choice and our government all these years have allowed the democrats and republicans, whoever does this, to go ahead and force it out and then this bill is a lock box on the social security. h.r. 219, the whole situation is we are just allowing everybody sort of fussing about this. but away need to rein in this spending. we didn't need to be accountable

to the fact that the government takes it and spends it unconstitutionally for whatever they think and it gets them votes. ron paul is running. i also wanted to ask you, is he on tonight 9:30? host: he is. we didn't talk about that particular issue but it is a 45-minute interview last week that airs tonight 9:30 eastern and pacific. thanks for allowing us to plug it talking about why he is running for president. he sizes up the g.o.p. field, his early years as a medical student in pittsburgh, his move to texas. his run for president in 1988 and in 2008. it is all tonight on "road to the white house." caller: i appreciate it. i hope that he also did a really good job on not defending the idea that we should be in libya

and he wouldn't vote for either resolution because it tied us in. he's always on the constitution and if we follow the constitution we wouldn't be in debt. so, h.r. 219, i encourage everybody to call their congressman and say put the lock box on social security and our money can't be used in these other directions that drain our budget. host: thank you for the call. john has this point. they don't call them tax and spend liberals for nothing. their social inch will be the ruination of america unless we stop them. you can join the conversation at twitter.com/cspanwj. we have this from "new york times" sunday magazine a look at jon huntsman's rise from utah politics to ambassador to china

his association with john strategi ohn phmccain strategist. someone has to win the republican nomination it might as well be jon huntsman. abdullah joins us from california. good morning. independent line. caller: good morning. i want to first of all confess my ignorance to the debt ceiling thing. i was not really astute to this topic before it became such a firestorm in our media and politics. what i will say is this. it has illuminated for me what i believe is one of the philosophical reasons we have never been able to get anything done in this country. we saw at the beginning of the election of barack obama that there was a declaration by the republicans that they were going to do everything that they can to make sure that obama fails. and they would throw their

grandmother out with the happen.ir to make that people call saying we have to cut social security and medicare. but unemployment is 9.0%. where do they think these people will end up at. they will be on their front door, in alleyways and easements. i'm an independent and i'm only interested in the truth and we have some very good lawmakers on the hill that are there to do what they were sent to washington to do is to fight for the people. but we don't have that. and everyone that is opposing everything that is good, it shouldn't be about right, left, democrats and republicans but what is right and wrong and everybody that is -- they come up with these anecdotal architects of why and convince a lot of people. the lady that called before me made disparaging remarks about social security and where is she

going to be when she retires? but everybody who speaks against it speaks with a southern drawl. i'm african-american and for me those same people i think they don't want certain things put in place that are going to better the country no matter what just because there is a black man doing it. and until we face race that this is always going to have these long architects about what is going on or not going on and if we just do what is right and wrong and see it for what it is. this is still a country set up by white people and there is a black man in office and white people would throw their grandmother out with the bath water rather than see a man succeed even if it is good for the country. host: from one of our viewers saying corporate churches those huge megachurches need to be taxed especially when they try to influence legislation. we are focusing on the

will get ns that understood way tomorrow. the hill newspaper saying the president and vice president will meet with senate leaders to discuss negotiations on raising the debt limit. the announcement friday the president secretary saying negotiations will manufacture forward as long as he says it is not a my way or the highway approach. despite the appearance of an impasse he says the white house confident we can continue the progress we have made. but as the senate leaders meet with the president mcconnell saying taxes are off the table, republicans will not support any tax increases. our last call on this is walter from brookeville, florida. good morning. caller: good morning. why we can't get anything done, we have mitch mcconnell it is his way or the highway. he is not going to disrespect the president. and one caller saying in the senate, reid can't get anything done because he needs 60 votes

and mitch mcconnell will let the republicans give the 60 votes. another thing is these governors are laying off all of these people in the state and they are counting this unemployment the president. that is not fair. they say they want the staete t do what they do, but now they are giving -- they are laying off all of these people and it and the president for that is not right. thank you for listening to me. host: thank you for the call. one other point, every major economist says spending cuts left hand will not grow the economy. the republican is again conning the public. you are calls and comments are available through twitter.com/cspanwj or journal journal@c-sp journal@c-span.org. we will now discuss the situation in pakistan and in libya. that will be in a couple of

minutes. first a look at some of the issues and topics making up the sunday morning programs all of which can be heard on c-span radio sunday afternoon. here is a preview. today the topics on the five network shoals aws are debt limd conomy and averages and presidential politics. we begin at noon with "meet the press". david gregory will speak with the new jersey republican governor chris christie and jack reed of rhode island and jim webb from virginia. at 1:00 p.m. eastern abc's "this week" christiane ammon pour will talk with mitch mcconnell and house assistant minority leader james complyburn. then chris wallace and guest minnesota representative and presidential candidate michelle bachmann and senate minority while john kyl.

cnn will talk with nancy pelosi. south carolina republican senator jim demint and mike rogers. finally, we wrap up at 4:00 p.m. eastern with ""face the nation"" from cbs where michelle batch will be on. -- bachmann. nationwide on xm satellite 119 and on the web at c-span radio. >> who would think a youtube rap video on economics would become popular. >> here we are peace out great more lineup for the recession, we brought out the shovels and we are still in a different and still digging, the party is over

the long run is here and it is time to get low. >> we will talk with the creators of fight of the cent y century. >> we are trying to reach people who are interested in how the world works. that is everybody from a high school student who is curious about economics to a person who is just trying to make a link and get along and is worried about what is going on. >> tonight 8:00 eastern on "q "q&a." >> sunday author, activist and writer and resident linda logan her bock focuses on native america includes the woman who watches over the world dwelling with the spiritual history of the living world. join our three-hour conversation taking your phone calls, e-mails an twee-- and tweets. that is sunday july 3 noon eastern on c-span 2.

washingt"washington journal" co. host: we want to welcome back to c-span joining us from new york leslie gelb. let me begin with your own words on what the president said saying the white house and president should have said mission accomplished in afghanistan. that quite familiar to the c-span and national audit jones, the words that came about after u.s. combat operations ended in iraq and the banner behind president george w. bush. why should president obama say those words? guest: well, when president bush uttered them on the battle ship, they were not true. if president obama uttered them today they would be true. e went into afghanistan to punish al qaeda for attacking the united states.

and to destroy its listen. and we have done that. if you ask u.s. intelligence today they will tell you that al qaeda in afghanistan numbers in the tens. i think around 50. we also went in to punish the taliban for giving safe haven to the al qaeda people. and while the taliban hasn't renounced al qaeda, we don't know that there is any any more. so, the main reasons we went in have been more or less accomplish accomplished. we didn't go in to transform afghanistan into a democratic free market paradise. and every time we run in that goal, that nation-building goal, our troops and our money go down the drain. so, it is time to say we achieved what we needed to achieve and it is time to turn

over the responsibility after 10 years, to the afghanistans to fight for their own freedom. host: two years ago in a "wall street journal" editorial you said the president's policies in afghanistan were confusing. are they still or has the president cleared things up in the last two years? guest: i think they still are confusing. first of all, i'm satisfied with the 30,000 withdrawal over the next year. i think it is about the most you can do. but he didn't encase that withdrawal decision in a strategy that showed americans and people in that region how we would deal with continuing risks based on the interests of other countries. you know, we are not the only country that is worried about extremism in that part of the world. the indians are, the chinese

are, the russians are. the iranians are. remember, the iranians helped us at the beginning of the afghan war. so, we need to help forge an alliance of these states to contain extremism, to contain the poppy trade, and let them begin to take responsibility for their own interests in the region. host: one day after the president outlined his strategy, members of his cabinet testifying on capitol hill including secretary of state hillary clinton, general david patraeus the c.i.a. nominee, and i want you to listen to what the chairman of joint chief of staff testified to. the issue is afghanistan, also the regional issues including pakistan and the taliban. here is part from that hearing. >> i get the al qaeda and no al qaeda or small number in

afghanistan. that is not the case in pakistan. i just never looked at this as a single country approach. you can't, from my perspective, do that. it is the region and part -- the other core objective if you will of this strategy is make sure afghanistan is stable enough so it can't return to where it was when al qaeda grew up there and in the first place, or some other outfit that would seek to do the same thing. and there are growing numbers of those. and that is not where we are in pakistan. that is where we are in afghanistan. admittedly al qaeda is not there in any significant numbers. al qaeda, however, is very tightly wound with a network that continues to try to destabilize afghanistan and take over that government. the taliban's goal is to still run the country. i'm hard premis-pressed to thine taliban get back to that

position that they won't be the host for organizations like al qae qaeda. host: how would you respond to that? guest: i think that admiral mullen is terrific. he is one of the best chairs of the joint chiefs we have ever had. but i respectfully disagree on almost every count. the first place, there are al qaeda in pakistan, but their numbers there are tiny as well. what we have been going at in pakistan are mainly taliban leaders. sure we go after bin laden and others. but there are not many of them there. secondly, yes, we want to make afghanistan as secure as we can. but we have to stay there forever. to be sure that that territory

wouldn't be used for terrorism once again. at a certain point the afghans themselves have to take on that battle. we can't do it forever. we have other interests. and, of course, there are risks. and admiral mullen and general patraeus were quite right to point out that there are military risks. but there are also risks in our not moving out and not tending to other priorities. our whole foreign policy is locked into the war on terrorism in afghanistan. much of our domestic debt problem is tied up with that, between the $50 billion we are still spending in iraq and over $120 billion in afghanistan. that is a big chunk of the debt problem and big step if we can get out of there in a reasonable way as quickly as possible, it is a big step to easing the debt problem.

host: about a week and a half ago you indicated the president will unveil a plan to reduce u.s. forces in afghanistan by upwards of 30,000 but to withdraw them under military guidance over the next 12 to 18 months. that was pretty much on target and exactly what the president outlined this past wednesday. without revealing your sources it seems like you are talking to people inside the administration. guest: sure, i was talking to the people in the white house. they would like to know how i got that story, too. i tell them it is a job as journalist. host: you say the quick exiters get the number and the die harders get one last year to the taliban.en ain't democracy grand? guest: right. i think a lot of these decisions are really political. you get the most you can without

the roof caving in on you. had the president taken out more than 30,000 in less than a year the military would have revolt and justifiably so. the democrats had to feel like the president was listening to them. around 30,000, the number he put in there for the surge over a year ago, was the least that would satisfy them. so, this was done for democratic reasons, small d democratic. more than for strategic reasons. host: let me put on the table one of the voices jim mcgovern joined us last week taking calls and discussing the president's draw-down. both in our interview and on the house floor he said the draw-down was insufficient. here is more with the massachusetts democrat. >> i give the president credit for announcing we need to

rethink our afghanistan policy. but what he announced which is a draw-down of 30,000 troops over 10,000ebnext year and a half, at the end of this year but remaining 23,000 at the end of 2012, what he announced is insufficient in my opinion. i think it is unacceptable. to me it is a continuation basically of the status quo. we are still going to have 100,000 troops on the ground fighting the same war with the same strategy, the same costs, same casualties. i think we need to rethink the policy. we have been in afghanistan for almost 10 years. that is the longest war in our history. george will did a piece in the "washington post" a couple of days ago and points out that u.s. involvement in the second world war lasted 1,346 days and u.s. fighting in afghanistan reached that milestone six years ago on june 14, 2005.

host: your reaction to comments of congressman jim mcgovern. guest: i'm very sympathetic to his frustration. but as i said, 30,000, i think, maxed out the number that the military, our military, was prepared to go along with. we can't just disregard their vi view. just logistically it is tough to get 30,000 more out of that country in a year's time. it is very difficult because to essentially go through pakistan and that is not easy. so we have to listen to the military that we got into the war, they didn't want it in the first place and we have to listen to them on a safe exit. but mind you, it is a safe exit for our guys leaving some people there to help afghans who want to fight. but the main purpose of our policy at this point has to be

to convince the afghans themselves that finally, after 10 years, this has got to be their responsibility. if they don't want their women to be enslaved again, if they themselves don't want to be subject to taliban dictatorship, they have to fight. the taliban itself in afghanistan is somewhere between 20,000 and 40,000 troops. now, there are tens of millions of afghanistans who should be fighting them. it is up to them at this point. and they are prepared in terms of arms to take on this responsibility. they have to have it in their hearts to fight. we can't put it there. host: our conversation with leslie gelb who began working for senator jacob javits in the 1960's, columnist for "new york times" and past president of the

council on foreign relations joining us from new york. we will get to comments. when will the contractors be pulled out of afghanistan? guest: that is a good question because they get overlooked in this process. we have 100,000 troops in afghanistan and maybe upwards of 100,000 contractors, too. and they have to be part of this withdrawal process. they cost a lot to pay for a lot of american contractors. there are upwards of $200,000 a year to some of them, somewhat in excess of paying the troops who are fighting and dying there. host: frank joins us from florida. gentlemen.d morning, mr. gelb, i have a comment and a question for you. my comment is this. isn't really the purpose of the troop reduction window dressing of the troops obama already sent

there. we are involved in five conflicts in the middle east. it seems that something is going o on. every congressman and president we have had since your organization has been formed has been a member of your organizati organization. and one of the members, david rockefeller said this famously. we are on the verge of a global transformation. all we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the new world order, which he terms as a global government system. isn't that what is happening in the middle east, sir? aren't you just trying to get the last few countries left on earth under central banker control? guest: well, i don't believe in global world order or global governance. and i -- we have never polled the members of the council to see what they think. you may remember that on my board when i served as president

were dick cheney and jean kirkpatrick and they tkfpbt believe in global world rthopedic a and global governs. so david rockefeller was expressing his view and was not carrying out a policy in the middle east or fighting wars for global world order. we are trying to diminish the threat of terrorism to our allies and ourselves. host: next call is independent line antonio from boston. good morning. caller: good morning. address.u are the pwbest i call on you a couple of years ago and i say we waste a lot of money in pakistan. we can spend some money in this beautiful country. the people in this country need to bring up the economy used to

be like 30 or 40 years ago. the american people suffer right now. we not be able to spend all of this money. we have to spend the money in this country. i agree with your guest 100% that we have to get out of there. we don't belong there. god bless america and peace to all. host: antonio, thank you. leslie, gelb, do you want to respond to any of that sentiment? it reflects what a lot of americans believe at this point. they think we have done much to take care of our security concerns and done more than enough to give the afghanistans a chance it defend themselves. host: we have this from the "washington post." i'm scratching my head about the logic of his timetable for reversing the surge that he announced 18 months ago pulling out 10,000 troops this year is

ok but why an additional 23,000 in the middle of next year's fighting season? that encourages a battered taliban to hang on longer rather pwarpg for a truce. it repeats the tip your happened mistake when he got a date for wraupl as he ordered them into battle. i thought the president had if right on the larger theme saying if american military might have been shown to have limited effect in shape being events so have the terrorist strategies of al qaeda and taliban. a couple of different paints from david ignatius. your response. guest: he is a wise man, very good columnist. he wants to have it both ways in the column. he wants us to get out of afghanistan faster because he realizes that our vital spwls are no longer served there. and yet he is complaining about the speed of this particular

withdrawal. of course, there will be risks in taking 30,000 out in a year. they won't be there to fight for another six months. but nothing is ever going to be perfect there. we can't reduce security risks to zero. it is up to the afghans to take over. that is the theme for president oba obama, and that is the point that drives into the heads of the afghans. host: on the republican line mike joins us from richmond, west virginia. caller: not richmond, west virginia, richwood. host: good morning. i didn't think that seemed right but one never knows. organic from richwood. caller: good morning. am i on the air? host: you are. caller: i was talking about the soldiers overseas. when we go into fight i was in one of those abrams tanks. ever never been in a battle with anyone yet but our soldiers when

they are fired on by one person with a rifle, i was wondering why they don't let them take care of that person. he is a danger to anybody and could take your led off. i do believe we need to withdraw from there and get out and we need our troops for other things in the future. and prepare our equipment which is fine these days and up to date. and with the stealth missiles and things we have, we have right now. but we need to withdraw from there and take care of the home base. and with regard to the southern gate at the border with mexico. if you have two or three thousand good guys that come across there that are real fighters and come up from the south they can create a lot of damage to our oil places an communities if they wanted to. host: thanks for the call. we will get a response from leslie gelb. guest: the call raises an important point because here we

are asking our military to go fight there war with their hands tied behind their backs because we don't want to injure the afghanistan civilians. so we try to fight the taliban without killing more innocent afghans and it is often impossible to distinguish between the two. that puts our people at risk. that is yet another reason why we ought to be turning over the war to them. host: this graphic is an indication of the u.s. troop fatalities in afghanistan dating back to october of 2001 when it was just a few dozen i would y say. you can see the increase up to about 1,500 over the last 10 years each of them a tragic loss for families and loved ones. from jody we have lost more than just a treasure in averages. three kids in my neighborhoods will not be here to celebrate the fourth of july this year.

guest: i feel for her. host: grace joins us from graham, north carolina. democrats line. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i'm very concerned about the war. we have our soldiers continuing to go there. i'm with obama. it is time to pull out and let all the soldiers and people that are there take their own war. because if we continue staying and staying we are losing money, we are losing soldiers and we need respect for the lost soldier and giving them honor. they are not here but we can say we did pull out and we are not going to continue losing soldiers. i am really for pulling out of this war. we need to respect our president. he did take care of the mission of taking care of our nation.

if persons would stop meddling and giving out false information and let this president do his job. he has done great. we have had a conspiracy trying to hinder him out of the republican party. our president is doing great. let's pull out and let's let our country live again and bring our soldiers home. their families miss them and this is all i have to say. host: thank you for the call. leslie, let me take her comments and phrase it in terms of this. there is a piece by gid i don't know rose what would nixon do. a look at lessons. henry kissing er wrote saying te and less more on exit on strategy. my question is based on the lessons from vietnam and other past u.s. military involvement, what are the options for afghanistan and what lessons could be applied from the past moving ahead?

right. it is a critical question. and in truth i have written about it for two years and it is like banging my head against the wall. as i was listening to your caller i realized people don't really understand that we are committed to keeping the bulk of our troops in afghanistan until the beginning of 2015. that is more than three more years. that is our nato pledge. even after that we will probably have 15,000 to 20,000 troops there. it is that long-range commitment that needs to be adjusted. how do you adjust it? you have to have a withdrawal plan that i think speeds up the process as part of it. but you do need a strategy in the same way nixon and kissinger had a strategy to kind of cover

our exit from afghanistan with other aspects of u.s. power to reduce risks in the region. what nixon and kissinger did was the opening to china, triangular diplomacy playing off most could you against beijing, doing a middle east peace deal. they demonstrated even as we were getting out of vietnam that america still had a lot of power to get important things done. the world began to focus on those things rather than what was happening in vietnam itself which wasn't very pleasant for us. in the case of afghanistan, we need, as i said before, that strategy to forge a regional allian alliance. it will include almost all of the countries in that region to deal with continuing threats from islamic extremists. host: let me share with you what

congressman steve king republican of iowa said this past week on c-span's "washington journal" with regard to the time line of the white house. for the president to announce deployment of pulling troops out of afghanistan on a timetable and that timetable is pretty much consistent with the timetable he announced when he ordered the surge, it is the wrong tactic to tell our enemy well fight a war by a skate on the -- a date. it tells them what they need to whether they are going to try to match up or go underground and wait us out. this tells them to wait us out. a couple more years around there won't be opposition in averages and that opens it up for taliban to come back in to afghanistan and we know what they did to averages after the russians were gone. that vacuum was filled. there was a power vacuum after the russians filled bit taliban and that laid the foundation for al qaeda to go into afghanistan, which launched the attack on the

united states september 11. host: steve kink -- steve king on "washington journal." your reaction. guest: i have heard that argument forever. doesn't make any sense. the taliban know we're moving out. does it make any difference to give them the timetable? if we had a private secret plan to do it would be in the newspapers the next day. they are going it find out about it one way or another. the reason why you make the announcement -- and george bush did it, his father did it, they all did it -- because if you don't, you never move out. you never create that incentive to deescalate u.s.a. involvement. that is the reason you do it. it is not to trick or give an advantage to the taliban. the taliban understand what is happening. host: a comment from joe bennett in dallas with the e-mail.

if afghanistans are not willing to keep them safe they should be ruled by those people. we have done enough to give them the opportunity to be self-sufficient. years is long enough. we will go next to norman from amherst, massachusetts, line for independents. with leslie gelb, former and now president emeritus of the council on foreign relations. caller: good morning. i would like to get mr. gelb's ideas on this. it is reported almost all of the heroin sold in the world originates in afghanistan. and the conventional wisdom is it may be financing u.s. covert operations. do you have any ideas on this? guest: i think there probably was a time when we were fighting the soviets in afghanistan that there was a connection between our covert operations and the

heroin trade, either for private gain or to finance the covert operations. i know of no such connection tod today. but then i wouldn't, would i? host: you are a former aide to senator jacob javits who was instrumental in getting the war powers act passed in 1973. they have been debating that friday. what do you think he would have taught of that house debate friday? guest: well, i think that he would have been happy that there was such a debate and he would have wished we had one right at the outset. it is really outrageous that the in effect goes it war and to me what we are doing in libya is a war. we have a huge chunk of our mediterranean fleet there providing the basis for military operations and initially

conducting military operations themselv themselves. you can't do that without looking at whether we have vital interests there, what we can accompli accomplish, can we do it all from the air or is that just going to punish the people in libya more? are we dealing with a civil war? do we really need to get rid of gaddafi? he was our best friend a year and a half ago. he gave us valuable information about how the terrorists were collecting technology and materials for nuclear weapons. he gave us information about terrorist operations. the rebels started a war against him, maybe they are justified. but to me this was internal to libya. all of that should have been debated. and congress, under the constitution, has the right to declare war and, at a minimum, it should have asserted its authority by holding hearings as

soon as we approached a situation of danger as we did in libya. host: let me summarize what the "washington post" is writing about. first of all the coalition among democrats and tea parties we saw that play out and italian foreign minister saying he wants nato to pull out. they say if this drags on into september it would be tough to continue to get great britain's support in this. the heads li line -- the headli no fast end. president said it would take weeks and we are in the 100th day today. guest: well, there could be 200 days or more. our military, the u.s. military, warped our nato allies and president obama that exactly this would happen. they told them all that we could not win this war or get rid of gaddafi from the air.

that you have to go in on the ground. otherwise, we were in for some long haul with very uncertain results. nobody paid attention to them. host: let me show you a couple of tweets. jane said how about two minutes on syria, steve? let's focus on the situation in sir why. we heard from the sir i don't know president in a speech tell violationed and is -- televised. how long can he stay on? guest: every time there is a crisis in a country somewhere around the world there is this natural and in many ways good american impulse to try to help. but there is a problem. in every case we don't know anything about the countries and we stumble into doing things and

after one or two years of making mistakes we say my heavens we didn't know anything about that country. syria is a very complicated place. it is ruled by a dictatorship of a shaoe shiite minority. the sunnis in that country, we don't know if they would be friendly or not friendly to american interests. we would like to see something worked out peacefully. we can't get involved in it. up another point. we have supposedly went into libya for humanitarian reasons, to save lives. now, that morphed into getting rid of gaddafi. but if our interest is humanitarian why not do something about the ivory coast, sudan and syria. more people were being killed in those places. so we have to be very careful about humanitarian intervention. we can do it but to do it with military operations, with combat

and war doesn't work very well. host: our guest has co-authored a up in of becomes including our own worst enemy the unmaking of american foreign policy and irony of vietnam, the system worked. kerry joins us from riverside, california. the line for democrats. caller: good morning, c-span. it seems apparent what president eisenhower warned like the military industrial complex doesn't it seem like they are running everything? and does this have anything to do with this plan that is on the intern main core, the information about them trying to figure out who is pro, i guess, them, who is against them and

who is neutral by having this alternative world? it is the main course on the internet. do you know anything about this. he said american people should find out about it for 200 years it is so treacherous or something. i think the nazis may have something to do with it, too. they did join after world war ii. thank you. god bless america. guest: i join you in god bless america. don't know anything about this internet business. as far as eisenhower's words about the military industrial complex, what he was talking about there was this mentality to spend money on our national security bureaucracy. spend more than he thought was necessary on the pentagon budget. it is not that he thought our military wanted to get in one war after another.

in fact, our military are the biggest doves in our country before wars begin. they know what it is like. they don't want to get involved. once the political leadership commits them and once our blood is spilled, then our military jumps over to the other side and they want to win. that has been their pattern and their dynamic. as far as the military industrial complex and budget, we ought to pay attention to that because since the iraq war, on terror, the base pentagon budget has tkwubl -- has doubled over the last decade. higher than it has ever been before. the intelligence budget has more than tripled in that same time. winding these expenditures down will be very difficult even

though we don't need that high level of spending on those programs any more. host: the taliban is from afghanistan, do you really think that we are going to fight their own people, our interest is not their interest, that is extra tweet. guest: yes, there are different interests. everybody has different interests including afghans. that is a tribal country. the taliban are almost all post -- postune. they are 60 people of the afghanistan people. you can't beat them into a pulp because they are embedded and ingrained in the majority and there will always be taliban with that majority. it is one of the central flaws in our thinking about that war.

it is one thing we didn't begin to understand when we made all of these commitments. host: david joins us from cumberland, rhode island. good morning. caller: good morning, steve. good morning, mr. gelb. two questions. first, to you, steve, a c-span question. i'm curious and i have no problem with it but i'm curious as to why we have to unblock our phone numbers when we call in. the second question is to mr. gelb. i know that you used to write for "new york times." i read some of your stuff. i was just curious, do you consider yourself a good liberal? and what political party are you a member of? thank i and have a good day. guest: well, i have never been a member of a political party say for the two years i worked for senator javits where he did ask his staff to sign up for the

republican party, which i did. oils i don't consider -- i don't consider myself a democrat or republican. i don't like political parties very much. if i had to take myself, i would hink of me as a burke iian conservative. traditional conservative. i think more about interests and power when it comes to politics than i do about argues about principle where you can have arguments on all sides of the issue. host: to your point about unblocking, we try to make sure everybody gets through but those who do so abide by a 30-day policy. we also want to make sure some who in the past got through with their own profanities or degradation i should say of some of the words they use, we don't want to make sure they don't get

through in the future because they bring down the quality of the conversation we want to have on c-span. we will get to one other point i want to share with you from adam smith had joins us on the issue of pakistan. here is what he had to say. >> i wish we did not have national security interests in this part of the world. it is a very difficult part of the world, very unstable and not particularly well governed. unfortunately it is the epicenter of al qaeda. so, stability there matters to our national security. then you have to set a very low bar for success. success in that region right now is the ability to contain this threat. i would love to be able to lay out a plan for eliminating the threat and getting rid of violent extremism and taliban but it is not going to happen. we have to be able to contain it. sven number one -- step one is a stable government in afghanistan and pakistan.

as bad as things are with pakistan if that government were descend in chaos or be taken over by the groups that are present that would be worse. so, we have to try to make this relationship work. host: he is the ranking democrat on the house armed services committee. that entire interview 10:00 eastern. your reaction. guest: i think that is a typical american reaction to a very tough problem. i just don't see how we are going to create a stable government in afghanistan. how do we do it? last time they had their own elections they elected president hamid karzai, who is not the most principled person in the world, whose family is incredibly crooked, and who has developed no legitimacy that people want to fight for.

how do we provide that? it is up to them to do it. get that have to through their head. secondly, sure, i worry a lot about pakistan. but i'm yet to hear an american present a plan or policy that can influence what is going on inside of pakistan. even if you had a perfect government in afghanistan, how would that affect the growth of the pacific -- pakistani taliban which is a real extremist force, the division within the army in pakistan where it is growing and growing religious extremism. the political lies in corruption in that country and tribal and class loyalties there. that country is falling apart with over 100 nuclear weapons. but show phame, other than sayi we should do something about it, exactly what we should do. host: our last call is from

illinois, diana, democrats line. caller: good morning, steve. i wanted to tell mr. gelb that in march of this year i was in pakistan and i had to learn about a different type of country for myself and show them how important it is for our country and their countries. but they did not accept who we were and they did not like us. and i agree that the troops coming home, i agree with pwoeufpl because we -- i agree with obama because we need to bring them home and i wanted to mr. gelb's response. host: thank you, diana. guest: as the caller, i'm sure, has guessed from what i have been saying, i agree with that.

time has come for us to speed up our exit from there. we should leave some residual force as to provide training, logistics, intelligence, commando operations. but basically we have no vital interests there that would justify the loss of life and expenditure of $120 billion. the time has come. steve, can i add a broader point? host: certainly. guest: which i have been talking about throughout our conversation. i love the fact that our country cares about what goes on in other countries and wants to do something to help people in those countries. it is a terrific many pulse. but we suffer from they problems. people who run our foreign policy, whether the political leaders or foreign policy experts. the first is we don't know about

the countries we intervene in. every time we make mistakes of ignorance. secondly, we always exaggerate american power to fix the problems and we only learn that three years, five years, into the war. but that is a fact almost everywhere. these are problems mainly internal to countries. and they are not easily changed by external military power. finally, foreign policy experts think much more about what is going on in the world and supposed threats to america than they think about dangers within our own country, namely the danger to our economy, which is the pweufbasis of our democracy our military power in the world. host: let me conclude on one other point in part because the story is this morning inside "new york times" about the

relationship or look thereof between the iraqi leaders and the led line is bitter feud between the top iraqi leaders the government to a standstill. the question is whether or not to ask the u.s. to keep a contingency force here of the scheduled withdrawal in iraq of american troops at the end of the year. the longer this deadlock persists between the iraqi leaders the harder for american military to slow down the 48,000 in of roughly that country. guest: that is true. again, it is one of those internal fault lines that we don't think about because we really don't understand the country. that is another tribal country, factional country. and it looks as if the great majority of iraqi people just want us out. i think it is in their interests and ours to have a small u.s.

there, not to be involved in the internal fighting but just for general stability purposes. but that is going to be decision, not ours. host: leslie gelb the president emeritus of the council on foreign relationless from new york. thank -- relations. a link to the conference website is available through c-span.org. thank you for being with us. guest: good to talk with you, steve. host: in a couple of minutes linda feldmann with this. five reasons the g.o.p. presidential race is one of the most unsettled in modern american history with new developments. last week and a new official contender with michelle bachmann who announced she was running for president. she will formally announce tomorrow. we will have live coverage starting at 10:00 eastern on c-span. we want to share with you as we

have been doing all weekend on both c-span 2's book tv and american history of c-span 3 our look at savannah, georgia. we have what we call a local content vehicle trampling around the country -- traveling around the country and we look at sites and sounds and history and we want to feature savannah. michelle hunter is the contract coordinator for the city talking about the jim crowe era and a document that is moving through city hall called ebb and flow. here is part of what we captured on that. >> savannah is very much like other cities in that it is always trying to brand itself. it is trying to understand what it is and as a community. what it means to be a citizen here. it is not unlike in chicago people in chicago want to find out what is unique about chicago and these projects really try to map what is unique about

savannah, the citizens, seminal events, things that have shaped its development. over the past couple of years we have interviewed six people over the age of 100. their concept of time, their understanding of the world is so incredibly different from ours that it is amazing. you talk to tell ma hodges the first cheerleader at savannah high school or was a rosy the riveter or saved an americrmy f mob of angry white men it speaks to what it was like to live in the jim crowe south as a woman in the coastal economy and participating in the daily transactions that drive racial interaction. it is amazing. it really is. >> what does it mean to live in the jim crow south?

>> slavery ended after the emancipation proclamation and southerners had to figure out how to conceptualize the issue of race. if you are not bound and you were not a citizen before but now you are a citizen what does it mean to live in the south? there are the daily transactions of buying food, and all of that had to be negotiated. if you read in the savannah newspaper in the 1880's or 1870's you see white people talking about how blacks didn't brave properly and after slavery ends they try to construct laws to con train them to put them -- constrain them. so that meant there were a series of laws that constrained every act that african-americans entered into. >> where they bought their food, how they worked, what kinds of jobs they had. you look at the southeastern shipyard african-americans

despite f.d.r. alle -- i think was a 1941 issue they could only work as porters and other menial positions that had no hope of advancement. they left all hope for q&a at the gate of the shipyard. host: you can get more information by logging on 130 c-span.org/local content vehicle as we travel to eight different cities. this week on book tv programming and all week on c-span 3 the american history tv featuring savannah. georgia alleges -- georgia as we look at the jim crow era. we now go it the elephant stampede the lay he is story you have been working on, five reasons the republican race is so unsettled. give us one or two.

guest: one reason is that the republican field is very large and the front-runner, who is a very recent front-runner happens to be somebody that is the most energetic part of the party, the conservative tea party wing of the party, isn't happy with so they are struggling with what to do about there. do you go with the republicans have a history of going with next in line but next in line is mitt romney who is relatively moderate. so, typically the republicans have had a clear frontrunner in february of the year before elections. this time that didn't happen until the end of may, beginning of june. another element is iowa. romney has already signaled he won't play hard in iowa so we may have a situation where iowa isn't as important as it has been in the past. it could end up being more sort

of a part of the bracket of the race which is the outsider, more conservative, more tea party friendly part of the party playing out its side of the race and to see who will be battling mitt romney. host: if you look on to the "des moines register" website a new poll shows romney among republicans 23%, michelle bachmann, who announces tomorrowetomorro tomorrow, at 22%. herman kane is third. the others including former governor tim pawlenty who spent a lot of time in iowa, in single digits. guest: exactly. i was inestranged traoepbtraoe inestranged by the poll and romney has done relatively well. although 23% is not formidable and it may than that is as high as he goes in iowa. i don't know if it means he should rethink thin his strateg.

he tried very hard there four years ago and didn't win. mike huckabee won and that created sort of a loser image for romney. who then went to new hampshire and was second in the new hampshire primary. mccain came in fourth in iowa four years ago. yet he won the nomination. so the iowa caucuses are rarely predictive for the republicans. host: he is indicating he won't anticipate in the straw poll in august. he won it in 2007. based on the poll numbers does that put him in a tough position? guest: i think it might give him pause about that. but i think really the straw poll is an important -- the first bite of the apple in iowa. not predictive since romney didn't win iowa but mike huckabee caught fire and won. but i think that it is smart for

romney not to really fight that hard in iowa and then make new his primary contest. and he has to win new hampshire or he is through. host: another candidate who entered last week in new jersey with the statue of liberty as the backdrop is the bahc piece with jon huntsman. john weaver longtime aid to john mccain has been instrumental in getting huntsman in the race. when he announced he would be ambassador to china he said i won't tell you what i told huntsman but last september and october as ambassador to china he began to give cakeses -- began it give indications he was going to run for president. is this huntsman's bid for the

white house? guest: jon huntsman has all the pieces in place to run a credible presidential campaign except one thing, voters. he has a good fund-raising apparatus, top tier advisors including john weaver, a pol pollster. he is intelligent. he has a foreign policy portfolio that none of the other candidates has. but nobody -- most americans don't know who he is and haven't really heard of him. a lot of people are just tuning in to the race. so there is a lot of excitement maybe inside the beltway thinking that he may have a lot of potential but it is completely unproven. there is also a theory this is a dry run for 2016, that huntsman in many ways doesn't fit this cycle. one of his top campaign mantras

is to preach simplity, yet we have a lot of energy on the right that would not say that. that you need to be aggressive going after barack obama. so, the idea is that maybe he is hedging a little bit and might not make it this time but he is introducing himself to the country such that in four years if president obama wins re-election huntsman can make credible run. host: our line for republicans there. give us a call. the lines are open now. you can e-mail at journal@c-span.org or twitter.co twitter.com/c-sp twitter.com/cspanwj. politico has two pieces on huntsman.

guest: hupblntsman had two termf governor of utah. ambassador to china. so, on the face of it good-looking guy, attractive fami family. you think he could have a lot of potentialment it is too early to write anybody off or say this is the guy, somebody who is polling in low single digits. so within those two pieces you have the colonel -- kernel of the huntsman debate. host: why is herman kane third? guest: he did well in south carolina. a frank luntz poll had him the winner. he speaks in clear assertive

sentences. he is milking his outsider status and he is very popular among tea party activists. if sarah palin doesn't run and tim pawlenty never catches on iowa could be a battle between michelle bachmann and herman cain. host: sarah palin back in iowa. guest: sarah palin kinds of fades from view. don't forget her but we don't pay as much attention and she comes roaring back right in the thick of things and she seems to have a little push-pull going with michelle bachmann. host: george joins us from mount pleasant, texas, republican line. good morning, george. host: good morning.

i want to know why we don't hear more about gary johnson. i think that is his name. from new mexico. host: we sat down with him about a month ago for a c-span "road to the white house" interview on our websites. what about him? guest: he didn't qualify to take part in the most recent debate on cnn. he was in the first debate and really didn't do very well. that is not why he was not invited back. there are a list of criteria that determine whether somebody is invited to take part. he is an interesting candidate. he has a strong libertarian streak, opposed to the war on drugs. but he was not a governor at all recently and has really not caught on in any significant way. so, a lot of -- some of the

candidates have a kind of vicious cycle they are battling, which is nobody has herds of them or knows who they are so they don't get a lot of buzz and don't make a lot of money in fund-raising so they can't get their name out. if you don't have any money and no personal wealth to tap into it is hard to get your name out there and make that initial buzz. host: and this is a busy fund-raising week for all the candidates leading up to the end of the month. guest: exactly. they have all been busy raising money. there is talk mitt romney could lap the field and ends up taking in more than all the others combined. which is a confirmation that he is the early front-runner. but again you don't have to match mitt romney to be a competitive candidate. you just have to have enough to get your name out and build some buzz. host: mike on the democrat

align. lacrosse, wisconsin. caller: good morning. has to do with the split between the tea party and basic g.o.p. how do you think that will affect the general election when we get to that point? not the general election but the promotional candidates for the g.o.p. at the convention? how do you think that would affect things? guest: that's a very important question. i just read a story about that that will come out tomorrow in the issue of the weekly christian science monitor. what it really is centering on who ends up being the nominee. if it is mitt romney, who is relatively moderate and is not popular among tea party because of the massachusetts healthcare reform, you will have somebody who maybe has a shot in the general election but won't have the huge enthusiasm of an important part of the republican base.

and it could hurt. i talk to tea party activists about this, some who are active in local republican politics and they will say as chairman of my local party i will have to support the nominee whoever that is. but they are not sure the members of their tea party group will be enthusiastic. they may vote for governor romney but they are not necessarily going to be out there pounding on doors and really helping get out the vote. it actually makes the selection, if romney, way too early to suggest that is definitely the ca case, but his choice of running mate could be critical. if he selects somebody that is popular with the tea party that could help. host: let me share this headline the boston sunday globe. romney care. a revolution that basically

worked. the reporting of brian mooney says that the former governor's health plan is a policy pinata among rivals but a review finds the overhaul achieved the main goals without devastating state finances. the remaining worry is fort expenses. guest: that is a fascinating part of the race. you have a front-runner who is a republican, former republican of a highly democratic state who achieved a significant legislative victory in healthcare reform achieving almost aoufrpb virile healthcare coverage -- universal healthcare but he is not disavowing it but not touting it as a significant achievement. if life were different he could really use this. it is really an example of how somebody who in many case is a technocrat. he has a background in business and analyzing institutions, whether business or the

olympics, which he turned around in utah, and taking it apart and putting it back together in a way that works. but he is not apologizing for this but he is trying very hard to draw the distinction between the federal healthcare resolve and statewide reform. but it is something he will have to address bakley in every speech going forward and he's not going to flip-flop on it. he won't disavow it but it is not going to help him at all. it is a negative for him in the race for the nomination. host: we have a caller from iowa. bill joins us from dubuque. good morning. caller: good morning. host: first of all, will you participate in the caucuses next year? caller: yes, i will. i have already registered. host: do you have a favorite so far? caller: i do, actually. but i didn't want to taint my question. host: it with.

i was curious if you have made up your mind this early. caller: yes, my favorite happens to be ron paul, which was part of my question. out here in iowa we have a little more of our thumb on the pulse here and he is the only one consistently drawing crowds of hundreds. we just had a rally in dubuque about two weeks ago and we had over 200 show up. my question kinds of revolves around that. he has quite a ground swell going here and i hear very little of it from the mainstream. i wanted to ask linda about this because she's more on the beltway and sees what is going on. why does there seem to be a big disconnect between what is happening in iowa? because i think you will be surprised when caucus time comes. everybody is talking about romney or bachmann or everything like that and it won't be as

predictive as maybe the ones in the past used to be. i'm the co-chairman for ron's campaign here in the first district and i have seen this for a while and i was wondering, is there a big disconnect between what happens out there as opposed to what goes on here? as a christian science monitor i know you take a somewhat neutral stance to get the christian stance across and i'm glad you do. host: we have an interview with ron paul and we will show an excerpt but that is 1kwr9:30 ean tonight. guest: that is an excellent question. ron paul is a phenomenon. he has very passionate support. people such as yourself are willing to not only tell a pollster they would support him in their primary caucus but will show up at rallies and raise

money for him. he does these one-day fund-raisers and he can snap his fingers and bring in a million dollars. the issue with ron paul is that it is really -- he is not being seen as the ability to go much beyond 10%. if gets 20% in the iowa caucuses, that would be amazing and it would be noteworthy and i think people would take another look at him. but he is an unusual character. efrls not a at this point -- he is not a typical republican, libertarian leaning, some views that are against republican orthodoxy. totally in favor of getting out of our wars. the party really isn't going to support the idea of a paul candidacy. he himself doesn't think he can get the nomination. he will say that openly. he is really out there to get his point of view across. obviously he has lot of passionate and young supporters.

he will get some attention. but somebody who is not seen as electable doesn't get the most attention. host: one thing he said about republican field in the but is there tonight 9:30 eastern on c-span. >> size up the field. beginning with mitt romney. >> i can't do that individually because i put them all in one lump. because i think that they represent mostly the status quo so i see them as a group with variations. mitt romney will be different than michelle, you know, bachmann. but they still -- the whole group want to promote in many ways the status quo. they are not calling for all the troops to come home. they are not calling for a new monetary system. they are not calling for the repeal of all laws that the executive branch likes.

i want a significant change and a restoration of these freedom principleless. although they may vary one to the other, they are really just a variation of the status quo. host: your response? guest: it is interesting he won't differentiate. i guess if you are ron paul and you have these interesting views such as the desire to end the fed, you are going to see the others in the race with the exception of gary johnson as all in one big lump. but he is right about the sort of the establishment, that there are certain ways in which you can take yourself out of the establishment yet still have a support but not really ever get the kinds of attention or seriousness that you would to have. host: so many candidates, so many dissatisfactions, so much

dissatisfaction. elephant stampede is the topic. linda feldmann. john on the independent line. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i'm grateful for c-span. i was calling to say that it seems to me that the executive decisiveness of mr. cain and thoughtfulness of newt gingrich might go well together to possibly satisfy the thirst for fiscal sustainability embodied by the tea party movement. and i would be very happy to see either one of them proceed in a thoughtful ongoing getting out

of the herd. host: appreciate the call. guest: herman cain had a bit of a buzz after the first debate. he is scoring well in polls relative to some other candidates who are more conventional. but the view on him, because he never held elective office and he is not completely conversant on all the issues yet that he really is a long lost all of his senior staff and most recently has fundraisers quit. if you like his views, they are not much -- there is not much there there anymore. in the iowa poll, he kept my head of tim pawlenti very that must be very ahead -- very distressing for tim pawlenti who worked very hard and done all the right things in terms of

organizing and visiting iowa all the time and yet he is not registering in a serious way. host: in 2007, in the summer, barack obama was behind significantly against hillary clinton. his campaign really did not begin to catch fire until september and october. guest: at right, all of this task to have a big caveat which is that it is way too early. you can see the seeds of potential there. you can already see the charisma and the attention he was getting from people. when he announced for president, in springfield, ill., he had a huge crowd of people who showed up to see him. he was a phenomenon and people still tried to figure out what he was about and who this guy was. he had not been in the senate that long and before he was a

state legislator in illinois. in the case of people now in single digits, anybody could catch on. in the case of tim pawlenti, he does not have a very charismatic presentation or personality. in the debate we had on cnn, he punted when given the opportunity to go after romney and he now says that was a mistake. he needs to show passion and aggression in a nice way. he needs to show he is willing to go after people in power whether it is the front runner in the gop primary for president obama. host: our next call is from florida, democrats line. caller: good morning. my idea about mr. romney having been a former massachusetts resident is that this man will

stay in the front runner position as long as the media keeps him there. however, if you don't go to these caucuses and let the people decide, the media will keep him there. he still has to live with being the initiator of obama care and things like that. also, mr. romney has an ego as wide as a football field. if the republicans put him up there as a presidential runner, they are welcome to him. in 2012, het win will bear a bit -- he will be there in 2016 and 2020. he is for mitt romney. he is not for the american people. host: you might have been a native of boston are massachusetts.

caller: yes, i was in the boston area. i have been down here quite a few years. host: romneycare -- what is your reaction? caller: people up there don't care for it. this, you willve be fine. we will leave it at that. i will hang up and listen to your comments. host: let me share with you what tim pawlenti said about the issue of health care and mitt romney. this is the latest web ad for tim pawlenti. >> many candidates will come to iowa and say the same thing. have they done it? i reduced spending in real terms for the first time.

i took on the government union and one. i appointed a conservative supreme court and passed health care reform the right way. no takeovers. if i can do it in minnesota, we can do it in washington. i am tim pawlenti and i approved this message. host: the focus is on the former massachusetts governor. guest: this issue of blaming the media for making it run made the front runner, i reject that. he has shown he is a tough competitor. he can raise money which is critical. mitt romney has done this before. he ran for president four years ago. he is showing he learned some lessons and can really mount a credible campaign. i don't think it is the media

doing this. as for ego, they all have big egos. you have to have a big ego to run for president. just because somebody believes in themselves and is willing to work very hard to become president does not mean they are in it for themselves or for the money, for heaven's sake. mr. romney does not make -- need the money. they have faith in themselves and they believe they can really do something for the country. i guess that's all i have. tweet --re is a tweed guest: mitt romney as a problem with his personal presentation. tim pawlenti gets a rapport being less than exciting and mitt romney has the same problem. he has never seen completely comfortable on the stump. four years ago, his hair was

perfectly in place and he wore a suit and tie and look like a classic businessman. he looked like the guy who fired your father, some said. he has backed off a little bit. sometimes his hair is a little out of place and sometimes she shows up in shirtsleeves. he has a cornball sense of humor which even his own sons sometimes roll their eyes. this is a problem for him. he cannot much president obama and charisma. i don't think that necessarily disqualifies him from winning the nomination. with the economy in the straits it is in, people are looking for somebody who has pair record. he has a solid business background. he has more than john mccain who got the nomination four years ago. there is a lot that goes into mounting a campaign. if you don't have charisma, it

does not mean that you are out of the running. host: we're talking to lynn feldman of the christian science monitor. republican line is next, from texas, good morning. caller: i would like to thank you for the opportunity to express my opinion. i have known rick perry for a number of years, not personally, but being a member of the state. also, make romney and herman cain, all those seem to be man of integrity. hard work got done to where they are at today. my question is -- in previous elections in 2008, the republicans did not ask for a recount or anything like that when they have proven that the acorn fraud happened.

the black panthers stood outside the voting booth and they said they were talking about the white babies. most recently, the week before last, lewis r. kent said white people -- louis farrakhan was talking is the republican party going to stand up and start asking for recounts? faults y point out the fals where obama said he would bring the troops on but put them in different countries and different wars. employment what -- the unemployment went up, food costs, everything. yet he wastes money by going to the netherlands, trying to get the olympics brought here.

that was something it did not need to be happening. host: it was actually copenhagen, denmark for the olympics. guest: president obama -- the issue of the voter fraud was examined read after the election and decor no longer exists anymore -- and acorn no longer exist anymore. obama won by such a wide margin. this was not critical to the outcome of the election. and the election as messy aspects to it. anybody who runs elections, praise is not close and don't have to look too closely as to how every vote is cast. host: is governor rick perry running? guest: we have no idea. if he does, it could be a game changer. he has been governor of texas for 10.5 years. he is popular with tea party

people. that could set up a perry0- bachmann showdown in iowa. i understand he has people setting up the apparatus for a potential campaign. he will then decide what it wants to do. would be like haley barbour. we thought the governor of mississippi was going to run and lo and behold, he looked into his heart and decided he did not have the fire there to do it. with rick perry, i say who knows and we will have to wait and see what he decides. host: this is from our twitter page -- guest: that's right, he does not step away from it. he does not touted as an achievement. it is an albatross around his neck. you have to explain the difference between statewide

reform and federal reform. the run eight reform at an individual mandate to purchase insurance which is in the obama reform. there's no getting around that fact. he is hoping that with his record as a businessman and a former governor that he can overcome that problem. host: governor harry is in and he will win. let me share with you the latest ed campaign from the romney campaign. his target is a president obama. >> we democrats have a very different measure of what constitutes progress in this country. the measure progress by how many people can find a job to pay the mortgage. they can put a little extra money away city could see your child receive a college diploma. >> frustration is the big board.

anything i'm qualified for, that people are looking for, they also want experience. because of the economy and the way it is, there are so my people that are looking for jobs but my hands are tied. how can i get experience of no one will hire me? i was born and raised in michigan. a graduate college with my bachelor's degree in business administration. i'm struggling right now, absolutely. i by bologna and bread because it's cheap. that is what i eat. right now, probably have about $3 to my name before i get my paycheck tomorrow. it gets rough. what is wrong with me is -- host: that is the story of one michigan resident where mitt romney grew up. the message is that he has tried to put forth in this campaign.

guest: mitt romney is pushing hard on the economy. he is really downplaying all the social issues that got him in trouble last time he is to favor abortion rights for example. he was viewed as a social moderate but this time, he flip- flop last time and this time he will not use that as a central theme in his campaign. economy is the issue of this campaign. romney has the background to make that essential in his campaign. i don't see any other argument for him to make. host: wisconsin, good morning. caller: very enjoyable show. i am really impressed with the knowledge of linda feldman. on the reader ship of "the christian science monitor," are

they democrat or republican? does your paper take in any editorial view on afghanistan and iraq? i look forward to your answer. guest: our readership runs the gamut. we tried hard to not show bias in either direction. we have some readers or very conservative and some or very liberal. i hear from all of them. i would like to think that means we are doing a good job. in terms of our editorial positions on iraq and afghanistan, we have not taken any kind of get out now kind of position. i think they are calling for prudence. they say listen to the generals and pay attention to public opinion which is imported. importanc and take the was

passed on this. host: former senator rick santorum is among the republican candidates. he took part in the debate that took place earlier this month he has been going after john hulsman. -- john huntsman. >> ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ host: from ft jon huntsman and santorum campaign, almost reminiscent of john kerry. john huntsman was a rebel when he was younger body comes across now as this button- down kind of establishment republican-type. he is trying to spice up his personality by highlighting his troubled past. -- his rebel passed for a that was not john hulsman riding the dirt bike and that advertisement.

rex santorum, who is somebody who has not really caught on, is trying to bail little hypocritical. host: the pieces call "an elephants stamped by lind hunt spent. feldman. caller: sooner or later, the gloves will have to come off and they will be at each other's throats. i cannot imagine them not taking shots at mitt romney for everything, even health care. he cannot get away from that. guest: right, in the last debate, nobody went after mitt romney and he is still the front runner. you are right. what's the next debate. it is on august 11 right before the straw poll. i think we will see efforts to

go after romney in a way they can be aggressive but not on likable. that is totally doable. tim pawlenti will have to be aggressive against met ron may. if nobody goes after him, why are we having this race? also in waterloo, iowa tomorrow. what does michelle bachmann bring to this campaign? guest: she brings a lot. she is head of the tea party caucus in the house. she brings charisma, fund- raising ability to eat, diversity, the only woman in the field. she is still untested quantity. there is excitement around her candidacy but she has a history of saying things that are maybe a little out there. she did very well in the last debate but can she keep it up and can she really write it all away to a victory in the iowa caucuses. host: linda feldman, thank you for being with us.

a link to the article is available on our website come c- span.org. when we come back, we'll turn our focus to the house and the issue of congressional redistricting. bobby jackson is in the studio keeping track of guests on other programs. >> thank you. the main topics on the sunday shows include presidential politics as well as afghanistan and the debt limit and the economy. we begin at noon with nbc "meet the press." the senate armed services committee jack reed of rhode island and jim webb from virginia. this week," ors" christianne, and poor will talk with mr. mcconnell and house

assistant minority leader james club fox news sunday begins at 2:00 p.m. eastern time with post chris wallace and the guests michelle bachmann and senate minority whip john kyl. at 3:00 p.m., you'll hear the cnn state of the union. house minority leader nancy pelosi will be hundreds of republican senator jim demint and house intelligence committee chair mike rogers. at 4:00 p.m. eastern, face the nation from cbs where bob schieffer will be talking with michelle bachmann. the sunday tv talk shows, brought to you as a public service starting at noon eastern on cspan radio, 90.1 fm here in the washington area and on sirius/xm radio. always live on the web c- span.org. >> who would think you to gravity on economics would become popular? >> here we are, peace out, great recession, we are not in a

depression. lineup for the procession. >> this weekend, we will talk with the creators of"fight of the century." >> we are trying to reach people who are interested how the world works. that severed from a high-school student who was curious about economics -- that is everyone from my high school student who was curious about economics and someone just trying to get along. >> tonight at 8:00 on c-span "q &a." >> linda hogan's book focuses on native american issues and women.

join our three-hour conversation taking your phone calls, and e- mails with the pulitzer prize finalist at noon eastern on c- span 2. >> this weekend on c-span 3, gettysburg college professor sharita thompson discusses profit -- prostitution and the civil war. get the complete weekend schedule c-span.org/history. cspan has launched a new website for politics and the 2012 presidential race with the latest cspan of venice from the cspan -- from the presidential trail. there are links to cspan media partners. visit a c-span.org is at/

campaign 2012. host: we want to talk about congressional redistricting for the house of representatives. welcome back to cspan. for those not following the nuances of what is happening around the country, generally speaking, what are you looking at? guest: redistricting is a once every 10 yearsnerdfest for lawyers and academics and everyone is getting into it. the real action is in back rooms map makers and the consults for the consultants are drawing that to protect their partisan advantage for the next 10 years or tried to maximize their partisan advantage from state house tuesday passed. the majority of the states

follow the legislative procedure. six states have commission's and nine states have completed congressional redistricting which means we have 34 left to go. some states have one district and don't need to redistrict. and a representative democracy, it is a bureaucratic procedure. we seem to get tangled over partisan bickering and contentious as to how the lines are drawn and gerrymandered to the other side's advantage. over the next year or so before the filing deadlines for congressional races, we're looking at a series of pitched battles from state to state and how it will look for the next 10 years. it is an exciting time for politicalgeeks to follow. host: let's begin with california. it changes the way california

does it redistricting. what is in those changes and what does it mean for a congressional delegation? guest: governor schwarzenegger advocated for ballot amendments and voters approved congressional and legislative redistricting commission made up of the average california citizens. the 14-member citizens commission that was selected by lottery and by the state board of auditors runs the gamut from a chiropractor, a former director of the u.s. census bureau from the 1970's. it is made up of five republicans and democrats and four unaffiliated commissioners. many people said this was amateur hour. they said there were 53 very scared incumbents because these members of the commission could not pay attention to political or partisan consideration in the process. the said they would m drawingaps from scraps.

over the last 10 years, there have been 265 elections for u.s. housing california. 53 districts time 5 elections. of those races, only one has seen a change in party control back in 2006. a democrat unseated a dim -- a republican in a surprise upset. that is because democrats engineered a political map in california in 2001 and 2002 that granted democrats very safe seats for the competition was nil. under a new map, if the citizens of redistricting commission passes one and they have to have nine out of the 14 commissioners vote in favor by august 15, unless they do, it will go to the state supreme court. it is looking like the commission is cooperating well together. we will have districts that

looked nothing like the current ones in california. that means more competition and probably 10-15 incumbents will be out of a job. host: you are saying with a population shift, it will impact some of these incumbents for there are four california republicans who share house committees. there are five california democratic members of the house who are the ranking democrat of those committees. what does that mean for the next congress? guest: we're talking about pretty senior members. we think of democrats like howard berman from the san fernando valley represents an area that is 53% hispanic. he gets by with the strength of his political base there. latinos have advocated in that area for a long time for a seat of their own. the citizen's redistricting commission in their initial drafts a couple of weeks ago put in a district that was 71%

hispanic and the san fernando valley. there are two comments that have had bad blood. we may see a face-off between man. on republican side, we think of a senior member like david dreier who has been there since 1980 representing east l.a. county and has had a base in claremont and san diem as which is favorable for him. all the sudden, his home has been placed in a district that a 64% hispanic. these draft maps could change over the next few months. these incumbents are not allowed to lobby or go before the commission and advocate to preserve the districts they have now. the commission is basically imposing their own well and is members cannot do anything about it. host: i will also has a commission, how was that

working? guest: there were one of the first states to do redistricting. they have a unique system. essentially, it is bureaucrats and the state legislative services bureau who are responsible for coming up with draft proposals. it is dumb like building blocks. i was a rare state that has a square counties, 99 of them that you can build districts out of easily. iowa came up with its proposal and the legislature which was split and the republican governor approved those maps very quickly even though a lot of comments were thrown together at the state legislative level. two incumbents were drawn to the same district at the federal level. tom latham and leaonard boswell will be facing off.

they read the one seat the loss banks to their senses results. i was a -- i was able to do that rather aimlessly. it is a game of musical chairs. host: you've been join the conversation by giving us a phone call or send us an e-mail or san the statetweet. guest: we see a lot of district shopping. it is rare that you see an incumbent going district shopping outside his district level on outside of his state. that is exactly what we see with dennis kucinich. some people tell us that

redistricting is the only enterprise where it is fair to compare dennis kucinich and lebron james. leaving ohio is no guarantee of winning and no matter where does this -- kucinich goes, he will be competitive. that is the reality we move to a new state to run. i don't remember when the last time this was done there is a long line of politicians who have risen up through the rank- and-file of state politics and have an advantage because they have their organization back home and voters reject the carpetbagger label. dennis kucinich has been looking at one of washington state's new seats in congress. we're not sure what that state will look like because the washington commission has not read from the lines. could be a case of a state where a candidate is running for something that does not exist yet. host: a link is available to our website and you can check out various states and the seven

congressional districts at the cook political report. let me ask about new york state. they are losing two congressional seats and by all reports, new york city and upstate will each lose one seat, one democrat, one republican. guest: this is a very insider process and will probably not take place until the other states are done early next year. if anyone tells you they know for sure what will happen in new york, they are lying unless they are sheldon silver, or the majority leader who was a republican and governor andrew cuomo was a democrat. those three men are responsible for hashing out a deal probably at the last minute before the filing deadline to prevent a state court from jumping in. essentially, they will try to come up with a compromise that eliminates the two districts which is difficult to do but new

york has done it in the past. as you mentioned, of stablemate to lose a district as well as downstate. i'm always very cautious these days about drawing conclusions based on the finales of scandals we have seen. anthony wiener stepped down and that created a situation that may lead to the elimination of a seat in brooklyn or queens where we will see a special election perhaps in the fall. in upstate new york, it is likely that one of the freshmen republicans and there are five of them there, will beaxed or two will be merged into the same district because they have less clout. at this point, you might say this syracuse representative and

you look at the utica area. there are a lot of options and essentially it will be hashed out in a back room. host: i want to show you that monroe county in rochester, new york and there is a former seat that goes all the way to buffalo. the seat goes to the outskirts of buffalo to the outskirts of rochester, new york. the way it is drawn up, you can see the demographics and the political demographics in new york state. guest: absolutely, you look at those congressional maps and realize that decisions on just where to draw the boundaries are often made by what looks pretty on a map. they're made with very personal considerations in mind. back in 2001 -- that barbell district was drawn.

this creates an opportunity for democrats that they are able to impose their will. in western new york, to shore up some other incumbents in the region, cathy hokl 1 special election -- one a special an upset.in and at suc she is from rochester. she does what i rochester based seat. a look at the way the district is card, if you take the buffalo portions of it and give it to brian higgins, the democrat from buffalo and kathy hoekl, that would shore up the two democrats. that is what the scenarios we are talking about. that is one example of the gerrymandering of district host:

david wasserman is the house editor from the cook political report. caller: good morning. thank you for this particular issue we are talking about. the gerrymandering thing has been stuck in some in people'scraws because of the unfavorably light it puts the electoral process in. it almost makes it -- so many people are disillusioned at the result of these ridiculous lines that you want to throw up your hands in dismay. one of the things that people are missing is that the tea party members, i include myself in that group, a closet tea party man [laughter]

so many of us are very we are the silent majority. we will come out of the and swimming. nevertheless, these long-term -- one thing that upset as the most of perhaps this gerrymandering thing will help us with that is that we are tired of the career politician like dennis kucinich. we may agree with him on some issues, in most regards, you cannot help but what those hallowed halls and hear your own footsteps echoing -- host: i will stop you on that point. we will get a follow-up. guest: we have 435 elections for the house over two years and 90% of the races are predictable based on the way the lines are drawn. the caller is voicing a frustration which is that

incumbents use redistricting to their own political advantage. that shuts out a lot of fresh blood in the process. we like to cover the battles between the parties but also within the parties. it is fascinating turf wars between elements within the state legislators -- the state legislature and incumbents in congress versus someone who has fresh blood who is trying to get in on the process, people will have described themselves as the tea party move and would like to have receded the table in this process that don't have the clout built up in politics to have much of a say as to how the lines are drawn. in florida in particular, we have a fast test case of reform. voters approved a ballot

amendments there but they don't create commission. the want the state legislature to inform the county of boundaries. it will lead to a protracted court fight we probably will see the results of the florida redistricting until sometime next year. it depends how the court rules on that. republicans have a 19-6 advantage in florida in terms of the congressional delegation. it is possible that if the court ruled in favor of untangling the lines and a untangle the gerrymandering that benefit the republicans, democrats could pick up as many as five new states that there will be the wild card. host: here is another to lead -- you say the clarity will come next year? guest: most likely, these court cases can drag on beyond the election.

we may not see a conclusion to this argument in time for 2012. i mentioned the intraparty fight on the republican side -- another fascinating thing is on the democratic side, there are fights within the party over what is best for the minority community. a lot of african-american legislators believe it is best to preserve the kind of read districts that include as many as -- african-americans at all costs no matter what the shape of the district looks like. many democratic strategists would prefer to on packs of those districts to get more democratic voters. in florida, there's a district that at one point, we've not been -- nicknamed nod wishbone. it is barely an african-american majority. a democrat represents that district and she is actually signed onto a lawsuit with a

republican cuban-american member from south florida to challenge the new redistricting that it would enter the north is opportunity to have districts where they can elect a candidate of their choice. that is part of the intrigue in the redistricting in florida so far. host: here is a trivia question -- guest: i believe the house was increased prior to the 1930's. of the1930's, the number house of representatives was set by congress. i am fairly sure about that at 435. many people said that if we increase the numbers -- the members of congress all the time, and we allocated more representatives to the state

instead of simply getting rid of some seats from state to state, we would have a more representative democracy because the ratio of members of congress would be smaller. we're not seeing a lot of retail politics because we are up to 700,000 people per district rather than the 500,000 that we had 20 years ago. it becomes a lot more challenging every decade for a member of congress to truly keep in touch with individual constituents. try and convince the american public at this point where we have a record low approval for congress to0 up the number of congress people host: our guest is david wasserman and republican line, good morning. caller: you stepped on my question. i was suggesting that perhaps the number of congressional representatives the increase.

it has been set at 435 for many decades. it is set by legislative action. it is not in the constitution. it could be increased by a simple legislative act. we have 300 + billion people. we are more ethnically diverse people when the number was 435 and you are correct that an increase in congressional seats would make a reduction of voters per district and increase the ability of congress to have closer intimacy with their voters. in your opinion, what is the worst districts? i think it is made the 11th district in north carolina the ones down 17 interstate highway.

guest: it is the 12th congressional district of north carolina a goes from charlotte to greensboro. it used to be worse. in the 1990's, it was the most mitigated district in the country. back in 1991 and 1992, the bush enforce thisrtment mandate or doctrine of maximizing the number of majority/minority districts. in north carolina, they worked districts that snaked along highways. it went along the median strip i-i-e d 58 -- ideas 85 fro -- 85. at one point, if you had both

car doors open, the joke was that you would be in three districts at the same time. the worst congressional district these days is probably some of the ones in miami, fla. which are essentially just patchwork of blocks. they don't look anything like actual shapes. they are indecipherable. you look at i-map and so the 22nd district, the 19th district, the 20th district, some of those seized stretch from fort lauderdale to miami and palm beach. they may be streets that are straightened out by the new processor host: 500,000-one ratio would equal 609 representatives and u.s. house of representatives. a report was put together by david wasserman who is the house political editor of the cook county report. let me ask about the district in

the 23rd of california which also you cross the street and you are in another district. guest: right, it was called the ribbon of shame by arnold torts mayor and a few others. this is a district that extends from san luis obispo, to oxnard , california. it was picked that way to get coastal democrats. that is what most beautiful dishes in the country but does not look pretty i-map. the other district in land is represented by a republican. all lines in each of the proposed maps we have seen so far have been smoothed out said that sen louis obispo and santa barbara get one district and ensure and oxnard get the other

district. you are likely to seek two democratic-leaning districts, one that includes a home base. that is beneficial for democrats. people said if you're getting rid of a map that democrats drew in 2001, will that help the republicans? untaglking alliance could help democrats. host: norwalk, conn., independent line, good morning. caller: good morning, i think we should take the politics out of politics. you can take what you want from that i would like to see all the money taken out of politics. i don't understand the question about the redistricting and out

came about. can you give me a full explanation of that and why the electoral college is allowed to exist? also, why can't an independent like myself but in the primaries? i don't care of it takes people going into the street. what can we do to do this. we want to be able to vote in the primaries. the politicians would go to the whistle stops. take the money out of politics and make it fair again. guest: where do we start? but callers frustrations are shared by many viewers out there. in connecticut, for example, we have seen independent voters

played a pretty significant role in congressional elections in recent decades even if they don't have the final say primary. we all know what happened to joe lieberman back in 2006 when he was bounced from the democratic ticket in the primary and the came back as an independent and one. won. there is a share of voters to make or break a general election for the party. one of the reforms adding to the laboratory experiment in california is a new ballot rule that essentially says that anyone can vote in the primary election but the top two finishers will advance and a general election. you could have cases in california in 2012 or you have a democrat and a democrat on the general election ballot or two republicans and that would

theoretically increase the incentive for voters to evaluate the candidates. perhaps of one of the finalists is not a member of your party, you consider which one is ideologically moderate and which was closer to your views. that might have a impact on the outcome and produce more politicians. i say that three theoretically. host: quiet conversation on our twitter page. 435 house of representatives members were set back in 1911. palm beach, calif., democrats line, good morning. caller: good morning, it is palm

beach, florida. i have been following the legislative gerrymandering down here in florida. the republicans down here are actually a minority party in total control florida. we have a number of things that are going on dealing with my district builder. they will be using this to set its districts. there is a serious problem. we just passed amendment 5 and 6 which is supposed to end gerrymandering. it seems there are two different types of software that are being used. in various parts of the country. one of them is the district builder which has the gerrymandering index.

the state has in effect, a gerrymandering software. my question is, if the department justice finds that is unconstitutional to use that software, what happens next? guest: in florida and several other states, there's a new twist to redistricting and that is that there are on-line tools that actually allows citizens to go on to a website and open a browser and draw districts themselves and try to come up with a map they believe should be enforced. i have played around some of the tools. there's one in utah. there's one florida. in those states, the state is a encouraging the public to weigh in on redistricting rather than they have the past. the software being used to draw these maps is the high-end

software that is contracted out to the various consultants hired by parties in washington and the state capital to get the job done and maximize the advantage by going to great lengths. i have seen sought for the goes down to the household level. you can pinpoint household voter registration. could have a you democrat and a republican in the same household. it is fasten and yet every 10 years gives us a chance not only to reflect the changes between and within states in population but also to reflect the advancements in technology. we have moved long way from the kind of pencil paper redistricting that dominated the 1970's. not only is there a web based platform for doing this in a consultant world but it is opened up to the public somewhat as well as the public can weigh

in with maps drawn at home in their pajamas. host: one of our viewers says -- our guest is david wasserman, a graduate of the university of virginia. tom cole headed up the republican campaign committee last time. >> i think we will hold a majority or whether we will gain or lose is early in the cycle but no president has shifted since 1948. this is the largest republican majority since 1947. i expect this to be a closer presidential election on slim the ad in 2008. the president had everything going for him.

republicans -- john mccain still got over 170 electoral votes and 50%. unexpected very competitive election. host: what about your assessment? the democrats and 24 seats to take back the house. you look at redistricting and in the base case and are democrats, they may take a handful of seats in the process. it might be too, 4. the effect of redistricting will be to shore up a lot of those vulnerable republican seats that are remaining and democrats will meet to pick up to get back to 218 which is the magic number.

republicans have unprecedented control of the process because they picked up so many legislatures and governorships in 2010. ohio, pennsylvania, michigan, they want to decrease the democratic voting strength. there are 61 republicans sitting in districts that the present obama kerri in 2008 and democrats make up probably 20 or more of those seats in order to get back into the majority. probably 40% of those seats will become more republican as a result of republicans drawing the lines in the states where those numbers are. for democrats, i think it is an advantage to be running under president obama and the kind of turnout he is likely to generate

as opposed the kind of campaign iran earlier. host: and gerrymandering? it is the reason politics exist. san diego, republican line, good morning. caller: callers are express a low approval ratings. this dates back to the size of the districts. it district sizes were reduced and contemplated in the original constitution, you have money going totally out of politics and no one would be spending millions of dollars to run a campaign. we would end the whole redistricting nonsense. you can check out rescue california,org and you can see that in california, we are leading an effort to reduce liabilities and replace politicians with citizen

legislators. have moreif you districts, you need to draw even more boundaries barry there is no guarantee that increasing the size of the house would ended gerrymandering. it might lead to less money across the board because candidates would not have to spend so much time on the fund- raising circuit and making endless phone calls to raise the kind of money it takes to compete in a district with 700,000 people. the only way to communicate with that is to get on the airwaves and advertise in a broadcast media. if you reduced the size of a district, certainly, you would have members of congress who were more in touch with their district or able to be in touch with individual constituents that they would have less of a seat at the table